LUT 
oF the wood, which is said to have an un- 
common disposition for producing a sweet 
sound. 
LUTES. See Laboratory. 
LUTHERANS, so called from their 
founder, Martin Luther, an Augustine friar, 
and one of the earliest of the reformers. 
Some of the doctrines of the Lutherans, as 
tliey were originally taught by their founder, 
seem to have differed in but a very slight de- 
gree from those of the church of Rome, 
from whom Luther dissented. For that 
reformer held sacred, or at least connived 
at, many things which Calvin, Zninglius, 
and the rest of the reformers, abhorred as 
so many of the gaudy vestments and abo- 
minations of the Whore of Babylon. Con- 
cerning transubstantiation, Luther seems to 
have differed more in word than in sub- 
stance from the Church of Rome. He 
held that the body and blood of Christ 
were materially present in the Eucharist, 
though he professed his ignoi ance of the 
manner in which that presence was ac- 
complished. It is true, he laid aside the 
offensive term transubstantiation, and sub- 
stituted that of consubstantiation in' the 
room of it ; but whether the bread and wine 
are, as the Catholics declare, transubstantiat- 
ed into the real body and blood of Christ, 
or whether, as Luther asserted, the material 
elements are mystically consubstautiated 
with the body and blood of the Saviour, 
by the consecration of the priest, it is clear 
tlie Catholics and the Lutherans both held 
the doctrine of the real presence. 
Luther also tolerated the use of images, 
altars, wax tapers, the form of exorcism, 
and pi'ivate confession. But the grand and 
leading doctrine of Lutheranism, and that 
on which the permanent foundation of the 
reformation was laid, is the right of private 
judgment in matters of religion. “To the 
defence of this proposition,” says Mr. Ros- 
coe, the candid and elegant biographer of 
Leo the Tenth, “ Luther was at all times 
ready to devote his learning, his talents, 
his repose, his character, and his life ; and 
the great and imperishable merit of this 
reformer consists in his having demonstrat- 
ed it by such arguments, as neither the 
efforts of his adversaries, nor his own sub- 
sequent conduct, have been able either to 
confute or invalidate.” 
No sooner, however, had Luther succeed- 
ed in effecting a separation from the Church 
of Rome, than he set himself to establish 
another system of religious government; 
LUT 
in which he manifested, that however he 
might abominate many of the doctrines 
and practices of the Papal government, he 
still refciined no small portion of that spirit 
of domination by which the old church had 
so long been characterized. The odium 
theologicum threatened to receive new 
strength with the reformation, and, under 
the auspices of Cfilvin and Luther, the 
religious world seemed likely to derive no 
other benefit from the reformation than 
that of a change of masters. It was more 
easy to change the head than the heart; and 
the language of liberty afforded a read^ 
but a miserable substitute for liberty itself. 
Nor, indeed, did Luther at all times even 
make use of such language as might have 
been expected from one who had so ably 
maintained thatgreat and leading truth whicli 
inculcates the unfettered rights of private 
judgment. .The man who could stigmatize 
the learned and mild Erasmus, who had 
defended the freedom of the human will, 
as “ an exasperated viper “ a vain-glorious 
animal,” seemed but ill qualified to eman- 
cipate the religious world from the fetters of 
spiritual tyranny. Nor was it very flatter- 
ing to the reformation, that one of its ablest 
defenders and founders could, in his zeal for 
tlie omnipotence of faith, declare that the 
Epistle of James, in which the’necessity of 
good works is stated and enforced, is, in 
comparison with the writings of Peter and 
Paul, a mere book of straw ! These were 
but ill omens of the success of the reforma- 
tion. Whilst Luther was engaged in his 
opposition to the Church of Rome, he as- 
serted the right of private judgment in 
matters of faith, with the confidence and 
courage of a martyr; but no sooner had 
he freed himself and his followers from the 
ecclesiastical tyranny of the Pope, than 
he attempted to establish another tyranny 
equally intolerable ; “ and it was the em- 
ployment of his latter years to counteract 
the effects produced by his former labours. 
The great example of freedom,’’ con- 
tinues Mr. Roscoe, “ which he had exhibit- 
ed, could not, however, be so soon for- 
gotten; and many who had thrown oft' the 
authority ot the Romish see, refused to 
submit their consciences to the control of 
a monk, who had arrogated to himself the 
sole right of expounding those scriptures 
which be had contended were open to 
all.” The reformation consequently gained 
ground, in spite of the opposition of both 
tlie Church of Rome, and the example of 
