1. Luther’s Religious Situation. Was his Reaction a Break with Radicalism2?
From the date of the presentation of the “Confession4” at the Diet of Augsburg, Lutheranism began to take its place as a new form of religious belief.
Before this it had ostensibly been merely a question of reforming the universal Church, though, as a matter of fact, the proposed reform involved the entire reconstruction7 of the Church. Now, however, Lutherans admitted—at least indirectly8, by putting forward this new profession of faith—that it was their intention to constitute themselves into a distinctive11 body, in order to impart a permanent character to the recent innovations in belief and practice. The Protestants were prepared to see in Germany two forms of faith existing side by side, unless indeed the Catholic Church should finally consent to accept the “evangelical” Profession of Faith.
It is true, that, in thus establishing a formula of faith which should be binding13 on their followers14, the Lutherans were taking up a position in contradiction with the principle of private judgment15 in matters of faith, which, in the beginning, they had loudly advocated. This was, however, neither an isolated16 phenomenon, nor, considering the circumstances, at all difficult to understand. The principles which Luther had championed in the first part of his career, principles of which the trend was towards the complete emancipation17 of the individual from outward creeds18 and laws, he had over and again since his first encounters with the fanatics20 and Anabaptists honoured in the breach21, and, if he had not altogether discarded them, he had at least come to explain them very differently.
[4]
Hence a certain reaction had taken place in the mind of the originator of the schism22 upon which in some sense the Confession of Augsburg set a seal.
The extent of this reaction has been very variously estimated. In modern times the contrast between the earlier and later Luther has been so strongly emphasised that we even hear it said that, in the first period of his career, what he stood for was a mere6 “religion of humanity,” that of a resolute24 “radical3,” whereas in the second he returned to something more positive. Some have even ventured to speak of the earlier stage of Luther’s career, until, say, 1522, as “Lutheran,” and of the later as “Protestant.”
In order to appreciate the matter historically it will be necessary for us to take a survey of the circumstances as a whole which led to the change in Luther’s attitude, and then to determine the effect of these factors by a comparison between his earlier and later life.
Amongst the circumstances which influenced Luther one was his tardy26 recognition of the fact that the course he had first started on, with the noisy proclamation of freedom of thought and action in the sphere of religion, could lead to no other goal than that of universal anarchy27 and the destruction of both religion and morality. The Anabaptist rising served to point out to him the results of his inflammatory discourses28 in favour of freedom. He was determined29 that his work should not degenerate30 into social revolution, for one reason because he was anxious to retain the good-will of the mighty31, above all of the Elector of Saxony. When the Peasant rising, thanks to the ideas he had himself put forth32, began to grow formidable he found himself compelled to make a more determined stand against all forms of radicalism which threatened disintegration33. This he did indeed more particularly in the political domain34, though his changed attitude here naturally reacted also on his conception of matters religious.
He treated Andreas Carlstadt and Thomas Münzer as foes35, not merely because they were turbulent and dangerous demagogues, but also because they were his rivals in the leadership of the movement. The “Spirit,” which he had formerly36 represented as the possession of all who opposed to the old Church their evangelical interpretation37 of Scripture38, he was now obliged to reserve more and more to himself, in[5] order to put a stop to the destructive effect of the multiplicity of opinions. Instead of the “inward word” he now insisted more and more on the “outward word,” viz. on the Bible preaching, as authorised by the authorities, i.e. according to his own interpretation. The mysticism, which had formerly lent a false, idealistic glamour39 to his advocacy of freedom, gradually evaporated as years went by. Having once secured a large following it was no longer necessary for him to excite the masses by playing to their love of innovation. After the first great burst of applause was over he became, in the second period of his life, rather more sober, the urgent task of establishing order in his party, particularly in the Saxon parishes which adhered to his cause, calling for prudent40 and energetic action on his side.
In this respect the Visitation in 1527 played a great part in modifying those ideas of his which tended to mere arbitrariness and revolution.
Now that the doctrines43 of the preachers had been made to conform more and more to the Wittenberg standard; now that the appointment of pastors45 had been taken out of the hands of the Congregations and left to the ruler of the land, it was only natural that when the new national Church called for a uniform faith, a binding confession of faith, such as that of Augsburg, should be proclaimed, however much such a step, such a “constriction and oppression” of freedom, might conflict with the right of private judgment displayed at the outset on the banner of the movement.
Such were, broadly stated, the causes which led to the remarkable46 change in Luther’s attitude.
On the other hand, those who opine that his ardour had been moderated by his stay at the Wartburg seem to be completely in the wrong. The solitude47 and quiet of the Wartburg neither taught Luther moderation, nor were responsible for the subsequent reaction. Quite otherwise; at the Wartburg he firmly believed that all that he had paved the way for and executed was mystically confirmed from above, and when, after receiving his “spiritual baptism” within those gloomy walls, he wrote, as one inspired, to the Elector concerning his mission, there was as yet in his language absolutely nothing to show the likelihood[6] of his withdrawing any of the things he had formerly said. Upon his return to Wittenberg he at once took a vigorous part in the putting down of the revolt of the fanatics, not, however, because he disapproved49 of the changes in themselves—this he expressly disclaims—but because he considered it imprudent and compromising to proceed in so turbulent a manner.[1]
If, in order to estimate the actual extent of the reaction in Luther’s mind, we compare his earlier with his later years, we find in the period previous to 1522 a seething51, contradictory52 mixture of radicalism and positive elements.
We say a mixture, for it is not in accordance with the historical sources to say that, in those first stormy years of Luther’s career, what he stood for was a mere religion of humanity, or that his mode of thought was quite unchristian. Had this been the case, then the contrast with his later period would indeed be glaring. As it is, however, Luther’s statements, as previously54 given, prove that, in spite of certain discordant56 voices, his intention had ever been to preserve everything in Christianity which he regarded as really positive, i.e. everything which in his then state of thought and feeling he regarded as essential.[2] Indeed, he was even disposed to exaggerate the importance of a positive faith in Christ and man’s dependence57 upon God at the expense of man’s natural power of reason. “In spite of all his calls for freedom and of his pronounced individualism” he preached an extravagant58 “dependence upon[7] God.”[3] So far was he from the slightest tendency to embracing a religion of pure reason that he could not find terms sufficiently59 opprobrious60 to bestow61 on reason. We also know that he did not evolve his doctrine42 of Justification62 in the second or so-called reaction period, as has recently been stated in order to accentuate63 the contrast, but in the first period and in the quite early stage of his development.
His Latin Commentary on Galatians (1519), with the new doctrine of Justification,[4] expresses faith in the Redeemer and His Grace in terms of startling force; he requires of the children of God the fruits of Grace, and attention to every word of Scripture.
After that year and till 1521, the “Operationes in Psalmos” prove both his desire for a positive religion and his own earnestness in directing others to lead a Christian53 life;[5] the doctrine of Justification therein advocated was admitted by him, even in his old age, to have been “faithfully set forth.”[6]
As other examples which certainly do not go to prove any conscious tendency towards theological radicalism, we may mention his work on the Ten Commandments and the Our Father, which he published in 1520 for the unlearned and for children;[7] the sermons, which he continued the whole year through; various discourses which he published in 1519, such as that on the Twofold Justice,[8] in which he treats of the indwelling of Christ in man; that on Preparation for Death, where he inculcates the use of Confession, of the Supper and even of Extreme Unction, teaching that hope is to be placed in Christ alone, and that Saints are to be honoured as followers of Christ;[9] finally, many other writings, sermons, letters, already dealt with, dating from the time prior to the change.
In view of the statements of this sort with which Luther’s early works teem66 we cannot accept the assertion that the[8] words “Christ, Gospel, Faith and Conscience” were merely intended by Luther to lend a “semblance of religion” to his negations, and were, on his lips, mere biblical phrases. Louis Saltet, a Catholic historian of the Church, is right in his opinion concerning this new theory: “A negative Lutheranism dominant68 from 1517 to 1521 is something not vouched69 for by history”; that the author of the new teaching “had arrived at something very much like theological nihilism is a supposition which there is nothing to prove.”[10]
As for Luther’s then attitude towards the Bible, he actually exaggerates its importance at the expense of reason by asserting that reason, whilst well aware of the contradictions and the foolishness of the truths of revelation, was nevertheless obliged to accept them. The incomprehensibility, ever taught by theologians, of many of the mysteries of the faith, for the understanding of which human reason alone does not suffice, Luther represents as an open contradiction with reason; reason and philosophy, owing to original sin, must necessarily be in opposition71 to God, and hence faith does actual violence to reason, forcing it to submit, contrary to its present nature and to that of man. Hence, in his estimate of Holy Scripture, far from being a rationalist, he was, as a modern Protestant theologian puts it, really an “irrationalist,” holding as he did that an “unreasonable73 obedience74 to Holy Scripture”[11] was required of us. According to this same theologian, Luther starts from “an irrational72 conception of God’s veracity,” indeed it is God, Who, according to Luther, “by the gift of faith, produces in man the irrational belief in the truth of the whole Divine Word.” Thus does Luther reach his “altogether irrational, cut-and-dry theology.”[12] If the Wittenberg Professor asserts later, that no religion is so foolish and contrary to reason as Christianity, and that nevertheless he believes “in one Jew, Who is called and is Jesus Christ,”[13] this belief, so singularly expressed, was already present to him in his first period, and the same may be said, so the authority above referred to declares, of his apparent adoption76 in later years of more positive views, “since Luther’s theological convictions never underwent any essential change.”[14]
[9]
If from the positive we pass to the negative side of Luther’s teaching, we do indeed find the latter more predominant during the first period of his career. An almost revolutionary assertion of religious freedom is found side by side with the above utterances78 on faith, so that Adolf Harnack could with some justice say that “Kant and Fichte both are concealed79 in this Luther.”[15]
“Neither Pope, nor bishop81, nor any man,” according to what Luther then says, “has a right to dictate82 even a syllable83 to the Christian without his own consent.”[16] If you have grasped the Word in faith, then “you have fulfilled all the commandments and must be free from all things”; the believer becomes “spiritually lord of all,” and by virtue84 of his priestly dignity, “he has power over all things.”[17] “No laws can be imposed upon Christians85 by any authority whatsoever86, neither by men, nor by angels, except with their own consent, for we are free of all things.”[18] “What is done otherwise is gross tyranny.... We may not become the servants of men.” “But few there are who know the joy of Christian liberty.”[19]
Applying this to faith and the interpretation of Scripture, he says, for instance, in 1522: “Formerly we were supposed to have no authority to decide,” but, by the Gospel which is now preached, “all the Councils have been overthrown87 and set aside”; no one on earth has a right to decree what is to be believed. “If I am to decide what is false doctrine, then I must have the right to judge.” Pope and Councils may enact89 what they will, “but I have my own right to judge, and I may accept it or not as I please.” At the hour of death, he continues, each one must see for himself how he stands; “you must be sharp enough to decide for yourself that this is right and that wrong, otherwise it is impossible for you to hold your own.” “Your head is in danger, your life is at stake; God must speak within your breast and say: ‘This is God’s Word,’ otherwise all is uncertain. Thus you must be convinced within yourself, independent of all men.”[20]
The individualistic standpoint could scarcely be expressed more strongly. The appeal to the voice of God “speaking in the heart” renders it all the more forcible by introducing a pseudo-mystic element. It is an individualism which might[10] logically be made to justify91 every form of unbelief. In such devious92 paths as these did Luther lose himself when once he had set aside the doctrinal authority of the Church.
In his practical instructions and in what he says on the most important points of the doctrine of salvation93, he ever arrogates94 to himself a liberty which is in reality mere waywardness.
If the Sacraments were committed to the Church by her Divine Founder95, then she must put the faithful under the obligation of making use of them in the way Christ intended; she may not, for instance, leave her subjects free to bring their children to be baptised or not, to confess or not to do so, to receive the Sacrament of the Altar or to refrain from receiving it altogether. She may, indeed she must, exercise a certain compulsion in this respect by means of ecclesiastical penalties. Luther, however, refused to hear of the Church and her authority, or of any duty of obedience on the part of the faithful, the result being that the freedom which he proclaimed nullified every obligation with respect to the Sacraments.
In the booklet which he composed in the Wartburg, “Von der Beicht ob der Bapst Macht habe zu gepieten” (1521), wherein he sets aside the duty of Confession, he says of the use of the Sacraments, without troubling to exclude even Baptism: “He [man] is at liberty to make use of Confession if, as, and where he chooses. If he does not wish you may not compel him, for no one has a right to or ought to force any man against his will. Absolution is nevertheless a great gift of God. In the same way no man can, or ought to, be forced to believe, but everyone should be instructed in the Gospel and admonished97 to believe; though he is to be left free to obey or not to obey. All the Sacraments should be left optional to everyone. Whoever does not wish to be baptised, let him be. Whoever does not wish to receive the Sacrament, has a right not to receive; therefore, whoever does not wish to confess is free before God not to do so.”[21]
The receiving of Holy Communion, he declared then and on other occasions, was to remain optional, although in later years he was most severe in insisting upon it. Concerning this Sacrament, at the commencement of 1520 in his “Erklerung etlicher Artickel,” he said that Christ had not made the reception of the Sacrament compulsory98; reception under one kind or under both was not prescribed, although “it would be a good thing to receive under both kinds.”[22]
May we, however, say that Luther made the reception of the[11] Sacrament of Baptism entirely100 optional? Did he go so far as to consider Baptism as something not necessary? The passage just quoted, which does away so thoroughly101 with the duty of Confession and instances Baptism as a parallel case, is certainly somewhat surprising with regard to Baptism. Luther’s train of thought in the passage in question is, however, rather confused and obscure. Is he referring to the liberty of the unbaptised to receive or not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, or to the deferring102 of Baptism, whether in the case of the adult or in that of the children of Christian parents?
He certainly always held Baptism itself to be absolutely essential for salvation;[23] only where it could not be had, was faith able to produce its effects. Hence, in the above passage, stress must be laid on the words “no one can be forced,” Luther’s meaning being that constraint103 in the case of this Sacrament is as intolerable as in the case of the others. He, moreover, declares immediately afterwards that Christ demands “Baptism and the Sacrament.” Elsewhere, when again advocating freedom in the matter of Confession and defending the work above referred to, he says: “I will have no forcing and compelling. Faith and baptism I commend; no one, however, may be forced to accept it, but only admonished and then left free to choose.”[24] Nevertheless he had certainly not been sufficiently careful in his choice of words, and had allowed too great play to his boisterous105 desire for freedom, when, at the conclusion of the passage quoted from his booklet “On Confession,” he seemingly asserts man’s “freedom before God,” not only in the matter of Confession and Communion, but also in that of Baptism. Yet the object of the whole tract106 was to show what the result would be, more particularly in the matter of Confession and Excommunication, were Christ’s commandments in Holy Scripture put in practice, instead of attending only to the man-made ordinances107 of Popes and Councils.[25]
One modern school of Protestant unbelief professes108 to base itself on the earlier Luther, and, in almost every particular, justifies109 itself by appealing to him.
Such theologians are, however, overstepping the limits of what is right and fair when they make out the Luther of that earlier period to have been a true representative of that form of unbelief just tinged110 with religion which is their own ideal. As a matter of fact, Luther, had he been logical, should have arrived at this conclusion, but he preferred to turn aside, repudiate111 it, and embrace the profound contradiction[12] involved in the union of that right of private judgment he had proclaimed, with the admission of binding dogmas. Freedom in the interpretation of the sense of Scripture, or more correctly the setting aside of all ecclesiastical and ostensibly human authority, has been termed the formal principle of Lutheranism; the doctrine of Justification, viz. the chief doctrine of Lutheranism, was called by the older theologians its material principle. Both principles were at variance112 with each other in Luther’s mind, just as there can be no composition between arbitrary judgment and formul? of faith. History has to take Luther as he really was; he demanded the fullest freedom to oppose the Church and her representatives who claimed the right to enact laws concerning faith and morals, but he most certainly was not disposed to hear of any such freedom where belief in revelation, or the acceptance of God’s commandments, was concerned. In the domain of the State, too, he had no intention of interfering113 with due subjection to the authorities, though his hasty, ill-considered utterances seemed to invite the people to pull down every barrier.
In the second period, from 1522 onwards, his tone has changed and he becomes, so to speak, more conservative and more “religious.”
The principle of freedom of interpretation he now proclaims rather more cautiously, and no longer appeals in so unqualified a manner to the universal priesthood and the sovereignty of the Congregation in matters of religion. Now that the State has come to assume the direction of the Church, Luther sees fit to make his own some of the conservative ideas usually dear to those in power. As a preservative116 against abuse of freedom he lays great stress on the “office,” and the call to the work of preaching given by superior authority. “Should a layman117 so far forget himself as to correct a preacher,” says Heinrich B?hmer when dealing118 with Luther’s attitude at this period, “and speak publicly, even to a small circle, on the Word of God, it becomes the duty of the authorities, in the interests of public order, to proceed against him as a disturber of the peace. How contradictory this was with the great Reformer’s previous utterances is patent, though very likely he himself did not clearly perceive it. The change in his convictions on[13] this point had taken place all unnoticed simultaneously119 with the change in the inward and outward situation of the evangelical party.... That his [earlier] view necessarily called not only for unrestricted freedom to teach, but also for complete freedom of worship, was indeed never fully64 perceived by the Reformer himself.”[26]
The two divergent tendencies, one positive and the other negative, are apparent throughout Luther’s career.
The positive tendency is, however, more strongly emphasised in the second period. We shall hear him giving vent25 to the most bitter complaints concerning those who interpret Holy Scripture according to their own ideas and introduce their own notions into the holy and unchanging Word of God. As exemplifying his own adherence120 to the truths of Christianity, the great and solemn profession of faith contained in the work he wrote in 1528 on the Supper, has been rightly instanced. As P. Albert Weiss remarks, he makes this “fine profession with an energy which goes straight to the heart” and “in words which bear honourable121 testimony122 to the depth of his conviction”; it is true that here, too, the contrast to the Catholic Church, whose belief he so passionately124 depreciates125, forces itself like a spectre before his mind.[27] “This is my belief,” he says at the end of the list of Christian dogmas which he accepts, “for this is what all true Christians believe and what Holy Scripture teaches. Whatever I may have left unsaid here will be found in my booklets, more particularly in those published during the last four or five years.”[28]
[14]
Hence when it is asserted by Protestants of rationalist leanings that Luther recognised only one form of faith, viz. trust in Christ, and that he reduced all religion to this, it should be pointed126 out that he required at the same time a belief in all revealed truths, and that his doctrine of confident faith in one’s personal salvation and of trust in a Gracious God and Saviour128, was ultimately based on a general act of faith; “Faith,” he says, in a sermon which was later embodied129 in his Church-postils, “really means accepting as true from the bottom of our heart what the Gospel says concerning Christ, and also all the articles of faith.”[29] It is true that Luther ever insisted on awakening131 of confidence, yet the “fides fiducialis” as explained by him always presupposes the existence of the “fides historica.”
With Luther faith in the whole of Divine revelation comes first, then the trusting faith which “trusts all to God.”[30]
“His whole manner of life,” Otto Ritschl says, “so far as it was directed to the attainment133 of practical aims, was fundamentally religious, in the same way as his most important doctrines concerning God, Christ, the Law, Sin, Justification, the Forgiveness of Sins and Christian Freedom all breathe the spirit of faith, which, as such, was confidence.” The Protestant theologian from whom we quote these words thinks it necessary to say of the contradictions in Luther which have been instanced by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, that “at least in Luther’s own way of thinking,” they were not such, for he based his faith on the “revelation given by God’s Word in Holy Scripture.”[31]
In the polemical writings directed against Luther, it was pointed out, concerning his faith, that he himself had described faith as a mere “fancy and supposition” (opinio). We would,[15] however, suggest the advisability of considerable caution, for according to other passages and from the context, it is plain that what he intends by the word “opinio” is rather a belief, and, besides, he adds the adjective “firma” to the word incriminated. It is of course a different question whether the absolute certainty of faith can be attributed to that faith on which he lays such great stress, viz. the purely134 personal fides fiducialis in one’s salvation through Christ, and, further, whether this certainty can be found in the articles, which, according to Luther’s teaching, the Christian deduces from the Word of God in Scripture by a subjective135 examination in which he has only his own private judgment to depend on.
However this may be, we find Luther till the very end insisting strongly on the submission136 of reason to the Word of God, so that E. Troeltsch, the Heidelberg theologian, could well describe his attitude as medi?val on account of the subjection he demands to dogma. For this very reason he questions the view, that Luther really “paved the way for the modern world.” Troeltsch, nevertheless, is not disinclined to see in Luther’s independence of thought a considerable affinity137 with the spirit of modern days.[32] This brings us to the other side of the subject.
Let us follow up the other, the negative, tendency in Luther, from 1522 onwards, which makes for complete religious independence.
Of one doctrine in which it is manifest Harnack says, and his statement is equally applicable to others: “The universal priesthood of all the faithful was never relinquished139 by Luther, but he became much more cautious in applying it to the congregations actually in existence.”[33] Luther, according to him, expresses himself “very variably” concerning the “competency of the individual congregations, of the congregations as actually existing or as representing the true Church.”
The author of the schism, in spite of all the positive elements he retained during the whole of this period of reaction and till the very end, had no settled conception of the Church, and the subjective element, and with it the negative, disintegrating140 tendency therefore necessarily predominated in his mind. It is not only Catholics, from their standpoint,[16] who assert that his whole life’s work was above all of a destructive character, for many Protestant writers who look below the surface agree with them, notwithstanding all their appreciation141 for Luther.
“Wittenberg,” says Friedrich Paulsen, “was the birthplace of the revolutionary movement in Germany.... Revolution is the fittest name by which to describe it.” The term “Reformation,” is, he declares, inexact; a “reformation,” according to Paulsen, was what “the great Councils of the fifteenth century sought to bring about.” “Luther’s work was not a ‘reformation,’ a re-shaping of the existing Church by her own means, but a destruction of the old form; indeed, we may say, a thorough-going denial of the Church.” Paulsen points out that, in his work addressed to the knights142 of the Teutonic Order, Luther advocates “ecclesiastical anarchy” in seeking to lead them to despise all spiritual authority and to break their vow143 of chastity. The tract in question was repeatedly published as a broadside, and passed into the Wittenberg and other early collections of his works.[34]
From the Catholic standpoint, says Gustav Kawerau, “Paulsen was quite right in branding Luther as a revolutionary”; Luther’s new wine could not, however, so he says, do otherwise than burst the old bottles.[35]
The “wine” which Luther had to offer was certainly in a state of fermentation, which, with his rejection145 of all ecclesiastical authority, made it savour strongly of nihilism. According to Luther religious truth had been altogether disfigured even in Apostolic times, owing to the rise of the doctrine of free-will. “For at least a thousand years,” he repeatedly asserts, truth had been set aside because, owing to the illegal introduction of external authority in the Church, “we have been deprived of the right of judging and have been unjustly forced to accept what the Pope and the Councils decreed”; yet no one can “determine or decide for others what faith is,” and, since Christ has warned us against false prophets, “it clearly follows that I have a right to judge of doctrine.”[36]
One person only has the right—of this he is ever sure—to[17] proclaim doctrines as undeniable truths come down from heaven. “I am certain that I have my dogmas from heaven.”[37] “I am enlightened by the Spirit, He is my teacher.”[38] “We have seen him raised up by God,” so his friends declared immediately after his death,[39] and, so far as they were in agreement with him, they claimed a heavenly authority on his behalf. In spite of all this Luther never saw fit to restrict in principle the freedom of determining and judging doctrine; the meaning of Scripture he permits every man to search out, the one indispensable condition being, that Scripture should be interpreted under the inspiration of the Spirit from on high, in which case he presumed that the interpretation would agree with his own. The numerous “clear and plain” passages from Scripture which were to guide the interpreter, were to him a guarantee of this; he himself had followed nothing else. The misfortune is that he never attempted to enumerate148 or define these passages, and that many of those very passages which appeared to him so clear and plain were actually urged against him; for instance, the words of institution by the Zwinglians and the texts on Justification by certain of his followers and by the Catholics.
The fact that freedom in the interpretation of the Bible produced, and must necessarily produce, anarchy of opinion, has, by the representatives of the Rationalistic school of Protestant theology, been urged against the positive elements which Luther chose to retain. The tendency which, had he not set himself resolutely149 against it, would have brought Luther even in later years face to face with a purely naturalistic view of life, has been clearly and accurately150 pointed out. Paul Wernle, a theologian whose ideal of a renewed Christianity is a natural religion clad in religious dress, points to the anarchy resulting from the multitude of interpretations151, and attacks Luther’s Bible faith for the contradictions it involves. “The appeal to ‘Bible Christianity,’ and ‘Primitive New Testament152 Christianity,’ produced a whole crop of divergent views of Christianity”; “the limitations of this Renascence of Christianity,” which was no real Renascence at all, are, he says, very evident; Luther had summed up “the theology of Paul in a one-sided fashion, purely from the point of view of fear of, and consolation153 in, sin”; his comprehension[18] of Paul was “one-sided, repellent and narrow,” and, in favour of Paul, “he depreciated155 most unjustly the first three Gospels”; the new theology “rested exclusively on Romans and Galatians,” and, root and branch, is full of contradictions.[40]
Luther himself invited such criticism by his constant advocacy of individualism in his later no less than in his earlier years. “If individualism be introduced even into religious life,” writes E. Troeltsch, “then the Church loses her significance as an absolute and objective authority.” And concerning the “whole crop of views on Christianity” which sprang from such individualism, he says with equal justice: “A truth which can and must live in so many embodiments, can of its very nature never be expressed in one simple and definable form. It is in its nature to undergo historical variations and to take on different forms at one and the same time.”[41] But this is the renunciation of stable truth, in other words: scepticism.
Denifle put it clearly and concisely157 when he said: “Luther planted the seed of present-day Protestant incredulity.”[42]
“The tendency of the Reformation,” declares W. Herrmann, a representative of ultra-liberal Protestant theology, was in the direction of the views he holds, viz. towards a rationalistic Christianity, not at all towards “the view of religion dear to orthodox theology.” He is convinced, that “it is high time for us to resume the work of the Reformers and of Schleiermacher, and to consider what we are really to understand by religion.” Religion is not an “unreasoning” faith in dogmas, nor a “non-moral” assent159 to alien ideas, “but a personal experience” such as the great Reformation doctrine of Justification rightly assumed. Yet, even now, theologians still lack that “comprehension of religion common to all.” All that is needed is to take Luther’s ideas in real earnest, for, according to Herrmann, the “true Christian understanding of what faith, i.e. religion [in the above, modern sense], is, was recovered at the Reformation. Thus only,” he concludes, “can we escape from the hindrances160 to belief presented by the present development of science.”[43]
It is with a similar appeal to Luther that another theologian, P. Martin Rade, the editor of the “Christliche Welt,” spreads his sails to the blast of modern infidelity. According to him Luther was “one of the fathers of subjectivism and of modern ways”; Luther, by his doctrine of Justification by faith, gave to subjective piety163 “its first clumsy expression”; the faith which Luther taught the world was an “individual staking” of all on God’s mercy. Yet, he complains, there are people within the Evangelical[19] Church who are still afraid of subjectivism. “This fear torments164 the best, and raises a mighty barrier in front of those who struggle onwards.” The barrier is composed of the articles of the creed19 which have remained upstanding since Luther’s day. And yet “each scholar can, and may, only represent Christianity as it appears to him.” “For us Protestants there is in these circumstances only one way. We recognise no external authority which could cut the knot for us. Hence we must take our position seriously, and embrace and further the cause of subjectivism.” Thanks to Luther “religion has been made something subjective; too subjective it can never be ... all precautions adopted to guard against religious subjectivism are really unevangelical.” We must, on the contrary, say with Luther: “God will always prevail and His Word remains165 for all eternity166, and His truth for ever and ever.” “Let the Bible speak for itself and work of itself” without any “human dogma,” and then you have the true spirit of Luther’s Reformation, “the very spirit which breathed through it from the day when it first began to play its part in the history of the world.” This writer is well acquainted with the two great objections to that principle of Luther, which he praises, yet he makes no attempt to answer them any more than Luther himself did. The first is: “Where is all this to end? Where shall we find anything stable and certain?” He simply consoles the questioner by stating that “Science provides its own remedy.” The second objection is: “But the masses require to be governed, and educated,” in other words, religion must be an assured, heaven-sent gift to all men, whereas only the few are capable of proving things for themselves and following the profession of the learned. “Herein lies the problem,” is the resigned answer, “which we do not fail to recognise, and with it Protestantism has hitherto proved itself sadly incapable167 of grappling”; “entirely new forces are required” for this purpose. Whence these forces are to come, we are not told.[44]
That all are not determined to follow the course which Luther had entered upon is but natural. To many the Wittenberg Professor remains simply a guardian168 of the faith, a bulwark169 of conservatism, and even the safety-valve he opened many would fain see closed again. Characteristic of this group is the complaint recently brought forward by the Evangelical “Monatskorrespondenz” against Friedrich Nietzsche, for having described Luther’s reformation, with scant170 respect, as the “Peasant Revolt of the mind,” and spoken of the “destruction of throne and altar” which he had brought about.[45]
If, from the above, we attempt to judge of the range of Luther’s so-called “reaction” in his second period, we find that it can no more be regarded as a return to positive[20] beliefs than his first period can be described as almost wholly Rationalistic. In both cases we should be guilty of exaggeration; in the one stage as well as in the other there is a seething mixture of radical principles and tendencies on the one hand, and of Christian faith and more positive ones on the other. In his earlier years, however, Luther allows the former, and, in the second, the latter to predominate. Formerly, at the outset of the struggle, he had been anxious to emphasise23 his discovery which was to be the loosing of imaginary bonds, while the old beliefs he still shared naturally retreated more or less into the background; now, owing partly to his calmer mode of thought, partly to insure greater stability to his work and in order to shake off the troublesome extremists, Luther was more disposed to display the obverse of the medal with the symbols of faith and order, without however repudiating172 the reverse with the cap of liberty. How he contrived173 to reconcile these contradictions in his own mind belongs to the difficult study of his psychology174. On account of these contradictions he must not, however, be termed a theological nihilist, since he made the warmest profession of faith in the principles of Christianity; neither may he be called a hero of positive faith, seeing that he bases everything on his private acceptance. To describe him rightly we should have to call him the man of contradictions, for he was in contradiction not merely with the Church, but even with himself. The only result of the so-called reaction in Luther during the ‘twenties, and later, was the bringing into greater prominence175 of this inner spirit of contradiction.
The startling antagonism176 between negation67 and belief within his mind found expression in his whole action. Though his character, his vivacity177, imaginativeness and rashness concealed to some extent the rift178, his incessant179 public struggles also doing their part in preventing him from becoming wholly alive to the contradictions in his soul, yet in his general behaviour, in his speech, writings and actions we find that instability, restlessness and inconstancy which were the results at once of this contrast and of the fierce struggle going on within him. The vehemence180 which so frequently carries him away was a product of this state of ferment144. Often we find him attempting to smother181 his consciousness of it by recourse to jesting. His conviviality[21] and his splendid gift of sympathy concealed from his friends the antagonism he bore within him. All that the public, and most of his readers, perceived was the mighty force of his eloquence182 and personality and the wealth and freshness of his imagery. They sufficed to hide from the common herd183 the discrepancies184 and flaws inherent in his standpoint.
Wealth and versatility185, such are the terms sometimes applied186 by Protestants to the frequent contradictions met with in his statements. In the same way the ambiguity187 of Kant’s philosophy has been accounted one of its special advantages, whereas ambiguity really denotes a lack of sequence and coherence188, or at the very least a lack of clearness. Truth undefiled displays both wealth and beauty without admixture of obscurity or of ambiguity.
Luther’s “wealth” was thus described by Adolf Hausrath: “Every word Luther utters plays in a hundred lights and every eye meets with a different radiance, which it would gladly fix. His personality also presents a hundred problems. Of all great men Luther was the most paradoxical. The very union, so characteristic of him, of mother-wit and melancholy189 is quite peculiar190. His wanton humour seems at times to make a plaything of the whole world, yet the next moment this seemingly incurable192 humorist is oppressed with the deepest melancholy, so that he knows not what to do with himself.... In one corner of his heart lurks193 a demon194 of defiance195 who, when roused, carries away the submissive monk196 to outbursts which he himself recognises as the work of some alien force, stronger than his firmest resolutions. He was the greatest revolutionary of the age and yet he was a conservative theologian, yea, conservative to obstinacy197.... He insisted at times upon the letter as though the salvation of the entire Church depended upon it, and yet we find him rejecting whole books of the Bible and denying their Apostolic spirit. Reason appears to him as a temptress from the regions of enchantment198, intellect as a mere rogue199, who proves to his own satisfaction just what he is desirous of seeing proved, and yet, armed with this same reason and intellect, Luther went out boldly into the battle-fields of the prolonged religious war.”[46]
2. From the Congregational to the State Church Secularisations
In the first stage of his revolt against the Church, Luther had imagined that the new order of things could be brought about amongst his followers merely by his declaiming against outward forms; repeatedly he asserted that the Christian[22] life consisted wholly in faith and charity, that faith would display its power spontaneously in good works, and that thus everything would arrange itself; a new and better Church would spring up within the old one, though minus a hierarchy201, minus all false doctrine and holiness-by-works.
Up to the commencement of the ‘twenties his efforts had, in fact, been directed not to the setting up of new congregations but to the reconstruction of the existing Church system. Previous to his drafting of the plan comprised in the writing he sent to Prague, on the appointment of ecclesiastical ministers (vol. ii., p. 111 f.), in which we find the congregational organisation proposed as a model for the German Church, he was as yet merely desirous of paving the way for what he looked on as a reformation within the already existing Church, and this by means of the rulers and nobles.
His work “An den41 christlichen Adel,” to which we must now return in order to consider it from this particular standpoint, was composed with this object. By it he sought to rouse the rulers and those in power who had opened their hearts to the “Christian” faith, i.e. to the new Evangel, to take in hand the moral and religious reformation on the lines indicated by himself. Thus he appealed, as almost all sectarians had instinctively202 done from the very first, to the secular200 authorities and the power of the Princes in order to attain132 his special ecclesiastical ends. The secular Estates, already covetous203 of increased power and independence, were invited in these fiery204 pages to take their stand against the Papacy and the hierarchy, just as they would against “a destroyer of Christendom,”[47] and “to punish them severely205” on account of divers206 disorders207 and “for their abuse of excommunication and their shocking blasphemies208 against the name of God,”[48] in short, “to put an end to the whole affair.”[49] The last words, found in the writing “On[23] good works,” were addressed to the “King, the Princes, Nobles, Townships and people generally.”
Thus to force the two powers, secular and ecclesiastical, out of their spheres, handing over the supervision209 of the Church to the secular authorities[50] can only be characterised as an attack upon the whole Christian and moral order of things, on the whole previous development of the Church and on the highest principles of religion. It is true that the Catholic States had already appropriated many of the rights really appertaining to the Church, but to carry their interference so far as Luther advised, had never yet occurred to them. Indeed, the subversion212 of order planned by Luther was so great, that the impossibility of carrying out his project must have speedily become apparent to him. As a matter of fact, the actual number of those whose hearts had been awakened213 by the Evangel to the extent of sharing Luther’s extreme views was not at all considerable.
When anxious friends pointed out to Luther how revolutionary his undertaking214 was, his excuse was merely this: “I am blameless, seeing that my only object is to induce the nobles of Germany to set a limit to the encroachments of the Romanists by passing resolutions and edicts, not by means of the sword; for to fight against an unwarlike clergy215 would be like fighting against women and children.”[51] Hence, so long as no blood was shed, the overthrow88 of the legal status of the Church met with his full approval.
The torrents216 of angry abuse which Luther soon afterwards poured forth upon those in power because they would[24] not follow his call and allow themselves to be “awakened,” were simply proofs of the futility217 of his plan.
No demagogue had ever before filled Germany with such noisy abuse of the Princes as Luther now did in works intended for the masses, where he declared, for instance, that “God has sent our Rulers mad”; that “they command their subjects just what they please”; that they are “scamps” and “fools”; that he is forced to resist, “at least by word,” these “ungracious Lords and angry squires218” on account of their “blasphemies against the Divine Majesty219.”[52] He denounced them to the populace as having heaped together their “gold and goods” unjustly, just as “Nimrod had acquired his goods and his gold.”[53] He accuses them “of allowing everything to drift, and of hindering one another”; “plenty of them even vindicate220 the cause of Antichrist,”[54] therefore the Judgment of God must fall upon our “raving221 Princes.” “God has blinded them and made them stupid that they may run headlong to destruction.”[55]
This he wrote on the eve of the fearful events of the Peasant Rising.
Thus his ideal of the future was now shattered, viz. the spiritual society and new Christendom which he had planned to establish with the help of the Princes. “This dream passed rapidly away. All that remained was a deep-seated pessimism223.... From that time the persuasion224 grew on him that the world will always remain the same, that it can never be governed according to the Evangel and can never be rendered really Christian; likewise, that true Christians will always be but few in number.”[56]
Hence these few Christians must become the object of his solicitude225. He is more and more inspired by the fantastic notion that Popery is to be speedily overthrown by God[25] Himself, by His Word and by the breath of His Mouth. In the meantime he expects the new Church to develop spontaneously from the congregations by the power of God, even though at first it should consist of only a small number of faithful souls.
The congregational ideal, as a passing stage in his theory of Church formation, absorbed him, as we have already seen, more particularly from the year 1523. The congregations were to be self-supporting after once the new teaching had been introduced amongst them. In accordance with the Evangel, they were to be quite independent and to choose their own spiritual overseers. From among these, superintendents226 were to be selected, to be at the head of the congregations of the country, and as it were general-bishops227, assisted by visitors, of course all laymen228, no less than those from whom they derived229 their authority and by whom, for instance for bad doctrine, they might be removed. The above-mentioned letter sent to Prague, on the appointment of ministers in the Church (1523), contained further details. Other statements made by Luther about that same time, and already quoted, supply what is here lacking; for instance, his ascribing to each member of the congregation the right of judging of doctrine and of humbly230 correcting the preacher, should he err75, even before the whole assembly, according to the Spirit of God which inspires him.[57]
Thus he had relinquished the idea of proceeding232 by means of the assistance of the Princes and nobles, and had come to place all his hopes in the fruitfulness and productive power of the congregational life.
But here again he met with nothing but disappointment. It was not encouraging to find, that, on the introduction of the new teaching and in the struggle against alleged233 formalism and holiness-by-works, what Christian spirit previously existed was inclined to take to flight, whilst an unevangelical spirit obtruded234 itself everywhere. Hence his enlargement of his earlier congregational theory by the scheme for singling out the faithful, i.e. the true Christians, and forming of them a special community.
Just as his belief in the spontaneous formation of a new state of things testified to his abnormal idealism, so this new idea of an assembly within the congregation displays his[26] utter lack of any practical spirit of organisation. As to how far this perfecting of his congregational Churches tended to produce a sort of esoteric Church, will be discussed elsewhere (vol. v., xxix., 8).
As his starting-point in this later theory he took the proposition, which he believed could be reconciled with the Gospel, viz. that the Gospel is not for all; it is not intended for the “hard-hearted” who “do not accept it and are not amenable236 to it,” it is not meant for “open sinners, steeped in great vices238; even though they may listen to it and not resist it, yet it does not trouble them much”; still less is it for those, “worst of all men, who go so far as to persecute239 the Gospel.” “These three classes have nothing to do with the Gospel, nor do we preach to such as these; I only wish we could go further and punish them, the unmannerly hogs240, who prate241 much of it but all to no purpose, as though it [the Gospel] were a romance of Dietrich of Bern, or some such-like tale. If a man wants to be a pig, let him think of the things which are a pig’s. Would that I could exclude such men from the sermons.”[58]
In reality, as is evident from passages already quoted and as Luther here again goes on to point out, the Gospel was intended for “simple” consciences, for those who, “though they may at times stumble, are displeased242 with themselves, feel their malady243 and would gladly be rid of it, and whose hearts are therefore not hardened. These must be stirred up and drawn244 to Christ. To none other than these have we ever preached.” The latter assertion is not, of course, to be taken quite literally245. It is, however, correct that he considered only the true believers as real members of the Church, for these alone, viz. for people who had been touched by the Spirit of God and recognised their sins, was his preaching intended.[59] These too it was whom he desired[27] to unite if possible into an ordered body. Side by side with this he saw in his mind the great congregational Church, termed by him the “masses”; this Church seemed, however, to him, less a Church than a field for missionary246 labour, for its members were yet to be converted. The idea of a popular Church was, nevertheless, not altogether excluded by the theory of the separate Church of the true believers.
More particularly at Wittenberg he was desirous of seeing this segregation247 of the “Christians” carried out, quietly and little by little. He prudently248 abstained249 from exerting his own influence for its realisation, and preferred to wait for it to develop spontaneously “under the Spirit of God.” The idea was, as a matter of fact, far too vague. He also felt that neither he nor the others possessed250 the necessary spiritual authority for guiding hearts towards this goal, for preserving peace within the newly founded communities, or for defending them against the hostile elements outside. As for his favourite comparison of his theory of the congregation with that in vogue251 in Apostolic times, it was one which could not stand examination. His congregations lacked everything—the moral foundation, the Spirit from above, independent spiritual authority and able, God-enlightened superiors to act as their organs and centres.
At Leisnig in the Saxon Electorate252 (cf. vol. ii., p. 113) an attempt to call an ideal evangelical community into existence was made in 1523, the Church property being illegally confiscated254 by the magistrates255 and members of the parish, and the ancient right of the neighbouring Cistercian house to appoint the parish-priest being set at nought256 by the congregation choosing its own pastor44; here the inevitable257 dissensions at once broke out within the community and the whole thing was a failure. The internal confusion to which the congregation would be exposed through the doctrine of private illumination and “apostolic” rights, is clear from the very title of the work which Luther composed for Leisnig: “That a Christian assembly or parish has the right and power to judge of doctrine and to give the call to, and appoint and remove, its pastors,” etc.[60]
[28]
In spite of the evident impracticability of the scheme, the phantom258 of the congregational Church engrossed259 the author of the ecclesiastical schism for about ten years. Nor did he ever cease to cherish the idea of the Church apart. It was this idea which inspired the attacks contained in his sermons upon the multitude of lazy, indolent and unbelieving souls to whom it was useless to preach and who, even after death, were only fit for the flaying-ground because during life they had infected the invisible, living community. He is heedless of what must result, in the towns, villages and families, from any division into Christians and non-Christians, nor does he seem to notice that the system of the Church apart could only produce spiritual pride, hypocrisy261 and all the errors of subjectivism in those singled out by the Spirit, to say nothing of the obstinacy and wantonness engendered262 in those who were excluded.
The popular Church, of which it was necessary to make the best, owing to the impracticability of the Church apart, apparently263 embraced all, yet, within it, according to Luther, the true believers formed an invisible Church, and this in a twofold manner, first, because they were themselves not to be recognised, and, secondly264, because the Word and the Sacrament, from which they derived their religious life, concealed a whole treasure of invisible forces.
With such imperfect elements it was, however, impossible to establish a new Church system. A new phase was imminent265, towards which everything was gravitating of its own accord; this was the State Church, i.e. the national Church as a State institution, with the sovereign at its head. The various congregational churches formed a visible body frequently impinging on the outward, civil government, and largely dependent on the support of the authorities; hence their gradual evolution into a State Church. The local and national character of the new system paved the way for this development. Luther, whilst at the bottom of his heart anxious to check it—for his ideal was an independent Church—came, under pressure of circumstances, to champion it as the best and only thing. A popular Church or State Church had never been his object, yet he ultimately welcomed the State Church as the best way to meet difficulties; this we shall see more clearly further on. In his efforts to overcome the apathy266 of the masses he even had[29] recourse to compulsion by the State, inviting267 the authorities to force resisters to attend Divine Worship.[61]
Luther should have asked himself whether the moral grandeur268 and strength which, in spite of its favourable269 appearance, the congregational Church lacked, would be found in the compulsory State Church. This question he should have been able to answer in the negative. It was a radical misfortune that in all the attempts made to infuse life into the branch torn away by Luther from the universal Catholic Church the secular power never failed to interfere211. The State had stood sponsor to the new faith on its first appearance and, whether in Luther’s interest or in its own, the State continued to intervene in matters pertaining210 to the Church. This interweaving of politics with religion failed to insure to the new Church the friendly assistance of the State, but soon brought it into a position of entire subservience270—in spite of the protests of the originator of the innovation.
The jurisdiction271 of the State within the “Church,” in the case of the early Lutheran congregations, did not amount to any actual government of the Church by the sovereign. This, in the appalling272 form it was to assume, was a result of the later Consistories. What, with Luther’s consent, first passed into the hands of the secular authorities was the jurisdiction in certain external matters which, according to the earlier Canon Law, really belonged to the Bishop’s court. When episcopal authority was abolished the Elector of Saxony assumed this jurisdiction as a sort of bishop faute-de-mieux, or, to use Melanchthon’s expression, as the[30] principal member of the Church (“membrum pr?cipuum ecclesi?”).[62] The jurisdiction in question concerned, above all, matrimonial cases which, according to Luther, belonged altogether to the secular courts, matters of tithes273, certain offences against ecclesiastical or secular law and points of Church discipline affecting public order. Luther had declared that the Church possessed no power to govern, that the only object for which it existed was to make men pious274 by means of the Word, that the secular authority was the only one able to make laws and formally to claim obedience “whether it does right or wrong.”[63] Hence the State in assuming jurisdiction in the above matters was doing nobody any injustice275, was merely exercising its right, whilst the authority of which it made use was not “ecclesiastical,” but merely the common law exercised for the purpose of preserving “sound doctrine” and the “true Church.”[64]
The next step was the appointment of ecclesiastical superintendents by the sovereign and, either through these or without them, the nomination276 of pastors by the State, the removal of unqualified teachers, the convening277 of ecclesiastical synods or “consultations,” the carrying out of Visitations and the drawing up of Church regulations. Here again no objection on the point of principle was raised by Luther, partly because the power of the keys, according to him, included no coercive authority, partly because the idea of the “membrum pr?cipuum ecclesi?” was elastic278 enough to permit of such encroachments on the part of the ruler.[65] In the Protestant Canon Law, compiled by R. Sohm, all the above is described, under appeal to Luther, as coming under the jurisdiction of the State, the Church being “without[31] jurisdiction in the legal sense” and its business being “merely the ministry279 of the Word.”[66]
The introduction of the Consistories in 1539 was a result of the idea expressed by Justus Jonas in his memorandum280, viz. that if the Church possesses no legal power of coercion281 for the maintenance of order, she is fatally doomed282 to perish. To many the growing corruption284 made an imitation of “episcopal jurisdiction in the Catholic style,” such as Melanchthon desiderated, appear a real need.[67] In the event the advice of Jonas was followed, jurisdiction being conferred on the Consistories directly by the ruler of the land. After a little hesitation285 Luther gave his sanction to the new institution, seeing that, though appointed by the sovereign, it was a mere spiritual tribunal of the Church. The Consistories, more particularly after his death, though retaining the name of ecclesiastical courts gradually became a department of the civil judicature, a good expression of the complete subservience of Church to State.
“The setting up of the civil government of the Church was achieved,” remarks Sohm, by an arrangement really “in entire opposition to the ideas of the Reformation.”[68]
“The lack of system in Luther’s mode of thought is perhaps nowhere so apparent as in his views on the authorities and their demeanour towards religion.”[69] The want of unity235 and sequence in his teaching becomes even more apparent when we listen to the very diverse opinions of Protestant scholars on the subject. It is no fault of the historian’s if the picture presented by the statements of Luther and his commentators286 shows very blurred287 outlines.
“The civil government of the Church,” writes Heinrich B?hmer, in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung”—speaking from his own standpoint—“in so far as it actually represents a ‘government,’ is utterly288 at variance with Luther’s own principles in matters of religion. Neither can it be brought into direct historical connection with the Reformation.... The so-called congregational principle is really the only one which agrees with Luther’s religious ideal, according to which the decision upon all ecclesiastical matters is to be regarded as the right of each individual congregation.... It is, however, perfectly289 true that the attempts to reorganise the ecclesiastical[32] constitution on the basis of this idea were a complete failure. Neither at Wittenberg, nor at Allstedt, nor at Orlamünde were the communities from a moral point of view sufficiently ripe.”[70]
The civil government of the Church is also in disagreement with Luther’s conception of the secular power as expressed in some chief passages of his work “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” (1523). According to Erich Brandenburg’s concise158 summary, Luther shows in this work, that “the task of the State and of society is entirely secular; it is not their duty to make men pious. There is no such thing as a Christian State; society and the State were called into being by God on account of the wicked.”[71] Brandenburg also quotes later statements made by Luther concerning the secular authorities, and infers, “that neither the civil government of the Church in the sense accepted at a later date, nor the quasi-episcopate of the sovereign, is really compatible with such views.”[72]
It is true that in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (1537-1538), in his annoyance290 at his unfortunate experiences of State encroachments, Luther declares, that “the two governments should not be intermingled to the end of the world, as was the case with the Jewish nation in Old Testament times, but must remain divided and apart, in order that the pure Gospel and the true faith may be preserved, for the Kingdom of Christ and the secular government are two very different things.”[73] He realises, however, the futility of his exhortations294: “You will see that the devil will mingle291 them together again ... the sword of the Spirit and the secular sword.... Our squires, the nobles and the Princes, who now go about equipped with authority and desire to teach the preachers what they are to preach and to force the people to the sacrament according to their pleasure, will cause us much injury; for it is necessary ‘to render obedience to the worldly authorities,’ hence ‘what we wish, that you must do,’ and thus the secular and spiritual government becomes a single establishment.”[74]
Brandenburg, for his part, is of opinion that “the civil government of the Church had come about in opposition to Luther’s wishes, but had to be endured like other forms of injustice.... Luther reproached himself with strengthening the tyrants297 by his preaching, with throwing open doors and windows to them. But with the unworldly idealism peculiar to him, he thereupon replied defiantly298: ‘What do I care? If, on account of the tyrants, we are to omit the teaching which is so essential a[33] matter, then we should have been forced long since to relinquish138 the whole Evangel.’”[75]
On the other hand another Protestant theologian, H. Hermelink, who supports the opposite view, viz. that Luther was a staunch upholder of the supremacy300 of the authorities in matters ecclesiastic96, adduces plentiful301 quotations302 from Luther’s writings in which the latter, even from the early days of his struggle, declares that the authorities have their say in spiritual matters, that it is their duty to provide for uniformity of teaching in each locality and to supervise Christian worship. He admits, however, that Luther set certain “bounds to the ecclesiastical rights of the authorities.”[76]
These statements in favour of the authorities cannot be disallowed303. They arose partly from Luther’s efforts to advance his party with the help of the worldly magnates, partly, as will appear immediately, from the material difficulties of the Lutheran congregations, due to the confiscation304 of Church property by the secular power.
In any case it was unexpectedly that Luther found himself confronted with all the above problems. When their immediate104 solution became the most urgent task for the new faith, Luther’s principles were still far from presenting any well-defined line of action. “To these, and similar questions,” remarks Wilhelm Maurenbrecher, the Protestant historian of the Reformation, “Luther had given no sufficient answer; it would even seem as though he had not considered them at all carefully.” Among the questions was, according to Maurenbrecher, the fundamental one: “Who is to decide whether this or that person belongs to the congregation?” If the congregation, where does the Church come in? for, “after all, the congregation is not the Church.”[77] The very idea of the Church had still to be determined.[78]
Confiscation of Church Property.
In the Saxon Electorate, the home of the religious innovation, it had become imperatively305 necessary that the parishes which sided with Luther should be set in order by a strong hand, first, and principally, in the matter of the use to which the Church lands were to be put. In these territories, where the civil government of the Church first obtained, it arose through the robbing and plundering307 of the churches.
“The parsonages all over the country lie desolate308,” Luther[34] wrote to the Elector Johann of Saxony on October 31, 1525, “no one gives anything, or pays anything.... The common people pay no attention to either preacher or parson, so that unless some bold step be taken and the pastors and preachers receive State aid from your Electoral Highness, there will shortly be neither parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, so that the Word of God and His worship will perish. Your Electoral Highness must therefore continue to devote yourself to God’s service and act as His faithful tool.”[79]
Not long afterwards Luther strongly advises the Elector not only to see to the material condition of the parsonages, but also to examine by means of visitors the fitness of the parsons for their office, “in order that the people may be well served in the Evangel and may contribute to his [the parson’s] support.”[80]
The Order for Visitations (1527), which Luther looked over and which practically had his approval, was intended in the first place to better financially the condition of the parishes. Hand in hand with this, however, went supervision of the preaching by the State and the repression309 by force of whatever Catholic elements still survived.[81] The Electoral Visitors here and there found the utmost indifference310 towards the new faith prevailing311 among the people, whose interests were all material. They finally proposed that the Elector should provide for the support of the parsons and assume the right of appointing and removing all the clergy.
Luther himself had written as early as 1526: “The complaints of the parsons almost everywhere are beyond measure great. The peasants refuse to give anything at all, and there is such ingratitude312 amongst the people for the Holy Word of God that there can be no doubt a great judgment of God is imminent.... It is the fault of the authorities that the young receive no education and that the land is filled with wild, dissolute folk, so that not only God’s command but our common distress314 compel us to take some measures.”[82]
“Common distress” was, in point of fact, compelling recourse[35] to the authorities who had confiscated the property of the Church; i.e. the heads of the various parishes or the Electoral Court. The magistrates had laid hands upon the smaller benefices, which, as a matter of fact, were for the most part in their own gift or in that of the families of distinction, whilst in case of dispute the Elector himself had intervened. The best of the plunder306 naturally went to the Ruler of the land.
Luther addressed the Elector as follows: “Now that an end has been made of the Papal and ecclesiastical tyranny throughout your Highness’s dominions316, and now that all the religious houses and endowments have come into the power of your Electoral Highness as the supreme317 head, this involves the duty and burden of setting this matter in order, since no one else has taken it up, nor has a right to do so.”[83]—Nor was Luther backward in pointing out to the Court, when obliged to complain of the meagre support accorded to the churches, the great service he had done in enriching it: “Has the Prince ever suffered any loss through us?” he asks a person of influence with the Elector in 1520. “Have we not, on the contrary, brought him much gain? Can it be considered an insignificant318 matter, that not only your souls have been saved by the Evangel, but that also considerable wealth, in the shape of property, has begun to flow into the Prince’s coffers, a source of revenue which is still daily on the increase?”[84]
The appropriation319 of property by the Elector as Ruler of the land necessarily entailed320 far-reaching obligations with regard to the churches.
Hence, when, on November 22, 1526, Luther represented to the sovereign the financial distress of the pastors, he also told him, that a just ruler ought to prevail upon his subjects to support the schools, pulpits and parsonages.[85] Johann, in his reply, when agreeing to intervene for the better ordering of the churches, likewise appeals to his rights as sovereign of the country: “Because we judge, and are of opinion, that it beseems us as Ruler to attend to them.”[86]
Luther’s invitation to the Princes to effect by force a reformation of the ecclesiastical order had already thrown wide open the doors to princely aggression321.
“The secular power,” Luther had said, “has become a member of the Christian body, and though its work is of the body, yet it belongs to the spiritual estate. Therefore its work shall go forward without let or hindrance161 amongst all the members of the whole body.” The Christian secular authority shall exercise its office in all freedom, if necessary even against Pope, bishop and priest, for ecclesiastical law is nothing but a fond invention of Roman presumption322.[87]
[36]
If it was the duty of the rulers to intervene on behalf of the general public needs of Christendom, how much more were they bound to provide for the proper standing70 and pure doctrine of the pastors. It is they who must assist in bringing about a “real, free Council,” since the Pope, whose duty it was to convene323 it, neglected to do so; “this no one can do so effectively as the secular powers, particularly now that they have become fellow-Christians, fellow-priests and fellow-clergymen, sharing our power in all things; their office and work, which they have from God over all men, must be allowed free course wherever needful and wholesome324.”[88]
Luther was wide-awake to the fact, and reckoned upon it, that the gain to be derived from the rich ecclesiastical property would act as a powerful incentive325 with those in power to induce them to open their lands to the innovations. What ruler would not be tempted146 by the prospect326 of coming so easily into possession of the Church’s wealth, that fabulous327 patrimony328 accumulated from the gifts previous ages had made on behalf of the poor, of the service of the altar, of the clergy and the churches? They heard Luther declare that he was going to tear Catholic hearts away from “monasteries329 and clerical mummery”; they also heard him add: “When they are gone and the churches and convents lie desolate and forsaken331, then the rulers of the land may do with them what they please. What care we for wood and stone if once we have captured the hearts?”[89] The taking over of the Church property by the rulers was, according to him, simply the just and natural result of the preaching of the Evangel. This was the light in which he wished the very unspiritual procedure of confiscation to be regarded.
He frequently insisted very urgently that the nobles and unauthorised laymen were not to seize upon the church buildings, revenues and real property. He was aware of the danger of countenancing332 private interference, and preferred to see the expropriation carried out by the power of the State and according to law. In this wise he hoped that the property seized might still, to some extent, be employed in accordance with its original purpose, though, as was inevitable, he was greatly disappointed in this hope. It is spiritual[37] property, he repeats frequently, bestowed333 for a spiritual purpose, and therefore, even after the departure of its former occupant, it must be used for the salvation of souls in accordance with the Evangel. To the Elector Johann, for instance, he writes: The parsonages must be repaired out of the revenues of the monasteries, “because such property cannot profit your Electoral Highness’s Exchequer334, for it was dedicated335 to God’s service and therefore must be devoted336 primarily to this object. Whatever is left after this, your Electoral Highness may make use of for the needs of the land, or for the poor.”[90]
His demands were, however, very inadequately337 complied with. If Luther really anticipated their fulfilment, he was certainly very ignorant of the ways of the world. Who was to prevent the Princes from seizing upon the Church lands with greedy hands so soon as they stood vacant, and employing them for their own purposes, or to enrich the nobles? Even where everything was done in an orderly manner, who could prevent ever-impecunious Sovereigns from making use of the revenues for State purposes and from allotting339 the first place among the “needs of the land” of which we just heard Luther speak, to their own everyday requirements?
Luther’s subsequent experiences drew from him such words as the following: “This robbing of the monasteries”—he wrote to Spalatin, who was still connected with the Court of the new Elector Johann (since 1525), concerning the condition of things in the Saxon Electorate—“is a very serious matter, which worries me greatly. I have set my face against it for a long while past. Not content with this, when the Prince was stopping here I actually forced my way into his chamber340, in spite of the resistance I met with, in order to make representations to him privately341.” He goes on to complain that there was little hope of redress342 so long as certain selfish intrigues343 were being carried on in the vicinity of the sovereign. Indeed, he does not anticipate much help from this Elector Johann, because he lacks his father’s firmness, and is much too ready to listen to anyone. “A Prince must know how to be angry, a King must be something of a tyrant296; this the world demands.” As things are, however, we are imposed upon in all sorts of ways for “the sake of the spoils”; “smoke, fumes344 and fables” are made to serve, and we do not even know who are at work behind the scenes; at any rate they are hostile to the Evangel and were its foes even in the time of the[38] pious Elector. “Now that they have enriched themselves, they laugh and exult345 over the fact that it is possible in the name of the Evangel to enjoy all sorts of evangelical freedom, and at the same time to be the Evangel’s worst enemy. This is bitter to me, more bitter than gall253.” “I shall have to issue a public admonition to the Prince in order to insist upon some other administration of the religious houses; perhaps then I shall be able to shame those fellows.... I hate Satan’s rage, malice346 and ambushes347, everywhere, in all matters, and unceasingly, and it gives me pleasure to thwart348 him and injure him wherever I can.”[91]
Thus the consequences were more serious than the ex-monk in his ignorance of the ways of the world had anticipated. “Satan,” on whose shoulders he lays the blame, was not to be so easily expelled. The worst acts of violence perpetrated in the name of the Word of God were the result of the lust349 for wealth which he had unchained.
“How heavily the negligence350 of our Court presses upon me,” he sighs in the last years of his life. Much is undertaken presumptuously351, and then, after a while, we are left stranded353 in the mire354; they do nothing themselves, and we are left to our fate. But I intend to pour my grievous complaints into the ears of Dr. Pontanus and the Prince himself as soon as I get a chance. I have learnt, to my great annoyance, that the nobles are governing in the Prince’s name.[92]
A few days after the letter to Spalatin, quoted above, in another letter to him, he gives vent to his thoughts on the marriage questions arising within the domain of the new faith.
Secularisation of the Matrimonial Courts.
Against the Lawyers.
The secularisation of the marriage courts appears as a very characteristic subject amongst the questions of jurisdiction arising between State and Church, side by side with the secularisation of Church property. The secularising of these courts was the logical consequence of Luther’s secularising of matrimony, which he regarded—to forestall355 his later statements[93]—“as an outward, secular matter, subject to the authorities, like food and clothing, house and[39] land.”[94] According to the Confession of Augsburg at the very most it was a sacrament only in the same way that the authority of the magistrates appointed by God was a sacrament.[95] The codicil356 to the Articles of Schmalkalden required, that the “magistrates shall establish special marriage courts,” because Canon Law “contains pitfalls357 for conscience.”[96]
As the Church had formerly been the sole authority on questions relating to marriage, and as the custom of referring such matters to her was deeply rooted in the life of the German people, Luther at the outset consented to take this into account and to leave the decision to his preachers; the result of this was, however, that he found himself overwhelmed amidst his other labours by a mass of unpleasant and uncongenial work and was accordingly soon moved to throw the whole burden on the State and the secular lawyers, though here again he met with distressing358 experiences.
He wrote to Spalatin in 1527: “We have been plagued by so many questions concerning marriage, owing to the connivance359 of the devil, that we have decided360 to leave this profane361 business to the profane courts. Formerly I was stupid enough to expect from mankind something more than mere humanity, and to fancy that they could be directed by the Evangel. Now, facts have shown that they despise the Evangel and insist on being compelled by the law and the sword.” He shows himself very much annoyed in this letter at the position taken up by the jurists with their “law” concerning those marriages which took place contrary to the will of the parents. The lawyers of the Wittenberg Faculty362 agreed with the older Church in recognising the validity of such unions. Luther, on the other hand, ostensibly on biblical grounds, wished them to be held as null, because duty to the public and the respect due to parents required it. In practice, however, he soon became aware how precarious364 was this position. “The Gospel teaches,” he explains to Spalatin, “that the father must be ready to give his consent when his son asks what is lawful365, and that the son must obey his father; on both[40] sides there must be good-will; this holds good with the pious. But when godless parents hear that the Gospel confirms their authority, they become tyrannical [and refuse to consent to their children’s marriage]. The children, on the other hand, learn that, according to the law of Pope and Emperor, they have the necessary permission, and so they abuse this liberty and despise their parents. Both sides are in the wrong and numerous examples of the same abound366.”[97]
In the case of such dissensions between parents and children, he says in an instruction to Spalatin which was printed later, the son “must be sent to the profane, i.e. Imperial Courts of Justice, under which we live in the flesh, and thus you will be relieved of the burden.” Preachers, according to him, as “evangelists,” have nothing to do with legal questions, but merely with peaceable matters; “where there is strife367 and dissension the Kaiser’s tribunal [the secular courts] must decide.... Should the son get no redress from the secular court, then there is nothing for him but to submit to his father’s tyranny.”[98]
Naturally neither Luther nor the parties concerned found much satisfaction in such expedients368. The handing over of the marriage questions to the State was to prove a source of endless and increasing trouble and vexation to Luther in the ensuing years, particularly in connection with the “secret” marriages just referred to. Luther even appealed from the then practice of the lawyers to the law of the old Roman Empire, which exaggerated the paternal369 rights to the extent of making the children’s marriages altogether dependent on the will of the parents. In the letter to Spalatin, printed in the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s German works, we find the following marginal note which expresses Luther’s opinion: “The old Imperial and Christian laws decree and ordain370 that children shall marry with the knowledge, consent and advice of their parents, and this the natural law also teaches. But the Pope, like the tyrant and Antichrist he is, has determined to be the only judge in questions of marriage and has abolished the obedience due by children to their parents.”[99] The truth is, that Canon Law, whilst[41] strongly urging both sons and daughters to obey and respect their parents, nevertheless recognised as valid363 a marriage contract when concluded under conditions otherwise lawful, and this because it saw no reason for depriving the contracting parties of the freedom which was theirs by the natural law.
Luther, greatly incensed372 by the opposition of the lawyers, at length, in a sermon preached in 1544, launched forth the most solemn condemnation373 possible of the so-called secret unions contracted without the paternal consent. He declared: “I, Dr. Martinus, command in the name of the Lord our God, that no one shall enter into a secret engagement and then, after the event, seek the parents’ ratification375 ... and, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I condemn374 to the abyss of hell all those who assist in furthering such devil’s work as secret engagements. Amen.”[100]
In the same way he boasted to the Elector, that the jurists had “wanted to play havoc” with his churches “with their annoying, damnable suits which, however, I have resolved to expel from my churches as damnable and accursed to-day and for all eternity.” The principal motive376 for his action was the “Divine command” he had received “to preach the observance of the Fourth Commandment in these matters.”[101]
What Luther, however, was most sensitive to was that some of the Wittenberg lawyers, conformably with the traditional code, declared the marriages of priests, and consequently his own, to be invalid377 in law, and the children of such unions to be incapable of inheriting. He keenly felt the blow which was thus directed against himself and his children. His displeasure he gave vent to in some drastic utterances. If what the lawyers say is correct, he continues in the writing above referred to addressed to the Elector, “then I should also be obliged to forsake330 the Evangel and crawl back into the frock [the religious habit] in the devil’s name, by power and virtue of both ecclesiastical and secular law. Then Your Electoral Highness would have to have my head chopped off, dealing likewise with all those who have married nuns378, as the Emperor Jovian decreed more than a thousand years ago” [and as the law still stood in the codes then in use].
[42]
Thoughts such as these, on the reprobation379 of his union with Bora by the law of the Church and of the Christian Roman Empire, stood in glaring contrast to the pleasant moods of domestic life to which he so gladly gave himself up. He sought to find solace380 from his public cares and conflicts in his family circle, and some compensation for the troubles which the great ones of the earth caused him in the domestic delights in which he would have wished all other fallen priests to share. He succeeded, to an extent which appeared by no means enviable to those who followed a different ideal, in forgetting his priestly state and its demands. In one of the letters just mentioned he writes as a father to Spalatin, who also had had recourse to marriage: “May you live happily in the Lord with your rib99 [i.e. your wife]. My little Hans sends you greetings; he is now in the month of teething and is beginning to lisp; it is delightful381 to see how he will leave no one in peace about him. My Katey also sends you her best wishes, above all for a little Spalatin, to teach you what she boasts of having learnt from her little Hans, i.e. the crown and joy of wedded382 life, which the Pope and his world were not worthy383 of.”[102]
What Canon Law said of the high calling of the priest and religious and of the depth of the fall of those who proved untrue to it, no longer made the slightest impression on him. It would have been in vain had a St. Jerome of olden days, a medi?val St. Bernard or a Geiler of Kaysersberg championed the cause of Canon Law against Luther and his nun156 in the glowing language they knew so well how to use. Luther’s own words quoted above concerning the death penalty decreed by Jovian the Christian Emperor against anyone sacrilegiously violating a nun, illuminate384 as with a lightning flash the antagonism between antiquity385 and Luther’s doings.
He asserts himself proudly because he considers his heavenly calling to expound386 the new Evangel, and his Divine mission, had been questioned by the lawyers who represented the authority of the State. When, in defiance of their objections against the legitimacy387 of his family, he drafted his celebrated388 will, he was careful to inform them that, for its validity, he has no need of them or of a notary389; he was “Dr. Martinus Luther, God’s Notary[43] and Witness to His Gospel,” and was “well known in heaven, on earth and in hell”; that “God had entrusted390 him with the Gospel of His Dear Son and had made him faithful and true to it,” for which reason, “in spite of the fury of all the devils,” many “in the world regarded him as a teacher of truth.”[103]
3. The Question of the Religious War; Luther’s Vacillating Attitude. The League of Schmalkalden, 1531
After the Diet of Augsburg, Luther, as we have shown (vol. ii., pp. 391, 395 f.), proclaimed the war of religion much more openly than ever before. His writings, “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict” and “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” bear witness to this. The proceedings391 taken by the Empire on the ground of the resolutions of Worms, and the attitude of the Catholic Princes and Estates, appeared to him merely a plot, a shameful392 artifice393 on the part of the “bloodhounds” who opposed him.
In his writing against the Assassin, i.e. Duke George of Saxony, he expounds394 his politico-religious standpoint in a way which became his rule for the future. Cain and Abel, the devil and the righteous, stand face to face. “The world belongs either to the devil or to the Children of God. The devil’s realm conceals395 a murderer and bloodhound, Abel, a pious and peaceable heart.” Abel stands for the Lutherans, Cain and the devil for the Papists. It is a “veracious opinion, founded on Scripture and proved by the fruits of the Papists, that they are ever on the watch and lie in wait day and night to destroy us and root us out.”[104] “If the Emperor or the authorities purpose to make war on God [i.e. Luther’s Evangel], then no one must obey them.” In this case everyone must resist, for it is no “disobedience, rebellion or contumacy to refuse to obey and assist in shedding innocent blood.”[105]
Opposition and violent resistance to the lawful authority of the empire and its legitimate396 action is here justified397 by the argument that to fight for the Evangel is no revolt.
[44]
The defiant299 resolve to proceed to any extreme regardless of others or of the public weal, finds its strongest expression in Luther’s words during and after the Diet of Augsburg: “Not one hair’s breadth will I yield to the foe,” he wrote from the fortress398 of Coburg, with a hint at the wavering attitude of Melanchthon and Jonas. This it was which led up to the statement already quoted: “If war is to come, let it come.” “God has delivered them up to be slaughtered399.”[106]
Luther on Armed Resistance, until 1530.
If we glance at Luther’s former attitude towards open resistance, we find that it would be unjust to say that he preferred religious war to peaceful propaganda. He perceived the danger which it involved. At an earlier period he several times had occasion to intervene when warring elements threatened to estrange400 the German Princes. We find statements of his where he speaks against armed resistance and points out (to use his later words) what a “blot upon our teaching” a “breach or disturbance401 of the peace of the land would be.”[107] There is no question that such utterances preponderate402 with him until 1530. From the very first years of his public career he was anxious to impress on all, particularly on his own Sovereign, that the Word alone must work all; he eliminates as far as possible every prospect of a struggle with the Emperor or the other rulers, which was what the Elector really dreaded404. He also frequently expounds theoretically, more particularly in his booklet “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” (1523), the duty of Christians not to resist the authorities, because the Kingdom of God means yielding, humility405 and submission; every true believer must even allow himself to be “fleeced and oppressed”; he must indeed confess the evangelical faith, but be willing to “suffer” under an authority hostile to the faith (cp. vol. ii., p. 229 f.). When occasion offered he was ready to quote numerous passages from Holy Scripture in order to show that violent revolt and armed intervention406 on behalf of the Gospel are forbidden, and that the German Princes had nothing to fear from him in this regard.
[45]
None the less, his enterprise was visibly drifting towards the employment of force and towards war.
How deeply he felt the premonition of civil war is plain, for instance, from the following:
“There will be no lack of breaches407 of the peace, and of war only too much,” he wrote in 1528 to the Elector Johann.[108] He and Melanchthon together also wrote in the same strain to the Crown-Prince of Saxony, Johann Frederick, in 1528; “Time will bring enough fighting with it which it will be impossible to avoid, so that we should be grateful to accept peace where we are able.”[109] As early as 1522 he had given to the Elector Frederick one of his reasons for leaving the Wartburg and returning to Wittenberg: “I am much afraid and troubled because I am, alas408, convinced that there will be a great revolt in the German lands, by which God will chastise409 the nation.” The Evangel was well received by the common people, but some were desirous of extinguishing the light by force. And yet “not only the spiritual, but also the secular power, must yield to the Evangel, whether cheerfully or otherwise, as all the accounts contained in the Bible sufficiently show.... I am only concerned lest the revolt should begin with the Lords, and, like a national calamity410, engulf411 the priesthood.”[110]
Nevertheless he is determined to be of good cheer; even should the war ensue, his conscience is “pure, guiltless and untroubled, whereas the consciences of the Papists are guilty, anxious and unclean.” “Therefore let things take their course and do their worst, whether it be war or rebellion according as God’s anger decrees.”[111]
This gives redoubled weight to his determination to press forward relentlessly412. “Let justice prevail even though the whole world should be reduced to ruin. For I say throw peace into the nethermost413 hell if it is to be purchased at the price of harm to the Evangel and to the faith.”[112]
It has been admitted on the Protestant side that “Luther adhered to this view throughout his life, viz.: that his doctrine must be preached even though it should lead to the destruction[46] of all.”[113] In confirmation414 of this, another passage taken from Luther’s writings is quoted: “It has been said that if the Pope falls Germany will perish, be utterly wrecked415 and ruined; but how can I help that? I cannot save it; whose fault is it? Ah, they say, if Luther had not come and preached, the Papacy would still be on its legs and we should be at peace. I cannot help that.”[114]
When the same author urges in Luther’s defence that, “he was not really indifferent to the evil consequences of his actions in ecclesiastical and political matters,”[115] we naturally ask whether the author of the schism did not at times feel bitterly his heavy responsibility for these results, and whether he should not have exerted himself in every possible way to ward10 off the “evil consequences.” His own admissions, to be given elsewhere (see vol. v., xxxii.), concerning his inward struggles, disclose how frequently he was troubled with such reproaches and what difficulty he had in ridding himself of them.
To the inflammatory invitations already given we may subjoin a few others.
“It were better,” Luther says in his Church-postils, “that all the churches and foundations throughout the land were uprooted416 and burnt to powder—and the sin would be less even though done out of mere wantonness—than that a single soul should be seduced417 and corrupted418 by this [Papistical] error.”[116] And, further on: “Here you see why the lightning commonly strikes the churches rather than any other buildings, viz.: because God is more hostile to them than to any others, because in no den of robbers, no house of ill-fame is there such sin, such blasphemy419 against God, such murder of the soul and destruction of the Church committed as in these houses” [i.e. in the churches where the Catholic worship obtained].[117] Elsewhere, at an earlier date he had said: “Would it be astonishing if the Princes, the nobles and the laity420 were to hit Pope, bishop, priest and monk on the head and drive them out of the land? It has never before been heard of in Christendom, and it is abominable421 to hear now, that the Christian people should openly be commanded to deny the truth.”[118]—Besides these, we have the fiery words he flung among the people: “Where the ecclesiastical Estate does not proceed in the way of faith and charity [according to the Evangel], my wish is not merely that my doctrine should interfere with the monasteries and foundations, but that they were reduced to one great heap of ashes.”[119]—In fine: “A grand destruction of all the monasteries and foundations would[47] be the best reformation, for they are of no earthly use to Christendom and might well be spared.... What is useless and unnecessary and yet does such untold422 mischief423, and to boot is beyond reformation, had much better be exterminated425.”[120] The word here rendered as “destruction” is one of which Luther frequently makes use to denote violent annihilation, for instance, of the devastation426 of Jerusalem and its Temple, nor can we well explain it away in the above connection; he certainly never pictured to himself the “grand destruction of all the monasteries and foundations” otherwise than as a general reduction to ruins. The excuse brought forward in modern times in extenuation427 of Luther is a very strange one, viz.: that, when giving vent to such expressions, he frequently added the qualifying clause “if the Catholics do not change their opinions,” then violence will befall them; hence only in the event of their final refusal to accept the new teaching was the destruction so vividly428 described to overtake them! Presumably his contemporaries should have shown themselves grateful for this saving clause. The mitigation conveyed by the clause in question in reality amounted to this: Only if the whole world becomes Lutheran will it be saved from destruction.[121]
It is psychologically worth noticing that Luther, in his zeal429, seems never to have perceived that the argument might just as well be turned against himself. The Emperor and the Catholic powers of the Empire, with at least as much show of reason, might have urged as he did, that no power, without being doomed to “destruction” and to being “burnt to ashes,” could stand against the Gospel. The Gospel which they defended was that handed down by the Church, whereas Luther’s Evangel, to mention only one point, was novel and hitherto unheard of by theologians and faithful laity alike. On the one occasion when this thought occurred to him, he had the following excuse ready: We are sure of our faith, hence we may and must demand that everything yield to it; the Emperor and his party on the other hand have no such assurance and can never reach it. “We know that the Emperor is not and cannot be certain of it, because we know that he errs430 and seeks to oppose the Evangel. We are not obliged to believe that he is certain because he does not act[48] in accordance with God’s Word, whereas we on the other hand do; for it is his bounden duty to recognise God’s Word!” Otherwise, Luther adds, “every murderer and adulterer might also plead: ‘I am right, therefore you must approve my act because I am certain I am in the right.’”[122]—“It was with arguments like these that the Protestant Estates were to justify their overthrow of the ancient faith and worship, and to demonstrate the wickedness of the Emperor’s efforts to preserve the faith and worship of his fathers.”[123]
Of the various memoranda431 which Luther had to draw up for his Sovereign on the question of armed resistance, that of February 8, 1523, prepared for the Elector Frederick, must be mentioned first.[124] In this the Prince’s attention is drawn to the fact, that publicly he had hitherto preserved an attitude of neutrality concerning religious questions, and had merely given out that, as a layman, he was waiting for the triumph of the truth. Hence it was necessary that he should declare himself for the justice of Luther’s cause if he intended to abandon his attitude of submission to the Imperial authority. In that case he might have recourse to arms in the character of a stranger who comes to the rescue, but not as a sovereign of the Empire. Further, “he must do this only at the call of a singular spirit and faith, short of which he must give way to the sword of the higher power and die with his Christians.”[125] Should he, however, be attacked, not by the Emperor, but by the Catholic Princes, then, after first attempting to bring about peace, he must repel154 force by force.
When, in 1528, the false reports were circulated, of which we hear in the history of the Pack negotiation432, to wit, that the Catholic Princes of the Empire were on the point of falling upon the Protesters, Luther sent a letter to Johann, his[49] Elector, regarding the question of law. What was to be done if the Catholic powers, without the authorisation of the Emperor, attacked the Lutheran party? Luther’s verdict was that such an act on the part of “scoundrel-princes” must be resisted by force of arms “as a real revolt and conspiracy433 against the Empire and His Imperial Majesty,” but that “to take the offensive and anticipate such an action on the part of the Princes was in no wise to be counselled.”[126]
On this occasion he manifested serious apprehension434 of the mischief which might be caused by a precipitate435 armed attack on the part of his princely patrons. It was a very different matter to look forward to a mere possibility of war and to find himself directly confronted with an outbreak of hostilities436. “May God preserve us from such a horror! This would indeed be to fish with a draw-net and to take might for right. No greater blame could attach to the Evangel, for this would be no Peasant Rising but a Rising of the Princes, which would destroy Germany utterly to the joy of Satan.”[127]
The above memorandum had dealt with the question of an attack by the Princes of the Empire. But what was to be done if the Emperor himself intervened?
The Lutheran Princes and Estates were anxious to exercise the utmost caution and restraint with regard to the Emperor personally, and in this Luther agreed with them. At Spires231, in 1526, they had decided to behave “in such a way as to be able to answer for it before God and the Emperor,” which, however, did not prevent them from establishing the “evangelical” worship in contravention of the decrees of Worms. It was hoped that the Emperor, hampered437 by his foreign policy, would not take up arms. When, accordingly, the protesting Princes, at the time of the Pack business, commenced warlike preparations against the Catholic party in the Empire, they solemnly declared at Rotach, in June, 1528, that they “excepted” the Emperor. In the same way they desired that their action at Spires in 1529, where they “protested” against the Emperor, should be looked upon as an appeal to the Emperor “better instructed.[50]” When the Emperor, on account of the protest, began to take a serious view of the matter, any scruples439 which the sovereigns of Hesse and the Saxon Electorate may have felt concerning the employment of armed resistance against him soon evaporated. In Saxony it was held that a closer alliance of the Princes favourable to the innovations ought not to be “shorn of its meaning and value” by this “exemption440 of the Emperor”; the exemption, it was argued, was only of the person of the Emperor, not of his mandataries. A Saxon memorandum at the end of July, 1529, practically made an end of the exemption; “resistance, even to the Emperor, the most dangerous of our foes, belongs to the natural law of humanity.”[128] This was the opinion of the Margrave of Brandenburg, and even more so of the Landgrave of Hesse. At Nuremberg, however, Lazarus Spengler sought to persuade the Council to negative this resolution; he was still entirely under the influence of Luther’s earlier teaching, that the spirit must be ready to endure and suffer under the secular authorities.
Luther, in spite of his frequent threats and urgings, was not immediately to be induced to make common cause with the politicians. In January, 1530, Johann Brenz penned a memorandum in which, in terms of the utmost decision, he denies the lawfulness441 of resisting the Emperor, whereas on Christmas Day, 1529, in a similar memorandum requested of him by the Elector, Luther expresses himself most ambiguously. He, indeed, just hints at the unlawfulness of such resistance, but qualifies this admission by such words as the following: “There must be no resistance unless actual violence is done, or dire9 necessity compels”; “without a Council and without a hearing” there must be no war against the Emperor; before this, however, much water is likely to flow under the bridge, and God may easily find means of establishing peace; “hence my opinion is that the project of taking the field should be abandoned for the nonce, unless further cause or necessity should arise.”[129]
[51]
In a letter to George, Margrave of Brandenburg, written on March 6, 1530, with the object of winning him over to the war party, Philip of Hesse declared that he had seen “in Luther’s own writings to the Elector, that he sanctioned the latter’s resisting the Emperor.” This probably refers to the above memorandum which lies to-day in the Hessian archives at Marburg, the original of which seems to have been submitted to Philip; it may, however, have been some other letter since lost, or possibly the 1528 memorandum in which Luther speaks of the lawfulness of repelling442 the anticipated attack of the Catholic Princes.[130]
To take up arms in the cause of the Evangel was certainly not in accordance with Luther’s previous teaching, however much he may himself have occasionally disregarded it. Owing to a certain mystical confidence in his cause, he could not bring himself to believe that things would ever come to be settled by force of arms. The Elector Johann, unlike Philip of Hesse, again began to hesitate. On January 27, 1530, he instructed the Wittenberg Faculty to let him have, within three weeks, the views of its lawyers. These counsellors declared in favour of the lawfulness of such a war against the Emperor, basing their view on two considerations, viz. that as an appeal had been made to a Council the Emperor could not in the meantime insist upon submission in matters of religion, and that, on his election at Frankfurt, it had been agreed that all the Princes and Estates should retain their customary rights. In spite of this, the lawyers consulted were not in favour of having forthwith recourse to open resistance, but suggested the exercise of patience and restraint.[131] Luther and Melanchthon replied only on March 6, 1530. What strikes one in Luther’s reply is that “he has nothing personal to say on the relations between Emperor and Prince; this was a serious omission443. All he sees is the individual Christian—in this case the sovereign—and his fidelity162 to the faith.... He is still unable to believe in a coming disaster, for this his God will surely not permit.”[132]
His categorical declaration, in the memorandum of March 30, 1530, against the lawfulness of resistance, is of greater[52] importance, for it is the last of the kind. After this the change already foreseen was to take place.
With an express appeal to his three advisers445, Jonas, Bugenhagen and Melanchthon, Luther explains to the Elector,[133] that armed resistance “can in no way be reconciled with Scripture.” Quite candidly446 he lays stress on the unfavourable prospects447 of resistance and the evil consequences which must attend success. Having taken the step, we should, he says, “be forced to go further, to drive away the Emperor and make ourselves Emperor.” “In the confusion and tumult448 which would ensue everyone would want to be Emperor, and what horrible bloodshed and misery449 would that not cause.”[134]
In principle, it will be observed, the letter left open a loophole in the event of a more favourable condition of the Protestant cause supervening, i.e. should it be possible to arrive at the desired result by some quieter and safer means, and without deposing450 the Emperor. None the less noteworthy are, however, the biblical utterances to which Luther again returns: “A Christian ought to be ready to suffer violence and injustice, more particularly from his own ruler,” otherwise “there would be no authority or obedience left in the world.” He would fain uphold, against all law, “whether secular or Popish,” the truth, that “authority is of Divine institution.” Hence the Princes must quietly submit to all the Emperor does; “Each one must answer for himself and maintain his belief at the risk of life and limb, and not drag the Princes with him into danger.” “The matter must be committed to God.” Hence the memorandum culminates451 in the exhortation295 to sacrifice “life and limb,” i.e. to endure martyrdom.[135] This memorandum of Luther’s was kept secret. At any rate the apparently heroic renunciation of all recourse to arms, together with the reference—reminiscent of his earlier mysticism—to the Christian’s vocation453 to suffer violence and injustice, make of this memorandum a remarkable document not to be matched by any other writing of Luther at that time. Though there is little doubt that the sight of the comparatively[53] helpless and critical position of the new party had its effect here, yet, beyond this, there is a psychological connection between the standpoint voiced in the memorandum and Luther’s attitude after the inward change which occurred in him whilst yet a monk. His perfectly just injunction not to withstand the Emperor, he rests partly on the mystic theories he had imbibed454 at that time, partly on his early erroneous views concerning the rights of the authorities as guardians455 of outward, public order. In his enthusiasm for his cause he clings to that presumptuous352 confidence in a special Divine guidance, which had inspired him from the beginning of his career. “The call of a singular spirit and faith,” which he considered necessary in the case of the Elector Frederick (see above, p. 48), he hears quite clearly within himself, though as yet this call does not urge him to advocate armed resistance to the Emperor, but merely inspires him blindly to confide127 in his cause and to exhort293 others to “martyrdom.”
Simultaneously Melanchthon sent to the Elector a memorandum of his own, which, apart from being clearer in language and thought, closely resembles Luther’s and betrays the same deficiencies.[136]
The Change of 1530; Influence of the Courts.
In that same year, 1530, after his return to Wittenberg from the Coburg on the termination of the Diet of Augsburg, a notable change took place in Luther’s public attitude towards the question of the employment of force. This change we can follow step by step.
The fact that the lawyers attached to the Court had, in view of the circumstances, altered their minds, weighed strongly with Luther. Confronted with the measures of retaliation456 announced by the Diet, and more hopeful regarding the prospects of resistance now that the Protesters were joining forces, the councillors of the Saxon Electorate, with Chancellor457 Brück at their head, were inclined to the opinion that whatever sentences the Reichsgericht might pronounce in virtue of the Imperial edict of Augsburg might safely be disregarded, which, of course, was tantamount to a commencement of resistance. They were very anxious concerning the consequences of the decrees of Augsburg, as these[54] involved the restitution458 of all the property and rights of the Church, which had been appropriated by the secular power in the name of religion. Johann, Elector of Saxony, for a while continued to regard resistance as unlawful. On reaching Nuremberg, on his return journey from Augsburg, he said to Luther’s friend there, Wenceslaus Link: “Should one of my neighbours, or anyone else, attack me on account of the Evangel, I should resist him with all the force at my command, but should the Emperor come and attack me, he is my liege lord and I must yield to him, and what were more honourable than to be exterminated on account of the Word of God?”[137] Gradually, however, he was brought over to the new standpoint of his councillors. The example of the Landgrave of Hesse, who belonged to the war party and was very hopeful of the results of a league, had great weight with him, and likewise his determination not to surrender to the executors of the Imperial edict the Church property which had been confiscated. The innovations which, in the beginning, had seemed a work of high-minded idealists, were now pushed forward by many of the Princes, for motives459 of the very lowest, viz. to avoid making restitution of property which had been unlawfully distrained. On unevangelical motives such as these it was that the theory of submission to the secular power, in particular to the Emperor, announced by Luther in such grandiloquent460 language, was to suffer shipwreck461.
Philip of Hesse, who was aware of the weak points in Luther’s previous declarations on the subject, was the first to attempt to bring about a change in his views.
He entered into communication with Luther in October, 1530, and sent him a “writing,” together with a “Christian admonition,” to encourage him and his theologians, in whom, during the Diet, he thought he had detected a certain tendency to waver. Luther replied, on October 15, in a very devout462 letter, assuring the Landgrave that he had “received both the writing and the admonition with pleasure and gladness.” “I beg to thank Your Highness for your good and earnest counsel”; he and his, as time went on, were “even less disposed to yield” and reckoned on the help of God.[138]
Philip, in his next letter a week later, came at once to the crucial point, the question of resistance. He reminded Luther of the memorandum in which he had said, they must indeed not[55] “commence the war, but that if they were attacked they might defend themselves” (p. 50 f.). Philip, without further ado, explains his plans against the Emperor. The Emperor, he says with perfect frankness, “took the oath to his Princes at his election, just as much as they did to him.... Hence, if the Emperor does not keep his oath to us, he reduces himself to the rank of any other man, and must no longer be regarded as a real Emperor, but as a mere breaker of the peace.” The “most important of the Electors and Estates” had not agreed to the Reichstagsabschied. Hence there was hope of triumphing over the Emperor. In his letter to Luther, he even makes use of comparisons from the Bible, just as Luther himself was in the habit of doing, and this he did again at a later date when seeking Luther’s sanction for his bigamy. “God in the Old Testament did not forsake His people or allow the country to perish which trusted in Him.” He had come to the aid of the Bohemians and of “many other too, against Emperors and such-like, who treated their subjects with unjust violence.” This being so, he requests Luther for his “advice and opinion” whether force may not be used, seeing that “His Majesty is determined to re-establish the devil’s doctrine.”[139]
Luther now saw himself obliged openly to avow463 his standpoint, all the more as a similar request had reached him from the Elector, in this case possibly a verbal one. He left the Landgrave to wait and replied first to the Elector, though only by word of mouth, so as not to commit himself irretrievably on so delicate a matter. What his reply exactly was is not known. At the end of October he had to go to Torgau for a conference on the subject with the Elector’s legal advisers and possibly those of other Princes. Melanchthon and Jonas accompanied him, and the negotiations464 were protracted465 and lively.[140]
During these negotiations Luther replied from Torgau, on October 28, to the letter from the Landgrave referred to above, though in general and evasive terms. He says, he hopes no blood will be shed, but, in the event of things going so far, he had told the Elector his opinion on resistance, and of this the Landgrave would hear in due season; that it would be dangerous for him, as an ecclesiastic, to put this into writing, for many reasons.[141] Hence for the nonce he was determined to express himself only verbally on this tiresome466 question.
In what direction his thoughts were then turning may be gathered from what he says to the Landgrave in the same letter concerning his writings; the latter had asked him, he says, for a controversial booklet, “as a consolation for the weak”; he [56]intended “in any case to publish a booklet shortly ... admonishing467 all consciences, that no subject was bound to render obedience should His Imperial Majesty persist”; and in which he will prove that the Emperor’s demands are “blasphemous, murderous and diabolical468”—still, the booklet was not to be termed “seditious.” He here is referring either to the “Auff das vermeint Edict” or to the “Warnunge.” We have already spoken of the revolutionary character of the language he used in these tracts469 published in the early part of 1531, and, subsequently, in the reply “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen.”[142] What he was there to advocate goes far beyond the limits of mere passive resistance.
He was at first unwilling470 to declare his views at Torgau. Not to contradict what he had previously said, he protested that the question did not concern him, since, as a theologian, his business was to teach Christ only. As regards secular matters, he could only counsel compliance471 with the law and, on the matter of forcible resistance to the Emperor, that any action taken should be conformable to the “written laws.” “But what these laws were he neither knew nor cared.”[143]
The assembled lawyers were, however, loath472 to leave Torgau without having reached an understanding, and submitted another statement to Luther and his colleagues, requesting their opinion on it. In this document they had sought to prove, from sources almost exclusively canonical473, that it was lawful to resist the Emperor by force, because “he proceeds and acts contrary to law,” not being a judge in matters of religion, and that, even if he were such a judge, he had no right to do anything on account of the appeal to a Council. They urged that it was necessary to “obey God and evangelical truth rather than men,” and that the Emperor was “no more than a private individual so far as the ‘cognition’ and ‘statution’ of this matter went ... nor does the ‘execution’ come within his province.” For the sake of the salvation of souls the Emperor was not to be regarded as “judge in the matter of our faith,” for his “injustice is undeniable, manifest, patent and notorious, yea, more than notorious.”[144]
The councillors chose to deal with the matter chiefly from the point of view of canon law, as is shown by their misquotations from such well-known canonists as Panormitanus,[57] Innocent IV., Felinus, Baldus de Ubaldis and the Archidiaconus (Baisius).[145] In spite of this they calmly assumed the truth of the proposition, condemned474 in canon law, of the subordination of Pope to Council and of the right of appealing from Pope to Council. They took it for granted that Luther’s doctrines had not yet been finally rejected by the Church, and, in contradiction with actual fact, declared that the Augsburg Reichstagsabschied “admitted and allowed” that Luther’s doctrines, seeing that they were supposed to have been condemned by previous Councils, should come up for discussion at the next. As a matter of fact the Reichstagsabschied contained nothing of the sort “concerning doctrines of faith.”[146]
This document was submitted to the theologians before they left Torgau, and their embarrassment475 was reflected in their written reply. Luther agreed with his friends that the only way out of the difficulty was to put the whole thing on the shoulders of the lawyers. He and his party declared that they stood altogether outside the question, since the councillors had already decided independently of them in favour of armed resistance, on the ground of the secular, Imperial laws. As for the reasons alleged from canon law, he refused to take them into consideration. Later on he was glad to be able to appeal to this subterfuge476, and declared that he “had given no counsel.”[147]
At this time, however, Luther, Melanchthon and Jonas put their signatures to a memorandum in which they sought to protect themselves by certain assurances which make a painful impression on the reader.
It was true that hitherto they had taught, so they say, “that the [secular] authorities must on no account be resisted,” but, they had been unaware477 “that the authorities’ own laws, which we have always taught must be diligently478 obeyed, sanctioned this.” They had also taught, “that the secular laws must be allowed to take their own course, because the Gospel teaches nothing against the worldly law.” “Accordingly, now that the doctors and experts in the law have proved that our present case is such that it is lawful to resist the authorities, we, for our part, ‘cannot disprove this from Scripture, when self-defence is called for, even though it should be against the Emperor himself.’” They then come to the question of arming. This they[58] declare to be distinctly practical and advisable, especially as “any day other causes may arise where it would be essential to be ready to defend oneself, not merely from worldly motives, but from duty and constraint of conscience.” It was necessary “to be ready to encounter a power which might suddenly arise.”[148]
The Landgrave of Hesse was then making great preparations for war, with an eye on Würtemberg, where, as he admitted publicly, he wished forcibly to re-instate Duke Ulrich, a friend to the religious innovations.
The theologians of the Margraviate of Brandenburg, unlike those of Wittenberg, were opposed to resistance. They replied then, or somewhat later, concerning the views put forward by the lawyers, that it was a question of the supreme secular Majesty, not of a judge who was subservient479 to a higher secular sword, hence that the lawyers’ suppositions could not stand.[149] Little heed260 was however paid to their objection. On the other hand the proposal made by the legal consulters, that further representations should be made to the Emperor regarding the execution of the Reichstagsabschied, was described by the theologians as “not expedient,” though it might be further discussed at the Nuremberg Conference on November 11 (Martinmas).[150]
Instead, it was for November 13 that a summons, dispatched by Saxony on October 31, invited a conference to meet at Nuremberg to discuss the matter, and take the steps which eventually led to the formation of the defensive480 League of Schmalkalden. At first it was proposed, that, after the Nuremberg conference, another should be held at Schmalkalden on November 28, though as a matter of fact the only meeting held commenced at Schmalkalden on December 22.
Only now did it become apparent that Luther and his theologians had, at least in the opinion of the Saxon politicians, expressed themselves privately much more openly in favour of resistance than would appear from the above memorandum. The envoys481 from the Saxon Electorate appealed with great emphasis to the opinion of the Wittenberg divines, in order to show the lawfulness of the plan of armed resistance and the expediency482 of the proposed League. Armed with this authority they openly “defied our ministers,” wrote Lazarus Spengler of Nuremberg, to Veit Dietrich on February 20, 1531. Spengler, like the[59] Nuremberg Councillors and those of Brandenburg, was opposed to resistance and to the League. He was surprised that “Dr. Martin should so contradict himself.”[151] The fact is that he was the only person to whom Luther’s previous memorandum of March, 1530, had been communicated.[152]
The Nuremberg magistrates appealed, among other reasons, to the clear testimony of Scripture which did not sanction such proceedings against the supreme secular authority. They feared the consequences of a religious war for Germany, just as Luther himself had formerly done, but, in spite of their adherence to the new faith, they were more frank and courageous483 in their effort to avert484 it than he on whose shoulders the chief responsibility in the war was to rest.
One sentence of Melanchthon’s, written in those eventful days, singularly misrepresents the true position of affairs. To his friend Camerarius, on January 1, 1531, he says: “We discountenance all arming.”[153]
Melanchthon also writes: “We are now consulted less frequently than heretofore as to the lawfulness of resistance,” and he repeats much the same thing on February 15, 1531: “On the matter of the League no one now questions either Luther or myself.”[154] If we can here detect a faint note of wonder and regret, we may assuredly ask whether the very behaviour of the theologians at Torgau was not the reason of their advice being at a discount; their dissimulation485 and ambiguity were not of a nature to inspire the lawyers and statesmen with much respect.
It was some time before this vacillation486 in official, written statements came to an end. Some more instances of it are to be met with in the epistolary communications between Luther and the town of Nuremberg, which was opposed to the Schmalkalden tendencies.
Prior to November 20, 1530, the Elector of Saxony had addressed himself to the magistrates of Nuremberg with the request that “they would make preparations for resisting the unjust and violent measures of the Emperor.” Of this Veit Dietrich informed Luther from Nuremberg on that day,[60] adding that the Elector had made a reference to an approval of the measures of defence secured from his “Councillors and Doctors,” but had said nothing of the theologians.[155] News was, however, subsequently received in Nuremberg that the Saxon envoys present at Schmalkalden had boasted of the support of Luther and his friends.
It was in consequence of this that the Nuremberg preacher, Wenceslaus Link, enquired488 of Luther in the beginning of January, 1531, or possibly earlier, whether the news which had reached Nuremberg by letter was true, viz. that “they had expressed the opinion that resistance might be employed against the Emperor.”
Without delay, on January 15, Luther assured him: “We have by no means given such a counsel” (“nullo modo consuluimus”).[156]
By way of further explanation he adds: “When some said openly that it was not necessary to consult the theologians at all, or to trouble about them, and that the matter concerned only the lawyers who had decided in favour of its lawfulness, I for my part declared: I view the matter as a theologian, but if the lawyers can prove its permissibility489 from their laws, I see no reason why they should not use their laws; that is altogether their business. If the Emperor by virtue of his laws determines the permissibility of resistance in such a case, then let him bear the consequences of his law; I, however, pronounce no opinion or judgment on this law, but I stick to my theology.” It is thus that he expresses himself concerning the argument which the lawyers had, as a matter of fact, drawn almost exclusively from canon law, the texts of which they misread.
He then puts forward his own theory in favour of the belligerent490 nobles of his party, according to which a ruler, when he acts as a politician, is not acting371 as a Christian (“non agit ut christianus”), as though his conscience as a sovereign could be kept distinct from his conscience as a Christian. “A Christian is neither Prince nor commoner nor anything whatever in the personal world. Hence whether resistance is permissible491 to a ruler as ruler, let them settle according to their own judgment and conscience. To a Christian nothing [of that sort] is lawful, for he is dead to the world.”
“The explanations [Luther’s] have proceeded thus far,” he concludes this strange justification, “and this much you may tell Lazarus [Spengler, the clerk to the Nuremberg Council] concerning my views. I see clearly, however, that, even should we oppose their project, they are nevertheless resolved to offer resistance and not to draw back, so full are they of their own ideas; I preach in vain that God will come to our assistance,[61] and that no resistance will be required. God’s help is indeed visible in this, that the Diet has led to no result, and that our foes have hitherto taken no steps. God will continue to afford us His help; but not everyone has faith. I console myself with this thought: since the Princes are determined not to accept our advice, they sin less, and act with greater interior assurance, by proceeding in accordance with the secular law, than were they to act altogether against their conscience and directly contrary to Holy Scripture. It is true they do not wit that they are acting contrary to Scripture, though they are not transgressing492 the civil law. Therefore I let them have their way, I am not concerned.”
He thus disclaimed493 all responsibility, and he did so with all the more confidence by reason of his sermons to the people, where he continued to speak as before of the love of peace which actuated him, ever with the words on his lips: “By the Word alone.” “Christ,” he exclaims, “will not suffer us to hurt Pope or rebel by so much as a hair.”[157]
It was easy to foresee that after such replies from Luther, Spengler and the magistrates of Nuremberg would not be pleased with him. Possibly Link had doubts about making known at Nuremberg a writing which was more in the nature of an excuse than a reply, since, on such a burning question which involved the future of Germany, a more reliable decision might reasonably have been looked for. On February 20, fresh enquiries and complaints concerning the news which had come to Nuremberg of Luther’s approval of organised resistance, reached Veit Dietrich, from the Council clerk, Spengler, and were duly transmitted to Luther (see above, p. 58 f.). Luther now thought it advisable, on account of the charge of having retracted494 his previous opinion, to justify himself to Spengler and the magistrates. In his written reply of February 15, he assured the clerk, that he “was not conscious of such a retractation.” For, to the antecedent, he still adhered as before, viz. that it was necessary to obey the Emperor and to keep his laws. As for the conclusion, that the Emperor decrees that in such a case he may be resisted, this, he says, “was an inference of the jurists, not of our own; should they bring forward a proof in support of this conclusion—which as yet they have not done—(‘probationem exspectamus, quam non videmus’)—we shall be forced to admit that the Emperor has renounced495 his rights in favour of a political and Imperial law which supersedes496 the natural law.” Of the Divine law and of the Bible teaching, which Luther had formerly advocated with so much warmth, we find here no mention.[158]
The scruples of the magistrates of Nuremberg were naturally not set at rest by such answers, but continued as strong as ever.[62] After the League had already been entered into, an unknown Nuremberg councillor of Lutheran sympathies, wrote again to the highest theological authority in Wittenberg for information as to its legality. In his reply Luther again threw off all responsibility, referring him, even more categorically than before, to the politicians: “They must take it upon their own conscience and see whether they are in the right.... If they have right on their side, then the League is well justified.” Personally he preferred to refrain from pronouncing any opinion, and this on religious grounds, because such leagues were frequently entered into “in reliance on human aid,” and had also been censured497 by the Prophets of the Old Covenant498. Had he chosen, the distinguished499 Nuremberger might have taken these words as equivalent to a doubt as to the moral character of the League of Schmalkalden. Furthermore, Luther adds: “A good undertaking and a righteous one” must, in order to succeed, rely on God rather than on men. “What is undertaken in real confidence in God, ends well, even though it should be mistaken and sinful,” and the contrary likewise holds good; for God is jealous of His honour even in our acts.[159]
The citizens of Nuremberg had, in the meantime, on February 19, sent to the Saxon envoys their written refusal to join the League of Schmalkalden. The magistrates therein declared that they were still convinced (as Luther had been formerly) that resistance to the Emperor was forbidden by Holy Writ65, and that the reasons to the contrary advanced by the learned men of Saxony were insufficient500.[160] George, Elector of the Franconian part of Brandenburg, who was otherwise one of the most zealous501 supporters of the innovations, also refused to join the League.
The memorandum in which Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen and Melanchthon had declared, in March, 1530, that the employment of force in defence of the Gospel “could not in any way be reconciled with Scripture” (above, p. 51 f.) was kept a secret. Not even Melanchthon himself was permitted to send it to his friend Camerarius, though he promised to show it him on a visit.[161] Myconius, however, sent it from Gotha confidentially502 to Lang at Erfurt, on September 19, 1530, and wrote at the same time: “I am sending you the opinion of Luther and Philip, but on condition that you show it to no one. For it is not good[63] that Satan’s cohorts should be informed of all the secrets of Christ; besides, there are some amongst us too weak to be able to relish503 such solid food.”[162]
In spite of these precautions copies of the “counsel” came into circulation. The text reached Cochl?us, who forthwith, in 1531, had it printed as a document throwing a timely light on the belligerent League entered into at Schmalkalden in that year. He subjoined a severe, running criticism, a reply by Paul Bachmann, Abbot of the monastery504 of Altenzell, and other writings.[163]
Cochl?us pointed out, that it was not the Emperor but Luther, who had been a persecutor505 of the Gospel for more than twelve years. Should, however, the Emperor persecute the true Gospel of Christ, then the exhortation contained in Luther’s memorandum patiently to allow things to take their course and even to suffer martyrdom, would be altogether inadmissible, because there existed plenty means of obtaining redress; in such a case God was certainly more to be obeyed than the Emperor; any Prince who should assist the Emperor in such an event must be looked upon as a tyrant and ravening506 wolf; it was, on the contrary, the duty of the Princes to risk life and limb should the Gospel and true faith of their subjects be menaced; and in the same way the towns and all their burghers must offer resistance; this would be no revolt, seeing that the Imperial authority would be tyrannously destroying the historic ecclesiastical order as handed down, in fact, the Divine order. Luther’s desire, Cochl?us writes, that each one should answer for himself to the Emperor, was unreasonable and quite impossible for the unlearned. Finally, he warmly invites the doctors of the new faith to return to Mother Church.[164]
The author of the other reply to Luther’s secret memorandum dealt more severely with it. Abbot Bachmann declares, that it was not inspired by charity but by the cunning and malice of the old serpent. “As long as Luther had a free hand to carry on his heresies507 unopposed, he raged like a madman, called the Pope Antichrist, the Emperor a bogey508, the Princes fools, tyrants and jackanapes, worse even than the Turks; but, now that he foresees opposition, the old serpent turns round and faces his tail, simulating a false humility, patience and reverence509 for the authorities, and says: ‘A Christian must be ready to endure violence from his rulers!’ Yet even this assertion is not true always and everywhere....” Should a ruler really persecute[64] the Divine teaching, then it would be necessary to defend oneself against him. “I should have had to write quite a big book,” he concludes, “had I wished to reply one by one to all the sophistries510 which Luther accumulates in this his counsel.”[165]
The League of Schmalkalden and the Religious Peace of Nuremberg.
The League of Schmalkalden was first drawn up and subscribed511 to by Johann, Elector of Saxony, and Ernest, Duke of Brunswick, on February 27, 1531. The other members affixed512 their signatures to the document at Schmalkalden on March 29. The League comprised, in addition to the Electorate of Saxony and the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg, the Landgraviate of Hesse under Philip, the prime mover of the undertaking, and was also subscribed to by Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, Counts Gebhard and Albert of Mansfeld, and the townships of Strasburg, Ulm, Constance, Reutlingen, Memmingen, Lindau, Biberach, Isny, Lübeck, Magdeburg and Bremen.
A wedge had been driven into the unity of Germany at the expense of her internal strength and external development. What had been initiated513 at Gotha in 1526 by the armed coalition514 between Landgrave Philip of Hesse and the Elector of Saxony, in the interests of the religious innovations, was now consummated515.
The obligation to which the members of the League of Schmalkalden pledged themselves by oath was as follows: “That where one party is attacked or suffers violence for the Word of God or for causes arising from it, or on any other pretext516, each one shall treat the matter in no other way than as though he himself were attacked, and shall therefore, without even waiting for the others, come to the assistance of the party suffering violence, and succour him to the utmost of his power.” The alliance, which was first concluded for six years, was repeatedly renewed later and strengthened by the accession of new members.
Luther, for his part, had now arrived at the goal whither his steps had been tending and towards which so many of the statements contained in his letters and writings had pointed, inspired as they were by a fiery prepossession in favour of his cause. It suited him admirably, that, when the[65] iron which had so long been heating came upon the anvil517, he should remain in the background, leaving to the lawyers the first place and the duty of tendering opinions. In his eyes, however, the future success of the League, in view of its then weakness, was still very doubtful. Should the Schmalkalden conference turn out to be the commencement of a period of misfortune for the innovations, still, thanks to the restraint which Luther had imposed on himself, in spite of his being the moving spirit and the religious link between the allies, his preaching of the Evangel would be less compromised. The miseries518 of the Peasant War, which had been laid to his account, the excesses of the Anabaptists against public order, the unpopularity which he had earned for himself everywhere on account of the revolts and disturbance of the peace, were all of a nature to make him more cautious. There are many things to show, that, instead of promoting the outbreak of hostilities in the days immediately subsequent to the Diet of Augsburg, he would very gladly have contented519 himself with the assurance, that, for the present, the Reichstagsabschied not being capable of execution, things might as well take their course. By this policy he would gain time; he was also anxious for the new faith quietly to win new ground, so as to demonstrate to the Emperor by positive proofs the futility of any proceedings against himself.
The wavering attitude of many of the Catholic Estates at Augsburg had inspired him with great hopes of securing new allies. It there became apparent that either much had been rotten for a long time past in that party of the Diet which hitherto had been faithful to the Pope, or that the example of the Protesters had proved infectious.
Wider prospects were also opening out for Lutheranism. In Würtemberg Catholicism was menaced by the machinations of the Landgrave of Hesse. There seemed a chance of the towns of Southern Germany being won back from Zwinglian influences and making common cause with Wittenberg. Henry the Eighth’s failure in his divorce proceedings also raised the hopes of the friends of the new worship that England, too, might be torn away from the Papal cause. At the conclusion of the Diet, Bugenhagen had been summoned by the magistrates of Lübeck in order to introduce the new Church system in that city.
[66]
In Bavaria there was danger lest the jealousy520 of the Dukes at the growth of the house of Habsburg, and their opposition to the expected election of Ferdinand as King, should help in the spread of schism.
It is noteworthy that Luther’s letter to Ludwig Senfl, the eminent521 and not unfriendly musician and composer, bandmaster to Duke William and a great favourite at the Court of Bavaria, should have been sent just at this time. To him Luther was high in his praise of the Court: Since the Dukes of Bavaria were so devoted to music, he must extol522 them, and give them the preference over all other Princes, for friends of music must necessarily possess a good seed of virtue in their soul. This connection with Senfl he continued in an indirect fashion.[166]
The best answer to the resolutions passed at Augsburg seemed to the first leader of the movement to lie in expansion, i.e. in great conquests, to be achieved in spite of all threats of violence.
Instead of having recourse to violence, the Empire, however, entered into those negotiations which were ultimately to lead, in 1532, to the so-called Religious Peace of Nuremberg. At about this time Luther sent a missive to his Elector in which his readiness for a religious war is perfectly plain.
The document, which was composed jointly523 with the other Wittenberg theologians, and for the Latinity of which Melanchthon may have been responsible, treats, it would appear, of certain Imperial demands for concessions524 made at the Court of the Elector on September 1, 1531, previous to the Schmalkalden conference. These demands manifest the utmost readiness on the part of the authorities of the Empire to make advances. Yet Luther in his reply refuses to acquiesce525 even in the proposal that people everywhere should be allowed to receive the Sacrament under one kind, according to the ritual hitherto in use. We are bound to declare openly and at all times, he says, that all those who refrain from receiving under both kinds are guilty of sin. He continues, referring to the other points under debate: It is true that we are told of the terrible consequences which must result should “war and rebellion break out, the collapse526 of all public order fall like a scourge527 upon Germany, and the Turks and other foreign powers subjugate528 the divided nation. To this our reply is: Sooner let the world perish than have peace at the expense of the Evangel. We know our teaching is certain; not a hair’s breadth may we yield for the sake of the public peace.[67] We must commend ourselves to God, Who has hitherto protected His Church during the most terrible wars, and Who has helped us beyond all expectation.”[167]
This argument based on the Evangel cuts away the ground from under all Luther’s previous more moderate counsels.
The religious peace of Nuremberg was in the end more favourable to him than he could have anticipated. To his dudgeon, however, he had to remain idle while the guidance of the movement was assumed almost entirely by the League of Schmalkalden, the fact that the League was a military one supplying a pretext for dispossessing him more and more of its direction. Already, in 1530, he had been forced to look on while Philip made advances to the sectaries of Zürich and the other Zwinglian towns of Switzerland, and concluded a treaty with them on November 16 for mutual529 armed assistance in the event of an attack on account of the faith. “This will lead to a great war,” he wrote to the Elector, “and, as your Electoral Highness well knows, in such a war we shall be defending the error concerning the Sacrament, which will thus become our own; from this may Christ, my Lord, preserve your Electoral Highness.”[168]
His apprehensions530, lest the good repute of his cause should be damaged by unjust bloodshed, grew, when, in 1534, the warlike Landgrave set out for Würtemberg.
It was a crying piece of injustice and violence when Philip of Hesse, after having allied531 himself with France, by means of a lucky campaign, robbed King Ferdinand of Würtemberg and established the new faith in that country by reinstating the Lutheran Duke Ulrich.[169]
Before the campaign Luther had declared that it was “contrary to the Gospel,” and would “bring a stain upon our teaching,” and that “it was wrong to disturb or violate the peace of the commonwealth532.”[170] He hinted at the same time that he did not believe in a successful issue: “No wise man,” he said subsequently, “would have risked it.”[171]—Yet, when the whole country was in the hands of the[68] conqueror533, when a treaty of peace had been signed in which the articles on religion were purposely framed in obscure and ambiguous terms, while the prospects of the new faith, in view of Ulrich’s character, seemed excellent, Luther expressed his joy and congratulations to the Hessian Court through Justus Menius, a preacher of influence: “We rejoice that the Landgrave has returned happily after having secured peace. It is plain that this is God’s work; contrary to the general expectation He has set our fears to rest! He Who has begun the work will also bring it to a close. Amen.”[172]
Luther himself tells us later what foreign power it was that had rendered this civil war in the very heart of Germany possible. “Before he [the Landgrave] reinstated the Duke of Würtemberg he was in France with the King, who lent him 200,000 coronati to carry on the war.”[173]
The fear of an impending534 great war between the religious parties in Germany was gradually dispelled535. The object of the members of the League of Schmalkalden in seeking assistance from France and England was to strengthen their position against a possible attack on the part of the Emperor; at the same time, by refusing to lend any assistance against the Turks, they rendered him powerless.
Luther now ventured to prophesy536 an era of peace. We shall have peace, he said, and there is no need to fear a war on account of religion. “But questions will arise concerning the bishoprics and the foundations,” as the Emperor is trying to get the rich bishoprics into his hands, and the other Princes likewise; “this will lead to quarrels and blows, for others also want their share.”[174] This confirms the observation made above: In place of a religious struggle the Princes preferred to wrangle537 over ecclesiastical property and rights, of which they were jealous. Thus Luther’s prediction concerning the character of the struggle in the years previous to the Schmalkalden and Thirty Years’ War was not so far wrong.
Luther and the Religious War in Later Years.
Luther was never afterwards to revert538 to his original disapproval539 of armed resistance to the Emperor.
[69]
In his private conversations we frequently find, on the contrary, frank admissions quite in agreement with the above remark on “war and rebellion” being justified by the Divine and indestructible Evangel. It is not only lawful, he says, but necessary to fight against the Emperor in the cause of the Evangel. “Should he begin a war against our religion, our worship and our Church, then he is a tyrant. Of this there is no question. Is it not lawful to fight in defence of piety? Even nature demands that we should take up arms in defence of our children and our families. Indeed, I shall, if possible, address a writing to the whole world exhorting540 all to the defence of their people.”[175]
Other similar statements are met with in his Table-Talk at a later date. “It is true a preacher ought not to fight in his own defence, for which reason I do not take a sword with me when I mount the pulpit, but only on journeys.”[176] “The lawyers,” he said, on February 7, 1538, “command us to resist the Emperor, simply desiring that a madman should be deprived of his sword.... The natural law requires that if one member injure another he be put under restraint, made a prisoner and kept in custody541. But from the point of view of theology, there are doubts (Matt. v., 1 Peter ii.). I reply, however, that statecraft permits, nay542 commands, self-defence, so that whoever does not defend himself is regarded as his own murderer,” in spite of the fact, that, as a Christian and “believer in the Kingdom of Christ, he must suffer all things, and may not in this guise543 either eat or drink or beget544 children.” In many cases it is necessary to put away “the Christianum and bring to the fore5 the politicam personam,”[177] just as a man may slay545 incontinently the violator of his wife. “We are fighting, not against Saul, but against Absalom.” Besides, the Emperor might not draw the sword without the consent of the Seven Electors. “The sword belongs to us, and only at our request may he use it.”[178] “Without the seven he has no power; indeed, if even one is not for him, his power is nil546 and he is no longer monarch547.... I do not deprive the Emperor of the sword, but the Pope, who has no business to lord it and act as a tyrant.”[179] “The Emperor will not commence a war on his own account but for the sake of the Pope, whose vassal548 he has become; he is only desirous of defending the abominations of the Pope, who hates the Gospel and thinks of nothing but his own godless power.”[180]
Luther, in his anger against the Papists and the priests, goes so far as to place them on a par12 with the Turks and to advise[70] their being slaughtered;[181] this he did, for instance, in May, 1540. In 1539 he says: “Were I the Landgrave, I should set about it, and either perish or else slay them because they refuse peace in a good and just cause; but as a preacher it does not beseem me to counsel this, much less to do it myself.”[182] The Papal Legate, Paolo Vergerio, when with Luther in 1535, expressed to him his deep indignation at the deeds of King Henry VIII. of England, who had put to death Cardinal549 John Fisher and Sir Thomas More. Luther wrote to Melanchthon of Vergerio’s wrath550 and his threats against the King, but shared his feelings so little as actually to say: “Would that there were a few more such kings of England to put to death these cardinals551, popes and legates, these traitors552, thieves, robbers, nay, devils incarnate553.” Such as they, he says, plunder and rob the churches and are worse than a hundred men of the stamp of Verres or a thousand of that of Dionysius. “How is it that Princes and lords, who are always complaining to us of the injury done to the churches, endure it?”[183]
Even in official memoranda Luther soon threw all discretion554 to the winds, and ventured to speak most strongly in favour of armed resistance.
Such was the memorandum, of January, 1539, addressed to the Elector Johann Frederick and signed at Weimar by Jonas, Bucer and Melanchthon, as well as Luther. The Elector had asked for it owing to the dangerous position of the League of Schmalkalden, now that peace had been concluded between the Emperor and Francis I. of France. He had also enquired how far the allies might take advantage of the war with the Turks; and whether they might make their assistance against the Turks contingent555 upon certain concessions being granted to the new worship. The second question will be dealt with later;[184] as to the first, whether resistance to the Emperor was allowed, the signatories replied affirmatively in words which go further than any previous admission.[185]
[71]
They had already, they say, “given their answer and opinion, and there was no doubt that this was the Divine truth which we are bound to confess even at the hour of death, viz. that not only is defence permitted, but a protest is verily, and indeed, incumbent556 on all.” Here it will be observed that Luther no longer says merely that the lawyers inferred this from the Imperial law, but that God, “to Whom we owe this duty,” commanded that “idolatry and forbidden worship” should not be tolerated. Numerous references to the “Word of God” regarding the authorities were adduced in support of this contention558 (Ps. lxxxii. 3; Exod. xx. 7; Ps. ii. 10, 11; 1 Tim. i. 9). It is pointed out how in the Sacred Books the “Kings of Juda are praised for exterminating559 idolatry.” “Every father is bound to protect his wife and child from murder, and there is no difference between a private murderer and the Emperor, should he attempt unjust violence outside his office.” The case is on all fours with one where the “overlord tries to impose on his subjects blasphemy and idolatry,” hence war must be waged, just as “Constantine fell upon Licinius, his ally and brother-in-law.” David, Ezechias and other holy kings likewise risked life and limb for the honour of God. “This is all to be understood as referring to defence.” But “where the ban has been proclaimed against one or more of the allies,” “discord55 has already broken out.” Those under the ban have lost “position and dignity,” and may commence the attack without further ado. Still, “it is not for us to assume that hostilities should be commenced at once”; this is the business of those actually concerned.
Such was the advice of Luther and those mentioned above to the Elector, when he was about to attend a meeting of the League of Schmalkalden at Frankfurt, where another attempt was to be made to prevent the outbreak of hostilities by negotiations with the Emperor’s ministers. Luther was apprehensive560 of war as likely to lead to endless misfortunes, yet his notion that “idolatry” must be rooted out would allow of no yielding on his part. “It is almost certain that this memorandum was made use of at the negotiations preliminary to the Frankfurt conference, seeing that the Elector in the final opinion he addressed to his councillors repeats it almost word for word.”[186] The memorandum was probably drawn up by Melanchthon.
At that very time Luther seems also to have received news from Brandenburg that Joachim II., the Elector, was about to Protestantise his lands. Such tidings would naturally make him all the more defiant.
[72]
Joachim, in spite of his sympathies for Lutheranism, had hitherto refrained from formally embracing it, not wishing to come into conflict with the Emperor. In 1539, however, he publicly apostatised, casting to the winds all his earlier promises. As Calvin wrote to Farel, in November, 1539, Joachim had informed the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, his chief tempter, that he had now made up his mind to “accept the Gospel and to exterminate424 Popery,”[187] and this he did with the best will, though he took no part in the Schmalkalden War against the Emperor. In his case politics and a disinclination to make war on the Emperor were the determining factors.
While Joachim was still quietly pursuing his subversive561 plans in the March of Brandenburg, the ever-recurring question was already being discussed anew amongst the Lutherans in that quarter, viz. whether Luther had not previously, and with greater justice, declared himself against resistance, and whether he was not therefore hostile to the spirit of the League of Schmalkalden.
A nobleman, Caspar von Kokeritz, probably one of Joachim’s advisers, requested Luther to furnish the Protestant preacher at Cottbus, Johann Ludicke, with a fresh opinion on the lawfulness of resistance. The request was justified by the difference between Luther’s earlier standpoint—which was well known at Cottbus—and that which he had more recently adopted. From the difficulty Luther sought to escape in a strongly worded letter to Ludicke, dated February 8, 1539, which is in several ways remarkable.[188]
In this letter the lawyers and the Princes again loom48 very large. They had most emphatically urged the employment of force, and “very strong reasons exist against my opposing this desire and plan of our party.” In his earlier memorandum[189] he had been thinking of the Emperor as Emperor, but now he had come to look on him as what he really was, viz. as a mere “hireling” of the Pope. The Pope is desirous of carrying out his “diabolical wickedness” with the help of the Emperor. “Hence, if it is lawful to fight against the Turks and to defend ourselves against them, how much more so against the Pope, who is worse?” Still, he was willing to stand by his earlier opinion, provided only that Pope, Cardinals and Emperor would admit that they were all of them the devil’s own servants; “then my[73] advice will be the same as before, viz. that we yield to the heathen tyrants.” Other reasons too had led him, so he says, to discard his previous opinion, but he is loath to commit them to writing for fear lest something might reach the ears of “those abominable ministers of Satan.” Instead, he launches out into biblical proofs, urging that the “German Princes,” who together with the Emperor governed the realm, “communi consilio,” had more right to withstand the Emperor than the Jewish people when they withstood Saul, or those others who, in the Old Testament, resisted the authorities, and yet met with the Divine approval. The constitution of the Empire might not be altered by the Emperor, “who is not the monarch,” and “least of all in the devil’s cause. He may not be aware that it is this cause that he is furthering, but we know for certain that it is. Let what I have said be enough for you, and leave the rest to the teaching of the Spirit. Let your exhortation be to ‘render unto the Kaiser the things that are the Kaiser’s.’ Ceterum secretum meum mihi.”[190]
It is not difficult from the above to guess the “secret”: it was the impending apostasy562 of the Electorate of Brandenburg.
Luther had already several times come into contact with Joachim II. The Elector’s mother was friendly with him and came frequently to Wittenberg. Concerning her foes Luther once wrote to Jonas: “May the Lord Jesus give me insight and eloquence against the darts563 of Satan.”[191] In his letter of congratulation to the Elector on his apostasy he hints more plainly at the opponents to whom he had referred darkly in his letter to Ludicke: “I am less concerned about the subtlety564 of the serpents than about the growl565 of the lion, which perchance, coming from those in high places, may disquiet566 your Electoral Highness.”[192]
When the religious war of Schmalkalden at last broke out, the foes of Wittenberg recalled Luther’s biblical admonitions in 1530 against the use of arms in the cause of the Gospel, which Cochl?us had already collected and published. These they caused to be several times reprinted (1546), with the object of showing the injustice of the protesters’ attitude by the very words of the Reformer, who had died just before. The Wittenberg theologians replied (1547), but their answer only added to the tangle567 of the network of evasions568. As a counter-blast they printed Luther’s later memoranda, or[74] “Conclusions,” in favour of the use of force, adding prefaces by Melanchthon and Bugenhagen; where the prefaces come to deal with the awkward statement made by Luther in 1530, the writers have recourse to the device of questioning its authenticity569; this Melanchthon does merely incidentally, Bugenhagen of set purpose.[193] According to Bugenhagen, who, as a matter of fact, had himself assisted in drawing up the statement, it deserved to be relegated570 to the domain of fiction; Luther’s enemies, he says, had fabricated the document in order to injure the Evangel. He even asserted that he could quote Luther’s own assurances in this matter; according to Caspar Cruciger, Luther had declared in his presence that the memorandum of 1530 had not “emanated571” from him, though “carried the rounds by his enemies.” Bugenhagen was unable to understand, so he says, how his own name came to be there, and repeatedly he speaks of the document as the “alleged” letter. He also tells us that he had repudiated572 it as early as 1531, immediately after its publication by Cochl?us; if this be true, then it is difficult to explain away his denial as due to mere forgetfulness. His statements are altogether at variance with what we are told by the physician, Matth. Ratzeberger, Luther’s friend, who was always opposed to the war, and who, in his tract of 1552, “A Warning against Unrighteous Ways,” etc., blames Bugenhagen for his repudiation573 of Luther’s authority.[194] From the above it is[75] evident that we have no right to praise Bugenhagen, as has been done in modern days, “for the fire with which he was wont574 to advocate the truth.” Regarding Melanchthon’s love of truth we shall have more to say later.
On looking back over the various statements made by Luther concerning armed resistance, we cannot fail to be struck by their diversity; the testimony they afford is the reverse of favourable to their author’s consistency575 and honesty.
By his very nature Luther felt himself drawn to proclaim the right of armed resistance in the cause of the Evangel. Of this feeling we have indications even at an early date in certain unguarded outbursts which were repeated at intervals576 in such a way as to leave no doubt as to his real views. Yet, until 1530, his official and public statements, particularly to the Princes, speak quite a different language. The divergence577 was there and it was impossible to get rid of it either by explanation or by denial. As soon as things seemed about to lead inevitably578 to war, Luther saw that the time had come to cast moderation to the winds. He was unwilling to sacrifice his whole life-work, and the protesting Estates had no intention of relinquishing579 their new rights and privileges. Formerly it had seemed advisable and serviceable to the spread of the Evangel to clothe it in the garb581 of submissiveness to the supreme authority of the Empire and of patient endurance for the sake of truth, but, after the Diet of Augsburg such considerations no longer held good. Overcoming whatever hesitation he still felt, Luther yielded to the urgings of the secular politicians.
From that time his memoranda assumed a different character. At the commencement of the change their wording betrays the difficulties with which Luther found himself faced when called upon to reconcile his later with his earlier views. It was, however, not long before his combative582 temper completely got the better of his scruples in Luther’s writings and letters.
Nothing is more unhistorical than to imagine that his guiding idea was “By the Word only,” in the sense of deprecating all recourse to earthly weapons and desiring that the Word should prevail simply by its own inherent strength. He had spoken out his real mind when he said, in[76] 1522: “Every power must yield to the Evangel, whether willingly or unwillingly,” and again, in 1530, “Let things take their course ... even though it come to war or revolt.” Only on these lines can we explain his action. His firm conviction of his own Divine mission (below, xvi.) confirms this assumption.
4. The Turks Without and the Turks [Papists] Within the Empire
The stupendous task of repelling the onslaught of the Turkish power, which had cost Western Christendom such great sacrifices in the past, was, at the commencement of the third decade of the sixteenth century, the most pressing one for both Hungary and the German Empire.
Sultan Suleiman the Second’s lust for conquest had, since 1520, become a subject of the gravest misgivings583 in the West. With the help of his countless584 warlike hordes585 he had, in 1521, taken Belgrad, the strong outpost of the Christian powers, and, after a terrible struggle, on December 25 of the following year, captured from the Knights of St. John the strategically so important island of Rhodes. There now seemed every likelihood of these victories being followed up. The Kingdom of Hungary, which so long and gloriously had stemmed the inroads of the infidel into Christendom, now felt itself unable to cope single-handed with the enemy and accordingly appealed to the Emperor for help.
At the Diet of Nuremberg, in 1524, the Imperial Abschied of April 18 held out a promise of assistance in the near future, and even instanced tentatively the means to be adopted by the Empire. In the meantime appeals were to be made to the other Christian powers for help, so that the final resolutions concerning the plan of defence might be discussed and settled at the Spires Convention on November 11 of the same year.
Luther thought it his duty to interfere in these preparations.
Against Assistance for the Turkish War.
The Diet of Nuremberg had re-enacted the Edict of Worms against Luther. It had requested the Pope to summon a[77] “free, general Council” in some suitable spot in Germany[195] “in order that good may not be overborne by evil, and that true believers and subjects of Christ may be brought to a firm belief in a common faith.” Incensed by the renewal586 of the Edict of Worms against his doctrine and person, Luther at once published an angry work, “Zwey keyserliche uneynige und wydderwertige Gepott” (1524),[196] in which he declared himself against the granting of any help whatever against the Turks.
He begins by saying of the authors of the new decree against Lutheranism, that surely even “pigs and donkeys could see how blindly and obstinately587 they were acting; it is abominable that the Emperor and the Princes should openly deal in lies.” After a lengthy589 discussion of the decree, he comes to the question of the help which was so urgently needed in order to repel the Turks; he says: “Finally I beg of you all, dear Christians, that you will join in praying to God for those miserable590, blinded Princes, whom no doubt God Himself has placed over us as a curse, that we may not follow them against the Turks, or give money for this undertaking; for the Turks are ten times cleverer and more devout than are our Princes. How can such fools, who tempt147 and blaspheme God so greatly, expect to be successful against the Turks?”[197]
His chief reason for refusing help against the Turks was the blasphemy against God of which the Princes of the Empire, and the Emperor, had rendered themselves guilty by withstanding his Evangel.
He declares, “I would ten times rather be dead than listen to such blasphemy and insolence591 against the Divine Majesty.... God deliver us from them, and give us, in His mercy, other rulers. Amen.”—The Emperor himself he charges with presumption for daring—agreeably with age-long custom—to style himself the chief Protector of the Christian faith. “Shamelessly does the Emperor boast of this, he who is after all but a perishable592 bag of worms, and not sure of his life for one moment.” The Divine power of the faith has surely no need of a protector, he says; he scoffs594 at him and at the King of England, who styles himself Defender595 of the Faith; would that all pious Christians “would take pity upon such mad, foolish, senseless, raving, witless fools.”[198]
[78]
Even in the midst of the storm caused by his Indulgence Theses, Luther had already opposed the lending of any assistance against the Turks. A sermon preached in the winter of 1518, in which he took this line, was circulated[199] by his friends. When Spalatin enquired of him in the Elector’s name whether the Turkish War—for which Cardinal Cajetan was just then asking for help—could be justified by Holy Scripture, Luther replied, that the contrary could be proved from many passages; that the Bible was full of the unhappy results of wars undertaken in reliance on human means; that those wars alone were successful where heaven fought for the people; that now it was impossible to count upon victory in view of the corruption of Christendom and the tyranny and the hostility596 to Christ displayed by the Roman Church; on the contrary, God was fighting against them;[200] He must first be propitiated597 by tears, prayer, amendment598 of life and a pure faith. In the Resolutions on the Indulgence Theses we find the same antipathy599 to the war, again justified on similar mystical and polemical grounds.
His words in the Resolutions were even embodied by Rome in one of the propositions condemned on the proclamation of the ban: “To fight against the Turks is to withstand God, Who is using them for the punishment of our sins.”[201]
When, later, he came to approve of and advocate the war against the Turks, he declared, quite frankly600: “I am open to confess that such an article was mine, and was advanced and defended by me in the past.”
He adds that he would be ready to defend it even now were things in the same state as then.—But where did he discern any difference? According to him, people then, before he had instructed them concerning its origin and office, had no idea of what secular authority really was. “Princes and lords who desired to be pious, looked upon their position and office as of no account, not as being the service of God, and became mere[79] priests and monks601.” But then he had written his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” (1523). Having reinstated the secular authority, so long “smothered and neglected,” he was loath to see it summoned against the Turks by the Pope. Besides, he is quite confident that the Pope had never been in earnest about the Turkish War; his real aim was to enrich his exchequer.[202]
Luther also explains that from the first he had been inclined to oppose the granting of any aid against the Turks on the theological ground embodied in his condemned proposition, viz. that God visits our sins upon us by means of the Turks. Here again he will not admit himself to have been in the wrong, for Christians must “endure wrong, violence or injustice ... not resist evil, but allow and suffer all things” as the Gospel teaches. Characteristically enough, he appeals to that “piece of Christian doctrine” according to which the Christian is to offer his left cheek to him who smites602 him on the right, and leave his cloak to the man who takes away his coat. Now, what our Lord taught in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 39 f.), was not, as he had already pointed out, a mere counsel of perfection, but a real command; but the “Pope with his schools and convents had made of this a counsel which it was permissible not to keep, and which a Christian might neglect, and had thus distorted the words of Christ, taught the whole world a falsehood, and cheated Christians.”[203] A way out of the fatal consequences which must ensue, Luther fancies he is able to find in the distinction between the true Christian and mere worldly citizen; it was not incumbent on the latter to perform everything that was binding on the former.
Previous to writing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” referred to above, he had again publicly expressed himself as opposed to the efforts of the Empire on behalf of the Turkish War; though no longer because the authorities lacked a right sense of their office, or because Christ’s counsel made submission a duty, but for quite another reason: Before taking any steps against the Turks it was necessary to resist the impious dominion315 of the Pope, compared with which the danger from the Turks paled into insignificance603. “To what purpose is it,” he wrote in 1522, “to oppose the Turk? What harm does the Turk do? He invades a country and becomes its secular ruler.... The Turk also leaves each one free to believe as he pleases.” In both respects the Pope is worse; his invasions are more extensive, and, at the same time, he slays604 the souls, so that “as regards both body and soul the government of the Pope is ten times[80] worse than that of the Turk.... If ever the Turks were to be exterminated it would be necessary first to begin with the Pope.” The Christian method of withstanding the Turks would be to “preach the Gospel to them.”[204] This paved the way for his warning, in 1524, against complying with the Emperor’s call for assistance in fighting the Turks (above, p. 77).
Such exhortations not to wage war against the Turks naturally tended to confuse the multitude to the last degree.
Incautious Lutheran preachers also did their share in stirring up high and low against the burden of taxes imposed by the wars. Hence it was quite commonly alleged against the instigator605 of the religious innovations that, mainly owing to his action after the Diet of Spires, there was a general reluctance606 to grant the necessary supplies, though the clouds on the eastern horizon of the Empire were growing ever blacker. After the horrible disaster at Mohacz, in 1526, Luther therefore found it necessary to exculpate607 himself before the public.
In Favour of Assistance for the Turkish War.
Luther gradually arrived at the decision that it was his duty to put his pen at the service of the war against the Turks.
A change took place in his attitude similar to that which had occurred in 1525 at the time of the Peasant Rising, which his words, and those of the Reformed preachers, had done not a little to further.
His friends, he says in 1529, “because the Turk was now so near,” had insisted on his finishing a writing against them which had already been commenced; “more particularly because of some unskilful preachers among us Germans, who, I regret to learn, are teaching the people that they must not fight against the Turks.” Some, he writes, also taught, that “it was not becoming for any Christian to wield608 the sword”; others went so far as to look forward to the coming of the Turks and their rule. “And such error and malice amongst the people is all placed at Luther’s door, as the fruit of my Evangel; in the same way that I had to bear the blame of the revolt [of the peasants].... Hence I am under the necessity of writing on the matter and of exculpating609 us, both for my own sake and for [81]that of the Evangel ... in order that innocent consciences may not continue to be deceived by such calumnies610, and be rendered suspicious of me and my teaching, or be wrongly led to believe that they must not fight against the Turks.”[205]
In February, 1528, Suleiman II. was in a position to demand that King Ferdinand should evacuate611 Buda-Pesth, the capital; it was already feared that his threat of visiting Ferdinand in Austria might be all too speedily fulfilled. The Sultan actually commenced, in the spring of 1529, his great campaign, which brought him to the very walls of Vienna. The city, however, defended itself with such heroism612 that the enemy was at last compelled to withdraw.
In April, 1529, when the reports of the danger which menaced Austria had penetrated613 throughout the length and breadth of Germany, Luther at last published the writing above referred to, viz. “On the Turkish War.”
The booklet he dedicated to that zealous patron of the Reformation, Landgrave Philip of Hesse. In it his intention is to teach “how to fight with a good conscience.” He points out how the Emperor, as a secular ruler, must, agreeably with the office conferred on him by God, protect his subjects against the Turks, as against murderers and robbers, with the secular sword, which, however, has nothing to do with the faith. There were two who must wage the war, Christian and Charles; but Christian’s duty was merely that of the faithful everywhere who would pray for the success of the campaign; this was all that the believers, as such, had to do; Charles would fight, because the example of Charles the Great would encourage him to bear the sword bravely, but only against the Turks as robbers and disturbers of the peace; it would be no Crusade, such as had been undertaken against the infidel in the foolish days of old. Amongst the most powerful pages of the work are those in which, regardless of flattery, he impresses on the German Princes the need of union, of sacrifice of private interests and of obedience to the guidance of the Emperor, without which it was useless to hope for anything in the present critical condition of the Empire. He scourges614 with a like severity certain faults into which Germans were prone615 to fall when engaged in warfare616, viz. to under-estimate the strength of the enemy, and to neglect following up their victories; instead of this, they would sit down and tipple617 until they again found themselves in straits.[206]
[82]
It does not, however, seem that these words of Luther’s on behalf of the war against the Turks raised any great enthusiasm among the people.
He again took up his pen, and this time more open-heartedly, when, on October 14, the hour of Vienna’s deliverance came and the last assault had been happily repulsed618. The result was his “Heer-Predigt widder den Türcken” addressed to all the Germans. Here he sought to instruct them from Scripture concerning the Turks and the approaching Last Day. In stirring, homely619 words he exhorted620 them to rise and lend their assistance, pointing out that whoever fell in the struggle died a martyr452. He fired the enthusiasm of his readers by even quoting the examples of the women and maidens621 in olden Germany. He also dwelt on the need of preserving the faith in captivity622 should it be the lot of any of the combatants to be taken prisoner, and even exhorted those who might be sold as slaves not to prove unfaithful by running away from their lawful masters. He consoled his readers at the same time with the thought, to which he ever attached such importance, that, after all, in Turkey the devil did not rage nearly so furiously against Christians as the devil at home, i.e. the Pope, who was forcing them to deny Christ.[207]
We likewise find attacks on the Catholic fraction of the German nation, mingled292 with exhortations to resist the Turks, in a Preface he composed in 1530, on the occasion of the republication of an older work dating from Catholic times, “On the Morals and Religion of the Turks.”[208]
The struggle raging in the heart of Germany, and the opposition of the Protestant Princes and Estates to the Emperor as head of the Realm, constituted the greatest obstacle to any scheme for united and vigorous action against the Turks. Hence to some extent Luther was indirectly responsible for the growth of the Ottoman Empire. On one occasion Luther gave vent to the following outburst: “Would that we Germans stood shoulder to shoulder, then it would be easy for us to resist the Turk. If we had 50,000 [83]foot and 10,000 horse constantly in the field ... we could well withstand them and defend ourselves.”[209] The Sultan had, long before, taken into his calculations the dissensions created by Luther in the Empire.[210] On one occasion, about 1532, as we know from Luther’s “Talk Table,” Suleiman made enquiries of a German named Schmaltz, who was attached to an embassy, concerning Luther’s circumstances, and asked how old he was. To the answer that he was forty-eight years of age he replied: “I would he were still younger, for he would find a gracious master in me.” Luther, when this was reported to him, made the sign of the cross and said: “May God preserve me from such a gracious master.”[211]
Luther, as we shall see below, had occasion to write against the Turks even at a later date. His writings had, however, no widespread influence; they were read only by one portion of the German nation, being avoided by the rest as works of an arch-heretic. Many marvelled623 at his audacity624 in presuming to teach the whole nation, and at his speaking as though he had been the leader of the people. Catholics were inclined, as Luther himself complains, to regard the growth of the Turkish power as God’s chastisement625 for the apostasy of a part of Germany and for the Emperor’s remissness626 in the matter of heresy627.
Even in his very tracts against the Turks, Luther did much to weaken the force of his call to arms. His aim should have been to inspire the people with enthusiasm and a readiness to sacrifice themselves, which might, in turn, have encouraged and fired the nobles; but, as the experience of earlier ages had already proved, religion alone was able to produce such a change in the temper of a nation. Protection for the common, spiritual heritage, defence of the religion and civilisation628 of the West, such was the only appeal which could have fired people’s minds. And it was this banner which the Church unfurled, both before and after Luther’s day, which had led to victory at the battle of Lepanto and again at the raising of the siege of Vienna. Luther, on the contrary, in his writing of 1529, repels629 so vehemently631 any idea of turning the contest with the infidel into a crusade, that he even has it that, “were I a soldier and[84] descried632 on the field of battle a priestly banner, or one bearing a cross, or even a crucifix, I would turn and run as though the devil were at my heels; and, if, by God’s Providence633, they nevertheless gained the victory, still I should take no share in the booty or the triumph.”[212]
To insure a favourable issue to the campaign it was also necessary that the position of the Emperor as head of Christendom should be recognised, and the feeling of common interest between the sovereigns and nations be kindled634 anew. Yet the progress of the innovations, and Luther’s own menacing attitude towards the Empire and the Catholic sovereigns, was contributing largely to shatter both the authority of the Empire and the old European unity, not to speak of the injury done to the Papal authority, to whose guidance the common welfare of Christendom had formerly been confided636.
Luther allowed his polemics637 to blunt entirely the effect of his summons. As, however, what he says affords us an insight into the working of his mind, it is of interest to the psychologist.
In the second of the two writings referred to above, the “Heer-Predigt,” despite the general excellence638 of its contents, the constant harping639 on the nearness of the Last Day could not fail to exert an influence the reverse of that desired. At the very commencement he ventilates his views on the prophecies of Daniel; he likewise will have it that the prophecy concerning Gog and Magog in Ezechiel also refers to the Turks, and that we even read of them in the Apocalypse; their victories portended640 the end of all things. His last warnings run as follows: “In the end it will come about that the devil will attack Christendom with all his might and from every side.... Therefore let us watch and be valiant641 in a firm faith in Christ, and let each one be obedient to the authorities and see what God will do, leaving things to take their course; for there is nothing good to be hoped for any more.”[213] Such pessimism was scarcely calculated to awaken130 enthusiasm.
Nor does he conceal80 his fears lest a successful campaign against the Turks should lead the Emperor and the Catholic Princes to turn their arms against the Evangelicals, in order to carry out the Edict of Worms. He so frequently betrays this apprehension that we might almost be led to think that he regarded the Turkish peril642 as a welcome impediment, did we not know on the[85] other hand how greatly he came to dread403 it as he advanced in years. This anxiety concerning possible intentions of the Catholics he felt so keenly in 1529 as to append to the second of his tracts on the Turkish War a peculiarly inappropriate monition, viz. that Germans “must not allow themselves to be made use of against the Evangel, or fight against or persecute Christians; for thus they would become guilty of innocent blood and be no better than the Turks.... In such a case no subject is in the least bound to obey the authorities, in fact, where this occurs, all authority is abrogated643.”[214]
Injudicious considerations such as these are also to be found in the earlier tract; here, however, what is most astonishing is his obstinacy in re-affirming his earlier doctrine, already condemned by Rome, viz. that it was not becoming in Christians, as such, to resist the Turk by force of arms, seeing that God was using the Turks for the chastisement of Christendom. “As we refuse to learn from Scripture,” he says, speaking in his wonted mystical tone, “the Turk must teach us with the sword, until we learn by sad experience that Christians must not fight or resist evil. Fools’ backs must be dusted with the stick.”[215] He also expresses his misgivings because “Christians and Princes are so greatly urged, driven and incited644 to attack the Turks and fall upon them, before we have amended645 our own lives and begun to live as true Christians”; on this account “war was not to be recommended.”[216] Real amendment would have consisted in accepting the Lutheran Evangel. Yet, instead of embracing Lutheranism, “our Princes are negotiating how best to molest646 Luther and the Evangel; there, surely, is the real Turk.”[217] Because they had ordered fasts, and penitential practices, and Masses of the Holy Ghost, in order to implore647 God’s protection against the Turk, the Catholic Princes drew down upon themselves the following rebuke648: “Shall God be gracious to you, faithless rulers of unfortunate subjects! What devil urges you to make such a fuss about spiritual matters, which are not your business, but concern God and the conscience alone, and to do the work God has committed to you and which does concern you and your poor people, so lazily and slothfully even in this time of the direst need, thus merely hindering those who would fain give you their help?”[218]
Here again he was promoting dissension, indeed, generally speaking, his exhortations were more a hindrance than a help; again and again he insists on entangling649 himself anew in his polemics against Popery, and this in spite of the urgent needs of Germany. Led by the Pope, the Catholic Princes have become[86] “our tyrants,” who “imprison us, exercise compulsion, banish650 and burn us, behead and drown us and treat us worse than do the Turks.”[219]
“In short, wherever we go, the devil, our real landlord, is at home. If we visit the Turk, we find the devil; if we remain under the rule of the Pope, we fall into hell. There is nothing but devils on either side and everywhere.” Thus it must be with mankind, he says, referring to 2 Timothy iii. 1, when the world reaches its end.[220]
In “what manner I advise war on the Turk, this my booklet shall be witness.”[221]
Cochl?us, Luther’s opponent, collected the contradictions contained in the latter’s statements on the Turkish War, and published them in 1529 at Leipzig in the form of an amusing Dialogue. In this work one of the characters, Lutherus, attacks the war in Luther’s own words, the second, Palinodus, defends it, again with Lutheran phrases, whilst an ambassador of King Ferdinand plays the part of the interested enquirer651. The work instances fifteen “contradictions.”[222]
Luther personally acted wisely, for it was of the utmost importance to him to destroy the impression that he stood in the way of united action against the Turks. This the Princes and Estates who protested at the Diet of Spires were far less willing to do. They cast aside all scruple438 and openly refused to lend their assistance against the Turks unless the enactment652 against the religious innovations were rescinded653. It is true that Vienna was then not yet in any[87] pressing danger, though, on the other hand, news had been received at Spires that the Turkish fleet was cruising off the coasts of Sicily. It was only later on in the year, when the danger of Austria and for the German Princes began to increase, that the Protesters showed signs of relenting. They also saw that, just then, their refusal to co-operate would be of no advantage to the new Church. Landgrave Philip of Hesse nevertheless persisted in his obstinate588 refusal to take any part in the defence of the Empire.
Philip made several attempts to induce Brück, the Chancellor of the Saxon Electorate, and Luther, to bring their influence to bear on the Elector Johann Frederick so that he might take a similar line. Brück was sufficiently astute654 to avoid making any promise. Luther did not venture openly to refuse, though his position as principal theological adviser444 would have qualified114 him to explain to the Landgrave the error of his way. In his reply he merely finds fault with the “Priesthood,” who “are so obstinate and defiant and trust in the Emperor and in human aid.” God’s assistance against the Turks may be reckoned on, but if it came to the point, and he were obliged to speak to the Elector, he would “advise for the best,” and, may God’s Will be done.[223]
When the Turks, in order to avenge655 the defeat they had suffered before the walls of Vienna, prepared for further attacks upon the West, frightful656 rumours657 began to spread throughout Germany, adding greatly to Luther’s trouble of mind. At the Coburg, where he then was, gloomy forebodings of the coming destruction of Germany at the hand of the Turk associated themselves with other disquieting659 considerations.
In one of his first letters from the Coburg he says to Melanchthon, Spalatin and Lindemann, who were then at the Diet of Augsburg: “My whole soul begins to revolt against the Turks and Mohammed, for I see the intolerable wrath of Satan who rages so proudly against the souls and bodies of men. I shall pray and weep and never rest until heaven hears my cry. You [at Augsburg] are suffering persecution660 from our monsters at home, but we have been chosen to witness and to suffer both woes661 [viz. Catholicism and the Turks] which are raging together and making their final onslaught. The onslaught itself proves[88] and foretells662 their approaching end and our salvation.”[224]—“All we now await is the coming of Christ,” so he says on another occasion in one of his fits of fear; “verily, I fear the Turk will traverse it [Germany] from end to end.... How often do I think of the plight664 of our German land, how often do I sweat, because it will not hear me.”[225]
Lost in his eschatological dream and misled by his morbid665 apprehension, he wrote his Commentary on Ezechiel xxxviii.-xxxix., which was at once placed in the hands of the printer; here again he finds the mischief to be wrought666 by the Turks at the end of the world as plainly foretold667 as in the prophecy of Daniel, the Commentary on which he had published shortly before.[226]
Everywhere anxiety reigned668 supreme, for there were lacking both preparedness and unanimity669. The Catholic Princes of the Empire were not much better than the rest. Petty interests and jealousies670 outweighed671 in many instances a sense of the common needs. At Spires, for instance, Duke George of Saxony stipulated672, as a condition of any promise of assistance, that he should be given precedence over both the Dukes of Bavaria. While the Catholic Estates agreed, at the Diet of Augsburg, to the grants for the war against the Turks, the Protestant Estates were not to be induced to give a favourable decision until the Emperor had sanctioned the so-called religious Peace of Nuremberg in 1532.[227]
In the summer of that same year Suleiman passed Buda-Pesth with 300,000 men. Thence he continued his march along the Danube with the intention of taking Vienna, this time at any cost. The Emperor Charles V. hurried in person to command the great army which was collecting near Vienna; the Sultan was to be encountered and a decisive battle fought. Throughout the Empire the greatest enthusiasm for the cause prevailed. The Electoral Prince, Joachim of Brandenburg, was nominated by the Emperor to the command of the troops of the Saxon lowlands, since this country had not been unanimous in the choice of a Captain, probably owing to the religious dissensions.
[89]
The Protestant Prince Joachim requested a pious letter from Luther. This Luther sent him, promising50 him his prayers, and saying that “he would take the field in spirit with his dear Emperor Carol [as he now calls him], and fight under his banner against Satan and his members.” He prayed God to bestow on them all “a glad spirit,” granting them not to trust in their own strength, but to fight with the “fear of God, trusting in His Grace alone,” and to ascribe the honour to heaven only; hitherto there had been too much of the “spirit of defiance on both sides,” and each party had gone into the field “without God,” “which on every occasion had been worse for the people of God than for the enemy.” Luther was evidently quite incapable of writing on the subject without his polemical ideas casting their shadow over his field of vision.
The Turks did not venture to give battle, but, to the joy of the Christian army, retreated, laying waste Styria on their march. The Imperial troops were disbanded and an armistice673 was concluded between King Ferdinand and Suleiman. But in 1536 the hostilities were renewed by the Turks; Hungary was as good as lost, and in 1537 Ferdinand’s army suffered in Slavonia the worst reverse, so at least Luther was informed, since the battle of Mohacz in 1526. On the strength of a rumour658 he attributed the misfortune to the treason of the Christian generals. In his conversations he set down the defeat to the account of Ferdinand, his zealous Catholic opponent; he had permitted “such a great and powerful army to be led miserably674 into the jaws675 of the Turks.”[228] Ferdinand, the Emperor’s brother, was, of course, to blame for the unfortunate issue of the affair; “hitherto the Turk has been provoked by Ferdinand and has been victorious676; when he comes unprovoked, then he will succumb677 and be defeated; if the Papists commence the war they will be beaten.”[229] “Luther saw in the misfortune of King Ferdinand a just punishment on him and his friends who angered God and worshipped lies.”[230] He believed the cause of the success of the Turks to be the “great blasphemy of the Papists against God and the[90] abominable sin against one and the other Table of the Commandments of God”; also “the great contempt of God’s Word amongst our own people.”[231]
While the Protestant Princes and cities again showed a tendency to exploit the Turkish peril to the advantage of the religious innovations, Luther, in view of the needs of the time, pulled himself together and, when consulted, openly advised the Elector Johann Frederick to give his assistance against the Turks should this be asked of him. (May 29, 1538.[232])
He writes to the Elector: “‘Necessitas’ knows no ‘legem,’ and where there is necessity everything that is termed law, treaty or agreement ceases.... We must risk both good and evil with our brothers, like good comrades, as man and wife, father and children risk all things together.” “Because many pious and honest people will also have to suffer,” it was meet that the Prince should, “with a good conscience, render assistance in order to help and protect, not the tyrants, but the poor little flock.”
Yet, immediately after, he deprives his counsel of most of its weight by declaring in fatalistic language, that there was nevertheless little to be hoped for, since God “had fashioned the rod which they will not be able to resist.”
He tells him concerning King Ferdinand, “that there was nothing to be anticipated from him, but only trouble and inevitable misfortune”; of the Catholics in general he assures him, that their “blasphemy” against the Evangel and their resistance to “their conscience and the known truth” made it impossible for them to escape a “great chastisement,” since “God liveth and reigneth.”
Again, as though desirous of deterring678 the Elector on personal grounds, he reminds him that they (the “tyrants” as he calls the Princes of the Catholic party) “had not so far even requested assistance, and had not been willing to agree to peace though the need was so great.”[233] He also thoughtfully alludes679 to the danger lest the tyrants, after having secured a victory with the help of the Protestants, should make use of their arms to overthrow the Evangel by force: “We must be wary680 lest, should our adversaries681 vanquish682 the Turks—which I cannot believe they will—they then turn their arms against us,” “which they would gladly do”; but, he adds, “it rests in God’s hands not in their desire, what they do to us, or what we are to suffer, as we have experienced so far,” for instance after the retreat of the Turks from Vienna when, “after all, nothing was undertaken against us”;[91] for the people would refuse to follow them in any attack upon the Evangel.
This letter, which has frequently been appealed to by Protestants as a proof of Luther’s pure, unselfish patriotism684, is a strange mixture of contradictory thoughts and emotions, the product of a mind not entirely sure of its ground and influenced by all sorts of political considerations. Of one thing alone was the writer certain, viz. that the Turk at Rome must be fought against relentlessly.
Luther’s “Table-Talk” and occasional letters supply various traits to complete the above picture of his attitude towards the Turkish War. There we find polemical outbursts interspersed685 with excellent admonitions to prayer,[234] confutations of the errors of the Turks, and lamentations on the judgment of God as displayed in these wars.
Luther on Turks and Papists.
“If Germany had a master,” he says very aptly on one occasion, “it would be easy for us to withstand the Turk”; but, he continues, “the Papists are our worst foes, and would prefer to see Germany laid waste, and this the Turk is desirous of doing.”[235] The Papists are actually trying to establish the domination of the Turk. “The Pope,” so he was informed, “refuses, like the King of France, to grant any assistance to the Emperor against the Turks. See the enormities of our day! And yet this is the money [which the Pope refused to give] that the Popes have been heaping up for so many long ages by means of their Indulgences.”[236] “I greatly fear,” he says to his friends, “the alliance between the Papists and the Turks by which they intend to bring us to ruin. God grant that my prophecy may prove false.... If this enters the heads of the Papists, they will do it, for the malice of the devil is incredible ... they will plot and scheme how to betray us and deliver us over into the hands of the Turk.”[237]
Meanwhile he believes that God is fighting for his cause by rendering686 the Turks victorious: “See how often the Papists with their hatred687 of the Evangel and their trust in the Emperor have been set at nought”; they had reckoned on the destruction of the Lutherans by means of Charles the Fifth’s victory over France, but, lo, “a great French army marches against the Emperor, Italy falls away and the Turk attacks Germany; this[92] mean that God has dispersed688 the proud. Ah, my good God, it is Thou Who hast done this thing!”[238]—On one occasion he declared: “In order that it might be discerned and felt that God was not with us in the war against the Turks, He has never inspired our Princes with sufficient courage and spirit earnestly to set about the Turkish War.... Nowhere is anything determined upon or carried out.... Why is this? In order that my Article, which Pope Leo condemned, may remain ever true and uncondemned.”[239]
When, in the spring of 1532, Rome itself stood in fear of the Turk and many even took to flight, a letter reached Wittenberg announcing the consternation689 which prevailed there in the Eternal City. Then probably it was that Luther spoke171 the words which have been transmitted in both the Latin and German versions of the “Table-Talk”: “Should the Turk advance against Rome, I shall not regret it. For we read in the Prophet Daniel: ‘He shall fix his tabernacle between the seas upon a glorious and holy mountain.’” The two seas he imagined to be the Tyrrhenean and the Adriatic, whilst the holy mountain meant Rome, “for Rome is holy on account of the many Saints who are buried there. This is true, for the abomination which is the Pope, was [according to Daniel ix. 27] to take up its abode690 in the holy city. If the Turk reaches Rome, then the Last Day is certainly not far off.”[240]
It would even seem that it was his fervent691 desire to see Antichrist ousted692 by the Turk which allured693 him into the obscure region of biblical prophecy.
“Accordingly I hope for the end of the world. The Emperor Charles and Solimannus represent the last dregs of worldly domination. Christ will come, for Scripture knows nothing of any other monarchy694, and the signs of the end of the world are already visible.”[241] “The rule of the Turk was foretold in Daniel and in the Apocalypse that the pious might not allow themselves to be terrified at his greatness. The prophecy of Daniel gives us a splendid account of what is to happen till the end of the world, and describes clearly the reign115 of Antichrist and of the Turk.”[242] Finally, Luther is of opinion that at the end of the world both[93] must be united, viz. the Papal Antichrist and the Turk, because both had come into being together. About the time of the Emperor Phocas (? 610) Mohammed appeared on the scene of history, and at that very time too the Bishops of Rome arrogated695 to themselves the primacy over the whole Church.[243]
His pseudo-mysticism and factious696 temper thus continued to play an unmistakable part in his ideas concerning the Turk.[244]
“Against such might and power [the Turkish] we Germans behave like pot-bellied pigs, we idle about, gorge697, tipple and gamble, and commit all kinds of wantonness and roguery, heedless of all the great and pitiful slaughters698 and defeats which our poor German soldiery have suffered.”[245] “And, because our German people are a wild and unruly race, half diabolical and half human, some even desire the advent699 and rule of the Turk.”[246]
So scathing700 a description of the German people leads us to enquire487 into his attitude to German nationalism.
5. Luther’s Nationalism and Patriotism
In spite of his outspoken701 criticism of their faults, Luther recognised and honoured the good qualities of the Germans. His denunciations at times were certainly rather severe: “We Germans,” he says, “remain Germans, i.e. pigs and brutes”;[247] and again, “We vile580 Germans are horrid702 swine”; “for the most part such shocking pigs are we hopeless Germans that neither modesty703, discipline nor reason is to be found in us”;[248] we are a “nation of barbarians704,” etc. Germans, according to him, abuse the gifts of God “worse than would hogs.”[249] He is fond of using such language when censuring705 the corruption of morals which had arisen owing to abuse and disregard of the Evangel which he preached. Even where he attempts to explain his manner of proceeding, where, for instance, he tries to justify the delay in forming[94] the “Assembly of true Christians,” he knows how to display to the worst advantage the unpleasing side of the German character. “We Germans are a wild, savage706, blustering707 people with whom it is not easy to do anything except in case of dire necessity.”[250]
By the side of such spiteful explosions must be set the many kindlier and not unmerited testimonies708 Luther gives to the good qualities peculiar to the nation.[251] In various passages, more particularly in his “Table-Talk,” he credits the Germans with perseverance709 and steadfastness710 in their undertakings711, also with industry, contentment and disinterestedness712; they had not indeed the grace of the Italians, nor the eloquence of the French, but they were more honest and straightforward713, and had more homely affection for their good old customs. He also believes that they had formerly been distinguished for great fidelity, “particularly in marriage,” though unfortunately this was no longer the case.[252]
Much more instructive than any such expressions of opinion, favourable or unfavourable, is the attitude Luther adopted towards the political questions which concerned the existence, the unity and the greatness of his country.
Here his religious standpoint induced him to take steps which a true German could only regret. We have already shown how the defence against the Turks was hampered by his action. He also appreciably714 degraded the Empire in the eyes of the Christian nations.[253] He not merely attacked[95] the authority of the Emperor and thereby715 the power which held together the Empire, by his criticism of the edicts of the Diets, by the spirit of discord and party feeling he aroused amongst those who shared his opinions, and by his unmeasured and incessant abuse of the authorities, but, as years went by, he also came even to approve, as we have seen above (p. 53 ff.), of armed resistance to the Emperor and the Empire as something lawful, nay, praiseworthy, if undertaken on behalf of the new Evangel.
“If it is lawful to defend ourselves against the Turk,” he writes, “then it is still more lawful to do so against the Pope, who is even worse. Since the Emperor has associated himself with the defenders716 of the Pope, he must expect to be treated as his wickedness deserves.” “Formerly I advised that we should yield to the Emperor [i.e. not undertake anything against him]; even now I still say that we should yield to these heathen tyrants when they—Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Emperor, etc.—cease to appeal to the name of Christ, but acknowledge themselves to be what they really are, viz. slaves of Satan; but if, in the name of Christ, they wish to stone Christians, then their stones will recoil717 on their own heads and they will incur191 the penalty attached to the Second Commandment.”[254]
He saw “no difference between an assassin and the Emperor,” should the latter proceed against his party—a course which, as a matter of fact, was imposed on the Emperor by the very laws of the Empire. How, he asks, “can a man sacrifice his body and this poor life in a higher and more praiseworthy cause” “than in such worship [resistance by violence] for the saving of God’s honour and the protection of poor Christendom, as David, Ezechias and other holy kings and princes did?”[255]
Countless examples from the Old Testament such as the above were always at his command for the purpose of illustrating718 his arguments.
In the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” in 1531,[96] he warns the Imperial power that God, “even though He Himself sit still, may well raise up a Judas Machabeus” should the Imperial forces have recourse to arms against the “Evangelicals”; their enemies would learn what their ancestors had learned in the war with Ziska and the Husites. Resistance to “bloodhounds” is, after all, mere self-defence. Whoever followed the Emperor against him and his party became guilty of all the Emperor’s own “godless abominations.” To instruct “his German people” on this matter was the object of the writing above referred to.[256]
“As I am the Prophet of the Germans—this high-sounding title I am obliged to assume to please my asinine719 Papists—I will act as a faithful teacher and warn my staunch Germans of the danger in which they stand.”[257]
By thus coming forward as the divinely commissioned spokesman of the Germans, as the representative and prophet of the nation, he implicitly720 denied to those who did not follow his banner the right of being styled Germans. He was fond of professing721, in his war on Pope and Church, to be the champion of the Germans against Rome’s oppression. This enabled him to stir up the national feeling amongst those who followed him as his allies, and to win over the vacillating by means of the delusive722 watchword: “Germany against Italian tyranny.” But, apart from the absolute want of justification for any such appeal to national prejudices, the assumption that Germany was wholly on his side was entirely wrong. He spoke merely in the name of a fraction of the German nation. To those who remained faithful to the Church and who, often at great costs to themselves, defended the heritage of their pious German forefathers723, it was a grievous insult that German nationalism should thus be identified with the new faith and Church.
Even at the present time in the German-speaking world Catholics stand to Protestants in the relation of two-fifths to three-fifths, and, if it would be a mistake to-day to regard Teutonism and Protestantism as synonymous—a mistake only to be met with where deepest prejudice prevails—still better founded were the complaints of Catholics in Luther’s own time, that he should identify the new Saxon doctrines[97] with the German name and the interests of Germany as a whole.[258]
Even in the first years of his public career he appealed to his readers’ patriotism as against Rome. In 1518, before he had even thought of his aggressive pamphlet “To the German Nobility,” he commended the German Princes for coming forward to protect the German people against the extortions of the Roman Curia; “Prierias, Cajetan and Co. call us blockheads, simpletons, beasts and barbarians, and scoff593 at the patience with which we allow ourselves to be deceived.”[259] In the following year, when this charge had already become one of his stock complaints, he summed it up thus: “We Germans, through our emperors, bestowed power and prestige on the Popes in olden days and, now, in return, we are forced to submit to being fleeced and plundered724.”[260] In the writing against Alveld, “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,” a year later, he declared in words calculated to excite the ire of every Teuton, that in Rome they were determined to suck the last farthing out of the “tipsy Germans,” as they termed them; unless Princes and nobles defended themselves to the utmost the Italians would make of Germany a wilderness725. “At Rome they even have a saying about us, viz. ‘We must milk the German fools of their cash the best way we can.’”[261]
That Luther should have conducted his attacks on the Papacy on these lines was due in part to Ulrich von Hutten’s influence. Theodore Kolde has rightly pointed out, that his acquaintance with Hutten’s writings largely accounts for the utter virulence726 of Luther’s assault on “Romanism.”[262] There is no doubt that the sparks of hate which emanated from this frivolous727 and revolutionary humanist contributed to kindle635 the somewhat peculiar patriotism of the Wittenberg[98] professor. All the good that Rome had brought to Germany in the shape of Christian culture was lost to sight in the whirlwind of revolt heralded728 by Hutten; the financial oppression exercised by the Curia, and the opposition between German and Italian, were grossly exaggerated by the knights.
Specifically German elements played, however, their part in Luther’s movement. The famous Gravamina Nationis Germanic? had been formulated729 before Luther began to exploit them. Another German element was the peculiar mysticism, viz. that of Tauler and the “Theologia Deutsch,” on which, though he misapprehended much of it, Luther at the outset based his theories. German frankness and love of freedom also appeared to find their utterance77 in the plain and vigorous denunciations which the Monk of Wittenberg addressed to high and low alike; even his uncouth730 boldness found a strong echo in the national character. And yet it was not so much “national fellow-feeling,”[263] to quote the expression of a Protestant author, which insured him such success, but other far more deeply seated causes, some of which will be touched upon later, while others have already been discussed.
It is, however, noteworthy that this “Prophet of the Germans,” when speaking to the nation he was so fond of calling his own, did not scruple to predict for it the gloomiest future.
A dark pessimism broods over Luther’s spirit almost constantly whenever he speaks of the years awaiting Germany; he sees the people, owing to his innovations, confronted with disastrous731 civil wars, split up into endless and perpetually increasing sects732 and thus brought face to face with hopeless moral degradation733. His cry is, Let the Empire dissolve, “Let Germany perish.” “Let the world fall into ruins.”[264] He consoles himself with the reflection that Christ, when founding His Church, had foreseen and sanctioned the inevitable destruction of all hostile powers, of Judaism and even of the Roman Empire. It was in the[99] nature of the Gospel to triumph by the destruction of all that withstood it. It was certainly a misfortune, Luther admits, that the wickedness of the Germans, every day growing worse, should be the cause of this ruin. “I am very hopeless about Germany now that she has harboured within her walls those real Turks and devils, viz. avarice734, usury735, tyranny, dissensions and this Lernean serpent of envy and malice which has entangled736 the nobles, the Court, every Rathaus, town and village, to say nothing of the contempt for the Divine Word and unprecedented737 ingratitude [towards the new Evangel].” This is how he wrote to Lauterbach.[265] Writing to Jonas, he declared: “No improvement need be looked for in Germany whether the realm be in the hands of the Turk or in our own, for the only aim of the nobility and Princes is how they can enslave Germany and suck the people dry and make everything their very own.”[266]
The lack of any real national feeling among the Princes was another element which caused him anxiety. Yet he himself had done as much as any to further the spread of that “particularism” which to a great extent had replaced the national German ideal; he had unduly738 exalted739 the rights of the petty sovereigns by giving them the spiritual privileges and property of the Church, and he had confirmed them in their efforts to render themselves entirely independent of the Emperor and to establish themselves as despots within their own territories. Since the unhappy war of 1525 the peasantry and lower classes were convinced that no remedy was to be found in religion for the amelioration of their social condition, and had come to hate both Luther and the lords, because they believed both to have been instrumental in increasing their burdens. The other classes, instead of thanking him for furthering the German cause, also complained of having had to suffer on his account. In this connection we may mention the[100] grievance741 of the mercantile community, Luther having deemed it necessary to denounce as morally dangerous any oversea trade.[267] It was also a grievous blow to education and learning in Germany, when, owing to the storm which Luther let loose, the Universities were condemned to a long period of enforced inactivity.[268] He himself professed742 that his particular mission was to awaken interest in the Bible, not to promote learning; yet Germans owe him small thanks for opposing as he did the discoveries of the famous German Canon of Frauenburg, Niklas Koppernigk (Copernicus), and for describing the founder of modern astronomy as a fool who wished to upset all the previous science of the heavens.[269]
Whilst showing himself ultra-conservative where good and useful progress in secular matters was concerned, he, on the other hand, scrupled743 not to sacrifice the real and vital interests of his nation in the question of public ecclesiastical conditions by his want of conservatism and his revolutionary innovations. True conservatism would have endeavoured to protect the German commonwealth and to preserve it from disaster by a strict guard over the good and tried elements on which it rested, more particularly over unchangeable dogma. The wilful744 destruction of the heritage, social, religious and learned, contributed to by countless generations of devout forebears ever since the time of St. Boniface, at the expense of untold toil745 and self-sacrifice, can certainly not be described as patriotic746 on the part of a German. At any rate, it can never have occurred to anyone seriously to expect that those Germans whose views on religion were not those of Luther should have taken his view of the duty of a patriot683.
The main fact remains that Luther’s action drove a wedge into the unity of the German nation. Wherever his spirit prevailed—which was by no means the case in every place which to some extent came under his influence—there also prevailed prejudice, suspicion and mistrust against all non-Lutherans, rendering difficult any co-operation for the welfare of the fatherland.
In discussing a recent work which extols747 Luther as a “true German” a learned Protestant gives it as his opinion, that, however much one may be inclined to exalt740 his patriotism,[101] it must, nevertheless, be allowed that Luther cherished a sort of indifference to the vital interests of his nation; his “religious concentration” made him less mindful of true patriotism; this our author excuses by the remark: “Justice and truth were more to him than home and people.” Luther, it is also said, “did not clearly point out the independent, ethical748 value of a national feeling, just as he omitted to insist at all clearly on the reaction of the ethical upon the religious.”[270]
On the other hand, however, his ways and feelings are often represented as the “very type and model of the true German.”[271] Nor is this view to be found among Protestants only, for Ignatius von D?llinger adopted it in later life, when he saw fit to abandon his previous position.
Before this, in 1851, in his Sketch749 of Luther, he had indeed said, concerning his patriotism, that, in his handling of the language and the use he made of the peculiarities750 of his countrymen, “he possessed a wonderful gift of charming his hearers, and that his power as a popular orator751 was based on an accurate knowledge and appreciation of the foibles of the German national character.”[272] In 1861, he wrote in another work: “Luther is the most powerful demagogue and the most popular character that Germany has ever possessed.” “From the mind of this man, the greatest German of his day, sprang the Protestant faith. Before the ascendency and creative energy of this mind, the more aspiring752 and vigorous portion of the nation humbly and trustfully bent557 the knee. In him, who so well united in himself intellect and force, they recognised their master; in his ideas they lived; to them he seemed the hero in whom the nation with all its peculiarities was embodied. They admired him, they surrendered themselves to him because they believed they had found in him their ideal, and because they found in his writings their own most intimate feelings, only expressed more clearly, more eloquently753 and more powerfully than they themselves were capable of doing. Thus Luther’s name is to Germany not merely that of a distinguished man, but the very embodiment of a pregnant period in national life, the centre of a new circle of ideas and the most concise expression of those religious and ethical views amidst which the German spirit moved, and the powerful influence of which not even those who were averse663 to them could altogether escape.”[273]
Here special stress is laid on Luther’s power over “the more[102] aspiring Germans” who followed him, i.e. over the Protestant portion of the nation. Elsewhere, however, in 1872, D?llinger brings under Luther’s irresistible754 spell “his time and his people,” i.e. the whole of Germany, quite regardless of the fact that the larger portion still remained Catholic. “Luther’s overpowering mind and extraordinary versatility made him the man of his time and of his people; there never was a German who understood his people so well, or who in turn was so thoroughly understood, yea, drunk in, by the people, as this Monk of Wittenberg. The mind and spirit of the German people were in his hands like a harp90 in the hands of the musician. For had he not bestowed upon them more than ever one man had given to his people since the dawn of Christianity? A new language, popular handbooks, a German Bible, and his hymns755. He alone impressed upon the German language and the German spirit alike his own imperishable seal, so that even those amongst us who abhor756 him from the bottom of our hearts as the mighty heresiarch who seduced the German nation cannot help speaking with his words and thinking with his thoughts. Yet, even more powerful than this Titan of the intellectual sphere, was the longing757 of the German nation for freedom from the bonds of a corrupt283 ecclesiasticism.”[274]
The change in D?llinger’s conception of Luther which is here apparent was not simply due to his personal antagonism to the Vatican Council; it is closely connected with his then efforts, proclaimed even in the very title of the Lectures in question: “Reunion of the Christian Churches”; for this reunion D?llinger hoped to be able to pave the way without the assistance of, and even in opposition to, the Roman Catholic Church. The fact is, however, that in the above passages the domination which Luther exercised over those who had fallen away with him has been made far too much of, otherwise how can we explain Luther’s own incessant complaints regarding the small response to the preaching of his new Evangel? The production of a schism by his vehement630 and forceful oratory758 was one thing; vigorous direction and leadership in the task of religious reconstruction was quite a different matter.
It is not our intention here to embark759 upon a controversy760[103] on such an opinion concerning Luther’s German influence as that here advanced by D?llinger. The present work will, in due course, treat of Luther’s posthumous761 influence on German culture and the German language, of his famous German Bible, and of his hymnological work (see vol. v., xxxiv., xxxv.), when we shall have occasion to show the true value to be accorded to such statements. As they stand, our last quotations from D?llinger merely constitute a part of the legend which grew up long since around the memory of the Wittenberg professor.
It must certainly be admitted, that Luther’s powerful language is grounded on a lively and clear comprehension of German ways of thought and German modes of expression; his command of language and his power for trenchant762 description, which were the result of his character, of his intercourse763 with the common people and his talent for noting their familiar ways of speech, were rare qualities. He left in his writings much that served as a model to later Germans. Of his translation of the Bible in particular we may say, with Janssen, that, although Luther cannot be termed the actual founder of the new High-German, yet “his deserts as regards the development of the German language are great,” especially in the matter of “syntax and style. In the last respect no one of any insight will wish to dispute the service which Luther rendered.” “The force and expression of the popular speech was hit off by Luther in a masterly manner in his Bible translations.”[275]
Those Germans, who had been won over to the new faith and had become Luther’s faithful followers, found in the instructions written in his own popular vein764, particularly in those on the Bible, enlightenment and edification, in many cases, no doubt, much to their advantage. Writing for the benefit of this circle, the versatile765 author, in his ethical works—his controversial ones are not here under consideration—deals with countless other subjects outside the range of biblical teaching; here his manner owes its power to the fact that he speaks in tones caught from the lips of the people themselves. Thus, for instance, when he discovers the blots766 which sully the nation: luxury in dress, the avarice of the rich, the “miserliness and hoarding” of the peasants. Or when he tells unpleasant truths to the “great[104] fops,” the nobles, concerning their despotic and arrogant767 behaviour. Or, again, when he raises his voice in condemnation of the neglect of education, or to reprove excessive drinking, or when, to mention a special case, he paints in lurid768 and amusing colours the slothfulness and utter carelessness of the Germans after having achieved any success in war against the Turks. His gift of humour always stood him in good stead, and his love of extravagant phraseology and imagery and of incisive769 rhetoric770 was of the greatest service to him in his dealings with the people, for both appealed strongly to German taste. Nor must we forget his proficiency771 in the effective application of German proverbs—a collection of proverbs in his own handwriting is still extant and has recently been published—nor his familiarity with German folk-lore and ballads772, nor finally the wonderful gift which served to tranquillise many who were still undecided and wavering, viz. the boundless773 assurance and unshakable confidence with which he could advance even the most novel and startling opinions. The Germans of that day loved weight and power, and a strong man could not fail to impress them, hence, for those who were not restrained by obedience to the Church, Luther undoubtedly774 seemed a real chip off the old German block.
A single passage, one against usurers, will serve to show with what energy this man of the people could raise his voice, to the joy of the many who groaned775 under the burden. “Ah, how securely the usurer lives and rages as though he himself were God and Lord of the whole land; no one dares to resist him. And now that I write against them these saintly usurers scoff at me and say: ‘Luther doesn’t know what usury is; let him read his Matthew and his Psalter.’ But I preach Christ and my word is the Word of God, and of this I am well assured, that you accursed usurers shall be taught either by the Turk or by some other tool of God’s wrath, that Luther really knew and understood what usury was. At any rate, my warning is worth a sterling776 gulden.”[276]
On the very same page he vents222 his anger against the supreme Imperial Court of Justice, because, “in matters pertaining to the Gospel and the Church,” its sentences did not accord with his. “I shan’t be a hypocrite, but shall speak the truth and say: See what a devil’s strumpet reigns338 in the Imperial Kammergericht, which ought to be a heavenly jewel in the German land, the one consolation of all who suffer injustice.”
[105]
Particularly effective was his incitement777 of the people to hate Popery. “We Germans must remain Germans and the Pope’s own donkeys and victims, even though we are brayed778 in the mortar779 like sodden780 barley781, as Solomon says (Prov. xxvii. 22); we stick fast in our folly782. No complaints, no instruction, no beseeching783, no imploring784, not even our own daily experience of how we have been fleeced and devoured785 opens our eyes.”[277]—“The Emperor and the Princes,” he had already said, “openly go about telling lies of us”;[278] “pigs and donkeys,” “mad and tipsy Princes,” such are the usual epithets786 with which he spices his language here and later.
“Out of deep sympathy for us poor Germans”[279] it is that he ventures to speak thus in the name of all.
[106]
He boldly holds up his Evangel as the German preaching par excellence. He declares: “I seek the welfare and salvation of you Germans.”[280]—“We Germans have heard the true Word of God for many years, by which means God, the Father of all Mercy, has enlightened us and called us from the horrible abominations of the Papal darkness and idolatry into His holy light and Kingdom. But with what gratitude313 and honesty we have accepted and practised it, it is terrible to contemplate787.”
Formerly, he says, we filled every corner with idolatries such as Masses, Veneration788 of the Saints, and good works, but now we persecute the dear Word, so that it would not be surprising should God flood Germany, not only with Turks, but with real devils; indeed, it is a wonder He has not done so already.[281]
However small the hope was of any improvement resulting from his preaching, he fomented789 the incipient790 schism by such words as these: “They [the Romans] have always abused our simplicity791 by their wantonness and tyranny; they call us mad Germans, who allow themselves to be hoaxed792 and made fools of.... We are supposed to have an Empire, but it is the Pope who has our possessions, honour, body, soul and everything else.... Thus the Pope feeds on the kernel793 and we nibble794 at the empty shells.”[282]
Finally, there are some who select certain traits of Luther’s character in order to represent him as the type of a true German. Such specifically German characteristics were certainly not lacking in Luther; it would be strange, indeed, were this not the case in a man of German stock, hailing from the lower class and who was always in close touch with his compatriots. Luther was inured795 to fatigue796, simple in his appearance and habits, persevering797 and enduring; in intercourse with his friends he was frank, hearty798 and unaffected; with them he was sympathetic, amiable799 and fond of a joke; he did not, however, shrink from telling them the truth even when thereby offence might be given; towards the Princes who were well-disposed to him and his party he behaved with an easy freedom of manner, not cringingly or with any exaggerated deference800. In a sense all these are German traits.[283] But many of these qualities,[107] albeit801 good in themselves, owing to his public controversy, assumed a very unpleasant character. His perseverance degenerated802 into obstinacy and defiance, his laborious803 endurance into a passionate123 activity which overtaxed his powers, and he became combative and quarrelsome and found his greatest pleasure in the discomfiture804 of his opponents; his frankness made way for the coarsest criticism. The anger against the Church which carried him along found expression in the worst sorts of insults, and, when his violence had aroused bitter feelings, he believed, or at least alleged, he was merely acting in the interests of uprightness and love of truth. Had he preserved his heritage of good German qualities, perfected them and devoted them to the service of a better cause, he might have become the acknowledged spokesman of all Germans everywhere. He could have branded vice237 and instilled805 into the hearts of his countrymen the love of virtue more strongly and effectively than even Geiler of Kaysersberg; in seasoned and effective satire806 on matters of morals he would[108] have far excelled Sebastian Brant and Thomas Murner; in depth of feeling and sympathetic expression he could have rivalled Bertold of Ratisbon, and his homely ways would have qualified him to enforce the Christian precepts807 amongst all the grades and conditions of German life even more effectively than any previous preacher.
点击收听单词发音
1 organisation | |
n.组织,安排,团体,有机休 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 radicalism | |
n. 急进主义, 根本的改革主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 confession | |
n.自白,供认,承认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 fore | |
adv.在前面;adj.先前的;在前部的;n.前部 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 reconstruction | |
n.重建,再现,复原 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 indirectly | |
adv.间接地,不直接了当地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 dire | |
adj.可怕的,悲惨的,阴惨的,极端的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 ward | |
n.守卫,监护,病房,行政区,由监护人或法院保护的人(尤指儿童);vt.守护,躲开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 distinctive | |
adj.特别的,有特色的,与众不同的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 par | |
n.标准,票面价值,平均数量;adj.票面的,平常的,标准的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 followers | |
追随者( follower的名词复数 ); 用户; 契据的附面; 从动件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 isolated | |
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 emancipation | |
n.(从束缚、支配下)解放 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 creeds | |
(尤指宗教)信条,教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 creed | |
n.信条;信念,纲领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 fanatics | |
狂热者,入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 breach | |
n.违反,不履行;破裂;vt.冲破,攻破 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 schism | |
n.分派,派系,分裂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 emphasise | |
vt.加强...的语气,强调,着重 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 resolute | |
adj.坚决的,果敢的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 vent | |
n.通风口,排放口;开衩;vt.表达,发泄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 tardy | |
adj.缓慢的,迟缓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 anarchy | |
n.无政府状态;社会秩序混乱,无秩序 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 discourses | |
论文( discourse的名词复数 ); 演说; 讲道; 话语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 degenerate | |
v.退步,堕落;adj.退步的,堕落的;n.堕落者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 mighty | |
adj.强有力的;巨大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 disintegration | |
n.分散,解体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 domain | |
n.(活动等)领域,范围;领地,势力范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 foes | |
敌人,仇敌( foe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 formerly | |
adv.从前,以前 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 scripture | |
n.经文,圣书,手稿;Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》,《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 glamour | |
n.魔力,魅力;vt.迷住 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 prudent | |
adj.谨慎的,有远见的,精打细算的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 den | |
n.兽穴;秘密地方;安静的小房间,私室 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 doctrines | |
n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 );教义;学说;(政府政策的)正式声明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 pastor | |
n.牧师,牧人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 pastors | |
n.(基督教的)牧师( pastor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 solitude | |
n. 孤独; 独居,荒僻之地,幽静的地方 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 loom | |
n.织布机,织机;v.隐现,(危险、忧虑等)迫近 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 disapproved | |
v.不赞成( disapprove的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 promising | |
adj.有希望的,有前途的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 seething | |
沸腾的,火热的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 contradictory | |
adj.反驳的,反对的,抗辩的;n.正反对,矛盾对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 discord | |
n.不和,意见不合,争论,(音乐)不和谐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 discordant | |
adj.不调和的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 dependence | |
n.依靠,依赖;信任,信赖;隶属 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 extravagant | |
adj.奢侈的;过分的;(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 opprobrious | |
adj.可耻的,辱骂的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 bestow | |
v.把…赠与,把…授予;花费 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 accentuate | |
v.着重,强调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 writ | |
n.命令状,书面命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 teem | |
vi.(with)充满,多产 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 negation | |
n.否定;否认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 dominant | |
adj.支配的,统治的;占优势的;显性的;n.主因,要素,主要的人(或物);显性基因 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 vouched | |
v.保证( vouch的过去式和过去分词 );担保;确定;确定地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 irrational | |
adj.无理性的,失去理性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 unreasonable | |
adj.不讲道理的,不合情理的,过度的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 err | |
vi.犯错误,出差错 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 adoption | |
n.采用,采纳,通过;收养 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 utterance | |
n.用言语表达,话语,言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 utterances | |
n.发声( utterance的名词复数 );说话方式;语调;言论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 concealed | |
a.隐藏的,隐蔽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 conceal | |
v.隐藏,隐瞒,隐蔽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 bishop | |
n.主教,(国际象棋)象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 dictate | |
v.口授;(使)听写;指令,指示,命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 syllable | |
n.音节;vt.分音节 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 whatsoever | |
adv.(用于否定句中以加强语气)任何;pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 overthrown | |
adj. 打翻的,推倒的,倾覆的 动词overthrow的过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 enact | |
vt.制定(法律);上演,扮演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 harp | |
n.竖琴;天琴座 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 devious | |
adj.不坦率的,狡猾的;迂回的,曲折的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 salvation | |
n.(尤指基督)救世,超度,拯救,解困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 arrogates | |
v.冒称,妄取( arrogate的第三人称单数 );没来由地把…归属(于) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 Founder | |
n.创始者,缔造者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 ecclesiastic | |
n.教士,基督教会;adj.神职者的,牧师的,教会的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 admonished | |
v.劝告( admonish的过去式和过去分词 );训诫;(温和地)责备;轻责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 compulsory | |
n.强制的,必修的;规定的,义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 rib | |
n.肋骨,肋状物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 deferring | |
v.拖延,延缓,推迟( defer的现在分词 );服从某人的意愿,遵从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 constraint | |
n.(on)约束,限制;限制(或约束)性的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 boisterous | |
adj.喧闹的,欢闹的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 tract | |
n.传单,小册子,大片(土地或森林) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 ordinances | |
n.条例,法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 professes | |
声称( profess的第三人称单数 ); 宣称; 公开表明; 信奉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 justifies | |
证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 ); 为…辩护; 对…作出解释; 为…辩解(或辩护) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 tinged | |
v.(使)发丁丁声( ting的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 repudiate | |
v.拒绝,拒付,拒绝履行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 variance | |
n.矛盾,不同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 interfering | |
adj. 妨碍的 动词interfere的现在分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 qualified | |
adj.合格的,有资格的,胜任的,有限制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 preservative | |
n.防腐剂;防腐料;保护料;预防药 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 layman | |
n.俗人,门外汉,凡人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 simultaneously | |
adv.同时发生地,同时进行地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 adherence | |
n.信奉,依附,坚持,固着 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 honourable | |
adj.可敬的;荣誉的,光荣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 passionate | |
adj.热情的,热烈的,激昂的,易动情的,易怒的,性情暴躁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 passionately | |
ad.热烈地,激烈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 depreciates | |
v.贬值,跌价,减价( depreciate的第三人称单数 );贬低,蔑视,轻视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 confide | |
v.向某人吐露秘密 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 embodied | |
v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 awaken | |
vi.醒,觉醒;vt.唤醒,使觉醒,唤起,激起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 awakening | |
n.觉醒,醒悟 adj.觉醒中的;唤醒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 attain | |
vt.达到,获得,完成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 attainment | |
n.达到,到达;[常pl.]成就,造诣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 subjective | |
a.主观(上)的,个人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 submission | |
n.服从,投降;温顺,谦虚;提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 affinity | |
n.亲和力,密切关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 relinquish | |
v.放弃,撤回,让与,放手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 relinquished | |
交出,让给( relinquish的过去式和过去分词 ); 放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 disintegrating | |
v.(使)破裂[分裂,粉碎],(使)崩溃( disintegrate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 appreciation | |
n.评价;欣赏;感谢;领会,理解;价格上涨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 knights | |
骑士; (中古时代的)武士( knight的名词复数 ); 骑士; 爵士; (国际象棋中)马 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 vow | |
n.誓(言),誓约;v.起誓,立誓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 ferment | |
vt.使发酵;n./vt.(使)激动,(使)动乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 rejection | |
n.拒绝,被拒,抛弃,被弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 tempted | |
v.怂恿(某人)干不正当的事;冒…的险(tempt的过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 tempt | |
vt.引诱,勾引,吸引,引起…的兴趣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 enumerate | |
v.列举,计算,枚举,数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 resolutely | |
adj.坚决地,果断地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 accurately | |
adv.准确地,精确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 interpretations | |
n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 );表演;演绎;理解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 testament | |
n.遗嘱;证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 consolation | |
n.安慰,慰问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 repel | |
v.击退,抵制,拒绝,排斥 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 depreciated | |
v.贬值,跌价,减价( depreciate的过去式和过去分词 );贬低,蔑视,轻视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 nun | |
n.修女,尼姑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 concisely | |
adv.简明地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 concise | |
adj.简洁的,简明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 assent | |
v.批准,认可;n.批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 hindrances | |
阻碍者( hindrance的名词复数 ); 障碍物; 受到妨碍的状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 hindrance | |
n.妨碍,障碍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 fidelity | |
n.忠诚,忠实;精确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 piety | |
n.虔诚,虔敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 torments | |
(肉体或精神上的)折磨,痛苦( torment的名词复数 ); 造成痛苦的事物[人] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 eternity | |
n.不朽,来世;永恒,无穷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 guardian | |
n.监护人;守卫者,保护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 bulwark | |
n.堡垒,保障,防御 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 scant | |
adj.不充分的,不足的;v.减缩,限制,忽略 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 repudiating | |
v.(正式地)否认( repudiate的现在分词 );拒绝接受;拒绝与…往来;拒不履行(法律义务) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 contrived | |
adj.不自然的,做作的;虚构的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 psychology | |
n.心理,心理学,心理状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 prominence | |
n.突出;显著;杰出;重要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 antagonism | |
n.对抗,敌对,对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 vivacity | |
n.快活,活泼,精神充沛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 rift | |
n.裂口,隙缝,切口;v.裂开,割开,渗入 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 incessant | |
adj.不停的,连续的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 vehemence | |
n.热切;激烈;愤怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 smother | |
vt./vi.使窒息;抑制;闷死;n.浓烟;窒息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 eloquence | |
n.雄辩;口才,修辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 herd | |
n.兽群,牧群;vt.使集中,把…赶在一起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 discrepancies | |
n.差异,不符合(之处),不一致(之处)( discrepancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 versatility | |
n.多才多艺,多样性,多功能 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 ambiguity | |
n.模棱两可;意义不明确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 coherence | |
n.紧凑;连贯;一致性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 melancholy | |
n.忧郁,愁思;adj.令人感伤(沮丧)的,忧郁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 incur | |
vt.招致,蒙受,遭遇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 incurable | |
adj.不能医治的,不能矫正的,无救的;n.不治的病人,无救的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 lurks | |
n.潜在,潜伏;(lurk的复数形式)vi.潜伏,埋伏(lurk的第三人称单数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 demon | |
n.魔鬼,恶魔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 defiance | |
n.挑战,挑衅,蔑视,违抗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 monk | |
n.和尚,僧侣,修道士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 obstinacy | |
n.顽固;(病痛等)难治 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 enchantment | |
n.迷惑,妖术,魅力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 rogue | |
n.流氓;v.游手好闲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 secular | |
n.牧师,凡人;adj.世俗的,现世的,不朽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 hierarchy | |
n.等级制度;统治集团,领导层 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 instinctively | |
adv.本能地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 covetous | |
adj.贪婪的,贪心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 fiery | |
adj.燃烧着的,火红的;暴躁的;激烈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 severely | |
adv.严格地;严厉地;非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 divers | |
adj.不同的;种种的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 disorders | |
n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 );凌乱;骚乱;(身心、机能)失调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 blasphemies | |
n.对上帝的亵渎,亵渎的言词[行为]( blasphemy的名词复数 );侮慢的言词(或行为) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 supervision | |
n.监督,管理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 pertaining | |
与…有关系的,附属…的,为…固有的(to) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 subversion | |
n.颠覆,破坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 awakened | |
v.(使)醒( awaken的过去式和过去分词 );(使)觉醒;弄醒;(使)意识到 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 undertaking | |
n.保证,许诺,事业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 clergy | |
n.[总称]牧师,神职人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 torrents | |
n.倾注;奔流( torrent的名词复数 );急流;爆发;连续不断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 futility | |
n.无用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 squires | |
n.地主,乡绅( squire的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 majesty | |
n.雄伟,壮丽,庄严,威严;最高权威,王权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 vindicate | |
v.为…辩护或辩解,辩明;证明…正确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 raving | |
adj.说胡话的;疯狂的,怒吼的;非常漂亮的;令人醉心[痴心]的v.胡言乱语(rave的现在分词)n.胡话;疯话adv.胡言乱语地;疯狂地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 vents | |
(气体、液体等进出的)孔、口( vent的名词复数 ); (鸟、鱼、爬行动物或小哺乳动物的)肛门; 大衣等的)衩口; 开衩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 pessimism | |
n.悲观者,悲观主义者,厌世者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 persuasion | |
n.劝说;说服;持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 solicitude | |
n.焦虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 superintendents | |
警长( superintendent的名词复数 ); (大楼的)管理人; 监管人; (美国)警察局长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 bishops | |
(基督教某些教派管辖大教区的)主教( bishop的名词复数 ); (国际象棋的)象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 laymen | |
门外汉,外行人( layman的名词复数 ); 普通教徒(有别于神职人员) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 derived | |
vi.起源;由来;衍生;导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 humbly | |
adv. 恭顺地,谦卑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 spires | |
n.(教堂的) 塔尖,尖顶( spire的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 proceeding | |
n.行动,进行,(pl.)会议录,学报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 obtruded | |
v.强行向前,强行,强迫( obtrude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 unity | |
n.团结,联合,统一;和睦,协调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 amenable | |
adj.经得起检验的;顺从的;对负有义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 vice | |
n.坏事;恶习;[pl.]台钳,老虎钳;adj.副的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 vices | |
缺陷( vice的名词复数 ); 恶习; 不道德行为; 台钳 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 persecute | |
vt.迫害,虐待;纠缠,骚扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 hogs | |
n.(尤指喂肥供食用的)猪( hog的名词复数 );(供食用的)阉公猪;彻底地做某事;自私的或贪婪的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 prate | |
v.瞎扯,胡说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 displeased | |
a.不快的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 malady | |
n.病,疾病(通常做比喻) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 missionary | |
adj.教会的,传教(士)的;n.传教士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 segregation | |
n.隔离,种族隔离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 prudently | |
adv. 谨慎地,慎重地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 abstained | |
v.戒(尤指酒),戒除( abstain的过去式和过去分词 );弃权(不投票) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 Vogue | |
n.时髦,时尚;adj.流行的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 electorate | |
n.全体选民;选区 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 gall | |
v.使烦恼,使焦躁,难堪;n.磨难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 confiscated | |
没收,充公( confiscate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 magistrates | |
地方法官,治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 nought | |
n./adj.无,零 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 phantom | |
n.幻影,虚位,幽灵;adj.错觉的,幻影的,幽灵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 engrossed | |
adj.全神贯注的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 heed | |
v.注意,留意;n.注意,留心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 hypocrisy | |
n.伪善,虚伪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 engendered | |
v.产生(某形势或状况),造成,引起( engender的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 secondly | |
adv.第二,其次 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 imminent | |
adj.即将发生的,临近的,逼近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 apathy | |
n.漠不关心,无动于衷;冷淡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 inviting | |
adj.诱人的,引人注目的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 grandeur | |
n.伟大,崇高,宏伟,庄严,豪华 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 subservience | |
n.有利,有益;从属(地位),附属性;屈从,恭顺;媚态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 appalling | |
adj.骇人听闻的,令人震惊的,可怕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 tithes | |
n.(宗教捐税)什一税,什一的教区税,小部分( tithe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 pious | |
adj.虔诚的;道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 nomination | |
n.提名,任命,提名权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 convening | |
召开( convene的现在分词 ); 召集; (为正式会议而)聚集; 集合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 elastic | |
n.橡皮圈,松紧带;adj.有弹性的;灵活的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 ministry | |
n.(政府的)部;牧师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 memorandum | |
n.备忘录,便笺 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 coercion | |
n.强制,高压统治 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 doomed | |
命定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 corrupt | |
v.贿赂,收买;adj.腐败的,贪污的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 corruption | |
n.腐败,堕落,贪污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 hesitation | |
n.犹豫,踌躇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 commentators | |
n.评论员( commentator的名词复数 );时事评论员;注释者;实况广播员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 blurred | |
v.(使)变模糊( blur的过去式和过去分词 );(使)难以区分;模模糊糊;迷离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 annoyance | |
n.恼怒,生气,烦恼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 mingle | |
vt.使混合,使相混;vi.混合起来;相交往 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 mingled | |
混合,混入( mingle的过去式和过去分词 ); 混进,与…交往[联系] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 exhort | |
v.规劝,告诫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 exhortations | |
n.敦促( exhortation的名词复数 );极力推荐;(正式的)演讲;(宗教仪式中的)劝诫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 exhortation | |
n.劝告,规劝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 tyrant | |
n.暴君,专制的君主,残暴的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 tyrants | |
专制统治者( tyrant的名词复数 ); 暴君似的人; (古希腊的)僭主; 严酷的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 defiantly | |
adv.挑战地,大胆对抗地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 defiant | |
adj.无礼的,挑战的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 supremacy | |
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 plentiful | |
adj.富裕的,丰富的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 quotations | |
n.引用( quotation的名词复数 );[商业]行情(报告);(货物或股票的)市价;时价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 disallowed | |
v.不承认(某事物)有效( disallow的过去式和过去分词 );不接受;不准;驳回 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 confiscation | |
n. 没收, 充公, 征收 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 imperatively | |
adv.命令式地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 plunder | |
vt.劫掠财物,掠夺;n.劫掠物,赃物;劫掠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 plundering | |
掠夺,抢劫( plunder的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 desolate | |
adj.荒凉的,荒芜的;孤独的,凄凉的;v.使荒芜,使孤寂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 repression | |
n.镇压,抑制,抑压 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 indifference | |
n.不感兴趣,不关心,冷淡,不在乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 prevailing | |
adj.盛行的;占优势的;主要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 ingratitude | |
n.忘恩负义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 gratitude | |
adj.感激,感谢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 distress | |
n.苦恼,痛苦,不舒适;不幸;vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 dominion | |
n.统治,管辖,支配权;领土,版图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 dominions | |
统治权( dominion的名词复数 ); 领土; 疆土; 版图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 insignificant | |
adj.无关紧要的,可忽略的,无意义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 appropriation | |
n.拨款,批准支出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 entailed | |
使…成为必要( entail的过去式和过去分词 ); 需要; 限定继承; 使必需 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 aggression | |
n.进攻,侵略,侵犯,侵害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 presumption | |
n.推测,可能性,冒昧,放肆,[法律]推定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 convene | |
v.集合,召集,召唤,聚集,集合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 wholesome | |
adj.适合;卫生的;有益健康的;显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 incentive | |
n.刺激;动力;鼓励;诱因;动机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 prospect | |
n.前景,前途;景色,视野 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 fabulous | |
adj.极好的;极为巨大的;寓言中的,传说中的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 patrimony | |
n.世袭财产,继承物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 monasteries | |
修道院( monastery的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 forsake | |
vt.遗弃,抛弃;舍弃,放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
331 Forsaken | |
adj. 被遗忘的, 被抛弃的 动词forsake的过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 countenancing | |
v.支持,赞同,批准( countenance的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 exchequer | |
n.财政部;国库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 dedicated | |
adj.一心一意的;献身的;热诚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 inadequately | |
ad.不够地;不够好地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 reigns | |
n.君主的统治( reign的名词复数 );君主统治时期;任期;当政期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
339 allotting | |
分配,拨给,摊派( allot的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
340 chamber | |
n.房间,寝室;会议厅;议院;会所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
341 privately | |
adv.以私人的身份,悄悄地,私下地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
342 redress | |
n.赔偿,救济,矫正;v.纠正,匡正,革除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
343 intrigues | |
n.密谋策划( intrigue的名词复数 );神秘气氛;引人入胜的复杂情节v.搞阴谋诡计( intrigue的第三人称单数 );激起…的好奇心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
344 fumes | |
n.(强烈而刺激的)气味,气体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
345 exult | |
v.狂喜,欢腾;欢欣鼓舞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
346 malice | |
n.恶意,怨恨,蓄意;[律]预谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
347 ambushes | |
n.埋伏( ambush的名词复数 );伏击;埋伏着的人;设埋伏点v.埋伏( ambush的第三人称单数 );埋伏着 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
348 thwart | |
v.阻挠,妨碍,反对;adj.横(断的) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
349 lust | |
n.性(淫)欲;渴(欲)望;vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
350 negligence | |
n.疏忽,玩忽,粗心大意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
351 presumptuously | |
adv.自以为是地,专横地,冒失地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
352 presumptuous | |
adj.胆大妄为的,放肆的,冒昧的,冒失的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
353 stranded | |
a.搁浅的,进退两难的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
354 mire | |
n.泥沼,泥泞;v.使...陷于泥泞,使...陷入困境 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
355 forestall | |
vt.抢在…之前采取行动;预先阻止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
356 codicil | |
n.遗嘱的附录 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
357 pitfalls | |
(捕猎野兽用的)陷阱( pitfall的名词复数 ); 意想不到的困难,易犯的错误 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
358 distressing | |
a.使人痛苦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
359 connivance | |
n.纵容;默许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
360 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
361 profane | |
adj.亵神的,亵渎的;vt.亵渎,玷污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
362 faculty | |
n.才能;学院,系;(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
363 valid | |
adj.有确实根据的;有效的;正当的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
364 precarious | |
adj.不安定的,靠不住的;根据不足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
365 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
366 abound | |
vi.大量存在;(in,with)充满,富于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
367 strife | |
n.争吵,冲突,倾轧,竞争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
368 expedients | |
n.应急有效的,权宜之计的( expedient的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
369 paternal | |
adj.父亲的,像父亲的,父系的,父方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
370 ordain | |
vi.颁发命令;vt.命令,授以圣职,注定,任命 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
371 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
372 incensed | |
盛怒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
373 condemnation | |
n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
374 condemn | |
vt.谴责,指责;宣判(罪犯),判刑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
375 ratification | |
n.批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
376 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
377 invalid | |
n.病人,伤残人;adj.有病的,伤残的;无效的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
378 nuns | |
n.(通常指基督教的)修女, (佛教的)尼姑( nun的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
379 reprobation | |
n.斥责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
380 solace | |
n.安慰;v.使快乐;vt.安慰(物),缓和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
381 delightful | |
adj.令人高兴的,使人快乐的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
382 wedded | |
adj.正式结婚的;渴望…的,执著于…的v.嫁,娶,(与…)结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
383 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
384 illuminate | |
vt.照亮,照明;用灯光装饰;说明,阐释 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
385 antiquity | |
n.古老;高龄;古物,古迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
386 expound | |
v.详述;解释;阐述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
387 legitimacy | |
n.合法,正当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
388 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
389 notary | |
n.公证人,公证员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
390 entrusted | |
v.委托,托付( entrust的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
391 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
392 shameful | |
adj.可耻的,不道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
393 artifice | |
n.妙计,高明的手段;狡诈,诡计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
394 expounds | |
论述,详细讲解( expound的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
395 conceals | |
v.隐藏,隐瞒,遮住( conceal的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
396 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
397 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
398 fortress | |
n.堡垒,防御工事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
399 slaughtered | |
v.屠杀,杀戮,屠宰( slaughter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
400 estrange | |
v.使疏远,离间,使离开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
401 disturbance | |
n.动乱,骚动;打扰,干扰;(身心)失调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
402 preponderate | |
v.数目超过;占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
403 dread | |
vt.担忧,忧虑;惧怕,不敢;n.担忧,畏惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
404 dreaded | |
adj.令人畏惧的;害怕的v.害怕,恐惧,担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
405 humility | |
n.谦逊,谦恭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
406 intervention | |
n.介入,干涉,干预 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
407 breaches | |
破坏( breach的名词复数 ); 破裂; 缺口; 违背 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
408 alas | |
int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
409 chastise | |
vt.责骂,严惩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
410 calamity | |
n.灾害,祸患,不幸事件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
411 engulf | |
vt.吞没,吞食 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
412 relentlessly | |
adv.不屈不挠地;残酷地;不间断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
413 nethermost | |
adj.最下面的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
414 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
415 wrecked | |
adj.失事的,遇难的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
416 uprooted | |
v.把(某物)连根拔起( uproot的过去式和过去分词 );根除;赶走;把…赶出家园 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
417 seduced | |
诱奸( seduce的过去式和过去分词 ); 勾引; 诱使堕落; 使入迷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
418 corrupted | |
(使)败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 ); (使)腐化; 引起(计算机文件等的)错误; 破坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
419 blasphemy | |
n.亵渎,渎神 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
420 laity | |
n.俗人;门外汉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
421 abominable | |
adj.可厌的,令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
422 untold | |
adj.数不清的,无数的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
423 mischief | |
n.损害,伤害,危害;恶作剧,捣蛋,胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
424 exterminate | |
v.扑灭,消灭,根绝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
425 exterminated | |
v.消灭,根绝( exterminate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
426 devastation | |
n.毁坏;荒废;极度震惊或悲伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
427 extenuation | |
n.减轻罪孽的借口;酌情减轻;细 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
428 vividly | |
adv.清楚地,鲜明地,生动地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
429 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
430 errs | |
犯错误,做错事( err的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
431 memoranda | |
n. 备忘录, 便条 名词memorandum的复数形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
432 negotiation | |
n.谈判,协商 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
433 conspiracy | |
n.阴谋,密谋,共谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
434 apprehension | |
n.理解,领悟;逮捕,拘捕;忧虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
435 precipitate | |
adj.突如其来的;vt.使突然发生;n.沉淀物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
436 hostilities | |
n.战争;敌意(hostility的复数);敌对状态;战事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
437 hampered | |
妨碍,束缚,限制( hamper的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
438 scruple | |
n./v.顾忌,迟疑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
439 scruples | |
n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 );顾虑,顾忌v.感到于心不安,有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
440 exemption | |
n.豁免,免税额,免除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
441 lawfulness | |
法制,合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
442 repelling | |
v.击退( repel的现在分词 );使厌恶;排斥;推开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
443 omission | |
n.省略,删节;遗漏或省略的事物,冗长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
444 adviser | |
n.劝告者,顾问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
445 advisers | |
顾问,劝告者( adviser的名词复数 ); (指导大学新生学科问题等的)指导教授 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
446 candidly | |
adv.坦率地,直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
447 prospects | |
n.希望,前途(恒为复数) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
448 tumult | |
n.喧哗;激动,混乱;吵闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
449 misery | |
n.痛苦,苦恼,苦难;悲惨的境遇,贫苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
450 deposing | |
v.罢免( depose的现在分词 );(在法庭上)宣誓作证 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
451 culminates | |
v.达到极点( culminate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
452 martyr | |
n.烈士,殉难者;vt.杀害,折磨,牺牲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
453 vocation | |
n.职业,行业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
454 imbibed | |
v.吸收( imbibe的过去式和过去分词 );喝;吸取;吸气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
455 guardians | |
监护人( guardian的名词复数 ); 保护者,维护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
456 retaliation | |
n.报复,反击 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
457 chancellor | |
n.(英)大臣;法官;(德、奥)总理;大学校长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
458 restitution | |
n.赔偿;恢复原状 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
459 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
460 grandiloquent | |
adj.夸张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
461 shipwreck | |
n.船舶失事,海难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
462 devout | |
adj.虔诚的,虔敬的,衷心的 (n.devoutness) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
463 avow | |
v.承认,公开宣称 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
464 negotiations | |
协商( negotiation的名词复数 ); 谈判; 完成(难事); 通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
465 protracted | |
adj.拖延的;延长的v.拖延“protract”的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
466 tiresome | |
adj.令人疲劳的,令人厌倦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
467 admonishing | |
v.劝告( admonish的现在分词 );训诫;(温和地)责备;轻责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
468 diabolical | |
adj.恶魔似的,凶暴的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
469 tracts | |
大片土地( tract的名词复数 ); 地带; (体内的)道; (尤指宣扬宗教、伦理或政治的)短文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
470 unwilling | |
adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
471 compliance | |
n.顺从;服从;附和;屈从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
472 loath | |
adj.不愿意的;勉强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
473 canonical | |
n.权威的;典型的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
474 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
475 embarrassment | |
n.尴尬;使人为难的人(事物);障碍;窘迫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
476 subterfuge | |
n.诡计;藉口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
477 unaware | |
a.不知道的,未意识到的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
478 diligently | |
ad.industriously;carefully | |
参考例句: |
|
|
479 subservient | |
adj.卑屈的,阿谀的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
480 defensive | |
adj.防御的;防卫的;防守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
481 envoys | |
使节( envoy的名词复数 ); 公使; 谈判代表; 使节身份 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
482 expediency | |
n.适宜;方便;合算;利己 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
483 courageous | |
adj.勇敢的,有胆量的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
484 avert | |
v.防止,避免;转移(目光、注意力等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
485 dissimulation | |
n.掩饰,虚伪,装糊涂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
486 vacillation | |
n.动摇;忧柔寡断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
487 enquire | |
v.打听,询问;调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
488 enquired | |
打听( enquire的过去式和过去分词 ); 询问; 问问题; 查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
489 permissibility | |
允许,容许性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
490 belligerent | |
adj.好战的,挑起战争的;n.交战国,交战者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
491 permissible | |
adj.可允许的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
492 transgressing | |
v.超越( transgress的现在分词 );越过;违反;违背 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
493 disclaimed | |
v.否认( disclaim的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
494 retracted | |
v.撤回或撤消( retract的过去式和过去分词 );拒绝执行或遵守;缩回;拉回 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
495 renounced | |
v.声明放弃( renounce的过去式和过去分词 );宣布放弃;宣布与…决裂;宣布摒弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
496 supersedes | |
取代,接替( supersede的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
497 censured | |
v.指责,非难,谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
498 covenant | |
n.盟约,契约;v.订盟约 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
499 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
500 insufficient | |
adj.(for,of)不足的,不够的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
501 zealous | |
adj.狂热的,热心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
502 confidentially | |
ad.秘密地,悄悄地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
503 relish | |
n.滋味,享受,爱好,调味品;vt.加调味料,享受,品味;vi.有滋味 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
504 monastery | |
n.修道院,僧院,寺院 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
505 persecutor | |
n. 迫害者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
506 ravening | |
a.贪婪而饥饿的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
507 heresies | |
n.异端邪说,异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
508 bogey | |
n.令人谈之变色之物;妖怪,幽灵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
509 reverence | |
n.敬畏,尊敬,尊严;Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称;v.尊敬,敬畏,崇敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
510 sophistries | |
n.诡辩术( sophistry的名词复数 );(一次)诡辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
511 subscribed | |
v.捐助( subscribe的过去式和过去分词 );签署,题词;订阅;同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
512 affixed | |
adj.[医]附着的,附着的v.附加( affix的过去式和过去分词 );粘贴;加以;盖(印章) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
513 initiated | |
n. 创始人 adj. 新加入的 vt. 开始,创始,启蒙,介绍加入 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
514 coalition | |
n.结合体,同盟,结合,联合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
515 consummated | |
v.使结束( consummate的过去式和过去分词 );使完美;完婚;(婚礼后的)圆房 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
516 pretext | |
n.借口,托词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
517 anvil | |
n.铁钻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
518 miseries | |
n.痛苦( misery的名词复数 );痛苦的事;穷困;常发牢骚的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
519 contented | |
adj.满意的,安心的,知足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
520 jealousy | |
n.妒忌,嫉妒,猜忌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
521 eminent | |
adj.显赫的,杰出的,有名的,优良的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
522 extol | |
v.赞美,颂扬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
523 jointly | |
ad.联合地,共同地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
524 concessions | |
n.(尤指由政府或雇主给予的)特许权( concession的名词复数 );承认;减价;(在某地的)特许经营权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
525 acquiesce | |
vi.默许,顺从,同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
526 collapse | |
vi.累倒;昏倒;倒塌;塌陷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
527 scourge | |
n.灾难,祸害;v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
528 subjugate | |
v.征服;抑制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
529 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
530 apprehensions | |
疑惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
531 allied | |
adj.协约国的;同盟国的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
532 commonwealth | |
n.共和国,联邦,共同体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
533 conqueror | |
n.征服者,胜利者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
534 impending | |
a.imminent, about to come or happen | |
参考例句: |
|
|
535 dispelled | |
v.驱散,赶跑( dispel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
536 prophesy | |
v.预言;预示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
537 wrangle | |
vi.争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
538 revert | |
v.恢复,复归,回到 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
539 disapproval | |
n.反对,不赞成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
540 exhorting | |
v.劝告,劝说( exhort的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
541 custody | |
n.监护,照看,羁押,拘留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
542 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
543 guise | |
n.外表,伪装的姿态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
544 beget | |
v.引起;产生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
545 slay | |
v.杀死,宰杀,杀戮 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
546 nil | |
n.无,全无,零 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
547 monarch | |
n.帝王,君主,最高统治者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
548 vassal | |
n.附庸的;属下;adj.奴仆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
549 cardinal | |
n.(天主教的)红衣主教;adj.首要的,基本的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
550 wrath | |
n.愤怒,愤慨,暴怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
551 cardinals | |
红衣主教( cardinal的名词复数 ); 红衣凤头鸟(见于北美,雄鸟为鲜红色); 基数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
552 traitors | |
卖国贼( traitor的名词复数 ); 叛徒; 背叛者; 背信弃义的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
553 incarnate | |
adj.化身的,人体化的,肉色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
554 discretion | |
n.谨慎;随意处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
555 contingent | |
adj.视条件而定的;n.一组,代表团,分遣队 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
556 incumbent | |
adj.成为责任的,有义务的;现任的,在职的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
557 bent | |
n.爱好,癖好;adj.弯的;决心的,一心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
558 contention | |
n.争论,争辩,论战;论点,主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
559 exterminating | |
v.消灭,根绝( exterminate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
560 apprehensive | |
adj.担心的,恐惧的,善于领会的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
561 subversive | |
adj.颠覆性的,破坏性的;n.破坏份子,危险份子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
562 apostasy | |
n.背教,脱党 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
563 darts | |
n.掷飞镖游戏;飞镖( dart的名词复数 );急驰,飞奔v.投掷,投射( dart的第三人称单数 );向前冲,飞奔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
564 subtlety | |
n.微妙,敏锐,精巧;微妙之处,细微的区别 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
565 growl | |
v.(狗等)嗥叫,(炮等)轰鸣;n.嗥叫,轰鸣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
566 disquiet | |
n.担心,焦虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
567 tangle | |
n.纠缠;缠结;混乱;v.(使)缠绕;变乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
568 evasions | |
逃避( evasion的名词复数 ); 回避; 遁辞; 借口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
569 authenticity | |
n.真实性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
570 relegated | |
v.使降级( relegate的过去式和过去分词 );使降职;转移;把…归类 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
571 emanated | |
v.从…处传出,传出( emanate的过去式和过去分词 );产生,表现,显示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
572 repudiated | |
v.(正式地)否认( repudiate的过去式和过去分词 );拒绝接受;拒绝与…往来;拒不履行(法律义务) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
573 repudiation | |
n.拒绝;否认;断绝关系;抛弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
574 wont | |
adj.习惯于;v.习惯;n.习惯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
575 consistency | |
n.一贯性,前后一致,稳定性;(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
576 intervals | |
n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 );间隔时间;[数学]区间;(戏剧、电影或音乐会的)幕间休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
577 divergence | |
n.分歧,岔开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
578 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
579 relinquishing | |
交出,让给( relinquish的现在分词 ); 放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
580 vile | |
adj.卑鄙的,可耻的,邪恶的;坏透的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
581 garb | |
n.服装,装束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
582 combative | |
adj.好战的;好斗的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
583 misgivings | |
n.疑虑,担忧,害怕;疑虑,担心,恐惧( misgiving的名词复数 );疑惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
584 countless | |
adj.无数的,多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
585 hordes | |
n.移动着的一大群( horde的名词复数 );部落 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
586 renewal | |
adj.(契约)延期,续订,更新,复活,重来 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
587 obstinately | |
ad.固执地,顽固地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
588 obstinate | |
adj.顽固的,倔强的,不易屈服的,较难治愈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
589 lengthy | |
adj.漫长的,冗长的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
590 miserable | |
adj.悲惨的,痛苦的;可怜的,糟糕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
591 insolence | |
n.傲慢;无礼;厚颜;傲慢的态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
592 perishable | |
adj.(尤指食物)易腐的,易坏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
593 scoff | |
n.嘲笑,笑柄,愚弄;v.嘲笑,嘲弄,愚弄,狼吞虎咽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
594 scoffs | |
嘲笑,嘲弄( scoff的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
595 defender | |
n.保卫者,拥护者,辩护人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
596 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
597 propitiated | |
v.劝解,抚慰,使息怒( propitiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
598 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
599 antipathy | |
n.憎恶;反感,引起反感的人或事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
600 frankly | |
adv.坦白地,直率地;坦率地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
601 monks | |
n.修道士,僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
602 smites | |
v.猛打,重击,打击( smite的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
603 insignificance | |
n.不重要;无价值;无意义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
604 slays | |
杀死,宰杀,杀戮( slay的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
605 instigator | |
n.煽动者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
606 reluctance | |
n.厌恶,讨厌,勉强,不情愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
607 exculpate | |
v.开脱,使无罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
608 wield | |
vt.行使,运用,支配;挥,使用(武器等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
609 exculpating | |
v.开脱,使无罪( exculpate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
610 calumnies | |
n.诬蔑,诽谤,中伤(的话)( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
611 evacuate | |
v.遣送;搬空;抽出;排泄;大(小)便 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
612 heroism | |
n.大无畏精神,英勇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
613 penetrated | |
adj. 击穿的,鞭辟入里的 动词penetrate的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
614 scourges | |
带来灾难的人或东西,祸害( scourge的名词复数 ); 鞭子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
615 prone | |
adj.(to)易于…的,很可能…的;俯卧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
616 warfare | |
n.战争(状态);斗争;冲突 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
617 tipple | |
n.常喝的酒;v.不断喝,饮烈酒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
618 repulsed | |
v.击退( repulse的过去式和过去分词 );驳斥;拒绝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
619 homely | |
adj.家常的,简朴的;不漂亮的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
620 exhorted | |
v.劝告,劝说( exhort的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
621 maidens | |
处女( maiden的名词复数 ); 少女; 未婚女子; (板球运动)未得分的一轮投球 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
622 captivity | |
n.囚禁;被俘;束缚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
623 marvelled | |
v.惊奇,对…感到惊奇( marvel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
624 audacity | |
n.大胆,卤莽,无礼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
625 chastisement | |
n.惩罚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
626 remissness | |
n.玩忽职守;马虎;怠慢;不小心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
627 heresy | |
n.异端邪说;异教 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
628 civilisation | |
n.文明,文化,开化,教化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
629 repels | |
v.击退( repel的第三人称单数 );使厌恶;排斥;推开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
630 vehement | |
adj.感情强烈的;热烈的;(人)有强烈感情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
631 vehemently | |
adv. 热烈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
632 descried | |
adj.被注意到的,被发现的,被看到的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
633 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
634 kindled | |
(使某物)燃烧,着火( kindle的过去式和过去分词 ); 激起(感情等); 发亮,放光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
635 kindle | |
v.点燃,着火 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
636 confided | |
v.吐露(秘密,心事等)( confide的过去式和过去分词 );(向某人)吐露(隐私、秘密等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
637 polemics | |
n.辩论术,辩论法;争论( polemic的名词复数 );辩论;辩论术;辩论法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
638 excellence | |
n.优秀,杰出,(pl.)优点,美德 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
639 harping | |
n.反复述说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
640 portended | |
v.预示( portend的过去式和过去分词 );预兆;给…以警告;预告 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
641 valiant | |
adj.勇敢的,英勇的;n.勇士,勇敢的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
642 peril | |
n.(严重的)危险;危险的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
643 abrogated | |
废除(法律等)( abrogate的过去式和过去分词 ); 取消; 去掉; 抛开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
644 incited | |
刺激,激励,煽动( incite的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
645 Amended | |
adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
646 molest | |
vt.骚扰,干扰,调戏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
647 implore | |
vt.乞求,恳求,哀求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
648 rebuke | |
v.指责,非难,斥责 [反]praise | |
参考例句: |
|
|
649 entangling | |
v.使某人(某物/自己)缠绕,纠缠于(某物中),使某人(自己)陷入(困难或复杂的环境中)( entangle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
650 banish | |
vt.放逐,驱逐;消除,排除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
651 enquirer | |
寻问者,追究者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
652 enactment | |
n.演出,担任…角色;制订,通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
653 rescinded | |
v.废除,取消( rescind的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
654 astute | |
adj.机敏的,精明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
655 avenge | |
v.为...复仇,为...报仇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
656 frightful | |
adj.可怕的;讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
657 rumours | |
n.传闻( rumour的名词复数 );风闻;谣言;谣传 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
658 rumour | |
n.谣言,谣传,传闻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
659 disquieting | |
adj.令人不安的,令人不平静的v.使不安,使忧虑,使烦恼( disquiet的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
660 persecution | |
n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
661 woes | |
困境( woe的名词复数 ); 悲伤; 我好苦哇; 某人就要倒霉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
662 foretells | |
v.预言,预示( foretell的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
663 averse | |
adj.厌恶的;反对的,不乐意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
664 plight | |
n.困境,境况,誓约,艰难;vt.宣誓,保证,约定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
665 morbid | |
adj.病的;致病的;病态的;可怕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
666 wrought | |
v.引起;以…原料制作;运转;adj.制造的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
667 foretold | |
v.预言,预示( foretell的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
668 reigned | |
vi.当政,统治(reign的过去式形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
669 unanimity | |
n.全体一致,一致同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
670 jealousies | |
n.妒忌( jealousy的名词复数 );妒羡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
671 outweighed | |
v.在重量上超过( outweigh的过去式和过去分词 );在重要性或价值方面超过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
672 stipulated | |
vt.& vi.规定;约定adj.[法]合同规定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
673 armistice | |
n.休战,停战协定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
674 miserably | |
adv.痛苦地;悲惨地;糟糕地;极度地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
675 jaws | |
n.口部;嘴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
676 victorious | |
adj.胜利的,得胜的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
677 succumb | |
v.屈服,屈从;死 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
678 deterring | |
v.阻止,制止( deter的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
679 alludes | |
提及,暗指( allude的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
680 wary | |
adj.谨慎的,机警的,小心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
681 adversaries | |
n.对手,敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
682 vanquish | |
v.征服,战胜;克服;抑制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
683 patriot | |
n.爱国者,爱国主义者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
684 patriotism | |
n.爱国精神,爱国心,爱国主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
685 interspersed | |
adj.[医]散开的;点缀的v.intersperse的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
686 rendering | |
n.表现,描写 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
687 hatred | |
n.憎恶,憎恨,仇恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
688 dispersed | |
adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
689 consternation | |
n.大为吃惊,惊骇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
690 abode | |
n.住处,住所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
691 fervent | |
adj.热的,热烈的,热情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
692 ousted | |
驱逐( oust的过去式和过去分词 ); 革职; 罢黜; 剥夺 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
693 allured | |
诱引,吸引( allure的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
694 monarchy | |
n.君主,最高统治者;君主政体,君主国 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
695 arrogated | |
v.冒称,妄取( arrogate的过去式和过去分词 );没来由地把…归属(于) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
696 factious | |
adj.好搞宗派活动的,派系的,好争论的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
697 gorge | |
n.咽喉,胃,暴食,山峡;v.塞饱,狼吞虎咽地吃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
698 slaughters | |
v.屠杀,杀戮,屠宰( slaughter的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
699 advent | |
n.(重要事件等的)到来,来临 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
700 scathing | |
adj.(言词、文章)严厉的,尖刻的;不留情的adv.严厉地,尖刻地v.伤害,损害(尤指使之枯萎)( scathe的现在分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
701 outspoken | |
adj.直言无讳的,坦率的,坦白无隐的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
702 horrid | |
adj.可怕的;令人惊恐的;恐怖的;极讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
703 modesty | |
n.谦逊,虚心,端庄,稳重,羞怯,朴素 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
704 barbarians | |
n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 );外国人;粗野的人;无教养的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
705 censuring | |
v.指责,非难,谴责( censure的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
706 savage | |
adj.野蛮的;凶恶的,残暴的;n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
707 blustering | |
adj.狂风大作的,狂暴的v.外强中干的威吓( bluster的现在分词 );咆哮;(风)呼啸;狂吹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
708 testimonies | |
(法庭上证人的)证词( testimony的名词复数 ); 证明,证据 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
709 perseverance | |
n.坚持不懈,不屈不挠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
710 steadfastness | |
n.坚定,稳当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
711 undertakings | |
企业( undertaking的名词复数 ); 保证; 殡仪业; 任务 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
712 disinterestedness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
713 straightforward | |
adj.正直的,坦率的;易懂的,简单的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
714 appreciably | |
adv.相当大地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
715 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
716 defenders | |
n.防御者( defender的名词复数 );守卫者;保护者;辩护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
717 recoil | |
vi.退却,退缩,畏缩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
718 illustrating | |
给…加插图( illustrate的现在分词 ); 说明; 表明; (用示例、图画等)说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
719 asinine | |
adj.愚蠢的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
720 implicitly | |
adv. 含蓄地, 暗中地, 毫不保留地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
721 professing | |
声称( profess的现在分词 ); 宣称; 公开表明; 信奉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
722 delusive | |
adj.欺骗的,妄想的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
723 forefathers | |
n.祖先,先人;祖先,祖宗( forefather的名词复数 );列祖列宗;前人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
724 plundered | |
掠夺,抢劫( plunder的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
725 wilderness | |
n.杳无人烟的一片陆地、水等,荒漠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
726 virulence | |
n.毒力,毒性;病毒性;致病力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
727 frivolous | |
adj.轻薄的;轻率的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
728 heralded | |
v.预示( herald的过去式和过去分词 );宣布(好或重要) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
729 formulated | |
v.构想出( formulate的过去式和过去分词 );规划;确切地阐述;用公式表示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
730 uncouth | |
adj.无教养的,粗鲁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
731 disastrous | |
adj.灾难性的,造成灾害的;极坏的,很糟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
732 sects | |
n.宗派,教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
733 degradation | |
n.降级;低落;退化;陵削;降解;衰变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
734 avarice | |
n.贪婪;贪心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
735 usury | |
n.高利贷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
736 entangled | |
adj.卷入的;陷入的;被缠住的;缠在一起的v.使某人(某物/自己)缠绕,纠缠于(某物中),使某人(自己)陷入(困难或复杂的环境中)( entangle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
737 unprecedented | |
adj.无前例的,新奇的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
738 unduly | |
adv.过度地,不适当地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
739 exalted | |
adj.(地位等)高的,崇高的;尊贵的,高尚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
740 exalt | |
v.赞扬,歌颂,晋升,提升 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
741 grievance | |
n.怨愤,气恼,委屈 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
742 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
743 scrupled | |
v.感到于心不安,有顾忌( scruple的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
744 wilful | |
adj.任性的,故意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
745 toil | |
vi.辛劳工作,艰难地行动;n.苦工,难事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
746 patriotic | |
adj.爱国的,有爱国心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
747 extols | |
v.赞颂,赞扬,赞美( extol的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
748 ethical | |
adj.伦理的,道德的,合乎道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
749 sketch | |
n.草图;梗概;素描;v.素描;概述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
750 peculiarities | |
n. 特质, 特性, 怪癖, 古怪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
751 orator | |
n.演说者,演讲者,雄辩家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
752 aspiring | |
adj.有志气的;有抱负的;高耸的v.渴望;追求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
753 eloquently | |
adv. 雄辩地(有口才地, 富于表情地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
754 irresistible | |
adj.非常诱人的,无法拒绝的,无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
755 hymns | |
n.赞美诗,圣歌,颂歌( hymn的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
756 abhor | |
v.憎恶;痛恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
757 longing | |
n.(for)渴望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
758 oratory | |
n.演讲术;词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
759 embark | |
vi.乘船,着手,从事,上飞机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
760 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
761 posthumous | |
adj.遗腹的;父亡后出生的;死后的,身后的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
762 trenchant | |
adj.尖刻的,清晰的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
763 intercourse | |
n.性交;交流,交往,交际 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
764 vein | |
n.血管,静脉;叶脉,纹理;情绪;vt.使成脉络 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
765 versatile | |
adj.通用的,万用的;多才多艺的,多方面的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
766 blots | |
污渍( blot的名词复数 ); 墨水渍; 错事; 污点 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
767 arrogant | |
adj.傲慢的,自大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
768 lurid | |
adj.可怕的;血红的;苍白的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
769 incisive | |
adj.敏锐的,机敏的,锋利的,切入的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
770 rhetoric | |
n.修辞学,浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
771 proficiency | |
n.精通,熟练,精练 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
772 ballads | |
民歌,民谣,特别指叙述故事的歌( ballad的名词复数 ); 讴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
773 boundless | |
adj.无限的;无边无际的;巨大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
774 undoubtedly | |
adv.确实地,无疑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
775 groaned | |
v.呻吟( groan的过去式和过去分词 );发牢骚;抱怨;受苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
776 sterling | |
adj.英币的(纯粹的,货真价实的);n.英国货币(英镑) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
777 incitement | |
激励; 刺激; 煽动; 激励物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
778 brayed | |
v.发出驴叫似的声音( bray的过去式和过去分词 );发嘟嘟声;粗声粗气地讲话(或大笑);猛击 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
779 mortar | |
n.灰浆,灰泥;迫击炮;v.把…用灰浆涂接合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
780 sodden | |
adj.浑身湿透的;v.使浸透;使呆头呆脑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
781 barley | |
n.大麦,大麦粒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
782 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
783 beseeching | |
adj.恳求似的v.恳求,乞求(某事物)( beseech的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
784 imploring | |
恳求的,哀求的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
785 devoured | |
吞没( devour的过去式和过去分词 ); 耗尽; 津津有味地看; 狼吞虎咽地吃光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
786 epithets | |
n.(表示性质、特征等的)词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
787 contemplate | |
vt.盘算,计议;周密考虑;注视,凝视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
788 veneration | |
n.尊敬,崇拜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
789 fomented | |
v.激起,煽动(麻烦等)( foment的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
790 incipient | |
adj.起初的,发端的,初期的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
791 simplicity | |
n.简单,简易;朴素;直率,单纯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
792 hoaxed | |
v.开玩笑骗某人,戏弄某人( hoax的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
793 kernel | |
n.(果实的)核,仁;(问题)的中心,核心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
794 nibble | |
n.轻咬,啃;v.一点点地咬,慢慢啃,吹毛求疵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
795 inured | |
adj.坚强的,习惯的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
796 fatigue | |
n.疲劳,劳累 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
797 persevering | |
a.坚忍不拔的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
798 hearty | |
adj.热情友好的;衷心的;尽情的,纵情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
799 amiable | |
adj.和蔼可亲的,友善的,亲切的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
800 deference | |
n.尊重,顺从;敬意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
801 albeit | |
conj.即使;纵使;虽然 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
802 degenerated | |
衰退,堕落,退化( degenerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
803 laborious | |
adj.吃力的,努力的,不流畅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
804 discomfiture | |
n.崩溃;大败;挫败;困惑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
805 instilled | |
v.逐渐使某人获得(某种可取的品质),逐步灌输( instill的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
806 satire | |
n.讽刺,讽刺文学,讽刺作品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
807 precepts | |
n.规诫,戒律,箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |