Chapter VIII. The Religious Principles Inspiring The Reformation.(386)

§ 1. The Reformation did not take its rise from a Criticism of Doctrines.

The whole of Luther’s religious history, from his entrance into the convent at Erfurt to the publication of the Augsburg Confession, shows that the movement of which he was the soul and centre did not arise from any merely intellectual criticism of the doctrines of the mediæval church, and that it resulted in a great deal more than a revision or reconstruction of a system of doctrinal conceptions.(387) There is no trace of any intellectual difficulties about doctrines or statement of doctrines in Luther’s mind during the supreme crisis of his history. He was driven out of the world of human life and hope, where he was well fitted to do a man’s work, by the overwhelming pressure of a great practical religious need—anxiety to save his soul. He has himself said that the proverb that doubt makes a monk was true in his case. He doubted whether he could save his soul in the world, and was therefore forced to leave it and enter the convent.

He had lost whatever evangelical teaching he had learnt in childhood or in Frau Cotta’s household at Eisenach. He had surrendered himself to the popular belief, fostered by the whole penitential system of the mediæval Church, that man could and must make himself fit to receive the grace of God which procures salvation. The self-torturing cry, “Oh, when wilt thou become holy and fit to obtain the grace of God?” (_O wenn will tu einmal fromm werden und genug thun du einen gnädigen Gott kriegest?_), drove him into the convent. He believed, and the almost unanimous opinion of his age agreed with him, that there, if anywhere, he could find the peace he was seeking with such desperation.

Inside the convent he applied himself with all the force of a strong nature, using every means that the complicated penitential system of the Church had provided to help him, to make himself pious and fit to be the receptacle of the grace of God. He submitted to the orders of his superiors with the blind obedience which the most rigorous ecclesiastical statutes demanded; he sought the comforting consolations which confession was declared to give; he underwent every part of the complex system of expiations which the mediæval Church recommended; he made full use of the sacraments, and waited in vain for the mysterious, inexplicable experience of the grace which was said to accompany and flow from them. He persevered in spite of the feeling of continuous failure. “If a monk ever reached heaven by monkery,” he has said, “I would have found my way there also; all my convent comrades will bear witness to that.”(388) He gave a still stronger proof of his loyalty to the mediæval Church and its advice to men in his mood of mind; he persevered in spite of the knowledge that his comrades and his religious superiors believed him to be a young saint, while he knew that he was far otherwise, and that he was no nearer God than he had been before he entered the monastery, or had begun his quest after the sense of pardon of sin. The contrast between what his brethren thought he must be and what his own experience told him that he was, must have added bitterness to the cup he had to drink during these terrible months in the Erfurt convent. He says himself:

“After I had made the profession, I was congratulated by the prior, the convent, and the father-confessor, because I was now an innocent child coming pure from baptism. Assuredly, I would willingly have delighted in the glorious fact that I was such a good man, who by his own deeds and without the merits of Christ’s blood had made himself so fair and holy, and so easily too, and in so short a time. But although I listened readily to the sweet praise and glowing language about myself and my doings, and allowed myself to be described as a wonder-worker, who could make himself holy in such an easy way, and could swallow up death, and the devil also, yet there was no power in it all to maintain me. When even a small temptation came from sin or death I fell at once, and found that neither baptism nor monkery could assist me; I felt that I had long lost Christ and His baptism. I was the most miserable man on earth; day and night there was only wailing and despair, and no one could restrain me.”(389)

He adds that all he knew of Christ at this time was that He was “a stern judge from whom I would fain have fled and yet could not escape.”

During these two years of anguish, Luther believed that he was battling with himself and with his sin; he was really struggling with the religion of his times and Church. He was probing it, testing it, examining all its depths, wrestling with all its means of grace, and finding that what were meant to be sources of comfort and consolation were simply additional springs of terror. He was too clear-sighted, his spiritual senses were too acute, he was too much in deadly earnest, not to see that none of these aids were leading him to a solid ground of certainty on which he could base his hopes for time and for eternity; and he was too honest with himself to be persuaded that he was otherwise than his despair told him.(390)

At length, guided in very faltering fashion by the Scriptures, especially by the Psalms and the Epistle to the Romans, by the Apostles’ Creed, and by fellow monks, he (to use his own words) came to see that the righteousness of God (Rom. i. 17) is not the righteousness by which a righteous God punishes the unrighteous and sinners, but that by which a merciful God justifies us through faith (not _justitia, qua dens justus est et peccatores injustosque punit_, but that _qua nos deus misericors justificat per fidem_).(391) By _faith_, he says. What, then, did he mean by “faith”?

He replies:

“There are two kinds of believing: first, a believing about God which means that I believe that what is said of God is true. This faith is rather a form of knowledge than a faith. There is, secondly, a believing in God which means that I put my trust in Him, give myself up to thinking that I can have dealings with Him, and believe without any doubt that He will be and do to me according to the things said of Him. Such faith, _which throws itself upon God_, whether in life or in death, alone makes a Christian man.”(392)

The faith which he prized is that religious faculty which “throws itself upon God”; and from the first Luther recognised that faith of this kind was a direct gift from God. Having it we have everything; without it we have nothing. Here we find something entirely new, or at least hitherto unexpressed, so far as mediæval theology was concerned. Mediæval theologians had recognised faith in the sense of what Luther called _frigida opinio_, and it is difficult to conceive that they did not also indirectly acknowledge that there must be something like trust or _fiducia_; but faith with them was simply one among many human efforts all equally necessary in order to see and know God. Luther recognised that there was this kind of faith, which a man begets and brings to pass in himself by assent to doctrines of some sort. But he did not think much of it. He calls it worthless because it gives us nothing.

“They think that faith is a thing which they may have or not have at will, like any other natural human thing; so when they arrive at a conclusion and say, ‘Truly the doctrine is correct, and therefore I believe it,’ then they think that this is faith. Now, when they see and feel that no change has been wrought in themselves and in others, and that works do not follow, and they remain as before in the old nature, then they think that the faith is not good enough, but that there must be something more and greater.”(393)

The real faith, the faith which is trust, the divine gift which impels us to throw ourselves upon God, gives us the living assurance of a living God, who has revealed Himself, made us see His loving Fatherly heart in Christ Jesus; and that is the Christian religion in its very core and centre. The sum of Christianity is—(1) God manifest in Christ, the God of grace, accessible by every Christian man and woman; and (2) unwavering trust in Him who has given Himself to us in Christ Jesus,—unwavering, because Christ with His work has undertaken our cause and made it His.

The God we have access to and Whom we can trust because we have thrown ourselves upon Him and have found that He sustains us, is no philosophical abstraction, to be described in definitions and argued about in syllogisms. He is seen and known, because we see and know Christ Jesus. “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” For with Luther and all the Reformers, Christ fills the whole sphere of God; and they do not recognise any theology which is not a Christology.

The faith which makes us throw ourselves upon God is no mood of mere mystical abandonment. It is our very life, as Luther was never tired of saying. It is God within us, and wells forth in all kinds of activities.

“It is a living, busy, active, powerful thing, faith; it is impossible for it not to do us good continually. It never asks whether good works are to be done; it has done them before there is time to ask the question, and it is always doing them.”(394)

Christianity is therefore an interwoven tissue of promises and prayers of faith. On the one side there is the Father, revealing Himself, sending down to us His promises which are yea and amen in Christ Jesus; and on the other side there are the hearts of men ascending in faith to God, receiving, accepting, and resting on the promises of God, and on God who always gives Himself in His promises.

This is what came to Luther and ended his long and terrible struggle. He is unwearied in describing it. The descriptions are very varied, so far as external form and expression go,—now texts from the Psalms, the Prophets, or the New Testament most aptly quoted; now phrases borrowed from the picturesque language of the mediæval mystics; now sentences of striking, even rugged, originality; sometimes propositions taken from the mediæval scholastic. But whatever the words, the meaning is always the same.

This conception of what is meant by Christianity is the religious soul of the Reformation. It contains within it all the distinctively religious principles which inspired it. It can scarcely be called a dogma. It is an experience, and the phrases which set it forth are the descriptions of an experience which a human soul has gone through. The thing itself is beyond exact definition—as all deep experiences are. It must be felt and gone through to be known. The Reformation started from this personal experience of the believing Christian, which it declared to be the one elemental fact in Christianity which could never be proved by argument and could never be dissolved away by speculation. It proclaimed the great truth, which had been universally neglected throughout the whole period of mediæval theology by everyone except the Mystics, that in order to know God man must be in living touch with God Himself. Therein lay its originality and its power. Luther rediscovered religion when he declared that the truly Christian man must cling directly and with a living faith to the God Who speaks to him in Christ, saying, “I am thy salvation.” The earlier Reformers never forgot this. Luther proclaimed his discovery, he never attempted to prove it by argument; it was something self-evident—seen and known when experienced.

This is always the way with great religious pioneers and leaders. They have all had the prophetic gift of spiritual vision, and the magnetic speech to proclaim what they have seen, felt, and known. They have all had, in a far-off way, the insight and manner of Jesus.

When our Lord appeared among men claiming to be more than a wise man or a prophet, declaring that He was the Messiah, the Son of Man and the Son of God, when He announced that all men had need of Him, and that He alone could save and redeem, He set forth His claims in a manner unique among founders of religions. He made them calmly and as a matter of course. He never explained elaborately why He assumed the titles He took. He never reasoned about His position as the only Saviour. He simply announced it, letting the conviction of the truth steal almost insensibly into the minds and hearts of His followers as they saw His deeds and heard His words. He assumed that they must interpret His death in one way only. This was always His manner. It was not His way to explain mysteries our curiosity would fain penetrate. He quietly took for granted many things we would like to argue about. His sayings came from One who lived in perpetual communion with the Unseen Father, and He uttered them quietly and assuredly, confident that they carried with them their own self-evidencing power.

So it was with St. Paul. His letters and sermons are full of arguments, no doubt, full of pleadings and persuasion, but they all start from and rest upon his vision of the living, risen Saviour. His last word is always, “When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me”; that was the elemental fact which he proclaimed and which summed up everything, the personal experience from which he started on his career as an apostle. The place of Athanasius as a great religious leader has been obscured by his position as a theologian; but when we turn to his writings, where do we find less of what is commonly called dogmatic theology? There is argument, reasoning, searching for proofs and their statement; but all that belongs to the outworks in his teaching. The central citadel is a spiritual intuition—I _know_ that _my_ Saviour is the God Who made heaven and earth. He took his stand firmly and unflinchingly on that personal experience, and all else mattered little compared with the fundamental spiritual fact. It was not his arguments, but his unflinching faith that convinced his generation.

So it was with Augustine, Bernard,(395) Francis—so it has been with every great religious leader of the Christian people. His strength, whether of knowledge, or conviction, or sympathy,—his driving power, if the phrase may be used,—has always come from direct communion with the unseen, and rests upon the fact, felt and known by himself and communicated to others by a mysterious sympathy, that it has pleased God to reveal Christ in him in some way or other.

So it was with Luther and the Reformation in which he was the leader. Its driving power was a great religious experience, old, for it has come to the people of God in all generations, and yet new and fresh as it is the nature of all such experiences to be. He _knew_ that his life was hid with Christ in God in spite of all evil, in spite of sin and sense of guilt. His old dread of God had vanished, and instead of it there had arisen in his heart a love to God in answer to the love which came from the vision of the Father revealing Himself. He had experienced this, and he had proclaimed what he had gone through; and the experience and its proclamation were the foundation on which the Reformation was built. Its beginnings were not doctrinal but experimental.

Doctrines, indeed, are not the beginnings of things; they are, at the best, storehouses of past and blessed experiences. This is true of most knowledge in all departments of research. We may recognise that there is some practical use in the rules of logic, ancient and modern, but we know that they are but the uncouth and inadequate symbols of the ways in which an indefinable mental tact, whose delicacy varies with the mind that uses it, perceives divergences and affinities, and weaves its web of knowledge in ways that are past finding out. We know that logical argument is a good shield but a bad sword, and that while syllogisms may silence, they seldom convince; that persuasion arises from a subtle sympathy of soul with soul, which is as indefinable as the personalities which exhale it. There is always at the basis of knowledge of men and things this delicate contact of personality with personality, whether we think of the gathering, or assorting, or exchanging the wisdom we possess. If this be true of our knowledge of common things, it is overwhelmingly so of all knowledge of God and of things divine. We must be in touch with God to know Him in the true sense of knowledge. At the basis of every real advance in religion there must be an intimate vision of God impressed upon us as a religious experience which we know to be true because we have felt it; and what one has, another receives by a species of spiritual contagion. The revival under Francis of Assisi spread as it did because the fire flaming in the heart of the preacher was also kindled in the hearts of his hearers. Luther headed a Reformation because men felt and knew that he had, as he said, found a gracious God by trusting in the grace of God revealed to him in Christ Jesus. It was not the Augsburg Confession that made the Reformation; it was the expansion of that religious experience which finds very inadequate description in that or in any other statement of doctrines.

§ 2. The universal Priesthood of Believers.

Luther’s religious experience, that he, a sinner, received forgiveness by simply throwing himself on God revealed in Christ Jesus the Saviour, came to him as an astounding revelation which was almost too great to be put into words. He tried to express it in varying ways, all of which he felt too utterly inadequate to describe it. We can see how he laboured at it from 1512 to 1517. It lay hidden in his discourse to the assembly of clergy in the episcopal palace at Ziesar (June 5th, 1512), when he declared that all reform must begin in the hearts of individual men. We can see it growing more and more articulate in his annotations, notes, and heads of lectures on the Psalms, delivered in the years 1513-1516, struggling to free itself from the phrases of the Scholastic Theology which could not really express it. His private letters, in which he was less hampered by the phraseology which he still believed appropriate to theology, are full of happier expressions.(396) _Justificatio_ is _vivificatio_, and means to redeem from sins without any merit in the person redeemed; it takes place when sin is not imputed, but the penitents are reputed righteous. Grace is the pity (_misericordia_) of God; it manifests itself in the remission of sins; it is the truth of God seen in the fulfilment of His promises in the historical work of Christ; Jesus Christ Himself is grace, is the way, is life and salvation. Faith is trust in the truth of God as manifested in the life and work of Jesus Christ; it is to believe in God; it is a knowledge of the Cross of Christ; it is to understand that the Son of God became incarnate, was crucified, and raised again for our salvation. The three central thoughts—_justification_, _grace_, _faith_—expressed in these inadequate phrases, are always looked upon and used to regulate that estimate of ourselves which forms the basis of piety. It is needless to trace the growing adequacy of the description. Luther at last found words to say that the central thought in Christianity is that the believer in possession of faith, which is itself the gift of God, is able to throw himself on God in Christ Who is his salvation and Who has mirrored Himself for us in Christ Jesus. He had trod the weary round that Augustine had gone before him; he had tried _to help himself_ in every possible way; he had found that with all his striving he could do nothing. Then, strange and mysterious as it was, the discovery had not brought despair, but rejoicing and comfort; for since there was no help whatever in man, his soul had been forced to find _all_—not part, but all—help in God. When he was able to express his experience he could say that the faith which throws itself on God, which is God’s own gift, is the certainty of the forgiveness of sins. It was no adherence to doctrines more or less clearly comprehended; it was no act of initiation to be followed by a nearer approach to God and a larger measure of His grace; it was the power which gives life, certainty, peace, continuous self-surrender to God as the Father, and which transforms and renews the whole man. It was the life of the soul; it was Christianity within the believer—as Jesus Christ and His work is Christianity outside the believer.

It is manifest that as soon as this experience attained articulate statement, it was bound to discredit much that was in mediæval theology and religious usage. Yet the striking thing about Luther was that he never sought to employ it in this way until one great abuse forced itself upon him and compelled him to test it by this touchstone of what true Christianity was. This reserve not only shows that there was nothing revolutionary in the character of Luther, nothing romantic or quixotic, it also manifests the quiet greatness of the man. Nor was there anything in the fundamental religious experience of Luther which necessarily conflicted with the contents of the old ecclesiastical doctrines, or even with the common usages of the religious life. There was a change in the attitude towards both, and an entirely new estimate of their religious value, but nothing which called for their immediate criticism, still less for their destruction. Faith, which was the Christian life, could no longer be based upon them; they were not the essential things that they had been supposed to be; but they might have their uses if kept in their proper places—aids to all holy living, but not that from which the life sprang. The thought that the entire sum of religion consists in “unwavering trust of the heart in Him Who has given Himself to us in Christ as our Father, personal assurance of faith, because Christ with His work undertakes our cause,” simplified religion marvellously, and made many things which had been regarded as essential mere outside auxiliaries. But it did not necessarily sweep them away. Though the acceptance of certain forms of doctrine, auricular confession, the monastic life, communion by the laity in one “kind” only in the Sacrament of the Supper, a celibate priesthood, fasting, going on pilgrimages, not to eat meat on Friday, had nothing to do with the essentials of the Christian life; still it was not necessary to insist on eating meat on Friday, on abstaining from fasting, and so on. The great matter was the spirit in which such things were performed or left undone. What the fundamental religious experience had done was to show the liberty of the Christian man to trust courageously in God and count all things of little moment compared with this which was the one thing needful.

“Out of a complex system of expiations, good deeds, and comfortings, of strict statutes and uncertain apportionments of grace, out of magic and blind obedience, Luther led religion forth and gave it a strenuously concentrated form. The Christian religion is the living assurance of the living God Who has revealed Himself and opened His heart in Christ—nothing more.”(397)

It was a vital part of this fundamental experience that the living God Who had manifested Himself in Christ was accessible to every Christian. To quote Harnack again:

“Rising above all anxieties and terrors, above all ascetic devices, above all directions of theology, above all interventions of hierarchy and Sacraments, Luther ventured to lay hold of God Himself in Christ, and in this act of faith, which he recognised as God’s work, his whole being obtained stability and firmness, nay, even a personal joy and certainty, which no mediæval Christian had ever possessed.”(398)

God Himself gave the believer the power to throw himself directly on God. But this contradicted one of the most widely diffused and most strongly held religious beliefs of the mediæval Church, and was bound to come in collision with it whenever the two were confronted with each other. It was the universal conception of mediæval piety that the mediation of a priest was essential to salvation. Mediæval Christians believed with more or less distinctness that the supernatural life of the soul was _created_, nourished, and perfected through the sacraments, and that the priests administering them possessed, in virtue of their ordination, miraculous powers whereby they daily offered the true sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the altar, forgave the sins of men, and taught the truths of salvation with divine authority. It was this universally accepted power of a mediatorial priesthood which had enslaved Europe, and which had rendered the liberty of a Christian man an impossible thing. Everywhere the priesthood barred, or was supposed to be able to bar, the way to God. The Church, which ought to have shown how God Who had revealed Himself in Christ was accessible to every believer, had surrounded the inner shrine of the sanctuary of His Presence with a triple wall of defence which prevented entrance. When man or woman felt sorrow for sin, they were instructed to go, not to God, but to a man, often of immoral life, and confess their sins to him because he was a priest. When they wished to hear the comforting words of pardon spoken, it was not from God, but from a priest that the assurance was supposed to come. God’s grace, to help to holy living and to bring comfort in dying, was given, it was said, only through a series of sacraments which fenced man’s life round, and priests could give or withhold these sacraments. Man was born again in baptism; he came of age spiritually in confirmation; his marriage was cleansed from the sin of lust in the sacrament of matrimony; penance brought back his spiritual life slain by deadly sin; the Eucharist gave him with his voyage victual as he journeyed through life; and deathbed grace was imparted in extreme unction. These ceremonies were not the signs and promises of the free grace of God, under whose wide canopy, as under that of heaven, man lived his spiritual life. They were jealously guarded doors from out of which grudgingly, and commonly not without fees, the priests dispensed the free grace of God.

During the later Middle Ages a gross abuse made the evils of this conception of a mediating priesthood emphatic. The practical evil lying in the whole thought was not so very apparent when the matter was regarded from the side of giving out the grace of God; but when it came to withholding it, then it was seen what the whole conception meant. The Bishops of Rome gave the peoples of Europe many an object lesson on this. If a town, or a district, or a whole country had offended the Pope and the Curia, it was placed under an _interdict_, and the priests were commanded to refuse the sacraments to the people. They stood between the newborn babe and the initial grace supposed to be bestowed in baptism, and to be absolutely withheld if baptism was not administered; between the dying man and the deathbed grace which was received in extreme unction; between young men and women and legal marriage blessed by God; between the people and daily worship and the bestowal of grace in the Eucharist. The God of grace could not be approached, the blessings of pardon and strength for holy living could not be procured, because the magistrates of a town or the king and councillors of a nation had offended the Bishop of Rome on an affair of worldly policy. The Church, _i.e._ the clergy, who were by the theory enabled to refuse to communicate the grace of God, barred all access to the God who had revealed Himself in Christ Jesus. The Pope by a stroke of the pen could prevent a whole nation, so it was believed, from approaching God, because he could prohibit priests from performing the usual sacramental acts which alone brought Him near. An _interdict_ meant spiritual death to the district on which it fell, and on the mediæval theory it was more deadly to the spiritual life than the worst of plagues, the Black Death itself, was to the body. An _interdict_ made the plainest intellect see, understand, and shudder at the awful and mysterious powers which a mediatorial priesthood was said to possess.

The fundamental religious experience of Luther had made him know that the Father, who has revealed Himself in His Son, is accessible to every humble penitent and faithful seeker after God. He proclaimed aloud the spiritual priesthood of all believers. He stated it with his usual graphic emphasis in that tract of his, which he always said contained the marrow of his message—_Concerning Christian Liberty_. He begins by an antithesis: “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none: a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone”; or, as St. Paul puts it, “Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant of all.” He expounds this by showing that no outward things have any influence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty; neither eating, drinking, nor anything of the kind, neither hunger nor thirst have to do with the liberty or the slavery of the soul. It does not profit the soul to wear sacred vestments or to dwell in sacred places; nor does it harm the soul to be clothed in worldly raiment, and to eat and drink in the ordinary fashion. The soul can do without everything except the word of God, and this word of God is the gospel of God concerning His Son, incarnate, suffering, risen, and glorified through the Spirit the Sanctifier. “To preach Christ is to feed the soul, to justify it, to set it free, to save it, if it believes the preaching; for faith alone and the efficacious use of the word of God bring salvation.” It is faith that incorporates Christ with the believer, and in this way “the soul through faith alone, without works, is, from the word of God, justified, sanctified, endued with truth, peace, liberty, and filled full with every good thing, and is truly made the child of God.” For faith brings the soul and the word together, and the soul is acted upon by the word, as iron exposed to fire glows like fire because of its union with the fire. Faith honours and reveres Him in Whom it trusts, and cleaves to His promises, never doubting but that He overrules all for the best. Faith unites the soul to Christ, so that “Christ and the soul become one flesh.” “Thus the believing soul, by the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free from all sin, fearless of death, safe from hell, and endowed with the eternal righteousness, life, and salvation of its husband Christ.” This gives the liberty of the Christian man; no dangers can really harm him, no sorrows utterly overwhelm him: for he is always accompanied by the Christ to whom he is united by his faith.

“Here you will ask,” says Luther, “ ‘If all who are in the Church are priests, by what character are those whom we now call priests to be distinguished from the laity?’ I reply, By the use of these words ‘priest,’ ‘clergy,’ ‘spiritual person,’ ‘ecclesiastic,’ an injustice has been done, since they have been transferred from the remaining body of Christians to those few who are now, by a hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For Holy Scripture makes no distinction between them, except that those who are now boastfully called Popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers, servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the word, for teaching the faith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For though it is true that we are all equally priests, yet we cannot, nor ought we if we could, all to minister and teach publicly.”

The first part of the treatise shows that everything which a Christian man has goes back in the end to his faith; if he has this he has all; if he has it not, nothing else suffices him. In the same way the second part shows that everything that a Christian man does must come from his faith. It may be necessary to fast and keep the body under; it will be necessary to make use of all the ceremonies of divine service which have been found effectual for the spiritual education of man. The thing to remember is that these are not good works in themselves in the sense of making a man good; they are all rather the signs of his faith, and are to be done with joy, because they are done to the God to whom faith unites us. So ecclesiastical ceremonies, or what may be called the machinery of Church life, are valuable, and indeed indispensable to the life of the soul, provided only they are regarded in the proper way and kept in their proper place; but they may become harmful and most destructive of the true religious life if they are considered in any other light than that of means to an end. “We do not condemn works,” says Luther, “nay we attach the highest value to them. We only condemn that opinion of works which regards them as constituting true righteousness.” They are, he explains, like the scaffolding of a building, eminently useful so long as they assist the builder; harmful if they obstruct; and at the best of temporary value. They are destructive to the spiritual life when they come between the soul and God. It follows, therefore, that if through human corruption and neglect of the plain precepts of the word of God these ecclesiastical usages hinder instead of aid the true growth of the soul, they ought to be changed or done away with; and the fact that the soul of man, in the last resort, needs absolutely nothing but the word of God dwelling within it, gives men courage and tranquillity in demanding their reformation.

In the same way fellow-men are not to be allowed to come between God and the human soul; and there is no need that they should. So far as spiritual position and privileges go, the laity are on the very same level as the clergy, for laity and clergy alike have immediate access to God through faith, and both are obliged to do what lies in them to further the advance of the kingdom of God among their fellow-men. All believing laymen “are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, to teach each other mutually the things that are of God ... and as our heavenly Father has freely helped us in Christ, so we ought freely to help our neighbours by our body and our works, and each should become to the other a sort of Christ, so that we may be mutually Christs, and that the same Christ may be in all of us; that we may be truly Christians.” Luther asserted that men and women living their lives in the family, in the workshop, in the civic world, held their position there, not by a kind of indirect permission wrung from God out of His compassion for human frailties, but by as direct a vocation as called a man to what by mistake had been deemed the only “religious life.” The difference between clergy and laity did not consist in the supposed fact that the former were a spiritual order of a superior rank in the religious life, while the latter belonged to a lower condition. The clergy differed from the laity simply in this, that they had been selected to perform certain definite duties; but the function did not make him who performed it a holier man intrinsically. If the clergy misused their position and did not do the work they were set apart to perform, there was no reason why they should not be compelled by the laity to amend their ways. Even in the celebration of the holiest rites there was no distinction between clergy and laity save that to prevent disorder the former presided over the rites in which all engaged. At the Eucharist

“our priest or minister stands before the altar, having been publicly called to his priestly function; he repeats publicly and distinctly Christ’s words of the institution; he takes the Bread and the Wine, and distributes it according to Christ’s words; and we all kneel beside him and around him, men and women, young and old, master and servant, mistress and maid, all holy priests together, sanctified by the blood of Christ. We are there in our priestly dignity.... We do not let the priest proclaim for himself the ordinance of Christ; but he is the mouthpiece of us all, and we all say it with him in our hearts with true faith in the Lamb of God Who feeds us with His Body and Blood.”

It was this principle of the Priesthood of all Believers which delivered men from the vague fear of the clergy, and which was a spur to incite them to undertake the reformation of the Church which was so much needed. It is the one great religious principle which lies at the basis of the whole Reformation movement. It was the rock on which all attempts at reunion with an unreformed Christendom were wrecked. It is the one outstanding difference between the followers of the reformed and the mediæval religion.

Almost all the distinctive principles of the Reformation group themselves round this one thought of the Priesthood of all Believers. It is sufficient for our purpose to look at Justification by Faith, the conceptions of the Holy Scriptures, of the Person of Christ, and of the Church.

§ 3. Justification by Faith.

When Luther, oppressed with a sense of sin, entered the convent, he was burdened by the ideas of traditional religion, that the penitent must prepare himself in some way so as to render himself fit to experience that sense of the grace of God which gives the certainty of pardon. It was not until he had thoroughly freed himself from that weight that he experienced the sense of pardon he sought. This practical experience of his must always be kept in view when we try to conceive what he meant by Justification by Faith.

As has been already said, Luther recognised that there were two kinds of faith,—one which man himself begot and through which he was able to give assent to doctrines of some sort; and another which Luther vehemently asserted was the pure gift of God. The first he thought comparatively unimportant; the latter was all in all to him. Faith is always used in the latter sense when the Reformers speak about _Justification by Faith_; and the sharp distinction which Luther draws between the two is a very important element in determining what he meant when he said that we are justified by faith alone.

This faith of the highest kind, the true faith, has its beginning by God working on us and in us. It is continually fed and kept strong by the word of God. The promise of God on God’s side and faith on man’s side are two correlative things; “for where there is no promise, there is no faith.” Luther brings out what this true faith is by contrasting it with the other kind of faith in two very instructive and trenchant passages:

“When faith is of the kind that God awakens and creates in the heart, then a man trusts in Christ. He is then so securely founded on Christ that he can hurl defiance at sin, death, hell, the devil, and all God’s enemies. He fears no ill, however hard and cruel it may prove to be. Such is the nature of true faith, which is utterly different from the faith of the sophists (the Schoolmen), Jews, and Turks. Their faith, produced by their thoughts, simply lights upon a thing, accepts it, believes that it is this or that. God has no dealings with such delusion; it is the work of man, and comes from nature, from the free will of man; and men possessing it can say, repeating what others have said: I believe that there is a God. I believe that Christ was born, died, rose again for me. But what the real faith is, and how powerful a thing it is, of this they know nothing.”(399)

He says again:

“Wherefore, beware of that faith which is manufactured or imagined; for the true faith is not the work of man, and therefore the faith which is manufactured or imagined will not avail in death, but will be overcome and utterly overthrown by sin, by the devil, and by the pains of hell. The true faith is the heart’s utter trust in Christ, and God alone awakens this in us. He who has it is blessed, he who has it not is cursed.”(400)

This faith has an outside fact to rest upon—the historical Christ. It is neither helped nor hindered by a doctrine of the Person of Christ, nor by a minute and elaborate knowledge of the details of our Lord’s earthly ministry. The man who has the faith may know a great deal about the doctrine of the Person of Christ: that will do his faith no harm but good, provided only he does not make the mistake of thinking that doctrines about Christ, ways by which the human understanding tries to conceive the fact, are either the fact itself or something better than the fact. He may know a great deal about the history of Jesus, and it is well to know as much as possible; but the amount of knowledge scarcely affects the faith. Wayfaring men, though fools, need not err in the pathway of faith.

The faith which is the gift of God makes us see the practical meaning in the fact of the historic Christ—this, namely, that Jesus Christ is there before us the manifestation of the Fatherly love of God, revealing to us our own forgiveness, and with it the possibilities of the Kingdom of God and of our place therein. The fact of the historic Christ is there, seen by men in a natural way; but it is the power of God lying in the faith which He has given us that makes us see with full certainty the meaning of the fact of the historic Christ for us and for our salvation. Moreover, this vision of God in the historic Christ, which is the deepest of all personal things, always involves something social. It brings us within the family of the faithful, within the Christian fellowship with its confirming evidences of faith and love. The power of faith comes to us singly, but seldom solitarily; the trust we have in God in Christ is faintly mirrored in the faith we learn to have in the members of the household of faith, and in their manifestations of faith and the love which faith begets.

What has been called the doctrine of Justification by Faith is therefore rather the description of a religious experience within the believer; and the meaning of the experience is simply this. The believer, who because he has faith—the faith which is the gift of God, which is our life and which regenerates—is regenerate and a member of the Christian fellowship, and is able to do good works and actually does them, does not find his standing as a person justified in the sight of God, his righteousness, his assurance of pardon and salvation, in those good works which he really can do, but only in the mediatorial and perfectly righteous work of Christ which he has learned to appropriate in faith. His good works, however really good, are necessarily imperfect, and in this experience which we call Justification by Faith the believer compares his own imperfect good works with the perfect work of Christ, and recognises that his pardon and salvation depends on that alone. This comparison quiets souls anxious about their salvation, and soothes pious consciences; and the sense of forgiveness which comes in this way is always experienced as a revelation of wonderful love. This justification is called an act, and is contrasted with a work; but the contrast, though true, is apt to mislead through human analogies which will intrude. It is an act, but an act of God; and divine acts are never done and done with, they are always continuous. Luther rings the changes upon this. He warns us against thinking that the act of forgiveness is all done in a single moment. The priestly absolution was the work of a moment, and had to be done over and over again; but the divine pronouncement of pardon is continuous simply because it is God who makes it. He says:

“For just as the sun shines and enlightens none the less brightly when I close my eyes, so this throne of grace, this forgiveness of sins, is always there, even though I fall. Just as I see the sun again when I open my eyes, so I have forgiveness and the sense of it once more when I look up and return to Christ. We are not to measure forgiveness as narrowly as fools dream.”(401)

In the Protestant polemic with Roman Catholic doctrine, the conception of Justification by Faith is contrasted with that of Justification by Works; but the contrast is somewhat misleading. For the word justification is used in different meanings in the two phrases. The direct counterpart in Roman Catholic usage to the Reformation thought of Justification by Faith is the absolution pronounced by a priest; and here as always the Reformer appeals from man to God. The two conceptions belong to separate spheres of thought.

“The justification of which the mediæval Christian had experience was the descending of an outward stream of forces upon him from the supersensible world, through the Incarnation, in the channels of ecclesiastical institutions, priestly consecration, sacraments, confession, and good works; it was something which came from his connection with a supersensible organisation which surrounded him. The justification by faith which Luther experienced within his soul was the personal experience of the believer standing in the continuous line of the Christian fellowship, who receives the assurance of the grace of God in his exercise of a personal faith,—an experience which comes from appropriating the work of Christ which he is able to do by that faith which is the gift of God.”(402)

In the one case, the Protestant, justification is a personal experience which is complete in itself, and does not depend on any external machinery; in the other, the Mediæval, it is a prolonged action of usages, sacraments, external machinery of all kinds, which by their combined effect are supposed to change a sinner gradually into a saint, righteous in the eyes of God. With the former, it is a continuous experience; with the latter, it cannot fail to be intermittent as the external means are actually employed or for a time laid aside.

The meaning of the Reformation doctrine of Justification by Faith may be further brought out by contrasting it with the theory which was taught by that later school of Scholastic theology which was all-powerful at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The more evangelical theory of Thomas Aquinas was largely neglected, and the Nominalist Schoolmen based their expositions of the doctrine on the teaching of John Duns Scotus.

It must be remembered that mediæval theology never repudiated the theology of Augustine, and admitted in theory at least that man’s salvation, and justification as part of it, always depended in the last resort on the prevenient grace of God; in their reverence for the teaching of Aristotle, they believed that they had also to make room for the action of the free will of man which they always looked on as the pure capacity of choice between two alternatives. John Duns Scotus got rid of a certain confusion which existed between the _gratia operans_ and _gratia co-operans_ of Augustine by speaking of the grace of God, which lay at the basis of man’s justification, as a _gratia habitualis_, or an operation of the grace of God which gave to the will of man an habitual tendency to love towards God and man. He alleged that when conduct is considered, an act of the will is more important than any habitual tendency, for it is the act which makes use of the habit, and apart from the act, the habit is a mere inert passivity. Therefore, he held that the chief thing in meritorious conduct is not so much the habit which has been created by God’s grace, as the act of will which makes use of the habit. In this way the grace of God is looked upon as simply the general basis of meritorious conduct, or a mere _conditio sine qua non_, and the important thing is the act of will which can make use of the otherwise passive habit. The process of justification—and it is to be remembered that the Schoolmen invariably looked upon justification as a process by which a sinner was gradually made into a righteous man and thoroughly and substantially changed—may therefore be described as an infusion of divine grace which creates a habit of the will towards love to God and to man; this is laid hold on by acts of the will, and there result positive acts of love towards God and man which are meritorious, and which gradually change a sinner into a righteous person. This is the theory; but the theory is changed into practice by being exhibited in the framework of the Church provided to aid men to appropriate the grace of God which is the basis for all. The obvious and easiest way to obtain that initial grace which is the starting-point is by the sacraments, which are said to infuse grace—the grace which is needed to make the start on the process of justification. Grace is infused to begin with in Baptism; and it is also infused from time to tune in the Eucharist. If a man has been baptized, he has the initial grace to start with; and he can get additions in the Eucharist. That, according to the theory, is all that is needed to start the will on its path of meritorious conduct. But while this exhibits the ideal process of justification according to mediæval theology, it must be remembered that there is mortal sin—sin which slays the new life begun in baptism—and the sacrament which renews the life slain will be practically more important than the sacrament which first creates it. Hence practically the whole process of the mediæval justification is best seen in the sacrament which renews the life slain by deadly sins. That sacrament is Penance; and the theory and practice of justification is best exhibited in the Sacrament of Penance. The good disposition of the will towards God is seen in confession; this movement towards God is complete when confession stimulated by the priest is finished; the performance of the meritorious good works is seen in the penitent performing the “satisfactions,” or tasks imposed by the priest, of prayer, of almsgiving, of maceration; while the absolution announces that the process is complete, and that the sinner has become a righteous man and is in “a state of grace.”

In opposition to all this, Luther asserted that it was possible to go through all that process prescribed by the mediæval Church, embodying the Scholastic theory of justification, without ever having the real sense of pardon, or ever being comforted by the sense of the love of God. The faith, however, which is the gift of God makes the believer see in the Christ Who is there before him a revelation of God’s Fatherly love which gives him the sense of pardon, and at the same time excites in him the desire to do all manner of loving service. He is like the forgiven child who is met with tenderness when punishment was expected, and in glad wonder resolves never to be naughty again—so natural and simple is the Reformation thought. That thought, however, can be put much more formally. Chemnitz expresses it thus:

“The main point of controversy at present agitated between us and the Papists relates to the good works or new obedience of the _regenerate_. They hold that the regenerate are justified through that renewal which the Holy Spirit works _in_ them, and by means of the _good works which proceed_ from that renewal. They hold that the good works of the regenerate are the things on which they can trust, when the hard question comes to be answered, whether we be children of God and have been accepted to everlasting life. We hold, on the other hand, that in true repentance faith lays hold on and appropriates to itself _Christ’s satisfaction_, and in so doing has something which it can oppose to the law’s accusations at the bar of God, and thus bring it to pass that we should be declared righteous.... It is indeed true that believers have actual righteousness through their renewal by the Holy Spirit, but inasmuch as that righteousness is imperfect and still impure by reason of the flesh, all men cannot stand in God’s judgment with it, nor on its account does God pronounce us righteous.”(403)

Hence we may say that the difference in the two ways of looking at the matter may be exhibited in the answer to the question, What does faith lay hold on in true repentance? The Reformation answer is—(1) not on a mechanically complete confession made to a priest, nor on a due performance of what the priest enjoins by way of satisfaction; but (2) only on what God in Christ has done for us, which is seen in the life, death, and rising again of the Saviour.

The most striking differences between the Reformation and the mediæval conception of justification are:

(1) The Reformation thought always looks at the comparative _imperfection_ of the works of believers, while admitting that they are good works; the mediæval theologian, even when bidding men disregard the intrinsic value of their good works, always looks at the relative _perfection_ of these works.

(2) The Reformer had a much more concrete idea of God’s grace—it was something special, particular, unique—because he invariably regarded the really good works which men can do from their relative imperfection; the mediæval theologian looked at the relative perfection of good works, and so could represent them as something congruous to the grace of God which was not sharply distinguished from them.

(3) These views led Luther and the Reformers to represent faith as not merely the receptive organ for the reception and appropriation of justification through Christ, but, and in addition, as the active instrument in all Christian life and work—faith is our life; while the mediæval theologians never attained this view of faith.

(4) The Reformer believes that the act of faith in his justification through Christ is the basis of the believer’s assurance of his pardon and salvation in spite of the painful and abiding sense of sin; while the mediæval theologian held that the divine sentence of acquittal which restored a sinner to a state of grace resulted from the joint action of the priest and the penitent in the Sacrament of Penance, and had to be repeated intermittently.

§ 4. Holy Scripture.

All the Reformers of the sixteenth century, whether Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin, believed that in the Scriptures God spoke to them in the same way as He had done in earlier days to His prophets and Apostles. They believed that if the common people had the Scriptures in a language which they could understand, they could hear God speaking to them directly, and could go to Him for comfort, warning, or instruction; and their description of what they meant by the Holy Scriptures is simply another way of saying that all believers can have access to the very presence of God. The Scriptures were therefore for them a personal rather than a dogmatic revelation. They record the experience of a fellowship with God enjoyed by His saints in past ages, which may still be shared in by the faithful. In Bible history as the Reformers conceived it, we hear two voices—the voice of God speaking love to man, and the voice of the renewed man answering in faith to God. This communion is no dead thing belonging to a bygone past; it may be shared here and now.

But the Reformation conception of Scripture is continually stated in such a way as to deprive it of the eminently religious aspect that it had for men of the sixteenth century. It is continually said that the Reformers placed the Bible, an infallible Book, over-against an infallible Church; and transferred the _same kind_ of infallibility which had been supposed to belong to the Church to this book. In mediæval times, men accepted the decisions of Popes and Councils as the last decisive utterance on all matters of controversy in doctrine and morals; at the Reformation, the Reformers, it is said, placed the Bible where these Popes and Councils had been, and declared that the last and final appeal was to be made to its pages. This mode of stating the question has found its most concise expression in the saying of Chillingworth, that “the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.” It is quite true that the Reformers did set the authority of the Scriptures over against that of Popes and Councils, and that Luther declared that “the common man,” “miller’s maid,” or “boy of nine” with the Bible knew more about divine truth than the Pope without the Bible; but this is not the whole truth, and is therefore misleading. For Romanists and Protestants do not mean the same thing by _Scripture_, nor do they mean the same thing by _Infallibility_, and their different use of the words is a most important part of the Reformation conception of Scripture.

This difference in the meaning of _Scripture_ is partly external and partly internal; and the latter is the more important of the two.

The _Scriptures_ to which the Romanist appeals include the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament; and the _Scriptures_ which are authoritative are not the books of the Old and New Testament in the original tongues, but a translation into Latin known as the Vulgate of Pope Sixtus V. They are therefore a book to a large extent different from the one to which Protestants appeal.

However important this external difference may be, it is nothing in comparison with the internal difference; and yet the latter is continually forgotten by Protestants as well as by Roman Catholics in their arguments.

To understand it, one must remember that every mediæval theologian declared that the whole doctrinal system of his Church was based upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Reformers did nothing unusual, nothing which was in opposition to the common practice of the mediæval Church in which they had been born, educated, and lived, when they appealed to Scripture. Luther made his appeal with the same serene unconsciousness that anyone could gainsay him, as he did when he set the believer’s spiritual experience of the fact that he rested on Christ alone for salvation against the proposal to sell pardon for money. His opponents never attempted to challenge his right to make this appeal to Scripture—at least at first. They made the same appeal themselves; they believed that they were able to meet Scripture with Scripture. They were confident that the authority appealed to—Scripture—would decide against Luther. It soon became apparent, however, that Luther had an unexpectedly firmer grasp of Scripture than they had. This did not mean that he had a better memory for texts. It was seen that Luther somehow was able to look at and use Scripture as one transparent whole; while they looked on it as a collection of fragmentary texts. This gave him and other Reformers a skill in the use of Scripture which their opponents began to feel that they were deficient in. They felt that if they were to meet their opponents on equal terms they too must recognise a unity in Scripture. They did so by creating an external and arbitrary unity by means of the dogmatic tradition of the mediæval Church. Hence the decree of the Council of Trent, which manufactured an artificial unity for Scripture by placing the dogmatic tradition of the Church alongside Scripture as an equal source of authority. The reason why the Reformers found a natural unity in the Bible, and why the Romanists had to construct an artificial one, lay, as we shall see, in their different conceptions of what was meant by saving faith.

Mediæval theologians looked at the Bible as a sort of spiritual law-book, a storehouse of divinely communicated knowledge of doctrinal truths and rules for moral conduct—and nothing more.

The Reformers saw in it a new home for a new life within which they could have intimate fellowship with God Himself—not merely knowledge about God, but actual communion with Him.

There is one great difficulty attending the mediæval conception of the Scriptures, that it does not seem applicable to a large part of them. There is abundant material provided for the construction of doctrines and moral rules; but that is only a portion of what is contained in the Scriptures. The Bible contains long lists of genealogies, chapters which contain little else than a description of temple furniture, stories of simple human life, and details of national history. The mediæval theologian had either to discard altogether a large part of the Bible or to transform it somehow into doctrinal and moral teaching. The latter alternative was chosen, and the instrument of transformation was the thought of the various senses in Scripture which plays such a prominent part in every mediæval statement of the nature and uses of the revelation of God contained in the Bible.(404) No one can deny that a book, where instruction is frequently given in parables, or by means of aphorisms and proverbial sayings, must contain many passages which have different senses. It may be admitted, to use Origen’s illustrations, that the grain of mustard seed is, _literally_, an actual seed; _morally_, faith in the individual believer; and, _allegorically_, the kingdom of God;(405) or, though this is more doubtful, that the little foxes are, literally, cubs; morally, sins in the individual heart; and, allegorically, heresies which distract and spoil the Church.(406) But to say that every detail of personal or national life in the Old Testament or New is merely dead history, of no spiritual value until it has been transformed into a doctrinal truth or a moral rule by the application of the theory of the fourfold sense in Scripture, is to destroy the historical character of revelation altogether, and, besides, to introduce complete uncertainty about what any passage was really meant to declare. The use of a fourfold sense—_literal_, _moral_, _allegorical_, and _anagogic_—enables the reader to draw any meaning he pleases from any portion of Scripture.

While mediæval theologians, by their bewildering fourfold sense, made it almost hopeless to know precisely what the Bible actually taught, another idea of theirs made it essential to salvation that men should attain to an absolutely correct statement of what the Scriptures did reveal about God and man and the relation between them. They held that faith—the faith which saves—was not trust in a person, but assent to correct propositions about God, the universe, and the soul of man; and the saving character of the assent depended on the correctness of the propositions assented to. It is the submission of the intellect to certain propositional statements which are either seen to be correct or are accepted as being so because guaranteed in some supernatural way. Infallibility is looked upon as that which can guarantee the perfect correctness of propositions about God and man in their relations to each other.

_If_ it be necessary to employ the fourfold sense to confuse the plain meaning of the greater portion of Scripture, and _if_ salvation depends on arriving at a perfectly correct intellectual apprehension of abstract truths contained somewhere in the Bible, then Lacordaire’s sarcastic reference to the Protestant conception of Scripture is not out of place. He says: “What kind of a religion is that which saves men by aid of a book? God has given the book, but He has not guaranteed your private interpretation of it. What guarantee have you that your thoughts do not shove aside God’s ideas? The heathen carves himself a god out of wood or marble; the Protestant carves his out of the Bible. If there be a true religion on earth, it must be of the most _serene_ and unmistakable authority.”(407) We need not wonder at John Nathin saying to his perplexed pupil in the Erfurt Convent: “Brother Martin, let the Bible alone; read the old teachers; reading the Bible simply breeds unrest.”(408) We can sympathise with some of the earlier printers of the German Vulgate when they inserted in their prefaces that readers must be careful to understand the contents of the volume in the way declared by the Church.(409) Men who went to the Bible might go wrong, and it was spiritual death to make any mistake; but all who simply assented to the interpretation of the Bible given in the Church’s theology were kept right and had the true or saving faith. Such was the mediæval idea.

But all this made it impossible to find in the Bible a means of communion with God. Between the God Who had revealed Himself there and man, the mediæval theologian, perhaps unconsciously at first, had placed what he called the “Church,” but what really was the opinions of accredited theologians confirmed by decisions of Councils or Popes. The “Church” had barred the way of access to the mind and heart of God in the Scriptures by interposing its authoritative method of interpretation between the believer and the Bible, as it had interposed the priesthood between the sinner and the redeeming Saviour.

Just as the Reformers had opposed their personal experience of pardon won by throwing themselves on the mercy of God revealed in Christ to the intervention of the Church between them and God, so they controverted this idea of the Scriptures by the personal experience of what the Bible had been to them. They had felt and known that the personal God, Who had made them and redeemed them, was speaking to them in this Book, and was there making manifest familiarly His power and His willingness to save. The speech was sometimes obscure, but they read on and lighted on other passages which were plainer, and they made the easier explain the more difficult. The “common” man perhaps could not understand it all, nor fit all the sayings of Scripture into a connected whole of intellectual truth; but all, plain men and theologians alike, could hear their Father’s voice, learn their Redeemer’s purpose, and have faith in their Lord’s promises. It was a good thing to put text to text and build a system of Protestant divinity to which their intellects could assent; but it was not essential. Saving faith was not intellectual assent at all. It was simple trust—the trust of a child—in their Father’s promises, which were Yea and Amen in Christ Jesus. The one essential thing was to hear and obey the personal God speaking to them as He had spoken all down through the ages to His people, promising His salvation now in direct words, now in pictures of His dealings with a favoured man or a chosen people. No detail of life was dead history; for it helped to fill the picture of communion between God and His people. The picture was itself a promise that what had been in the past would be renewed in their own experience of fellowship with a gracious God, if only they had the same faith which these saints of the Old and New Testaments enjoyed.

With these thoughts burning in their hearts, the Bible could not be to the Reformers what it had been to the mediæval theologians. God was speaking to them in it as a man speaks to his fellows. The simple historical sense was the important one in the great majority of passages. The Scripture was more than a storehouse of doctrines and moral rules. It was over and above the record and picture of the blessed experience which God’s saints have had in fellowship with their covenant God since the first revelation of the Promise. So they made haste to translate the Bible into all languages in order to place it in the hands of every man, and said that the “common man” with the Bible in his hands (with God speaking to him) could know more about the way of salvation than Pope or Councils without the Scriptures.

The change of view which separated the Reformers from mediæval theologians almost amounted to a rediscovery of Scripture; and it was effected by their conception of faith. Saving faith was for them _personal trust_ in a _personal Saviour_ Who had manifested in His life and work the Fatherly mercy of God. This was not a mere theological definition; it was a description of an experience which they knew that they had lived. It made them see that the word of God was a personal and not a dogmatic revelation; that the real meaning in it was that God Himself was there behind every word of it,—not an abstract truth, but a personal Father. On the one side, on the divine, there was God pouring out His whole heart and revealing the inmost treasures of His righteousness and love in Christ the Incarnate Word; on the other side, on the human, there was the believing soul looking straight through all works and all symbols and all words to Christ Himself, united to Him by faith in the closest personal union. Such a blessed experience—the feeling of direct fellowship between the believer and God Incarnate, of a communion such as exists between two loving human souls, brought about by the twofold stream of God’s personal word coming down, and man’s personal faith going up to God—could not fail to give an entirely new conception of Scripture. The mediæval Church looked on the Jesus Christ revealed in Scripture as a Teacher sent from God; and revelation was for them above all things an imparting of speculative truth. To the Reformers the chief function of Scripture was to bring Jesus Christ near us; and as Jesus always fills the full sphere of God to them, the chief end of Scripture is to bring God near _me_. It is the direct message of God’s love to _me_,—not doctrine, but promise (for apart from promise, as Luther said unweariedly, faith does not exist); not display of God’s thoughts, but of God Himself as _my_ God. This manifestation of God, which is recorded for us in the Scriptures, took place in an historical process coming to its fullest and highest in the incarnation and historical work of Christ, and the record of the manifestation has been framed so as to include everything necessary to enable us to understand the declaration of God’s will in its historical context and in its historical manifestation. “Let no pious Christian,” says Luther, “stumble at the simple word and story that meet him so often in Scripture.” These are never the dead histories of the mediæval theologian,—events which have simply taken place and concern men no more. They tell how God dealt with His faithful people in ages past, and they are promises of how He will act towards us now. “Abraham’s history is precious,” he says, “because it is filled so full of God’s Word, with which all that befell him is so adorned and so fair, and because God goes everywhere before him with His Word, promising, commanding, comforting, warning, that we may verily see that Abraham was God’s special trusty friend. Let us mirror ourselves, then, in this holy father Abraham, who walks not in gold and velvet, but girded, crowned, and clothed with divine light, that is, with God’s Word.” The simplest Bible stories, even geographical and architectural details, may and do give us the sidelights necessary to complete the manifestation of God to His people.

The question now arises, Where and in what are we to recognise the infallibility and authoritative character of Scripture? It is manifest that the ideas attaching to these words must change with the changed conception of the essential character of that Scripture to which they belong. Nor can the question be discussed apart from the Reformation idea of saving faith; for the two thoughts of Scripture and saving faith always correspond. In mediæval theology they are always primarily intellectual and prepositional; in Reformation thinking, they are always in the first instance experimental and personal. In describing the authoritative character of Scripture, the Reformers always insisted that its recognition was awakened in believers by that operation which they called the witness of the Holy Spirit (_Testimonium Spiritus Sancti_). Just as God Himself makes us know and feel the sense of pardon in an inward experience by a faith which is His own work, so they believed that by an operation of the same Spirit, believers were enabled to recognise that God Himself is speaking to us authoritatively in and through the words of Scripture.

Their view of what is meant by the authority and infallibility of Scripture cannot be seen apart from what they taught about the relation between Scripture and the word of God. They have all the same general conception, however they may differ in details in their statement. If Luther, as his wont was, speaks more trenchantly, and Calvin writes with a clearer vision of the consequences which must follow from his assertions, both have the same great thought before them.

The Reformers drew a distinction between the word of God and the Scripture which contains or presents that word. This distinction was real and not merely formal; it was more than the difference between the word of God and the word of God written; and important consequences were founded upon it. If the use of metaphor be allowed, the word of God is to the Scripture as the soul is to the body. Luther believed that while the word of God was presented in every part of Scripture, some portions make it much more evident. He instances the Gospel and First Epistle of St. John, the Epistles of St. Paul, especially those to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, and the First Epistle of St. Peter.(410) He declares that if Christians possessed no other books besides those, the way of salvation would be perfectly clear. He adds elsewhere that the word of God shines forth with special clearness in the Psalms, which he called the Bible within the Bible.

Luther says that the word of God may be described in the phrase of St. Paul, “the Gospel of God, which He promised afore by His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.”(411) Calvin calls it “the spiritual teaching, the gate, as it were, by which we enter into His heavenly kingdom,” “a mirror in which faith beholds God,” and “that wherein He utters unto us His mercy in Christ, and assureth us of His love toward us.”(412) The Scots Confession calls it the revelation of the Promise “quhilk as it was repeated and made mair clear from time to time; so was it imbraced with joy, and maist constantlie received of al the faithful.”(413) And Zwingli declares it to be “that our Lord Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, has revealed to us the will of the Heavenly Father, and, with His innocence, has redeemed us from death.”(414) It is the sum of God’s commands, threatenings, and promises, addressed to our faith, and above all the gospel offer of Christ to us. This word of God need not take the form of direct exhortation; it may be recognised in the simple histories of men or of nations recorded in the Scripture.

This true and real distinction between the word of God and Scripture may easily be perverted to something which all the Reformers would have repudiated. It must not be explained by the common mystical illustration of kernel and husk, which husk (the record) may be thrown away when the kernel (the word) has been once reached and laid hold of. Nor can it be used to mean that one part of the Bible is the word of God and that another is not. The Reformers uniformly teach that the substance of _all_ Scripture is the word of God, and that what is no part of the record of the word of God is not Scripture. Finally, the distinction between the two need not prevent us saying that the Scripture is the word of God. Luther is very peremptory about this. He says that he is ready to discuss differences with any opponent who admits that the evangelical writings are the word of God; but that if this be denied he will refuse to argue; for where is the good of reasoning with anyone who denies first principles? (_prima principia_)(415) Only it must be clearly understood that the copula _is_ does not express logical identity, but some such relation as can be more exactly rendered by _contains_, _presents_, _conveys_, _records_,—all of which phrases are used in the writings of Reformers or in the creeds of the Reformation Churches. The main thing to remember is that the distinction is not to be made use of to deny to the substance of Scripture those attributes of authority and infallibility which belong to the word of God.

On the other hand, there is a vital religious interest in the distinction. In the first place it indicates what is meant by the infallibility of Scripture, and in the second it enables us to distinguish between the divine and the human elements in the Bible.

The authoritative character and infallibility belong really and primarily to the word of God, and only secondarily to the Scriptures,—to Scripture only because it is the record which contains, presents, or conveys the word of God. It is this word of God, this personal manifestation to us for our salvation of God in His promises, which is authoritative and infallible; and Scripture shares these attributes only in so far as it is a vehicle of spiritual truth. It is the unanimous declaration of the Reformers that Scripture is Scripture because it gives us that knowledge of God and of His will which is necessary for salvation; because it presents to the eye of faith God Himself personally manifesting Himself in Christ. It is this presentation of God Himself and of His will for our salvation which is infallible and authoritative. But this manifestation of God Himself is something spiritual, and is to be apprehended by a spiritual faculty which is faith, and the Reformers and the Confessions of the Reformation do not recognise any infallibility or divine authority which is otherwise apprehended than by faith. If this be so, the infallibility is of quite another kind from that described by mediæval theologians or modern Roman Catholics, and it is also very different from what many modern Protestants attribute to the Scriptures when they do not distinguish them from the word of God. With the mediæval theologian infallibility was something which guaranteed the perfect correctness of abstract propositions; with some modern Protestants it consists in the conception that the record contains not even the smallest error in word or description of fact—in its inerrancy. But neither inerrancy nor the correctness of abstract propositions is apprehended by faith in the Reformers’ sense of that word; they are matters of fact, to be accepted or rejected by the ordinary faculties of man. The infallibility and authority which need faith to perceive them are, and must be, something very different; they produce the conviction that in the manifestation of God in His word there lies infallible power to save. This is given, all the Reformers say, by the Witness of the Spirit; “the true kirk alwaies heares and obeyis the voice of her awin spouse and pastor.”(416) Calvin discusses the authority and credibility of Scripture in his _Institutio_, and says: “Let it be considered, then, as an undeniable truth that they who have been inwardly taught of the Spirit feel an entire acquiescence in the Scripture, and that it is self-authenticated, carrying with it its own evidence, and ought not to be made the subject of demonstration and arguments from reason; but that it obtains the credit which it deserves with us by the testimony of the Spirit.”(417) This is a religious conception of infallibility very different from the mediæval or the modern Romanist.

The distinction between the word of God and Scripture also serves to distinguish between the divine and the human elements in Scripture, and to give each its proper place.

Infallibility and divine authority belong to the sphere of faith and of the witness of the Spirit, and, therefore, to that personal manifestation of God and of His will toward us which is conveyed or presented to us in every part of Scripture. But this manifestation is given in a course of events which are part of human history, in lives of men and peoples, in a record which in outward form is like other human writings. If every part of Scripture is divine, every part of it is also human. The supernatural reality is incased in human realities. To apprehend the former, faith illumined by the Holy Spirit is necessary; but it is sufficient to use the ordinary methods of research to learn the credibility of the history in Scripture. When the Reformers distinguished between the word of God and Scripture which conveys or presents it, and when they declared that the authority and infallibility of that word belonged to the region of faith, they made that authority and infallibility altogether independent of questions that might be raised about the human agencies through which the book came into its present shape. It is not a matter belonging to the region of faith when the books which record the word of God were written, or by whom, or in what style, or how often they were edited or re-edited. It is not a matter for faith whether incidents happened in one country or in another; whether the account of Job be literal history, or a poem based on old traditions in which the author has used the faculty of imagination to illustrate the problems of God’s providence and man’s probation; whether genealogical tables give the names of men or of countries and peoples. All these and the like matters belong to the human side of the record. No special illumination of faith is needed to apprehend and understand them. They are matters for the ordinary faculties of man, and subject to ordinary human investigation. Luther availed himself freely of the liberty thus given. He never felt himself bound to accept the traditional ideas about the extent of the canon, the authorship of the books of the Bible, or even about the credibility of some of the things recorded. He said, speaking about Genesis, “What though Moses never wrote it?”(418) It was enough for him that the book was there and that he could read it. He thought that the Books of Kings were more worthy of credit than the Books of Chronicles;(419) and he believed that the prophets had not always given the kings of Israel the best political advice.(420)

But while the Bible is human literature, and as such may be and must be subjected to the same tests which are applied to ordinary literature, it is the record of the revelation of God, and has been carefully guarded and protected by God. This thought always enters into the conception which the Reformers had of Scripture. They speak of the singular care and providence of God which has preserved the Scriptures in such a way that His people always have a full and unmistakable declaration in them of His mind and will for their salvation. This idea for ever forbids a careless or irreverent biblical criticism, sheltering itself under the liberty of dealing with the records of revelation. No one can say beforehand how much or how little of the historic record is essential to preserve the faith of the Church; but every devout Christian desires to have it in large abundance. No one can plead the liberty which the principles of the Reformers secure for dealing with the record of Scripture as a justification in taking a delight in reducing to a minimum the historical basis of the Christian faith. Careless or irreverent handling of the text of Holy Scripture is what all the Reformers abhorred.(421)

§ 5. The Person of Christ.

“No one can deny,” said Luther, “that we hold, believe, sing, and confess all things in correspondence with the Apostles’ Creed, the faith of the old Church, that we make nothing new therein nor add anything thereto, and in this way we belong to the old Church and are one with it.” Both the Augsburg Confession and the Schmalkald Articles begin with restating the doctrines of the old Catholic Church as these are given in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, the two latter being always regarded by Luther as explanatory of the Apostles’ Creed. His criticism of theological doctrines was always confined to the theories introduced by the Schoolmen, and to the perversion of the old doctrines of the Church introduced in mediæval times mainly to bring these doctrines into conformity with the principles of the philosophy of Aristotle. He brought two charges against the Scholastic Theology. It was, he insisted, committed to the idea of work-righteousness; whatever occasional protest might be made against the conception, he maintained that this thought of work-righteousness was so interwoven with its warp and woof that the whole must be swept away ere the old and true Christian Theology could be rediscovered. He also declared it was sophistry; and by that he meant that it played with the outsides of doctrine, asked and solved questions which had nothing to do with real Christian theology, that the imposing intellectual edifice was hollow within, that its deity was not the God and Father revealed in Jesus Christ, but the unknown God, the God who could never be revealed by metaphysics larded with detached texts of Scripture, the abstract entity of pagan philosophy. With an unerring instinct he fastened on the Scholastic devotion to Aristotle as the reason why what professed to be Christian theology had been changed into something else. Scholastic Philosophy or Theology (for the two are practically the same) defined itself as the attempt to reconcile _faith_ and _reason_, and the definition has been generally accepted. Verbally it is correct; really it is very misleading from the meanings attached to the words faith and reason. With the Schoolmen, faith in this contrast between faith and reason meant the sum of patristic teaching about the verities of the Christian religion extracted by the Fathers from the Holy Scriptures; and reason meant the sum of philosophical principles extracted from the writings of ancient philosophers, and especially from Aristotle. The great Schoolmen conceived it to be their task to construct a system of Christian Philosophy by combining patristic doctrinal conclusions with the conclusions of human reasoning which they believed to be given in their highest form in the writings of the ancient Grecian sages. They actually used the conceptions of the Fathers as material to give body to the forms of thought found ready made for them in the speculations of Aristotle and Plato. The Christian material was moulded to fit the pagan forms, and in consequence lost its most essentially Christian characteristics. One can see how the most evangelical of the Schoolmen, Thomas Aquinas, tries in vain to break through the meshes of the Aristotelian net in his discussions on merit and satisfaction in his _Summa Theologiæ_.(422) He had to start from the thought of God as (1) the Absolute, and (2) as the _Primum Movens_, the _Causa efficiens prima_, the _Intelligens a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur in finem_—conceptions which can never imprison without practically destroying the vision of the Father who has revealed Himself in the Saviour Jesus Christ. His other starting-point, that man is to be described as the possessor of free will in the Aristotelian sense of the term, will never contain the Christian doctrine of man’s complete dependence on God in his salvation. It inevitably led to work-righteousness. This was the “sophistry” Luther protested against and which he swept away.

He then claimed that he stood where the old Catholic Church had taken stand, that his theology like its was rooted in the faith of God as Trinity and in the belief in the Person of Christ, the Revealer of God. The old theology had nothing to do with Mariolatry or saint worship; it revered the triune God, and Jesus Christ His Son and man’s Saviour. Luther could join hands with Athanasius across twelve centuries. He had done a work not unlike that of the great Alexandrian. His rejection of the Scholastic Aristotelianism may be compared with Athanasius’ refusal to allow the Logos theology any longer to confuse the Christian doctrines of God and the Person of Christ. Both believed that in all thinking about God they ought to keep their eyes fixed upon His redemptive work manifested in the historical Christ. Athanasius, like Luther, brought theology back to religion from “sophistry,” and had for his starting-point an inward religious experience that his Redeemer was the God who made heaven and earth. The great leaders in the ancient Church, Luther believed, held as he did that to have conceptions about God, to construct a real Christian theology, it was necessary first of all to know God Himself, and that He was only to be known through the Lord Jesus Christ. He had gone through the same experience as they had done; he could fully sympathise with them, and could appropriate the expressions in which they had described and crystallised what they had felt and known, and that without paying much attention to the niceties of technical language. These doctrines had not been dead formulas to them, but the expression of a living faith. He could therefore take the old dogmas and make them live again in an age in which it seemed as if they had lost all their vitality.

“From the time of Athanasius,” says Harnack, “there had been no theologian who had given so much living power for faith to the doctrine of the Godhead of Christ as Luther did; since the time of Cyril, no teacher had arisen in the Church for whom the mystery of the union of the two natures in Christ was so full of comfort as for Luther—‘I have a better provider than all angels are: he lies in the cradle and hangs on the breast of a virgin, but sits, nevertheless, at the right hand of the almighty father’; no mystic philosopher of antiquity spoke with greater conviction and delight of the sacred nourishment in the Eucharist. The German reformer restored life to the formulas of Greek Christianity: he gave them back to faith.”(423)

But if Luther accepted the old formulas describing the Nature of God and the Person of Christ, he did so in a thoroughly characteristic way. He had no liking for theological technical terms, though he confessed that it was necessary to use them. He disliked the old term _homoousios_ to describe the relation between the Persons in the Trinity, and preferred the word “oneness”;(424) he even disliked the term Trinity, or at least its German equivalents, Dreifaltigkeit or Dreiheit—they were not good German words, he said;(425) he called the technical terms used in the old creeds _vocabula mathematica_;(426) he was careful to avoid using them in his Short and even in his Long Catechism. But Jesus Christ was for him the mirror of the Fatherly heart of God, and therefore was God; God Himself was the only Comforter to bring rest to the human soul, and the Holy Spirit was God; and the old creeds confessed One God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the confession contented him whatever words were used. Besides, he rejoiced to place himself side by side with the Christians of ancient days, who trusted God in Christ and were free from the “sophistries” of the Schoolmen.

Although Luther accepted, honestly and joyfully, the old theology about God and the Person of Christ, he put a new and richer meaning into it. Luther lets us see over and over again that he believed that the only thing worth considering in theology was the divine work of Christ and the experience that we have of it through faith. He did not believe that we have any real knowledge of God outside these limits. Beyond them there is the unknown God of philosophical paganism, the God whom Jews, Turks, pagans, and nominal Christians ignorantly worship. In order to know God it is necessary to know Him through the Jesus Christ of history. Hence with Luther, Christ fills the whole sphere of God: “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,” and conversely: “He that hath not seen Me hath not seen the Father.” The historical Jesus Christ is for Luther the revealer and the only revealer of the Father. The revelation is given in the wonderful experience of faith in which Jesus compels us to see God in Him—the whole of God, Who has kept nothing back which He could have given us. It is very doubtful whether the framers of the old creeds ever grasped this thought. The great expounder of the old theology, Augustine, certainly did not. The failure to enter into it showed itself not merely in the doctrine of God, but also in the theories of grace. With Luther all theology is really Christology; he knew no other God than the God Who had manifested Himself in the historical Christ, and made us see in the miracle of faith that He is our salvation. This at once simplifies all Christian theology and cuts it clearly away from that Scholastic which Luther called “sophistry.” Why need Christians puzzle themselves over the Eternal Something which is not the world when they have the Father? On the old theology the work of Christ was practically limited to procuring the forgiveness of sins. There it ended and other gracious operations of God began—operations of grace. So there grew the complex system of expiations, and satisfactions, of magical sacraments and saints’ intercessions. These were all at once swept away when the whole God was seen revealed in Christ in the vision of faith and nowhere else.

Like Athanasius, Luther found his salvation in the Deity of Christ.

“We must have a Saviour Who is more than a saint or an angel; for if He were no more, better and greater than these, there were no helping us. But if he be God, then the treasure is so ponderous that it outweighs and lifts away sin and death; and not only so, but also gives eternal life. This is our Christian faith, and therefore we rightly confess: ‘I believe in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord, Who was born of Mary, suffered and died.’ By this faith hold fast, and though heathen and heretic are ever so wise thou shalt be blessed.”(427)

He repeats this over and over again. If we cannot say God died for us, if it was only a man who suffered on the cross, then we are lost, was Luther’s firmest conviction; and the thought of the Divinity of Christ meant more to Luther than it did to previous theologians. The old theology had described the two Natures in the One Person of the God-man in such a way as to suggest that the only function of the Divine was to give to the human work of Christ the importance necessary to effect salvation. Luther always refused to adopt this limited way of regarding the Divinity of the Saviour. He did not refuse to adopt and use the _phraseology_ of his predecessors. Like them, he spoke of the two Natures in the One Person of Christ. But it is plain from his expositions of the Creed, and from his criticisms of the current theological terminology, that he did not like the expression. He thought that it suggested an idea that was wrong, and that had to be guarded against. He says that we must beware of thinking as if the deity and humanity in Christ are so externally united that we may look at the one apart from the other.

“This is the first principle and most excellent article how Christ is the Father: that we are not to doubt that whatsoever the man says and does is reckoned and must be reckoned as said and done in heaven for all angels; in the world for all rulers; in hell for all devils; in the heart for every evil conscience and all secret thoughts. For if we are certain of this: that what Jesus thinks, speaks, and wills the Father also wills, then I defy all that may fight against me. For here in Christ have I the Father’s heart and will.”(428)

He brings the thought of the Person of Christ into the closest relation to our personal experience. It is not simply a doctrine—an intellectual something outside us. It is part of that blessed experience which is called Justification by Faith. It is inseparably connected with the recognition that we are not saved by means of the good deeds which we can do, but solely by the work of Christ. It is what makes us cease all work-righteousness and trust in God alone as He has revealed Himself in Christ. When we know and feel that it is God who is working for us, then we instinctively cease trying to think that we can work out our own salvation.(429) Hence the Person of Christ can never be a mere doctrine for the true Christian to be inquired about by the intellect. It is something which we carry about with us as part of our lives.

“To know Christ in the true way means to know that He died for us, that He piled our sins upon Himself, so that we hold all our own affairs as nothing and let them all go, and cling only to the faith that Christ has given Himself for us, and that His sufferings and piety and virtues are all mine. When I know this I must hold Him dear in return, for I must be loving to such a man.”

He insists on the human interest that the Man Jesus Christ has for us, and declares that we must take as much interest in His whole life on earth as in that of our closest friend.

Perhaps it ought to be added, although what has been said implies it, that Luther always approached the Person of Christ from his mediatorial work, and not from any previously thought out ideas of what Godhead must be, and what manhood must be, and how they can be united. He begins with the mediatorial and saving work of Christ as that is revealed in the blessed experience which faith, the gift of God, creates. He rises from, the office to the Person, and does not descend from the Person to the office. “Christ is not called Christ because He has the two Natures. What does that matter to me? He bears this glorious and comforting name because of His Office and Work which He has undertaken.”(430) It is in this way that He becomes the Saviour and the Redeemer.

It can scarcely be said that all the Reformers worked out the conception of the Person of Christ in the same way as Luther, although almost all these thoughts can be found in Calvin, but the overshadowing conception is always present to their mind—Christ fills the full sphere of God. That is the characteristic of Reformation thought and of Reformation piety, and appears everywhere in the writings of the Reformers and in the worship and rites of the Reformed Church. To go into the matter exhaustively would necessitate more space than can be given; but the following instances may be taken as indicating the universal thought.

1. The Reformers swept away every contemplation of intercessors who were supposed to share with our Lord the procuring of pardon and salvation, and they declared against all attempts to distinguish between various kinds of worship which could only lead pious souls astray from the one worship due to God in Christ. Such subtle distinctions, says Calvin, as _latria_, _doulia_, and _hyperdoulia_ are neither known nor present to the minds of those who prostrate themselves before images until the world has become full of idolatry as crude and plain as that of the ancient Egyptians, which all the prophets continuously denounced: they can only mislead, and ought to be discarded. They actually suggest to worshippers to pass by Jesus Christ, the only Mediator, and betake themselves to some patron who has struck their fancy. They bring it about that the Divine Offices are distributed among the saints as if they had been appointed colleagues to our Lord Jesus Christ; and they are made to do His work, while He Himself is kept in the background like some ordinary person in a crowd. They are responsible for the fact that hymns are sung in public worship in which the saints are lauded with every blessing just as if they were colleagues of God.(431)

In conformity with these thoughts, the Confessions of the Reformation all agree in reprobating prayers to the saints. The Augsburg Confession says:

“The Scripture teacheth not to invoke saints, nor to ask the help of saints, because it propoundeth to us one Christ, the Mediator, Propitiatory, High Priest, and Intercessor. This Christ is to be invocated, and He hath promised that He will hear our prayers, and liketh this worship, to wit, that He be invocated in all afflictions. ‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with God, Jesus Christ the righteous’ (1 John ii. 1).”(432)

The Second Helvetic Confession, in its fifth chapter, entitled, _Regarding the adoration, worship, and invocation of God through the One Mediator, Jesus Christ_, lays down the rule that prayer is to be through Christ alone, and the saints and relics are not to be worshipped. And no prayer-book or liturgy in any branch of the Reformed Church contains prayers addressed to any of the saints or to the Blessed Virgin.

2. The Reformers insist on the necessity of Christ and of Christ alone for all believers. Their Confessions abound in expressions which are meant to magnify the Person and Work of Christ, and to show that He fills the whole field of believing thought and worship. The brief Netherlands Confession of 1566 has no less than three separate sections on _Christ the only Mediator and Reconciler_, on _Christ the only Teacher,_ and on _Christ the only High Priest and Sacrifice_.(433) The _Heidelberg_ or _Palatine Catechism_ calls Christ _my faithful Saviour_, and says that we can call ourselves Christians “because by faith we are members of Jesus Christ and partakers of His anointing, so that we both confess His Holy Name and present ourselves unto Him a lively offering of thanksgiving, and in this life may with free conscience fight against sin and Satan, and afterwards possess with Christ an everlasting kingdom over all creatures.” The Scots Confession abounds in phrases intended to honour our Lord Jesus Christ. It calls Him _Messiah_, _Eternal Wisdom_, _Emmanuel_, _our Head_, _Our Brother_, _our Pastor and great Bishop of our souls_, the _Author of Life_, the _Lamb of God_, the _Advocate and Mediator_, and the _Only High Priest_. All the Confessions of the Churches of the Reformation contain the same or similar expressions. The liturgies of the Churches also abound in similar terms of adoration.

3. The Reformers declare that Christ is the _only_ Revealer of God. “We would never recognise the Father’s grace and mercy,” says Luther in his Large Catechism, “were it not for our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the mirror of the Father’s heart.” “We are not affrayed to cal God our Father,” says the Scots Confession, “not sa meikle because He has created us, quhilk we have in common with the reprobate, as for that He has given us His onely Son.” The instructions issued by the Synod which met at Bern in 1532 are very emphatic upon this thought, as may be seen from the headings of the various articles: (Art. 2) That the whole doctrine is the unique Christ (_Das die gantze leer der eynig Christus sye_); (Art. 3) That God is revealed to the people in Christ alone; (Art. 5) That the gracious God is perceived through Christ alone without any mediation; (Art. 6) A Christian sermon is entirely about and from Christ. It is said under the third article: “His Son in Whom we see the work of God and His Fatherly heart toward us ... which is not the case where the preacher talks much about God in the heathen manner, and does not exhibit the same God in the face of Christ.”(434) The Confessions also unite in declaring that the gift of the Holy Spirit comes from Christ.

4. The conception that Christ filled the whole sphere of God, which was for the Reformers a fundamental and experimental fact, enabled them to construct a spiritual doctrine of the sacraments which they opposed to that held in the mediæval Church. Of course, it was various theories about the sacraments which caused the chief differences among the Reformers themselves; but apart from all varying ideas—consubstantiation, ubiquity, signs exhibiting and signs representing—the Reformers united on the thoughts that the efficacy in the sacraments depended entirely on the promises of Christ contained in His word, and that the virtue in the sacraments consisted in the presence of Christ to the believing communicant. What was received in the sacraments was not a vague, mysterious, not to say magical, grace, but Christ Jesus Himself. He gave Himself in the sacraments in whatever way His presence might be explained.

They all taught that the efficacy of the sacraments depends upon the promise of Christ contained in their institution, and they insisted that word and sacrament must always be taken together. Thus Luther points out in the _Babylonish Captivity of the Church_ that one objection to the Roman practice is that the recipients “never hear the words of the promise which are secretly mumbled by the priest,” and exhorts his readers never to lose sight of the all-important connection between the word of promise and the sacraments; and in his Large Catechism he declares that the sacraments include the Word. “I exhort you,” he says, “never to sunder the Word and the water, or to separate them. For where the Word is withheld we have only such water as the maid uses to cook with.” Non-Lutheran Confessions are equally decided on the necessity of connecting the promise and the words of Christ with the sacraments. The Thirty-nine Articles declare that the sacraments are effectual because of “Christ’s institution and promise.” The Heidelberg or Palatine Catechism (1563) says that the sacraments “are holy and visible signs ordained of God, to the end that He might thereby the more fully declare and seal unto us the _promise_ of the Holy Gospel.”

Similarly the Reformers unanimously declared that the virtue in the sacraments consisted in no mysterious grace, but in the fact that in them believing partakers met and received Christ Himself. In the articles of the Bern Synod (1532) we are told that the sacraments are mysteries of God, “through which from without Christ is proffered to believers.” The First Helvetic Confession (1536) says, concerning the Holy Supper, “we hold that in the same the Lord truly offers His Body and His Blood, that is, Himself, to His own.” The Second Helvetic Confession (1562) declares that “the Body of Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father,” and enjoins communicants “to lift up their hearts and not to direct them downwards to the bread. For as the sun, though absent from us in the heaven, is none the less efficaciously present ... so much more the Sun of righteousness absent from us in the heavens in His Body, is present to us not indeed corporeally, but spiritually by a life-giving activity.” The French Confession of 1557 says that the sacraments are pledges and seals, and adds, “Yet we hold that their substance and truth is in Jesus Christ.” So the Scots Confession of 1560 declares that “we assuredlie beleeve that be Baptisme we ar ingrafted in Christ Jesus to be made partakers of His justice, be quhilk our sinnes ar covered and remitted. And alswa, that in the Supper richtlie used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that Hee becummis very nurishment and fude of our saules.” In the _Manner of the Administration of the Lord’s Supper_ the Scottish Reformation Church directed the minister in his exhortation to say to the people: “The end of our coming to the Lord’s Table ... is to seek our life and perfection in Jesus Christ, acknowledging ourselves at the same time to be children of wrath and condemnation. Let us consider then that this sacrament is a singular medicine for all poor sick creatures, a comfortable help to weak souls, and that our Lord requireth no other worthiness on our part, but that we unfeignedly acknowledge our naughtiness and imperfection.”

Everywhere in prayer, worship, and teaching the Reformers see Christ filling the whole sphere of God. Jesus was God appearing in history and addressing man.

§ 6. The Church.

In the Epistles of St. Paul, the Church of Christ stands forth as a _fellowship_ which is both divine and human. On the side of the divine it is a fellowship with Jesus, its crucified, risen, and ascended Lord; on the human, it is a fellowship among men who stand in the same relation to Jesus. This fellowship with Jesus and with the brethren is the secret of the Church—what expresses it, what makes it different from all other fellowships. Every other characteristic which belongs to it must be coloured by this thought of a double fellowship. It is the double relation which makes it difficult to construct a conception of the Church. It is easy to feel it as an experience, but it has always been found hard to express it in propositions.

It does not require much elaborate thinking to construct a theory of the Church which will be true to all that is said about the fellowship on its divine side; nor is it very difficult to think of a great visible and historical organisation which in some external aspects represents the Christian fellowship, provided the hidden union with Christ, so prominent in St. Paul’s descriptions, be either entirely neglected or explained in external and material ways. The difficulty arises when both the divine and the human sides of the fellowship are persistently and earnestly kept in view.

It is always hard to explain the unseen by the seen, the eternal by the temporal, and the divine by the human; and the task is almost greater than usual when the union of these two elements in the Church of Christ is the theme of discussion. It need not surprise us, therefore, that all down through the Middle Ages there appear, not one, but two conceptions of the Christian Church which never harmonised. On the one side, the Church was thought of as a fellowship of God with man, depending on the inscrutable purpose of God, and independent of all visible outward organisation; on the other, it was a great society which existed in the world of history, and was held together by visible political ties like other societies. Augustine had both conceptions, and the dialectical skill of the great theologian of the West was unable to fuse them into one harmonious whole.

These two separate, almost mutually exclusive, ideas of what the Church of Christ was, lived side by side during the Middle Ages in the same unconnected fashion. The former, the spiritual Church with its real but unseen fellowship with Christ, was the pre-eminently religious thought. It was the ground on which the most conspicuous mediæval piety rested. It was the garden in which bloomed the flowers of mediæval mystical devotion. The latter was built up by the juristic dialectic of Roman canonists into the conception that the Church was a visible hierarchical State having a strictly monarchical constitution—its king being the Bishop of Rome, who was the visible representative of Christ. This conception became almost purely political. It was the active force in all ecclesiastical struggles with princes and peoples, with Reformers, and with so-called heretics and schismatics. It reduced the Church to the level of the State, and contained little to stimulate to piety or to holy living.

The labours of the great Schoolmen of the thirteenth century did try to transform this political Church into what might represent the double fellowship with Christ and with fellow-believers which is so prominent a thought in the New Testament. They did so by attempting to show that the great political Church was an enclosure containing certain indefinite mysterious powers of redemption which saved men who willingly placed themselves within the sphere of their operation. They maintained that the core of the hierarchical constitution of the Church was the priesthood, and that this priesthood was a species of plastic medium through which, and through which alone, God worked in dispensing, by means of the sacraments entrusted to the priesthood, His saving grace. It may be questioned whether the thought of the Church as an institution, possessing within itself certain mysterious redemptive powers which are to be found nowhere else, was ever thoroughly harmonised with that which regarded it as a mass of legal statutes embodied in canon law and dominated by papal absolutism. The two conceptions remained distinct, mutually aiding each other, but never exactly coalescing. Thus in the sixteenth century no less than three separate ideas of the Church of Christ were present to fill the minds and imaginations of men; but the dominant idea for the practical religious life was certainly that which represented the Church as an institution which, because it possessed the priesthood, was the society within which salvation was to be found.

Luther had enjoyed to the full the benefits of this society, and had with ardour and earnestness sought to make use of all its redemptive powers. He had felt, simply because he was so honest with himself, that it had not made him a real Christian, and that its mysterious powers had worked on him in vain. His living Christian experience made him know and feel that whatever the Church of Christ was, it was not a society within which priests exercised their secret science of redemption. It was and must be a fellowship of holy and Christlike people; but he felt it very difficult to express his experience in phrases that could satisfy him. It was hard to get rid of thoughts which he had cherished from childhood, and none of these inherited beliefs had more power over him than the idea that the Church, however described, was the Pope’s House in which the Bishop of Rome ruled, and ought to rule, as house-father. It is interesting to study by what devious paths he arrived at a clear view of what the Church of Christ really is;(435) to notice how shreds of the old opinions which had lain dormant in his mind every now and then start afresh into life; and how, while he had learnt to know the uselessness of many institutions of the mediæval Church, he could not easily divest his mind of the thought that they naturally belonged to a Church Visible. Monastic vows, the celibacy of the clergy, fasting, the hierarchy, the supremacy of the Pope, the power of excommunication with all its dreaded consequences, were all the natural accompaniments of a Visible Church according to mediæval ideas, and Luther relinquished them with difficulty. From the first, Augustine’s thought of the Church, which consists of the elect, helped him; he found that Huss held the same idea, and he wrote to a friend that “we have been all Hussites without knowing it.”(436) But while Luther and all the Reformers held strongly by this conception of Augustine, it was not of very much service in determining the conception of the Visible Church which was the more important practically; and although the definition of the Catholic Church Invisible has found its way into most Protestant Confessions, and has been used by Protestants polemically, it has always remained something of a background, making clearer the conception of the Church in general, but has been of little service in giving clear views of what the Church Visible is. From the very first, however, Luther saw in a certain indefinite way that there was a real connection between the conception of the Visible Church and the proclamation of the Word of God—a thought which was destined to grow more and more definite till it completely possessed him. As early as October 1518, he could inform Cajetan that the Pope must be under the rule of the Word of God and not superior to it.(437) His discovery that the communion of the saints (_communio sanctorum_) was not necessarily a hierarchy (_ecclesia prælatorum_),(438) was made soon afterwards. After the Leipzig Disputation his views became clearer, and by 1520 they stood revealed in the three great Reformation treatises.

Luther’s doctrine of the Church is extremely simple. The Church is, as the Creed defines it to be, the _Communion of the Saints_, which has come into existence through the proclamation of the Word of God heard and received by faith. He simplified this fundamental Christian conception in a wonderful way. The Church rests on the sure and stable foundation of the Word of God; and this Word of God is not a weary round of statutes issued blasphemously by the Bishops of Rome in God’s name. It is not the invitations of a priesthood to come and share mysterious and indefinite powers of salvation given to them in their command over the sacraments. It is not a lengthy doctrinal system constructed out of detached texts of Holy Scripture by the application of a fourfold sense used under the guidance of a dogmatic tradition or a rule of faith. It is the substance of the Scriptures. It is the “gospel according to a pure understanding.” It is the “promises of God”; “the testimony of Jesus, Who is the Saviour of souls”; it is the “consolations offered in Christ.” It is, as Calvin said, “the spiritual gate whereby we enter into God’s heavenly kingdom”; the “mirror in which faith beholds God.” It is, according to the Westminster Confession, the sum of God’s commands, threatenings, promises, and, above all, the offer of Christ Jesus. All these things are apprehended by faith. The Church comes into existence by faith responding to the proclamation of the Word of God. This is the sure and stable thing upon which the Church of Christ is founded.

The Church of Christ, therefore, is a body of which the Spirit of Jesus is the soul. It is a company of Christlike men and women, whom the Holy Spirit has called, enlightened, and sanctified through the preaching of the word; who are encouraged to look forward to a glorious future prepared for the people of God; and who, meanwhile, manifest their faith in all manner of loving services done to their fellow-believers.

The Church is therefore in some sense invisible. Its secret is its hidden fellowship with Jesus. Its roots penetrate the unseen, and draw from thence the nourishment needed to sustain its life. But it is a visible society, and can be seen wherever the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed, and wherever faith is manifested in testimony and in bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit.

This is the essential mode of describing the Church which has found place in the Reformation creeds. Some vary in the ways in which they express the thought; some do not sufficiently distinguish, in words at least, between what the Church is and what it has, between what makes its being and what is included in its well-being. But in all there are the two thoughts that the Church is made visible by the two fundamental things—the proclamation of the word and the manifestation of faith.

This mode of describing the Church of Christ defines it by that element which separates it from all other forms of human association—its special relation to the divine; and it is shown to be visible at the place where that divine element can and does manifest itself. It defines the Church by its most essential element, and sets aside all that is accidental. It concerns itself with what the Church is, and does not include what the Church has. It therefore provides room for all things which belong to the well-being of the Church—only it relegates them to their proper place.(439)

If the proclamation of the Word of God, and the manifestation of the faith which answers, be the essence of the Church, all that tends to aid both is to be included in the thought. There must be a ministry of some sort in word and sacrament instituted within the Church of Christ in order to lead the individual to faith. God has created this ministry, and all the Reformed Churches were careful to declare that no one should seek entrance into office unless he was assured that he had been called of God thereto; and as his function is to be a minister of the Church and a servant of the faithful, no one “should publicly teach or administer the sacraments unless he be duly called (_nisi rite vocatus_).” Such a ministry has its field simply in ministering the means of grace. “The Church of Christ,” says Luther, “requires an honest ministry diligently and loyally instructed in the holy Word of God after a pure Christian understanding, and without the addition of any false traditions. In and through such a ministry it will be made plain what are Christ and His Evangel, how to attain to the forgiveness of sins, and the properties and power of the _keys_ in the Church.”

All this is matter of administration. Some societies of believers may have different ideas about the precise form that this ministry ought to take; but such differences, while they may lead to separate administrations, do not imply any separation from the one Catholic Church of Christ to which they all belong. However outwardly they differ, all retain the essential things—the preaching and teaching of the Word of God and the due administration of the sacraments. Some may prefer to set forth a creed of one kind and others may prefer another. The French, the Scottish, and the Dutch Churches had all their own creeds, and all believed each other to be parts of the same One Catholic Church of Christ.

“When we affirm,” says Calvin, “the pure ministry of the Word, and our order in the celebration of the Sacraments, to be a sufficient pledge and earnest that we may safely embrace the society in which both these are found as a true Church, we carry the observation to this point, that such a society should never be rejected as long as it continues in these things, although it may be chargeable in other respects with many errors.”(440)

Within this Christian fellowship, which is the Church of Christ, the sense by which we see God is awakened and our faith is nourished and quickened. The Word of God speaks to us not merely in the public worship of the faithful, but in and through the lives of the brethren; their deeds act on us as the simple stories of experience and providence which the Scriptures contain. God’s Word speaks to us in a thousand ways in the lives and sympathies of the brethren. The Christian “receives the revelation of God in the living relationships of the Christian brotherhood, and its essential contents are that personal life of Jesus which is visible in the gospel and which is expounded by the lives of the redeemed.”(441)

“The Christian Church,” says Luther, “keeps all words of God in its heart, and turns them round and round, and keeps their connection with one another and with Scripture! Therefore, anyone who is to find Christ must first find the Church. How could anyone know where Christ is and faith in Him is, unless he knew where His believers are? Whoever wishes to know something about Christ must not trust to himself, nor by the help of his own reason build a bridge of his own to heaven, but must go to the Church, must visit it and make inquiry. Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of people who believe in Christ. With these he must unite and see how they believe, live, and teach, who assuredly have Christ among them. For outside the Christian Church there is no truth, no Christ, no blessedness.”(442)

For these reasons the Church deserves to be called, and is, the Mother of all Christians.

INDEX.

Abbots, election of, 24.

Absolutism, papal, 14, 265.

_Acta Augustana_, 233.

_Address to the Nobility of the German Nation_, 141, 143, 242 _f._, 257.

Adelmann, Bernard, named in the first Bull against Luther, 249 and _n._

Adriatic, the, the boundary between Christian and Moslem, 19.

Æneas Sylvius, on the wealth of German burghers, 86.

Africa, North, 18; 85.

_Against the execrable Bull of Antichrist_, 249.

_Against the thieving, murdering hordes of Peasants_, 336.

Agricola, John, 390.

Agricola, Rudolph, 58.

Agricola, Stephan, 353.

Aichili, provost-marshal of the Swabian League, murders Lutheran pastors, 340.

D’Ailly, Peter, 199 _f._, 254.

Alber, Matthew, 310, 391.

Aleander, Jerome (Roman nuncio),— on the devotion of Germany to Rome, 115; at the Diet of Worms, 261 _ff._; his education, 262; his letters to Rome, 262. _ff_.; his estimate of Charles V., 263; his task at the Diet of Worms, 263; his address to the Diet, 270; drafted the Ban against Luther, 298; 259, 267 _n._, 269, 271, 275 _f._, 279, 282, 283 and _n._, 285, 288, 291 _n._, 293, 295, 386.

Alexander of Hales on Indulgences, 219, 221 _f._

Alpersbach, Petreius, 66.

Alstedt, 330.

Altenberg, 318.

Amsdorf, Nicholas, 211 _n._, 275, 317.

Anabaptists, 339, 366; and Humanists, 156.

Andreæ, Laurentius, 422, 424.

Angelico, Fra, 49.

Anhalt, Prince of, 346, 363, 373.

Anjou, province of, 23.

Anna, Saint, “the Grandmother,” cult of, 135 _f._, 138.

Annaberg, town of, Indulgence-seller at, 213.

_Annates_, 12, 17, 24 _f._, 245, 321.

Anne of Beaujeu, 23.

Anselm of Lucca, 2.

Anthony, Duke of Lorraine, 334, 338.

Anti-Hapsburg feeling in Germany, 350, 370, 374, 376.

_Apology for the Augsburg Confession, The_, 367.

_Apostles’ Creed_, 365, 468, 484.

Apostolic Succession, 403.

Aquinas. See _Thomas_.

Aragon, 27.

Argyropoulos, John, 48, 68.

Aristotle, a forerunner of Christ, 56; influence on mediæval thinking, 449; disliked by the Humanists, 57; disliked by Luther, 206, 469.

Armstrong, Edward, quoted, 264 n.

Art, German, and popular life, 62.

Arthur, Prince of Wales, 21.

_Articles_: _the Twelve_, 331 _ff_., 336, 337; _the Marburg_, 353, 359; _the Swabach_, 359, 367; _the Schmalkald_, 374, 467 _n._, 468; _the Bern_, 478.

Artisan life, 80 _ff._; artisan capitalists in England, 21.

Artists, German, and the Reformation, 307; belonged to the burgher class, 86.

_Artushöfe_, 86.

Asia Minor, 18.

_Ass, Feast of the_, 120.

Astrologists in the beginning of the sixteenth century, 129.

Athanasius and Luther, 433, 470, 471 and _n._, 473.

_Attrition_, the doctrine of, 201, 219, 222 _f._; taught by John of Palz, an Augustinian Eremite theologian, 138, 199, 201.

Augsburg, city of, 234, 320, 322, 353, 391; the Humanist circle of, 60 _f._; the _Brethren_ in, 152. See _Diet_.

_Augsburg Confession (Augustana)_, 147 _f._, 363, 365 _ff._, 396, 399, 403.

_Augsburg Interim_, 266, 390 ff.

_Augsburg Religious Peace,_, 395 _ff._; international consequences of, 398 _n._

Augustine, the papal claim to universal supremacy and, 3; influence on mediæval theology, 449; disliked by the Humanists, 167, 185; his influence on Luther, 203, 207, 211, 433, 436.

Augustinian Eremites, 137 _ff._, 146; their theology not Augustine’s, 138, 199 _f._, 229; their chapter at Heidelberg, 230; most of them accept Luther’s teaching, 305.

Augustus, Elector of Saxony, 395.

Avignon, the Popes at, 5.

_Babylonian Captivity of the Church_, 241 _f._, 266 _n._, 282 _n._, 306.

_Ban, the_, against Luther, 297 _ff._ See _Worms, Edict of_.

Barclay, Alexander, the _Ship of Fools_, 17 _n._

Basel, city of, 310; Council of, see _Councils_.

Baths in the Middle Ages served as a life-school for artists, 88.

_Bauernmeister_, the, 92.

Bavaria, the Dukes of, 319, 325, 370, 376.

Bebel, Heinrich, 67.

Beer, Einbecker, 277 _n._, 293.

Beggars, ecclesiastical, 142.

Begging, a Christian virtue, 142.

Beguines and Beguine-houses, 116, 142.

Beham, Hans Sebaldus, artist, 62.

Beheim, Hans, supposed to have abducted Luther, 295.

Belgrade, 19.

Bernard of Clairvaux, 125, 205, 209, 433 and _n._

Bessarion, Cardinal, 48 _f._

Bible, translations of the, into the vernacular, 149 _f._, 174, 387, 402. See _Scripture_.

_Biblia Pauperum_, 117.

Biel, Gabriel, 55, 196, 199.

Bigamy of Philip of Hesse, 380 _ff._

Bishops, modes of electing, 8, 24.

Black Death, the, in England, 20, 440.

Boccaccio, 47.

Böhm, Hans, and the socialist revolts, 99 _ff._, 135.

Bologna, University of, 64; a great Law School, 2; city of, 360.

Bonaventura on Indulgences, 221, 224.

Bonzio, Cardinal, 2.

Books in the German language due to the Reformation, 300.

Bosnia, 19.

Bourges, Concordat of, 11.

Brand, Sebastian, author of _Narrenschiff_, quoted, 17; on usury, 84; on the Niklashausen pilgrims, 102; on the diffusion of Scripture, 151 _n._; 52, 58, 118.

Brandenburg, the Elector of, Joachim I. (1499-1535), 341; Joachim II. (1535-1571), _Fat old Interim_, 377, 383, 395, 396; Margrave of, George, 326, 346, 362, 373; Margrave of Brandenburg-Culmbach, Albert Alcibiades, 383, 393; Albert of (brother of Joachim I.), Archbishop of Mainz, see _Mainz_; Albert of (brother of Margrave George), secularises his principality, becomes Duke of East Prussia and a Protestant, 326; province of, peasants die of starvation, 111; secular administration of the Church in fifteenth century, 140.

Brask, Johan, Bishop of Linkoeping, 423.

Braunfells, Otto, 306.

Bremen, an episcopal State, 81, 320, 373.

Brenz, John, 353, 391, 392.

Breslau, _the students’ paradise_, 53, 378.

_Brethren of the Common Lot_, the, 51 _ff._; their relation to the praying circles of the German Mystics, 154.

_Brethren, the_, mediæval evangelical nonconformists, 150, 152 _ff._; distributed devotional literature, 155.

_Brethren of St. Anthony_, 143.

_Brethren of St. James (Jacobs-Brüder)_, 134.

Brissmann, John, 305.

_Brotherhood, the Evangelical_, 329, 334.

_Brotherhoods_ in the fifteenth century, the Blessed Virgin, 135; of St. Anna, the Grandmother, 136; of the Eleven Thousand Virgins (_St. Ursula’s Schifflein_), 145; among the artisans, 146; the Holy Brotherhood (_Hermandad_) of Spain, 28.

Brück, Dr. Gregory, Chancellor of Electoral Saxony, 266 _n._, 276, 278, 363, 366, 369.

Brunswick, the city of, churches in, 116.

Bucer, Martin, the Reformer of Strassburg, 284, 306, 310, 353, 374, 380, 391.

Bugenhagen, John, 306.

Bulls, papal, _Execrabilis et pristinis_, 5; _Pastor Æternus_, 5; _Inter cetera divinæ_, 5; this Bull bestowed the continent of America upon Ferdinand and Isabella, 5 _n._; _Unam Sanctam_, 1 _n._, 4; _Exurge Domine_, the first Bull against Luther, 247 _f._; _Decet Romanum_, the second Bull against Luther, 267 _n._

_Bundschuh League, the_, peasant risings under, 103 _ff._, 110; the banner, 103, 105; the watchword of revolt, 296.

Burchard, John, 16.

_Bürgerrecht, Das christliche_, 350.

Burgmaier, Hans, artist, 67.

Burgundy, the district of, 21; the Duke of, see _Charles the Bold_.

Burkhardt, George, of Spelt. See _Spalatinus_.

Burning the Pope’s Bull, 251.

Burning heretics, 248; heretical books, 259, 264, 299.

Busch, Hermann von, 52, 67.

Butzbach, Johann (a wandering student), 55.

Cadan, peace of, 377, 379.

Cajetan, Thomas de Vio, Cardinal, 232, 247, 252, 303.

Calabria, Greek spoken in, 46.

Calvin, John, and St. Anna, 136; and Dean Colet, 165; and the Augsburg Confession, 365; on the doctrine of Scripture, 462, 465, 467 _n._; _the impious mysteries of Calvin_, 398 _n._; 475, 476.

Campeggio, Lorenzo, papal nuncio, 184, 322, 361, 370.

Canon Law, based on the _Decretum_ of Gratian, 2.

Canterbury, Archbishop of, 12, 349.

Capitalist class, rise of a, 83.

Capito, Wolfgang, 309.

Cappel, battle of (Zwingli slain), 374.

Caraccioli, Marino, papal nuncio, 262, 297.

Carlstadt, Andrew Bodenstein of, 211 _n._, 237, 249, 308; and the Wittenberg “tumult,” 311 _ff._; dispenses the Lord’s Supper in evangelical fashion, 313; responsible for the "_Wittenberg Ordinance_," 314, 316, 320, 337; on the Lord’s Supper, 356, cf. 313; in Denmark, 419.

Castile, consolidation of, 27 _f._

Catalonia, 27.

Catechism of Dietrich Kolde, 126.

Catechism of the _Brethren_, 155.

Catechisms of the Reformation: Luther’s Small Catechism, 408, 472; adopted in Denmark, 421; Luther’s Large Catechism, 472; the Heidelberg, 477, 479.

_Catholic Church_, term not conceded to Romanists, 404.

Celibacy of the clergy, 312, 343.

Celtes, Conrad, Humanist, 67; on the diffusion of Scripture, 151.

Chancery, rules of the Roman (contain lists of prices of benefices), 10.

Charitable foundations placed under lay management, 143.

Charity in the Middle Ages, 141 _ff._

Charles V., Emperor, 37, 184, 334, 341; elected to the Empire, 40; crowned at Aachen, 262; held his first Diet at Worms, 262 _ff._; the real antagonist of Luther, 264; _a good child_, 263; his confession of faith, 264 _f._, 293 _f._; his conception of the Church, 265; differences between himself and the Diet about Luther, 267 _n._, 270 _f._, 272, 276 _ff._; asks for Luther’s condemnation, 293; regrets that he did not burn Luther, 295; his views of the religious question in Germany, 360, 389; at the Diet of Augsburg (1530), 359 _ff._; resolves to crush the Reformation by force, 360; finds it difficult to do so, 370; his idea of a true reformation, 375; conquers the Duke of Cleves, 382; makes peace with France, 383; forces the Pope to convoke a Council, 383; defeats the German Protestants, 389 _f._; his religious compromise, the _Augsburg Interim_, 390; forced to flee from Germany, 393; abdicates, 395.

Charles VI. of France, 22.

Charles VII. of France, 22.

Charles VIII. of France, 26.

Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy 23, 37, 98 _f._, 109.

_Cheese-hunters_, 143 _f._, 302.

Chieregati, Francesco, Papal Nuncio, 321.

CHRIST, THE PERSON OF, Luther adopted the doctrinal definitions of the old Catholic Church, 468, 470, 472 _f._; did not like the terminology, 471; the two Natures in, 474; Luther put new meaning into the old definitions, 472, 474; with the Reformers, Christ fills the whole sphere of God, 460, 472 _ff._, 478, 480; He is the _only_ Mediator, 476; He is the efficacy and the virtue in the sacraments, 478; His divinity to be reached from His work, 475; a part of the religious experience, 474 _f._, 478.

Christian II., King of Denmark, 418.

Christian III., King of Denmark, 420.

Christendom, small extent at the time of the Reformation, 18 _f._

Christianity, the sum of, 430; how to express it, 431.

Christopher of Utenheim, Bishop of Basel, 257.

Chrysoloras, Manuel, 47.

CHURCH OF CHRIST, _doctrine of the_, a double fellowship, 480; three conceptions of, in the mediæval Church, 481, 482; and priesthood with the sacraments, 482, cf. 438 _f._; Luther’s difficulties in conceiving a, 483; his final conception of, 484; both Visible and Invisible, 485; made Visible by the proclamation of the Word and the manifestation of Faith, 485 _ff._; ministry in the, 486. Mediæval, 1 _ff._, 31. _The Pope’s House_, 11, 194, 205, 235, 483. States of the, 32 _f._ A national German, 36, 324.

Churches (buildings), innumerable in Germany, 115; full of treasures, 116.

CHURCHES, LUTHERAN TERRITORIAL, 343, 387; principles according to which they were organised, 400 _ff._; duties belonging to the Christian fellowship, 401; attempted organisations before the Peasants’ War, 401 _f._; Saxon Visitations, 405 _ff._; _Consistorial Courts_, 410, 412, 413, 415; ecclesiastical _circles_, 411; _Superintendents_, 404, 411; _Synods_, 413.

_Civitas Dei_ of Augustine, 2 _f._

Claims of the Mediæval Papacy, 1 _f._

Clergy and laity, 243, 443 _f._

Cleves, Duke of, 382.

Coburg, Luther at, 369.

Cochlæus, Johannes, R.C. theologian († 1552), 185, 368.

Colet, John, Dean of St. Paul’s, 22, 163 _ff._; travels in Italy, 164; lectures at Oxford on St. Paul’s Epistles, 164, 209; rejected the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, 165; sermon before Convocation, 165 _f._; his idea of a true reformation, 166; dislike to the Scholastic Theology, 167; studies Dionysius the Areopagite, 169; his views on the priesthood and the sacraments, 170 _f._

Collin, Rudolph (at the Marburg Colloquy), 353.

Cologne, the city of, its churches and ecclesiastical buildings, 116; Luther’s books burnt at, 259.

Columbus, Christopher, 85.

_Concord, the Wittenberg_, 377.

Concordats, 11, 24.

Concubinage of priests, 246.

Confession, auricular, 218, 220.

_Confessions_ of the Reformation, Confessio Augustana (1530) or Augsburg Confession, 364 _f._, 435, 467 _n._, 468, 476; adopted in Denmark, 420; Confession Tetrapolitana (1530), 368; Zurich Articles (1523), 468 _n._; Scots Confession (1560), 465, 468 _n._, 477, 478, 480; First Helvetic Confession (1536), 467 _n._, 479; Geneva Confession (1536), 468 _n._; Second Helvetic Confession (1562), 468 _n._, 477, 479; French Confession (1539), 468, 479; Belgic Confession (1561), 468 _n._; Netherlands Confession (1566), 477; the Instruction of Bern (1532), 478; the Thirty-nine Articles (1563, 1571), 468 _n._, 479; Formula Concordiæ, 425.

_Confraternities_. See _Brotherhoods_.

_Consistorial Courts_, mediæval, 412.

_Consistories_ in the Lutheran Church, their beginnings, 410; of Wittenberg, 412-415.

Consolidation, the political idea of the Renaissance, 19, 43.

Constance, the city, 309, 346, 368; Council of. See _Council_.

Constantinople, 19.

_Constitutiones Johanninæ_, 9.

Continuity of the religious life during the Reformation period, 122.

_Contritio_, 201, 222 _f._

Copernicus, 42.

Cordus, Curicius, Humanist, 255.

_Corpus Christi Processions_, 119, 362.

Cotta, Frau, 195, 427.

COUNCIL, A GENERAL, the seat of authority in the Church, 265; demanded, 342; Charles V. resolves upon a, 372, 383; of Basel, 6, 23, 140, 254, 259; of Constance, 140, 226, 254, 259, 268, 290; of Trent, 148, 225, 383, 455.

Council, a German, 321, 323 _f._, 379.

Cradle hymn, a, 121.

Cranach, Lucas, 63, 308, 369.

Cromwell, Thomas, 374.

Crotus Rubeanus (Johann Jaeger of Dornheim), a Humanist, 66, 75, 255.

_Cujus regio ejus religio_, 397.

_Cup, the_, for the laity, 343, 437.

Curia, the Roman, the universal court of ecclesiastical appeal, 14 _f._; sale of offices in, 15; counted on the devotion of the Germans, 115; 245, 255, 265 _f._, 321, 332 _n._

Cusanus, Cardinal Nicholas, 57 _f._

Cuspinian of Vienna, Luther writes to him from Worms, 283.

Dalmatia, 19.

Dante and the Renaissance, 47.

Dantzig, churches in, 116.

_Decretals_, forged, 2; Luther studies the, 235.

_Decretum_ of Gratian, 2, 44.

Denmark, Reformation in, 388, 418, 420.

Deusdedit, a canonist, 2.

_Deutsche Theologie_, 155.

Deventer, the school at, 51, 64.

Devotional literature circulated by the _Brethren_, 155.

DIET, the feudal Council of the German Empire, of Worms (1521), 262 _ff._, 267, 278, 284 _ff._, 296 _f._, 304, 341; of Nürnberg (1522-23), 321, 403; of Speyer (1524), 324, 403; of Augsburg (1525), 341; of Speyer (1526), 341, 398, 403, 404, 415; of Speyer (1529), 345, 396; of Augsburg (1530), 360, 363 _ff._; of Nürnberg (1532), 374 _f._; of Augsburg (1555), 395 _ff._

Dionysius the Areopagite, 169.

_Dispensations_, fees for, 13, 382 _n._

Disputations, university, 311 _f._

Dominican Order, 70, 137, 306, 321.

Dominicans demand the destruction of Hebrew literature, 70 _f._

_Donation of Constantine_, 49.

_Dormi secure_, 117.

Dringenberg, Ludwig, 52.

Drinking habits of the Germans, 87 _f._

Dunkeld, disputed succession in the See of, 10.

Dürer, Albert, 31, 62, 63, 88, 90; appeals to Erasmus, 188; on Luther’s piety, 191; his admiration for Luther, 256; grief at report of Luther’s death, 296.

Eberlin of Gunzberg, John, controversial writer, 304 _f._, 310.

Ebernberg, the, castle of Francis V., Sickingen, 262, 273.

_Eccius dedolatus_, 249 _n._

Eck, John, Official of the Archbishop of Trier, 278, 280, 281, 283, 285, 290.

Eck, John Mayr of, professor at Ingolstadt, 235 _f._, 247, 303, 368.

Economic changes at the close of the Middle Ages, 43, 80 _f._, 108 _f._

Egypt, 18.

Ehrenberg, the Pass of, 393.

Eisenach, 193, 198.

Eisleben, 193, 385.

Electors, the German, 35, 270; accustomed to exercise the _jus episcopale_, 140.

Elizabeth, Queen of England, 6 _n._, 398 _n._

Elizabeth, St., 195, 198.

Elsass and the Peasants’ War, 334, 338.

Emmerich, school at, 52.

Emser, Jerome, 185, 337.

Emperor, the Vicar of God, 31.

Empire, German, elective, 35; attempts to frame a Common Council (_Reichsregiment_), 36 _f._; extent of the, 36.

England, consolidation of, under the Tudors, 7, 20.

Eoban of Hesse (Helius Eobanus Hessus), 66, 255.

Episcopate weakened by the Papacy, 14.

_Epistolæ obscurorum virorum_, 67, 72 _f._, 74.

_Erasmici_, 255.

Erasmus, 52, 67, 71, 74, 156, 164, 171, 266 _n._, 273, 288, 299; a typical Christian Humanist, 172; visit to England, 172, 177; his conception of a reformation, 172 _ff._; his _Christian Philosophy_, 173; desire for the Scriptures in the vernacular, 174; _Sancte Socrates, ora pro nobis_, 175, 253; dislike to Augustinian theology, 167, 185; writings in aid of the Reformation, 179; on saint worship, 180; on the monastic life, 180 _f._, estimate of Luther, 185, 253, 301.

Erfurt, University of, 56, 64; its foundation, 195; theology, 196.

_Erfurt Tumult, the_, 305.

Eric, King of Denmark, 417.

_Evangelical Brotherhood_, 329, 334.

Evangelical life at the close of the Middle Ages, 124.

Excommunication of princes and its consequences, 6 and _n._, 398 _n._

Exile at Avignon, papal, 5.

Fagius, Paul, 391.

FAITH, the religious faculty which throws itself upon God, 429, 436, 438, 458; an active and living thing, 431; rests on the historic Christ, 446; good works are the sign of, 431; is the gift of God, 429, 430; depends on promise, 441, 460; enables us to see the meaning of the historic work of Christ, 446; what it lays hold of in repentance, 452; is personal trust in a personal Saviour, 203, 459; the conceptions of Faith and of Scripture always correspond, 461; is needed to apprehend infallibility, 464, 465, 466; creates a natural unity in Scripture, 455, 459; two kinds of, 429, 445; mediæval conception of, _a frigida opinio_, 429; is intellectual, 430, 461; and reason in the Scholastic Theology, 469. See _Justification_.

Family religion at the close of the Middle Ages, 121 _ff._

Famine years in Germany, 110 _ff._

_Fastnachtspiele_, 54, 90.

Ferdinand of Aragon, 5, 6, 27, 29, 30.

Ferdinand of Austria, 278, 319, 322, 342, 360, 394.

Festivals, Church, 119 _ff._, 141, 246.

Feudalism in England, 20.

Five Nations, the, 19 _ff._

Five powers of Italy, 31 _f._

Florence, 32 _f._

Florentius Radewynsohn, 51.

Folk-songs of Germany, 67, 90, 94, 99, 109.

_Fondaco dei Tedeschi_ at Venice, 83.

Forest laws, severity of, 108.

Forgeries, papal, 2, 235.

France, 7, 18, 19, 20, 22 _ff._, 31; not a compact nation, 25; trade in, 25.

Francis of Assisi, 125, 142, 158, 203, 433, 435.

Francis I. of France, 25, 184, 265, 342, 345.

Frank, Sebastian, his chronicle, 107.

Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 40, 87.

Frederick, Elector of Saxony. See _Saxony_.

Frederick III., Emperor, 37.

Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein, King of Denmark, 419.

Free Nobles of Germany, 83.

Frundsberg, General, 279.

_Friends of God (Gottesfreunde)_, 51, 154.

_Frigida opinio_, 429.

Fritz, Joss, founder of the Bundschuh League, 104, 135.

Froben, the Basel printer; printed Luther’s works, 256; printed the copies of Luther’s works produced at the Diet of Worms, 281 _n._

Froscher, M. Sebastian, at the Leipzig Disputation, 237, 238.

Fugger, the, family, 84, 361; in possession of mines, 85.

Fulda, monastery of, 46, 75.

Gaismeyer, Michael, leader in the Peasants’ War, 330.

Galileo, 42.

Gascoigne, George, 11.

Geiler of Keysersberg, 53, 59, 118, 134, 310.

Geographical discoveries, 43, 84 _f._

George of Trebizond, 47 _f._

George, Duke of Saxony. See _Saxony_.

Germany, political condition at the close of the Middle Ages, 30; divided condition and desire for unity, 35; attempts at unity, 36 _ff._; connections with Italy, 50; devotion to the Roman See, 115 _ff._; multitude of ecclesiastical buildings in, 115 _f._; grievances against Rome, 233, 243, 245, 270, 288, 21, 342; divided into two separate camps, 338; a national Church for, 324, 335; 321, 323 _f._, 379.

Gerson, Jean, Luther’s debt to, 209 and _n._, 254.

_Gilds_ in mediæval towns, 43, 81.

Ginocchino di Fiore, 47, 158.

Glapion, Jean, confessor to Charles V., 266 _n._, 273, 285.

_Glossa ordinaria_, 202.

_Golden Rose, the_, 234, 260.

Goslar, 374.

_Gospel, the Little_, 135.

Gotha, 353.

_Gottesfreunde_, 51, 154.

Göttingen, 374.

Græcia Magna, 46.

Gran in Hungary, 9.

Granada, 27, 29.

Gratian’s _Decretum_, 2, 44.

Gratius, Ortuin, 67.

_Graubund, the_, 95.

Greece, 19.

Greek, the knowledge of Greek in the Middle Ages, 46; spoken in Sicily and Calabria, 46; printing press in Paris, 26.

Greeks, learned, in Italy, 47.

Gregory. See _Popes_.

Gregory of Pavia, a canonist, 2.

Grimma, town in Electoral Saxony, 201, 205, 316, 318.

Grocyn, 22, 164.

Groot, Gerard, 51.

Grunbach, Argula, a learned Lutheran lady, 307.

Gruniger, a Strassburg publisher, 300.

_Gude and godlie Ballates, the_, 123 _n_.

Guelderland, 382.

Gustaf Ericsson, King of Sweden, 421; adopts the Reformation, 422 _f._

_Haingerichte_, 331 _ff._

Hall, a town in Swabia, 353, 391.

Hamburg, 374.

_Hanseatic League_, 82 _f._

Hapsburg, House of, 35, 37, 345, 350, 359, 370, 376, 398.

Hebrew, the study of, 68.

Hebrew books to be destroyed, 69 _f._

Hedio, Caspar, 353.

Hegenau, Conference at, 379.

Hegius, Alexander, 52, 64.

Heilbronn, 347.

Held, Chancellor, 379.

Helding, Michael, 390.

Henrique, Don, of Portugal, 84.

Henry IV. of Castile, 28.

Henry VII., King of England, 20 _f._

Henry VIII., King of England, 21 _f._, 26, 184, 324, 378, 388; on Luther’s condemnation, 298; orders Luther’s books to be burnt, 299.

Henry, Duke of Saxony. See _Saxony_.

_Hermandad, the_, in Spain, 28 _f._

_Herredag_, 419.

Herzegovina, 19.

Hesse, the district, 347, 386, 415.

_Hierarchies, celestial and terrestrial_, 169.

_Hoc est Corpus Meum_, 358.

Hochstratten, Jacob, 70 _f._

Hohenstaufen Emperors, the, 1.

Holbein, Hans, artist, portrait of Erasmus, 177; 57, 62.

Holy days, ecclesiastical, 141, 246, 343.

Holy Roman Empire, 31 f.

Homberg, Synod at, 415.

_Homoousius_, word not liked by Luther, 471.

Honius, Christopher, theory of the Lord’s Supper, 355.

Humanists, the Christian, 158 _ff._; weakness of their position, 186 _ff._, 299; their ideas of a reformation, 190.

Humanists in France, 26.

Humanists, German, 39, 57; called Poets or Orators, 64; hatred of Aristotle, 57; band together to defend Reuchlin, 68, 71 _f._; societies of, in German cities, 60 _f._; write in praise of St. Anna, 136; in the German universities, 63 _f._, 196; religious eclecticism among, 65; with Luther after the Leipzig Disputation, 239, 254 _f._; disliked Augustinian theology, 325; how far responsible for the Peasants’ War, 328.

Humanists, Italian, 22, 115; relations with Savonarola, 160.

Hundred Years’ War, 22.

Hussite propaganda, 98, 196, 238, 309, 325.

Hutten, Ulrich V., 59, 67, 267 _n._, 269, 273, 284; youth and education, 75 _f._; passion for German unity, 76; admiration for Luther, 77; at the Ebernberg, 262.

Hymns, evangelical, in the Mediæval Church, 121 _f._, 125; Reformation collections of, 387, 402; in praise of the Blessed Virgin, 135; of St. Anna, 135; of St. Ursula, 145; pilgrimage, 128, 132.

Images in churches, 312.

_Immaculate Conception, the_, 135, 138.

Imperialism, intellectual, 168.

_Index expurgatorius_, 185.

_In dulci jubilo_, 122 _f._

Indulgence, an, for the Niklashausen chapel, 100; for the church of All Saints at Wittenberg, 130; for a bridge at Torgau, 259.

Indulgence money went to found Wittenberg University, 206; had the effect of an endowment, 224; 245, 259.

Indulgence-sellers, 213, 226.

_Indulgences_, helped to create a capitalist class, 83; fostered pilgrimages, 128; the theory and practice of, 216 _ff._; earlier abuses of, 219, 223; did they give a remission of _guilt_, 225; 248, 306.

Industry and trade in France, 25; in England, 21; in Germany, 81 _ff._

Innsbruck, 393.

Inquisition in Spain, 29 _f._, 266, 267 _n._

_Instruction_, the, of Frederick of Saxony, 316.

_Instruction_ of the Synod at Bern, 478.

_Instruction_ drafted by the Saxon Visitors, 410.

Insurrections, in England, 20, 21; in France, 23; in Spain, 28, 30.

_Interdict_, 439 _f._

Interest on money, 84.

_Interim, the Augsburg_, 390 _ff._, the _Leipzig_, 391 _n._

_Interim, Fat Old,_ 396.

Isabella of Castile, 5, 27 _ff._

Isidorian (pseudo-) Decretals, 2.

Isny, 347.

Italy, political condition of, 32 _f._, 30.

_Jacobs-Brüder_, 134.

Jaeger of Dornheim, Johann (Crotus Rubeanus), 66, 75, 255.

_Jak Upland_, 302.

James IV. of Scotland, 21.

Jesus the Judge, not the Mediator, 134. See _Christ_.

Jews, in Spain, 29; persecuted, 69; their literature to be destroyed, 70 _f._

John, Elector of Saxony. See _Saxony_.

John Frederick, Elector of Saxony. See _Saxony_.

Jonas, Justus (Jodocus Koch of Nordlingen), 255, 273 _f._, 275, 312, 385, 411.

Joss Fritz, leader in the Bundschuh League, 104, 135.

_Junker Georg_, 297, 317.

Jurisprudence of the Renaissance, 44.

Jurists, French, of the Renaissance, 26.

_Jus episcopale_, exercised by secular rulers in the fifteenth century, 140 _f._, 147, 412; lies in the Christian magistracy, 401, 412, 413.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, a divine act and therefore continuous, 447; corresponds to the absolution by the priest, 448; word used with different meanings, 448; mediæval theory of, depends on initial grace, 450; is seen in the action of the sacraments, and especially in penance, 450; Reformation doctrine of, 447, 451; Chemnitz on the, 451; reformation and mediæval theories contrasted, 452.

Justinian, Code of, 44; 390.

Jüterbogk, 214.

_Kalands_, the, 146.

Kampen, Stephen, 305.

Karben, Victor V., 70.

_Karsthans_, 302.

Katharine of Aragon, 21.

Kempton, Abbey lands of, 102, 103.

Kessler, Johann, of St. Gallen, 317.

_Knight of Christ_ (Erasmus), 301.

Knox, John, 349.

Koburgers, the, printers in Augsburg, 151, 155.

Lachmann, Johann, 310.

Lacordaire on Protestant idea of Scripture, 457.

Laity and clergy, 243, 443.

Lambert, Francis, 337 _n._, 415.

Landsknechts, 40, 77, 106, 109, 110 _n._

Latin, in the Middle Ages, 46, 51; hymns sung in school, 51, 53; Luther’s studies in, 197.

_Latin War, the_, 56.

League of the Public Weal (France), 23.

League, the Schmalkald, 373 _ff._, 376, 380.

League, the Swabian, 323, 330, 334, 377.

Leagues of Protestants in Germany, 325, 347, 350, 373.

Leagues of Romanists in Germany, 324, 325, 341.

Learning, the New, 22, 76, 159, 165; in France, 26; in Germany, 50, 57, 67, 68; how used by Erasmus, 179.

_Leipzig, The Disputation at_, 61, 77, 236 _ff._, 252, 275, 325, 385; beginning of historical criticism of institutions, 239; made the German Humanists support Luther, 239.

_Leisnig Ordinance_, 401.

Leitzkau, Luther at, 166, 213.

Leo Alberti, architect, 49.

Leon, 27.

_Liberty of a Christian Man_, 192, 240 _f._

Libraries, the Vatican, 49; of San Marco, Florence, 49; of Cardinal Cusanus, 58; of a parish priest, 409.

Lindau, 346, 368.

Link, Wenceslas, of Nürnberg, 256.

Literature. See _Popular Literature_.

_Localis_, 202.

Lollards, 97, 171, 302.

Loriti, Heinrich (Glareanus), 67.

Louis XI. of France, 23, 25.

Louvain, 185.

Lund, Archbishop of, 379.

Luneberg, Dukes of, 341, 346, 362, 363, 373, 386.

Luther, Hans, 193.

Luther, Magdalena, 369.

Luther, Margarethe, 193.

Luther, Martin, on _wandering students_, 54; on John Wessel, 58; the society to which he spoke, 113; criticism of prevalent preaching, 118; fondness for St. Anna, 136; on _Brotherhoods_, 146; on begging, 143; debt to the Mystics, 155; religious atmosphere in which he was reared, 157; and Savonarola, 163; and Dean Colet, 165, 170; and Erasmus, 167, 175 _f._, 179; why he succeeded as a Reformer, 189 _ff._; an embodiment of personal piety, 191; his slow advance, 192; embodied the Reformation, 193; youth and education, 193 _ff._; a _Poor Scholar_, 195; at Erfurt University, 195 _ff._; influenced by pictures, 198; in the convent, 199 _ff._, 426 _f._; his teachers in theology, 199 _f._, 223; conversion, 203; at Wittenberg, 205 _f._; sent to Rome, 207; early lectures on theology, 208; teaches Aristotle’s Dialectic, 206; becomes a great preacher, 207, 212; issues his _Theses_, 215 _ff._; his _Resolutiones_, 230 _f._; summoned to Rome, 232; appears before Cardinal Cajetan, 232; interview with Miltitz, 235; at the Leipzig Disputation, 236 _ff._; burns the Pope’s Bull, 250 _ff._; the representative of Germany, 252 _ff._; writings translated into Spanish, 269, 388; writings in Great Britain, 388; writings burnt in the Netherlands, 271, and at Cologne, 259; at Oppenheim, 274; at Worms, 275 _ff._; first appearance before the Diet of Worms, 278; description of his person, 279 _f._; second appearance before the Diet, 284 _ff._; rumours that he would recant, 286; attitude in speaking, 288; last words at the Diet, 291 _n._; last scene in the Diet, 291 _f._; conferences after the Diet, 294; report that he had been murdered, 295; Ban against, 297 _f._; in the Wartburg, 297; the hero of the popular literature, 301; his teaching spreads, 305 _ff._, 322; back in Wittenberg, 316 _ff._; hopes of a National Church of Germany, 326; how far responsible for the Peasants’ War, 327 _f._; how the war affected him, 337, 338; and Zwingli, 347 _ff._; at Marburg, 352 _ff._; his doctrine of the Sacrament of the Supper, 357; his letters from Coburg, 369; declared that the Turks must be driven back, 374; his idea of a reformation, 275; and the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, 380; his death, 384 _ff._; ideas of ecclesiastical organisation, 400 _ff._; suggested did not prescribe, 402; proposed the visitations, 405 _ff._; preface to the Small Catechism, 408; influence in Denmark, 419; in Sweden, 422, 424; his Reformation based not on doctrine, but on religious experience, 426 _ff._; on the two kinds of faith, 429, 430 f., 445; at Ziesar, 435; on the priesthood of believers, 440; on clergy and laity, 240, 441; on _Simple Stories_ in the Bible, 460; and the _Epistle of James_, 462 _n._; on theological terminology, 471; his doctrine of the Church, 484.

Lyra, Nicholas de, 117, 196, 209, 456 _n._

Machiavelli on the condition of Italy, 31.

Magdeburg, school at, 53; _Ordinance_, 401; beginning of the Reformation in, 307; 194, 198, 384.

Magistry, the Christian, possess the _jus episcopale_, 147, 401.

_Maid who lost her shoe, There was a_, 313.

Mainz, Albert, Archbishop of, 187, 213, 229, 270, 293, 295, 296, 334, 341, 378.

Mansfeld, Counts of, 193, 295, 341, 373, 385, 386.

Mansfeld, district of, 193, 198.

Manuel, Juan, Spanish ambassador at Rome, 265, 272.

_Marburg Articles_, 353.

_Marburg Colloquy_, 352 _ff._

Margaret Tudor, 21.

Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, 21.

_Mariolatry_, 135.

Marlianus, Bishop of Puy, 185.

_Marrani_, 269.

Marriage of ecclesiastics, 343.

Marsiglio Ficino, 48, 158; a disciple of Savonarola, 160.

_Martiniani_, 255.

Mary of Burgundy, 37.

_Mass, the_, propitiatory sacrifice in the, 312, 354.

_Mastersingers_, the, and the Reformation, 310.

Matthias Corvinus, 6, 9.

Maurice of Saxony, 382, 384 and _n._, 389, 393, 394.

Maximilian, Emperor, 31, 37, 39, 206, 232; the Humanist Emperor, 39, 67, 184; death, 40, 261; in folk-song, 67; and the Swiss, 111; and the Landsknechts, 40, 110 _n._

Mediæval Church, struggle with the Empire, 1 _ff._

Mediæval Empire, 30 _f._

Mediæval learning, 55,

Medici, the, rulers in Florence, 32; Lorenzo de, 49; relations with Savonarola, 162.

_Medii fructus_, 12 f.

Melanchthon, 156, 273, 308, 313 _ff._, 316, 350, 353, 364, 380, 402.

Memmingen, 333 _f._, 337, 346, 351, 368.

Marsilius of Padua, 306 _n._, 333.

Meissen, 208, 234.

Michelangelo, 50.

Middle class in England, 20.

Milan, 32 _f._

Miltitz, Charles V., 234.

Minkwitz, Hans von, 277.

_Mirabilia Romæ_, 131.

Miracle Plays, 119.

Modrus in Hungary, 9.

Moldavia, 19.

Monasteries under secular control in Switzerland, 349.

Monastic life, Erasmus on the, 180 _f._; Luther on the, 211; Eberlin on the, 304.

Money exactions by the Papacy, 11, 244 _f._, 268, 304.

Monks join the Lutheran movement, 305 _f._

Monte Cassino, the Abbey of, 46.

Morals, clerical, at the close of the Middle Ages, 137 _f._, 190, 246.

More, Sir Thomas, 178, 186, 328.

Mosellanus, Peter, at the Leipzig Disputation, 237 _f._

Moslems, 18 _f._, 26.

Mühlberg, battle of, 389.

Mühlhausen, battle of, 330, 334.

Municipal interference in ecclesiastical affairs, 141, 414.

Munster, Sebastian, chronicler, 170.

Munster, town on the Ems, 52.

Münzer, Thomas, people’s priest at Zwickau, 314, 330, 334, 336.

Murad I., 19.

Murmellius, Johann, 52.

Murner, Thomas, 185, 303.

Musculus, Wolfgang, 391.

_Mutianic Host_, 68.

Mutianus (Mut, Mutti, Mudt, Mutta), Conrad, 52, 64, 185, 255.

Myconius (Mecum), Frederick, on family religion, 124, 127, 156; on the Indulgence-seller, 213; on the _Theses_, 230; at Worms, 289 _n._; 305, 309, 353.

Mystics, prayer circles among the, 153; Luther’s debt to the, 209 _n._; 256.

Naples, 32 _f._

_Narrenschiff_, 17, 102.

Nathin, John, Luther’s teacher, 199 _f._, 457.

National Church for Germany, 36, 338, 389.

National literature, 44.

Naumberg, conference of German Protestants at (1555), 396.

Navarre, seized by Ferdinand of Aragon in consequence of a papal excommunication, 6 and _n._, 29.

Neopaganism, 48.

Nepotism, papal and kingly, 9.

_Neukarsthans_, 306 n.

_New and Old God, the_, 303.

_Nicene Creed_, 365, 468.

Niklashausen, a pilgrimage chapel, 100.

Nobility, position of, in England, 20; in France, 25; in Spain, 29.

_Nobility of the German Nation, Address to the_, 14, 242.

Nordlingen, 347.

Normandy, 26.

Nürnberg, 88, 234, 320, 346, 347, 353, 363, 373, 391; Humanists in, 60, 256; the _Brethren_ in, 152; population of, 87; retained its patrician constitution, 81.

Nützel, Caspar, 256.

Occam, William of, 55, 196, 199, 254.

Odense, Danish National Assembly at, 419.

Œcolampadius (Johann Hussgen), 306, 310, 353.

Œlhafen, Sixtus, deputy from Nürnberg to Worms, 284, 292.

Oppenheim, Charles V. at, 271; Luther at, 274.

Orchan seizes Gallipoli, 19.

Ordinances for regulating public worship, 404, 414; Wittenberg Ordinance, 315 _f._, 401; Leisnig, 401; Magdeburg, 401.

_Ordinary_, the Pope’s right to act as, 24.

Osiander, Andrew, 310, 353, 391.

Ottoman Turks, 19.

Pack, Otto von, 344.

Palz, John of, a defender of Indulgences, 138, 223.

Pantaleone, H., on the state of the peasants, 107.

Papacy, its claim to universal supremacy, 1; an Italian power, 7; superior to common morality, 7.

_Papal Tickets_, 227, 231.

Paper, effects of the invention of, 45.

Pappenheim, Ulrich von, 277.

Paris, University of, 12; Luther’s writings in, 388.

Passau, conference of German princes at, 393.

Passion Plays, 119.

_Passional Christi et Anti-Christi_, 308.

Pastoral theology, manual of, 117.

Pastors, Lutheran, hung, 341.

_Pater Patriæ_, title given to Luther, 255.

_Patricians_ in towns, 80.

Patrizzi, master of ceremonies in Rome, 16.

_Pearl of the Passion, the_, 135.

Peasantry, the, in England, 21; in France, 25; in Germany, 89 _ff._; their condition of life, 90 _ff._; their diversions, 93; revolts by the, 95 _ff._; causes of their revolts, 106 _ff._; Swiss, free themselves, 44; 103, 105, 106, 109, 111.

Peasants’ War, 296, 325, 326 _ff._, 342, 386; how far was Luther responsible for the, 327, 335 _ff._; how far Humanist Utopias, 328; began at Stühlingen, 329.

Pellicanus, Theobold, 310.

Peloponnese, 19.

Penance, sacrament of, 201, 219, 220.

Penances, 218.

_Penitentiaries_, 218 _f._

Petrarch and the Renaissance, 46 _f._

Petri, Olaus and Laurentius, the Reformers of Sweden, 421 _ff._

Petzensteiner, Brother, 275.

Peutinger, Dr., Deputy from Augsburg to Worms, 279, 284, 289, 291 _n._

Pfefferkorn, John, 69 _f._

Pflug, Julius von, 390.

Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, his peasants did not revolt, 331; helps John of Saxony, 334; proposed a democratic constitution for the Church of Hesse, 337 _n._, 415 _f._; a leader among the Protestant princes, 325, 341; deceived by Pack, 344; signed the _Protests_, 346, 371; arranges for the _Marburg Colloquy_, 352; admires Zwingli, 350; further attempts to unite the Protestants, 359; signs the _Augsburg_ Confession, 363, 368; supposed to be ready for war, 369; at Schmalkalden, 373; aids Duke of Würtemburg, 376; his bigamy, 380 _ff._; tempted by Charles V., 383; surrenders and is imprisoned, 389; liberated, 394; at Naumberg, 396.

Pico della Mirandolo, 48, 64; a disciple of Savonarola, 160; proposed to become a Dominican, 161; buried in San Marco, Florence, 162.

Pictures, the, which influenced Luther, 198.

Pictures in churches, 312.

Pilgrim guide-books, 131 _ff._, 226.

Pilgrim songs, 128 _n._, 132 f. and _n._, 194.

Pilgrimage places, 194; Niklashausen, 100 _ff._; near Mansfeld, 127; St. Michael’s Mount, 128; Wilsnack, 129; the Holy Land, 130; Rome, 131 _f._; Compostella, 131 _ff._

Pilgrimages, epidemic of, 100, 128; of children, 128, 129.

Pirkheimer, Willibald, 60 _ff._, 249 and _n._, 309.

Platonic Academies, 48.

Platonism, Christian, 48, 64.

Platter, Thomas, a wandering student, 55.

_Plenaria_, 149.

Plethon, Gemistos, 48.

Podiebrod, George, 6.

_Pœnæ eternæ et temporales,_ 221 _f._, 225.

Poggio Bracciolini, 49.

Poliziano, Angelo, a disciple of Savonarola, 162.

Pollich, Dr., 205, 207.

POPES— Nicholas I. (858-867), 2; Gregory VII. (1073-1085), 2; Innocent IV. (1243-1254), 4; Urban II. (1088-1099), 224; Boniface VIII. (1294-1303), 4; Clement V. (1305-1314), 12; John XXII. (1316-1334), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Nicholas V (1447-1455), 49; Boniface IX. (1389-1404), 16; Eugenius IV. (1431-1447), 23; Pius II. (1458-1464), 5, 6; Paul II. (1464-1471), 6; Sixtus IV. (1471-1484), 7, 29; Innocent VIII. (1484-1492), 34; Alexander VI. (1492-1503), 5, 12, 16, 34; Julius II. (1503-1513), 6, 34, 49; Leo X. (1513-1521), 5, 16, 22, 25, 34, 187, 229, 231, 240; Adrian VI. (1522-1523), 16, 320, 322; Clement VII. (1523-1534), 322, 380; Paul III. (1534-1549), 378; Paul IV. (1555-1559), 185.

_Pope’s House_, the Church is, 11, 194, 205, 235, 483.

Popular literature, on the Lutheran controversy, 300 _ff._; on the Augsburg _Interim_, 392.

Portugal, 29.

_Postilla_, the, of Nicholas de Lyra, 117.

_Postills_, Luther’s, 409.

_Præmunire_, statutes of, 11.

_Pragmatic Sanction_ of Bourges, 24.

Preachers and towns, 310.

Preaching in the later Middle Ages, 117 _ff._

Prices, rise in, at close of Middle Ages, 112.

Prierias, Silvester Mazzolini of Prierio, 230, 247, 303.

Priesthood, conception of, in the mediæval Church, 3, 438; made clear by an _interdict_, 439; Colet refused to accept it, 170; Luther emancipated men from, 193, 444; the, of all believers, 240, 244, 380, 435 _ff._

Priests disliked, 96.

Princes, the, of Germany represented settled government, 36.

Printing made art and literature democratic, 45; in Germany used from the beginning to spread devotional literature, 126.

Processions, ecclesiastical, 119, 362.

_Procurationes_, 13.

Proles, Andreas, 140, 163.

_Protest, the_, at Speyer, 346; the second, 371.

Prussia, East, 326, 386.

_Rechtern, non fechten sondern_, 372 _n._

_Red Cross, the_, 214.

Regensburg (Ratisbon), conference at, 363, 379 f.

_Reichskammersgericht_, 372, 375, 377, 379.

_Reichsregiment, the_, 36, 38, 317, 320, 322, 323, 324, 338.

_Relaxatio de injuncta pœnitentia_, 219.

Religious background of the claim for papal universal supremacy, 2.

Religious life at the close of the Middle Ages, 131; a non-ecclesiastical religion, 139 _ff._

Religious pioneers have one method, 432.

Religious War, the, in Germany, 389 _f._

Renaissance, the, period of transition from the mediæval to the modern world, 42; beginning of science, 42 _f._; geographical exploration, 43; a revolution in art, 44; religion of the, 45; revival of letters, 46 _ff._

René of Provence, 23.

_Reservations_, papal, 9, 24.

_Resolutiones_ of Luther, 230 f.

Reuchlin, 67 _ff._

Reutlingen, 347, 363, 391.

Revival of religion in the fifteenth century, 127 _ff._

Revolts. See _Social revolts_.

Rhegius, Urban, 306, 310.

Rhodes, 19.

Robber-knights, 83.

Rohrbach, Jäklein, a leader in the Peasants’ War, 330.

_Roll-Brüder_, 53.

Roman Empire, Holy, 31 _f._

Roman Law and the peasants of Germany, 107.

Roman lawyers and their influence on theology, 168.

Romans, King of the, 31, 39, 360, 394.

Rome, ancient, the Papacy claims to succeed, 1 _f._

Rome, Luther in, 207; sack of, 266, 343.

Rostock, 374.

Roumania, 19.

Sachs, Hans, 93, 307 _n._, 310.

Sacrament of the Supper, 353 _ff._, 377; Zwingli on the, 355, 357; Wessel on the, 355; Honius on the, 355; Luther on the, 358, _f._; Carlstadt on the, 356.

Sacramental efficacy, 232, 248, 478, _f._

Sacraments, Colet on the, 171.

Sacraments, the number of the, 242.

Safe-conducts for Luther, 267 _n._, 273 and _n._, 276.

St. Gallen, 347.

Salerno, University of, 46.

Salzburg, Peasants’ War in, 330.

Samlund, the Bishop of, a Lutheran, 306.

San Marino, 349.

Saracens, 18.

_Satisfactions_, 216 _f._, 447.

Savonarola, 22; youth and education, 158; sympathy with the New Learning, 159; disciples among the Italian Humanists, 161 _f._; a mediæval thinker, 163.

_Saxon Visitations_, 405 _f._

Saxony. Ernestine (_Electoral_ till 1547, then Ducal), secular superintendence of the Church in the fifteenth century, 140, 259; 206, 214, 250, 316, 318, 347, 386, 407.

Saxony, Elector of, _Frederick_, makes a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, 130, 258; collects relics, 214, 258; obtains an Indulgence for his church, 130, 214; for a bridge, 259; his family policy of controlling the Church, 141; founds the University of Wittenberg, 205 _ff._; forbids Tetzel to enter his territories, 213; protects Luther, 232 _f._, 297; his religious position, 258 _f._, 292; at the Diet of Worms, 263, 292; provides for Luther’s safety, 297; troubled at the disturbances at Wittenberg, 316 _f._, 334; death, 336. _John_, brother of Frederick, 292, 316, 334, 341, 345; signs the _Protests_, 346, 371; refuses the nuncio’s benediction, 360, 361; signs the _Augsburg Confession,_ 363 _f._; joins the Schmalkald League, 373. _John Frederick,_ son of John, signs the _Augsburg Confession_, 363; marries Sibylla of Cleves, 382; “the born Elector,” 394; deprived of the Electorate and imprisoned, 384, 389; death, 394; _Frederick_ (Duke, not Elector), son of John Frederick, 397.

Saxony, Albertine (_Ducal_ till 1547, then Electoral), 214.

Saxony, Albertine, Duke of, _George_, at _Leipzig Disputation_, 237 _f._; desires a Reformation, 257, 203, 325; gives a safe-conduct for Luther, 273 _n._, 276; interferes in the affairs of Wittenberg, 316; published Edict of Worms, 319; feared the Hussites, 238, 324; member of the Roman Catholic League, 341; his daughter married Philip of Hesse, 344, 380; death, 377. _Henry_, brother of George, 377. _Maurice_ (Elector from 1547), son of Henry, married a daughter of Philip of Hesse, 382; received the Electorate, 384 and _n._; took the Emperor’s side in the Religious War, 389; the _Leipzig Interim_, 391 _n._; attacked the Emperor, 393; at the Conference at Passau, 393; death, 395. _Augustus_ (Elector), 395.

_Scala sancta_ at Rome, 207.

Scandinavia, 19; the Reformation in, 417 _ff._

Schappeller and the Twelve Articles of the Peasants, 333.

Scheurl, Christopher, of Nürnberg, 256.

Schism, the Great, 5, 136.

Schlettstadt in Elsass, school at, 52.

_Schmalkald Articles_, 374, 467 _n._, 468.

_Schmalkald League_, 373 _ff._, 380, 382, 383.

Schmalkalden, 373.

Schnepf, Erhard, Reformer of Tübingen, 391.

Scholastic, the New, 325.

_Scholastic Theology_, 55, 118, 125, 159, 161, 167, 169, 173, 181, 199 _ff._, 210, 219, 221, 223 _f._, 253; condemned by Luther, 211; teaches work-righteousness, 211, 450, 469; is _sophistry_, 469; _faith_ and _reason_ in, 469.

Schools in Germany, 51 _ff._

Schott, Peter, endows a people’s preacher for Strassburg, 118.

Schurf, Jerome, professor of Law at Wittenberg, 276, 280, 281, 317.

_Schwabach Articles_, 359.

Scientific, the scientific element in theology is the fleeting, 167.

Scotland, 21; Luther’s books prohibited in, 299, 388.

Scotus, John Duns, 55, 169, 178, 196, 223, 449.

_Scripture, the doctrine of_; Scripture, a personal rather than a dogmatic revelation, 165, 453; mis-statement of the Reformation view, 453; differences in meaning of word, 454; unity in, natural and arbitrary, 455; theory of various senses, 165, 196 _n._, 456; faith and, 459, 461; Lacordaire on the Protestant doctrine of, 457; gives direct communion with God, 460; what is the infallibility of, 461 _ff._, 464; Scripture and the word of God, 461 _f._; human and divine elements in, 464, 465; inerrancy, 464; Calvin on the authority of, 465; place for the Higher Criticism, 466 _f._; in the Reformation Creeds, 467 _n._

Scriptures in the mediæval Church, 147 _f._, 454 _ff._; reading the, a mark of heresy, 149.

Secular supervision of religious affairs in the fifteenth century, 140.

Servia, 19.

Sibylla of Cleves, wife of John Frederick of Saxony, 382, 389.

Sicily, part of Naples, 33; Greek spoken in, 46.

Sickingen, Francis von, 268, 273, 295, 306 and _n._, 323.

Siebenberger, Maximilian, 281.

Simnel, Lambert, 21.

Sitten, Cardinal von, admires Luther, 257.

Social conditions at the close of the Middle Ages, 79 _ff._

Social revolts in the later Middle Ages, 95 _ff._; not exclusively of peasants, 96; detestation of priests, 96; impregnated by religious sentiment, 97; Hans Böhm, 99; Bundschuh revolts, 103; causes of the revolts, 106 _ff._

_Socius itinerarius_, 275.

Spain, 7, 18, 19, 20, 21; divisions of, 29; Inquisition in, 266.

Spalatin (George Burkhardt from Spelt), 66, 185, 232, 250, 274, 276, 278, 291 _n._, 292.

Spaniards at the Diet of Worms, 292.

Spanish merchants at Worms, 269.

Spanish troops in Germany, 389, 392.

Speyer, delegates from the German towns meet at, 38; a National Council for Germany to meet at, 323. See _Diet_.

_Spinning-room, the_, 94.

_Spiritual_, meaning of the word in the Middle Ages, 7.

_Spiritual Estate_, the false and the true, 243, 441.

Sprengel, Lazarus, of Nürnberg, 256.

State and Church, in France, 23 _f._; in Spain, 29; in Brandenburg, 141; in Saxony, 140.

States of the Church, 32 _f._

States-General of France, 25.

Staupitz, Johann, 163, 185, 202, 205 _f._, 256.

Stoke-on-Trent, battle of, 21.

Stolle, Konrad, author of the _Thuringian Chronicle_, 99 _n._

Storch, Nicholas, one of the Zwickau prophets, 314.

Strassburg, Humanists in, 60; population of, 87; the _Brethren_ in, 152; deputies from, at Worms, 282; 111, 309 _f._, 346, 347, 368.

Stubner, Marcus Thomä, 314.

Student-hostels, 54, 56; dress, 56.

Students, wandering, 50, 54; Breslau, the paradise of, 53; burn Tetzel’s _Theses_, 233; 251.

Sturm, Caspar, the herald who conveyed Luther to Worms, 275 _f._

Styria, peasant revolts in, 330.

_Subsidies_, ecclesiastical, 13.

Sum of Christianity, the, 430.

_Superintendents_ in the Lutheran Churches, 404, 411.

Supremacy claimed by the Popes, temporal, 5 _f._; spiritual, 7 _f._; Luther begins to doubt the, 235.

Suso, Heinrich, 203.

Swabia, the Peasants’ War in, 330, 333, 334.

_Swabian League_, 323, 340, 376, 377.

_Swan, the_, hotel in Worms, 274, 276.

Swaven, Peter, at Worms, 275.

Swiss, the, popular in Germany, 95 _f._

Synods in the Lutheran Churches, 413, 415.

Syria, 18.

Taborites (extreme Hussites), 97, 338.

_Taille_, the, 25.

Tausen, Hans, the Danish Luther, 420.

Temporal supremacy of the Pope, 5 _ff._

_Tertiaries_ of St. Francis, 116.

Tertullian on mitigation of ecclesiastical sentences, 217 _n._

Tetzel, John, an Indulgence-seller, 213, 229, 235.

_Textualis_, 202.

Theodore of Gaza, 47.

Theodosius, Code of, 44.

Theological proof of universal papal supremacy, 4.

Theological phraseology, Luther and technical, 210, 471.

Theology, Luther’s lectures on, 208. See _Scholastic Theology._

_Thesaurus meritorum sire indulgentiarum_, 219, 229.

_Theses_, Luther’s, against Indulgences, 215 _ff._, 350; make six assertions, 229; wide circulation, 230; Zwingli’s, 350.

_This is My Body_, 355.

Thomas Aquinas, on universal papal supremacy, 4; his knowledge of Greek, 46 _n._; studied by Savonarola, 159, 161; on Indulgences, 221, 224; 55, 57, 167 _ff._, 449.

Thomas à Kempis, 126.

Thun, Frederick von, 287.

Thüringia, Peasants’ War in, 331; 193, 208.

Tithes, ecclesiastical, 12, 97 _f._, 104.

Tolomeo of Lucca, a canonist and theologian, 4 _n._

Tournaments, 371 _n._

Tours, 18.

Trade in England, 22; in France, 25; in Europe, 43 _f._, 83 _f._; perils of, 83; routes to the East, 85; more a municipal thing than a national affair, 80.

Trading companies, English, 22; German, 85 _ff._

_Treatises, the three Reformation_, 239 _ff._

Trent. See _Council_.

Trier, Archbishop of, 35, 270; head of the commission to confer with Luther at the Diet of Worms, 294; heard a statement from Luther under seal of confession, 295.

_Triumph of Truth, the_, 307.

Truchsess, general of the Swabian League, 330, 334.

Tübingen, 391.

Turkish invasions dreaded in Germany, 19, 129, 374.

Tunstall, Wolsey’s agent at Worms, 298 and _n._

_Twelve Articles_ in the Peasants’ War, 331, 336, 337.

Tyler, Wat, 20.

_Ubiquity_, doctrine of, 357, 478.

Ulm, 320, 346, 347, 391.

Ulrich, Duke of Würtemburg, 37, 376.

_Unitas Fratrum_ (1452), 154 _f._

Universities, of Paris, 12; of Germany, 53.

Upsala, 422.

Urban, Heinrich, 66.

_Ursula’s, St., Little Ship_, 145.

_Utopia_ of Sir Thomas More, 186, 328.

Valdès, Alfonso de, on the Edict of Worms, 298 _f._

Valentia, 27.

Valla, Laurentius, 49.

_Valor ecclesiasticus_ of commuted _Annates_, 13 and _n._

Vasco da Gama, 85.

Vatican Library, 49, 262.

Venezuela, German colony in, 85.

Venice, 32 _f._; Germans in, 50, 83.

_Vicars of God_, the Emperor and the Pope, 31.

Vienna, Concordat of, 11; defence of, 19, 37, 374; the _Latin War_ in, 56; 378.

Village, life in a, 90 _ff._; government, 92; a, sold to buy a velvet robe, 109.

Virgin, the Blessed, 123; the Intercessor, 135; confraternities of the, 135; hymns in honour of, 135; patroness of the Augustinian Eremites, 138; of the University of Wittenberg, 205; venerated in the social revolts, 97, 100, 135; _Immaculate Conception_ of the, 135, 138.

_Visitations_, ecclesiastical, 405 _ff._; Saxon, 405 _ff._

Vogler, Georg, at Worms, 274, 284.

_Vulgate, the_, studied in schools, 51; its use in the mediæval Church, 147 _f._; editions in the vernacular, 147, 149 _f._; the _German_, 150, 309.

Waldenses, 238.

_Walfart und Strasse zu Sant Jacob_, 132, 226.

Wallachia, 19.

_Wandering Students_, 54.

Wanner, Johann, 310.

Warbeck, Perkin, 21.

Wartburg, the, 297, 402.

Wealth, based on possession of land, 80; new sources of, in trade, 84 _ff._; from farming Indulgences, 83.

Wehe, Jacob, a peasant leader, 330.

Weinsburg, the massacre at, 330.

_Weisthümer_, collections of village consuetudinary law, 90 _ff._, 103, 107.

Welser, the, family of capitalists, 85, 361.

Wesley, John, and Luther, 403.

Wessel, John, 58, 196.

Wiclif, John, 149, 238, 290.

_Wiclifites_, 150.

Wimpheling, Jacob, 52, 58, 257, 309.

Wimpina, Conrad, wrote counter-theses, 229.

Windsheim, 347.

Wissenberg, 347.

Wittenberg, town of, 204, 206, 234, 238, 389.

Wittenberg, the “tumult” in, 313, 320.

Wittenberg, University of, 205, 208, 232, 250, 311 _ff._

_Wittenberg Concord_, 377.

_Wittenberg Nightingale_, 310.

_Wittenberg Ordinance_ (1522), 315, 401.

Wolfenbüttel Library, Luther’s MSS. in the, 209.

Wolsey, Cardinal, 184, 298.

Worms, Edict of, 297, 298, 310, 319 and _n._, 342 _f._, 369, 345; conference with Luther at, 293. See _Diet_.

Würtemburg, Duchy of, seized by the House of Hapsburg, 37; recovered by its Duke, 376 _f._, 392, 395.

Würzburg, the Bishop of, 334.

Zasius, Ulrich of Freiburg, 257.

Zell, Matthew, 350.

Zerbst, 214.

_Zimmerische Chronik_, 88, 134.

Zurich, 350.

Zwickau, 206, 314, 318.

_Zwickau Prophets, the_, 314, 320, 325.

Zwilling an Augustinian Eremite preacher, 313, 316.

Zwingli, relations with Luther, 347 _ff._; influenced by Humanism, 348; social environment, 348; South German towns under his influence, 351; at Marburg, 352 _ff._; his doctrine of the Sacrament of the Supper, 356; his death, 374; 333, 337, 352, 353, 388, 463, 467 _n._

FOOTNOTES

1 SOURCES: _Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium_ (Strassburg, 1488); Burchard, _Diarium_ (ed. by Thuasne, Paris, 1883-1885), in 3 vols.; Brand, _Narrenschiff_ (ed. by Simrock, Berlin, 1872); Denzinger, _Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, quæ de rebus fidei et morum a conciliis æcumenicis et summis pontificibus, emanarunt_ (Würzburg, 1900), 9th ed.; Erler, _Der Liber Cancellariæ Apostolicæ vom Jahre 1480_ (Leipzig, 1888); Faber, _Tractatus de Ruine Ecclesie Planctu_ (Memmingen); Murner, _Schelmenzunft_ and _Narrenbeschwörung_ (Nos. 85, 119-124 of _Neudrucke deutschen Litteraturwerke_); Mirbt, _Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums_ (Freiburg i. B. 1895); Tangl, _Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200-1500_ (Innsbruck, 1894); and _Das Taxwesen der päpstlichen Kirche_ (_Mitt. des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung_, xiii. 1892).

LATER BOOKS: “Janus,” _The Pope and the Council_ (London, 1869); Harnack, _History of Dogma_ (London, 1899), vols. vi. vii.; Thudichen, _Papsitum und Reformation_ (Leipzig, 1903); Haller, _Papsitum und Kirchen-Reform_ (1903); Lea, _Cambridge Modern History_ (Cambridge, 1902), vol. I. xix.

2 “In hac (_sc._ ecclesia) ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, evangelicis dictis instruimur.... Ille _sacerdotis_, is manu regum et _militum_, sed ad nutum et patienciam _sacerdotis_”; Boniface VIII. in the Bull, _Unam Sanctam_.

3 A succinct account of these forgeries will be found in “Janus,” _The Pope and the Council_ (London, 1869), p. 94.

4 Harnack, _History of Dogma_, vi. 132 n. (Eng. trans.).

5 Compare his _Opuscula contra errores Græcorum; De regimine principum_. (The first two books were written by Thomas and the other two probably by Tolomeo (Ptolomæus) of Lucca.)

_ 6 Apparatus super quinque libris Decretalium_ (Strassburg, 1488).

7 Full quotations from the Bulls, _Unam Sanctam_ and _Inter cætera divinæ_, are to be found in Mirbt’s _Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums_ (Leipzig, 1895), pp. 88, 107. The Bulls, _Execrabilis_ and _Pastor Æternus_, are in Denzinger, _Enchiridion_ (Würzburg, 1900), 9th ed. pp. 172, 174.

The Deed of Gift of the American Continent to Isabella and Ferdinand is in the 6th section of the Bull, _Inter cætera divinæ_. It is as follows:—“Motu proprio ... de nostra mera liberalitate et ex certa scientia ac de apostolicæ potestatis plenitudine omnes insulas et terras firmas inventas et inveniendas, detectas et detegendas versus Occidentem et Meridiem fabricando et construendo unam lineam a Polo Artico scilicet Septentrione ad Polum Antarticum scilicet Meridiem, sive terræ firmæ et insulæ inventæ et inveniendæ sint versus Indiam aut versus aliam quamcumque partem, quæ linea distet a qualibet insularum, quæ vulgariter nuncupantur de los Azores y cabo vierde, centum leucis versus Occidentem et Meridiem; ita quod omnes insulæ et terræ firmæ, repertæ et reperiendæ, detectæ et detegendæ, a præfata linea versus Occidentem et Meridiem per alium Regem aut Principem Christianum non fuerint actualiter possesse usque ad diem nativitatis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi proximi præteritum ... auctoritate omnipotentis Dei nobis in Beato Petro concessa, ac vicarius Jesu Christi, qua fungimur in terris, cum omnibus illarum dominiis, civitatibus, castris, locis et villis, juribusque et jurisdictionibus ac pertinentiis univeris, vobis hæredibusque et successoribus vestris in perpetuum tenore præsentium donamus.... Vosque et hæredes ac successores præfatos illarum dominos cum plena, libera et omnimoda potestate, auctoritate et jurisdictione facimus, constituimus et deputamus.”

8 The excommunication, with its consequences, was used to threaten Queen Elizabeth by the Ambassador of Philip II. in 1559 (_Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English affairs preserved principally in the Archives of Simancas_, i. 62, London, 1892).

_ 9 Scottish Historical Review_, i. 318-320.

10 The two English statutes of _Præmunire_ are printed in Gee and Hardy, _Documents illustrative of English Church History_ (London, 1896), pp. 103, 122.

11 For information about the English _annates_ and the _valor ecclesiasticus_, cf. Bird, _Handbook to the Public Records_, pp. 100, 106.

12 H. C. Lea, _Cambridge Modern History_, i. 670.

13 J. Haller, _Papsttum und Kirchen-Reform_ (1903), i. 116, 117.

14 Sebastian Brand, _Das Narrenschiff_, cap. ciii. l. 63-66. Barclay paraphrases these lines:

“Suche counterfayte the kayes that Jesu dyd commyt Unto Peter: brekynge his Shyppis takelynge, Subvertynge the fayth, beleuynge theyr owne wyt Against our perfyte fayth in euery thynge, _So is our Shyp without gyde wanderynge,_ _ By tempest dryuen, and the mayne sayle of torne,_ _ That without gyde the Shyp about is borne_.”

—_The Ship of Fools_, translated by Alexander Barclay, ii. 225 (Edinburgh, 1874).

_ 15 Cambridge Modern History_, I. iii, vii, viii, ix, xi, xii, xiv; Lavisse, _Histoire de France depuis les Origines jusqu’ à la Révolution_. IV. i, ii.

16 SOURCES: Boccaccio, _Lettere edite e inedite, tradotte et commentate con nuovi documenti da Corrazzini_ (Florence, 1877); _Francisci Petrarchæ, Epistolæ familiares et variæ_ (Florence, 1859); Cusani, _Opera_ (Basel, 1565); Böcking, _Ulrici Hutteni Opera_, 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1871); Supplement containing _Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum_, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1864, 1869); Gillert, _Der Briefwechsel des Konrad Mutianus_ (Halle, 1890); Reuchlin, _De Verbo Mirifico_ (1552).

LATER BOOKS: Jacob Burckhardt, _The Civilisation of the Period of the Renaissance_ (Eng. trans., London, 1892); Geiger, _Humanismus und Renaissance in Italien und Deutschland_ (Berlin, 1882); Michelet, _Histoire de France_, vol. vii., _Renaissance_ (Paris, 1855); Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, v. i. p. 287 ff.; Symonds, _The Renaissance in Italy_ (London, 1877); H. Hallam, _Introduction to the Literature of Europe during the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries_, 6th ed. (London, 1860); Kamptschulte, _Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verhältniss zu dem Humanismus und der Reformation_, 2 vols. (Trier, 1856, 1860); Krause, _Helius Eobanus Hessus, sein Leben und seine Werke_, 2 vols. (Gotha, 1879); Geiger, _Johann Reuchlin_ (Leipzig, 1871); Binder, _Charitas Pirkheimer, Aebtissin von St. Clara zu Nürnberg_ (Freiburg i. B., 1893); Höfler, _Denkwürdigkeiten der Charitas Pirkheimer_ (_Quellensamml. z. fränk. Gesch._ iv., 1858); Roth, _Willibald Pirkheimer_ (Halle, 1874); Scott, _Albert Dürer, his Life and Works_ (London, 1869); Thausing, _Dürer’s Briefe, Tagebücher, Reime_ (Vienna, 1884); _Cambridge Modern History_, I. xvi, xvii; II. i.

17 Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy, Revival of Letters_ (London, 1877), p. 13.

18 There is evidence that Thomas Aquinas was not dependent, as is commonly supposed, for his acquaintance with Greek philosophy on translations into Latin of the Arabic translations of portions of Aristotle, but that he procured Latin versions made directly from the original Greek.

19 He embraced it, sighed over it, and told it how he longed to hear it speak: Fracassetti, _Francisci Petrarchæ, Epistolæ familiares et variæ_, ii. 472-475.

20 Professor Krauss, _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. 6.

21 C. H. Delprot, _Verhandeling over de Brœderschap van Gerard Groote_ (Arnheim, 1856).

22 H. Hartfelder, _Der Zustand der deutschen Hochschulen am Ende des Mittelalters. Hist. Zeitschr._ lxiv. 50-107, 1890.

23 Struver, _Die Schule von Schlettstadt_ (Leipzig, 1880).

24 Kriegk, _Deutsches Bürgerthum im Mittelalter_, neue Folge (Frankfurt a. M. 1868), pp. 77 ff.

25 Boos, _Thomas und Felix Platter_ (Leipzig, 1878), pp. 20 ff.

26 H. Boos, _Thomas und Felix Platter_ (Leipzig, 1876); Becker, _Chronica des fahrenden Schulers_ oder _Wanderbüchlein des Johannes Butzbach_ (Ratisbon, 1869).

27 Scharpff, _Der Cardinal und Bischof Nicolaus von Cusa als Reformator in Kirche, Reich und Philosophie_ (Tübingen, 1871).

28 Wessel’s most important Theses on Indulgences are given in Ullmann, _Reformers before the Reformation_ (Edinburgh, 1855), ii. 546 f.

29 Tresling, _Vita et Merita Rudolphi Agricola_ (Gröningen, 1830).

30 Wiskowatoff, _Jacob Wimpheling, sein Leben und seine Schriften _ (Berlin, 1867).

31 Roth, _Willibald Pirkheimer_ (Halle, 1887).

32 Krause, _Briefwechsel des Mutianus Rufus_ (Cassel, 1855), p. 32.

_ 33 Ibid._ p. 94.

_ 34 Ibid._ p. 93.

_ 35 Ibid._ p. 28.

_ 36 Ibid._ p. 427.

37 Krause, _Briefwechsel des Mutianus Rufus_ (Cassel, 1855), p. 79.

_ 38 Ibid._ p. 175: “Non sit vobiscum in castris (nostris) ulla turpitudo.”

_ 39 Ibid._; cf. especially Letter to Urban, pp. 352, 353, and pp. 153, 190.

40 Geiger in his _Renaissance und Humanismus in Italien und Deutschland_ (Berlin, 1882, Oncken’s Series) has given a picture of the insignia of the poet laureate on p. 457, and one of Conrad Celtes crowned on p. 459.

_ 41 De Verbo Mirifico_ (ed. 1552), p. 71.

42 Kriegk, _Deutsches Bürgerthum im Mittelalter_, pp. 1 ff., 38-53.

43 A chronicle and the details of the Reuchlin controversy are to be found in the second volume of the supplement to Böcking’s edition of the works of Ulrich von Hutten. Good accounts are to be found in Geiger’s _Renaissanc und Humanismus in Italien und Deutschland_, pp. 510 ff. (Berlin, 1882, Oncken’s Series); in Strauss’ _Ulrich von Hutten: His Life and Times_, pp. 100-140 (English translation by Mrs. Sturge, London, 1874); and in Creighton’s _History of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome_, vol. vi. pp. 37 ff. (London, 1897).

44 The second edition is entitled _Illustrium Virorum Epistolæ Hebraicæ, Grecæ, et Latinæ ad Jo. Reuchlinum_; the first edition was entitled _Clarorum Virorum_, etc. The letters are forty-three in number—the first being from Erasmus, “the most learned man of the age.”

45 The best edition of the _Epistolæ Obscurorum Vivorum_ is to be found in vol. i. of the Supplement to Böcking’s _Ulrici Hutteni Opera_, 5 vols., with 2 vols. of Supplement (Leipzig, 1864, 1869). The first edition was published in 1515, and consisted of forty-one letters; the second, in 1516, contained the same number; in the third edition an appendix of seven additional letters was added. In 1517 a second part appeared containing sixty-two letters, and an appendix of eight letters was added to the second edition of the second part.

46 Strauss, _Ulrich von Hutten_, 2 vols. (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1874), translated and slightly abridged by Mrs. George Sturge (London, 1874).

47 SOURCES: Barack, _Zimmerische Chronik_, 4 vols. (2nd ed., Freiburg i. B. 1881-1882); _Chroniken der deutschen Städte_, 29 vols. (in progress); Grimm, _Weisthümer_, 7 vols. (Göttingen, 1840-1878); Haetzerlin, _Liederbuch_ (Quedlinburg, 1840); Liliencron, _Die historischen Volkslieder der Deutschen vom dreizehnten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1865-1869); Sebastian Brand’s _Narrenschiff_ (Leipzig, 1854); Geiler von Keysersberg’s _Ausgewählte Schriften_ (Trier, 1881); Hans Sachs, _Fastnachspiele (Neudrucke deutschen Litteraturwerke_, Nos. 26, 27, 31, 32, 39, 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 60, 63, 64); Hans von Schweinichen, _Leben und Abenteuer des schlessischen Ritters, Hans v. Schweinichen_ (Breslau, 1820-1823); Vandam, _Social Life in Luther’s Time_ (Westminster, 1902); Trithemius, _Annales Hirsaugienses_ (St. Gallen, 1590).

LATER BOOKS: Alwyn Schulz, _Deutsches Leben im 14ten und 15ten Jahrhundert_ (Prague, 1892); Kriegk, _Deutsches Bürgerthum im Mittelalter_ (Frankfurt, 1868, 1871); Freytag, _Bilder aus der deutschen Vergangenheit_, II. ii. (Leipzig, 1899—translation by Mrs. Malcolm of an earlier edition, London, 1862); the series of _Monographien zur deutschen Kulturgeschichte_ edited by Steinhausen (Leipzig, 1899-1905), are full of valuable information and illustrations; Aloys Schulte, _Die Fugger in Rom_ (Leipzig, 1904); Gothein, _Politische und religiöse Volksbewegungen vor der Reformation_ (Breslau, 1878); _Cambridge Modern History_, I. i. xv; v. Bezold, _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890); Genée, _Hans Sachs und seine Zeit_ (Leipzig, 1902); Janssen, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, seil dem Ausgang des Mittelalters_, i. (1897); Roth v. Schreckenstein, _Das Patriziat in den deutschen Städten_ (Freiburg i. B., no date).

48 Daenell, _Geschichte der deutschen Hanse in der zweiten Hälfte des 14 Jahrhunderts_ (Leipzig, 1897).

49 These figures have been taken from Dr. F. von Bezold (_Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_, Berlin, 1890, p. 36). When the _Chron. Episc. Hildesheim._ says that during a visitation of the plague 10,000 persons died in Nürnberg alone, the territory as well as the city must be included.

_ 50 Hans von Schweinichen_, i. 185.

_ 51 Zimmerische Chronik_, ii. 68, 69.

52 Ephrussi, _Les Bains des Femmes d’Albert Dürer_ (Nurnberg, no date).

53 It has recently become a fashion among some Anglican and Roman Catholic writers to dwell on the “coarseness” of Luther displayed in his writings. One is tempted to ask whether these writers have ever read the _Zimmer Chronicle_, if they know anything about the _Fastnachtspiele_ in the beginning of the sixteenth century, of the _Rollwagen_, of Thomas Murner and Bebel, Humanists; above all, if they have ever heard of the parable of the mote and the beam?

54 The most complete collection of the _Weisthümer_ is in seven volumes. Volumes i.-iv. edited by J. Grimm, and volumes v.-vii. edited by R. Schroeder, Göttingen, 1840-1842, 1866, 1869, 1878. Important extracts are given by Alwin Schultz in his _Deutsches Leben im 14 und 15 Jahrhundert_, Vienna, 1892, pp. 145-178 (Grosse Ausgabe).

55 In the interesting collection of mediæval songs, of date 1470 or 1471, _Liederbuch der Clara Hätzlerin_ (Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1840), No. 67 (p. 259), entitled _Von Mair Betzen_, describes a peasant wedding, and tells us what each of the pair contributed to the “plenishing.” The bridegroom, Betze or Bartholomew Mair, gave to his bride an acre (_juchart_) of land well sown with flax, eight bushels of oats, two sheep, a cock and fourteen hens, and a small sum of money (_fünff pfunt pfenning_); while Metze Nodung, the bride, brought to the common stock two wooden beehives, a mare, a goat, a calf, a dun cow, and a young pig. It is perhaps worth remarking that, according to the almost universal custom in mediæval Germany, and in spite of ecclesiastical commands and threats, the actual marriage ceremony consisted in the father of the bride demanding from the young people whether they took each other for man and wife, and in their promising themselves to each other before witnesses. It was not until the morning after the marriage had been consummated that the wedded pair went to church to get the priest’s blessing on a marriage that had taken place.

56 Barack, _Zeitschrift für deutsche Culturgeschichte_, iv. (1859) 36 ff.

57 Droysen, _Geschichte der preussischen Politik_, II. i. p. 309 ff. (5 vols., Berlin, 1855-1886); Boos, _Thomas und Felix Platter_ (Leipsic, 1876), p. 21.

58 These quotations have been taken from Seebohm, _The Era of the Protestant Revolution_, pp. 57, 58 (London, 1875).

59 Liliencron, _Die historischen Volkslieder der Deutschen vom dreizchuten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert_, ii. No. 146 (Leipzig, 1865-1869); cf. also 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138-147. Konrad Stolle, pastor at Erfurt, collected all the information he could from “priests, clerical and lay students, merchants, burghers, peasants, pilgrims, knights and other good people,” and wove it all into a _Thuringian Chronicle_ which forms the 33rd volume of the _Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart_. It reflects the opinions of the time almost as faithfully as the folk-songs do, and contains the above quoted saying of Charles; cf. pp. 61 ff.

60 The best account of this movement is to be found in an article contributed to the _Archiv des historischen Vereins von Unterfranken und Aschaffenburg,_ XIV. iii. 1, where Hans Böhm’s sayings have been carefully collected. Pastor Konrad Stolle’s _Chronicle_, published in the library of the Stuttgart Literary Society (_Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart_, xxxiii.), is also valuable. A list of authorities may also be found in Ullmann’s _Reformers before the Reformation_ (Eng. trans.), i. 377 ff.

_ 61 Narrenschiff_, c. xi. l. 14-18.

_ 62 Die historischen Volkslieder der Deutschen vom 13 bis 16 Jahrhundert_, ii. No. 148.

_ 63 Omnium Gentium Mores_, III, xii. (first printed in 1576).

_ 64 Landsknecht_ or _lanzknecht_ (for the words are the same) is often transliterated _lance-knight_ in English State Papers of the sixteenth century. The English word, suggesting as it does cavalry armed with lances, is very misleading. The victories of the Swiss peasants, and their reputation as soldiers, suggested to the Emperor Frederick, and especially to his son, the Emperor Maximilian, the formation of troops of infantry recruited from the peasantry and from the lower classes of townsmen. Troops of cavalry of a like origin were also formed, and they were called _reiters_ or _reisiger_. These mercenaries frequently gained much money both from pay and from plunder, and were regarded as heroes by the members of the classes from whom they had sprung. Liliencron’s _Die historischen Volkslieder vom 13ten bis zum 16ten Jahrhundert_ contains many folk-songs celebrating their prowess. The history of the gradual rise and growing importance of these peasant soldiers is given in Schultz, _Deutsches Leben im 14ten und 15ten Jahrhundert_, pp. 589 f. (Grosse Ausgabe), and in the authorities there quoted.

65 Willibald Pirkheimer in his book on the Swiss war, chap. ii. (German ed., Basel, 1826).

66 Gothein, _Politische und religiöse Volksbewegungen vor der Reformation_ (Breslau, 1878), p. 78.

67 To Sources given to Chapter IV. add: Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied von der ältesten Zeit bis zum Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts_ (Leipzig, 1864-1877) vols. i. ii.; “Rainerii Sachoni Summa de Catharis et Leonistis” in _the Magna Bibliotheca Patrum_, vol. xiii. (Col. Agrip. 1618), cf. “Comm. Crit. de Rainerii Sachoni Summa” (_Göttingen Osterprogramm_ of 1834); Habler, _Das Wallfahrtbuch des Hermann von Vach, und die Pilgerreisen der Deutschen nach Santiago de Compostella_ (Strassburg, 1899); _Mirabilia Romæ_ (reprint by Parthey, Berlin, 1869); Munzenberger, _Frankfurter und Magdeburger Beichtbuchlein_ (Mainz, 1883); Hasak, _Die letzte Rose_, etc. (Ratisbon, 1883); Hasak, _Der christliche Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des Mittelalters_ (Ratisbon, 1868); Höfler, _Denkwürdigkeiten der Charitas Pirckheimer (Quellensamml. z. fränk. Gesch._ iv., 1858); Konrad Stolle, _Thüringische Chronik_ (in _Bibliothek d. lit. Vereins_ (Stuttgardt), xxxiii.).

LATER BOOKS: v. Bezold, _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890); Janssen, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkesseit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters_ (17th ed., 1897), vol. i.; Brück, _Der religiöse Unterricht für Jugend und Volk in Deutschland in der zweiten Hälfte des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts_; Cruel, _Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittelalter_ (Detwold, 1879); Dacheux, _Jean Geiler de Keysersberg_ (Paris, 1876); Walther, _Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters_ (Brunswick, 1889); Uhlhorn, _Die christliche Liebesthätigkeit im Mittelalter_ (Stuttgart, 1887); Wilken, _Geschichte der geistlichen Spiele in Deutschland_ (Göttingen, 1872).

68 Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander_, etc. (Halle a. S. 1897), pp. 26, 45-48.

69 No fewer than six editions of his _Postilla_ were published between 1471 and 1508.

70 v. Bezold, _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_, p. 91 f.

71 Heinzel, _Beschreibung des geistlichen Schauspiels im deutschen Mittelalter_ (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1898); F. J. Mone, _Schauspiele des Mittelalters_, 2 vols. (Karlsruhe, 1846).

72 Hampsen, _Medii Ævi Kalendarium_ (London, 1841), i. 140 f.

73 Tilliot, _Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la fête dts fous_ (Lausanne, 1751); cf. Floegel’s _Geschichte des Grotesk-Komischen_ (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1886), pp. 199-242.

74 The old Scottish version is, “To us is borne a barne of bliss,” _Gude and Godlie Ballates_ (Scot. Text Society, Edinburgh, 1897), pp. 51, 250.

75 This may be translated:

“Oh Jesus, Master, meek and mild, Since Thou wast once a little child, Wilt Thou not give this baby mine Thy Grace and every blessing thine? Oh Jesus, Master mild, Protect my little child.

Now sleep, now sleep, my little child, He loves thee, Jesus, meek and mild: He’ll never leave thee nor forsake, He’ll make thee wise and good and great. Oh Jesus, Master mild, Protect my little child.”

76 The old Scotch version was:

“In dulci jubilo, Now let us sing with mirth and jo! Our hartis consolation Lies in præsepio; And schynis as the Sonne Matris in gremio. Alpha es et O, Alpha es et O!

O Jesu parvule, I thirst sair after Thee; Comfort my hart and mind, O Puer optime! God of all grace so kind, Et Princeps Gloriæ, Trahe me post Te, Trahe me post Te!

Ubi sunt gaudia In any place but there, Where that the angels sing Nova cantica, But and the bellis ring In Regis curia! God gif I were there, God gif I were there!”

—(_Gude and Godlie Ballates_ (Scot. Text Society, Edinburgh, 1897), pp. 53. 250.)

There is a variety of English versions: “Let Jubil trumpets blow, and hearts in rapture flow”; “In dulci jubilo, to the House of God we’ll go”; “In dulci jubilo, sing and shout all below.” Cf. Julian, _Dictionary of Hymnology_, p. 564.

77 Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied_, etc., ii. 483 ff.

78 The song began:

“Wöllent ir geren hören Von sant Michel’s wunn; In Gargau ist er gsessen Drei mil im meresgrund.

‘O heilger man, sant Michel, Wie hastu dass gesundt, Dass du so tief hast buwen Wol in des meres grund?’ ”

—(Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied_, etc. ii. 1003.)

79 Konrad Stolle, _Thüringische Chronik_, pp. 128-131 (_Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart_, xxxiii.).

80 Kolde, _Friedrich der Weise und die Anfänge der Reformation_, p. 14.

81 Lucas Cranach, _Wittenberger Heiligenthumsbuch vom Jahre 1509_, in Hirth’s _Liebhaber-Bibliothek alter Illustratoren in Facsimilien-Reproduktion_, No. vii. (Munich, 1896).

_ 82 Mirabilia Romæ_, ed. by G. Parthey: the quotations are from an old German translation.

83 The title is _Hæ sunt reliquiæ quæ habentur in hac sanctissima ecclesia Compostellana in qua corpus Beati Jacobi Zebedei in integrum_.

84 No. i. of _Drucke und Holzschnitte des 15 und 16 Jahrhunderts_ (Strassburg, 1899).

85 “Zway par schuech der darff er wol, Ein schüssel bei der flaschen; Ein breiten huet den sol er han, Und an mantel sol er nit gan Myt leder wol besezet; Es schnei oder regn oder wehe der wint, Dass in die lufft nicht nezet; Sagkh und stab ist auch dar bey.”

—(Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied von der aeltesten Zeit bis zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts_, ii. 1009.)

86 The hospital at Romans is much praised:

“Da selbst eyn gutter spital ist, Dar inne gybt mann brot und wyn Auch synt die bett hubsch und fyn.”

On the other hand, although the hospital at Montpelier was good enough, its superintendent was a sworn enemy to Germans, and the pilgrims of that nation suffered much at his hands. These hospitals occupy a good deal of space in the pilgrimage song, and the woes of the Germans are duly set forth. If the pilgrim asks politely for more bread:

“Spitelmeister, lieber spitelmeister meyn, Die brot sein vil zu kleine”;

or suggests that the beds are not very clean:

“Spitelmeister, lieber spitelmeister meyn, Die bet sein nit gar reine,”

the superintendent and his daughter (der spitelmeister het eyn tochterlein es mocht recht vol eyn schelckin seyn) declared that they were not going to be troubled with “German dogs.”—Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied_, etc., ii. 1009-1010.

_ 87 Zimmerische Chronik_ (Freiburg i. B. 1881-1882), ii. 314.

_ 88 Ibid._ iii. 474-475 iv. 201.

_ 89 Predigten_, i. 448.

90 Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied_, etc., ii. 554, 1016-1022.

91 Schwaumkell, _Der Cultus der heiligen Anna am Ausgange des Mittelalters_ (Freiburg, 1893).

92 xix. p. 397 ff., xx. p. 159 ff., 329 ff., xxi. p. 43 ff.

_ 93 The Romance of the Rose_, ii. p. 168 (Temple Classics edition).

94 v. Bezold, _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_, pp. 95 f.

95 Kriegk, _Deutsches Bürgerthum im Mittelalter. Nach urkundlichen Forschungen und mit besonderer Bezichung auf Frankfurt a. M._, pp. 161 ff. (Frankfurt, 1868). Uhlhorn, _Die christliche Liebesthätigkeit im Mittelalter_, pp. 431 ff. (Stuttgart, 1854).

96 Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied_, ii. 768-769; it began:

“Ein zeyt hort ich mit gütter mer von einem schyfflin sagen, Wie es mit tugenden also gar kostlichen war beladen: Zu dem schyfflin gewan ich ein hertz, Ich fand dar yn vil güter gemertz in mancher hande gaden.”

97 The strongest prohibition of the vernacular Scriptures comes from the time of the Albigenses: “Prohibemus etiam, ne libros veteris Testamenti aut novi permittantur habere; nisi forte psalterium, vel brevarium pro divinis officiis, aut horas B. Mariæ aliquis ex devotione habere velit. Sed ne præmissos libros habeant in vulgari translatos, arctissime inhibemus” (_Conc. of Toulouse_ of 1229, c. xiv.). The _Constitutiones Thomæ Arundel_, for the mediæval Church of England, declared: “Ordinamus ut nemo deinceps aliquem textum S. Scripturæ auctoritate sua in linguam Anglicanam vel aliam transferat per viam libri, libelii aut tractatus” (Art. VII., 1408 A.D.).

98 Pope Innocent III. reprobated the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular, because ordinary laymen, and especially women, had not sufficient intelligence to understand them (_Epistolæ_, ii. 141); and Berthold, Archbishop of Mainz, in his diocesan edict of 1486, asserted that vernaculars were unable to express the profundity of the thoughts contained in the original languages of the Scriptures or in the Latin of the Vulgate.

_ 99 Maima Bibliotheca Patrum_ (Coloniæ Agrippinæ, 1618), xiii. 299.

100 Walther, _Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters_ (Brunswick, 1889).

101 Gudenaus, _Codex Diplomatic. Anecdota_, iv. 469-475 (1758).

102 Walther, _Die deutsche Bibelübersetzungen des Mittelalters_ (Brunswick, 1889).

103 Sebastian Brand, _Narrenschiff_, Preface, lines 1-4:

“Alle Land ist jetz voll heilger Schrift, Und was der seelen Heil betrifft Bibel und heilger Vater Lehr Und andrer frommen Bücher mehr.”

_ 104 Magna Bibliotheca Patrum_ (Coloniæ Agrippinæ, 1618), vol. xiii. pp. 290-301.

105 SOURCES: Casanova and Guasti, _Poesie di G. Savonarola_ (Florence, 1862); _Scella di Prediche e Scritti di Frà G. Savonarola, con nuovi Documenti intorno alla sua Vita_, by Villari and Casanova (Florence, 1898); Bayonne, _Œuvres Spirituelles choisies de Jerome Savonarola_ (Paris, 1879); _The Workes of Sir Thomas More ... written by him in the Englyshe tonge_ (London, 1557); Erasmus, _Opera Omnia_, ed. Le Clerc (Leyden, 1703-1706); Nichols, _The Epistles of Erasmus from his earliest letters to his fifty-first year, arranged in order of time_ (London, 1901); _Enchiridion Militis Christiani_ (Cambridge, 1685); _The whole Familiar Colloquies of Erasmus_ (London, 1877); Sir Thomas More, _Utopia_ (Temple Classics Series).

LATER WORKS: Villari, _Girolamo Savonarola_, 2 vols. (Florence, 1887-1888; Eng. trans., London, 1890); Seebohm, _The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More_, etc. (London, 1887); Drummond, _Erasmus, his life and character_ (London, 1873); Woltmann, _Holbein and his Time_ (London, 1872); Fronde, _Life and Letters of Erasmus_ (London, 1894); Amiel, _Un libre penseur du 16 siècle: Érasme_ (Paris, 1889); Emmerton, _Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam_ (New York. 1899).

_ 106 The Workes of Sir Thomas More, Knyght, sometyme Lorde Chancellour of England, Wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge_ (London, 1557), p. 6 C.

_ 107 The Works of Sir Thomas More, Knyght, sometyme Lorde Chancellor of England, Wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge_ (London, 1557), p. 13 C.

_ 108 Ibid._ 5 A.

_ 109 Ibid._ 6 B.

_ 110 Ibid._ 6 C.

_ 111 Ibid._ 8 D.

_ 112 Ibid._ 6 D.

_ 113 The Works of Sir Thomas More, Knyght, sometyme Lorde Chancellour of England, Wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge_ (London, 1557), 13 F.

_ 114 Ibid._ 12 D.

_ 115 Ibid._ 7 D.

_ 116 Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola_, p. 771 (Eng. trans., London, 1897).

117 Seebohm, _The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More; being a history of their fellow-work_, 2nd ed. p. 125 (London, 1869). Mr. Seebohm seems to think that the Reformers clung to the mediæval conception of the inspiration of Scripture. Calvin held the same ideas as Colet, and expressed them in the same way. Cf. his comments on Matt. xxvii. 9: “Quomodo Hieremiæ nomen obrepserit, me nescire fateor, _nec anxie laboro_: certe Hieremiæ nomen _errore_ positum esse pro Zacharia, res ipsa ostendit”; and his comment on Acts vii. 16: “quare his locus corrigendus est.”

118 Colet’s abstracts of the _Celestial_ and of the _Terrestrial Hierarchies_ have been published by the Rev. J. H. Lupton (London, 1869), from the MS. at St. Paul’s School. Mr. Lupton has also published Colet’s treatise _On the Sacraments of the Church_ (London, 1867). The best edition of the works of the pseudo-Dionysius is that of Balthasar Corderius, S.J., published at Venice in 1755. The actual writings of the pseudo-Dionysius are not extensive; the editor has added translations, notes, scholia, commentaries, etc., and his folio edition contains more than one thousand pages.

119 “The radical conception is most often due to Dionysius; the passages represent the effervescence produced by the Dionysian conceptions in Colet’s mind.... The fire was indeed very much Colet’s. I find passages which burn in Colet’s abstract, freeze in the original.”—Seebohm, _The Oxford Reformers_, p. 76 (2nd ed., London, 1869). My knowledge of Colet’s sermons comes from the extracts in Mr. Seebohm’s work.

120 Cf. Mr. Lupton’s translation of the _Ecclesiastical Hierarchies_, c. ii. If it be permissible to adduce evidence from the _Utopia_ of Sir Thomas More, the anti-sacerdotal views of the Oxford Reformers went much further. In _Utopia_ confession was made to the head of the family and not to the priests; women could be priests; divorce from bed and board was permitted. Cf. the Temple Classics edition, p. 116 (divorce), p. 148 (women-priests), p. 152 (confession).

121 Seebohm, _The Oxford Reformers_, p. 221 (2nd ed. 1869).

122 Erasmus, _Opera Omnia_ (Leyden, 1703-1706), v. 140.

123 Erasmus, _Opera Omnia_ (Leyden, 1703-1706), v. 26. The sarcasm of Erasmus finds ample confirmation in Kerler’s _Die Patronate der Heiligen_ (Ulm, 1905), where St. Rochus, with fifty-nine companion saints, is stated to be ready to hear the prayers of those who dread the plague; St. Apollonia, with eighteen others, takes special interest in all who are afflicted with toothache; the holy Job, with thirteen companions, is ready to cure the itch; and St. Barbara with St. George figure as protectors against a violent death; cf. pp. 266-273, 419-422, 218-219, 358-359.

124 Erasmus, _Opera Omnia_, v. 35-36.

_ 125 Ibid._ iv. 465.

126 Erasmus, _Opera Omnia_, iv. 481-484.

_ 127 Ibid._ iv. 471-474.

_ 128 Ibid._ iv. 445.

129 Leitschuh, _Albrecht Dürer’s Tagebuch der Reise in die Niederlande_ (Leipzig, 1884), p. 84.

130 SOURCES: Melanchthon, _Historia de vita et actis Lutheri_ (Wittenberg, 1545, in the _Corpus Reformatorum_, vi.); Mathesius, _Historien von ... Martini Lutheri, Anfang, Lere, Leben und Sterben_ (Prague, 1896); Myconius, _Historia Reformations 1517-1542_ (Leipzig, 1718); Ratzeberger, _Geschichte über Luther und seine Zeit_ (Jena, 1850); Kilian Leib, _Annales von 1503-1523_ (vols. vii. and ix. of v. Aretin’s _Beiträge zur Geschichte und Litteratur_, Munich, 1803-1806); Wrampelmeyer, _Tagebuch über Dr. Martin Luther, geführt von Dr. Conrad Cordatus, 1537_ (Halle, 1885); Caspar Cruciger, _Tabulæ chronologicæ actorum M. Lutheri_ (Wittenberg, 1553); Förstemann, _Neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchen-reformation_ (Hamburg, 1842); Kolde, _Analecta Lutherana_ (Gotha, 1883); G. Loesche, _Analecta Lutherana et Melanchthoniana_ (Gotha, 1892); Löscher; _Vollstündige Reformations-Acta und Documenta_ (Leipzig, 1720-1729); Enders, _Dr. Martin Luther’s Briefwechsel_, 5 vols. (Frankfurt, 1884-1893); De Wette, _Dr. Martin Luther’s Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken_, 5 vols. (Berlin, 1825-1828); J. Cochlæus (Rom. Cath.), _Commentarius de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri ... ab anno 1517 usque ad annum 1537_ (St. Victor prope Moguntiam, 1549); V. L. Seekendorf, _Commentarius ... de Lutheranismo_ (Frankfurt, 1692); _Constitutiones Fratrum Heremitarum Sancti Augustini_ (Nürnberg, 1504); _Cambridge Modern History_, II. iv.

LATER BOOKS: J. Köstlin, _Martin Luther, sein Leben und seine Schriften_, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1889); Th. Kolde, _Martin Luther. Eine Biographie_, 2 vols. (Gotha, 1884, 1893); A. Hausrath, _Luther’s Leben_, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1904); Lindsay, _Luther and the German Reformation_ (Edinburgh, 1900); Kolde, _Friedrich der Weise und die Anfänge der Reformation mit archivalischen Beilagen_ (Erlangen, 1881), and _Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation und Johann v. Staupitz_ (Gotha, 1879); A. Hausrath, _M. Luther’s Romfahrt nach einem gleichzeitigen Pilgerbuche_ (Berlin, 1894); Oergel, _Vom jungen Luther_ (Erfurt, 1899); Jürgens, _Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassetreil_, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1846-1847); Krumhaar, _Die Grafschaft Mansfeld im Reformationszeitalter_ (Eisleben, 1845); Buchwald, _Zur Wittenberg Stadt- und Universitätsgeschichte in der Reformationszeit_ (Leipzig, 1893); Kampschulte, _Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verkältniss zu dem Humanismus und der Reformation_ (Trier, 1856-1860).

_ 131 Albrecht Dürer’s Tugebuch der Reise in die Niederlande_. Edited by Dr. Fr. Leitschuh (Leipzig, 1884), pp. 28-84.

132 Nicholas, born at Lyre, a village in Normandy, was one of the earliest students of the Hebrew Scriptures; he explained the accepted fourfold sense of Scripture in the following distich:

“_Litera_ gesta docet, quid credas _Allegoria_, _Moralis_ quid agas, quo tendas _Anagogia_.”

Luther used his commentaries when he became Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, and acknowledged the debt; but it is too much to say:

“Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset.”

133 There is one persistent contemporary suggestion, that Luther was finally driven to take the step by the sudden death of a companion, for which a good deal may be said. Oergel has shown, from minute researches in the university archives, that a special friend of Luther’s, Hieronymus Pontz of Windsheim, who was working along with him for his Magister’s degree, died suddenly of pleurisy before the end of the examination; that a few weeks after Luther had taken his degree, another promising student whom he knew died of the plague; that the plague broke out again in Erfurt three months afterwards; and that Luther entered the convent a few days after this second appearance of the plague.—Cf. Georg Oergel, _Vom jungen Luther_ (Erfurt, 1899), pp. 35-41.

134 Cf. above, pp. 127 ff.

135 In my chapter on Luther in the _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. p. 114, where notes were not permitted, I have said with too much abruptness that John of Paltz was “the teacher of Luther himself.” Luther was certainly taught the theology of John of Paltz, and the latter was residing in the monastery during two years of Luther’s stay there; but it is more probable that Luther’s actual instructor was Nathin.

136 In the _Tischreden_ (Preger, Leipzig, 1888), i. 27, the saying is attributed to Bartholomæus Usingen, who is erroneously called Luther’s teacher in the Erfurt convent. Usingen did not enter the convent before 1512. He was a professor in the University of Erfurt, not in the convent.

137 N. Selneccer, _Historia . . . D. M. Lutheri_: “Jussus est omissis Sacris Bibliis ex obedientia legere scholastica et sophistica scripta.”

138 Modern Romanists describe all this as the self-torturing of an hysterical youth. They are surely oblivious to the fact that the only great German mediæval Mystic who has been canonised by the Romish Church, Henry Suso, went through a similar experience; and that these very experiences were in both cases looked on by contemporaries as the fruits of a more than ordinary piety.

_ 139 Resolutiones_, Preface.

140 Acts viii. 4.

141 Rom. xiii. 14.

142 Matt. x. 9.

143 Prov. ii. 1.

144 “If we review all the men and women of the West since Augustine’s time, whom, for the disposition which possessed them, history has designated as eminent Christians, we have always the same type; we find marked conviction of sin, complete renunciation of their own strength, and trust in grace, in the personal God who is apprehended as the _Merciful One_ in the humility of Christ. The variations of this frame of mind are innumerable—but the fundamental type is the same. This frame of mind is taught in sermons and in instruction by truly pious Romanists and by Evangelicals; in it youthful Christians are trained, and dogmatics are constructed in harmony with it. It has always produced so powerful an effect, even where it is only preached as the experience of others, that he who has come in contact with it can never forget it; it accompanies him as a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night; he who imagines that he has long shaken it off, sees it rising up suddenly before him again.”—Harnack’s _History of Dogma_, v. 74 (Eng. trans., London, 1898).

145 The Wolfenbüttel Library contains the Psalter (Vulgate) used by Luther in lecturing on the Psalms. The book was printed at Wittenberg in 1513 by John Gronenberg, and contains Luther’s notes written on the margin and between the printed lines.

146 Luther’s indebtedness to Gerson (Jean Charlier, born in 1363 at Gerson, a hamlet near Rethel in the Ardennes, believed by some to be the author of the _De Imitatione Christi_) has not been sufficiently noticed. It may be partially estimated by Luther’s own statement that most experimental divines, including Augustine, when dealing with the struggle of the awakened soul, lay most stress on that part of the conflict which comes from temptations of the flesh; Gerson confines himself to those which are purely spiritual. Luther, during his soul-anguish in the convent, was a young monk who had lived a humanly stainless life, _sans peur et sans reproche_; Augustine, a middle-aged professor of rhetoric, had been living for years in a state of sinful concubinage.

147 It is commonly said that Luther made use of the _mystical_ passages found in these and other authors; but _mystical_ is a very ambiguous word. It is continually used to express personal or individual piety in general; or this personal religion as opposed to that religious life which is consciously lived within the fellowship of men called the Church, provided with the external means of grace. These are, however, very loose uses of the word. The fundamental problem, even in Christian Mysticism, appears to me to be how to bridge the gulf between the creature and the Creator, while the problem in Reformation theology is how to span the chasm between the sinful man and the righteous God. Hence in mysticism the _tendency_ is always to regard sin as imperfection, while in the Reformation theology sin is always the power of evil and invariably includes the thought of guilt. Luther was no mystic in the sense of desiring to be lost _in_ God: he wished to be saved _through_ Christ.

148 Of course, Luther’s intense individuality appeared in his language from the first. Take as an example a note on Ps. lxxxiv. 4: “As the meadow is to the cow, the house to the man, the nest to the bird, the rock to the chamois, and the stream to the fish, so is the Holy Scripture to the believing soul.”

149 The expression is interesting, because it shows that Luther’s influence had made at least two of his colleagues change their views. Nicholas Amsdorf and Andrew Bodenstein of Carlstadt had come to Wittenberg to teach Scholastic Theology, and Amsdorf had made a great name for himself as an exponent of the older type of that theology.

150 An illustrated catalogue of Frederick’s collection of relics was prepared by Lucas Cranach, and published under the title, _Wittenberger Heiligthumsbuch vom Jahre 1509_. It has been reprinted by G. Hirth of Munich in his _Liebhaber-Bibliothek alter Illustratoren in Facsimile-Reproduktion,_ No. vi.

151 “Amore et studio elucidandæ veritatis hæc subscripta disputabuntur Wittenbergæ, præsidente R. P. Martino Lutther, artium et sacræ theologiæ magistro eiusdemque ibidem lectore ordinario. Quare petit, ut qui non possunt verbis præsentes nobiscum disceptare, agant id literis absentes. In nomine Domini nostri Hiesu Christi. Amen.”

152 SOURCES: Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologiæ, Supplementum Tertiæ Partis_, Quæstiones xxv.-xxvii.; Alexander of Hales, _Summa Theologiæ_, iv.; Bonaventura, _Opera Omnia; In Librum Quartum Sententiarum_, dist. xx.; vol. v. 264 tf. (Moguntiæ, 1609); Denzinger, _Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, quæ de rebus fidei et morum a conciliis œcumenicis et summis pontificibus emanarunt_, 9th ed. (Würzburg, 1900), p. 175; Köhler, _Documenta zum Ablassstreit von 1517_ (Tübingen, 1902).

LATER BOOKS: F. Beringer (Soc. Jes.), _Der Ablass, sein Wesen und Gebrauch_, 12th ed. (Paderborn, 1898); Bouvier, _Treatise on Indulgences_ (London, 1848); Lea, _A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgence in the Latin Church_, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1896); Brieger, _Das Wesen des Ablasses am Ausgange des Mittelalters_ (Leipzig, 1897); Harnack, _History of Dogma_, vi. pp. 243-270; Götz, “Studien zur Geschichte des Buss-sacraments” in _Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, xv. 321 ff., xvi. 541 ff.; Schneider, _Der Ablass_ (1881); _Cambridge Modern History_, II. iv.

153 The use of the word _satisfaction_ to denote an outward sign of sorrow for sin which was supposed to be well-pleasing to God and to afford reasonable ground for the congregation restoring a lapsed member, is very old—much older than the use of the word to denote the work of Christ. It is found as early as the time of Tertullian and Cyprian.

154 Tertullian was no believer in any indulgence shown to penitent sinners, and his account of the way in which penitents appeared before the congregation to ask for a remission or mitigation of the ecclesiastical sentence pronounced against them is doubtless a caricature, but it may be taken as a not unfair description of what must have frequently taken place: “You introduce into the Church the penitent adulterer for the purpose of melting the brotherhood by his supplications. You lead him into the midst, clad in sackcloth, covered with ashes, a compound of disgrace and horror. He prostrates himself before the widows, before the elders, suing for the tears of all; he seizes the edges of their garments, he clasps their knees, he kisses the prints of their feet. Meanwhile you harangue the people and excite their pity for the sad lot of the penitent. Good pastor, blessed father that you are, you describe the coming back of your goat in recounting the parable of the lost sheep. And in case your ewe lamb may take another leap out of the fold ... you fill all the rest of the flock with apprehension at the very moment of granting indulgence.”—(_De Pudicitia_, 13.)

155 In one book of discipline a man who has committed certain sins is ordered either to go on pilgrimage for ten years, or to live on bread and water for two years, or to pay 12s. a year. Detailed information may be found in Schmitz, _Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisziplin der Kirche_.

_ 156 Summa_, iv. 23.

157 Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologiæ_, iii., _Supplementum_, Quæs. xxv. 1.

158 “Du sprichst ‘So ich am letsten in todes not, Ain yeder priester mich zu absolviren not’: Von Schuld ist war, noch mitt von pein, so du bist tod, Ja für ain stund in fegfeür dort. Gabst du des Kaysers güte.”

—(Wackernagel, _Das deutsche Kirchenlied_, etc. ii. 1068.)

159 Bonaventura, _In Librum Quartum Sententiarum_, Dist. xx. Quæst. 5. Alexander of Hales, _Summa_, iv. Quæst. 59; Thomas Aquinas, _Summa_, iii., _Suppl. Quæst._ i. 2.

160 Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologiæ_, iii., _Supplem._ Quæstio xxv. 1: “Ecclesia universalis non potest errare ... ecclesia universalis indulgentias approbat et facit. Ergo indulgentiæ aliquid valent ... quia impium esset dicere quod Ecclesia aliquid vanè faceret.”

161 Cf. the hymn, “Der guldin Ablass,” of the fifteenth century, in Wackernagel, ii. 283-284.

162 SOURCES: Köhler, _Luthers 95 Theses samt seinen Resolutionen sowie den Gegenschriften von Wimpina-Tetzel, Eck, und Prierias und den Antworten Luthers darauf_ (Leipzig, 1903); Emil Reich, _Select Documents illustrating Mediæval and Modern History_ (London, 1905).

LATER BOOKS: J. E. Kapp, _Sammlung einiger zum päpstlichen Ablass, überhaupt ... aber zu der ... zwischen Martin Luther und Johann Tetzel hiervongeführten Streitigkeit gehörigen Schriften, mit Einleitungen und Anmerkungen versehen_ (Leipzig, 1721), and _Kleine Nachlese einiger ... zur Erläuterung der Reformationsgeschichte nützlicher Urkunden_ (Four parts, Leipzig, 1727-1733); Bratke, _Luthers 95 Theses und ihre dogmenhistorischen Voraussetzungen_ (Göttingen, 1884); Dieckhoff, _Der Ablassstreit dogmengeschichtlich dargestellt_ (Gotha, 1886); Gröne, _Tetzel und Luther_ (Soest, 1860).

163 The _Obelisks_ of Eck were printed and circulated privately long before they were published; a copy was in Luther’s hand on March 4th, 1518; it was answered by him on March 24th, and was published in the August following.

164 Köhler has collected together the _Ninety-five Theses_, the _Resolutiones_, and the attacks on the _Theses_ by Wimpina-Tetzel, Eck, and Prierias, and published them in one small book (Leipzig, 1903). It is a handbook of reference, and the text of the documents has been carefully examined.

165 The arguments were all founded on Thomas Aquinas, _Summa_, iii., _Supplementum_, Quæstio xxv. l.

166 Thomas de Vio was born at Gæta, a town situated on a promontory about fifty miles north of Naples, and was called Cajetanus from his birthplace. His baptismal name was James, and he took that of Thomas in honour of Thomas Aquinas. He had entered the Dominican Order at the age of sixteen; he was a learned man, a Scholastic of the older Thomist type, and not without evangelical sympathies; but he had the Dominican idea that ecclesiastical discipline must be maintained at all costs.

167 Seidemann, _Die Leipziger Disputation im Jahre 1519_ (Dresden, 1843).

_ 168 Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie_ for 1872, p. 534.

169 Petri Mosellani, “Epistola de Disput. Lips.” in Löscher’s _Reformations Acta et Documenta_ (Leipzig, 1720-1729), i. pp. 242 ff.

_ 170 Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie_ for 1872, p. 535. The diarist is M. Sebastian Froscher.

171 Wace and Buchheim, _Luther’s Primary Works_ (London, 1896).

172 Denzinger, _Enchiridion_, etc. p. 175.

173 In a pamphlet written by Eck in 1519, he had asserted that all the theologians in Germany were opposed to Luther save a few unlearned canons. This called forth, towards the end of the year, _The Answer of an Unlearned Canon_, which was generally ascribed to Bernard Adelmann, a canon of Augsburg, but which was really written by Oecolampadius. Pirkheimer had written a caustic attack on Eck in a satire, in which German coarseness was clothed in elegant latinity, entitled _Eccius Dedolatus_ (_The Corner planed off_, Eck being the German for “corner”), published in _Lateinische Litteraturdenkmüler des 15 und 16 Jahrhundertes_ (Berlin, 1891). Carlstadt had opposed Eck at Leipzig.

174 A copy of Luther’s notice has been preserved in the MS. “Annals” of Peter Schumann in the _Zwickau Ratsschulbibliothek_ at Zwickau. It has been printed in Kolde’s _Analecta Lutherana_ (Gotha, 1883), p. 26: “Quisquis veritatis Evangeliceæ studio teneatur. Adesto sub horam nonam, modo ad templum S. Crucis extra mœnia oppidi, ubi pro veteri et apostolico ritu impii pontificiarum constitutionum et scholasticæ theologiæ libri cremabuntur quandoquidem eo processit audatia inimicorum Evangelii, ut pios ac evangelicos Luteri exusserit. Age pia et studiosa juventus ad hoc pium ac religiosum spectaculum constituito. Fortassis enim nunc tempus est quo revelari Antichristum opportuit.”

175 Fr. v. Bezold has some excellent pages on this subject in his _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890), pp. 278 ff. I have used the material he has collected, and added to it from my own reading.

176 SOURCES: _Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl __V._, 3 vols. have been published (Gotha, 1893-1901); Balan, _Monumenta Reformationis Lutheranæ ex tabulis S. Sedis secretis 1521-1525_ (Ratisbon, 1883-1884); Læmmer, _Monumenta Vaticana historiam ecclesiasticam sæculi 16 illustrantia_ (Freiburg, 1861); _Meletematum Romanorum Mantissa_ (Regensburg, 1875); Brieger, _Aleander und Luther 1521: Die vervollständigten Aleander-Depeschen nebst Untersuchungen über den Wormser Reichstag_ (Gotha, 1894); _Calendar of Spanish State Papers_ (London, 1886); _Calendar of Venetian State Papers_, vols. iii.-vi. (London, 1864-1884); _Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the reign of Henry __VIII._, vols. iii.-xix. (London, 1860-1903); V. E. Loescher, _Vollständige Reformations-Acta und Documenta_, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1713-1722); Spalatin, _Annales Reformationis_ (Leipzig, 1768); _Chronikon_ 2nd vol. of Mencke’s _Scriptores rerum Germanicarum præcipae Saxonicarum_, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1728-1730); _Historischer Nachlass und Briefe_ (Jena, 1851); also the sources mentioned under the first chapter of this part.

LATER BOOKS: Hausrath, _Aleander und Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms_ (Berlin, 1897); Kolde, _Luther und der Reichstag zu Worms 1521_ (Halle, 1883); Friedrich, _der Reichstag zu Worms 1521_ (Munich, 1871); Ranke, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation_ (Leipzig, 1881; Eng. trans., London, 1905); Armstrong, _The Emperor Charles __V._ (London, 1902); v. Bezold, _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890); Creighton, _A History of the Papacy_, vol. vi. (London, 1897); Gebhardt, _Die Gravamina der deutschen Nation_ (Breshan, 1895).

177 Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen_, etc. pp. 46, 50, 58, 69, etc.

178 He became Archbishop of Brindisi and Orio, and then a Cardinal.

179 Breiger, _Aleander und Luther 1521: Die vervollständigten Aleander-Depeschen_, p. 53 (Gotha, 1884); _non superstitiose verax_, Erasmus said.

180 Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander_, etc. pp. 19, 20, 23, 24, 265, 266.

181 Brieger, _Aleander und Luther 1521: Die vervollständigten Aleander-Depeschen_ (Gotha, 1884), _Quellen und Furschungen zur Geschichte der Reformation_, i.; Friedensburg, _Eine ungedrückte Depesche Aleanders von seiner ersten Nuntiatur bei Karl_ V., in _Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven_, i. (1897); Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstage 1521_ (Halle, 1897, 2nd ed.); Kolde, _Luther und der Reichstag zu Worms 1521_ (Halle, 1883); Hausrath, _Aleander und Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms_ (Berlin, 1897); Gebhardt, _Die Gravamina der deutschen Nation_ (Breslau, 1895, 2nd ed.).

182 “Reserved as Charles was, the shock struck out the most outspoken confession of his faith that he ever uttered. Nowhere else is it possible to approach so closely to the workings of his spiritual nature, save in the confidential letters to his brother in the last troubled hours of rule, when he repeated that it was not in his conscience to rend the seamless mantle of the Church.”—Armstrong, _The Emperor Charles __V._, i. 71 (London, 1902). But we have another glimpse in the conversation with his sister Maria, in which he confesses that he had come to think better of the Lutherans, for he had learned to know that they taught nothing outside the Apostles’ Creed. Cf. Kawerau, _Johann Agricola von Eisleben_, p. 100 (Berlin, 1881).

_ 183 Deutsche Reichstagsakten_, etc. ii. 595.

_ 184 Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, 1509-1525_, p. 305 (London, 1866).

185 For an account of the indirect causes which led to the election of Charles, cf. v. Bezohl, _Geschichte des deutschen Reformation_, pp. 193 ff. (Berlin, 1890).

186 Armstrong, _The Emperor Charles __V._, p. 73 (London, 1902).

187 Charles V. had for his confessor Jean Glapion, who figured largely in the preliminary scenes before Luther arrived at Worms. He had a remarkable conversation with Dr. Brück, the Elector of Saxony’s Chancellor, in which he professed to speak for the Emperor as well as for himself. Luther’s earlier writings had given him great pleasure; he believed him to be a “plant of renown,” able to produce splendid fruit for the Church. But the book on the _Babylonian Captivity_ had shocked him; he did not believe it to be Luther’s; it was not in his usual style; if Luther had written it, it must have been because he was momentarily indignant at the papal Bull, and as it was anonymous, it could easily be repudiated; or if not repudiated, it might be explained, and its sentences shown to be capable of a Catholic interpretation. If this were done, and if Luther withdrew his violent writings against the Pope, there was no reason why an amicable arrangement should not be come to. The Papal Bull could easily be got over, it could be withdrawn on the ground that Luther had never had a fair trial. It was a mistake to suppose that the Emperor was not keenly alive to the need for a reformation of the Church; there were limits to his devotion to the Pope; the Emperor believed that he would deserve the wrath of God if he did not try to amend the deplorable condition of the Church of Christ. Such was Glapion’s statement. It is a question how far he was sincere, and how far he could speak for the Emperor. He was a friend and admirer of Erasmus; but the Dutchman had said that no man could conceal his own views so skilfully. The Elector heard that after this conversation Glapion had got from Aleander 400 copies of the Bull against Luther, and had distributed them among Franciscan monks. This made him doubt his sincerity, and he refused to grant him an audience. Cf. _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 477 ff.

188 A study of dates throws light on these bargainings. In Oct. 1520, Charles issued an edict ordering the burning of Luther’s books within his hereditary dominions. In the following weeks Aleander was pressing Charles to make the edict universal; this was declared to be impossible, but (Nov. 28th) Charles wrote to the Elector of Saxony ordering him to produce Luther at Worms, and to hinder him from writing anything more against the Pope; as it were in answer (Dec. 12th), the Pope intimated to Charles that he had withdrawn his briefs about the Inquisition in Spain. The Emperor reached Worms about the middle of December. On Jan. 3rd (1521) the Pope simplified matters for the Emperor by issuing a new Bull, _Decet Romanum_, containing the names of Luther and Hutten; the Diet opened Jan. 28th; Aleander made his three hours’ speech against Luther on Feb. 13; Feb. 19th, the Estates resolved that Luther should appear before them, and not for the simple purpose of recantation—he was to be heard, and to receive a safe conduct; March 6th, the imperial invitation and safe conduct, beginning with the words, _nobilis, derote, nobis dilecte_; Aleander protested vehemently against this address; the Emperor drafted a universal mandate ordering the burning of Luther’s books; this probably was not published; it was withdrawn in favour of a mandate ordering all Luther’s books to be delivered up to the magistrates; this was published in Worms on March 27th, and caused rioting; April 17th and 18th, Luther appeared before the Diet; May 8th, Charles received the Pope’s pledge to take his side against Francis; Diet agreed to the ban against Luther on May 25th; Charles dated the ban May 8th.

_ 189 Calendar of State Papers, Henry __VIII.__ Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic_ (London, 1867), III. i. p. 445.

190 Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen_, etc. p. 106.

191 This was probably the frontispiece of a small book containing four of Hutten’s tracts, and entitled _Gespräch Büchlin: Herr Ulrichs von Hutten. Feber das Erst: Feber das ander: Vadiscus, oder die Römische Dreifaltigkeit: Die Anschawenden_; with the motto, _Odivi ecclesiam malignantium_. It is figured in v. Bezold’s _Geschicte der deutschen Reformation_, p. 307 (Berlin, 1890).

_ 192 Reichtstagsakten_, ii. pp. 495 ff.

_ 193 Ibid._ 515 ff.

_ 194 Reichstsakten_, ii. pp. 518 ff.

195 Brieger, _Aleander und Luther 1521: Die vervollständigten Aleander-Depeschen nebst Untersuchungen über den Wormses Reichstag_ (Gotha, 1884), p .19.

_ 196 Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Carl __V._ (Gotha, 1896), ii. 466; Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. pp. 19, 20.

197 Cf. p. 267, note.

198 The draft was dated February 15th, and will be found in the _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 507 ff.

199 The answer of the Diet was dated February 19th, and is to be found in the _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 514 ff., and discussions thereanent, pp. 517, 518 f.

200 The second draft edict proposed to summon Luther to make recantation only, and at the same time ordered his books to be burnt, which was equivalent to a condemnation, _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 520.

201 The revised draft edict in its final form was dated March 10th, four days after the citation and safe conduct, and it is probable that it was finally issued by the Emperor for the purpose of frightening Luther, and preventing him obeying the citation and trusting to the safe conduct, _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 529 ff. and notes.

202 Luther received three safe conducts, one from the Emperor in the citation, one from the Elector of Saxony, and one from Duke George of Saxony. _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 526 ff.

203 Cf. Aleander’s letter of April 5th, 1521. Brieger, _Aleander und Luther_, etc. pp. 119 ff.

204 Spalatin’s _Annales Reformationis_ (Cyprian’s edition), p. 38.

_ 205 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 850.

_ 206 Ibid._ p. 850.

_ 207 Ibid._ p. 853, note.

_ 208 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 863.

209 Lingke, _Luther’s Reisegeschichte_, pp. 83 f.

210 Every monk when on a journey had to be accompanied by a brother of the Order. Petzensteiner left his convent and married (July 1522), Kolde, _Analecta Lutherana_, p. 38. For the entry into Worms, cf. _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 850, 859; Balau, _Monumenta_, etc. p. 170.

211 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 143; _Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte_, iv. 326.

_ 212 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 569; Forstemann, _Urkundenbuch_, 68 f., _Tischreden_, iv. 349; Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 146.

_ 213 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 514, 519 f., 526.

_ 214 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 573.

_ 215 Ibid._ p. 891, where it is said that the imperial entourage and the dependants of the Curia hated a public appearance of Luther worse than foreigners dislike “Einbecker beer.”

216 Cf. Luther’s letters to Cranach (April 21st, 1521), and to the Elector Frederick, De Wette, _Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe_, etc. i. 588, 599.

_ 217 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 545.

_ 218 Ibid._ p. 859.

219 The terms _Orator_ and _Official_ have a great many meanings in Mediæval ecclesiastical Latin. They probably mean here the president of the Archbishop’s Ecclesiastical Court. John Eck was a Doctor of Canon Law. Archbishop Parker signed himself the _Orator_ of Cecil (_Calendar of State Papers, Elizabeth, Foreign Series, 1559-1560_, p. 84).

220 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 145.

_ 221 Ibid._ p. 145.

222 This paragraph and the succeeding one are founded on the following sources: The official report written by John Eck of Trier; the _Acta Wormaciæ_, a narrative in the handwriting of Spalatin; and the statements of fourteen persons, Germans, Italians, and a Spaniard, all present in the Diet on the 17th and 18th of April 1521.

_ 223 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 574.

_ 224 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 547.

_ 225 Ibid._ p. 549.

_ 226 Ibid._. p. 862.

227 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 147.

_ 228 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 632.

229 De Wette, _Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe_, etc. i. 589.

_ 230 Luther’s Works_ (Erlangen edition), xxiv. 322.

_ 231 Ibid._ lxiv. 369.

232 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 146.

_ 233 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 633.

_ 234 Ibid._ p. 588.

_ 235 Ibid._ p. 547.

_ 236 Ibid._ p. 633.

237 The names of the books collected and placed on the table have been curiously preserved on a scrap of paper stored in the archives of the Vatican Library; they were all editions published by Frobenius of Basel (_Reichstagsakten_, ii. 548 and note). It may be sufficient to say that among them (twenty-five or so) were the appeal _To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation_, the tract _On the Liberty of a Christian Man_, _The Babylonian Captivity of the Church of Christ_, _Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist_, some commentaries, and some tracts on religious subjects “not contentious,” says the official record.

238 This was probably an answer to the suggestion made by Glapion to Chancellor Brück, that if Luther would only deny the authorship of the _Babylonian Captivity of the Church of Christ_, which had been published anonymously, matters might be arranged.

239 The sentence, “And I have written some others which have not been named,” was an aside spoken in a lower tone, but distinctly (_Reichstagsakten_, ii. 589, 860).

_ 240 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 548. In Eck’s official report Luther’s answer is given very briefly; instead of Luther’s words the Official says: “As to the other part of the question, whether he wished to retract their contents and to sing another tune (_palinodiam canere_), he began to invent a chain of idle reasons (_causas nectere_) and to seek means of escape (_diffugias quærere_)” (_Reichstagsakten_, ii. 589).

_ 241 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 851, 863: “Wir habent den Luther nit wol horen reden, dann er mit niederer stim geredet” (Kolde, _Analecta_, p. 30 n.).

242 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 146.

_ 243 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 549. Aleander, writing to Rome, says that the Official went on to say in the name of the Emperor that Luther ought to bear it in mind that he had written many things against the Pope and the Apostolic Chair, and had scattered recklessly many heretical statements which had caused great scandal, and which, if not speedily ended, would kindle such a great conflagration as neither Luther’s recantation nor the imperial power could extinguish; and that he exhorted Luther to be mindful of this (Brieger, _Aleander_, p. 147). In Eck’s official report these remarks are given as the opinions of those princes who did not wish that Luther’s request should be granted; but they must have been included in his speech, for Peutinger confirms the nuncio’s report (_Reichstagsakten_, ii. 589 f., 866).

244 De Wette, _Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe_, i. 587.

_ 245 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 862.

_ 246 Ibid._ p. 853.

_ 247 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 549 n.; _Luther’s Works_ (Erlangen edition), lxiv. 369.

248 “I was on my way to the audience to hear (Luther’s) speech, but the throng was so dense that I could not get through” (Sixtus Oelhafen to Hector Pömer, _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 854).

_ 249 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 864.

250 Walch, xv. 2301.

_ 251 Ibid._ p. 2233.

_ 252 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 853.

253 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 172.

_ 254 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 549.

_ 255 Ibid._ p. 550.

256 Myconius, _Historia Reformationis_ (Leipzig, 1718), p. 39.

_ 257 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 578.

_ 258 Ibid._ pp. 550 ff., 557 ff., 591 ff. etc.

_ 259 Luther’s Works_ (Erlangen edition), lxiv. 370.

260 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 152.

_ 261 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 530.

_ 262 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia_ (Leyden, 1703), iii. 1095: “Jam audio multis persuasum, ex meis scriptis exstitisse totam hanc Ecclesiæ procellam: cujus verissimi rumoris præcipuus auctor fuit Hieronymus Aleander, homo, ut nihil aliud dicam, non superstitiose verax.”

263 Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 41.

_ 264 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 860 n.

_ 265 Ibid._ p. 860.

_ 266 Ibid._ p. 853.

_ 267 Ibid._ pp. 550, 551.

268 Myconius, _Historia Reformationis_, p. 39.

269 Walch, xv. 233.

_ 270 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 861.

_ 271 Reichstagsakten,_ ii. 555.

_ 272 Ibid._ p. 591.

_ 273 Ibid._ p. 861 n.

274 Cochlæus, _Commentarius_, etc. p. 34.

_ 275 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 556-558, 581, 582, 591-594.

276 Aleander wrote that the Emperor said that he did not wish to hear more: _et allora fu detto per Cesar, che bastava et che non volera più udir, ex quo questui negava li Concilii_ (Brieger, _Aleander_, etc. p. 153).

_ 277 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 862 (Dr. Peutinger to the Council of Augsburg). The famous ending: _Hie stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders thun, Gott helfe mir, Amen_, which gives such a dramatic finish to the whole scene, is not to be found in the very earliest records. It first appeared in an account published in Wittenberg without date, but which is probably very early, and also in the 1546 edition of _Luther’s Works_, Various versions are given of the last words Luther uttered—_Gott helf mir, Amen_, in the _Acta Wormaciæ_ (_Reichstagsakten_, ii, 557), which are believed to have been corrected by Luther himself; _So helf mir Gott, denn kein widerspruch kan ich nicht thun, Amen_, is given by Spalatin in his _Annales_ (p. 41). Every description of the scene coming from contemporary sources shows that there was a great deal of confusion; it is most likely that in the excitement men carried away only a general impression and not an exact recollection of the last words of Luther. If it were not for Dr. Peutinger’s very definite statement written almost immediately after the event, there seems to be no reason why the dramatic ending should not have been the real one.

_ 278 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 636.

_ 279 Ibid._ p. 862.

_ 280 Ibid._ p. 558.

_ 281 Reichstagsakten_, ii. 636. Aleander says that Luther alone raised his hand and made this gesture; he was not present; the Spaniard who recounts the incident as given above was a spectator of the scene.

_ 282 Luther’s Works_ (Erlangen edition), lxiv. 370; Wrampelmeyer, _Tagebuch über Dr. Martin Luther, geführt von Dr. Conrad Cordatus_, p. 477; _et descendi de pretorio conductus, do sprangen Gesellen herfur, die sagten, __“__Wie, furt yhr yhn gefangen? Das must nicht sein.__”_

_ 283 Reichslagsakten_, ii. 853.

284 Selnecker, _Historia ... D. M. Lutheri_ (1575), p. 108.

285 Cf. p. 264-5. The complete text of the Emperor’s declaration is to be found in the _Reichstagsakten_, ii. 594; Förstemann, _Neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchen-Reformation_ (Hamburg, 1842), i. 75; Armstrong, _The Emperor Charles __V._, i. 70 (London, 1902).

286 Brieger, _Aleander und Luther 1521_, p. 154 (Gotha, 1884): _Dove molti rimasero più pallidi che se fossero stati morti_.

287 Brieger, _Luther und Aleander 1521_ (Gotha, 1884), pp. 208 ff.; Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstage 1521_ (Halle, 1897), pp. 235 ff.

288 Leitschuh, _Albrecht Dürer’s Tagebuch der Reise in die Niederlande_ (Leipzig, 1884), pp. 82-84.

289 Kolde, _Analecta Lutherana_ (Gotha, 1883), pp. 31, 32: “Quare, mi doctissime Luthere, si me amas, si reliquos, qui adhuc mecum curam tui habent, Evangeliique Dei, per te tanto labore, tanta cura, tot sudoribus, tot periculis prædicati fac sciamus, an vivas, an captus sis.”

290 Brieger, _Luther und Aleander 1521_ (Gotha, 1884), p. 158; Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander_ (Halle, 1897), p. 182.

291 Cf. Letter of Cochlæus to the Pope (June 19th) in Brieger’s _Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, xviii. p. 118.

292 Brieger, _Luther und Aleander 1521_ (Gotha, 1884), p. 211.

293 The important clauses in the Edict of Worms are printed in Emil Reich’s _Select Documents illustrating Mediæval and Modern History_ (London, 1905), p. 209.

_ 294 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry __VIII._, III. i. p. cccxxxviii. Letter from Tunstal to Wolsey of date January 21st, 1521.

295 Brieger, _Aleander und Luther 1521_ (Gotha, 1884), p. 263; cf. pp. 249 ff.

_ 296 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry __VIII._, iii. 449, 485.

_ 297 Act. Parl. Scot._ ii. 295.

298 v. Ranke in his _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation_ (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1882), ii. 56, and Dr. Burkhardt, archivist at Weimar, in the _Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie_ (Gotha) for 1862, p. 456—both founding on the confessedly imperfect information to be found in Panzer’s _Annalen der älteren deutschen Litteratur_ (1788-1802)—have made the following calculations:—the number of printed books issued in the German language, and within Germany, from 1480-1500, did not exceed forty a year; the years 1500-1512 show about the same average; in the year 1513 the number of books and booklets issued from German presses in the German language was 35; in 1514 it was 47; in 1515, 46; in 1516, 55; in 1517, 37; then Luther’s printed appeals to the German people began to appear in the shape of sermons, tracts, controversial writings, etc., and the German publications of the year 1518 rose to 71, of which no less than 20 were from Luther’s pen; in 1519 the total number was 111, of which 50 were Luther’s; in 1520 the total was 208, of which 133 were Luther’s; in 1521 (when Luther was in the Wartburg), Luther published 20 separate booklets; in 1522, 130; and in 1523 the total number was 498, of which 180 were Luther’s; cf. Weller, _Repertorium Typographicum_ (Nördlingen, 1864-1874), for further information. From Luther’s Letter to the Nürnberg Council (Enders, v. 244), it may be inferred that the first edition of each of his writings was usually sold out in seven or eight weeks.

299 It was Luther’s appeal to the _Christian Nobility of the German Nation_ which taught Ulrich von Hutten the powers of the German language; Strauss, _Ulrich von Hutten, His Life and Times_ (London, 1874), p. 241.

300 A number of the more important of these controversial writings have been reprinted under the title _Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit_ in the very useful series _Neudrucke deutscher Litteraturwerke_, in the course of publication by Niemeyer of Halle; cf. also Kuczynski, _Thesaurus libellorum historiam Reformatorum illustrantium_ (Leipzig, 1870); O. Schade, _Satiren und Pasquillen aus der Reformationszeit_, 3 vols. (Hanover, 1856-1858).

301 Murner was in England in 1523 hoping for an audience from Henry VIII., in whose defence he had written against Luther. “The king desires out of pity that he should return to Germany, for he was one of the chief stays against the faction of Luther, and ordered Wolsey to pay him £100.” Cf. Letter of Sir Thomas More to Wolsey: _Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry __VIII._, III. ii. 3270.

302 Compare chapter on Social Conditions, pp. 96 ff.

303 Eberlin’s most important pamphlets have been edited by Enders and published in Niemeyer’s _Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit_, and form Nos. xi. xv. and xviii. of the series (Halle, 1896, 1900, 1902).

304 Oecolampadius is thought by Böcking to have been the author of the celebrated pamphlet, _Neukarsthans_ (Summer, 1521), often attributed to Hutten. Sickingen is one of the speakers; the author shows an acquaintance with Scripture and with theology which Hutten could scarcely command; and the idea of ecclesiastical polity sketched seems lo be taken from Marsilius of Padua.

305 Hulsse, _Die Einführung der Reformation in der Stadt Magdeburg_ (Magdeburg, 1883), p. 46.

306 The woodcut was first used to illustrate Hans Sachs’ poem, “Der gut Hirt und der böss Hirt, Johannis am Zehenden Capitel”; and is given in a facsimile reproduction of several of Hans Sachs’ poems, sacred and secular, entitled _Hans Sachs im Gewande seiner Zeit_, Gotha, 1821. The poems were originally issued as large broad-sheets illustrated with a single woodcut, and were meant to be fixed on the walls of rooms.

307 Many of these Reformation cartoons are to be found in G. Hirth, _Kulturgeschichtliches Bilderbuch aus drei Jahrhunderten_, i. ii. (Munich, 1896), and one or two in the illustrations in von Bezold, _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890).

308 The _Passional Christi et Antichristi_ has been reproduced in facsimile by W. Scherer (Berlin, 1885).

309 H. Barge, _Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt_, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1905).

310 Cf. Barge, _Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt_, i. 357; the letter is printed in ii. 558-559.

311 The ordinance is printed in Richter’s _Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts_ (Weimar, 1846), ii. 484; and, with a more correct text, in Sehling’s _Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des 16ten Jahrhunderts_ (Leipzig), 1902, I. i. 697.

312 This _Instruction_ will be found in Enders, _Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel_, iii. 292-295. Its effect on Luther’s return to Wittenberg is discussed at length by von Bezold (_Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, xx. 186 ff.), Kawerau (Luther’s _Rückkehr_, etc., Halle, 1902), and by Barge (_Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt_, Leipzig, 1905, p. 432 ff.).

313 See his letters to Spalatin in Enders, _Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel_, iii. 271, 286.

314 Johann Kessler, _Sabbata_ (edited by Egli and Schoch, St. Gall, 1902).

315 The edict said: “In the first place, we command that all, particularly all princes, estates, and subjects, shall not, after the expiry of the above twenty days, which terminate on the 14th of the present month of May, offer to Luther either shelter, food, or drink, or help him in any way with words or deeds, secretly or openly. On the contrary, wherever you get possession of him, you shall at once put him in prison and send him to me, or, at any rate, inform me thereof without any delay. For that holy work you shall be recompensed for your trouble and expenses. Likewise you ought, in virtue of the holy constitution and ban of our Empire, to deal in the following way with all the partisans, abettors, and patrons of Luther. You shall put them down, and confiscate their estates to your own profit, unless the said persons can prove that they have mended their ways and asked for papal absolution. Furthermore, we command, under the aforesaid penalties, that nobody shall buy, sell, read, keep, copy, or print any of the writings of Martin Luther which have been condemned by our holy father the Pope, whether in Latin or in German, nor any other of his wicked writings.”

316 The Pope’s instructions to his nuncio will be found in Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl __V._, iii. 393 ff.

317 Compare Gebhardt, _Die Gravamina der Deutschen Nation_, 2nd ed., Breslau, 1895.

318 The _annates_ were the first year’s stipend of an ecclesiastical benefice, usually reckoned at a fixed rate.

319 SOURCES: Baumann, _Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in Ober-Schwaben_ (Stuttgart, 1877); _Die Zwölf Artikel der oberschwäbischen Bauern_ (Kempten, 1896); _Akten zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges aus Ober-Schwaben_ (Freiburg, 1881); Beger, _Zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges nach Urkunden zu Karlsruhe_ (in _Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte_, vols. xxi.-xxii., Göttingen, 1862); Ryhiner, _Chronik des Bauernkrieges_ (_Basler Chroniken_, vi., 1902); Waldau, _Materialien zur Geschichte des Bauerkrieges_ (Chemnitz, 1791-1794); Vogt, _Die Korrespondenz des Schwübischen Bundes-Hauptmanns, 1524-1527_ (Augsburg, 1879-1883).

LATER BOOKS: Zimmermann, _Allgemeine Geschichte des grossen Bauernkrieges_, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1856); E. Belfort Bax, _The Peasants’ War in Germany_ (London, 1899); Kautsky, _Communism in Central Europe in the time of the Reformation_ (London, 1897); Stern, _Die Socialisten der Reformationszeit_ (Berlin, 1883). The literature on the Peasants’ War is very extensive.

320 Compare above, p. 106.

321 Lindsay, _Luther and the German Reformation_ (Edinburgh, 1900), 169 ff.; Stern, _Die Socialisten der Reformationszeit_, Berlin, 1883.

322 Friedrich, _Astrologie und Reformation, oder die Astrologen als Prediger der Reformation und Urheber des Bauernkrieges_, München, 1864.

323 Cf. “The Twelve Peasant Articles” in Emil Reich, _Select Documents illustrating Mediæval and Modern History_, p. 212.

324 After speaking about the duties of the authorities, he proceeds: “In the case of an insurgent, every man is both judge and executioner. Therefore, whoever can should knock down, strangle, and stab such publicly or privately, and think nothing so venomous, pernicious, and devilish as an insurgent.... Such wonderful times are these, that a prince can merit heaven better with bloodshed than another with prayer.”

325 Luther dissuaded the Landgrave of Hesse from permanently adopting the democratic ecclesiastical constitution drafted by Francis Lambert for the Church of Hesse in 1526. The rejected constitution has been printed by Richter in his _Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sechszschuten Jahrhunderts_ (Weimar, 1846), i. 56.

326 SOURCES (besides those given in earlier chapters): Ney, “Analecten zur Geschichte des Reichstags zu Speier im Jahr 1526” (_Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, viii. ix. xii.); Friedensburg, _Beiträge zum Briefwechsel zwischen Hertzog Georg von Sachsen und Landgraf Philip von Hessen_ (_Neuer Archiv für Sächs. Gesch._ vi.); Balan, _Clementis __VII.__ Epistolæ_ (vol. i. of _Monumenta Sæculi __XVI.__ Historiam illustrantia_, Innsbruck, 1885); Casanova, _Lettere di Carlo __V.__ and Clemente __VII.__ 1527-1533_ (Florence, 1893); Lanz, _Correspondenz des Kaisers Karl __V._ (Leipzig, 1845); Bradford, _Correspondent of Charles __V._ (London, 1850).

LATER BOOKS: Schomburgk, _Die Pack’schen Handel_ (Maurenbrecher’s _Hist. Taschenbuch_, Leipzig, 1882); Stoy, _Erste Bündnisbestrebungen evangelischen Stände_ (Jena, 1888); _Cambridge Modern History_, II. vi.

327 The Diet was accustomed to appoint a Committee of Princes to put in shape their more important ordinances. The ordinance was called a “recess.”

328 A description of the changes in organisation and worship introduced after the decision of the Diet of 1526 is reserved for a separate chapter.

329 Ney, _Geschichte des Reichstages zu Speier in 1529_ (Hamburg, 1880); Tittmann, _Die Protestation zu Speyer_ (Leipzig, 1829).

_ 330 Calendars of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the reign of Elizabeth, 1559-1560_, p. 84.

331 SOURCES: Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten zu der Geschichte der Religionsgespräches zu Marburg, 1529, und des Reichstages zu Augsburg, 1530_ (Gotha, 1876); Bucer, _Historische Nachricht von dem Gespräch zu Marburg_ (Simler, _Sammlung_, II. ii. 471 ff.); Rudolphi Collini, “Summa Colloquii Marpurgensis,” printed in Hospinian, _Historia sacramentaria_, ii. 123_b_-126_b_, and in _Zwinglii Opera_, iv. 175-180 (Zurich, 1841); Brieger in _Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, i. 628 ff.

LATER BOOKS: Ebrard, _Das Dogma vom heiligen Abendmahl und seine Geschichte_, vol. ii. (Frankfurt a. M. 1846; the author has classified the accounts of the persons present at the conference, and given a combined description of the discussion, pp. 308 n. and 314 ff.); Erichson, _Das Marburger Religiongespräch_ (Strassburg, 1880); Bess, _Luther in Marburg, 1529_ (_Preuss. Jahrbücher_; civ. 418-431, Berlin, 1901).

332 In the _Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent_ the Sacrifice of the Mass is defined in the 22nd Session, and the Eucharist in the 13th Session.

333 Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten zu der Geschichte des Religionsgespräches zu Marburg und des Reichstages zu Augsburg, 1530_, pp. 33, 34.

334 There are several contemporary accounts of this meeting at the bridge of the Lech, and of the procession; for one, see Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten_, etc. pp. 54-57.

335 It was a somewhat doubtful honour for a city to be chosen as the meeting place of a Diet. The burghers of Augsburg hired 2000 landsknechts to protect them during the session (Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten_, p. 52).

336 Förstemann, _Urkundenbuch_, etc. i. 268, 271; Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten_, etc. p. 59 and note.

337 SOURCES: Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten_; Förstemann, _Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg_, 2 vols. (Halle, 1833-1835); and _Archiv für die Geschichte der kirchl. Reformation_ (Halle, 1831).

LATER BOOKS: Moritz Facius, _Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg_ (Leipzig, 1830).

338 Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten_, etc. p. 90.

339 The threat is recorded in _Archiv für Schweizerische Geschichte und Landeskunde_, i. 278.

340 Armstrong, _The Emperor Charles __V._, i. 244.

341 Förstemann, _Archiv_, p. 206.

342 Schaff, _The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Christian Churches_ (London, 1877), p. 3; cf. _History of the Creeds of Christendom_ (London, 1877), pp. 220 ff.; Müller, _Die Bekenntnisschriften der Reformierten Kirche_ (Leipzig, 1903), pp. 55-100; Tschakert, _Die Augsburgische Konfession_, (Leipzig, 1901).

343 Förstemann, _Urkundenbuch_, i. 39: the worthy Chancellor thought that the document should be drafted “mit gründlicher bewerung derselbigen aus göttlicher schrifft.”

344 Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten_, etc. p. 98.

345 Charles knew well that the nuncio would exert all his influence to prevent a settlement. In anticipation of the Diet the Emperor had privately asked Melanchthon to give him a statement of the _minimum_ of concessions which would content the Lutherans. Melanchthon seems to have answered (our source of information is not very definite): the Eucharist in both kinds; marriage of priests permitted; the omission of the canon of the Mass; concession of the Church lands already sequestrated; and the decision of the other matters in dispute at a free General Council. Charles had sent the document to Rome; it had been debated at a conclave of cardinals, who had decided that none of the demands could be granted.

346 One document says: “Es war aber zum ersten die _confutation_ wol bey zweihundert und achtzig bletter lang gewesen, aber die key. Mäj. hat sie selbst also gereuttert und gerobt, das es nicht mehr denn zwölf bletter geblieben sind. Solchs soll Doctor Eck sehr verdrossen und wee gethan haben.”—(Schirrmacher, _Briefe und Acten_, etc. p. 167.)

347 De Wette, _Luther’s Briefe_, etc. iv. 1-182.

_ 348 Ibid._ iv. 41.

349 De Wette, _Luther’s Briefe_, etc. iv. 128.

350 The whole time of the members of the Diet was not spent in theological discussions. We read of banquets, where Lutherans and Romanists sat side by side; of dances that went on far into the night; of what may be called a garden party in a “fair meadow,” where a wooden house was built for the accommodation of the ladies; and of tournaments. At one of them, Ferdinand, the Emperor’s brother, was thrown and his horse rolled over him; and Melanchthon wrote to Luther that six men had been killed at one of these “gentle and joyous” passages of arms.

351 The Romanist majority had resolved to fight the Protestant minority, not in the battlefield, but in the law-courts—_nicht fechten sondern rechten_, was the phrase.

352 When the religious war did begin in 1545, Charles justified the use of force on the grounds that the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse had violated the constitution of the Empire, _had repudiated the decisions of the Reichskammersgericht_, and had protested against the decisions of the Diet.

353 Schmidt, _Zur Geschichte des Schmalkaldischen Bundes_ (_Forsch. zur Deutschen Geschichte_, XXV.); Zangemeister, _Die Schmalkaldischen Artikel von 1537_ (Heidelberg, 1883); _Corpus Reformatorum_, iii. 973 ff.

354 Winckelmann, “Die Verträge von Kadan und Wien” (_Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, xi. 212 ff.).

355 Cf. Kolde, _Analecta_, pp. 216 ff., 231 f., 262 f., 278 f., etc.

356 Spiegel, “Johannes Timannus Amsterodamus und die Colloquien zu Worms und Regensburg, 1540-1541” (_Zeitschrift für hist. Theologie_, xlii. (1872) 36 ff.); Moses, _Die Religionsverhandlungen in Hagenau und Worms, 1540-1541_ (Jena, 1889).

357 Heppe, “Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte der Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philip v. Hessen” (_Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie_, xxii. (1852) 263 ff.), cf. xxxviii. 445 ff.; Schultze, _Luther und die Doppelehe des Landgrafen v. Hessen_ (Paderborn (1869)).

358 Luther’s action is usually attributed to his desire not to offend a powerful Protestant leader. A careful study of the original documents in the case—correspondence and papers—does not confirm this view. To my mind, they show on Luther’s part a somewhat sullen and crabbed conscientious fidelity to a conviction which he always maintained. With all his reverence for the word of God, he could never avoid giving a very large authority to the traditions of the Church when they did not plainly contradict a positive and direct divine commandment. The Church had been accustomed to say that it possessed a dispensing power in matrimonial cases of extreme difficulty; and, in spite of his denunciations of the dispensations granted by the Roman Curia, Luther never denied the power. On the contrary, he thought honestly that the Church did possess this power of dispensation even to the length of tampering with a fundamental law of Christian society, provided it did not contradict a _positive_ scriptural commandment to the contrary. The crime of the Curia, in his eyes, was not issuing dispensations in _necessary cases_, but in giving them in cases without proved necessity, _and for money_.

359 Ranke has an interesting study of the character of Maurice in his _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation_, bk. ix. chap. vi. (vol. v. pp. 161 ff. of the 6th ed., Leipzig, 1882); but perhaps the best is given in Maurenbrecher, _Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der Reformationszeit_ (Leipzig, 1874), pp. 135 ff. A man’s deep religious convictions can tolerate strange company in most ages, and the fact that we find Romanist champions in France plunging into the deepest profligacy the one week and then undergoing the agonies of repentance the next, or that Lutheran leaders combined occasional conjugal infidelities and drinking bouts with zeal for evangelical principles, demands deeper study in psychology than can find expression, in the fashion of some modern English historians, in a few cheap sneers.

360 Henninjard, _Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les pays de langue française_ (Geneva and Paris, 1866-1897), i. 47, 48.

_ 361 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the reign of Henry __VIII._, iii. 284.

362 Kalkoff, _Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander_ (Halle, 1897), p. 106.

_ 363 Acts of the Parliament of Scotland_ for 1525 and 1527.

364 Maurenbrecher, _Karl V. und die deutschen Protestanten 1545-1555_ (Düsseldorf, 1865): Jahn, _Geschichte des Schmalkaldischen Krieges_ (Leipzig, 1837); Lo Mang, _Die Darstcllung des Schmalkaldischen Krieges in den Denkwürdigkeiten Karls V._ (Jena, 1890, 1899, 1900); Brandenburg, _Moritz von Sachsen_ (Leipzig, 1898).

365 Schmidt, “Agenda and Letters relating to the _Interim_,” in _Zeitschrift für historisch. Theologie_, xxxviii. (1868) pp. 431 ff., 461 ff.; Beutel, _Über den Ursprung des Augsburger Interim_ (Leipzig, 1888); Meyer, _Der Augsburger Reichstag nach einem fürstlichen Tagebuch_ (_Preus. Jahrb._ 1898, pp. 206-242).

366 Maurice of Saxony was permitted to make some alterations on the _Interim_ for his dominions, and his edition was called the _Leipzig Interim_.

367 One of these broadsides is reproduced in von Bezold’s _Geschichte der deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890), p. 806.

368 Wolf, _Der Augsburger Religionsfriede_ (Stuttgart, 1890); Brandi, _Der Augsburger Religionsfriede_ (Munich, 1896); Druffel, _Beiträge zur Reichsgeschichte, 1553-1555_ (Munich, 1896).

369 These two unsettled questions became active in the disputes which began the Thirty Years’ War.

370 Pollard, _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. 144.

371 The Religious Peace of Augsburg had important diplomatic consequences beyond Germany. The Lutheran form of faith was recognised to be a _religio licita_ (to use the old Roman phrase) within the Holy Roman Empire, which, according to the legal ideas of the day, included all Western Christendom; and Popes could no longer excommunicate Protestants simply because they were Protestants, without striking a serious blow at the constitution of the Empire. No one perceived this sooner than the sagacious young woman who became the first Protestant Queen of England. In the earlier and unsettled years of her reign, Elizabeth made full use of the protection that a profession of the Lutheran Creed gave to shield her from excommunication. She did so when the Count de Feria, the ambassador of Philip II., threatened her with the fate of the King of Navarre (_Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved principally in the Archives of Simancas_,