Book II. From the year 1520 to 1529

A brief Summary. — Luther's variations on Transubstantiation. — Carlostadius begins the Sacramentarian contest. — • The circumstances of this rupture. — The Boors revolt; the part Luther acts. — His Marriage, of which himself and his friends are ashamed. — The extremes into which he runs on Free Will, and against Henry VIII., king of England. — Zuinglius and iEcolampadius appear. — The Sacramentarians prefer the Catholic to the Lutheran doctrine. — The Lutherans take up arms, contrary to all their promises. — Melancthon is afflicted at it. — They unite themselves under the name of Protestants. — Fruitless projects of agreement between Luther and the Zuinglians. — Conference of Marpurg.

— The Book of the Captivity of Babylon. — Luther's Sentiments concerning the Eucharist, and his great desire of destroying the reality.

The first treatise, in which Luther fully discovered himself, was that he composed in 1520, of the captivity of Babylon. In it he loudly exclaimed against the church of Rome, which had but just condemned him ; and amongst the dogmata, whose foundations he aimed to destroy, one of the first was transubstantiation. He would most willingly have undermined the real presence, had he been able ; and every one knows what he himself declares in his letter to those of Strasburgh, where he writes, that " it would have been a great pleasure to him, had some good means been afforded him of denying it, because nothing could have been more agreeable to the design he had in hand of prejudicing the Papacy¹." But God sets hidden boundaries to the most violent minds, and permits not innovators to afflict his church equally with their desires. Luther was irrecoverably struck with the force and simplicity of these words — " This is my body, this is my bloocl: this body given for you, this blood

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 49 of the New Testament, this blood shed for you, and for the remission of your sins²;" for thus ought these words of our Lord to be translated, in order to give them their full force. The church had believed without difficulty, that Jesus Christ, to consummate his sacrifice and the figures of the old law, had given us his proper flesh sacrificed for us. She judged the same of the blood shed for our sins. Accustomed from her infancy to mysteries incomprehensible, and to ineffable tokens of the divine love, the impenetrable miracles included in the literal sense had not shocked her faith; nor could Luther ever persuade himself, either that Jesus Christ would have obscured, on set purpose, the institution of his sacrament, or that simple words were susceptible of such violent figures, or could possibly have any other sense than that which naturally entered into the minds of all christians in the east and {he west; insomuch, that they never could be diverted from it, either by the sublimity of the mystery, or the subtilties of Berengarius and Wickliff.

— The change of Substance attacked by Luther, and his gross way of explaining it.

He was determined, however, to mix with it something of his own. All those who, to his time, had well or ill explained the words of Jesus Christ, had acknowledged they wrought some sort of change in the sacred gifts. Those that would have the body there in a figure only, said that our Saviour's words wrought a change which was purely mystical, so that the consecrated bread became the sign of the body. Those that maintained the literal sense, with a real presence, by an opposite reason, admitted accordingly an effectual change. For which reason, the reality, together with the change of substance, had naturally insinuated itself into the minds of men ; and all christian churches, in spite of whatever sense could oppose, had come into a belief so just and so simple. Luther, however, would not be directed by such a rule. " I believe," says he, " with Wickliff, that the bread remains ; and with the Sophists (so he called our divines), I believe the body is there f." He explained his doctrine in several ways, which, for the most part, were very gross. One time he said the body was with the bread, as fire is with red-hot iron. At other times he added these expressions, " that the body was in the bread, and under the bread, as wine is in and under the vessel;11 — from this

VOL. I, E the celebrated propositions in, sub, cum; importing- that the body is in the bread, under the bread, and with the bread. But Luther was very sensible that these words, " This is my body," required something more than placing the body in this, or with this, or under this; and to explain " This is," he thought himself obliged to say that these words — " This is pay body," imported, — this bread is substantially and properly my body : a thing unheard of, and embarrassed with insuperable difficulties.

— Impanation asserted by some Lutherans — rejected by others.

However, in order to surmount them, some of Luther's disciples maintained, that the bread was made the body of our Lord, and the wine his precious blood, as the Divine Word was made man: so that, in .the Eucharist, a true impanation was made, as in the Virgin's womb a true incarnation. This opinion, which had appeared at the time of Berengarius, was renewed by Osiander, one of the principal Lutherans ; — a thing unintelligible to man. Every person saw, that for bread to be the body of our Lord, and wine his blood, as the divine Word is man, by that kind of union which divines call personal or hy postatic, how necessary it was that, as man is the person, the body should also be the person, and the blood likewise ; which destroys the very principles of reasoning and of language. The human body is part of the person, but not itself the person, nor the whole, nor, as they speak in schools, the suppositum. The blood is still less so; and this is in no respect the case when personal union can find admittance. Every one is not learned enough rightly to employ the term hypostatic union : but when it is once explained, every person must perceive to what it can be applied. So Osiander was left to defend alone his impanation and invination, and to say as much as he pleased, This bread is God; for he went to that excess³. But so strange an opinion required not refutation : it fell of itself by its own absurdity ; nor was it approved by Luther.

— Lulhefs variations on Transubstantiation — a new way of deciding in matters of faith.

Yet what he himself said led the direct way to it. No one could conceive how bread, remaining bread, could be at the same time the true body of our Lord, as he asserted, without

IT.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 51 admitting, between both, this hypostatic union rejected by him. But he was resolute in rejecting it ; and yet united both substances, even so far as to say one was the other.

At first, however, he spoke but doubtfully of the change of substance ; and though he preferred the opinion which retains the bread, to that which changes it into the body, the matter seemed but trivial to him. " I permit," says he, '⁴ both one and the other opinion; the scruple is the only thing I takeaway⁵." Such was the decision of this new pope; trans ubstantiation and consubstantiation were alike indifferent to him. In another place, having been upbraided with making the bread remain in the Eucharist, he owns as much: but, adds he, " I do not condemn the contrary opinion ; I only say it is not an article of faith f." But in the answer he made to Henry VIII., King of England, who refuted his Captivity, he soon advanced much further. " I had taught," says he, " it was a matter of no importance whether, in the sacrament, bread remained or not : but now I transubstantiate my opinion ; I say it is an impiety and a blasphemy to hold that the bread is transubstantiated ;" and he carries his condemnation to an anathema J. The motive which he alleges for this change is remarkable. This is what he writes in his book to the Vaudois : " True it is, I believe it an error to say the bread does not remain, although this error hath hitherto appeared to me of light importance ; but now that we are too much pressed to admit this error without the authority of Scripture, to spite the Papists, I am determined to believe that the bread and wine remain." This is what drew on Catholics the anathema of Luther. Such were his sentiments in 1523. We shall see whether he will persist hereafter in them ; but it may not be amiss to observe, even in this place, that a letter is produced by Hospinian, in which Melancthon accuses his master of allowing transubstantiation to certain churches in Italy, to whom he had written on that subject. The date of this letter is in 1534, twelve years after he had answered the King of England.

— Strange flights of passion in the books against Henry VIII., King of England.

Now his transports of passion against this prince were so violent, that the Lutherans themselves were ashamed of

52 THE HISTOHY OF [BOOK.

them. There was nothing⁶ but atrocious contumelies, and outrageously giving him the lie in every page — '• He was a fool, an idiot, the most brutal of all swine and asses⁷." Sometimes he addresses him in this terrible manner: " Beginnest thou to blush, Henry ? — no longer king, but sacrilegious wretch !" His beloved disciple, Melancthon, durst not reprove, and knew not how to excuse him. Some even of his own disciples were scandalized at the outrageous contempt with which he treated all that the universe had esteemed most grand, and at his capricious manner of deciding in controversies in faith. To define one way, and then all on a sudden, the very opposite, merely in despite of the Papists, was too visibly abusing the authority which was given him, and insulting, as we may say, the credulity of mankind. But he was complete master in his own party, and they dared not disapprove whatever he said.

— A Letter of Erasmus to Melancthon concerning Luther's transports.

Erasmus, astonished at the extravagance of passion which he had endeavoured in vain to moderate by his advice, in a letter to his friend Melancthon explains the causes of it : — " What shocks me most in Luther is," says he, " that whatever he takes in hand to maintain he carries to extremity and excess. Warned of his excesses, so far from moderating them, he runs on more headstrong ; and seems to have no other design than to proceed to still greater intemperance. By his writings (adds he) I know the man's temper as much as if I had lived with him — a fiery and impetuous spirit. You see an Achilles, whose warmth is invincible, through the whole tenour of them. You are no stranger to the artifices of the Enemy of mankind. Add to this, so great success, so declared an approbation, so universal applause of his audience,— against such allurements a modest mind would scarce stand uncorruptf." Although Erasmus never left the communion of the church, yet he maintained amid these disputes of religion a particular character, which makes Protestants give him credit for those facts of which he was witness. But it is on other grounds most certain, that Luther, elated with the victory which he thought he had already gained over the power of Rome, no longer kej^t himself within bounds.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 53

— Division amongst the pretended Gospellers — Carlostadius attacks Luther and the reality.

Strange ! that he and his party should have looked upon the prodigious number of their followers, as they all did, for a mark of divine favour, without reflecting that St. Paul had foretold of heretics and seducers, that " their speech spreadeth like a cancer*," that " they grow worse and worse, erring and driving into errorf." But the same St. Paul says also, that their progress is limited, " they shall proceed no farther J." The unhappy conquests of Luther were checked by the division which broke out among these new reformers. It has been long since said, that the disciples of innovators believe they have a right to innovate after the example of their masters §; the leaders of rebels meet with rebels as rash as themselves. But without more reflections, to speak the simple fact, Carlostadius, whom Luther had so much commended ||, however unworthy he may have been, and whom he called his venerable preceptor in Jesus Christ, found himself able to oppose him. Luther had attacked the change of substance in the Eucharist, — Carlostadius attacked the reality, which Luther had not dared to undertake.

Carlostadius, if we believe the Lutherans, was a brutal, ignorant person, yet artful and turbulent ; void of piety, without humanity, and rather a Jew than a Christian. This is what Melancthon, a man moderate and naturally sincere, says of him. But without citing the Lutherans in particular, his friends as well as enemies are agreed he was the most restless and impertinent of men. No more proof of his ignorance is necessary than the exposition he gave of the Eucharistic institution, where he maintained that, by these words, " This is my body," Jesus Christ, without any regard to what he gave, meant no more than to show himself seated at table, as he then was with his disciples ; — so ridiculous a conceit, that one has a difficulty to believe it ever entered into the mind of man %.

— Origin of the contests between Luther and Carlostadius. — Luther's pride.

Before he had given this monstrous interpretation, two great contests had already happened between him and f Zuin, Ep. ad, Matt.

Luther. For In 1521, whilst Luther lay concealed for fear of Charles V., who had put him under the ban of the empire, Carlostadius had thrown down images, taken away the elevation of the blessed sacrament, and even low masses, and set up communion under both kinds in the church of AVittem berg, where Lutheranism began. Luther did not so much disapprove of those changes, but rather judged them as done in an improper time, and in themselves unnecessary. But what provoked him the most, as he shows plainly in the letter he wrote on the subject, was, that Carlostadius had despised his authority *, and would have set himself up for a new doctor. Remarkable are the sermons he made on this occasion ; for, without naming Carlostadius, he reproached the authors of these enterprises, that they had acted without mission, as if his own had been more valid. " Easily," said he, " could I defend them before the Pope, but I know not how to justify them before the devil, when this evil spirit shall, at the hour of death, oppose against them these words of Scripture, ' Every plant that my father hath not planted shall be rooted up ;' and again, ' They did run, and it was not I that sent them.' What will they answer then? They shall be cast down into hell."

— Luther's sermon, wherein to spite Carlostadius and those who folloxoed him, he threatens to retreat and, re-establisJi the mass. — His extravagances in boasting of his povier.

Thus spoke Luther whilst he yet lay concealed. But coming forth from his Patmos (for so he called the place of his retreat), he made a quite different sermon in the church of Wittemberg. He there undertook to prove that hands ought not to be employed in the reforming of abuses, but the Word alone. " It was the word," said he, " whilst I slept quietly, and drank my beer with my dear Melancthon and Arnsdorf, that gave the Papacy such a shock as never was given by prince or emperor. Had I been inclined (he proceeds) to have done things in a tumultuary way, all Germany should have swam in blood ; and when at Worms, I could have put things into such a state that the emperor himself had not been safe in itf." This is what history had not informed us of. But people once prejudiced believed every thing ; and so sensible was Luther of his being master, that he had courage to tell them in full audience, " more-

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 55 over, if you pretend to continue doing things by these common deliberations, I will unsay, without hesitation, all that I have written or taught. I will make my recantation, and leave you. Remember, I have said it; and, after all, what hurt will the popish mass do you ?" One thinks himself in a dream when he reads these things in the writings of Luther printed at Wittemberg ; you return to the beginning of the volume to see if there be no mistake, and say in astonishment,— What is this new gospel ? Could such a one as this pass for a reformer ? Will men never open their eyes? Is it, therefore, so difficult a thing for man to confess his error ?

— Luther decides in the most important matters from sjyite. — The elevation ; two kinds.

Carlostadius, on his side, did not remain quiet, but, provoked at being so warmly treated, laboured to combat the real presence, as much to attack Luther as from any other motive. Luther also, though he had thoughts of laying aside the elevation of the host, yet retained it out of spite to Carlostadius, as he himself declares, "and lest," proceeds he, " it might seem we had learned something from the devil⁸." He spoke not more moderately of communion under both kinds, which the same Carlostadius had introduced by his private authority. Luther, at that time, held it for a thing quite indifferent. In the letter he wrote on the reformation of Carlostadius, he reproaches him " with having placed Christianity in things of no account, — communicatingunder both kinds, taking the sacrament into the hand, abolishing confession, and burning images t-" And again, in 1523, he says in the formulary of the mass, "If a council did ordain or permit both kinds, in spite of the council we would take but one, or take neither one or the other, and would curse those who should take both, in virtue of this ordinance J." Behold what was called Christian liberty in the new reformation ! Such was the modesty and humility of these new Christians !

1 1 . — How the war was declared between Luther and Carlostadius.

Carlostadius being driven from Wittemberg, was obliged to retire to Orlemond, a town of Thuringia, subject to the⁹

Elector of Saxony. At this time all Germany was in a flame. The boors, revolting against their lords, had taken up arms, and implored the aid of Luther. Besides their following his doctrine, it was supposed that his book of Christian liberty had not a little contributed to inspire them with rebellion, by that bold manner with which he spoke against laws and legislators¹⁰. For, though he defended himself by saying, that he meant not to speak of magistrates, or of civil laws, it was, however, true that he made no distinction between secular and spiritual powers ; and to pronounce in general, as he did, that a Christian was not subject to any man, was, till the interpretation came, nourishing the spirit of insubordination in the people, and giving dangerous views to their leaders. Add to this, that to despise the powers supported by the majest}' of religion, is to leave others destitute of support. The Anabaptists, another shoot of the doctrine of Luther, who were formed by pushing his maxims to their greatest extent, mixed in the tumult of the boors, and began to turn their sacrilegious inspirations to manifest rebellion. Carlostadius was infected with these novelties, at least Luther accuses him of it ; and true it is, he held a great intimacy with the Anabaptists, murmuring continually with them, as well against the Elector as against Luther, whom lie called a flatterer of the Pope, chiefly on account of what little he had preserved of the mass and real presencef ; for the contest was, who should most condemn the church of Rome, and depart furthest from the doctrine. These disputes having raised great commotions at Orlemond, Luther was sent there by the prince to appease the tumult. In his way he preached at Jena, in the presence of Carlostadius, whom he failed not to charge with sedition. From this began the rupture. The memorable account of which I shall relate exactly as it is found in the works of Luther, as it is acknowledged by the Lutherans, and as Protestant historians have delivered it|. The sermon of Luther being over, Carlostadius went and visited him at the Black Bear, where he lodged, a place famous in this history for giving birth to the Sacramentarian war between the new-reformed. There, amongst other discourses, Carlostadius having excused himself in the best manner he was able as to sedition, he declares to Luther he could not bear his opinion of the real presence. Luther, with a disdainful air, defies him to write against him, promising him, at the same time, a florin of gold if

I Lutli. T. II. Jen. 447, Calixt. Judic. N. 49. Hosp. 2. Part, ad an. 1524. f, 32.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 57 he would undertake it. The money is produced. Carlostadius puts it into his pocket. They shake hands mutually, promising each other fair play. Luther drinks to the health of Carlostadius, and to the success of the fine work he was about to publish. Carlostadius pledges him in a bumper ; and thus was the war declared, German-like, the twenty-second of August, 1524. The parting of the champions was as remarkable. " May I see thee broken on a wheel !" says one ; " Mayest thou break thy neck before thou leavest town !" says the other¹¹. The entry of Luther had not been less extraordinary : for upon his arrival at Orlemond, Carlostadius had ordered it so, " that he was received with great vollies of stones, and almost smothered with dirt." Such is the new gospel ! Such the acts of the new apostles !

— The wars of the Anabaptists, and that of the revolted peasants. — The share that Luther had in these revolts.

Soon after occurred more bloody battles, but, perhaps, not more dangerous. The revolted peasants had met together to the number of forty thousand. The Anabaptists rose in arms with unheard of fury. Luther, called upon by the peasants to pronounce upon the claims they had against their lords, acted a very strange part. On one hand, he wrote to the peasants, that God had forbid sedition. On the other hand, he wrote to the lords, that they exercised such a tyranny " as the people could not, would not, ought not to endure-f'." By these last words, he rendered back to sedition those arms which he seemed to have taken from it. A third letter, written in common to both sides, laid the fault on both, and denounced the dreadful judgments of God against, them, should they not dispose matters amicably. Here his weakness was blamed. Soon after, occasion was given of reproaching him with intolerable cruelty. He published a fourth letter, exciting the princes, powerfully armed, " to exterminate, without pity? those miserable wretches who had not followed his advice, and to spare those only who should voluntarily lay down their arms :" as if a seduced and vanquished populace were not a fit object of compassion, but ought to be treated with as much rigour as the heads that misled them. But Luther would have it so ; and when he saw so cruel a sentiment was condemned, incapable of oAvning himself ever in the wrong, he made a book expressly to prove that truly '¹² no mercy at all ought to be showed rebels, nor were even those to be forgiven, whom the multitude had drawn by force

58 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK into any seditious action¹³." Then were seen those famous battles which cost Germany so much blood. Such was its state when the Sacramentarian dispute added new fuel to the flames.

— The Marriage of Luther, which had been preceded by that of Carlostadius .

Carlostadius, who began it, had already introduced a novelty singularly scandalous ; for he was the first priest of any reputation that took a wife ; and this example was attended with surprising effects in the sacerdotal order, and in the monasteries. Carlostadius was not as yet at variance with Luther. The marriage of this old priest was laughed at, even among the party ; but Luther, who earnestly desired to do the same, uttered not a word. He was fallen in love with a nun of quality, and singular beauty, whom he had taken out of her convent. It was a maxim of the new reformation, that vows were a Jewish practice, and none of them less obligatory than that of chastity. The Elector Frederick suffered Luther to speak after this manner, but could not bear that he should reduce these opinions to practice. He had nothing but contempt for those priests and religious who married, contrary to the canons, and that discipline which had been revered so many ages. Therefore, not to lose his credit with that prince, Luther was obliged to have patience during the prince's life ; but he was no sooner dead than Luther married his nun. This marriage happened in 1525, that is, in the height of the civil wars of Germany; at which time the Sacramentarian disputes were inflamed to the utmost violence. Luther was then forty-five years old ; and this man, who, under the shelter of religious discipline, had passed his whole youth blameless in continency, in so advanced an age, and whilst he was hailed throughout the universe as the restorer of the Gospel, blushed not to abandon so perfect a state of life, and look behind him. Sleidan passes lightly over this fact. " Luther," says he, " married a nun, and thereby gave room for fresh accusations from his adversaries, who called him madman, and slave of Satanf ;" but he does not disclose the whole secret : nor were they only Luther's adversaries who blamed his marriage ; he himself was ashamed of it ; his disciples, the most devoted to him, were surprised at it. ; and all this we learn from a curious letter of Melancthon to his intimate friend, the learned Camerarius.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 59

— A remarkable Letter of Melancthon to Camerarius on Luther's marriage.

It is written all in Greek, for so they corresponded on secret matters. He informs him, that " Luther, when least expected, had taken Boren to wife (this was the nun's name), without the least intimation of it to his friends : but that, one evening, having invited Pomeranus the minister to supper, together with a painter and a lawyer, he had the usual ceremonies performed; that it was astonishing to see that at so miserable a time, when good men had so much to suffer, he could not command himself so as to compassionate, at least, their misfortunes; but on the contrary, seemed so regardless of the miseries that threatened them, as to suffer his reputation to be weakened, even at a time when Germany stood most in need of his prudence and authority." Then he relates to his friend the causes of this marriage : "that he very well knows Luther was no enemy to human nature, and that natural necessity, he really believes, was what engaged him in this marriage ; therefore, he ought not to wonder that Luther's magnanimity should thus be mollified ; that this manner of life is low and common, but holy : and after all, the scripture allows marriage as honourable ; in the main, there is no crime in it ; and if more than this be laid to Luther's charge, it is a manifest calumny." This he says on account of a rumour which had spread of the nun's being with child, and ready to lie in when Luther married her, which proved false. Melancthon was therefore in the right to justify his master on this head. He adds, " that all that can be blamed in this action of his, is the unseasonable time in which he did so unexpected a thing, and the pleasure he thereby gave his enemies, who only seek to accuse him. In conclusion, he beholds him full of trouble and vexation for this change, and does what he can to comfort him."

It is plain enough how much Luther was ashamed of and concerned at his marriage, and how greatly Melancthon was struck, notwithstanding all the respect he had for him. What he adds in the conclusion, intimates, likewise, how much he believed Camerarius would be affected, since he says he was desirous of preventing him, " lest through his zeal for the continuation of Luther's glory, always untarnished and reproachless, he should give himself over to too much trouble and dejection at this surprising news."

They had at .first regarded Luther as a man superior to all

60 THJi HISTORY OF [BOOK ordinary weaknesses. That which he evinced by this scandalous marriage dejected them. But Melancthon comforts his friend and himself as well as he is able, by reason that " there may, perhaps, be something in it that is hidden and divine ; that he has certain marks of Luther's piety ; and some humiliations befalling them may turn to good, there being so much danger in elevated stations, not only for the ministers of holy things, but for all mankind in general; and after all, the greatest saints of antiquity had their failings ; and, lastly, that we ought to embrace the word of God for its own sake, not for the merits of those who preach it, there being nothing more unjust than to blame the doctrine for the faults into which its teachers fall."

Doubtless, the maxim is good ; but they ought not to have laid much stress on personal defects — not built so much on Luther, whom, however presumptuous, they experienced to be so weak ; nor, lastly, have boasted to us so much of their reformation, as the marvellous work of God's hand, seeing the chief instrument of this wondrous work was a man, not only so vulgar, but swayed by such violent passions.

— A notable diminution of Luther's authority.

It may easily be judged from the conjuncture of affairs, that the unseasonableness of time at which Melancthon is so much disturbed, and that unfortunate diminution of Luther's glory, which he is troubled should happen then when most required, regarded, it is true, those horrible disasters, by which Luther foreboded the ruin of Germany ; but more especially bore a relation to the Sacramentarian dispute, which Melancthon well knew would weaken the authority of his master. And, indeed, Luther was not believed innocent of the disturbances of Germany, as they originated with those who followed his gospel, and appeared animated by his writings ; besides, we have seen that, at the commencement, he had as much encouraged as restrained these rebel peasants. The Sacramentarian contest also was esteemed the effect of his doctrine. Catholics reproached him that, by exciting so great a contempt for church authority, and shaking this foundation, he brought every thing into question. " See," said they, " what it is to place the authority of deciding in the hands of every private person ; to have given the scripture for so plain and easy, that, to understand it, no more is necessary than to read it, without consulting church or antiquity." All these things grievously troubled Melancthon ; he, that was naturally a

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC, 61 man of discernment, saw a division rising; in the midst of the reformation, which not only rendered it odious, but enkindled in it an endless war.

— A dispute on Free Will between Erasmus and Luther. — Melancthon bewails the transports of Luther.

Other things happened at the same time, which gave him great anxiety. The dispute about free will had grown warm between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus was held in great esteem throughout all Europe, though he had many enemies on all sides. At the beginning of these troubles, Luther used all his efforts to gain him, and wrote to him in such respectful terms as approximated even to meanness¹⁴. At first Erasmus favoured him, yet not to such an extent as to leave the church. When he saw the schism manifestly declared, he abandoned him entirely, and wrote against him with great temper. But Luther, instead of imitating him, published so acrimonious a reply, as induced Melancthon to say, " I wish to God Luther had been silent. I had hopes that old age would have rendered him more mild ; and I see that, pushed on by his adversaries, and the disputes into which he is obliged to enterf, he daily grows more violent." As if a a man, who called himself the reformer of the world ought so soon to forget his character as not to remain master of himself, whatever might be the provocation! "That torments me strangely (said Melancthon) ; and if God lend not his helping hand, these disputes will be attended with an unfortunate event j." Erasmus, finding himself treated so rudely by one to whom he had been so mild, said, pleasantly enough, " I thought marriage would have tamed him ;" and deplored his fate in seeing himself, notwithstanding his meek temper, " condemned, old as he was, to fight against a savage beast, a furious wild boar."

— The blasphemies and audaciousness of Luther in his treatise on Man's Will enslaved.

The outrageous language of Luther did not constitute his greatest excess in those books he wrote against Erasmus. The doctrine itself was horrible ; for he not only concluded that free will was totally extinguished in mankind since their fall — a common error in the new reformation — "but, moreover, that it is impossible any other should be free but God ; that his presence and divine providence are the cause of all things

62 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK falling out by the unchangeable, eternal, and inevitable will of God, who thunder-strikes and breaks to pieces all free will : that the name of free will is a name which appertains to God alone, incompatible either with man, with angel, or any other creature¹⁵."

"From these principles he was obliged to make God the author of crimes ; nor did he conceal the thing, saying in express terms, that " freewill is a vain title; that God works the evil in us, as well as the good ; that the great perfection of faith consists in believing God to be just, although, necessarily, by his will, he renders us worthy of damnation, so as to seem to take pleasure in the torments of the wretchedf." And again: "God pleases you when he crowns the unworthy; he ought not to displease you when he condemns the innocent.! ;" he adds for conclusion, " that he said these things not by way of examination, but by way of deciding ; that he meant not to subject them to the decision of any person ; but advises the whole world to submit to them."

It is not surprising that such excesses troubled the modest mind of Melancthon ; not that he himself, at the commencement, had not approved these prodigies of doctrine, having himself said with Luther, "that God's foreknowledge renders free will absolutely impossible ; and that God was not less the cause of the treason of Judas, than of the conversion of St. Paul." But besides that he had been drawn into these opinions, rather by the authority of Luther, than his own choice, nothing was more opposed to his character than such opinions, established in so violent a manner, and he knew not where he was, when he witnessed the transports of his master.

— New transports against the King of England. — Luther boasts of his own meekness.

He saw them redoubled at the same time against the king of England. Luther, who had conceived a somewhat good opinion of this prince, because of his mistress Anne Boleyn, who was favourable enough to Lutheranism, had so far relented as to make excuses to him for his violence at first §. The king's answer was not such as he expected. Henry VIII. reproached him with the levity of his temper, the errors of his doctrine, his scandalous and shameful marriage. Then Luther, who never humbled himself except to induce others to crouch to him, and never failed to attack those who did not do so immediately,

X Ibid. f. 465. § Epist. ad Reg. Aug. t. ii. 92.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC, 63 answered the king, "That he was sorry for having treated him so mildly; that he did it at the request of his friends, in hopes such sweetness might be serviceable to this prince ; with the same view he had formerly written to the Legate Cajetan, to George Duke of Saxony, and to Erasmus, but he found it succeeded badly ; for which reason he should not be guilty of the like fault for the future*."

Amidst all these excesses, he even boasted of his extreme meekness. '* For, relying on the ever firm support of his learning, he yielded not in pride either to emperor, or king, or prince, or Satan, or the whole universe ; but if the king would lay aside his majesty, to treat more freely with him, he should find that he would conduct himself humbly and meekly to the most inferior persons ; a true sheep in simplicity, that could believe no evil of any onet."

— Zuinglius and CEcolampadius undertake the defence of Carlostadius. — Who Zuinglius was : his doctrine on the salvation of heathens.

What could Melancthon think, in his own temper the most peaceable of men, when he saw the outrageous pen of Luther raise up so many enemies abroad, whilst the Sacramentarian contest created him so many formidable ones at home 1

And indeed, at this time, the best pens of the party were directed against him. Carlostadius had found such defenders as placed him above the reach of contempt. Eagerly attacked by Luther, and driven from Saxony, he had retired to Switzerland, where Zuinglius and CEcolampadius took up his defence. Zuinglius, minister of Zurich, had begun to disturb the church, on account of indulgences, as well as Luther, but some years after him. He was a daring man, whose fire surpassed his learning ; — in language, clear and intelligible ; nor excelled by any of the pretended reformers, in a precise, uniform, and coherent way of expressing his thoughts; nor, indeed, did any carry them to a greater length, or with more presumption.

As the character of his genius will be better known by his own sentiments than my words, I shall produce a part of the most finished piece of his whole works: it is the i( Confession of Faith," which, a little before his death, he sent to Francis I. There, explaining the article of life everlasting, he savs to this prince, " that he must hope to see the assembly of all men that ever have been holy, valiant, faithful, and virtuous, from the beginning of the world. There you will see," he proceeds, " both Adams — the redeemed and the Redeemer. You will there see an Abel, an Enoch, a Noah, an Abraham, an Isaac, a Jacob, a Juda, a Moses, a Joshua, a Gideon, a Samuel, a Phineas, an Eliah, an Elisha, an Isaiah, with the Virgin Mother of God, whom he announced; a David, an Hezekiah, a Josiah, a John Baptist, a St. Peter, a St. Paul. You will there see Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios. There you will see your predecessors and all your ancestors who have departed this world in the faith. In a word, not one good man, one holy spirit, one faithful soul, whom you will not there behold with God. What more beautiful, what more glorious, more agreeable, can be imagined, than such a sight¹⁶ ?" What man had ever dreamt of thus placing Jesus Christ confusedly with the saints ? And in the train of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and our Saviour himself, even Numa, the father of Roman idolatry, even Cato, who killed himself like a maniac, and not only so many worshippers of false divinities, but even the gods, the heroes whom they worshipped ? I cannot conceive why he did not rank amongst them Apollo, or Bacchus, and Jupiter himself ; and if such crimes prevented him as poets lay to their charge, were those of Hercules less infamous ? This is what heaven is composed of, according to this head of the second party of the Reformation : this is what he wrote in a confession of faith, dedicated by him to the greatest King in Christendom; and what Bullinger, his successor, has given us as " the masterpiece and last song of this melodious swan." f And is it not astonishing that such as these could pass for men sent in an extraordinary manner by God for the reformation of his church.

— The frivolous Answer of those of Zurich in defence of

Zuinglius.

Luther did not spare him on [this head, but declared openly " that he despaired of his salvation ; because, not satisfied with continuing to impugn the sacrament, he had become a heathen by placing impious heathens, even Scipio the Epicurean, even Numa, the devil's instrument in founding idolatry among the Romans, in the number of blessed souls. For what does baptism avail us — what the other sacraments, the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ himself, if the impious, the idolaters, and the Epicureans, are saints and in bliss ? And what is this

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. G5 else than teaching, that every man may be saved in his own faith and religion * ?"

To answer him was no easy task. Nor did they answer him at Zurich in any other way than by a wretched recrimination, accusing him also of placing amongst the faithful Nebuchadnezzar, Naaman the Syrian, Abimelech, and many others, who, born out of the Covenant and race of Abraham, were however saved, as Luther says, " by a fortuitous mercy of Godf." But not to defend this Ci fortuitous mercy of God," which in reality is something strange, it is one thing to have said with Luther, that there may have been men out of the number of Israelites, who knew God ; another thing, to place with Zuinglius in the number of blessed souls, such as worshipped false divinities ; and if the Zuinglians were right in condemning the excesses and violence of Luther, there was much more reason to condemn this prodigious extravagance of Zuinglius. For, in short, this was not one of those mistakes into which a man may be betrayed in the heat of discourse : he was writing a confession of faith, and intended to make a simple and brief exposition of the Apostles' Creed ; a work that, above all others, required a mature consideration, exact doctrine, and a settled head. It was in the same strain he had before spoken of Seneca "as of a most holy man, in whose heart God had written the faith with his own hand J," because he had said in his letter to Lucilius " that nothing was hidden from God." Thus we have all the phitonic, peripatetic, stoic philosophers enrolled amongst the saints, and full of faith, because St. Paul acknowledges they had understood the invisible things of God by the visible works of his power §; and what furnishes this Apostle with reasons to condemn them in his Epistle to the Romans, has justified and sanctified them, in the opinion of Zuinglius.

— The Error of Zuinglius upon original Sin. To teach such extravagances as these, a man must have no notion of Christian justice, or of the corruption of our nature. And, indeed, Zuinglius was quite a stranger to original sin. In that confession of faith, which he sent to Francis I., and in four or five treatises which he made expressly to prove the baptism of the little children against anabaptists, and explain the effect of baptism in this infant age, he does not so much as speak of its cancelling original sin, which, however, is allowed by all Christians to be the chief fruit of their bap-

06 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK tism. He had done the same in all his other works ; and when this omission of an effect so considerable was objected to him, he shows that he did so designedly, because, in his opinion, no sin is taken away by baptism. He carries still farther his rashness, when he says, " It is no sin, but a misfortune, a vice, a distemper ; that nothing is weaker or more distant from the Scripture sense, than to say, original sin is not only a distemper, but also a crime¹⁷." In conformity to these principles, he decides that men indeed are born " prone to sin from their self-love," but not sinners, except improperly, by taking the penalty of sin for sin itself : and this "pronenessto sin,"" which cannot be sin, makes, according to him, the whole evil of our origin. In the sequel of his discourse, it is true, he acknowledges that all men would perish, were it not for the grace of the Mediator, because this proneness to sin would not fail in time to produce it, were it not stopped ; and it is in this sense he acknowledges that all men are damned by the "force of original sin;" a force which consists not, as we have just now seen, in making men truly sinners, as all Christian churches have decided against Pelagius, but in making them only " prone to sin," through the weakness of their senses and self-love, which the Pelagians and heathens themselves would not have denied.

The decision of Zuinglius, on the remedy of this evil, is not less strange ; for he maintains that it is taken away from all men whatever, by the grace of Jesus Christ, inde- •pendently of baptism : insomuch that original sin damns no man, not even the children of the heathens. As to those, though he dares not fix their salvation in the same degree of certainty with that of Christians and their children, he says however, that, like the rest, as long as they are incapable of the law, they are in the state of innocence, alleging this text of St. Paul — "where no law is, there is no transgressionf." "Now," proceeds this new doctor, "it is certain that children are weak, without experience, and ignorant of the law, and are not less without law than St. Paul, when he said, ' I lived without the law heretofore j.' Therefore, as there is no law for them, neither is there any transgression of the law, and, by consequence, no damnation. St. Paul says, that he lived without the law once, but there is no age in which man is more in this state than his infancy ; consequently, it must be said, with the same St. Paul, that without the law sin was dead in them¹⁸.'5 Just so disputed the Pelagians against the church. And although, as above stated, Zuinglius here speaks

II.] , THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 07 with greater assurance of the children of Christians than of others, he, however, in reality speaks of all children whatever, without exception. It is plain to what point his proof is directed ; and, certainly, since the time of Julian there never was a more complete Pelagian than Zuinglius.

— The error of Zuinglius on Baptism.

Nay, the Pelagians acknowledged, that baptism could at least give grace, and remit the sins of the adult. Zuinglius more rash than they, ceases not to repeat what has been already told of him, " that baptism takes away no sin, and gives no grace." " It is the blood of Jesus Christ,,' says he, " that remits sins, therefore, it is not baptism." Here an instance may be seen of that perverted zeal the reformation had for the glory of Jesus Christ. It is more clear than day, that to attribute the remission of sins to baptism, which is the means of taking them away established by Jesus Christ, does no more injury to Jesus Christ, than you offer to a painter, by attributing the fine colouring and the beautiful touches of his picture to the pencil he makes use of. But the reformation carries its vain reasonings to such excess, as to imagine it gives glory to Jesus Christ, to destroy the efficacy of these instruments which he employs. And to continue so gross an illusion to the utmost extremity, when a hundred passages from the Scriptures were objected to Zuinglius, where it is said, that baptism saves us, that it remits our sins ; he thinks he has fully satisfied by answering, that baptism is here taken for the blood of Jesus Christ, of which it is the sign.

— Zuinglius accustomed to wrest the Scripture in every thing. — His contempt for antiquity , the source of his error.

Such licentious explications make everything one wishes to be found in Scripture. It is not surprising that Zuinglius there finds that the Eucharist is not the body, but the sign of the body, though Christ has said, " This is my body ;" since he is able to find that baptism does not indeed give the remission of sins, but figures it to us as already given ; though the Scripture has said a hundred times, not that it figures, but gives it to us. It is no matter of surprise that the same author, to destroy the reality which incommoded him, eludes the force of these words, " This is my body ;" since to destroy original sin, which shocked ^him, he was able to evade these words ; ''all have sinned in one man," and again, " by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners¹⁹.1' But²⁰ still more strange is the confidence of this author in supporting his new interpretations against original sin, with a manifest contempt of all antiquity. i( We have seen," says he, " the ancients teach another doctrine concerning original sin > but in reading them it is easily perceived how obscure and embarrassed, not to say entirely human, rather than divine, is all they say on that head. For my part, this long time I have not leisure to consult them." In 1526 he composed this treatise ; and for many years before, he had no leisure to consult the ancients, nor go back to the fountain-head. Meanwhile he reformed the church. Why not, will our Reformers say ? And what had he to do with the ancients, since he possessed the Scriptures ? But on the contrary, here is an instance how little safety there is in searching the Scriptures, when one pretends to understand them, without having recourse to antiquity. By understanding the Scriptures in such a manner, Zuinglius discovered there was no original sin, that is to say, there was no redemption ; and the scandal of the cross was made void ; and pushed his notions to such a length, as to place amongst the saints those, who, indeed, whatever he might say, had no part with Jesus Christ. Thus is the church reformed, when men undertake its reformation without concerning themselves about what was the sense of past ages; and, according to this new method, it is easy to arrive at a reformation like that of the Socinians.

— The character of CEcolampadius. Such were the heads of the new reformation. Men of talent, it is true, and not deficient in literature, but bold, rash in their decisions, and puffed up with their vain learning : men who delighted in extraordinary and particular opinions, and, therefore aimed, not only to raise themselves above those of their own age, but also above the most holy of ages past. CEcolampadius, the other defender of the figurative sense amongst the Swiss, was both more moderate, and more learned ; and if Zuinglius appeared by his vehemence another Luther, CEcolampadius more i²¹esembled Melancthon, whose particular friend he was also. In a letter, which, when a youth, he wrote to Erasmus, you observe the marks of a piety equally affectionate and enlightened, together with much wit and politeness²². From the feet of the crucifix, before which he had been accustomed to pray, he wrote such tender things to Erasmus on the ineffable sweetness of Jesus Christ, whom this pious image represented so lively to his imagination, that there * Ep. Eiasm, Lib. vii. Ep. 42, 45.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 69 is no reading it without being affected. The reformation which came to trouble these devotions, and account them idolatry, began at that time ; for it was in 1517, that he wrote this letter. He entered into religion in the first heat of these disturbances, with much courage and reflection; at an age, as Erasmus observes, too advanced for any imputation of youthful precipitancy*. We also learn from the letters of Erasmus, that he was greatly enamoured with the course of life he had undertaken, and relished God in peace of mind, and therein lived quite remote from the novelties that were then spreading. However, (such is human weakness, so great the contagion of novelty,) he left his monastery, preached the new reformation at Basil, where he was pastor, and tired of celibacy, like the rest of the reformers, married a young girl, with whose beauty he was enamoured. ■ This is the way," said Erasmus " they choose to mortify themselves f ;" he could not but admire these new apostles, who were sure to abandon the solemn profession of celibacy to take wives ; whereas, the true apostles of our Saviour, according to the tradition of all the fathers, in order to attend to God and the Gospel only, left their wives to embrace celibacy. " It seems," said he, " as if the reformation aimed at nothing more than to strip a few monks of their habits, and to marry a parcel of priests ; and this great tragedy terminates at last in a conclusion that is entirely comical, since, just like comedies, all ends in marriage^." The same Erasmus complains, in other places §, that after his friend GEcolampadius had abandoned his tender devotion, together with the church and monastery, in order to embrace this impious -and contemptible reformation, he was no longer the same man ; instead of candour, which this minister professed whilst he acted of himself, nothing but artifice and dissimulation could be found in him, after he had once entered into the spirit of the party.

— The progress of the Sacrameniarian doctrine.

After the Sacramentarian dispute had been raised in the manner we have seen, Carlostadius scattered abroad little tracts against the real presence ; and, although on all hands they were allowed to be replete with ignorance ||, yet they were relished by the people already charmed with novelty. Zuinglius and CEcolampadius wrote in defence of this new doctrine : the first with much wit and vehemence ; the other

:|; Ep. Erasm. Lib. xix. $ Lib. xviii.Ep.23, 19, 113, 31, 47. Col. 2057, &c.

with mucli learning, and so sweet an eloquence, that " were it possible, says Erasmus, and would God have permitted it, it were capable of seducing even the elect²³." God put them to this trial ; but his promises and truth upheld the simplicity of the faith of the church against human reasoning. A little after Carlostadius was reconciled with Luther, and appeased him by saying that what he had taught upon the Eucharist, was rather by the way of proposing and examining, than decidingt- This man's life was one uninterrupted scene of feuds ; and the Swiss, who received him a second time, were never able to calm his turbulent temper.

His doctrine spread more and more, but on more plausible interpretations of our Saviour's words than what he had formerly given. Zuinglius said, " the good man said well enough, there was some hidden sense in these divine words, but could never find out what it was." He and CEcolampadius, with somewhat different expressions, agreed on the whole, that these words, " This is my body," were figurative : " Is," said Zuinglius, is as much as to say, signifies ; " body," said CEcolampadius, is the sign of the body. Their leaders, Bucer and Capito, became zealous defenders of the figurative sense. The reformation divided itself; and those who embraced this new party were called Sacramentarians. They were also named Zuinglians, either because Zuinglius had first supported Carlostadius, or because his authoritv prevailed in the minds of the people, who were led away by his vehemence.

— Zuinglius careful to take from the Eucharist ivhatever ivas raised above the senses.

We must not be surprised that an opinion so favourable to human sense became so fashionable. Zuinglius said positively, there was no miracle in the Eucharist, or any thing incomprehensible ; that the bread broken represented to us the body immolated ; and the wine, the blood shed : that Jesus Christ, at the institution of these sacred signs, had given them the name of the thing itself: that it was not, however, a simple spectacle, nor signs wholly naked, for as much as the remembrance of, and faith in, the body immolated and the blood shed, supported our souls ; that the Holy Ghost meanwhile sealed in our hearts the remission of sins ; and therein consisted the whole mystery. Human reason and-

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 71 sense had nothing to suffer from this explication²⁴. The Scripture was all the difficulty : but when one side opposed '.* This is my body," the other answered, " I am the vine; I am the door ; the rock was Christ." True it is, these examples came not to the point. It was not in proposing a parable, or explaining an allegory, that Jesus Christ said, " This is my body ; this is my blood." These words, entirely detached from the context, carried their full meaning in themselves,'— a new institution was in hand, — which ought to be made in simple terms, and yet no place in Scripture had been found, where the sign of the institution received the name of the thing itself the moment it was instituted, and without any previous preparation.

— Of the Spirit which appeared to Zuinglius, to furnish him icith a passage, where the sign of the institution received immediately the name of the thing instituted.

This argument tormented Zuinglius ; he sought day and night for a solution. In the mean time, however, mass was abolished, in opposition to all the exertions of the townsecretary, who disputed powerfully for the Catholic doctrine and the real presence. Twelve days after, Zuinglius had this dream, with which he and his disciples have been so much upbraided. In it he tells us, that imagining he was disputing against the town-secretary, who pressed him closely, on a sudden, he saw a phantom, white or black, appear before himf, who spoke these words, — " Coward, why answerest thou not what is written in Exodus, — * The Lamb is the passover J,' — intimating it was the sign ?" This is the celebrated passage so often repeated in the writings of the Sacramentarians, in which they thought to have found the name of the thing given to the sign, and in the very institution of the sign ; and thus it was conceived by Zuinglius, who availed himself of it. His disciples will contend, when he said he knew not who suggested this thought, whether he was white or black, he meant only, that it was an unknown person, and true it is, the Latin terms will bear this explication. But, besides that concealing himself, so as not to discover what he was, is the natural character of an evil spirit, Zuinglius was also manifestly in error : — these words, " The Lamb is the passover," by no means signify it was the figure of the passover. It is a common Hebraism, where the word sacrifice is understood;

f Hosp. ii. [>. 25, 26. Exod. xii. 11. \ Exoil.xii.il.

so sin merely is the sacrifice for sin ; and barely passover is the sacrifice of the passover ; which the Scripture itself explains a little farther on, where it says at full length, not that the Lamb is the passover, but the sacrifice of the passover. This most certainly was the sense of that place in Exodus. Other examples were afterwards produced, as we shall see in due time ; but this was the first. There was nothing in it, as we see, that should much comfort the mind of Zuinglius, or that showed him the sign at the very institution received the name of the thing. He awoke, however, at this new explication of his unknown friend, read the place of Exodus, and went to preach what he had discovered in his dream. Men were too well prepared, not to believe him : the mists which still i-emained on their minds were dissipated.

— Luther writes against the Sacrame?itarians, and why he treated Zuinglius more severely than the rest.

It provoked Luther to see, not only individuals, but whole churches of the new reformation, now rise up against him. But he abated nothing of his accustomed pride. We may judge from these words, — "I. have the Pope in front; I have the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists in my rear ; but I will march out alone against them all ; I will defy, them to battle ; I will trample them under my feet." And a little after, — " I will say it without vanity, that for these thousand years the Scripture has never been so thoroughly purged, nor so well explained, nor better understood, than at this time it is by me²⁵." He wrote' these words in 1525, a little after the contest had commenced. In the same year he composed his book " against the heavenly prophets ;" thereby ridiculing Carlostadius, whom he accused of favouring the visions of the Anabaptists. This book consisted of two parts. In the first he maintained the impropriety of breaking down images ; that in the law of Moses nothing was prohibited as the object of adoration, but the images of God ; that the images of crosses and of saints were not comprehended in this prohibition ; that none under the gospel were obliged to destroy images by force, because that was contrary to gospel-liberty ; and those who destroyed them were doctors of the law, and not of the gospel. By this reasoning he justified us from all those accusations of idolatry, with which we were unreasonably charged on this

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 73 head. In the second part he attacked the Sacramentarians. But CEcolampadius he treated with moderation at the commencement ; yet he attacked Zuinglius with violence. This doctor had written, that before the name of Luther was known, he had preached the gospel — that is, the reformation in Switzerland — ever since the year 1516; and the Swiss gave him the glory of this beginning, which Luther arrogated to himself²⁶. Offended at these words he wrote to those of Strasburg, " that he durst assume to himself the glory of first preaching Jesus Christ, but that Zuinglius wished to deprive him of that glory. How is it possible (proceeds he) to be silent, whilst these men disturb our churches and impugn our authority ? If they are unwilling to suffer their own to be weakened ; for the same reason they ought not to weaken ours." In conclusion, he declares, " there is no medium, either he or they must be the ministers of Satanf."

— The words of a celebrated Lutheran on the jealousy of Luther against Zuinglius.

An ingenious Lutheran, and the most celebrated of those that have written in our days, here makes this reflection : — " Those who despise all things, and expose not only their fortunes, but their lives, often are not able to raise themselves above glory, so flattering are its chai'ms, so great is human weakness. On the contrary, the higher a man's courage is elevated the more does he covet praises — the more concerned to see those bestowed on others, which he believes due to himself |. It should not be, therefore, a matter of surprise, if a man of Luther's magnanimity wrote those things to those of Strasburg."

Luther's strong arguments for the real presence ; and how he boasts of them.

In the midst of these strange transports, Luther, by powerful arguments, confirmed the faith of the real presence. Both the Scripture, and ancient tradition, supported him in this cause. He demonstrated, that to convert so simple, so precise words of our Saviour to a figurative sense, under pretext that there were figurative expressions in other places of the Scripture, was to open a way by which the whole Scripture, and all the mysteries of our religion, would be turned to figures ; that the same submission was, therefore, required here, with which we receive the other mysteries, without attending to human reasoning, or the hnvs of nature, but to Jesus Christ and his words only ; that our Saviour spoke not, in the institution, either of faith or the Holy Spirit, but said, " This is my body," and not that faith would make you partake of it ; wherefore, the eating, of which Jesus Christ there spoke, was not a mystical eating, but an eating by the mouth ; that the union of faith was consummated out of the sacrament²⁷ ; nor could it be believed that Jesus Christ gave us nothing that was particular by such emphatic words f ; that, it is evident, his intention was to render certain his gift, by giving us his person ; that the remembrance he recommended to us of his death, excluded not his presence, but obliged us to receive this body and this blood as a victim immolated for us ; that the victim became ours, indeed, by manducation ; that, in reality, faith ought then to intervene, in order to make it profitable to us ; but to show that, even without faith, the word of Jesus Christ had its effect, there needed but to consider the communion of the unworthy. He urged here forcibly the words of St. Paul, when, after relating these words, *' This is my body," he condemned so severely those <c who discerned not the body of the Lord, and who rendered themselves guilty of his body and blood £." He added, that St. Paul meant to speak throughout of the *' true body," and not of the body in figure ; and that it was evident from his expressions, that he condemned those impious persons of insulting Jesus Christ, not in his gifts, but immediately in his person.

But where he manifested his greatest strength, was in demolishing the objections which were raised against these heavenly truths. He asked of those who objected to him, " flesh profiteth nothing §," with what assurance they durst say, that the flesh of Jesus Christ profiteth nothing, and apply to this life-giving flesh what Jesus Christ said of the carnal sense, oiv at most, of the flesh taken after the manner in which the Capharnaites understood it, or evil Christians received it, not uniting themselves thereto by faith, nor receiving at that same time that spirit and life with which it abounds ? When they presumed to ask him, What, therefore, did this flesh avail taken by the mouth of the body, he again asked of these proud opponents, What did it avail

6 John vi. 63.

II. J THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 15 that the Word was made flesh ? Could not truth have been announced, nor mankind redeemed, but by this means? Are they acquainted with all God's secrets, to say unto him, he had no other way by which to save man ? And who are they, thus to set laws to their Creator, and prescribe to him the means by which he would apply his grace to them ? If, at last, they opposed against him human reasons, how a body could be in so many places at once — a human body, whole and entire, in so small a space? He destroyed all these engines levelled against God, by asking, how God preserved his unity in the trinity of persons ? how, of nothing, he had created heaven and earth ? how he had clothed his Son in a human body ? how he made him be born of a virgin ? how he delivered him up to death ? and how he was to raise up all the faithful on the last day ? What did human reason pretend by opposing these vain difficulties against God, which he blasted with a breath ? They say that all the miracles of Jesus Christ are sensible *. But who has told them that Jesus Christ did resolve never to work any other ? When he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of a virgin, to whom was this, the greatest miracle of all, become sensible ? Could Mary have known what it was she bore in her womb, had not the angel announced the divine secret to her ? But when the divinity dwelt corporeally in Christ Jesus, who saw it, or who comprehended it ? Now who sees him at the right-hand of his Father, from whence he exerts his omnipotence over the whole universe ? Is this what obliges them to wrest, to break to pieces, to crucify the words of their Master ? I do not comprehend, say they, how he can execute them literally. They prove to me very well, by this reason, that human sense agrees not with God's wisdom; I allow it; I agree with them : but I never knew before that nothing was to be believed but what we discovered by opening our eyes, or what human reason can comprehend.

Lastly : when it was said to him, that this matter was not of consequence, or of sufficient importance for breaking peace : — who then obliged Carlostadius to begin this quarrel ? What forced Zuinglius and CEcolampadius to write? May that peace for ever be accursed, that is made to the prejudice of truth ! By such arguments he often silenced the Zuinglians. It must be acknowledged, he had a great strength of genius ; he wanted nothing but the rule, which can be had no where but in the Church, and under the yoke of a legitimate autho- * Serm. quod verba stent, ibid.

rity. Had Luther continued obedient to that yoke, so necessary for the regulation of all minds, but especially for fiery and impetuous minds like his, he might have kept his writing free from those transports, those buffooneries, that brutal arrogance, those excesses, or rather extravagances; and the force with which he treated some truths, would not have contributed to seduction. It is for this reason we see him still invincible, when he sets forth the ancient doctrines he had learned in the bosom of the Church ; but pride closely pursued his victories. So much was this man captivated with himself for having fought so strenuously for the proper and literal sense of our Saviour's words, that he could not refrain from boasting of it. " The Papists themselves," said he, (t are obliged to allow me the praise of having defended the doctrine of the literal sense much better than they. And, in reality, I am assured, were they all melted down into one mass, they never would be able to maintain it with the strength that I do²⁸."

— The Zuinglians prove against Luther that Catholics understand the literal sense better than he.

He was mistaken ; for although he fully proved that the literal sense was to be maintained, he knew not how to understand it in all its simplicity ; and the supporters of the figurative sense demonstrated to him, that if the literal sense were to be followed, transubstantiation would carry it. This is what Zuinglius, and all the defenders of the figurative sense, in general, proved most clearly. They observe, that Jesus Christ has not said, " My body is here, or my body is under this, and with this, or this contains my body, but only, This is my body." Thus, what he is to give the faithful, is not a substance which contains his body, or which accompanies it, but his body, " without any other foreign substance f." Neither has he said, " This bread is my body," which is another of Luther's explications ; but he has said, "This is my body," by an indefinite term, to show that the substance he gives is no longer bread, but his body.

And when Luther explained " This is my body ;" that is, this bread is my body, really and without figure, contrary to his intentions, he destroyed his own doctrine. For we may very well say with the Church, that bread becomes the body, in the same sense that St. John has said, " the water was made wine £," at the marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee,

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 77 namely, by the change of one into the other. In the same manner may it be said, that what is bread in appearance, is, in effect, the body of our Lord ; but that true bread, remaining such, should be at the same time the true body of our Lord, as Luther maintained, the defenders of the figurative sense proved to him, as did the Catholics, that it was a reasoning void of sense, and concluded that he ought either to admit a moral change only, together with them, or a change of substance, together with the Papists.

— Be za proves the same truth.

It is for this reason that Beza, at the Conference of Montbeliart, maintains against the Lutherans, that of the two explications which adhere to the literal sense — namely, that of the Catholics, and that of the Lutherans, " It is that of the Catholics which departs least from the words of the institutution of the Lord's Supper, were they to be expounded word for word." He proves it by this reason : because " the Transubstantiators say, that by virtue of these divine words, that which before was bread, having changed its substance, becomes immediately the body itself of Jesus Christ, to the end that, by this means, this proposition may be true, (t This is my body/' " Whereas the exposition of the consubstantiators, saying, that these words, ' This is my body,' do signify my body is essentially in, with, or under this bread, declares not what is become of the bread, and what that is, which is the body, but only where it is²⁹." This reason is plain and intelligible. For it is clear, that Jesus Christ, having taken bread in order to make it something, must have declared to us what kind of something he did intend to make it ; it is not less evident, that the bread became that which the Almighty did intend to make it. Now these words show he intended to make it his bod)'', whatever that is understood, since he said, "This is my body.*' If, therefore, this bread is not become his body in figure, it is become so in effect ; and there is no way to avoid admitting either the change in figure, or the change in substance.

Thus, if we only understand simply the words of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Church must be embraced ; and Beza is correct in stating, that it is attended with less difficulties, as to the manner of speaking, than that of the Lutherans, that is to say, it is more agreeable to the literal sense f. Calvin frequently confirms the same truth; and, not to dwell on the sense of individuals, a whole synod of Zuinglians have acknowledged it.

— A whole Synod of Zuinglians in Poland establishes the same truth.

It is the Synod of Czenger, a town in Poland, published in the Collection of Geneva. This synod, after having rejected Papistical Transubstantiation, shows "that the Lutheran Consubstantiation is untenable," because, "as the wand of Moses was not a serpent but by transubstantiation, and the water in Egypt was not blood, nor, at the marriage of Cana, wine, without a change ; so the bread of the supper cannot be the body of Christ substantially, if it be not changed into his flesh, by losing the form and substance of bread *."

It was good sense that dictated this decision. In fact, the bread remaining bread, can be no more the body of our Lord, than the wand remaining a wand, could be a serpent, or than the water remaining water, could be blood in Egypt, or wine at the marriage of Cana. If, therefore, what was bread becomes the body of our Lord, either it becomes so in figure by a mystical change, according to Zuinglius's doctrine, or it becomes so, in effect, by a real change, as is maintained by Catholics.

— Luther understood not the force of these words, " This is my body"

Thus, Luther, who boasted that he alone had defended the literal sense better than all the Catholic divines, was greatly mistaken ; since he did not even comprehend the true ground which holds us to this sense, nor understand the nature of those propositions which operate what they express. Jesus Christ says to that man, " Thy son liveth j." Jesus Christ says to that woman, "Thou art loosed from thine infirmity j." In speaking, he does what he says : nature obeys ; things are changed, and the sick person becomes sound. But words, which regard only accidental things, as health and sickness, operate only accidental changes. Here, where a substance is concerned, for Jesus Christ said, " This is my body, This is my blood," the change is substantial; and by an effect as real as it is surprising, the substance of the bread and of the wine is changed into the substance of the body and the blood.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 79

Consequently, when we follow the literal sense, we must not only believe that the body of Jesus Christ is in the mystery, but also that it makes the whole substance of it; and this is what the words themselves lead us to, Jesus Christ not having said, my body is here, or this contains my body, but this is my body ; and he would not even say, this bread is my body, but this, indefinitely. And in the same manner as if he had said, when he changed the water into wine ; that which you are going to drink is wine, it ought not to be understood that he had preserved together both water and wine, but that he had changed the water into wine ; so when he declares, that what he presents is his body, it ought not in any way to be understood that he mixes his body with the bread, but that he effectually changes the bread into his body. To this the literal sense leads us, as the Zuinglians themselves acknowledge, and this it is which Luther could never understand.

— The Sacramentarians proved to Luther that he admitted a kind of figurative sense.

On account of not understanding it, this great defender of the literal sense fell necessarily into a kind of figurative sense. According to him, " This is my body," imported, this bread contains my body, or this bread is joined with my body ; and, by this means, the Zuinglians forced him to acknowledge, in this expression, that grammatical figure which substitutes that which containeth for that which is contained, or the part for the whole *. Then they pressed him in this way : if it be lawful for you to admit in the words of the institution, that figure which puts the part for the whole,why will you pi'event us from admitting in them that figure which substitutes the thing for the sign ? Figure for figure, the metonomy which we acknowledge is worth full as much as the synecdoche which you receive. These gentlemen were humanists and grammarians. All their books were soon filled with the synecdoche of Luther, and the metonomy of Zuinglius ; it was necessary for Protestants to engage on one side or other of these two figures of rhetoric ; and it appeared manifest, that none but the Catholics, equally distant from one and the other, and admitting in the eucharist neither bread nor a bare sign, justly established the literal sense.³⁰³¹

— The difference between doctrine invented, a?id doctrine received by tradition.

Here was perceived the difference between the doctrines introduced anew by particular authors, and those which come in their natural channel. The change of substance had of itself spread over both the east and the west, entering into all minds together with the words of our Lord, without ever causing any disturbance ; neither were those who believed it, ever marked by the Church as innovators. When it was contested, and men laboured to wrest the literal sense with which it had spread over the whole earth, not only the church remained firm, but also her very adversaries were seen to combat for her, whilst they combated against each other. Luther and his followers proved invincibly that the literal sense ought to be retained. Zuinglius, with his party, established with no less force, that it could not be retained without the change of substance : thus they agreed in this only, to prove against each other, that the church, which they had abandoned, had more reason on her side than any of them : by I know not what force of truth, all those who abandoned her retained something of it, and the Church which kept the whole, gained the victory.

— The Catholic sense is visibly the most natural sense.

Hence it clearly follows, that the interpretation of Catholics, who admit the change of substance, is the most natural and the most simple ; both because it is followed by the greatest number of Christians, and because of these two, who impugn it by different ways, one of them, that is Luther, undertook to oppose it purely out of a spirit of contradiction, and in spite of the church ; and the other, that is Zuinglius, agrees, that if with Luther the literal sense is to be received, the change of substance must be received also with the Catholics.

— Question : whether the Sacrament be destroyed in Transubstantiation ?

Afterwards, the Lutherans, once engaged in error, confirmed themselves therein with this argument, that it is destroying the sacrament, to take from it, as we do the substance of bread and wine. I am obliged to acknowledge I have not found this reason in anv of the writings of Luther ;

IT.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 81 and, indeed, it is too weak and too far-fetched to occur immediately to the mind ; for it is known that a sacrament, that is, a sign, consists in that which appears, not in the interior or substance of the thing. It was not necessary to show Pharaoh seven real kine, and seven ears of real corn, to notify to him the fertility and the famine of seven years. The image that was formed in his mind was cpaite sufficient for that purpose ; and if we must come to things with which the eyes have been affected, in order that the dove should represent the Holy Ghost, and that chaste love with all its sweetness, which he inspires into holy souls, it was not at all necessary that it should be a real dove which descended visibly upon Jesus Christ ; it was sufficient it had the whole exterior : in the same manner, in order that the Eucharist might specify to us, that Jesus Christ was our bread and our drink, it was sufficient that the characters and ordinary effects of these aliments were preserved : in a word, it was enough, there was nothing changed with regard to the senses. In the signs of the institution, that which denotes their force is the intention declared by the words of the institutor ; now, by saying over the bread, " This is my body," and over the wine, " this is my blood," and seeming, by virtue of these divine words, actually invested with all the appearances of bread and wine, he shows clearly enough, that he is truly a nourishment, who has taken on him the resemblance of it, and under that form appears to us. If, to the reality of the sacrament true bread and true wine be necessary, it is likewise true bread and true wine that are consecrated ; and which, by consecration, are made the true body and true blood of our Redeemer. The change that is made in the interior, without any alteration of the exterior, makes also one part of the sacrament — namely, of the sacred sign ; inasmuch as this change become sensible by the words, makes us see that by the words of Jesus Christ operating in a Christian, he ought to be most really, though in a different manner, changed inwardly, retaining only the exterior of other men.

— How the names of bread and wine may remain in the Eucharist. — Two rules drawn from Scripture.

Thereby those passages are explained, in which the Eucharist is called bread, even after consecration ; and this difficulty is manifestly solved, by the rule of changes, and the rule of appearances. By the rule of changes, the bread become the body, is called bread, as in Exodus, the wand become a ser-

VOL. I. G

82 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK pent, is called a wand, and the water become blood, is called water. These expressions are made use of to show at once, both the thing which was made, and the material employed to make it of. By the rule of appearances, in the same manner that, in the Old and New Testament the angels who appeared under human shape, are called, at the same time, angels *, because they are so, and men, because they appear so; so the Eucharist will be both called the body, because it is so, and bread, because it so appears. If, then, one of these two reasons is sufficient to preserve to it the name of bread without prejudicing the change, the concurrence of both will be much stronger. And no difficulty should be imagined of discerning truth amidst these different expressions ; for, when the Holy Scripture explains the same thing by different expressions, to prevent all ambiguity, there is always a principal place, to which the rest are to be reduced, and where things are expressed, such as they are, in precise terms. What if these angels be called men in some places ? there will be a place where it will be clearly seen that they are angels. What if this blood and this serpent be called water and wand ? you will find the principal place, where the change will be specified ; and it is by that the thing should be defined. What will be the principal place, by which we are to judge of the Eucharist, if it be not that of the institution, where Jesus Christ made it to be what it is ? So, when we would name it with relation to what it was, and Avhat it appears, we may call it bread and wine ; but when we would name it with respect to what it is in itself, it will have no other name than that of body and blood. And it is by this it ought to be defined, since it can never be anything else than what it is made by the all-powerful words which gave it being. Both of you, as well Lutherans as Zuinglians, do, contrary to nature, explain the principal text by other places, and both of you, departing from the rule, do separate still to a greater distance from one another, than you do from the Church which you chiefly aimed to oppose. The Church, which follows the natural order, and reduces all the passages where the Eucharist is mentioned, to that which, beyond dispute, is the principal and foundation of all the others, holds the true key of the mystery ; and triumphs not only over both one and the other, but also over the one by the other.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 83

— Luther dismayed at these disputes ; his dejection deplored by Melancthon.

In effect, during these Sacramentarian disputes, those who called themselves Reformed, notwithstanding their common interest, which at times united them in appearance, waged a more cruel war against each other than against the Church itself, mutually calling each other " furies, maniacs, slaves of Satan, greater enemies to the truth and the members of Jesus Christ, than the Pope himself;" which to them was saying everything.

In the mean time, the authority which Luther was desirous of maintaining in the new Reformation, that had arisen under his standard, was becoming contemptible. He was overwhelmed with grief; and that haughtiness, which he showed exteriorly, could not support him under that dejection of mind which he felt interiorly ; on the contrary, the more haughty he was, the more insupportable it was to him to be despised by a party, of whom he wished to be the sole leader. The concern he felt communicated itself to Melancthon ; " Luther," says he, " causes in me great troubles, by the long complaints he makes to me of his afflictions ; writings, judged not contemptible, have quite dejected and disfigured him ; through the compassion I have for him, I find myself afflicted to the utmost extremity, for the calamities of the church. The doubtful vulgar divide themselves into contrary sentiments ; and had not Jesus Christ promised to be with us even to the consummation of ages, I should apprehend the utter destruction of religion from these dissentions ; for nothing is more true than the sentence which says, through much disputing, truth escapes from us³²."

— Luther teaches Ubiquity.

Strange agitations of a man, who hoped to see the 1³³97 church repaired, and now sees her ready to fall by * r.^c,' the very means taken for her re-establishment ! What comfort could he find in the promises made to us by Jesus Christ of being always with us ? It is for Catholics to nourish themselves with this faith ; for them, who believe the Church can never be overcome by error, however violent the assault, and who, in fact, have ever found her to be invincible. But how can they advance claims to this promise in the new Reformation, whose first foundation, when they separated

Luth, Hosp, 44. Lib.iv. Epk 76, ad Camer.

84 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK.

from the church, was that Jesus Christ had so forsaken her, as to let her fall into idolatry ? Moreover, though it is true that truth remains always in the Church, and becomes the more purified in proportion as it is attacked, Melancthon was right in thinking, that by much disputation individuals fell into error. There was no error so monstrous, into which the heat of dispute had not impelled the passionate mind of Luther. It made him embrace that monstrous opinion of ubiquity. These are the arguments on which he grounded this strange notion. The humanity of our Lord is united to his divinity ; therefore, the humanity, as well as the other, is everywhere : Jesus Christ, as man, is seated at the right hand of God ; the right hand of God is everywhere ; therefore, Jesus Christ as man, is everywhere. As man, he was in heaven before he had ascended into it! He was in the monument when the angels said he was not there. The Zuinglians fell into a worse extreme, by saying that God had it not even in his power to put the body of Jesus Christ in several places. Luther runs into another excess, and maintains that this body was necessarily in every place ; that is what he taught in a book already mentioned, which he wrote in 1527, in order to defend the literal sense, and what he ventured to insert in a " Confession of Faith," which he published in 1528, under the title of " The Great Con fession of Faith *."

— Luther declares anew that it imports little whether the substance of bread be admitted or taken away ; the gross divinity of this Doctor, at which Melancthon is scandalized.

He says, in this last book, that it is of little importance, whether the bread be admitted in the Eucharist or not ; but that it was more reasonable to acknowledge therein. " A carnal bread and a bloody wine — panis carneus ct vinum sanguineum.'³⁴ This was the new language, by which he expressed that new union he placed between the bread and the body. These words seemed to aim at impanation, and often such fell from him, which had a further tendency than he meant. But, at least, they proposed a certain mixture of bread and flesh, of wine and blood, which appeared very gross, and was insupportable to Melancthon — "I have spoken," says he, " to Luther, concerning this mixture of the bread and the body, which appears a strange paradox to many people.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 85

He answered me peremptorily, that he would alter nothing in it ; and, for my part, I do not think it proper to meddle any more in this affair *." Which is as much as to say, he was not of Luther's mind, yet dared not to contradict him.

— The Sacramentarian contest upset the foundations of the Reformation. — Calvin's words.

Meanwhile, the excesses into which they fell on both sides of the new reformation, discredited it with men of good sense. This dispute alone destroyed the common foundation of each party. They believed they could terminate all disputes by the Scripture alone, and would have no other judge than that ; and the whole world was witness, there was no end to their disputes on Scripture, even on one passage of it, than which none ought to be more clear, since it regarded a last will and testament. They exclaimed one to the other, "All is clear, and nothing more is necessary than to open your eyes." By this evidence of Scripture, Luther discovered that nothing was more impious and daring than to deny the literal sense ; and Zuinglius found nothing more gross and absurd than to follow it. Erasmus, whom both were desirous of gaining, said the same to them that all Catholics did : — " You all appeal to the pure word of God, and believe yourselves its true interpreters. Agree, then, amongst yourselves before you set laws to all mankindf." Whatever excuse they invented, they were 'quite ashamed that they could not agree, and in the bottom of their hearts, all thought the same that Calvin wrote to his friend Melancthon, — i( It is of great importance, that the least suspicion of the divisions, which are amongst us, pass not to future ages ; for it is ridiculous beyond anything that can be imagined, after we have broken off from the whole world, we should so little agree amongst ourselves ever since the beginning of our reformation J."

— The Lutherans take up arms under the Landgrave's command, who owns that he is in the wrong.

Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, very zealous for the new gospel, had foreseen this disorder, and from the beginning of the rupture endeavoured to effect a reconciliation. As soon as he saw the party sufficiently strong, and, moreover, threatened by the emperor and the Catholics, he began to form designs

\ Calvin, epist. ad Mel. p. 145.

86 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK of a confederacy. The maxims laid down by Luther for the foundation of his reformation, to seek no support from arms, were soon forgotten. They rose in arms under pretext of an imaginary treaty, said to have been made between George Duke of Saxony, and the other Catholic princes, to exterminate the Lutherans³⁵. The matter indeed was adjusted ; the Landgrave was satisfied with the great sums of money, which some ecclesiastical princes were obliged to pay down, to indemnify him for raising forces, which he himself acknowledged he had done on false reports.

Melancthon, who did not approve of this conduct, found no other excuse for the Landgrave, but the reluctance he felt to let it appear that he had been deceived, and had nothing more to say in his defence, than that an " evil shamef" had influenced him. But other thoughts gave him much more uneasiness. They had boasted among themselves that Papacy should be destroyed, without making war and shedding blood. Previous to the time of the Landgrave's tumult, and a little after the revolt of the peasants, Melancthon had written to the Landgrave himself, " That it was better to suffer everything than to take up arms in the gospel cause!;" and now it happened, that those who had laboured so much to convince the world of their pacific principles, were the first to run to arms, and that on a false report, as Melancthon himself acknowledges^. Accordingly, he adds, " When I see what a scandal the good cause is liable to, I am almost overwhelmed with this concern||." Luther was far from these sentiments : though in Germany it was known as certain, and Protestant authors have acknowledged it^[, that this pretended treaty of George of Saxony was a mere illusion, Luther wished to believe it true ; and wrote several letters and libels, in which he is so transported against that prince, even as to call him, " of all fools, the greatest fool ; a proud Moab, who always undertook what was above his strength," adding, that he would pray to God against him : then that he would give notice to the princes to exterminate such people, who wished to see all Germany in blood **:'³⁶ that is to say, lest the Lutherans themselves should be placed in that condition, and begin by exterminating such princes as were opposed to their designs.

This George Duke of Saxony, so insulted by Luther, was

% Mel. ibid. Sleid. ibid. Dav. Chyt. in Saxon, ad an 1528. p. 312. ** Luth, Ep. ad Vences. Lync, t. vii. et ap. Chyt, in Sax. p. 312 el 982.

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 87 as much opposed to the Lutherans, as his kinsman the Elector was favourable to them. Luther prophesied against him with all his strength, regardless that he was of the same family with his lord and master ; and, it is plain, that it was not his fault that his prophecies were not fulfilled with the edge of the sword.

— The name of Protestants. — The conference of Mar pur g, where the Landgrave labours in vain to reconcile both parties of Protestants. — 1529.

This armament of the Lutherans, which in 1528 made all Germany tremble, had raised their pride to such a height, that they judged themselves in a condition to protest openly against the decree, published against them the year following in the Diet of Spires, and to appeal from it to the emperor, to the future general council, or to that which should be held in Germany. It was on this occasion they re-united themselves under the name of Protestants ; but the Landgrave, who had more sagacity, more capacity, and more valour than any of them, perceived that the diversity of sentiments would be an everlasting obstacle to that perfect union, which he desired to form amongst them ; therefore, the same year that the decree passed at Spires, he procured the conference of Marpurg, where he caused all the leaders of the new reformation to meet, namely, Luther, Osiander, and Melancthon, on one side ; Zuinglius, CEcolampadius, and Bucer, on the other, to pass over those less distinguished. Luther and Zuinglius were the only speakers ; for the Lutherans, long before this, were silent when Luther was present ; and Melancthon frankly acknowledges that he and his companions were but " mute figures³⁷." They thought not then of amusing each other with equivocal explications, as they did afterwards. The true presence of the body and blood was plainly maintained on one side, and denied on the other. On both sides it was understood, that a presence in figure, and a presence by faith, was not a true presence of Jesus Christ, but a moral presence — a presence improperly so called, and in metaphor. They agreed, in appearance, on all articles, except the Eucharist. I say in appearance, for it is clear from two letters, which, during this conference, Melancthon wrote to his princes to give them an account of it, that, in reality, they very little understood each other's meaning.— " We discovered (says he), that our adversaries under-³⁸ stood very little of Luther's doctrine, although they endeavoured to imitate his language³⁹;" that is, they agreed through complaisance, and in words, though in reality they understood not each other ; and the truth is, Zuinglius had never comprehended anything of Luther's doctrine on the sacraments, nor of his imputed justice^." Those of Strasburg, with Bucer their minister, were also accused of not having good sentiments, that is, as they meant it, not Lutheran enough on this head, and so it afterwards appeared, as we shall soon perceive. The truth of the thing is, Zuinglius and his companions were somewhat troubled about these matters, and spoke whatever might please Luther, having nothing in their thoughts but the real presence. As to the manner of treating things, Luther, as usual, spoke with haughtiness. Zuinglius showed much ignorance, so far as to ask several times, " How a wicked priest could perform a sacred thing J ?" Luther pressed him closely, and made him see from the example of baptism that he knew not what he said. When Zuinglius and his companions saw they could not prevail on Luther to admit their figurative sense, they entreated him at least to hold them for brethren, but were sharply repulsed. " What fraternity do you ask of me," replied Luther, " if you [persist in your belief? It is a sign you doubt of it, since you desire to be their brethren who reject it §."" Thus ended the conference. However, they promised mutual charity. Luther interpreted this charity such as we owe to enemies, and not such as is allowed to those of the same communion. " They were indignant,'⁴⁰ said he, " to see themselves treated like heretics." They agreed, however, to write no more against each other. " But it was only to give time," continued Luther, "to come to themselves."

This agreement, such as it was, continued but a short time ; on the contrary, by the different accounts that were given of this conference, their minds were more exasperated than before. The proposal of fraternity made by the Zuinglians was considered by Luther a stratagem, and he said, " that Satan so reigned in them that they had it no longer in their power to advance anything but lies ||."

I Hosp. Ibid. § Luth. Ep. ad Jen. Praep. Bremens. Ibid.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 89

Ep. ail Argentin. t. vii. f. 501. ↩
Matt. xxvi. 28. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 24. f Oe Capt. Bab. t. ii. ↩
Mel. lib. ii. Ep. 447. ↩
De Cap. Babyl. t. ii. f. G6. f Resp. ad art. extract, ibid. 172. % Contra Reg. Ang.T. II. ↩
Cont. Reg. Aug. 333. f Erasm. lib, vi. Epist. 3, a I Luther, lib. xiv. Ep. 1, &c. — Id. lib. xix, Ep. 3, at Melaoct. ↩
2Tim.ii.17. f Ibid. iii. 13. + Ibid. iii. 9. ↩
Tert. dc Pracscr, c. 42. || Ep. Dedic. Comm, in Gal, ad Carlostad, ↩
Ep.Luth.adGasp. Gustol. 1522. f Serm. quid Christiano proestandum, t. vii- f. 273. ↩
Luth. par Confess. Hospin. part ii. f. 18S. f Epist. ad Gasp. Gustul. j Form. Miss. t. ii, 384, 3SG. ↩
De Libert. Christ, t. ii. f. 10, 11. t Sleidan, lib. v. xvii. ↩
Epist.Luth. ad Argent, t. vii. f. 502. f Skid. lib. v. Ibid. 75. ↩
Skid. lib. x. p. 77. f Sleid. lib. v. p. 77. ↩
Ep. Lutli. ad Erasm. inter Eiasm. Ep. Lib. vi. 3. f Ep. Mel. lib. iv. Ep. 88. + Lib. xviii. Ep. 11, 22. ↩
De Serv. arb. t. ii, 426, 429, 431, 435. f Ibid. f. 444. ↩
Ad maled.Reg. Angliee, Resp. t. ii. 493, Sleid. lib. vi. p. 80. f Ibid. 494, 495. ↩
Christ. Fidei clara expos. 1536, p. 27. f Praef. Bulling. ↩
Pan-. Com. Luth. Hosp. p. 2. 187. ; -j- Lutb. Horn, in Gen. c. iv. 20. ↩
(Jper.fi. 6. Dcclar.de Pec. Ong. $ Rom i. 19. VOL. I. F ↩
Declar. de Pec. Orig. f Rom. iv. 15. J Rom. vii. 9. § Rom. vii. 8, ↩
Rom. v. 12, 19. F2 ↩
Erasm. Lib. xiii. E[). 12, 1-1. Lib. xiii. 27. f Lib. xix. Ep. 41. ↩
Ibid. Lib. xix. Ep. 113, 31, 5«J. p. 210G. ↩
Lib. 18. Ep. 9. t Hosp. 2 part, ad an. 1225— f. 40. ↩
Zuing. Conf. Fill, ad Franc, ct Epist. ad Car. 5. ↩
Ad Maled. KeK. Ang. t. ii. 493. ↩
Zuing. in cxplan. artic. 18 Ges. in Bibl. etc. Calix. Judic. 53. f T. ii. Jen. epist. p. 202. J Calix. Judic. n. 53. ↩
Serm. dc Corp. et Sang. Christ, defen. Vcrbi Coenae, t. vii. 277, 3S1. t Cat. Mag. de Sac. alt. Concord, p. 551. f 1 Cor. xi. 24, 28, 29. ↩
Epist. Luth. ad Hosp. 2 Part, ad An. 1534, f. 132. t Hosp. ad an. 1527, f. 49. $ John ii.9. ↩
Conf. dc Mont. Imp. a Gen. 1587, p. 52. f Ibid. ↩
Syn. Czeng. tit, tie Cocnu, in Synt. Gen. part 1. f John iv. 50, 51. % Lukexiii. 12. ↩
Vid. Hosp.2 Part. 12, 35, 17, Gl, 70, 101, &c. ↩
Exod.vii. 12,18. ↩
Luth. adJac, Prsep. Brem. Hosp. 82. Lutb. Maj. Conf. ibidem. Zuing. Re-p. ad ↩
Serm, quod verba stent, t. iii. Jen, Conf.Maj, t, iv. Jen, Calix, Jud. N. 40. ct scq. ↩
Lib. iv. Ep. 76, 1528. t Lib. xviii. 3, xix. 3, 113, xxxi. 59. p. 2102. ↩
Sleid. Lib. vi.9'2. Mel. Lib. iv. Epist. 70. t Ibid. ↩
Mel. Lib. iii. Epist. 16. § Lib. iv. Ep. 70, 72. Ibid. 72. || Ibid. ↩
Mel. Lib. iv. Ep. 88. ↩
Ibid. E[). ad Elect. Sax. etad Hen. Due. et ap Luth. T. iv. Jen. f Mel. ↩
Luth. Ep. ad Jen. ↩

Chapter 4 of 18

Book II. From the year 1520 to 1529

Footnotes