1. Zwingli and the Controversy1 on the Supper
From the time that Zwingli, in 1519, commenced working on his own lines at Zürich in the cause of the religious innovations, he had borrowed more and more largely from Luther’s writings. Whilst acknowledging Luther’s great achievements he did not, however, sacrifice his independence. Writing in 1523 with a strong sense of what he himself had done and of the success which had attended his own efforts, he said: “I began to preach before ever I had heard of Luther.... I was not instructed by Luther, for, until two years ago, his very name was unknown to me, and I worked on the Bible Word alone.... Nor do I intend to be called after Luther, seeing that I have read but little of his doctrine3. What I have read of his writings, however, is as a rule so excellently grounded on the Word of God, that no creature can overthrow4 it.... I did not learn the teaching of Christ from Luther, but from the Word of God. If Luther preaches Christ, he is doing the same as I, though, praise be to God, countless5 more souls have been led to God by him than by me.”[1264]
Little attention was paid at Wittenberg to the religious occurrences at Zürich, though they had been welcomed by Luther. Only when Zwingli sided with Carlstadt against Luther in the controversy on the Supper did the latter begin to give him more heed6; this he at once did in his own fashion. He asserted, as he had already done in the case of Carlstadt, [?colampadius and others, that Zwingli would not have known the truth concerning Christ and the Evangel “had not Luther first written on the subject”; of his own initiative he would never have dared to come to[380] freedom and the light; later he spoke7 of him as “a child of his loins” who had betrayed him.[1265]
In 1526 the divergency of opinion between Luther and Zwingli on the subject of the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, already present as early as 1524, became much more apparent.[1266]
Luther, in 1526, in his “Sermon von dem Sacrament,” and, in 1527, in his work on the words “This is My Body,” had, conformably with his theory, urged that Christ is present with the bread, and spoken not at all kindly8 of his Swiss gainsayers, the Zwinglians.[1267] Zwingli, on his side, soon after the appearance of the last work, attacked Luther’s view in a writing entitled “Amica exegesis9” (1528); this, his first open assault on the Wittenberg doctor, he followed up with a German pamphlet on the words of Christ: “This is My Body.” In these we have the protest of the sceptical rationalism of Zürich, against Luther’s half-hearted doctrine on the Sacrament.
Zwingli demanded that the words of institution should be taken figuratively and the Eucharist regarded as a mere11 symbol of the Body of Christ. This he did with no less assurance than Luther had urged his own pet view, viz. that Christ is present together with the bread (Impanation instead of the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation). Zwingli complained bitterly of the rude tone adopted by Luther; according to him God’s Word must prevail, not Luther’s abusive epithets12, “fanatic13, devil, rogue14, heretic, Trotz, Plotz, Blitz and Donner, and so on.” Over and over again he roundly accuses Luther of “lying” and “falsehood,” though his language is not so lurid15 as his adversary’s. The artifices16 by which he sought to evade17 the plain sense of the words “This is My Body,” were well calculated to call forth18 a rude contradiction from Luther. Zwingli’s arbitrary recourse to the “figurative, symbolical19, metaphorical” sense, Luther answered by appealing to the interpretation20 accepted by the whole of antiquity21. At the turn of the fourth and the fifth centuries Macarius Magnes had written: “Christ has said ‘This is My Body’; it is no[381] figure of the Body of Christ, nor a figure of His flesh, as some have been foolish enough to assert, but in truth the body and blood of Christ.”[1268] Concerning the promise of the Eucharist, Hilary of Poitiers declared in the fourth century: “Christ says: ‘My flesh is meat indeed’ (John vi. 56); as to the truth of the flesh and blood there can be no doubt. The Lord Himself teaches it and our faith confesses it, viz. that it is truly flesh and truly blood.” Any other interpretation of the words of Christ he calls “violenta atque imprudens pr?dicatio, aliena atque impia intelligentia.”[1269] The reproach, which at a much earlier period Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple22 of the Apostles, had brought forward against the Docet? of his day, Luther might well have applied23 to the Zwinglians: “They refuse to confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour24 Jesus Christ, that flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father raised from the dead.”[1270]
We can understand the abhorrence25 which Luther conveyed by the term Sacramentarians (“sacramentarii”), by which he characterised all those—whether Swiss, Reformed, or followers26 of Carlstadt—who denied the Real Presence in the Sacrament.
The Marburg Conference of 1529, at which both Zwingli and Luther attended with their friends, did not bring any real settlement, for no compromise on the question of the Eucharist was feasible. Fourteen of the other Articles submitted by Luther were accepted, but the 15th, with this principal question, remained in suspense29 owing to the opposition30 of the Swiss. In consequence of this Luther refused to recognise Zwingli and his followers as brothers, in spite of all the prayers of his opponents. He would not concede to them Christian31 brotherhood32 but merely “Christian charity,” that charity, moreover, which, as he declared, we owe even to our enemies. He again voiced it as his opinion, that, “your spirit is different from ours,” which greatly incensed33 the other side. A statement was appended to the Fifteen Articles of Marburg, to the effect, that, on account of the Supper, they had “so far failed to reach an[382] understanding, but that each side would exercise Christian charity towards the other so far as every man’s conscience allowed.”
Once, during the proceedings34, Luther, to show his attachment35 to the literal sense of the words “This is My Body,” chalked these words on the tablecloth36 and held it up in front of him, pointing significantly to the writing.
Luther, however, overlooked the fact, that, if once the words were taken in their literal sense, as he was perfectly37 right in doing, there was no alternative but to accept the Catholic interpretation, according to which the bread is actually and substantially changed into the Body of Christ, and that to say: “This is bread though Christ is present,” was really out of the question. Many theologians who follow Luther in other matters, unhesitatingly admit his inconsequence.[1271]
At the solemn meeting at Marburg, Luther was not to be disconcerted, not even when Zwingli argued that the words of promise of the Sacrament in St. John’s Gospel (vi. 32 ff., 48 ff.), where we read: “My flesh is meat indeed,” must mean “my flesh signifies meat.” When Luther, no less erroneously, objected that the passage in question did not apply there, Zwingli exclaimed: “Of course not, Doctor, for that passage is the breaking of your neck.” Luther replied testily38: “Don’t be so sure of it; necks don’t break so easily; here you are in Hesse, not in Switzerland!” Zwingli was constrained39 to protest that, even in Switzerland, people enjoyed the protection of the law, and to explain that what he had said had not been meant by way of any threat.
[383]
Behind the efforts to unite Wittenberg and Zürich there was a different influence at work. Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, like Zwingli, was anxious to establish a league of all the Swiss and German Protestants against those who, in the Empire, defended Catholicism. This proposal Luther resisted with all his might, urging the Landgrave not to make common cause with the false teachers, to the delight of the devil. Melanchthon, who also was present, was likewise pleased to see the Landgrave’s plan frustrated40, for it would have rendered impossible any reconciliation41 with the Emperor and the larger portion of the Empire, which was the vague ideal after which he was striving. The parties, however, were too distrustful of each other to arrive at any settlement. Jonas, for his diplomacy43, called Bucer a “fox,” and said of Zwingli, that he detected in him a certain arrogance44 such as was to be expected in a boor45.
At the time of the Marburg Conference, Vienna was being besieged46 by the Turks. Thus, whilst the Empire stood in the greatest peril47 from foes48 without, an attempt was being made within to reach a settlement which might drive the wedge yet deeper into the unity50 of the Fatherland. The latter attempt ended, however, in failure, whilst the siege of Vienna was raised and the departure of the Turks brought about a certain strengthening of the Empire.
The tension between the Zwinglians and the Lutherans was not lessened51 when each party claimed that it had gained the upper hand and utterly52 routed the other at Marburg.
On October 11, 1531, Zwingli fell in the battle of Cappel, in which, mounted on horseback and fully53 armed, he was leading the men of Zürich against the five Catholic cantons. What Luther thought and felt at that time we learn both from Schlaginhaufen’s Notes of his Table-Talk in 1531 and 1532, which afford some fresh information, and from Luther’s letters and printed works.
The very first Note we have of Schlaginhaufen’s touches upon Zwingli’s untimely end. It would appear that a rumour54 had got abroad that Luther’s other opponents, Carlstadt and Pellicanus, had also been slain55.
Luther was in high glee when news of Zwingli’s death reached him.
[384]
He said: “God knows the thoughts of the heart. It is well that Zwingli, Carlstadt, and Pellicanus lie dead on the battle-field, for otherwise we could not have retained the Landgrave, Strasburg and other of our neighbours [true to our doctrine]. Oh, what a triumph is this, that they have perished! God indeed knows His business well.”[1272]—“Zwingli died like a brigand,” he said later, when scarcely a year had elapsed since his death. “He wished to force others to accept his errors, went to war, and was slain.” “He drew the sword, therefore he has received his reward, for Christ says: ‘All who take the sword shall perish by the sword.’ If God has saved him, then He did so contrary to His ordinary ways.”[1273]—“All seek to cloak their deceitful doctrines56 with the name of the Evangel,” so he exclaims in 1532. From Augsburg he heard that the Sacramentarian (i.e. Zwinglian) preachers were using his name and Melanchthon’s. “Since they refused to be our friends in God’s name, let them be so in the devil’s, even as Judas was the friend of Christ.”[1274]
Because Thomas Münzer was no friend of the Evangel he was, according to Luther, destined57 to perish miserably58 and shamefully59. Zwingli he placed on exactly the same footing; his death likewise was a just judgment60.[1275] Zwingli, so he will have it, was a complete unbeliever. In his newly published sermons of 1530 he had shown that Zwingli, like Carlstadt, by his attacks on the Supper, had denied all the articles of the faith. “If a man falls away from one article of faith, however insignificant61 it may appear to reason, he has fallen away from all and does not hold any of them aright. For instance, it is certain that our fanatics62 who now deny the Sacrament, also deny Christ’s Divinity and all the other articles of faith, however much they protest to the contrary, and the reason of this is, that, when even one link of the chain is broken, the whole chain is in pieces.”[1276]
H. Barge63, a Protestant, remarks: “After the battle of Cappel, Luther appears to have devoted64 his unusual gifts of eloquence65 to slandering66 Zwingli and all who remained true to him, systematically67, deliberately68, and maliciously70, as mere heretics.”[1277]
The following delineation71 of Zwingli by Luther dates from 1538: “Zwingli was a very clever and upright man, but he fell [into error]; then he became so presumptuous72 as to dare to say and write: ‘I hold that no one in the world ever believed that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Sacrament.’” Luther adds: Because Zwingli ventured to speak rashly against him [Luther] and “against what is plain to the whole world, he perished miserably, just as did Egranus, that importunate73 fellow.”[1278]
Just as he had condemned74 Carlstadt and Pellicanus, and,[385] lastly, Egranus (Johann Silvius Egranus of Zwickau), so also elsewhere he lumps together in one condemnation75 with Zwingli all those doctors who differed from him. Relentlessly76 he scourges77 them as he had scourged78 the Catholics. “The character of those who oppose the Word is fiendish rather than human. Man does what he can, but when the devil takes possession of him then ‘enmity arises between him and the woman’” (Gen. iii. 15).[1279]
Few experienced his intolerance to such an extent as Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, his quondam colleague in the theological faculty80 of Wittenberg.
2. Carlstadt
Carlstadt, the fanatic, failed to obtain any peace from Luther until he passed over to the camp of the Swiss theologians. In 1534 he became preacher at St. Peter’s in Basle, and professor of theology. We may here cast a glance at the troubles brought on him, partly through Luther, partly through his own passionate81 exaltation, both previous to this date and until his death at Basle, where he was carried off by the plague in 1541.
Carlstadt’s violent doings at Wittenberg and the iconoclasm which he justified82 by the Mosaic83 prohibition84 of graven images, had miscarried owing to Luther’s warnings.[1280] Soon it became clear that there was no longer any room for him at the University town near the leader of the Reformation, more particularly since, in 1522, he had seen fit to deny the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Luther loudly bewailed Carlstadt’s sudden determination to become a new teacher, and to lay new injunctions on the people to the detriment85 of his (Luther’s) authority.[1281]
Carlstadt now migrated to Orlamünde in the Saxon Electorate86, where the magistrates87 appointed him pastor89. In August, 1524, however, Luther passed through Weimar, Jena, and the other districts where the fanatics had gained a footing, preaching energetically against them. Carlstadt he had met at Jena on August 22, 1523, in the Black Bear Inn. In vain did they seek a friendly settlement, for each overwhelmed the other with reproaches. Finally, in the tap-room of the inn, Luther handed his opponent a goldgulden[386] as a pledge that he was at liberty to write against him without reserve and that he did not mind in the least: “Take it and attack me like a man, don’t fear!”[1282] Shortly after, however, he complained of the treatment he had received: “At the inn at Jena ... he turned upon me and abused me, snapped his fingers at me and said: ‘I don’t care that for you.’ But if he does not respect me, whom, then, amongst us does he respect?”[1283]
The struggle continued after they had gone their ways, both seeking to secure the favour of the Court. Luther, through the agency of Prince Johann Frederick, proposed that Carlstadt should be hounded from his place of refuge and from the whole upper valley of the Saale. Ultimately the disturber of the peace was banished90 from the Electorate; Luther, in his work “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” approved of his expulsion, roughly declaring that, so far as lay in him, Carlstadt would never again set foot in the country.[1284] The homeless man now betook himself to Strasburg, whither he was pursued by a furious letter of Luther’s, directed against him and his teaching, entitled “An die Christen zu Straspurg widder den2 Schwermer Geyst.”
Luther became greatly enraged92 when he perceived that the denial of the Sacrament, already widespread in Switzerland, was also gaining ground at Strasburg and was being adopted by Capito and Bucer. In his excitement, in the hope of checking the falling away from his doctrine, of closing the mouth of that “fiend” Carlstadt—who likewise stood for the denial of the Sacrament—and of preventing “the overthrow of all political and ecclesiastical order,” he[387] penned, in the course of a few weeks, a violent screed93 entitled, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.” The knowledge that everywhere revolt “was being associated with the Lutheran doctrines and reforms”[1285] roused his terrible eloquence, of which the principal aim was to annihilate94 Carlstadt. Having completed the first part, comprising seventy pages of print in the Erlangen edition, he rushed this through the press as a preliminary instalment, informing his readers at the end that “the remainder will follow on foot.”[1286] As good as his word, three weeks later, he had ready the conclusion, consisting of nearly one hundred pages of print. He asserts that Carlstadt had, “for three years, been making a hash” of his books; he was even anxious to throw them all overboard. Luther’s strongest argument against him was the revolutionary peril which this man represented. Even if he did not actually plot “murder and revolt,” he writes, “yet I must say that he has a murderous and revolutionary spirit.... Because he carries a dagger96, I do not trust him; he might well be simply awaiting a good opportunity to do what I apprehend97. By the dagger I mean his false interpretation and understanding of the Law of Moses.”[1287] “What is the use of admonishing98 him?” he writes, alluding99 to Carlstadt’s departure from the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible and his obstinacy100 in accepting no exegesis but his own; “I believe that he still considers me one of the most learned men at Wittenberg and yet he tells me to my very face, that I am of no account, though all the while he pretends to be quite willing to be instructed.”[1288]
From Strasburg, Carlstadt, the restless wanderer, had gone to Rothenburg-on-the-Tauber, a hotbed of Anabaptists. It was whilst here, that finding himself in dire91 want, he besought101 Luther’s aid, at a time when the latter had not yet finished the above writing against him; he, however, frustrated all hopes of any reconciliation by previously102 penning a defence of his own doctrine of the Sacrament against the Wittenberg professor. The unfortunate termination of the Peasant War exposed him to grave danger, when he broke his promise to[388] keep silence, and again renewed his complaints concerning Luther, and bewailed his own reduced circumstances, dissensions broke out afresh between them. Luther, who was greatly vexed103, was very anxious to find some new means of muzzling104 his opponent. He proposed that he should in no case advocate in the presence of others his own theological opinions or his private interpretation of the Bible, though he might cherish them as his private convictions, for of the heart no man is judge; doctrines which differed from his own, so Luther declared, were not to be defended publicly, else they would come under the cognisance of the authorities. Under these circumstances Carlstadt thought it better to depart. In the beginning of 1529 he escaped, and, in 1530, found a home in Switzerland, where he enjoyed a quieter life and was free to proceed with his theological labours. “Luther, like Carlstadt, never doubted for a moment that his doctrine was really founded on Scripture105. Hence Luther and the Elector felt themselves bound in conscience to defend as best they could the Christian faith and their country against any invasion of false doctrine.”[1289] Such is the considered judgment of a Protestant historian.[1290]
For the period subsequent to 1534, when Carlstadt at length began to lead a more tranquil106 life as professor and preacher at Basle, the Table-Talk is the principal source of information concerning Luther’s relations with him.
Luther, in his conversations, frequently referred to his former friend, particularly in 1538.
“He, like Bucer, greatly retarded107 the progress of the Evangel by his arrogance. In other matters pride of intellect is not so dangerous, but in theology it is utterly pestilential to desire to arrogate108 anything to oneself.... Hence I was greatly troubled when Carlstadt once remarked to me: ‘I am as fond of honour as any other man.’ At Leipzig he refused to concede me the first place at the Disputation lest I should rob him of his part of the praise. And yet I was always glad to do him a favour. But he reaped shame instead of honour at Leipzig, for no worse disputant could be imagined than a man of so dull and wretched a spirit.... At first he, like Peter Lupinus, withstood me, but when I rebutted109 them with Augustine, they, too, studied Augustine and then insisted upon my doctrine more than I did myself. Carlstadt, however, was deceived by his arrogance.”[1291] Indeed, Carlstadt belonged to the category of the “arrogantissimi.”[1292]
Elsewhere Luther again says similar things without noticing, so it would seem, that others might have complained of his “arrogance” just as much as he did of Carlstadt’s. Carlstadt is “full of presumption,” and this “brought about his fall as it did that of Münzer, Zwingli, [?colampadius, Stiefel, and Eisleben.” “Such people, weak and untried though they be, are puffed111 up with self-sufficiency before the victory, whereas I have my daily struggles.” Before this Luther had declared that he was “plagued and vexed by the devil, whose bones are strong until we crack them.”[1293]—“It was impossible to make of Carlstadt a humble112 man because he had been through no real mental temptations.”[1294]—“He, like Münzer and Zwingli, was rash when good fortune attended him, but an arrant113 coward in misfortune”;[1295] Luther here was probably recalling how Carlstadt, the unhappy married priest, had been forced to humble himself before him[390] owing to the dire want and danger in which he and his family found themselves.
“Had not Carlstadt come on the scene with the fanatics, Münzer and the Anabaptists, all would have gone well with my undertaking114. But though I alone lifted it out of the gutter115, they wished to seize upon the prize and poach upon my preserves, though, owing to the way they went about the business, they were really working for the Pope though all the while anxious to destroy him.”[1296]
Luther afterwards held fast to the opinion concerning his enemy which he had expressed long before in a letter to Spalatin: “Carlstadt has now been delivered over to a reprobate116 spirit so that I despair of his return. He always was, and probably always will be, unmindful of the glory of Christ; his insensate ambition has brought him to this. To me, nay117, to us, he is more troublesome than any foe49, so that I believe the unhappy man to be possessed118 by more than one devil. God have mercy on his sin, so far as it is mortal.”[1297]
In 1541 the news of his rival’s death reached him. It was rumoured119 that he had died impenitent120, that the devil had appeared at his death-bed, had fetched him away, and continued to make a great noise in his house.[1298] Luther believed these tales. It was not surprising, so he said, that Carlstadt had at last received his deserts,[1299] though he was sorry he should have died impenitent.[1300]
It only remains121 to glance at the arguments Luther brought forward and at the theoretical attitude he assumed with regard to Carlstadt and his followers. If we take the book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten” and the writing he addressed to the Strasburg Christians122 against the fanatics, and consider the answers and objections they drew forth, we shall have a strange picture of Luther’s ways of reasoning and of his crooked123 lines of thought. Not that his ability and eloquence failed him, but, for clearness and coherence124, his doctrine and whole conduct leave everything to be desired. In his book he attacks not Carlstadt alone, but, as he says: “Carlstadt and his spirits,” i.e. all those opponents of his whom he was pleased to dub125 “fanatics.[391]” “Fanaticism126” to him means not merely that fanciful interpretation of the Bible based on special illumination, to which his opponents were attached, but more particularly the threefold error for which they stood, viz. their denial of the Sacrament (i.e. of the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper), their iconoclasm, and, thirdly, their repudiation127 of infant baptism. As for the various elements of good, which, in spite of all their mistakes, were shared by the earlier Anabaptists, Luther refused categorically to see them or to hearken to the fanatics’ well-grounded remonstrances128 against certain of his propositions.
To preach, a man must be called by God, so he lays it down. Had your spirit “been the true one, it would have manifested itself by word and sign; but in reality it is a murderous, secret devil.”[1301] Luther demands miracles with as much confidence as though he himself could point to them in plenty.
Those preachers who ventured to differ from him, he invites, at the very least, to point to their ecclesiastical vocation129. But what sort of a vocation was this to be, they asked. As Luther recognised no universal Church visible, a call emanating130 from a congregation of believers had to suffice; Carlstadt, for instance, could appeal to his having been chosen by Orlamünde as its pastor. This Luther would not allow: You must also have the consent of the Elector and of the University of Wittenberg. Carlstadt and those who felt with him were well aware, that, in the final instance, this simply meant Luther’s own consent, for at the University he was all-powerful, whilst the sovereign likewise was wont131 to be guided by him. Why, Carlstadt might also have asked, should not the degree of Doctor of Divinity suffice in my case, seeing that you yourself have solemnly pleaded your degree as a sufficient justification132 for assailing133 the common tradition of Christendom?
Luther’s final answer to such an appeal was as follows:
“My devil, I know you well.”[1302]
He was determined134 to hound out of his last hiding-place his presumptuous rival, many of whose doctrines, it must be admitted, were both mistaken and dangerous. Hence the measure which he induced the Elector to take in 1524,[392] according to which Carlstadt was to be refused shelter throughout the Electorate; this example was also followed by the magistrates of Rothenburg-on-the-Tauber, who, by an edict of January 27, 1525, commanded all burghers by virtue135 of their oath and fealty136 “not to house, shelter, or hide, provide with food and drink, or further on his way the said Dr. Carlstadt,” adding, that a similar prohibition had been published in “other lordships and Imperial cities both near and far.”[1303]
When seeking to retain the support of the burghers of Strasburg, Luther had made a display of broadminded forbearance and charity. What he then said is often quoted by his followers as proof of his kindliness137 and humility138. “Take heed that you show brotherly charity towards one another in very deed.” “I am not your preacher. No one is bound to believe me, let each one look to himself. To warn all I am able, but stop any man I cannot.” Yet he continues: “Carlstadt makes a great fuss about outward things as though Christianity consisted in knocking down images, overthrowing139 the Sacrament, and preventing Baptism; by the dust he raises he seeks to darken the sun, and the brightness of the Evangel, and the main facts of Christian faith and practice, so that the world may forget all that has hitherto been taught by us.”[1304] Luther’s own doctrine, in spite of his preliminary assurance, was alone to stand, because, forsooth, it reveals the true sun to the world.
What, however, had he to oppose to the “knocking down of images” and the “overthrow of the Sacrament”? Did his standpoint afford sufficient resistance, or was it more than a mere subterfuge140?
The pulling down of images and the overthrow of the Sacrament, Luther tells Carlstadt, agreeably with his own feelings at that time, may be introduced little by little, but must not be made into a law. Everyone is free to put away his images, to deny the Sacrament, or to refuse to receive it; let him follow his own conscience as it is the right and duty of every man to do. Luther, however, is forgetful of the restrictions141 he was in the habit of placing upon Catholic practices, of how he refused to admit the rights of conscience[393] in the matter of the Mass and the religious life, notwithstanding that Catholics could appeal to the age-long practice of the Church in every land, and of his denial of the existence or even of the possibility of good faith amongst any of his opponents, whether within or without his own fold. In his book against the “Heavenly Prophets” he declares it to be “optional to wear a cowl or the tonsure142 ... in this there is neither commandment nor prohibition,” “to wear the tonsure, to put on albs and chasubles, etc. is a thing God has neither commanded nor forbidden.” “Doctrine, command, and compulsion are not to be tolerated.”[1305] Here we see the confused after-effects of his old, pseudo-mystic conception of a religion of freedom, involving no duty of submission143 to any external authority in the matter of “doctrine or command.” (See p. 8 ff.)
Granting that any real tolerance79 underlay144 these statements, the fanatics could ask: “Why, then, not include our peculiarities145, for instance, our penitential dress, our grey frock, and outward, pious147 practices?” Luther, however, will hear of no self-chosen works of penance148, and condemns149 indiscriminately those of the fanatics and the more measured ones preferred by Catholics, in spite of mortification150 being recommended by the example of the saints both of the Old and the New Covenant151 and of Christ Himself. Of the last Luther says quite openly that Christ’s example taught us nothing; not Christ’s works, but merely His express words were to be our example. “What He wished us to do or leave undone152, that He not only did or left undone but also enjoined153 or forbade in so many words.... Hence we admit no example, not even that of Christ Himself.”[1306] Elsewhere he also excludes the Evangelical Counsels of Perfection, although they are not only based on example, but are also expressed in words. Yet here, in a particular instance, he departs from his theory that only Christ’s express injunctions are binding154; Carlstadt had done away with the elevation155 of the Sacrament in Divine Worship; this Luther disapproved156 of; he acknowledges, however, that Christ did not do so at the Last Supper, though we do.—He does not tell us when or how Christ enjoined this by “word.”
[394]
What the motives158 were which led to his decisions on such usages we see from the following. Speaking to Carlstadt’s party he says: “Although I too had the intention of doing away with the Elevation, yet, now, the better to defy and oppose for a while the fanatical spirit, I shall not do so.”[1307] In the same way, “in defiance159 of the spirit of the mob, he intends to call the Sacrament a Sacrifice, though it is not really one, but simply the reception of what was once a sacrifice.” We cannot wonder if the sectarians looked upon this spirit of defiance and contradiction as something strange. One of them during this controversy complained with some justice that Luther, according to his own admission, had thundered forth many of his theses merely because the Papists “had pressed him so hard,” and not from any inner conviction.[1308] Contradiction was to him sufficient reason for narrowing the freedom of others in the matter of doctrine.
The new Christian freedom Luther vindicates160 in his book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” more particularly in respect of the Old Testament161 Commandments. At that time, strange to say, the fanatics were set on imposing162 certain of the Mosaic laws on both public and ecclesiastical life, under the impression that they were precepts163 divinely ordained164 for all time. For this Luther’s own violent and one-sided interpretation of the Bible, in defiance of all tradition, was really responsible; indeed, he himself was not disinclined to lay undue165 stress on Mosaism. (See vol. v., xxix., xxxv. 6.)
The fanatics’ exaggerations were, however, too much for Luther. In his efforts to oppose their trend he goes so far as to include even the Decalogue, when he exclaims: “Don’t bother us with Moses”; the Ten Commandments are disfigured with Mosaism, so he says, for they prescribe the Sabbath and forbid images; it was stupid to see in the Decalogue nothing more than moral commandments and precepts of the natural law.[1309] Not on account of this law do we observe the weekly day of rest, but because we need a rest and regular times for Divine worship, viz. out of love for our neighbour and from necessity. It is no easy matter to reconcile this with Luther’s own praiseworthy practice of[395] teaching the Commandments and seeing that the young were instructed in them, or with the great respect with which he surrounded the Decalogue. The Church’s view, as expounded167 by St. Thomas, was both better and more logical, viz. that the Ten Commandments were the primary and common precepts of the law of nature,[1310] and that the alteration168 in the third Commandment, introduced by the Church concerning the day (Sunday in place of the Sabbath), was merely a minor169 detail not affecting the real substance of the Commandment.
That, however, the Sunday, instead of the Saturday, was to be observed as holy was a point on which Luther had perforce to content himself with that very tradition which he had so often abused.
Tradition likewise was his only authority for defending Infant Baptism with so much determination against the fanatics. It is true, that, in order to deprive his opponents of their chief argument, he put forth the strange theory, treated of elsewhere, that infants are able to believe.[1311] Elsewhere, too, he seeks to persuade himself, in spite of all difficulties, that infants in some way or other co-operate in the baptismal work of justification by means of some sort of faith.
On the other hand, he confutes Carlstadt’s opinion as to the figurative sense of the Eucharistic words of consecration170 in a masterly dissertation171 on their real meaning. Here he holds the field because his interpretation is conformable both with that of antiquity and with the dictates172 of reason. We find him demolishing173 Carlstadt’s stupidities by appeals to reason, but here Luther is in contradiction with himself, for in another part of the book, where, for his purpose, it was essential to make out reason to be absolutely blind as regards doctrine, he has the strongest invectives against it or any use of reason in matters of faith. In the case of Carlstadt’s objections against the Sacramental Presence of Christ, he had been obliged to have recourse to proofs based on reason, yet in the other passage he says: “As if we did not know that reason is the devil’s handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonour174 all that God says or[396] does.”[1312] To come to him with such a Frau Hulda (the name by which he ridicules175 reason) “is mere devil’s roguery.”[1313] In his contempt for reason he goes so far as to advocate a new theory of the omnipresence of Christ’s body, in heaven and everywhere on earth, in spite of the impossibility such a thing would involve.
It was quite at variance176 with his habitual177 exhortations178 and commands for him calmly to inform the fanatics that, whoever does not wish to receive the Sacrament may leave it alone. The only effect of receiving the Sacrament now appears to him to be, that it strengthens in us the Word of faith in Christ, and is a consolation179 to troubled consciences. It is true that he proves himself a fiery180 advocate of the literal sense of the words of institution and a passionate defender181 of the Sacramental Presence, yet the meagre effect he concedes to the Eucharist makes his fervour somewhat difficult to understand, for there is no doubt that he minimises both the graces we receive through the Sacrament and the greatness of the gift of Christ; apart from this he altogether excludes the sacrificial character of the Supper. Still, his zeal182 for the defence of the Eucharist against those who denied it was so great, that, out of defiance, he was anxious to retain even the Latin wording of his “Liturgy” and, to this end, made a pathetic appeal to the chapter in which St. Paul speaks of the use of strange tongues (1 Cor. xiv.), which Luther thought might be understood of the language used in the Mass.
The list of feeble arguments and self-contradictions found in this remarkable183 book might be indefinitely lengthened184, though, on the other hand, it also contains many a practical and striking refutation of views held by the fanatics.
In the press of his personal struggle, and in spite of all his scorn for his opponents’ “spiritism,” Luther could not refrain from bringing forward against Carlstadt a prophecy of the “higher spirit.” This prophecy had condemned Carlstadt beforehand and had foretold185 that he would not long share our faith; this has now been fulfilled to the letter, so that “I cannot but understand it.”[1314] Unfortunately, before this, the opposite party had discovered a[397] prediction against Luther, an “ancient prophecy” which was certainly about to be fulfilled in Luther, viz. “that the black monk186 must first come and cause all mischief187.”[1315]
As was to be expected, Luther preferred, however, to lay greater stress on other considerations which might assist him to gain the upper hand. He returns to his favourite asseveration: “If what I have begun is of God, no one will be able to hinder it; if it is not, I shall most assuredly not uphold it.”[1316] But not to “uphold it” with all the force and passion at his command, was, as a matter of fact, impossible to him. “No one shall take it from me!” he exclaims, almost in the same breath with the above, and though he indeed adds “save God alone,” still he knew perfectly well that God would not appear personally in order to wrestle188 with him. Moreover, he will have it that the crucial test had occurred long before and had entirely189 vindicated190 him. So great a work as he had achieved could not, he assures us, have been “built” without God’s help; not he but a higher power was the builder, though, so far as he was concerned, he had “in the main laboured well and rightly [this to the Strasburg dissenters],[1317] so that whoever avers191 the contrary cannot be a good spirit; I hope I shall have no worse luck in the outward matters upon which these prophets are so fond of harping192.” In “outward matters,” however, he was cautious enough to restrict his claim within his favourite province of freedom. He calls it “spiritual freedom,” not to make iconoclasm a duty, to leave each one at liberty to receive, or not receive, the Sacrament, and not to insist on the wearing of grey frocks. He is also careful not to prescribe anything, that, by way of outward observances they may not fall back into Popery, the whole essence of which consists in this sort of thing.
Luther, however, insists all the more on the “Bible spirit,” the spirit of the outward Word.
This, in spite of its subjective193 character, is to be set up as a brazen194 shield against the private judgment of the “heavenly prophets” and their inspirations. It is true his opponents objected that he himself had much to learn from the “Bible spirit,” for instance, greater meekness195 and a[398] resolution to proceed without stirring up “dangerous enmities.” These, however, were minor matters in his eyes. For him the “Bible spirit” was the witness and safeguard of his treasured doctrine.
What we must hearken to is not the inward Word—such is his emphatic196 declaration after his encounter with the fanatics, in flat contradiction to his earlier statements (see above, p. 4 f.)—but above all the outward Word contained in Scripture: if we do otherwise we are simply following the example of the “heavenly prophets.” The Pope “spoke according to his own fancy,” paying no heed to the outward Word, but I speak according to Scripture.[1318] All that was necessary was not to pervert197 the Bible, as the fanatics did; it is the devil who gives them a wrong understanding of Scripture, indeed, according to Luther, there is no heretic who does not make much of Scripture. “When the devil sees that the Bible is used as a weapon against him, he runs to Scripture and raises such confusion that people no longer can tell who has the right interpretation. When I quote Scripture against the Papists and fanatics, they don’t believe me, for they have their own glosses199.”[1319] Hence, such at least is his implicit200 invitation, they must hold fast to his gloss198 and no other. For I, by discovering Scripture, “have delivered the world from the horrid201 darkness of Antichrist; nor have I the faintest doubt, but am entirely convinced, that our Evangel is the true one.”[1320] “The heresies202 and persecutions rampant203 amongst us are merely that confirmation204 of the truth which the New Testament predicted (1 Cor. xi. 19), of the truth which I preach. Heresies must needs arise,” etc. etc.
Finally—such is one of his main arguments against the “heavenly prophets”—these heretical fanatics do not preach the “chief piece of Christian doctrine”; they “do not tell people how to get rid of sin, obtain a good conscience, and a joyful205 heart at peace with God, which, really, is the great thing. Here, if anywhere, is the sign that their spirit is of the devil.... Of how we may obtain a good conscience they are utterly ignorant, for they have never experienced it.”[1321] He, on the other hand, thanks to his[399] doctrine, had, though with unheard-of efforts, won his way to a quiet conscience, and by this impressed an infallible stamp upon his Evangel; his own way to salvation206 will be the way of all who trustfully lay hold on the merits of Christ. Yet it is not the way for all. For the proud, and for all who are full of self, there is the law to terrify them and lay bare their sin. It is only to the “troubled consciences” who tremble before the wrath207 of God, to the simple, the poor, and those who are utterly cast down, that the Evangel speaks. But these fanatics have no interior combats and death-struggles, they neither humble themselves before God, nor do they pray. “This I know and am certain of, that they never commenced their undertaking by imploring208 God’s help, or praying, and that, even now, their conscience would not allow them to pray for a happy issue.”[1322] Not only do they not pray, but they are simply unable to pray; they are lost souls and belong to the devil.
Never let us in any single thing ever trust to our own knowledge and our own will. “I prefer to listen to another rather than to myself.” We cannot be sufficiently209 on our guard “against the great rascal210 whom we bear in our hearts.”[1323] The fanatics retorted: Well may you speak thus, “you who soar aloft so high with your faith,” you who are so full of yourself that you must needs use us as your target; “your defiant211 teaching and your obstinacy” are well known to all.[1324]
Carlstadt and his fellows were not to be converted by such outpourings as these.
The rebellious212 fanatics treated the writings directed against them with the greatest contempt. Caspar Glatz, who had replaced Carlstadt as Lutheran pastor at Orlamünde, said in a report to Wittenberg: They use them in the privy213, as I myself have seen and heard from others.[1325] Luther, too, indignantly apprises214 Wenceslaus Link of this: “Rustici nates libello meo purgant, sic Satan furit. Thus doth Satan rage.”[1326]
[400]
The most important change called forth in Luther by his encounters with the fanatics was an increasing disinclination to appeal as heretofore to any extraordinary divine illumination or inspiration of his own. At the commencement of the conflict he had been in the habit of telling them: “I also was in the spirit, I also have seen spirits”; now, however, little by little, as we shall see more plainly later (vol. iv., xxviii. 1), such assurances made room for an appeal to the “Word.” The outward Bible-Word, the meaning of which he had himself discovered, was now to count for everything.
Beneath the yoke215 of the Word he was anxious to compel also his other opponents, such as Agricola, Schenk, and Egranus, to pass.
3. Johann Agricola, Jacob Schenk, and Johann Egranus
Johann Agricola of Eisleben, one of the earliest and most violent of Luther’s assistants, was desirous of carrying his doctrine on good works and the difference between the Law and the Gospel to its logical conclusion. His modifications216 and criticism of Luther’s doctrine called forth the latter’s vigorous denunciation. Agricola had to thank his own restlessness, and “the burden of Luther’s superiority and hostility217,” for what he endured so long as Luther lived.[1327] As the details of the quarrel are reserved for later consideration (vol. v., xxix. 3), we shall here merely indicate Luther’s behaviour by quoting a few of his utterances218.
“The foolish fellow was concerned about his honour,” Luther says very characteristically of this quarrel. He was anxious “that the Wittenbergers should be nothing and Eisleben everything.”[1328] “He is hardened,” and nothing can be done for him; “Agricola says, ‘I, too, have a head.’ Well, were that all that God requires, I might say I have one too. Thus they go on in their obstinacy and see not that they are in the wrong.... Our Lord God evidently intends to go on worrying me yet a while so as to defy the Papists.”[1329] Elsewhere he says: “Agricola looks on at these doings with a merry mien219, and refuses to humble himself. Yet he has submitted his recantation to me, perhaps in the hope that I would treat him more leniently220. But I shall seek the glory of Christ and not his; I shall pillory222 him and his words, as a cowardly, proud, impious man, who has done much harm to the Church.”[1330]
[401]
Another who fell into serious disagreements with Luther over the Antinomian question was Dr. Jacob Schenk, then preacher at Freiberg in Saxony (afterwards Court-preacher at Weimar). At Wittenberg his conduct began to give rise to suspicion at the same time as Agricola’s. He was reported to have said in a sermon: Whoever goes on preaching the law, is possessed of the devil. The eloquence of this man of no mean talents was as great as his aims were strange.
In Lauterbach’s Diary we find the following, under date October 7, 1538, concerning Luther and Schenk: At Luther’s table the conversation turned upon Jacob Schenk, “who, in his arrogant110 and lying fashion was doing all manner of things [so Luther declared] which he afterwards was wont to deny. Wherever he was, he raised up strife223, relying on the authority of the Prince and the applause of the people. But he will be put to shame in the end [so Luther went on to say], just as Johann Agricola, who enjoyed great consideration at Court and was almost a Privy Councillor; his reputation vanished without my having any hand in the matter. When Schenk preached at Zeitz he gave general dissatisfaction. The wretched man is puffed up with pride and deceives himself with new-fangled words.... He has concealed224 his wickedness under a Satanic hypocrisy226 and is ever aping me. Never shall I trust him again, no, not to all eternity227.”[1331]
Lauterbach gives a striking picture of Luther’s behaviour at his encounter with Jacob Schenk on September 11, 1538. Luther and Jonas, after a sermon which had greatly displeased228 them, paid him a visit. They found him, “sad to relate, impenitent and unabashed, rebellious, ambitious, and perjurious229.” Luther pointed88 out to him his ignorance; how could he, unexperienced as he was, and understanding neither dialectics nor rhetoric230, venture thus to oppose his teachers? Schenk replied: “I must do so for the sake of Christ’s Blood and His dear Passion; my own great trouble of conscience also compels me to it” (thus adducing a motive157 similar to that so often alleged231 by Luther in his own case). I must “fear God more than all my preceptors; for I have a God as much as you.” Luther replied: “It may be that you understand my doctrine perfectly, but you ought nevertheless, for the honour of God, to honour us as the teachers who first instructed you.” This seems to have made no impression on Schenk. Luther’s parting shot was: “If you are torn to pieces, may the devil lap your blood. We also are ‘in peril from false brethren.’ Poor Freiberg [the scene of Schenk’s labours] will never recover from this. But God, the Avenger232, will destroy the man who has defiled233 His temple. The proverb says: ‘Where heart and mind both are bad, the state of a man indeed is sad.[402]’” At supper, Schenk, seated at table with Luther and Jonas, began to abuse Luther and the inhabitants of Freiberg; after saying much that was scarcely complimentary234, he added: “‘When I have made the Court as pious as you have made the world, then my work will be finished.’ In spite of all this impertinence he remained seated, though his hypocritical show of humility revealed how depraved his heart really was. When Luther got up to leave the room Schenk attempted to start the quarrel anew.”[1332] Finally they parted unreconciled.
Schenk subsequently led a wandering existence, ever under suspicion as to the purity of his faith. In 1541 he was at Leipzig and in 1543 he visited Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg. It was given out by adversaries235, such as Melanchthon and Alberus, that he ultimately committed suicide, driven thereto by melancholy236; the statement is, however, not otherwise confirmed,
Johann Wildenauer (or Silvius), the theologian, was born at Eger in Bohemia, and hence was generally known as Egranus. This priest, who was a man of talent and of Humanistic culture, and an enthusiastic follower27 of Erasmus, had been won over to the new teaching in the very beginning. After having been preacher at the Marienkirche at Zwickau until Thomas Münzer made any further stay impossible, we find him from 1521-23 and, again, from 1533-34, preacher of the new faith at Joachimstal, where he was one of the predecessors238 of Mathesius.
Wildenauer was one of the most remarkable and independent characters of the time, but an “extremely restless spirit.”[1333] Although a Lutheran, he openly expressed his dissatisfaction, not only with the moral conditions under Lutheranism, but also with many points of his master’s doctrine, particularly with his theory that faith alone justifies239, and that man cannot co-operate in the work of his salvation. Luther became at an early date suspicious and angry concerning him. He wrote to Joachimstal “to warn the people against the dubious240 doctrines of Egranus,” as Mathesius relates, on the strength of copies of certain letters he had seen.[1334] The more dutiful Mathesius speaks of his predecessor237 as “a Mameluke and an ungrateful pupil.”[1335][403] His fault consisted in his following the example of Erasmus, as did in progress of time so many other admirers of the Dutch scholar, and relinquishing241 more and more his former good opinion of Luther’s person and work; with this change his own sad experiences had not a little to do. To the Catholic Church, which had excommunicated him, he apparently242 never returned. When, in 1534, he was deprived of his post at Joachimstal, he complained in a letter, that he had been “driven into exile and outlawed243 by Papists and Lutherans alike.”[1336]
In that same year he published at Leipzig a work entitled “A Christian Instruction on the righteousness of faith and on good works,”[1337] which, in spite of its bitterness, contained many home-truths. There, apart from what he says on doctrinal matters, we find an account of the “temptations and trials” he had to endure for having ventured to teach that “good works and a Christian life, side by side with faith, are useful and necessary for securing eternal life.”[1338]
About this time Luther again sent forth a challenge to Erasmus and to all Erasmians generally who had broken with him, Egranus included.
He told his friends that now his business was to “purify the Church from the brood of Erasmus” (“a f?tibus eius”); he was referring particularly to Egranus, also to Crotus Rubeanus, Wicel, [?colampadius, and Campanus.[1339] Erasmus had already “seduced” Zwingli and now he had also “converted Egranus, who believes just as much as he,” viz. nothing.[1340]—Egranus he calls a “proud donkey,” who teaches that Christ must not be exalted244 so high, having learnt this from Erasmus;[1341] “this proud spirit declared that though Christ had earned it, yet we must merit it.”[1342]—He had long been acquainted with this false spirit, so he wrote in 1533 or 1534 to a Joachimstal burgher; he, like other sectarians, was full of “devil’s venom245.” “Even though no syrup246 or purgative247 be given them, yet they cannot but expel their poison from mouth and anus. The time will come when they will be unable any longer to pass the matter, and then their belly248 must burst like that of Judas; for they will not be able to[404] retain what they have stolen and devoured249 of [the doctrine of] Christ.”[1343]
That Egranus finally drank himself to death with Malmsey “is a despicable calumny250, which can be traced back to Mathesius.”[1344] In the sixteenth-century controversies251 it was the usual thing on either side to calumniate252 opponents and to make them die the worst death conceivable,[1345] and it would appear, that, in the case of Egranus, at a very early date unfavourable reports were circulated concerning his manner of death. His lamentable253 end (“misere periit”), Luther likens to that of Zwingli, struck down in the battle of Cappel by a divine judgment.[1346] His death occurred in 1535.
In the “Christian Instruction,” referred to above, Egranus had written: “The new prophets can only tell us that we are freed from sin by Christ; what He commanded or forbade in the Gospel that they pass over as were it not in the Gospel at all.” “If we simply say: Christ has done everything and what we do is of no account, then we are making too much of Christ’s share, for we also must do something to secure our salvation. By such words Christ is made a cloak for our sins, and, as is actually now the case, all seek to conceal225 and excuse their wickedness and viciousness under the mantle254 of Christ’s merits.”
“If such faith without works continues to be preached much longer, the Christian religion will fall into ruins and come to a lamentable end, and the place where this faith without works is taught will become a Sodom and Gomorrha.”[1347]
4. Bugenhagen, Jonas and others
Disagreements such as these never arose to mar28 the relations between Luther and some of his other more intimate co-workers, for instance, his friendship with Bugenhagen and Jonas, who have been so frequently alluded255 to already. He was always ready to acknowledge in the warmest manner the great services they rendered him in the defence and spread of his teaching, and to support them when they stood in need of his assistance. He was never stingy in his bestowal256 of praise, narrow-minded or jealous, in his acknowledgement of the merits of friendly fellow-preachers, or of those writers who held Lutheran views.
[405]
Nicholas von Amsdorf, who introduced the new faith into Magdeburg in 1524 and there became Superintendent257, he praises for the firmness with which he confessed the faith and for his fearless conduct generally. In Disputations he was wont to go straight to the heart of the matter like the “born theologian” he was; at Schmalkalden, when preaching before the Princes and magnates, he had not shrunk from declaring that our Evangel was intended for the weak and oppressed and for those who feel themselves sinners, though he could not discern any such in the audience.[1348]
Johann Brenz, preacher in Schw?bisch-Hall since 1522, and one of the founders258 of the new church system in Suabia, was greatly lauded259 by Luther for his exegetical260 abilities. “He is a learned and reliable man. Amongst all the theologians of our day there is not one who knows how to interpret and handle Holy Scripture like Brenz. When I gaze in admiration261 at his spirit I almost despair of my own powers. Certainly none of our people can do what he has done in his exposition of the Gospel of St. John. At times, it is true, he is carried away by his own ideas, yet he sticks to the point and speaks conformably to the simplicity262 of God’s Word.”[1349]
Next to Melanchthon, however, the friend whom Luther praised most highly as a “thoroughly learned and most able man,” was Johann Bugenhagen. “He has, under most trying circumstances, been of service to many of the Churches.”[1350]
In his Preface to Bugenhagen’s Latin Commentary on the Psalms263—a work which, even in the opinion of Protestant theologians, “leaves much to be desired”[1351] from the “point of view of learning,” and which in reality is merely a sort of polemical work of edification, written from the standpoint of the new faith—Luther declared, that the spirit of Christ had at length unlocked the Psalter through Bugenhagen; every teacher must admit that now “the spirit was revealing secrets hidden[406] for ages.” “I venture to assert that the first person on earth to give an explanation of the Book of Psalms is Pomeranus. Almost all earlier writers have introduced their own views into the book, but here the judgment of the spirit will teach you wondrous264 things.”[1352]
Yet at the very outset, in the first verse of the Psalms, instead of a learned commentary, we find Bugenhagen expounding265 the new belief, and attacking the alleged self-righteousness of Catholicism, termed by him the “cathedra pestilenti?”; he even relates at length his conversion266 to Lutheranism, which had given scandal “to those not yet enlightened by the sun of the Evangel.”[1353] They were no longer to wait for the completion of his own Commentary on the Psalms, Luther concludes, since now—in place of poor Luther—David, Isaias, Paul, and John were themselves speaking to the reader.
“He had no clear perception of the defects of Bugenhagen’s exegetical method,” remarks O. Albrecht, the editor of the above Preface in the Weimar edition of Luther’s works.[1354] The explanation of this “uncalled-for praise,” as Albrecht terms it, is to be found in the feeling expressed by Luther in the first sentence of the Preface: At the present time God had caused His Word to shine like crystal, whereas of yore there prevailed only chill and dismal267 mists.
The truth is that few of Luther’s assistants promoted his cause with such devotion and determination combined as did Pomeranus, who, for all his zeal, was both practical and sober in his ways. Such were his achievements for the cause, that Luther greets him in the superscription of a letter as “Bishop268 of the Church of Wittenberg, Legate of Christ’s face and heart to Denmark, my brother and my master.” He thus explains the words “legatus a facie et a corde”: “the Pope boasts of his ‘legati a latere,’ I boast of my pious preachers ‘a facie et a corde.’”[1355] Luther was in the habit of putting Bugenhagen on the same footing with himself and Melanchthon: Luther, Philip, and Pomeranus will support the Evangel as long as they are there, he says, but after this there will come a fall (“fiet lapsus”).[1356] Let those braggarts who pretend they know better “come to me, to Philip, and to Pomeranus ... then they will be nicely confounded.”[1357] K?stlin is, however, rightly of[407] opinion that, as compared with Luther and Melanchthon, Bugenhagen was “merely a subordinate, though endowed by nature with considerable powers of mind and body.”[1358] Yet the sun of Luther’s favour shone upon him. Agricola, “the poor fellow,” says Luther, “looks down on Pomeranus, but the latter is a great theologian and has plenty nerve for his work (‘multum habet nervorum’); Agricola, of course, would make himself out to be more learned than Master Philip or I.”[1359] “Pomeranus is a splendid professor”; “his sermons are full of wealth.”[1360] The truth is that the “wealth,” or rather expansiveness, of his discourses269 was so great that Luther had to reprove him severely270 for the length of his sermons.
Johann Bugenhagen, called Pommer or Pomeranus because he hailed from Wollin in Pomerania, after two years spent at the University of Greifswald and a further course devoted mainly to Humanist studies, was ordained priest by the Bishop of Cammin, when “as yet he probably had not begun to study theology.”[1361] At the College at Treptow he earned respect as professor of Humanism and as Rector; in his desire to further the better theology advocated by Erasmus he took to studying the Bible, and, on Luther’s appearance, was soon won over to the cause, though on first reading Luther’s work “On the Babylonish Captivity,” he “had been repelled271 by the palpable heresies” it contained. He settled at Wittenberg, delivered private lectures on the Psalms, and married, on October 13, 1522, a servant-maid of Hieronymus Schurf, the lawyer; in the following year he was inducted at the Schlosskirche as parish-priest of Wittenberg by the magistrates, acting272 together with Luther. In defiance of right and justice and of the murmurs273 raised, Luther, from the pulpit, proclaimed him pastor, thus overruling the objections of the Chapter; his choice by the board of magistrates “and by the congregation agreeably with the evangelical teaching of Paul,” Luther held to be quite sufficient.[1362]
As pastor, Bugenhagen displayed great energy not merely in preaching to and instructing the people, but in furthering in every way the spread of Lutheranism in the civic274 and[408] social life of the Electorate. His practical talents made him eventually the apostle of the new Church, even beyond the confines of Saxony. He successively introduced or organised it in Brunswick, Hamburg, Lübeck, and in Pomerania, his own country; then in Denmark, from 1537-39, where he fixed275 his residence at Copenhagen. Two main features are apparent in all he did; everywhere the new Churches were established on a strictly276 civil basis, and, so far as the new religion allowed of it, the old Catholic forms were retained.
In his indefatigable277 and arduous278 undertakings279 Bugenhagen made himself one with Luther, and became, so to speak, a replica280 of his master. In his scrupulous281 observance of Luther’s doctrine he was to be outdone by none, save possibly by Amsdorf; in rudeness and want of consideration where the new Evangel was concerned, and in his whole way of thinking, he stood nearest to Luther, the only difference being, that, in his discourses and writings we miss Luther’s imagination and feeling. In the literary field, in addition to the Commentary on the Psalms and other similar writings, he distinguished282 himself by a work in vindication283 of the new preaching, addressed to the city of Hamburg and entitled: “Von dem Christen-loven und den rechten guden Werken” (1526), also by the share he took, with Melanchthon and Cruciger, in Luther’s German translation of the Bible, and his labours in connection with the Low-Saxon version. Most important of all, however, were his Church-constitutions. Bugenhagen died at Wittenberg on April 20, 1558, after having already lost his sight—broken down by the bitter trials which had come on him subsequent to Luther’s death.
Such was Luther’s confidence in his friend and appreciation284 of his power, that, during Bugenhagen’s prolonged absence, we often find Luther expressing his desire to see him again by his side and in charge of the Wittenberg pastorate. “Your absence,” so in 1531 he wrote to him at Lübeck, “is greatly felt by us. I am overburdened with work and my health is not good. I am neglecting the Church-accounts, and the shepherd should be here. I cannot attend to it. The world remains the world and the devil is its God.... Since the world refuses to allow itself to be saved, let it perish. Greet your Eve and Sara in my name and that of my wife and give greetings to all our friends.”[1363]
When Bugenhagen was at Wittenberg Luther loved to open to him the secret recesses285 of his heart, especially when suffering[409] from “temptations.” Frequently he even aroused in Bugenhagen a sort of echo of his own feelings, which shows us how close a tie existed between them, and gives us an idea of the kind of suggestion Luther was wont to exercise over those who surrendered themselves to his influence.
Bugenhagen, like Luther, was not conscious of any good-will or merit of his own, but—apart from the merits of Christ with which we are bedecked—merely of the oppression arising from his “great weakness” and “secret idolatry against the first Table of the Law of Moses.” Hence, when Luther, in June, 1540, complained that Agricola was after some righteousness of his own, whereas he (Luther) could find nothing of the sort in himself, Bugenhagen at once chimed in with the assurance that he was no less unable to discover any such thing in himself.[1364]
Luther’s anger against the fanatics and Sacramentarians was imbibed286 by Bugenhagen. To him and his other Table-guests Luther complained that his adversaries, Carlstadt, Grickel and Jeckel (i.e. Agricola and Jacob Schenk), were ignorant braggarts; they accuse us of want of charity because we will not allow them to have their own way, though we read in Paul: “A man that is a heretic avoid.” Bugenhagen was at once ready to propose a drastic remedy. “Doctor, we should do what is commanded in Deuteronomy [xiii. 5 ff.], where Moses says they should be put to death.” Whereupon Luther replied: “Quite so, and the reason is given in the same text: It is better to make away with a man than with God.”[1365] Bugenhagen was also the first to take up his pen in Luther’s defence[1366] when the Swiss heresy287 concerning the doctrine of the Supper began to be noised abroad owing to a letter of Zwingli’s to Alber at Reutlingen, and to his book, “Commentarius de vera et falsa religione,” of March, 1525. When Melanchthon showed signs of inclining[410] towards the Zwinglian doctrine of the Sacrament, there was soon a rumour at Wittenberg that “Melanchthon and Pomeranus have fallen out badly on the Article concerning the Supper,” and an apprehension288 of “dreadful dissensions amongst the foremost theologians.”[1367]
In 1532 Luther declared: There must be some ready to show a “brave front” to the devil; “there must be some in the Church as ready to slap Satan, as we three [Luther, Melanchthon, and Bugenhagen]; but not all are able or willing to endure this.”[1368] And on another occasion he described, in Bugenhagen’s presence, how he was wont cynically289 to mock the devil when “he comes by night to worry me ... by bringing up my sins”; Satan did not, however, torment290 him about his really grave sins, such as his “celebration of Mass and provocation291 of God [in the religious life].” “May God preserve me from that! For were I to realise keenly how great these sins were, the horror of it would kill me!” It was on the occasion of this fantastic outburst, employed by Luther to quiet his conscience, that Bugenhagen, not to be outdone in coarseness, uttered the words already recorded (above, p. 178).[1369]
The spiritual kinship between Luther and Bugenhagen produced in the latter a similar liking292 for coarse language. He was much addicted293 to the use of strong expressions, witness, for instance, his saying that friars wore ropes around their waists that we might have wherewith to hang them.[1370]
In his most severe temptations Luther found consolation in the words of comfort spoken by the pastor of Wittenberg, and he assures us he was often refreshed by such exhortations, the memory of which he was slow to lose.[1371] Bugenhagen assisted him during his severe illness in 1527, and again in the other attack some ten years later. On the latter occasion he summoned his friend to Gotha, made his confession294 to him, so he says, and commended the “Church and his family” to his care.[1372] When separated they were in the habit of begging each other’s prayers.
In his letters Bugenhagen recounts to Luther the success of his labours, in order to afford him pleasure, giving due thanks to God. Somewhat strange is the account he sent Luther of an encounter he had at Lübeck with a girl supposed to be possessed by the devil; through her lips the devil had given testimony295 to him just as at Ephesus, so the Acts of the Apostles[411] tell us, he had borne witness to the power of Jesus and Paul.[1373] Hardly had he come to the town and visited the girl than the devil, speaking through her, called him by name (we must not forget that her parents, at least, were acquainted with Bugenhagen) and declared his coming to Lübeck to be quite uncalled for. That, in spite of his prayers and tears, he was unable to expel the devil, he himself admits.[1374] The account of the incident, written down by him soon after his arrival at Lübeck, and before he had properly inquired into the case, was soon published under a curious title.[1375] So much did Luther think of the encounter with this hysterical296 or mentally deranged297 girl,[1376] that he wrote: “Satan is giving Pomeranus a great deal to do at Lübeck with a maid who is possessed. The cunning demon298 is planning marvels299.” This, when forwarding from the Coburg to Wenceslaus Link, preacher at Nuremberg, the account he had received.[1377] In 1536 Bugenhagen related at table, during the conciliation42 meetings held at Wittenberg, the encounters he had had in Lübeck and Brunswick with “delivered demoniacs.”[1378]
Luther on his side gave his friend, when busy abroad, frequent tidings of the state of things at Wittenberg. In 1537 he sent to him, at Copenhagen, an account of a nasty trick played by Paul Heintz, a professor at the University of Wittenberg, “greatly to the detriment of the town and University.” The latter, in order to possess himself of an inheritance, had given out that a youthful stepson of his was dead, and had caused a dog to be solemnly buried in his place with all the usual rites95. “The Master’s drama makes me almost burst with rage.” If these lawyers (who in Luther’s opinion treated the case too leniently) “look upon the disgrace to our Church as a small matter,” he writes, to Bugenhagen, “I will show them a bit of the true Luther (‘ero, Deo volente, Lutherus in hac causa’).”[1379] He did actually write a furious letter to the Elector to secure the severe punishment of the offender300, who has caused us “to be jeered301 at everywhere as dogs’ undertakers”; the lawyers, who[412] in the Pope’s or the devil’s name had shown themselves lenient221, he would denounce from the pulpit.[1380] To Magister Johann Saxo, who in turn related it to Bugenhagen, he declared, that, should the burial of the dog with all the rites of the Church be proved to have taken place, then “Paul would pay for it with his neck” on account of the mockery of religion involved.[1381] Even later Luther declared: “I should have liked to have written his death-sentence”; he added, however, that the culprit had really “buried the dog in order to drive away the plague.”[1382]
Possessed, like Luther, by a positive craze for seeing diabolical302 intervention303 everywhere, Bugenhagen shared his superstitions304 to the full. He it was who knew how to expel the devil from the churn by what Luther termed the “best” method, which certainly was the coarsest imaginable.[1383] When, in December, 1536, a storm broke over Wittenberg he vied with Luther in declaring, that since it was quite out of the order of nature, it must be altogether satanic (“plane sathanicum”).[1384]
He discerned the work of the devil just as clearly in the persistence305 of Catholicism and its resistance to Lutheranism. “Dear Lord Jesus Christ,” he writes, “arise with Thy Holy Angels and thrust down into the abyss of hell the diabolical murder and blasphemy306 of Antichrist.”[1385] Elsewhere he prays in similar fashion, “that God would put to shame the devil’s doctrines and idolatries of the Pope and save poor people from the errors of Antichrist.”[1386] Among all the qualities he had acquired from Luther, his patron and model, this hatred—which the Sectarians of the new faith who differed from Luther were also made to feel—is perhaps the most striking. In his case, however, fanaticism was tempered with greater coolness and calculation. For calm obstinacy Bugenhagen in many ways recalls Calvin.
When Superintendent of the Saxon Electorate he introduced into the Litanies a new petition: “From the blasphemy, cruel murder and uncleanness of Thine enemies the Turk and the Pope, graciously deliver us.”[1387]
With delight he was able to write to Luther from Denmark,[1388] that the Mass was forbidden throughout the country and that the mendicant307 Friars had been driven over the borders as “sedition-mongers” and “blasphemers” because they refused[413] to accept the King’s offers (“some of them were hanged”).[1389] The Canons had everywhere been ordered to attend the Lutheran Communion on festivals; the four thousand parishes had now to be preserved in the new faith which had dawned upon the land. Bugenhagen, on August 12, 1537, a few weeks after his arrival, vested in alb and cope, and with great ecclesiastical pomp, had placed the crown on the head of King Christian III. who had already given the Catholics a foretaste of what was to come and had caused all the bishops308 to be imprisoned309.
“All proceeds merrily,” Luther told Bucer on December 6, “God is working through Pomeranus; he crowned the King and Queen like a true bishop. He has given a new span of life to the University [of Copenhagen].”[1390] Bugenhagen was inexorable in his extirpation310 of the worship of “Antichrist” in Denmark, even down to the smallest details. To the King, concerning a statue of Pope St. Lucius in the Cathedral Church at Roskilde, he wrote, that this must be removed; it was an exact representation of the Pauline prophecy concerning Antichrist; the sword, which the Pope carried in his hand as the symbol of his death, Bugenhagen regarded as emblematic311 of the cruelty of the Popes, who now preferred to cut off the heads of others and to arrogate to themselves authority over all kings and rulers; if a true likeness312 of the Pope was really wanted, then he would have to be represented as a devil with claws and a fiendish countenance313, and be decked out in a golden mantle, a staff, a sword and three crowns; from such a book the laity314 would be able to read the truth.[1391]
Justus Jonas, who, of all his acquaintances, remained longest with Luther at Wittenberg, like Bugenhagen, bestowed315 upon the master his enduring veneration316 and friendship. His numerous translations of Luther’s works are in themselves a proof of his warm attachment to his ideas and of his rare affinity317 to him. He, next to Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, was the clearest-headed and most active assistant in the affairs of Wittenberg, and his name frequently appears, together with those of Luther and the two other intimates, among the signatures appended to memoranda318 dealing319 with matters ecclesiastical.
To the close relationship between Luther and Jonas many[414] interesting details preserved in the records remain to attest320.
Jonas once dubbed321 Luther a Demosthenes of rhetoric.[1392] Luther in his turn praised Jonas not merely for his translations, but also for his sermons; he had all the gifts of a good orator322, “save that he cleared his throat too often.”[1393] Yet he also accuses him of conceit323 for declaring that “he knew all that was contained in Holy Scripture” and also for his annoyance324 and surprise at the doubts raised concerning the above assertion.[1394]
On the other hand, the bitter hostility displayed by Jonas towards all Luther’s enemies, pleased the latter. Jonas, taking up the thread of the conversation, remarked on one occasion to the younger guests at Luther’s table: “Remember this definition: A Papist is a liar146 and a murderer, or the devil himself. They are not to be trusted in the least, for they thirst after our blood.”[1395]
His opinion of Jacob Schenk coincided with that of Luther: His “head is full of confused notions”; he was as “poison” amongst the Wittenberg theologians, so that Bugenhagen did well in refusing him his daughter in marriage.[1396] Of Agricola he remarked playfully, when the latter had uttered the word “oportet” (it must be): “The ‘must’ must be removed; the salt has got into it and we refuse to take it.” Whereupon Luther replied: “He must swallow the ‘must’ but I shall put such salt into it that he will want to spit it out again.”[1397] No one, so well as Jonas, knew how to cheer up Luther, hence Katey sometimes invited him to table secretly.[1398] It is true that his chatter325 sometimes proved tiresome326 to the other guests, for one of them, viz. Cordatus, laments327 that he interrupted Luther’s best sayings with his endless talk.[1399] The truth is, of course, that the pupils were anxious to drink in words from Luther’s own lips. Luther for his part encouraged his friend when the latter was oppressed by illness or interior anxieties. Jonas suffered from calculus328, and, during one of his attacks, Luther said to him: “Your illness keeps you watchful329 and troubled, it is of more use to you than ten silver mines. God knows how to direct the lives of His own people and we must obey Him, each one according to our calling. Beloved God, how is Thy Church distracted both within and without!”[1400] When Jonas on one occasion, being already unwell, was greatly troubled with scruples330 of conscience and doubts about the faith (“tentatus gravissime”), Luther sent[415] him, all written out, the consoling words with which he himself was wont to find comfort in similar circumstances: “Have I not been found worthy166 to be called to the service of the Word and been commanded, under pain of Thine everlasting331 displeasure, to believe what has been revealed to me and in no way to doubt it?... Act manfully and strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in God.”[1401]
In the matter of faith Jonas was easily contented332, and, for this, Luther praised him; since a man could not comprehend the Articles, it was sufficient for him to begin with a mere assent333 (“ut incipiamus tantum assentiri”). This theology actually appealed to Luther so much that he exclaimed: “Yes, dear Dr. Jonas, if a man could believe it as it stands, his heart would burst for joy! That is sure. Hence we shall never attain334 to its comprehension.”[1402] On Ascension Day, 1540, Luther’s pupils wrote down these words which fell from his lips: “I am fond of Jonas, but if he were to ascend335 up to heaven and be taken from us, what should I then think?... Strange, I cannot understand it and cannot believe it, and yet all the Apostles believed.... Oh, if only a man could believe it!”[1403]
Jonas found the faith amongst the country people around Wittenberg so feeble and barren of fruit, that, on one occasion, he complained of it with great anger. Luther sought to pacify336 him: God’s chastisement337 will fall upon those peasants in due time; God is strong enough to deal with them. He added, however, admitting that Jonas was right: “Is it not a disgrace that in the whole Wittenberg district only one peasant can be found in all the villages who seriously exhorts338 his household in the Word of God and the Catechism? The others are all going to the devil!”[1404]
Justus Jonas, whose real name was Jodocus (Jobst) Koch, was a native of Nordhausen in the province of Saxony. He, like Bugenhagen, could not boast of a theological education as he had devoted himself to jurisprudence, and, as an enthusiastic Erasmian, to Humanism. In 1514 or 1515 he became priest at Erfurt, and in 1518 Doctor of Civil and Canon Law, at the same time securing a comfortable canonry. He attached himself to Luther during the latter’s journey to Worms, and in July, 1521, migrated to Wittenberg, where he lectured at the University on Canon Law and also on theology, after having been duly promoted to the dignity of Doctor in the theological Faculty; at the same time he was provost of the Schlosskirche.
[416]
In 1522 he married a Wittenberg girl, and, in the following year, vindicated this step against Johann Faber in “Adv. J. Fabrum, scortationis patronum, pro10 coniugio sacerdotali,” just as Bugenhagen after his marriage had found occasion to defend in print priestly matrimony. In 1523 he lectured on Romans. Of his publications his translations of Luther’s works were particularly prized.
His practical mind, his schooling339 in the law, and his business abilities, no less than the friendship of Luther bestowed upon a man so ready with the pen, procured340 for him his nomination341 as dean of the theological Faculty; this position he retained from 1523 till 1533. Jonas, the “theologian by choice,” as Luther termed him in contradistinction to Amsdorf, the “theologian by nature,” took part in all the important events connected with Lutheranism, in the Conference at Marburg, the Diet of Augsburg and the Visitations in the Saxon Electorate from 1528 onwards, also in the introduction of the innovations into the Duchy of Saxony in 1539. In 1541 he introduced the new church-system in the town of Halle, which till then had been the residence of the Cardinal-Elector, Albert of Mayence. From the time of the War of Schmalkalden and the misfortunes which ensued, his interior troubles grew into a mental malady342. Melanchthon speaks of his “animus ?grotus.” His was a form of the “morbus melancholicus”[1405] which we meet with so often at that time amongst disappointed and broken-down men within the Protestant fold, and which was unquestionably due to religious troubles. According to the report of one Protestant, Cyriacus Schnauss (1556), and of a certain anonymous343 writer, his death (? October 9, 1555),[1406] was happier than his life. To the darker side of his character belongs the malicious69 and personal nature of his polemics344, as experienced, for instance, by Johann Faber and Wicel, whom he attacked with the weapon of calumny, and his “constant, often petty, concern in the increase of his income.”
点击收听单词发音
1 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 den | |
n.兽穴;秘密地方;安静的小房间,私室 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 countless | |
adj.无数的,多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 heed | |
v.注意,留意;n.注意,留心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 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: |
|
|
8 kindly | |
adj.和蔼的,温和的,爽快的;adv.温和地,亲切地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 exegesis | |
n.注释,解释 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 pro | |
n.赞成,赞成的意见,赞成者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 epithets | |
n.(表示性质、特征等的)词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 fanatic | |
n.狂热者,入迷者;adj.狂热入迷的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 rogue | |
n.流氓;v.游手好闲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 lurid | |
adj.可怕的;血红的;苍白的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 artifices | |
n.灵巧( artifice的名词复数 );诡计;巧妙办法;虚伪行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 evade | |
vt.逃避,回避;避开,躲避 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 symbolical | |
a.象征性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 antiquity | |
n.古老;高龄;古物,古迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 disciple | |
n.信徒,门徒,追随者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 abhorrence | |
n.憎恶;可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 followers | |
追随者( follower的名词复数 ); 用户; 契据的附面; 从动件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 follower | |
n.跟随者;随员;门徒;信徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 mar | |
vt.破坏,毁坏,弄糟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 suspense | |
n.(对可能发生的事)紧张感,担心,挂虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 brotherhood | |
n.兄弟般的关系,手中情谊 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 incensed | |
盛怒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 attachment | |
n.附属物,附件;依恋;依附 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 tablecloth | |
n.桌布,台布 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 testily | |
adv. 易怒地, 暴躁地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 constrained | |
adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 frustrated | |
adj.挫败的,失意的,泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的过去式和过去分词 );挫败;使受挫折;令人沮丧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 reconciliation | |
n.和解,和谐,一致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 conciliation | |
n.调解,调停 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 diplomacy | |
n.外交;外交手腕,交际手腕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 arrogance | |
n.傲慢,自大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 boor | |
n.举止粗野的人;乡下佬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 besieged | |
包围,围困,围攻( besiege的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 peril | |
n.(严重的)危险;危险的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 foes | |
敌人,仇敌( foe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 foe | |
n.敌人,仇敌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 unity | |
n.团结,联合,统一;和睦,协调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 lessened | |
减少的,减弱的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 rumour | |
n.谣言,谣传,传闻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 slain | |
杀死,宰杀,杀戮( slay的过去分词 ); (slay的过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 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: |
|
|
57 destined | |
adj.命中注定的;(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 miserably | |
adv.痛苦地;悲惨地;糟糕地;极度地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 shamefully | |
可耻地; 丢脸地; 不体面地; 羞耻地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 insignificant | |
adj.无关紧要的,可忽略的,无意义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 fanatics | |
狂热者,入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 barge | |
n.平底载货船,驳船 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 eloquence | |
n.雄辩;口才,修辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 slandering | |
[法]口头诽谤行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 systematically | |
adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 deliberately | |
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 malicious | |
adj.有恶意的,心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 maliciously | |
adv.有敌意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 delineation | |
n.记述;描写 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 presumptuous | |
adj.胆大妄为的,放肆的,冒昧的,冒失的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 importunate | |
adj.强求的;纠缠不休的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 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: |
|
|
75 condemnation | |
n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 relentlessly | |
adv.不屈不挠地;残酷地;不间断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 scourges | |
带来灾难的人或东西,祸害( scourge的名词复数 ); 鞭子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 scourged | |
鞭打( scourge的过去式和过去分词 ); 惩罚,压迫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 tolerance | |
n.宽容;容忍,忍受;耐药力;公差 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 faculty | |
n.才能;学院,系;(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 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: |
|
|
82 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 mosaic | |
n./adj.镶嵌细工的,镶嵌工艺品的,嵌花式的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 prohibition | |
n.禁止;禁令,禁律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 detriment | |
n.损害;损害物,造成损害的根源 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 electorate | |
n.全体选民;选区 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 magistrates | |
地方法官,治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 pastor | |
n.牧师,牧人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 banished | |
v.放逐,驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 dire | |
adj.可怕的,悲惨的,阴惨的,极端的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 enraged | |
使暴怒( enrage的过去式和过去分词 ); 歜; 激愤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 screed | |
n.长篇大论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 annihilate | |
v.使无效;毁灭;取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 rites | |
仪式,典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 dagger | |
n.匕首,短剑,剑号 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 apprehend | |
vt.理解,领悟,逮捕,拘捕,忧虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 admonishing | |
v.劝告( admonish的现在分词 );训诫;(温和地)责备;轻责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 alluding | |
提及,暗指( allude的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 obstinacy | |
n.顽固;(病痛等)难治 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 besought | |
v.恳求,乞求(某事物)( beseech的过去式和过去分词 );(beseech的过去式与过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 vexed | |
adj.争论不休的;(指问题等)棘手的;争论不休的问题;烦恼的v.使烦恼( vex的过去式和过去分词 );使苦恼;使生气;详细讨论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 muzzling | |
给(狗等)戴口套( muzzle的现在分词 ); 使缄默,钳制…言论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 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: |
|
|
106 tranquil | |
adj. 安静的, 宁静的, 稳定的, 不变的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 retarded | |
a.智力迟钝的,智力发育迟缓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 arrogate | |
v.冒称具有...权利,霸占 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 rebutted | |
v.反驳,驳回( rebut的过去式和过去分词 );击退 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 arrogant | |
adj.傲慢的,自大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 puffed | |
adj.疏松的v.使喷出( puff的过去式和过去分词 );喷着汽(或烟)移动;吹嘘;吹捧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 arrant | |
adj.极端的;最大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 undertaking | |
n.保证,许诺,事业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 gutter | |
n.沟,街沟,水槽,檐槽,贫民窟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 reprobate | |
n.无赖汉;堕落的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 rumoured | |
adj.谣传的;传说的;风 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 impenitent | |
adj.不悔悟的,顽固的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 crooked | |
adj.弯曲的;不诚实的,狡猾的,不正当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 coherence | |
n.紧凑;连贯;一致性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 dub | |
vt.(以某种称号)授予,给...起绰号,复制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 fanaticism | |
n.狂热,盲信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 repudiation | |
n.拒绝;否认;断绝关系;抛弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 remonstrances | |
n.抱怨,抗议( remonstrance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 vocation | |
n.职业,行业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 emanating | |
v.从…处传出,传出( emanate的现在分词 );产生,表现,显示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 wont | |
adj.习惯于;v.习惯;n.习惯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 assailing | |
v.攻击( assail的现在分词 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 fealty | |
n.忠贞,忠节 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 kindliness | |
n.厚道,亲切,友好的行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 humility | |
n.谦逊,谦恭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 overthrowing | |
v.打倒,推翻( overthrow的现在分词 );使终止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 subterfuge | |
n.诡计;藉口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 tonsure | |
n.削发;v.剃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 submission | |
n.服从,投降;温顺,谦虚;提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 underlay | |
v.位于或存在于(某物)之下( underlie的过去式 );构成…的基础(或起因),引起n.衬垫物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 peculiarities | |
n. 特质, 特性, 怪癖, 古怪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 liar | |
n.说谎的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 pious | |
adj.虔诚的;道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 penance | |
n.(赎罪的)惩罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 condemns | |
v.(通常因道义上的原因而)谴责( condemn的第三人称单数 );宣判;宣布…不能使用;迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 mortification | |
n.耻辱,屈辱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 covenant | |
n.盟约,契约;v.订盟约 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 undone | |
a.未做完的,未完成的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 enjoined | |
v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 elevation | |
n.高度;海拔;高地;上升;提高 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 disapproved | |
v.不赞成( disapprove的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 defiance | |
n.挑战,挑衅,蔑视,违抗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 vindicates | |
n.澄清(某人/某事物)受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的名词复数 );表明或证明(所争辩的事物)属实、正当、有效等;维护v.澄清(某人/某事物)受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的第三人称单数 );表明或证明(所争辩的事物)属实、正当、有效等;维护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 testament | |
n.遗嘱;证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 imposing | |
adj.使人难忘的,壮丽的,堂皇的,雄伟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 precepts | |
n.规诫,戒律,箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 ordained | |
v.任命(某人)为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 );授予(某人)圣职;(上帝、法律等)命令;判定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 undue | |
adj.过分的;不适当的;未到期的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 expounded | |
论述,详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 alteration | |
n.变更,改变;蚀变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 minor | |
adj.较小(少)的,较次要的;n.辅修学科;vi.辅修 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 consecration | |
n.供献,奉献,献祭仪式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 dissertation | |
n.(博士学位)论文,学术演讲,专题论文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 dictates | |
n.命令,规定,要求( dictate的名词复数 )v.大声讲或读( dictate的第三人称单数 );口授;支配;摆布 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 demolishing | |
v.摧毁( demolish的现在分词 );推翻;拆毁(尤指大建筑物);吃光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 dishonour | |
n./vt.拒付(支票、汇票、票据等);vt.凌辱,使丢脸;n.不名誉,耻辱,不光彩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 ridicules | |
n.嘲笑( ridicule的名词复数 );奚落;嘲弄;戏弄v.嘲笑,嘲弄,奚落( ridicule的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 variance | |
n.矛盾,不同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 habitual | |
adj.习惯性的;通常的,惯常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 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: |
|
|
179 consolation | |
n.安慰,慰问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 fiery | |
adj.燃烧着的,火红的;暴躁的;激烈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 defender | |
n.保卫者,拥护者,辩护人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 lengthened | |
(时间或空间)延长,伸长( lengthen的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 foretold | |
v.预言,预示( foretell的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 monk | |
n.和尚,僧侣,修道士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 mischief | |
n.损害,伤害,危害;恶作剧,捣蛋,胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 wrestle | |
vi.摔跤,角力;搏斗;全力对付 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 vindicated | |
v.澄清(某人/某事物)受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 );表明或证明(所争辩的事物)属实、正当、有效等;维护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 avers | |
v.断言( aver的第三人称单数 );证实;证明…属实;作为事实提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 harping | |
n.反复述说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 subjective | |
a.主观(上)的,个人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 brazen | |
adj.厚脸皮的,无耻的,坚硬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 meekness | |
n.温顺,柔和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 emphatic | |
adj.强调的,着重的;无可置疑的,明显的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 pervert | |
n.堕落者,反常者;vt.误用,滥用;使人堕落,使入邪路 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 gloss | |
n.光泽,光滑;虚饰;注释;vt.加光泽于;掩饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 glosses | |
n.(页末或书后的)注释( gloss的名词复数 );(表面的)光滑;虚假的外表;用以产生光泽的物质v.注解( gloss的第三人称单数 );掩饰(错误);粉饰;把…搪塞过去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 implicit | |
a.暗示的,含蓄的,不明晰的,绝对的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 horrid | |
adj.可怕的;令人惊恐的;恐怖的;极讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 heresies | |
n.异端邪说,异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 rampant | |
adj.(植物)蔓生的;狂暴的,无约束的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 joyful | |
adj.欢乐的,令人欢欣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 salvation | |
n.(尤指基督)救世,超度,拯救,解困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 wrath | |
n.愤怒,愤慨,暴怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 imploring | |
恳求的,哀求的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 rascal | |
n.流氓;不诚实的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 defiant | |
adj.无礼的,挑战的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 rebellious | |
adj.造反的,反抗的,难控制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 privy | |
adj.私用的;隐密的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 apprises | |
v.告知,通知( apprise的第三人称单数 );评价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 yoke | |
n.轭;支配;v.给...上轭,连接,使成配偶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 modifications | |
n.缓和( modification的名词复数 );限制;更改;改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 utterances | |
n.发声( utterance的名词复数 );说话方式;语调;言论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 mien | |
n.风采;态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 leniently | |
温和地,仁慈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 lenient | |
adj.宽大的,仁慈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 pillory | |
n.嘲弄;v.使受公众嘲笑;将…示众 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 strife | |
n.争吵,冲突,倾轧,竞争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 concealed | |
a.隐藏的,隐蔽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 conceal | |
v.隐藏,隐瞒,隐蔽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 hypocrisy | |
n.伪善,虚伪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 eternity | |
n.不朽,来世;永恒,无穷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 displeased | |
a.不快的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 perjurious | |
adj.伪证的,犯伪证罪的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 rhetoric | |
n.修辞学,浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 avenger | |
n. 复仇者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 defiled | |
v.玷污( defile的过去式和过去分词 );污染;弄脏;纵列行进 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 complimentary | |
adj.赠送的,免费的,赞美的,恭维的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 adversaries | |
n.对手,敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 melancholy | |
n.忧郁,愁思;adj.令人感伤(沮丧)的,忧郁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 predecessors | |
n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 );前辈;(被取代的)原有事物;前身 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 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: |
|
|
240 dubious | |
adj.怀疑的,无把握的;有问题的,靠不住的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 relinquishing | |
交出,让给( relinquish的现在分词 ); 放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 outlawed | |
宣布…为不合法(outlaw的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 exalted | |
adj.(地位等)高的,崇高的;尊贵的,高尚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 venom | |
n.毒液,恶毒,痛恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 syrup | |
n.糖浆,糖水 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 purgative | |
n.泻药;adj.通便的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 belly | |
n.肚子,腹部;(像肚子一样)鼓起的部分,膛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 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: |
|
|
250 calumny | |
n.诽谤,污蔑,中伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 controversies | |
争论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 calumniate | |
v.诬蔑,中伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 lamentable | |
adj.令人惋惜的,悔恨的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 mantle | |
n.斗篷,覆罩之物,罩子;v.罩住,覆盖,脸红 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 alluded | |
提及,暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 bestowal | |
赠与,给与; 贮存 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 superintendent | |
n.监督人,主管,总监;(英国)警务长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 founders | |
n.创始人( founder的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 lauded | |
v.称赞,赞美( laud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 exegetical | |
adj.评释的,解经的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 admiration | |
n.钦佩,赞美,羡慕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 simplicity | |
n.简单,简易;朴素;直率,单纯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 psalms | |
n.赞美诗( psalm的名词复数 );圣诗;圣歌;(中的) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 wondrous | |
adj.令人惊奇的,奇妙的;adv.惊人地;异乎寻常地;令人惊叹地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 expounding | |
论述,详细讲解( expound的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 conversion | |
n.转化,转换,转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 dismal | |
adj.阴沉的,凄凉的,令人忧郁的,差劲的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 bishop | |
n.主教,(国际象棋)象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 discourses | |
论文( discourse的名词复数 ); 演说; 讲道; 话语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 severely | |
adv.严格地;严厉地;非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 repelled | |
v.击退( repel的过去式和过去分词 );使厌恶;排斥;推开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 murmurs | |
n.低沉、连续而不清的声音( murmur的名词复数 );低语声;怨言;嘀咕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 civic | |
adj.城市的,都市的,市民的,公民的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 indefatigable | |
adj.不知疲倦的,不屈不挠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 arduous | |
adj.艰苦的,费力的,陡峭的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 undertakings | |
企业( undertaking的名词复数 ); 保证; 殡仪业; 任务 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 replica | |
n.复制品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 scrupulous | |
adj.审慎的,小心翼翼的,完全的,纯粹的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 vindication | |
n.洗冤,证实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 appreciation | |
n.评价;欣赏;感谢;领会,理解;价格上涨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 recesses | |
n.壁凹( recess的名词复数 );(工作或业务活动的)中止或暂停期间;学校的课间休息;某物内部的凹形空间v.把某物放在墙壁的凹处( recess的第三人称单数 );将(墙)做成凹形,在(墙)上做壁龛;休息,休会,休庭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 imbibed | |
v.吸收( imbibe的过去式和过去分词 );喝;吸取;吸气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 heresy | |
n.异端邪说;异教 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 apprehension | |
n.理解,领悟;逮捕,拘捕;忧虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 cynically | |
adv.爱嘲笑地,冷笑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 torment | |
n.折磨;令人痛苦的东西(人);vt.折磨;纠缠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 provocation | |
n.激怒,刺激,挑拨,挑衅的事物,激怒的原因 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 liking | |
n.爱好;嗜好;喜欢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 addicted | |
adj.沉溺于....的,对...上瘾的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 confession | |
n.自白,供认,承认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 hysterical | |
adj.情绪异常激动的,歇斯底里般的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 deranged | |
adj.疯狂的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 demon | |
n.魔鬼,恶魔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 marvels | |
n.奇迹( marvel的名词复数 );令人惊奇的事物(或事例);不平凡的成果;成就v.惊奇,对…感到惊奇( marvel的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 offender | |
n.冒犯者,违反者,犯罪者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 jeered | |
v.嘲笑( jeer的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 diabolical | |
adj.恶魔似的,凶暴的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 intervention | |
n.介入,干涉,干预 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 superstitions | |
迷信,迷信行为( superstition的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 persistence | |
n.坚持,持续,存留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 blasphemy | |
n.亵渎,渎神 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 mendicant | |
n.乞丐;adj.行乞的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 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: |
|
|
309 imprisoned | |
下狱,监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 extirpation | |
n.消灭,根除,毁灭;摘除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 emblematic | |
adj.象征的,可当标志的;象征性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 likeness | |
n.相像,相似(之处) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 countenance | |
n.脸色,面容;面部表情;vt.支持,赞同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 laity | |
n.俗人;门外汉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 veneration | |
n.尊敬,崇拜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 affinity | |
n.亲和力,密切关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 memoranda | |
n. 备忘录, 便条 名词memorandum的复数形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 attest | |
vt.证明,证实;表明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 dubbed | |
v.给…起绰号( dub的过去式和过去分词 );把…称为;配音;复制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 orator | |
n.演说者,演讲者,雄辩家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 conceit | |
n.自负,自高自大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 annoyance | |
n.恼怒,生气,烦恼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 chatter | |
vi./n.喋喋不休;短促尖叫;(牙齿)打战 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 tiresome | |
adj.令人疲劳的,令人厌倦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 laments | |
n.悲恸,哀歌,挽歌( lament的名词复数 )v.(为…)哀悼,痛哭,悲伤( lament的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 calculus | |
n.微积分;结石 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 watchful | |
adj.注意的,警惕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 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: |
|
|
331 everlasting | |
adj.永恒的,持久的,无止境的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 contented | |
adj.满意的,安心的,知足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 assent | |
v.批准,认可;n.批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 attain | |
vt.达到,获得,完成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 ascend | |
vi.渐渐上升,升高;vt.攀登,登上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 pacify | |
vt.使(某人)平静(或息怒);抚慰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 chastisement | |
n.惩罚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 exhorts | |
n.劝勉者,告诫者,提倡者( exhort的名词复数 )v.劝告,劝说( exhort的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
339 schooling | |
n.教育;正规学校教育 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
340 procured | |
v.(努力)取得, (设法)获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 );拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
341 nomination | |
n.提名,任命,提名权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
342 malady | |
n.病,疾病(通常做比喻) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
343 anonymous | |
adj.无名的;匿名的;无特色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
344 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: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |