the front door of his principal physician was
decorated with a wreath of flowers, sur
mounted with the inscription : For the deliv
erer of his country. Schl. This pontiff
was deeply sensible of vast corruption in the
Romish church, and he was sincerely re
solved to reform it, as fast as possible. In
his instructions to his legate to the diet of
Nuremberg, A.D. 1522, he authorized him
to say : Scimus in hac sancta sede aliquot
jam annis multa abominanda fuisse, abusus
in spiritualibus, excessus in mandatis, et
omnia denique in perversum mutata. Nee
mirum si tegritudo a capite in membra a



24 BOOK IV. CENTURY XVI. SEC. I. CHAP. II.

1522 and onward, Francis Cheregati, he indeed earnestly entreated th*.
the punishment decreed against Luther and his adherents by the edict of
Worms might no longer be delayed, but at the same time he showed him.
self ready to correct the evils, which had armed so great an enemy against
the church. The German princes deeming this a favourable opportunity,
while the emperor was absent in Spain, demanded a free council, which
should be held in Germany, and should deliberate in the ancient manner
on a general reformation of the church. They also exhibited a list of
one hundred grievances, of which the Germans complained as proceeding
from the Romish court ; and they passed a decree, forbidding any further
innovations in religious matters, till the council should decide what ought
to be done. (41) For so long as the princes of Germany were ignorant of
the plans under consideration in Saxony for establishing a new church in
opposition to that of Rome, they were pretty well united in opposing the
pontifical power, which they all felt to be excessive ; nor were they much
troubled about Luther s controversy with the pontiff, which they regarded
merely as a private affair.

19. The honest pontiff Hadrian, after a short reign [of one year and
eight months], died [September 24th] in the year 1523 ; and was sue-
ceeded on the 19th of November, by Clement VII., a man less ingenuous
and open hearted. (42) By another legate Laurentius Campegius, in the
same diet, A.D. 1524, Clement censured immoderately the lenity of the
princes in tolerating Luther, at the same time craftily suppressing all no
tice of the promise of a reformation made by Hadrian. The emperor sec
onded the demands of Campegius, requiring by his minister that the de
cree of Worms should be confirmed. Overcome by these remonstrances
the princes changed indeed the language of the decree, but in reality cor
roborated it. For they engaged to enforce the edict of Worms to the ex.
tent of their power, but at the same time renewed their demand for a
council, and referred all other questions to the next diet to be held at
Spire. After the diet, the pontifical legate retired with a number of the
princes, most of whom were bishops, to Ratisbon ; and from them he ob
tained a promise, that they would enforce the edict of Worms in their
territories.

20. While the religious reformation by Luther was thus daily gather
ing strength in almost all parts of Europe, two very serious evils arose to
retard its progress, the one internal, and the other external. Among
those whom the Romish bishop had excluded from the privileges of his
community, a pernicious controversy, respecting the manner in which the
body and blood of Christ are present in the sacred supper, produced very

summis pontificibus in alios inferiores prae- tis VII., in Jo. Gco. Sckelhorns Amcenitates

latos descenderit. Ornnes nos (the prelates) Hist. Eccles., torn, ii , p. 210, &c. [Clcm-

et ecclesiastic! declinavimus, unusquisque in enl VII. was a kind of Leo X., and was pre-

vias suas, nee fuit jam din, qui faceret bo- viously called Julius de Medicis. He was

num, non fuit usque ad \inum. See Ray- of a very different spirit from Hadrian, was

nahVs Annalcs Eccles., ad ann. 1522, 70. crafty and faithless, and made it his great

TV.] aim through his whole reign to advance the

(41) See Jac. Fred. George, Gravamina interests of the pontifical chair. He there-
Germanorum adversus sedem Roman., lib. fore" took all pains to thwart the designs of
ii.,p. 3?7. [The Gravamina are also insert- the Germans in regard to a general council
cd in Flacius, Catalogus Testiurn veritatis, for reforming the abuses of the papal court
No. 187. ScM.] See WalcVs Hist, der Rb mischen Papste,

(42) See Jac. Zicgler^s Historia Clemen- 379, &c. Scrd.~}



HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION.



3



great disunion. Luther and his adherents, while they rejected the dogma
of the Romish school that the bread and wine are transmuted into the
body and blood of Christ, yet maintained that persons coming to the sacred
supper participated truly, though in an inexplicable manner, of the body and
blood of Christ, together with the bread and the wine. (43) His colleague
Carolostadt, held a different opinion. (44) And after him, Ulrich Zwmgle
much more fully and ingeniously maintained in his publications, that the
body and blood of the Lord are not present in the holy supper ; but that the
bread and the wine are merely symbols or emblems, by which people should
be excited to commemorate the death of Christ and the blessings resulting
to us from it.(45) As this doctrine was embraced by nearly ail the Swiss,



(43) [Luther denied tiansubstantiation,
that is, a transmutation of the substance of
the bread and wine into the flesh and blood
of Christ ; yet he held consubstantiatwn, that
is, a real and corporeal presence of the
body and blood of Christ in, under, or along
with, the bread and wine ; so that the sacra
mental substances, after consecration, be
came each of them twofold ; namely, the
bread became both bread and the flesh of
Christ, and the wine became both wine and
the blood of Christ. Sometimes however
he represented the union of the two sub
stances in each element as constituting but
one substance, just as the union of the divine
and human natures in Christ, still constitu
ted but one person. The ubiquity of Christ s
body was an obvious consequence of his doc
trine, and one which he did not hesitate to
admit. See Hospiniari s Historia Sacra-
jnentaria, pt. ii., p. 5, &c. TV.]

(44) [Carolostadt supposed that when
Christ said, This is my body, he pointed
to his body ; so that the affirmation related
solely to his real body and not to the sacra
mental bread. His foes charged him with
denying any kind of presence of Christ in the
sacrament, even a spiritual or sacramental
presence. See Hospinian, 1. c., p. 50, &c.
-TV.]

(45) See Val. Ern. Loscher s Historia
noiuum inter Lutheranos et Reformatos,
part i., lib., i., cap. ii., p. 55. And on ths
other side, Abrah. Scultetus, Annales Evan-
gelii ; in Herm. von der Hardfs Historia
l;tterar. Reformat., p. 74, &c. Rud. Hos
pinian, [Historia Sacramentaria, pt. ii.], and
the others among the Reformed, who give
account of the origin and progress of the
controversy. [The Romish doctrine of the
real or corporeal presence of Christ in the
eucharist, which was brought into the church
principally by the efforts of Paschasius Rad-
bert, in the ninth century, (see above, vol.
ii., p. 89, &c.), but which was warmly
contested by Bcrcngarius in the eleventh
century, (see above, vol. ii., p. 193, &c.),
ind openly denied by WiMiffc in the fif



teenth, (see above, vol. ii., p. 381, note 34),
was too absurd, not to engage the attention
of the reformers. As early as A.D. 1513,
Conrad. Pelican and Wolfg. Fabr. Capito,
in a private interview, disclosed to each othr
their conviction of the absurdity of this doc
trine. (See Gcrdes, Historia Evang. renov.,
torn, i., p. 113). Luther however, while he
denied the Romish doctrine of transubstan-
tiation, yet held to the real presence, in the
way called consubslantiation. Most of tha
other reformers, especially in southern Ger
many and Switzerland, disbelieved the real
or corporeal presence of Christ, and main
tained only a spiritual presence. Yet they
did not think it expedient to write or preach
on the subject, till the public rnind should
be ripe for such a discussion. Indeed they
were not fully settled in their own minds,
what form to give to the doctrine, or what in
terpretation to put upon the texts relied on
in proof of the real presence. In the month
of Jan., 1524, Zwingle offered to the senate
of Zurich 67 doctrinal theses ; in No. IS of
which he declared the eucharist to be not c
sacrifice (non esse sacrificium), but a con*,
memoration of the sacrifice once offered on
the cross, and a seal of the redemption by
Christ (sed sacrificii in cruce semel obku
commemorationern et quasi sigillum redemp-
tionis per Christum). (See Gcrdes, 1. c.,
Append., p. 223.) These theses were cor
dially adopted by the senate of Zurich ; and
they met the general approbation of the Re
formed in that vicinity. As early as the year
1521, Cornelius Hone a learned Dutch jurist,
in a letter which was privately circulated,
explicitly denied the corporeal presence, and
maintained that the word is, in the declara
tion of Christ, This is my body, is equivalent
to represents or denotes. (See the Letter.
in Gcrdes, 1. c., Append., p. 228-240.)
This letter Zwingle first read in 1524 ; ana
approving of it perfectly, he the next year
caused it to be published. In the same
year, 1524, Zwingle wrote a letter to a
friend, in which he fully declares his belia
that the bread and wine were merely em



BOOK IV. CENTURY XVI. SEC. I. CHAP. II.



and by not a few divines in upper Germany, and as Luther and his friends
on the other hand strenuously contended for his doctrine, a long and pain.

troversy. and endeavour to enlighten and
guide their people to right conclusions. Both
(Ecolampadius and Zwingle therefore pub
lished their views of the controversy. And
in March, 1525, Zwingle published his Corn-
mentarius de vrra et falsa religione ; in
which he distinctly, but concisely, stated hia
views of the eucharist. And in June fol
lowing, he enlarged on that point, in his
Sifbsidium de eucharistia. (Ecolampadius 1 s
principal publication was in the form of a
letter addressed to his friends in Swabia, and
entitled a Genuine exposition of the word?
of our Lord, This is my body, according \o
the most ancient authors. Zwingle aiU
(Ecolampadius both maintained the breaJ
and wine to be mere symbols or represeniu.-
lives of Christ s body and blood. But thv>y
differed as to the interpretation of the words,
This is my body. Zwingle adopted Hone s
opinion, that the word is, is used catachres-
tically, for represents ; but (Ecolampadius
placed the trope on the word body, supposing
it to be used metonymically, for memorial or
emblem of my body. Bugenhagius of Wit-
temberg, now wrote against Zwingle and
(Ecolampadius ; and Zwingle replied to
him. In the year 1526, Brentius and four
teen other ministers of Swabia replied to
(Ecolampadius, in a work entitled Syngram-
rna Sucvicum ; which was soon translated
into German, and published with a harsh
preface by Luther. (Ecolampadius and
Zwingle both replied to Luther s, preface.
Luther now published his sermon against the
Enthusiasts ; to which Zwingle wrote t\v\)
letters in reply. Martin Bucer also wrote
to Brentius and the other Svvabians, censu
ring their indiscreet zeal. On the other side,
Jo. Pomeranus of Wittemberg published a
letter against Zwingle and the Reformed ; to
which Zwingle and also Michael Ccllarius
of Augsburg replied. Conrad Pellican and
Leo Juda appeared on the side of the Re
formed ; and Erasmus, Bilianus, and Osi-
andcr, on that of the Lutherans. In the yoar
1527, Zwingle addressed a work to Luther,
entitled Arnica exegesis, id est, expositio
eucharistije ncgotii. And about the same
time Luther published his very severe Ger
man work, entitled, That the words of Christ,
This is my body, still stand fast, against the
enthusiastic spirits. (Ecolampadius replied,
and also Zunngle : the latter, in a German
work, entitled, That the words of Christ,
&c., will ever have their ancient and only
meaning, and that M. Luther, in his lasK
work, has not substantiated his and the pope s
sense. In this year Pomeranus, Pirkheime



blems or representatives of Christ s body
and blood : but he charged his friend not to
make the letter public, lest it should produce
commotion. The letter however was pub
lished the next year. At Wittemberg, Ca
rolostadt was the first to reject and impugn
the doctrine of the real presence. After his
rebuke from Luther, (for destroying the al
tars and images at Wittemberg in 1522), he
retired to Orlamund, not far from Leipsic ;
and there becoming a parish minister, he in
veighed against images and the mass, and
denied the doctrine of the real presence.
The people fell in with his views, to the
great dissatisfaction of the elector and Lu
ther. Therefore in Aug., 1524, Luther was
sent to reclaim the wandering people. At
Jena he declaimed against the innovators,
with great warmth. Carolostadt was pres
ent, and feeling himself injured by this public
attack, went to Luther s lodgings and com
plained of his abuse. Hard words were
used on both sides. Carolostadt taxed Lu
ther with erroneous doctrine, particularly in
regard to the real presence. Luther chal
lenged him to a public controversy on the
subject. Carolostadt accepted the challenge ;
but being soon banished from Saxony, and
retiring first to Strasburg and then to Basle,
: t was from the last of these places he issued
his first publication. (See the account of
he dispute at Jena, in Luther s works, vol.
fi., fol. 446, &c., ed. Jena, 1580.) Among
Ihe tracts here published by Carolostadt, one
was entitled : On the words of Christ, This
is my body. He supposed Christ to have
pointed to his body, when he uttered these
words ; and to have intended to indicate,
that the sacramental bread was an emblem
of his body. Luther now wrote to the Stras-
burgers, against Carolostadt. Capita and
Bucer both published tracts on the dispute
between Luther and Carolostadt, endeavour
ing to exhibit the difference in doctrine as
not material, and to stop controversy on the
subject. But early the next year, 1525, Lu
ther issued his full and keen reply to Carol
ostadt, entitled, Against the heavenly Proph
ets, in two Parts. (Ecolampadius, Zwingle,
and others in South Germany and Switzer
land, viewed Carolostadt as substantially
correct in doctrine, ilut not happy in his
statements and reasorings. Zwingle com
pared him to a new recruit, who did not
know how to put on his armour. And as
the subject of the eucharist was now under
discussion, and the writings of both Luther
and Carolostadt circulating around them,
they deemed it proper to engage in the con-



HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION.



ful coi.troversy commenced in the year 1524. which at last, after many
fruitless attempts at a compromise, produced a lamentable schism among
those that seceded from the papal jurisdiction.

21. Extraneous to the Lutheran community, there arose in the yea
1525, like a sudden tornado, an innumerable multitude of seditious and de
iirious fanatics, in various parts of Germany, who declared war against
the laws and the magistrates, and spread rapine, conflagration, and slaugh
ter through the community. The greatest part of this furious rabble con
sisted of peasants, who were discontented under the government of their
lords; and hence this calamity has" been commonly called the war of the
peasants. (46) Yet it is manifest, there were not a few persons of various



rus, Clichtovius, and bishop Fisher of Eng
land, came out against the Reformed ; but
Regius and Billicanus espoused their cause.
In 1528, Luther published his most method
ical work on this subject, entitled a Confes
sion of faith respecting the Lord s Supper :
to which both (Ecolampadius and Zioingle
replied ; the latter in a long and elaborate
work, addressed to John elector of Saxony
and Philip landgrave of Hesse. Bucer also
leplied to it. And (Ecolampadius wrote to
Melancthon, requesting him to use efforts
for moderating the hostility of the Lutherans
towards the Reformed, who only claimed
toleration and brotherly affection. In 1529,
several letters passed between (Ecolampadi
us and Melancthon. The Strasburgers and
Erasmus also exchanged polemic letters on
the doctrine. In September of this year,
Philip landgrave of Hesse, invited the Lu
theran and Reformed champions to a friend
ly conference at Marpurg. The Lutherans
reluctantly attended, being resolved not to
make peace with those who should deny the
real presence, and despairing of convincing
the Reformed on that subject. Luther, Me
lancthon, and Justus Jonas, from Saxony,
Andrcio Osiander of Nuremberg, Brcntius
of Halle in Swabia, and Stephen Agncola of
Augsburg, were present, on the side of the
Lutherans. On the side of the Reformed,
Zwingle, (Ecolampadius, Bucer and Hedio,
attended without hesitation. In the discus
sion, Luther and (Ecolampadius were pitted
against each other ; and also Zwingle and Me
lancthon. They agreed perfectly, on fourteen
essential articles of faith ; but could not agree
respecting the real presence. The landgrave
visaed them, nevertheless, to view each
>*,}ier as brethren. Zwingle and his friends
heartily consented ; but Luther refused. In
November of this year, the Lutheran states
entered into an alliance, called the league of
Smalcald ; but refused to admit the Stras
burgers and the other Reformed cities and
states into it. In 1530, the Lutherans, the
Strasburgers, and also Zwingle, severally
presented confessions of their faith to the



diet of Augsburg ; all drawn up with mod
eration and care. The princes perceived
their agreement in all essential points, and
were disposed to admit the Reformed to the
league. But Luther and Melancthon op
posed it, and prevailed. Philip however,
landgrave of Hesse, entered into a league
with the Reformed for mutual defence against
the papists. And Strasburg, Zurich, Basle,
and Bern formed an alliance for the same
purpose, for fifteen years. In this year. Me-
lancthon published his testimonies from the
fathers in favour of the real presence ; and
(Ecolampadius replied elaborately in the form
of a dialogue. In 1531, Zwingle and (Eco
lampadius both died ; and the Reformed
weakened by the loss of these two great men,
and pressed with danger from the papists,
against whom their Lutheran brethren would
not befriend them so long as they denied the
real presence, began to waver and try to
swallow the Lutheran creed. Bucer led the
way ; and the Strasburgers followed him.
The controversy subsided in a great meas
ure. Yet the Swiss and numerous others
continued to deny the real corporeal pres
ence of Christ in the eucharist. This con
troversy it was, produced the division of the
Protestants into the two great bodies of Lu
therans and Reformed. See, for the facts
here condensed, the authors mentioned at
ihe beginning of this note, and Schroeckh a
Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation, vol.
i., p. 351, &c., and p. 420, &c. TV.]

(46) Such insurrections of the peasant?
had been very common, before the times ot
Luther; as appears from numerous exam
ples. Hence the author of the Chronicon
Danicum, published by Jo. Pet. a Ludcwig,
Reliquar. Manuscriptor. torn. ix.,p. 59, calls
them the common evil (commune maluin).
See also p. 80 and 133. This will not ap
pear strange, if it be recollected, that the
condition of the peasants in most places,
was much more insupportable than at the
present day ; and that the oppression of
many of the barons, prior to the reformation,
was really intolerable. [In many places tha



33 BOOK IV. CENTURY XVI. SEC. I. CHAP. 11.

descriptions engaged in it; some were fanatics, otheis vicious arid idle
persons allured by the hope of living comfortably on the fruits of other
people s labour. This sedition, at its commencement, was altogether of a
civil nature ; as appears from the paper published by them : for these peas,
ants only wished to be relieved of some part of their burdens, and to enjoy
greater freedom. Respecting religion, there was no great dispute. But
when the fanatic Thomas Munzcr, who had before deceived several by his
ficticious visions arid dreams, and some other persons of a similar charac
ter, had joined this irritated multitude, from being a civil commotion, it
became, especially in Saxony and Thuringia, a religious or holy war.
The sentiments however of this dissolute and infuriate rabble were very
different. Some demanded an unintelligible freedom from law. and the
abrogation of all lordships ; others only wished to have their taxes and
their burdens as citizens made lighter ; others contemplated the formation
of a new and perfectly pure church, and pretended to be inspired ; and
others again were hurried away by their passions and their hatred of the
magistrates, but without having any very definite object in view. Hence,
though it must be admitted that many of them misunderstood Luther s
doctrine concerning Christian liberty, and thence took occasion to run
wild, yet it is a great mistake, to ascribe to the influence of Luther s doc-
jrines all the blame of this phrensy. Indeed Luther himself sufficiently re
futed this calumny, by publishing books expressly against this turbulent
faction. The storm subsided, after the unfortunate battle of the peasants
with the army of the German princes, at Mulhausen A.D. 1525, in
which Munzer was taken prisoner and subjected to capital punishment. (47)

peasants were treated as slaves or serfs, and commenced in the year 1524, and in Swabia,

bought and sold with the lands to which they where some subjects of the spiritvial princes,

were attached. And the landlords, the bar- civil dukes, and nobles, complained of theii

ons, bishops, abbots, and priests, were gen- heavy burdens and feudal services, and de-

erally disposed to oppress and grind their manded a relaxation. Their lords repulsed

tenants to the utmost. Hence they were them harshly, cast some of them into prison,

perpetually rebelling, in one place and an- and even put some to death. This enkin-

other. Thus A.D. 1492, the Netheriand died their rage ; and presently a host of

peasantry appeared in arms, to the number peasants were to be seen in Swabia and

of 6000 ; and about the same time, there Francenia, who roamed from one district to

was an insurrection against the abbot of another, and united the disaffected to their

Kempten in Swabia. In the bishopric of standard. Their rulers now gave them kind

Spire, there was another in 1503; and one words: but it was too late ; and they refused

at Wittemburg, in 1514. The next year, to lay down their arms, till certain articles

there was one in the Austrian dominions, in were conceded to them. Among these, the

which 2000 peasants were slain. It spread first was, the right of electing their own

into Hungary and some other countries, 400 preachers. And this was the only article

of the nobility and gentry were butchered by that related to religion. They wished for

the insurgents ; and the whole number that preachers, who would have no respeci of

perished on both sides, was estimated at persons. Yet they afterwards dropped this

70,000. In 1517, there was another on the demand. They demanded, further, the ab-

bordcrs of Austria and Croatia. See Seek- olition of personal slavery. The tithe of pro-

endorfs Comment, de Lutheranismo, lib. duce they were willing to pay ; but it must.

ii., sec. 1. TV.] go to the support of the preachers and tha

(47) Peter Gnodalius, Historia de sedi- poor, and to promote the public interests oi

tione repentina vulgi, praecipue ru-.;ticorum the people and the country. From the tithe

A.D. 1525, tempore verno, per universam of cattle, or the lesser tithe, they demanded

fere Germaniam exorta ; Basil, 1570, 8vo. to be made free. They also demanded, that

See also Ern. Salorn. Cyprian s additions hunting and fishing should be free in the pub-

to TemeVs Historia Reformat., torn, ii., p. lie forests, seas, and rivers ; and the cutting

331, &c. [This commotion of the peasants of timber likewise ; and required a diminu



HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION.



22. When this alarming insurrection was at its height, Frederic the
Wise, Elector of Saxony, closed life A.D. 1525. While he lived he had
been a kind mediator between the Roman pontiff and Luther ; nor would
he give up the hope, that a righteous and honourable peace might final
ly be established between the contending parties, without the formation
of separate communities under different regulations. Hence he did not