Historical Introduction by Translator

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION BY THE TRANSLATOR

THE Treatise before us was discovered by Luther, who first brought it into notice by an Edition of it which he published in 1516. A Second Edition, which came out two years later, he introduced with the following Preface: --
     "We read that St. Paul, though he was of a weak and contemptible presence, yet wrote weighty and powerful letters, and he boasts of himself that his 'speech is not with enticing words of man's device,' but 'full of the riches of all knowledge and wisdom.' And if we consider the wondrous ways of God, it is clear, that He hath never chosen mighty and eloquent preachers to speak His word, but as it is written: 'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise,' Ps. 8:2. And again, 'For wisdom opened the mouth of the dumb, and made the tongues of them that cannot speak eloquent,' Wisdom 10:21. Again, He blameth such as are high-minded and are offended at these simple ones. Consilium inopis, etc.
'Ye have made a mock at the counsel of the poor, because he putteth his trust in the Lord,' Ps. 14:6.
     "This I say because I will have every one warned who readeth this little book, that he should not take offence, to his own hurt, at its bad German, or its crabbed and uncouth words. For this noble book, though it be poor and rude in words, is so much the richer and more precious in knowledge and divine wisdom. And I will say, though it be boasting of myself and 'I speak as a fool,' that next to the Bible and St. Augustine, no book hath ever come into my hands, whence I have learnt, or would wish to learn more
of what God, and Christ, and man and all things are; and now I first find the truth of what certain of the learned have said in scorn of us theologians of Wittemberg, that we would be thought to put forward new things, as though there had never been men elsewhere and before our time.
Yea, verily, there have been men, but God's wrath, provoked by our sins, hath not judged us worthy to see and hear them; for it is well known that for a long time past such things have not been treated of in our
universities; nay, it has gone so far, that the Holy Word of God is not only laid on the shelf, but is almost mouldered away with dust and moths. Let as many as will, read this little book, and then say whether Theology is a new
or an old thing among us; for this book is not new. But if they say as before, that we are but German theologians, we will not deny it. I thank God, that I have heard and found my God in the German tongue, as neither I nor they have yet found Him in the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew tongue. God grant that this book may be spread abroad, then we shall find that the German theologians are without doubt the best theologians.
     (Signed, without date,)
      "Dr. MARTIN LUTHER,
      AUGUSTINIAN of Wittemberg.
     These words of Luther will probably be considered to form a sufficient justification for an attempt to present the Theologia Germanica in an English dress. When Luther sent it forth, its effort to revive the consciousness of spiritual life was received with enthusiasm by his
fellow-countrymen, in whom that life was then breaking with volcanic energy through the clods of formalism and hypocrisy, with which the Romish Church had sought to stifle its fires. No fewer than seventeen editions of the work appeared during the lifetime of Luther. Up to the present day, it has continued to be a favourite handbook of devotion in Germany, where it has passed through certainly as many as sixty Editions, and it has also been
widely circulated in France and the Netherlands, by means of Latin, French, and Flemish translations.
     To the question, who was the author of a book which has exerted so great an influence? no answer can be given, all the various endeavours to discover him having proved fruitless. Till within the last few years, Luther
was our sole authority for the text of the work, but, about 1850, a manuscript of it was discovered at Wurtzburg, by Professor Reuss, the librarian of the University there, which has since been published verbatim by Professor Pfeiffer of Prague. This Manuscript dates from 1497;
consequently it is somewhat older than Luther's time, and it also contains some passages not found in his editions. As, upon careful comparison, it seemed to the translator indisputably superior to the best modern editions based upon Luther's, it has been selected as the groundwork of the present translation, merely correcting from the former, one or two passages which appeared to contain errors of the press, or more likely of the transcriber's pen. The passages not found in Luther's edition are here enclosed between brackets.
     As has been stated, the author of the Theologia Germanica is unknown; but it is evident from his whole cast of thought, as well as from a Preface attached to the Wurtzburg Manuscript, that he belonged to a class of men who sprang up in Southern Germany at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and who were distinguished for their earnest piety and their practical belief in the presence of the Spirit of God with all Christians, laity as
well as clergy.
     These men had fallen upon evil times. Their age was not indeed one of those periods in which the vigour of the nobler powers of the soul is enfeebled by the abundance of material prosperity and physical enjoyment, nor yet one of those in which they are utterly crushed out under the hoof of oppression and misery; but it was an age in which conflicting elements were wildly struggling for the mastery. The highest spiritual and temporal authorities were at deadly strife with each other and among themselves; and in their contests, there were few provinces or towns that did not repeatedly suffer the horrors of war. The desolation caused by its ravages was however speedily repaired during the intervals of peace, by the extraordinary energy which the German nation displayed in that bloom of its manhood; so that times of deep misery and great prosperity rapidly alternated with each other. But on the whole, during the first half of this century, the sense of the calamities, which were continually recurring, predominated over the recollection of the calmer years, which were barely sufficient to allow
breathing time between the successive waves that threatened to overwhelm social order and happiness.
     The unquestioning faith and honest enthusiasm which had prompted the Crusades, no longer burnt with the same fierce ardour, for the unhappy issue of those sacred enterprises, and the scandalous worldly ambition of the
heads of the Church, had moderated its fervour and saddened the hearts of true believers. Yet the one Catholic, Christian creed still held an undivided and very real sovereignty over men's minds, and the supremacy of
the Church in things spiritual was never questioned, though many were beginning to feel that it was needful for the State to have an independent authority in things temporal, and the question was warmly agitated how much of the spiritual authority resided in the Pope and how much in the bishops and doctors of the Church. But in whichever way the dispute between these rival claims might be adjusted, the reverence for the office of the clergy remained unimpaired. The case was very different with the reverence for their persons, which had fallen to a very low ebb, owing to the worldliness and immorality of their lives. This again was much encouraged by the conduct of the Popes, who, in their zeal to establish worldly dominion, made ecclesiastical appointments rather with a view to gain political adherents, or to acquire wealth by the sale of benefices, than with a regard to the
fitness of the men selected, or the welfare of the people committed to their charge.
     On the whole, it was an age of faith, though by no means of a blind, unreasoning taking things for granted. On the contrary, the evidences of extreme activity of mind meet us on every hand, in the monuments of its literature, architecture, and invention. A few facts strikingly illustrate the divergent tendencies of thought and public opinion. Thus we may remember, how it was currently reported that the profligate Pope Boniface
VIII. was privately an unbeliever, even deriding the idea of the immortality of the soul, at the very time when he was maintaining against Philip the Fair, the right of the Pope to sit, as Christ's representative, in judgment
on the living and the dead, and to take the sword of temporal power out of the hands of those who misused it.[3] Whether this accusation was true or not, it is a remarkable sign of the times that it should have been widely believed.
     Some years later, and when the increased corruptness of the clergy, after the removal of the Papal Court to Avignon, provoked still louder complaints, we see the religious and patriotic Emperor, Louis IV., accusing
John XXII. of heresy, in a public assembly held in the square of St. Peter's at Rome, and setting up another Pope "in order to please the Roman people." But though the new Pope was every way fitted, by his unblemished character and ascetic manners, to gain a hold on public esteem, we see that the Emperor could not maintain him against the legitimately elected Pope, who, from his seat at Avignon, had power to harass the Emperor so greatly with his interdicts, that the latter, finding all efforts at conciliation fruitless, would have bought peace by unconditional submission, had not the Estates of the Empire refused to yield to such humiliation. Yet we find this very Pope obliged to yield and retract his opinions on a point of dogmatic theology. He had in a certain treatise propounded the opinion that the souls of the pious would not be admitted to the immediate vision of the Deity
until after the day of judgment. The King of France, in 1333, called an assembly of Prelates and theologians at his palace at Vincennes, where he invited them to discuss before him the two questions, whether the souls of
departed saints would be admitted to an immediate vision of the Deity before the resurrection; and whether, if so, their vision would be of the same or of a different kind after the Judgment Day? The theological faculty having
come to conclusions differing in some respects from those of the Pope, the King threatened the latter with the stake as a heretic, unless he retracted; and John XXII. issued a bull, declaring that what he had said or written, ought only to be received in so far as it agreed with the Catholic Faith, the Church and Holy Scripture. No circumstance, perhaps, offers a more remarkable spectacle to us in its contrast with the spirit of our own times.
At the present moment, when the Pope could not sit for a day in safety on his temporal throne without the defence of French or Austrian bayonets, we can scarcely conceive an Emperor of France or Austria taking upon himself to
convene an assembly of Catholic theologians, and the latter pronouncing a censure on the dogmas propounded by the Head of the Church! It would be hard to say whether the Sovereigns of the present day would be more amused by the absurdity of devoting their time to such discussions, or the consciences of good Catholics more shocked at the presumption of such a verdict.
     Still it must not be forgotten that the importance of religious affairs in that age must not be ascribed too exclusively to earnestness about religion itself, for the ecclesiastical interest predominated over the purely religious. The Pope and the Emperor represented the two great antagonistic powers, spiritual and temporal, the rivalry between which
absorbed into itself all the political and social questions that could then
be agitated. The question of allegiance to the Pope or the Emperor was like
the contest between royalism and republicanism; the Ghibelline called
himself a patriot, and was called by his adversary, the Guelf, a worldly man
or even an infidel, while he retorted by calling the Guelf a betrayer of his
country, and an enemy of national liberties.
     We cannot help seeing, however, that in those days both princes and
people, wicked as their lives often were, did really believe in the
Christian religion, and that while much of the mythological and much of the
formalistic element mingled in their zeal for outward observances, there was
also much thoroughly sincere enthusiasm among them. But both the two great
powers oppressed the people, which looked alternately to the one side or the
other for emancipation from the particular grievances felt to be most
galling at any given moment or place. In the frightful moral and physical
condition of society, it was no wonder that a despair of Providence should
have begun to attack some minds, which led to materialistic scepticism,
while others sought for help on the path of wild speculation. The latter
appears to have been the case with the Beghards or "Brothers and Sisters of
the Free Spirit," who attempted to institute a reform by withdrawing the
people altogether from the influence of the clergy, but whose followers
after a time too often fell into the vices of the priests from whom they had
separated themselves. In 1317, we find the Bishop of Ochsenstein complaining
that Alsace was filled with these Beghards, who appear to have been a kind
of antinomian pantheists, teaching that the Spirit is bound by no law, and
annihilating the distinction between the Creator and the creature. Both in
their excellences and defects they remind us of the modern "German
Catholics," and of some, too, of the recent Protestant schools in Germany.
There seems to have been no party of professed unbelievers, but that some
individuals were such in word as well as deed, appears from what Ruysbroch
of Brussels,[4] (1300-1330) says of those "who live in mortal sin, not
troubling themselves about God or His grace, but thinking virtue sheer
nonsense, and the spiritual life hypocrisy or delusion; and hearing with
disgust all mention of God or virtue, for they are persuaded that there is
no such thing as God, or Heaven, or Hell; for they acknowledge nothing but
what is palpable to the senses."
     The early part of the fourteenth century saw Germany divided for nine
years between the rival claims of two Emperors, Frederick of Austria,
supported by Pope John XXII. and a faction in Germany, and Louis of Bavaria,
whose cause was espoused by a majority of the princes of the Empire, as that
of the defender of the dignity and independence of the State, and the
champion of reform within the Church. The death of Frederick, in 1322, left
Louis the undisputed Emperor, as far as nearly all his subjects were
concerned, and he would fain have purchased peace with the Pope on any
reasonable terms, that he might apply himself to the internal improvement of
his dominions; but John XXII. was implacable, and continued to wage against
him and his adherents a deadly warfare, not closed until his successor
Charles IV. submitted to all the papal demands, and to every indignity
imposed upon him.
     One of the most fearful consequences of the enmity between John XXII.
and Louis of Bavaria, to the unfortunate subjects of the latter, was the
Interdict under which his dominions were laid in 1324, and from which some
places, distinguished for their loyalty to the Emperor, were not relieved
for six-and-twenty years. Louis, indeed, desired his subjects to pay no
regard to the bull of excommunication, and most of the laity, especially of
the larger towns, would gladly have obeyed him in spite of the Pope; but the
greater part of the bishops and clergy held with their spiritual head, and
thus the inhabitants of Strasburg, Nuremberg, and other cities, where the
civil authorities sided with the Emperor, and the clergy with the Pope, were
left year after year without any religious privileges; for public worship
ceased, and all the business of life went on without the benedictions of the
Church, no rite being allowed but baptism and extreme unction.
     After this had lasted sixteen years, the Emperor, wishing to relieve
the anguished consciences of his people, issued, in conjunction with the
Princes of the Empire, a great manifesto to all Christendom, refuting the
Pope's accusations against him, maintaining that he who had been legally
chosen by the Electors was, in virtue thereof, the rightful Emperor, and had
received his dignity from God, and proclaiming that all who denied this were
guilty of high treason; that therefore none should be allowed any longer to
observe the Interdict, and all who should continue to do so, whether
communities or individuals, should be deprived of every civil and
ecclesiastical right and privilege. This courageous edict found a response
in the heart of the nation, and public opinion continually declared itself
more strongly on the side of the Emperor. Yet on the whole it rather
increased the general anarchy; for in many places the priests and monks were
steadfast in their allegiance to the Pope, and, refusing to administer
public service, were altogether banished from the towns, and the churches
and convents closed. In Strasburg, for instance, where the regular clergy
had long since ceased to perform religious rites, the Dominicans and
Franciscans had continued to preach and perform mass; but now they too,
frightened by the Edict, which placed them in direct opposition to the Pope,
dared no longer to disregard the renewed sentence of excommunication hanging
over them, and refusing to read mass, were expelled by the Town Council.
Many of these banished clergy wandered about in great distress, with
difficulty finding refuge among the scattered rural population, and the
sufferings they endured proved the sincerity of their conscientious
scruples. Some few, either from worldly motives, or out of pity for the
people, remained at their posts. The former indeed throve by the miseries of
their fellow-creatures, driving a usurious trade in the famine of spiritual
consolation; for it is upon record, that in time of pestilence, the price of
shrift has been as much as sixty florins!
     The spectacle of such discord between the clergy and the laity was
something unspeakably shocking to the Christian world in that age, and the
energetic proceedings of the magistracy must have utterly staggered the
faith of many. Of all the events that were stirring up men's passions and
energies, none was more calculated to move their souls to the very centre,
than to find themselves compelled to stand up in arms against those whom
they had been wont to bow down before, and to reverence as the source of
those spiritual blessings, for the sake of which they were now driven in
desperation to take this awful step.
     To these political and religious dissensions were added, in process of
time, other miseries. After it had been preceded by earthquakes, hurricanes
and famine, the Black Death broke out, spreading terror and desolation
through Southern Europe. Men saw in these frightful calamities the judgments
of God, but looked in vain for any to show them a way of deliverance and
escape. Some believed that the last day was approaching; some, remembering
an old prophecy, looked with hope for the return of the Great Emperor
Frederick II. to restore justice and peace in the world, to punish the
wicked clergy, and help the poor and oppressed flock to their rights. Others
traversed the country in processions, scourging themselves and praying with
a loud voice, in order to atone for their sins and appease God's anger, and
inveighing against man's unbelief, which had called down God's wrath upon
the earth; while some thought to do God service, by wreaking vengeance on
the people which had slain the Lord, and thousands of wretched Jews perished
in the flames kindled by frantic terror. "All things worked together to
deepen the sense of the corruptness of the Church, to lead men's thoughts
onwards from their physical to their spiritual wants, to awaken reflection
on the judgments of God, and to fix their eyes on the indications of the
future,''[5] so that John of Winterthur was probably not alone in applying
to his own times what St. Paul says of the perils of the latter days.
     In these chaotic times, and in the countries where the storms raged
most fiercely, there were some who sought that peace which could not be
found on earth, in intercourse with a higher world. Destitute of help and
comfort and guidance from man, they took refuge in God, and finding that to
them He had proved "a present help ill time of trouble," "as the shadow of a
great rock in a weary land," they tried to bring their fellow-men to believe
and partake in a life raised above the troubles of this world. They desired
to show them that that Eternal life and enduring peace which Christ had
promised to His disciples, was, of a truth, to be found by the Way which He
had pointed out, -- by a living union with Him and the Father who had sent
Him.
     With this aim, like-minded men and women joined themselves together,
that by communion of heart and mutual counsel they might strengthen each
other in their common efforts to revive the spiritual life of those around
them. The Association they founded was kept secret, lest through
misconception of their principles, they might fall under suspicion of
heresy, and the Inquisition should put a stop to their labours; but they
desired to keep themselves aloof from every thing that savoured of heresy or
disorder. On the contrary, they carefully observed all the precepts of the
Church, and carried their obedience so far that many of their number were
among the priests who were banished for obeying the Pope, when the Emperor
ordered them to disregard the Interdict. They assumed the appellation of
"Friends of God" (Gottesfreunde), and, in the course of a few years, their
associations extended along the Rhine provinces from Basle to Cologne, and
eastwards through Swabia, Bavaria, and Franconia. Strasburg, Constance,
Nuremberg and Nordlingen were among their chief seats. Their distinguishing
doctrines were self-renunciation, -- the complete giving-up of self-will to
the will of God; -- the continuous activity of the Spirit of God in all
believers, and the intimate union possible between God and man; -- the
worthlessness of all religion based upon fear or the hope of reward; -- and
the essential equality of the laity and clergy, though, for the sake of
order and discipline, the organization of the Church was necessary. They
often appealed to the declaration of Christ (John 15:15), "Henceforth I call
you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I
have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I
have made known unto you;" and from this they probably derived their name of
"Friends of God." Their mode of action was simply personal, for they made no
attempt to gain political and hierarchical power, but exerted all their
influence by means of preaching, writing and social intercourse. The
Association counted among its members priests, monks, and laity, without
distinction of rank or sex. Its leaders stood likewise in close connection
with several convents, especially those of Engenthal, and Maria-Medingen
near Nuremberg, presided over by the sisters Christina and Margaret Ebner,
much of whose correspondence is still extant. Agnes, the widow of King
Andrew of Hungary, and various knights and burghers, are also named as
belonging to it.
     Foremost among the leaders of this party should be mentioned the
celebrated Tauler, a Dominican monk of Strasburg, who spent his life in
preaching and teaching up and down the country from Strasburg to Cologne,
and whose influence is to this day active among his countrymen by means of
his admirable sermons, which are still widely read. At the time of the
Interdict he wrote a noble appeal to the clergy not to forsake their flocks,
maintaining that if the Emperor had sinned, the blame lay with him only, not
with his wretched subjects, so that it was a crying shame to visit his guilt
upon the innocent people, but that their unjust oppression would be
recompensed to them by God hereafter. He acted up to his own principles, and
when the Black Death was raging in Strasburg, where it carried off 16,000
victims, he was unwearied in his efforts to administer aid and consolation
to the sick and dying.
     Much of Tauler's religious fervour and light he himself attributed to
the instructions of a layman, his friend. It is now known from contemporary
records that this was Nicholas of Basle, a citizen of that Free town and a
secret Waldensian. Little is known of his life beyond the fact that he was
intimately connected with many of the heads of this party, and was resorted
to by them for guidance and help; for, being under suspicion of heresy, he
had to conceal all his movements from the Inquisition. He succeeded,
however, in carrying on his labours and eluding his enemies, until he
reached an advanced age; but at length, venturing alone and unprotected into
France, he was taken, and burnt at Vienne in 1382. Another friend of
Tauler's, and like him an eloquent and powerful preacher, whose sermons are
still read with delight, was Henry Suso, a Dominican monk, belonging to a
knightly family in Swabia.
     One of the leaders of the "Friends of God," Nicholas of Strasburg, was
in 1326 appointed by John XXII. nuncio, with the oversight of the Dominican
order throughout Germany, and dedicated to that Pope an Essay of great
learning and ability, refuting the prevalent interpretations of Scripture,
which referred the coming of Antichrist and the Judgment day to the
immediate future. Thus we see that the "Friends of God" were not confined to
one political party, and this likewise appears from the history of another
celebrated member of this sect, Henry of Nordlingen, a priest of Constance,
who, like Suso, was banished for his adherence to the Pope. One of the most
remarkable men of this sect was a layman and married, Rulman Merswin,
belonging to a high family at Strasburg. He appears to have been led to a
religious life by the influence of Tauler, who was his confessor. He is the
author of several mystical works which, he says, he wrote "to do good to his
fellow creatures," but he contributed perhaps still more largely to their
benefit by his activity in charitable works, for he established one hospital
and seems to have had the oversight of others also. He likewise gave largely
to churches and convents, but is best known by having founded a house for
the Knights of St. John in Strasburg. The characteristic doctrines of the
"Friends of God" have already been indicated. That they should not have
fallen into some exaggerations was scarcely possible, but where they have
done so, it may generally be traced to the influence of the monastic life to
which most of them were dedicated, and to the perplexities of their age.
     The book before us was probably written somewhere about I350, since it
refers to Tauler as already well known. It was the practice of the "Friends
of God" to conceal their names as much as possible when they wrote, lest a
desire for fame should mingle with their endeavours to be useful. This is
probably the reason why we have no indication of its authorship beyond a
preface, which the Wurtzburg Manuscript possesses in common with that which
was in Luther's hands, and from which it appears that the writer "was of the
Teutonic order, a priest and a warden in the house of the Teutonic order in
Frankfort." A translation of this Preface is prefixed to the present volume.
Till the discovery of the Wurtzburg Manuscript, it was supposed that this
Preface was from Luther's hand, who merely embodied in it the tradition
which he had received from some source unknown to us; and hence, some,
disregarding its authority, have ascribed the Theologia Germanica to Tauler,
whose style it resembles so much that it might be taken for his work, but
for the reference to him already mentioned. Since, however, the antiquity of
the Preface is now proved, we must be content with the information which it
affords us, unless any further discoveries among old manuscripts should
throw fresh light upon the subject.
     Should this attempt to introduce the writings of the "Friends of God"
in England awaken an interest in them and their works, the Translator
proposes to follow up the present volume with an account of Tauler and
selections from his writings; believing that the study of these German
theologians, who were already called old in Luther's age, would furnish the
best antidote to what of mischief English readers may have derived from
German theology, falsely so called.
     Manchester, February 1854.
               LETTER FROM CHEVALIER BUNSEN TO THE TRANSLATOR

     77 Marina, St. Leonard's-on-Sea,
     11th May 1854.

MY DEAR FRIEND,
YOUR Letter and the proof-sheets of your Translation of the Theologia
Germanica, with Kingsley's Preface and your Introduction, were delivered to
me yesterday, as I was leaving Carlton Terrace to breathe once more, for a
few days, the refreshing air of this quiet, lovely place. You told me, at
the time, that you had been led to study Tauler and the Theologia Germanica
by some conversations which we had on their subjects in 1851, and you now
wish me to state to your readers, in a few lines, what place I conceive this
school of Germanic theology to hold in the general development of Christian
thought, and what appears to me to be the bearing of this work in particular
upon the present dangers and prospects of Christianity, as well as upon the
eternal interests of religion in the heart of every man and woman.
     In complying willingly with your request, I may begin by saying that,
with Luther, I rank this short treatise next to the Bible, but, unlike him,
should place it before rather than after St. Augustine. That school of
pious, learned, and profound men of which this book is, as it were, the
popular catechism, was the Germanic counterpart of Romanic scholasticism,
and more than the revival of that Latin theology which produced so many
eminent thinkers, from Augustine, its father, to Thomas Aquinas, its last
great genius, whose death did not take place until after the birth of Dante,
who again was the contemporary of the Socrates of the Rhenish school, --
Meister Eckart, the Dominican.
     The theology of this school was the first protest of the Germanic mind
against the Judaism and formalism of the Byzantine and mediaeval Churches,
-- the hollowness of science to which scholasticism had led, and the
rottenness of society which a pompous hierarchy strove in vain to conceal,
but had not the power nor the will to correct. Eckart and Tauler, his pupil,
brought religion home from fruitless speculation, and reasonings upon
imaginary or impossible suppositions, to man's own heart and to the
understanding of the common people, as Socrates did the Greek philosophy.
There is both a remarkable analogy and a striking contrast between the great
Athenian and those Dominican friars. Socrates did full justice to the deep
ethical ideas embodied in the established religion of his country and its
venerated mysteries, which he far preferred to the shallow philosophy of the
sophists; but he dissuaded his pupils from seeking an initiation into the
mysteries, or at least from resting their convictions and hopes upon them,
exhorting them to rely, not upon the oracles of Delphi, but upon the oracle
in their own bosom. The "Friends of God," on the other hand, believing (like
Dante) most profoundly in the truth of the Christian religion, on which the
established Church of their age, notwithstanding its corruptions, was
essentially founded, recommended submission to the ordinances of the church
as a wholesome preparatory discipline for many minds. Like the saint of
Athens, however, they spoke plain truth to the people. To their disciples,
and those who came to them for instruction, they exhibited the whole depth
of that real Christian philosophy, which opens to the mind after all
scholastic conventionalism has been thrown away, and the soul listens to the
response which Christ's Gospel and God's creation find in a sincere heart
and a self-sacrificing life; -- a philosophy which, considered merely as a
speculation, is far more profound than any scholastic system. But, in a
style that was intelligible to all, they preached that no fulfilment of
rites and ceremonies, nor of so-called religious duties, -- in fact, no
outward works, however meritorious, can either give peace to man's
conscience, nor yet give him strength to bear up against the temptations of
prosperity and the trials of adversity.
     In following this course they brought the people back from hollow
profession and real despair, to the blessings of gospel religion, while they
opened to philosophic minds a new career of thought. By teaching that man is
justified by ' faith, and by faith alone, they prepared the popular
intellectual element of the Reformation; by teaching that this faith has its
philosophy, as fully able to carry conviction to the understanding, as faith
is to give peace to the troubled conscience, they paved the way for that
spiritual philosophy of the mind, of which Kant laid the foundation. But
they were not controversialists, as the Reformers of the sixteenth century
were driven to be by their position, and not men of science exclusively, as
the masters of modern philosophy in Germany were and are. Although most of
them friars, or laymen connected with the religious orders of the time, they
were men of the people and men of action. They preached the saving faith to
the people in churches, in hospitals, in the streets and public places. In
the strength of this faith, Tauler, when he had been already for years the
universal object of admiration as a theologian and preacher through all the
free cities on the Rhine, from Basle to Cologne, humbled himself, and
remained silent for the space of two years, after the mysterious layman had
shown him the insufficiency of his scholastic learning and preaching. In the
strength of this faith, he braved the Pope's Interdict, and gave the
consolations of religion to the people of Strasburg, during the dreadful
plague which depopulated that flourishing city. For this faith, Eckart
suffered with patience slander and persecution, as formerly he had borne
with meekness, honours and praise. For this faith, Nicolaus of Basle, who
sat down as a humble stranger at Tauler's feet to become the instrument of
his real enlightenment, died a martyr in the flames. In this sense, the
"Friends of God" were, like the Apostles, men of the people and practical
Christians, while as men of thought, their ideas contributed powerfully to
the great efforts of the European nations in the sixteenth century.
     Let me, therefore, my dear friend, lay aside all philosophical and
theological terms, and state the principle of the golden book which you are
just presenting to the English public, in what I consider, with Luther, the
best Theological exponent, in plain Teutonic, thus: --
          Sin is selfishness:
Godliness is unselfishness:
A godly life is the steadfast working out of inward freeness from self:
To become thus Godlike is the bringing back of man's first nature.

     On this last point, -- man's divine dignity and destiny, -- Tauler
speaks as strongly as our author, and almost as strongly as the Bible. Man
is indeed to him God's own image. "As a sculptor," he says somewhere, with a
striking range of mind for a monk of the fourteenth century, "is said to
have exclaimed indignantly on seeing a rude block of marble, 'what a godlike
beauty thou hidest!' thus God looks upon man in whom God's own image is
hidden." "We may begin," he says in a kindred passage, "by loving God in
hope of reward, we may express ourselves concerning Him in symbols (Bilder),
but we must throw them all away, and much more we must scorn all idea of
reward, that we may love God only because He is the Supreme Good, and
contemplate His eternal nature as the real substance of our own soul."
     But let no one imagine that these men, although doomed to passiveness
in many respects, thought a contemplative or monkish life a condition of
spiritual Christianity, and not rather a danger to it. "If a man truly loves
God," says Tauler, "and has no will but to do God's will, the whole force of
the river Rhine may run at him and will not disturb him or break his peace;
if we find outward things a danger and disturbance, it comes from our
appropriating to ourselves what is God's." But Tauler, as well as our
Author, uses the strongest language to express his horror of Sin, man's own
creation, and their view on this subject forms their great contrast to the
philosophers of the Spinozistic school. Among the Reformers, Luther stands
nearest to them, with respect to the great fundamental points of theological
teaching, but their intense dread of Sin as a rebellion against God, is
shared both by Luther and Calvin. Among later theologians, Julius Muller, in
his profound Essay on Sin, and Richard Rothe, in his great work on Christian
Ethics, come nearest to them in depth of thought and ethical earnestness,
and the first of these eminent writers carries out, as it appears to me,
most consistently that fundamental truth of the Theologia Germanica that
there is no sin but Selfishness, and that all Selfishness is sin.
     Such appear to me to be the characteristics of our book and of Tauler.
I may be allowed to add, that this small but golden Treatise has been now
for almost forty years an unspeakable comfort to me and to many Christian
friends (most of whom have already departed in peace), to whom I had the
happiness of introducing it. May it in your admirably faithful and lucid
translation become a real "book for the million" in England, a privilege
which it already shares in Germany with Tauler's matchless Sermons, of which
I rejoice to hear that you are making a selection for publication. May it
become a blessing to many a longing Christian heart in that dear country of
yours, which I am on the point of leaving, after many happy years of
residence, but on which I can never look as a strange land to me, any more
than I shall ever consider myself as a stranger in that home of old Teutonic
liberty and energy, which I have found to be also the home of practical
Christianity and of warm and faithful affection.
      Bunsen.