and yet he, who will be saved, must renounce his works. Ergo, he, who will be saved, must himself renounce what is necessary to salvation, and without which he cannot be saved. Make this tally, rebel! Remember, that mendacem oportet esse memorem, that is, he who will lie, ought to have a good memory; otherwise, when in what he afterwards says, he will contradict himself, people will observe, how he hath lied in what he had before spoken; this should make the lying spirit more heedful."+ The theology of the good Justus Menius, finds the inculcation of good works, absolutely incompatible with the idea of humility. And, accordingly, he thinks the doctrine, that we must "renounce" such works-that is to say, acknowledge ourselves useless servants, even when we have done all, to be perfectly irreconcilable with the other tenet, that works are a necessary condition to salvation. Whereupon, in his opinion, there remains no other alternative, than to believe, that faith, even without ever evincing its efficacy in works, can render us acceptable to God! § LVIII. Continuation. Concurrence of the most various errors in the sect. Among the Anabaptists, considered as a sect, we discover not other doctrinal peculiarities, though we find a considerable multitude of errors professed by individuals, or even larger parties among them. Justus Menius had learned, that even original sin was denied * In the German, the word bundschuh (a buckled shoe) is used this Menius employs as a term of reproach, because such was painted on the banners of the rebellious peasants under Müncer. † Justus Menius, loc. cit. p. 319-20. ; by the Anabaptists; probably, it would seem, to give a broader basis to their doctrine, respecting the unlawfulness of infant baptism. On this subject, they were wont to appeal to the language and conduct, which the Saviour, on several occasions, had manifested in respect to children. From a misunderstanding, they attached especial importance to the text, wherein children are held up by him as models for adults, if they would enter into the kingdom of heaven.* That, however, only a few of the Anabaptists rejected the doctrine of original sin, although Justus Menius charges, without restriction, the whole body with such a denial, is evident from the fact of another accusation being preferred against them; to wit, that they held the body of Christ to have been created by the Holy Spirit, and merely fostered in the womb of the Blessed Virgin; so that, thereby, the Saviour would not have taken flesh and blood from Mary. They feared that, in conceding more, they would have been unable to uphold the sinlessness of Christ. Whereas, this error is not even conceivable, except on the supposition of original sin; the kindred doctrine above adverted to, respecting the peculiar, sinless sort of generation to take place in Christ's future kingdom on earth, necessarily involved also a belief in an evil transmitted by the present mode of sexual intercourse. And, indeed, that violent antagonism between the human and the divine, which runs through the whole doctrinal system of these sectaries, were not possible, without the conviction of a deep-rooted corruption tainting humanity in all its relations. Moreover, the doctrine. in question, respecting the conception of Christ, appears to have obtained a very wide currency among the * Justus Menius, loc. cit. p. 332. Anabaptists:—at least, very many adversaries take the trouble of refuting it.* The greater the multitude, who gave in to this error, the smaller must be the number of those, who, to assail infant baptism, denied original sin. Many Anabaptists rejected the doctrine of Christ's divinity others taught an ultimate restoration of all things-the ȧоkaráσтασis Távтwy, and in consequence, the final conversion of Satan; others again, that souls, from the moment of death, sleep until the day of judgment. Even an antinomian tendency was discernible in some individuals among them. These, like the "brothers and sisters of the free spirit," and like * Melanchthon: Propositions against the doctrine of the Anabaptists. loc. cit. p. 282, b.; Urbanus Regius, ibid. p. 402-18; Justus Menius, p. 342. "The reader may also consult in the same volume of Luther's works, the dialogues between the Hessian theologians Corvinus and Rymæus, and John of Leyden, Krechtingk, and others, p. 453. It is clear, moreover, from this, that the Protestant Church historian, Schröckh, has fallen into an error, in representing this doctrine of Christ's conception as a peculiarity of Menno: for, it was taught in the sect, long before Menno joined it. "The brothers and sisters of the Free Spirit," were a fanatical sect of Pantheists, that sprung up in the early part of the thirteenth century. They probably owed their origin to the philosophical school, which Amalrich, of Bena, and David, of Dinant, had founded, and which was, in the year 1209, condemned by a synod at Paris, whose sentence was confirmed by the pope. They derived their name from the abuse they made of the texts of Scripture in Romans viii. 2-14; and in St. John iv. 23, asserting that "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, had freed them from the law of sin ;" "that, being led by the Spirit of God, they had become the sons of God." Professing a mystical Pantheism, they held, like the Paulicians, that every thing is an immediate emanation from the Deity, referring to themselves the words of Christ, "I and the Father are one." Whoever attained to their view, belonged no longer to the world of sense (abusing, as they did, the words in John viii. 23, "I am not of this world;") he could the "libertines,"* asserted that no one, who had once received the Spirit, could any longer sin in any work whatsoever; and that therefore, for them, adultery even was no sin; and Zwingle refers by name to a member of the sect, who had announced this to him, as his personal conviction. For a time, also, the opinion that polygamy is not forbidden to Christians, was very general amongst them.† no longer be contaminated by it, and therefore he no longer needed the sacraments. Separating body and mind, they maintained that all sensual debaucheries could not affect the latter; and hence, some among them abandoned themselves without scruple to the grossest vices. In Swabia, particularly, about the middle of the thirteenth century, they went about inciting monks and nuns to abandon their rules, and suffer themselves to be led entirely by God and the “Free Spirit." Severe measures were then taken against them. The Apostolicals, a sect founded by Segarelli, of Parma, towards the close of the same century, held tenets very similar to those just described.-Trans. * The "Libertines" were a sect of fanatical Pantheists, that sprang out of the general religious ferment of the sixteenth century. They first appeared in Flanders, in the year 1547, and thence spread into Holland, France, and Geneva, where they gave Calvin much annoyance. At Rouen, a Franciscan monk, who had imbibed the tenets of Calvinism, was the first to inculcate the abominable doctrines of the new sect.-Trans. † On the denial of Christ's Divinity, see Justus Menius, loc. cit. p. 342; and Zwingle's Elenchus contra Catabapt. Op. tom. ii. fol. 39. "This account is perfectly credible, as we know of Lewis Hetzer, for instance, that he was at once an Unitarian and an Anabaptist; and at a later period, as is well known, an Unitarian congregation was formed in Poland, which professed likewise Anabaptist principles. On the opinions which the Anabaptists entertained respecting the ȧжокατáσTaσıç, or final restoration of things, compare Justus Menius, p. 343; and Zwingle's Elenchus, loc. cit. p. 38, b. The sleep of souls after death is there also attested, p. 37, b. For the antinomianism of the Anabaptists, see ibid. fol. 16. On the polygamy of John of Leyden, and the defence set up for the same, see Luther's works, part ii. p. 455, ed. Wittenberg. Here we find recorded the above-mentioned dialogue, These opinions, however, should not be considered as strictly Anabaptist; for, in part, they were in direct held by the Hessian theologians, Antonius Corvinus, and John Kymæus, with John of Leyden, and Krechtingk, from which I will take the liberty of extracting the following passage, in order to show at once the extremely meagre and mean view the ancient Lutherans entertained respecting marriage, and the straits, into which, by their rejection of tradition, they were necessarily driven. After several questions and answers, wherein, especially, the Old Testament polygamy was discussed, King John of Leyden, in defence of his plurality of wives, observed :-" Paul says of a bishop, he should be the man of one wife. If now a bishop should be the man of one wife, it follows that in the time of St. Paul, it was permitted for a man to have two or three wives, according to his pleasure." The Lutheran preachers replied:"We have before said, that marriage belongs to civil policy, and is a res politica; but as the civil policy, on this matter, is now very different from what it was in the time of St. Paul, and as it has forbidden, and will not tolerate the plurality of wives, you cannot answer for such an innovation, either before God or man." To this King John:"Yet I have the hope, that what was permitted to the fathers, will not damn us; and I will in this case rather hold with the fathers, than with you; still less allow, that I profess therein any error, or unchristian innovation." The Lutheran preachers :- "We would in this case much rather obey the civil power, because it is ordained of God, and in such external matters, hath the right to command and to forbid, than recur to the examples of the fathers; as for such a course we have not a warrant in God's word, but, on the contrary, know truly, that the Scripture countenances our opinion respecting marriage, rather than your view. For instance, the Scripture saith, "Therefore shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife." Here we are told, a man shall cleave unto his wife, and not unto many wives. And St. Paul saith, "Let each man have his own wife." He saith not, "Let each man have many wives." King John: "It is true, St. Paul here doth not speak of all the wives in general, but of each wife in particular for the first is my wife, I cleave to her; the second is my helpmate, I cleave to her likewise, and so on. Thus, the Scripture remains intact in all its dignity, and is not opposed to our opinion. And wherefore should I waste many words? "It is better for me to have many wives, than many strumpets." The king finally proposed : |