Hartmann Grisar

[1] “Hutteni opp.,” ed. BÖcking (LipsiÆ, 1859, seq.), 1, p. 433.

[2] Ibid., 1, p. 320 seq.

[3] “Hutteni opp.,” ed. BÖcking (LipsiÆ, 1859, seq.), 1, p. 320 seq.

[4] “Vidimus certe cruentas eius litteras ad Huttenum.” C. Otto, “Joh. CochlÄus,” 1874, p. 121, note. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 116.

[5] Schauenberg’s letter of June 11, 1520, in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders 2, p. 415.

[6] On June 17, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 443.

[7] To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1520, Letters, ed. de Wette, 1, p. 470 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444).

[8] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, p. 267; Weim. ed., 6, p. 258. The “insignis turbula” which Luther announces in a letter to Spalatin of February, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344), is not the “revolution of the nobility which Hutten planned,” but the ecclesiastical and political storm to be roused by Luther’s own action.

[9] Text in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 409 (better than in BÖcking, 1, p. 355). At the head of the letter are the words, “Vive libertas.” The phrase, “Iubet ad se venire N. te, si tutus istic satis non sis,” must refer to Sickingen. Before this, Hutten says: “Si vi ingruent, vires erunt adversum, non tantum pares, sed, ut spero, superiores etiam.”

[10] “Se iam et litteris et armis in tyrannidem sacerdotalem ruere.” Luther writes thus to Spalatin on September 11, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 478. Cp. ibid., p. 488: “Armis et ingenio rem tentans.”

[11] Cp. Enders, 2, p. 480, note 5.

[12] “Iungam Hutteno et spiritum meum,” etc. Letter of September 11, 1520, quoted above.

[13] To Spalatin, November 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 523. The “attack” was supposed to have taken place in the beginning of November. But Aleander, in the letters he sent to Rome in the middle of December, does not speak of an actual attack, but merely of threats addressed by Hutten to the Archbishop of Treves, and reported by the latter to Aleander. Cp. A. Wrede, “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” Bd. 2, Gotha, 1896, p. 460 f., and P. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,”² Halle, 1897, pp. 32, 46.

[14] Letter of December 4, 1520, in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 5 f. The able politician Capito served Luther well also at a later date. It was chiefly owing to him that the carrying out of the Worms proscription was prevented.

[15] Letter of December 9, 1520, BÖcking, 1, p. 435 ff.

[16] Luther to Spalatin, December 15, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 20. If the Papacy be not overthrown, the alternative is “aut ultima dies instat.”

[17] “Nollem vi et caede pro evangelio certari,” etc. To Spalatin, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.

[18] “Princeps noster ut prudenter et fideliter ita et constanter agit,” etc., February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85. Luther was then engaged on the “Assertio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 156. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 55.

[19] BÖhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 64.

[20] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 85 ff.

[21] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 103; Erl. ed., 21, p. 191.

[22] Ibid., pp. 91 and 173.

[23] See, for instance, Oldecop’s statements, vol. 1, pp. 24, 280.

[24] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.

[25] Ibid., pp. 322, 136.

[26] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 246.

[27] To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.

[28] To Johann Staupitz, March 31, 1518, ibid., p. 176.

[29] “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, p. 138; Weim. ed., 16, p. 323.

[30] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, 80.

[31] Ibid., p. 347 = p. 107. We shall come back later to the harsh exclamation which occurs in the course of this outburst: “Cur non magis hos magistros perditionis ... omnibus armis impetimus et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus?” and to the mitigating additions introduced into the Jena edition of Luther’s works, see below, p. 55, n. 1.

[32] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 384 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 294 seq.

[33] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

[34] To Wenceslaus Link, July 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.

[35] “An den Stier von Wittenberg,” Bl. A.

[36] “Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl. n. 3.

[37] To Johann Lang, November 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 124.

[38] In 1520, soon after February 18, ibid., 2, p. 329.

[39] To Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, ibid., 1, p. 174.

[40] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 148. On the date see Kalkoff, “Z. fÜr KG.,” 31, 1910, p. 411.

[41] Knaake, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 522. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 170, 177.

[42] On May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200.

[43] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 442.

[44] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 224, 355.

[45] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 3 ff., 39 ff., Erl. ed., 53, p. 41, after the German original; “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 210, in Latin (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 496).

[46] P. Kalkoff, “Die Miltitziade, eine kritische Nachlese zur Gesch. des Ablassstreites,” 1911. Miltitz—a man whose ability was by no means equal to his vanity, and who owed whatever influence he possessed to his noble Saxon descent—was chosen to bring the Golden Rose to the Elector of Saxony. His instructions were to induce Frederick to abandon Luther’s cause and to hand him over to the ecclesiastical judges. Though Miltitz was a mere “nuntius et commissarius” with very restricted powers, he assumed great airs. The Elector, who knew his man, soon found means to use him for his own political aims. In September, 1519, when the Golden Rose had duly been handed over, Miltitz’s mission was at an end, and he was thereupon engaged for three years by Frederick himself (Kalkoff, p. 33). His further doings revealed more and more both his untrustworthiness and his light-hearted optimism.

[47] To the Elector of Saxony,October 14, 1520, in extract, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.

[48] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 468.

[49] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 474 ff., “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 5.

[50] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 338.

[51] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 339.

[52] To Spalatin, August 23 and 31, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, pp. 464, 471.

[53] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 329 seq.

[54] Sermon of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 260 (2nd impression); cp. ibid., p. 220 (1st impression), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18.

[55] Colloquia, ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178 seq.

[56] Ibid., p. 170.

[57] To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 446: “Bis monuisti, mi Spalatine, ut de fide et operibus tum de obedientia ecclesiÆ RomanÆ in apologia mea vernacula mentionem facerem.”

[58] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 433, where he begins, on an enclosed slip; “Quod si Princeps etiam hoc adiiciat, esse Lutheranam doctrinam,” etc. (a hint for the Elector’s reply to Cardinal Petrucci). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 430, n. 1.

[59] Ibid., p. 429.

[60] July 10, 1520, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 351.

[61] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 464.

[62] Ibid., p. 432: “A me quidem iacta est alea, contemptus est Romanus furor et favor, nolo eis reconciliari nec communicare in perpetuum,” etc.

[63] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 432.

[64] To Conrad Saum, one of his followers, October 1, 1520, ibid., p. 484.

[65] Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 381 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 274 ff.

[66] Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 256.

[67] Ibid., p. 267.

[68] Letter of July 20, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444.

[69] Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 484 ff.; Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 13 seq.

[70] Printed in Latin, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206 seq.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39 ff. In German, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 12 ff. Erl. ed., 27, p. 173 ff.

[71] Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 274.

[72] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 23.

[73] Ibid., p. 25.

[74] Ibid., p. 27.

[75] Ibid., p. 29 f.

[76] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29.

[77] KÖhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.”, 1, p. 42.

[78] The true character of such utterances of Luther can be best judged from the results they produced. “The effect not merely of the radical tendencies, but of Luther’s sermons, was chiefly to make the people believe that the freedom of a Christian was to be found in the utmost contempt for all law, whether human or Divine,” G. KrÜger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 14.

[79] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 412; Erl. ed., 21, p. 288.

[80] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 411 (287).

[81] “Preussische JahrbÜcher,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 35. In his review of Denifle-Weiss, vol. ii., P. Albert Weiss, in many passages, describes the consequences alluded to above.

[82] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 561. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. The summary is from KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349.

[83] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 350. “With the nature and extent of the Christian liberty which he [here] claimed he might have shocked even libertines. Nor did he shrink from advocating it elsewhere in the same work.” Ibid., p. 345.

[84] “Dico itaque: Neque papa neque episcopus neque ullus hominum habet ius unius syllabÆ constituendÆ super christianum hominem, nisi id fiat eiusdem consensu; quidquid aliter fit, tyrannico spiritu fit” (p. 536 [68]). Cp. p. 554 [93], concerning the superfluousness of laws: “Hoc scio, nullam rempublicam legibus feliciter administrari.... Quod si adsit eruditio divina cum prudentia naturali, plane superfluum et noxium est scriptas leges habere; super omnia autem caritas nullis prorsus legibus indiget” (p. 555 [94]). “Christianis per Christum libertas donata est super omnes leges hominum.” On p. 558 [98], with regard to the alleged corruption of the marriage law: “Ut nulla remedii spes sit, nisi, revocato libertatis evangelio, secundum ipsum, exstinctis semel omnibus omnium hominum legibus, omnia iudicemus et regamus. Amen.” This latter declaration of war, and other things too, are not found in the Jena and Wittenberg editions. In all these utterances we see the excessive zeal of a theorist devoid of experience whose eyes are blind to the consequences. Many, indeed, are those who in the course of history have been equally precipitate in pronouncing on questions of moment, regardless of the number of their readers.

[85] p. 555 [100]: “Digamiam malim quam divortium, sed an liceat, ipse non audeo definire.”

[86] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 348.

[87] p. 558 [99]: “Consulam, ut cum consensu viri—cum iam non sit maritus, sed simplex et solutus cohabitator—misceatur alteri vel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, et proles imputetur putativo, ut dicunt, patri.” Cp. his disgusting language regarding the ecclesiastical impediments of marriage, p. 554, [93]: “Quid vendunt [Romanenses]? Vulvas et veretra. Merx scilicet dignissima mercatoribus istis, prÆ avaritia et impietate plus quam sordidissimis et obscoenissimis ... ut in ecclesia Dei loco sancto [sit] abominatio ista, quÆ venderet hominibus publice utriusque sexus pudibunda, seu, ut scriptura vocat, ignominias et turpitudines, quas tamen antea per vim legum suarum rapuissent.”

[88] p. 560 [101].

[89] Cp. the Latin edition, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206 seq. The summary is from KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.

[90] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 58. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 233.

[91] “Opp. Lat. var,” 4, 233. Some preach, “Ut affectus humanos moveant ad condolendum Christo ad indignandum IudÆis et id genus alia puerilia et muliebria deliramenta.” One must preach, “eo fine, quo fides in eum promoveatur”; this preaching is in agreement with the teaching according to which in Christ, “omnium domini sumus, et quidquid egerimus, coram Deo placitum et acceptum esse confidimus.”

[92] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 405; Erl. ed., 21, p. 278 f.

[93] Ibid., p. 414 [291]

.

[94] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 468 f. [360 f.].

[95] Ibid., 500 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 20.

[96] Ibid., p. 173 f. [= 118].

[97] See DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 162.

[98] Ibid., p. 165.

[99] See DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1², p. 586 f. Cp. 169 ff., 1, p. xv. Also J. Schlecht, “K. Leib’s Briefwechsel und Diarien,” MÜnster, 1909, p. 12.

[100] Friedr. Roth, “Wilh. Pirkheimer,” Halle, 1887 (Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch., v. 4). The author says, Pirkheimer’s final opinion on Lutheranism is summed up in the words: “God keep all pious men, countries and peoples from such teaching, for where it is there is no peace, quiet or unity.” Though Pirkheimer confessed “with energy that he was once more a member of the olden Catholic Church,” he nevertheless remained as much a Humanist as a Catholic as he had been as a Protestant. Yet that he still saw some good in Luther’s cause is clear from what Melanchthon writes of him as late as April, 1530. “Fuimus apud Pirchamerum hodie, ego et Ionas, qui de te et causa honorifice sentit.” To Luther, April 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 7, p. 310. P. Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1887, is more sceptical regarding his return to Catholicism, though he brings forward no definite proofs to the contrary. He himself mentions how CochlÆus, in a letter of March 10, 1529, invited Pirkheimer (“Pirkheimer Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 396) to write a satire in verse on Luther after the model of his own “Lutherus septiceps.”

[101] DÖllinger, ibid., p. 168.

[102] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 514.

[103] His father Albert came from Eptas in Hungary; he was a goldsmith.

[104] A. DÜrer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.

[105] A. DÜrer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.

[106] On his adhesion to Protestantism, see M. Zucker, “Albrecht DÜrer,” 1900, chap. xvi., and Lange in the “Grenzbote,” vol. lv. 1, with reasons which are, however, open to criticism. E. Heidrich (“DÜrer und die Reformation,” 1909) makes DÜrer die a Lutheran. For his final profession of Catholicism see more particularly Ant. Weber, “Albrecht DÜrer,” 3rd ed., 1903. Cp. “Hochland,” 3, 2, 1906, p. 206 ff. W. KÖhler remarks in the “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 1908, vol. xxviii., p. 244: “DÜrer was more a follower of Erasmus than a Lutheran.” See also G. Stuhlfauth in the “Deutsch-evangel. BlÄtter,” 1907, p. 835 ff., and “Histor. Jahrb.,” 1910, p. 456 ff.

[107] April or May, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 255.

[108] Enders, ibid., p. 257, n. 3.

[109] Hagelstange, in “Hochland,” 1906, p. 314.

[110] “Bulla contra errores M. Lutheri,” RomÆ, 1520. Printed also in “Bullar. Rom.,” ed. Taurin., 5, p. 748 seq., and in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1520, n. 51; and with a bitter commentary by Luther, in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 264 seq.

[111] K. MÜller, in “Zeitschr. fÜr Kirchengesch.,” 24, 1903, p. 46 ff. A. Schulte, in “Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 6, 1903, p. 32 ff., 174 ff. P. Kalkoff, “Zu Luthers rÖmischem Prozess,” in “Zeitschr. fÜr Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, p. 372 ff.; 32, 1911, p. 1 ff.; p. 199 ff., 408 ff., 572 ff.; 33, 1912, p. 1 ff. He deals fully with the part taken by the Dominicans in the Indulgence controversy. Kalkoff’s researches have since been published apart (“Zu Luthers rÖmischem Prozess,” Gotha, 1912). A good general view of the question in Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes,” Engl. Trans., 7, p. 361 ff.

[112] P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” etc., p. 133.

[113] Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” see above p. 45, n. 2, p. 35. The statement of K. MÜller that from the very outset there had been a difficulty in proving Luther’s writing, rests, as Schulte shows (p. 43), merely on a misapprehended passage in one of the letters of the Venetian Orator at Rome.

[114] Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” p. 45.

[115] In Schulte (ibid., p. 49) this circumstance, on which theology must necessarily lay great stress, is passed over. Not all Luther’s propositions were branded as “heretical.”

[116] Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 543 ff.

[117] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 576 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 17 ff.

[118] Ibid., p. 595 ff. [38 f.]. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 132 seq.

[119] Ibid., p. 603; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142.

[120] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 46.

[121] Ibid., p. 41.

[122] For the accounts of the burning, see M. Perlbach and J. Luther, “Ein neuer Bericht Über Luthers Verbrennung der Bannbulle” (“SB. der preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft.,” and also apart), Berlin, 1907, and Kawerau, in “Theol. Studien,” 1908, p. 587. Luther’s words, quoted in the new account, run as follows: “Quia tu conturbasti veritatem Dei, conturbat et te hodie in ignem istum (instead of ‘igni isto’). Amen”; whereupon all those present answered, “Amen.” The form given before this ran: “Quia tu conturbasti sanctum Dei, ideoque te conturbet ignis Æternus.” Were this correct, “sanctum Dei” would refer to Christ as the “Holy One of God,” according to the biblical expression, but we should scarcely be justified in taking it to mean Luther himself, as some Catholics have done, as though he had arrogated to himself this title. With regard to the books burnt, see also Luther’s letter to Spalatin, on December 10, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 18. On Thomas and Scotus see the source quoted above.

[123] On February 17, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 87. For the printed verses, Enders, like KÖstlin, refers to Selneccer, “Vita Lutheri,” Witteb., 1687, p. 133.

[124] To Conrad Pellican, at the end of February, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 93.

[125] On February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83.

[126] He praises the Prince, saying that he walks “prudenter, fideliter,” and “constanter.” Cp. above p. 8.

[127] January 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 70

[128] Both sentences, ibid.

[129] Above, p. 49. Epitome of Prierias with Preface and Postscript (Latin). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 347. The commencement of the passage is quoted above, p. 13.

[130] On the falsification of Luther’s works in the early editions, see G. Arnold, “Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, 1727, p. 419 ff.; Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,”

[131] To Spalatin at Worms, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.

[132] In the same month he wrote to Hutten to the same effect: “Nollem vi et cÆde pro evangelio certari.” The letter, however, did not reach its destination. Enders, 3, p. 74, n. 8.

[133] Letter to Spalatin in Worms, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90: The wrath of the Papists was being stayed by a Divine decree.

[134] See volume i., p. 359. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im Mittelalter,” 1909, gives instances of writers who anticipated Luther in seeing Antichrist in the Pope. He looks upon Luther’s controversial writings on the subject of Antichrist as justified. “All Lutheran Christendom at the Reformation period,” according to him, shared “its master’s” views and expectation of the approaching end of the world (p. 196); he thinks it quite in order that the article regarding Antichrist “should have been incorporated in the Lutheran Confession of Faith” (p. 181).

[135] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 698 ff.

[136] Ibid., 11, p. 357-373; Erl. ed., 29, p. 1-16.

[137] To Staupitz in Salzburg, February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85: “Princeps noster, cuius iussu assertiones istas utraque lingua edo.”

[138] Reprinted “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 284 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 206 ff.

[139] “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 616; Erl. ed., 24², p. 40.

[140] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 395, where this contradiction is pointed out.

[141] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 212.

[142] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297; Erl. ed., 24, p. 212.

[143] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 165. “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 178.

[144] Letter to Spalatin, April 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 121. “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.

[145] Spalatin’s “Annals,” ed. Cyprian, 1718, p. 38. Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 122, n. 5; “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.

[146] Janssen-Pastor, 2¹⁸, p. 174, Engl. Trans., 3, 189.

[147] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 249 ff.

[148] Janssen-Pastor, 2¹⁸, p. 175, Engl. Trans., 3, 190.

[149] Ibid., Enders, p. 156, n. 4.

[150] Previous to May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 147.

[151] About the middle of May, 1521, ibid., p. 158.

[152] “Ratzebergers Geschichte,” ed. Neudecker, p. 30.

[153] Janssen-Pastor, 2, p. 177, n. 3. According to the evidence of an eye-witness, Sixtus Œlhafen.

[154] The report of the whole proceedings at Worms relating to Luther has been collected in volume ii. of the German “Reichstagsakten,” new series, 1896, ed. A. Wrede; see particularly Sections VII. (Negotiations with Luther, etc.) and XI. (Correspondence, with Aleander’s reports). Cp. H. v. Schubert, “Quellen und Forschungen Über Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms,” 1899.

[155] See below, p. 75 f.

[156] In Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 124. The translation of “Equidem atrocissima omnia concipio,” by “I will dare even the worst,” is wrong, and the above, “My fancy paints things black,” i.e. Luther’s treatment at the Diet, is better. Cp. S. Merkle, “ Reformations-geschichtl. Streitfragen,” 1904, p. 56 ff.

[157] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 126.

[158] On May 1, 1521, Janssen-Pastor, p. 184, from BÖcking’s edition of Hutten’s works, 2, p. 59 ff.

[159] Janssen-Pastor, pp. 178, 184 f. The placard was known before, but a new rendering is found in the Mayence “Katholik,” 1902, vol. lxxxii., p. 96, from a letter-Codex of the sixteenth century belonging to the Hamburg city library, No. 469. We give J. Beyl’s translation: “This protest against Luther’s condemnation is nailed to the Mint [at Worms]. Whereas we, to the number of IIC simple-minded sworn noblemen have agreed and pledged ourselves not to forsake that just man Luther, we hereby advise the Princes, gentlemen, Romanists, and, above all, the Bishop of Mayence, of our inveterate enmity, because honour and righteous justice have been oppressed by them; we do not mention other names [of those threatened] or describe the deeds of violence against the parsons and their supporters. Bundschuh.” The numbers given vary, and IIC is perhaps a mistake of the copyist of the illegible placard. See “Freie Bayer. Schulzeitung,” 1911, No. 6; but cp. also, Kalkoff, “Reformationsgesch.,” 1911, p. 361 ff.

[160] Spalatin’s “Annales,” p. 50.

[161] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, from the Wartburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154.

[162] Ibid., p. 153.

[163] Thus Aleander, in the passage quoted below. Janssen-Pastor, p. 184.

[164] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 168).

[165] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 175 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).

[166] Ibid., Erl. ed., 58, p. 412 f. (“Table-Talk”).

[167] Ibid., 63, p. 276.

[168] Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 825 ff.

[169] Cp. Thomas Morus, “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (“Opp.” Lovanii, 1566), p. 60.

[170] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474 f.

[171] “Reichstagsakten,” 2, p. 825, n. 1. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Luth.” (1883 seq.), p. 85. J. Paquier, “JÉrÔme AlÉandre,” Paris, 1900, p. 243.

[172] Paquier, p. 242.

[173] Letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg, a friend of Sickingen (middle of March, 1522). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 125. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).

[174] Ibid., p. 126 f.

[175] Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 349.

[176] “Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch.,” 3⁴, 1910, p. 810 f.

[177] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 213 f.

[178] Ibid., p. 173.

[179] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 212 f.

[180] Thus A. Wrede, who, in his edition of the “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” 2, p. 555, has dealt anew with the question. Cp. N. Paulus, “KÖlnische Volksztg.,” 1903, No. 320.

[181] Thus Karl MÜller, who treats the subject exhaustively in “Luthers Schlussworte in Worms, 1521,” in “Philotesia,” dedicated to P. Kleinert, Berlin, 1907, pp. 269, 289. Cp. the review by N. Paulus, “KÖlnische Volksztg.,” 1908, No. 1000.

[182] “Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,” 1897, p. 174, n. 2.

[183] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung²,” p. 25.

[184] “Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, p. 26.

[185] Cp. above, p. 62, n. 2, the quotation from the “Table-Talk.”

[186] The Frankfort delegate, in Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 191.

[187] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474.

[188] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 409, 771.

[189] In the Diary of Marino Sanuto, “R. deputaz. Veneta di Storia Patria,” t. 30, Venezia, 1891, 212. At the end of the passage Denifle (in “Luther,” 1², p. 589, n. 1) proposed that “impudentiam” should be read in place of “imprudentiam” (i.e. “impudenza” in place of “imprudenza”), as the want of “prudence” had already been blamed. When Contarini speaks of Luther as “assai incontinente,” the “incontinence” is that of temper.

[190] Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, 191.

[191] Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,”² p. 169, n. 1; p. 172, n. 1.

[192] Passages in Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” 1884, p. 170. Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,” p. 170. Balan, “Monumenta reform. LutheranÆ,” pp. 109, 205.

[193] Preface to the tract, “On the abuse of the Mass,” indited as a letter to the Wittenberg Augustinians, Latin Works, Weim. ed., 8, p. 411 seq. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 116. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243.

[194] In the Latin text, ibid., p. 412 = 116.

[195] To Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148.

[196] To Spalatin, September 9, 1521, ibid., p. 229.

[197] Cp. letter to Melanchthon of May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149.

[198] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 54.

[199] On July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189.

[200] To his intimate friend Johann Lang, December 18, 1521, ibid., p. 256.

[201] On November 1, 1521, ibid., p. 240.

[202] Ibid., p. 241.

[203] On August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.

[204] On August 3, 1521, ibid., p. 213. The above is the real translation of the words made use of, “quantis urgear Æstibus,” according to the context.

[205] On September 9, 1521, ibid., 3, p. 224.

[206] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 247.

[207] The Latin work will be found in Weim. ed., 8, p. 564 ff.; in Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 234 seq. The MS. was sent to Spalatin on November 22, and was published at the end of February, 1522. Denifle has carefully analysed the contents and pointed out the fallacies contained in the book and certain other things not at all to Luther’s credit. See “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 29, 348. Cp. N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Scrift Über die MÖnchsgelÜbde” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, pp. 487, 517), an article rich in matter, called forth by O. Scheel’s attack on Denifle. Paulus therein shows once more that Luther was wrong in ascribing to the Church the teaching that perfection is to be attained only in the religious state, and by the observance of vows (cp. present work, vol. iv., xxiv. 4), or in claiming that the Church has a “twofold ideal of life,” and conception of religion, a lower one for the laity and a higher one for religious (p. 496 ff.). He proves, at length, the falsehood of the view cherished among Protestants, in spite of Denifle’s refutation, that all, or nearly all, entered the religious life in order to obtain justification (p. 506 ff.), and fully explains the late mediÆval expression which compares religious profession to Baptism (p. 510 ff.).

[208] Caspar Schatzgeyer, in a polemic against Luther wrote: “One is almost tempted to think that this book, so brimful of ire, was written by a drunken man, or by the infernal spirit himself” (“Replica” [sine loc. et an.], Augsburg, 1522, fol. E1). The opinion of the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtoveus (“Antilutherus,” Parisiis, 1524, fol. 124´), was very similar. As for Johann Dietenberger, he declared that the book bristled with lies, calumnies, and insults (“De votis monasticis,” lib. secundus, Colon., 1524, fol. T5´).

[209] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225.

[210] Sermon of 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148: “I have myself had it [the gift of chastity], although with many evil thoughts and dreams.”

[211] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. 102, p. 464.

[212] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. ed., 10², p. 464.

[213] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Otiosus et crapulosus.”

[214] On February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo expositus crapulÆ.”

[215] Cp. Paul de Lagarde, “Mitteilungen,” 3, GÖttingen, 1889, p. 336.

[216] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. Cp. K. MÜller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 5 ff.

[217] Dedication of the German edition, 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 482; Erl. ed., 53, p. 93. The work in Latin in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 398 ff. German, ibid., p. 477 ff, and in Erl. ed., 28, p. 28. The German dedication agrees with the Latin. See above, p. 80, n. 1.

[218] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 483; Erl. ed., 28, p. 30.

[219] Ibid., p. 488 = 36.

[220] Ibid., p. 488 f. = 37 f.

[221] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 510 = 68.

[222] Ibid., p. 538, 539, 540 = 106, 107, 109.

[223] Ibid., p. 549 = 121.

[224] Cp. volume iv., xxvii.

[225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 559, 560; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 135, 137.

[226] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561 = 138.

[227] Ibid., p. 562 = 139 f.

[228] On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[229] In Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 62, n. (from Khummer’s Notes).

[230] To Jodocus Trutfetter, Professor at Erfurt, May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188: “Uno ore dicunt, sese prius non novisse nec audivisse Christum et Evangelium,” etc.

[231] To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.

[232] To Spalatin, January 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.

[233] See vol. i., p. 369, n. 1.

[234] “Carnis meÆ indomitÆ uror magnis ignibus,” in the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, where he also employs the expression, “tentationes carnis.” In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo sum expositus et involutus societati, crapulÆ, titillationi, negligentiÆ aliisque molestiis.” “Titillatio” is generally used by Luther for sensual temptation, e.g. in the Commentary on Romans (“Schol. Rom.,” p. 133): “Luxuriosus, dum titillatio venit,” etc.; also in the tract on the Ten Commandments, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 485, 491, 497. In the German version he translates the word by “Kitzel”; see, for instance, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 34, p. 139.

[235] See references below, xiii. 4. The “molestiÆ” in the passage from the letter to Staupitz (see previous note) are probably of the same character.

[236] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.

[237] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773.

[238] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773

[239] C. F. JÄger, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1856, p. 273. Cp. H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, 1905, p. 355 ff.

[240] Karl MÜller, “Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 29.

[241] Idem, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 15.

[242] On January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 271 f. Cp. K. MÜller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 218.

[243] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211 f.

[244] Ibid., p. 8 = 212.

[245] Barge, “Karlstadt,” 1, p. 405; cp. 402 f.

[246] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 670 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 43 ff.

[247] Ibid., 10, 2, p. 93 ff. = 28, p. 141 ff.

[248] Ibid., p. 111 = 148 f.

[249] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 140 = 178. It has been asserted, strangely enough, that these words were spoken by Luther hypothetically, i.e. in the event of the Romanists refusing to be converted, and that the word he uses, and which we have rendered as “destroying,” really means something slightly less drastic.

[250] H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken Über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. fÜr Kirchengesch.,” 29, 1908, p. 489; cp. p. 479 ff.

[251] H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” 1906, p. 146.

[252] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69: “Der jÜngste Tag, welchen sie [die Constellation] gewisslich bedeutet.”

[253] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683, in the “True Admonition,” published early in December, 1521.

[255] Karl MÜller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 84.

[256] Cp. K. MÜller, ibid., and the authors quoted in the above-mentioned studies of P. Drews and H. Hermelink.

[257] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 683, 678.

[258] Hermelink (p. 297). He thinks the “states of excitement may be easily accounted for.”

[259] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680.

[260] Hermelink, p. 488; cp. p. 322.

[261] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 251 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 68: “The spiritual government which makes people Christians and holy,” etc.

[262] “Kirchenrecht,” 1892, pp. 528, 633 f.

[263] Hermelink, p. 322.

[264] Cp. Luther’s Memorandum for the Town Council of Altenburg (April 28, 1522), “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347 ff. “For Scripture does not give to a council but to each individual Christian the authority to decide on doctrine and discern the wolves,” etc.

[265] Hermelink, p. 309.

[266] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.

[267] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 721.

[268] Ibid., p. 720.

[269] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, 10, 2, p. 33.

[270] Cp. the addresses, “To the Christians at Wittenberg,” “To the Christians at Augsburg,” and similar ones to those at Dorpat, in Flanders, in Holland, in Livonia, at Miltenberg, at Reval, at Riga, at Worms, at Antwerp, at Bremen, at Reutlingen, at Strasburg, etc.

[271] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685.

[272] Hermelink, p. 298.

[273] In this Confession we read that in their teaching there was nothing, “Quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” “Corp. Ref.,” 26, p. 290. So runs the address presented to the Emperor, which Melanchthon afterwards toned down in the 2nd edition. Cp. Kolde, “Die Confessio Augustana,” p. 11. Kawerau (MÖller’s “Kirchengeschichte,” 3, vol. iii., 1907, p. 108) also quotes the Protestant declaration of 1546 (“Corp. Ref.,” 6, p. 35): “Nostri affirmant ... confessionis AugustanÆ doctrinam ... esse consensum catholicÆ ecclesiÆ Dei,” and the Wittenberg Ordination-papers that the person in question “tenet puram doctrinam evangelii quam catholica ecclesia Christi profitetur et nos in ecclesia nostra docemus” (“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, 278; October 7, 1537).

[274] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140, 143, 144, 139, 110.

[275] Hermelink, p. 302.

[276] K. MÜller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 33, n. 3, where stress is rightly laid on the testimony of Sebastian FrÖschel.

[277] Cp. MÜller, ibid., p. 34.

[278] See below, xiv. 5, and vol. iv., xxviii. 6.

[279] “De instituendis ministris ecclesiÆ, senatui populoque Pragensi,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 194 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 530 seq. It follows from the context of the passage quoted above that Luther’s assurance is intended to be their guarantee that they are acting in God’s name, and are not themselves taking the initiative, but submitting to be led. Cp. letter to the Bohemian Estates (1522), Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 144 ff.

[280] Paul Drews (“Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 36), in the examination of the instruction mentioned in the previous note.

[281] Thus Hermelink (p. 483), though he does not find the congregational principle so decidedly expressed in Luther’s writings as Drews does. Luther’s statements in the years 1522-1525 concerning the establishment of new congregations are certainly not at all clear, as Karl MÜller admits (“Luther und Karlstadt,” “Luthers Gedanken Über den Aufbau der neuen Gemeinden,” p. 121). Cp. concerning the existence of Luther’s congregational ideal, “Kirche, Gemeinde,” usw., p. 40 ff.

[282] Above, p. 111, n. 2. The writing is addressed to the Council and the inhabitants collectively (“senatus populusque”). Yet in certain passages the Council alone is addressed.

[283] In the Preface: “Nequaquam esse possum autor quidquam tentandi, nisi per consilium et exhortationem.”

[284] The title of the work describes it well: “The Scriptural ground and reason why a Christian congregation or assembly has the right and power to pass judgment on all doctrines, to call, appoint, or remove pastors,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.

[285] Ibid., p. 412 = 147.

[286] Ibid.

[287] Ibid., pp. 412, 413, 414 = 147, 148, 149.

[288] Ibid., p. 408 = 142.

[289] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 415 f. = 151.

[290] Ibid., p. 410 = 145.

[291] Ibid., p. 409 f. = 143 f.

[292] Ibid., p. 408 f. = 142.

[293] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 228 = 28, p. 346, in his reply to King Henry VIII “of Engelland” (1522).

[294] To Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 272 f.: “Veniam ad prophetas.... Explores etiam, num experti sint spirituales illas angustias et nativitates divinas, mortes infernosque.”

[295] Ibid., 3, p. 273.

[296] To Wolfgang Reissenbusch, Preceptor at Lichtenberg, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p.. 270-9; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).

[297] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537 f.

[298] Ibid., p. 302 = 539.

[299] In the letter to Reissenbusch; see above, p. 116, n. 1.

[300] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 127; Erl. ed., 28, p. 165. Against the clerical state falsely so called.

[301] Ibid., p. 130 = 165 seq.

[302] Ibid., p. 279 = 16², p. 514 f. “Sermon on the married life,” 1522.

[303] Ibid., 10, 1, 1, pp. 693, 708 = 12, p. 451, 465, “Postils.”

[304] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 71.

[305] Letter of April or June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony, quoted by J. K. Seidemann in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” 1872, p. 198.

[306] See below.

[307] Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 266 f.

[308] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 556.

[309] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 315, 364; 3, p. 149.

[310] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262.

[311] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315.

[312] To Johann Lang at Erfurt, March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323 seq.

[313] Ibid., p. 323.

[314] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.

[315] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311, in the tract “Concerning the Sacrament under both kinds.”

[316] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, 11. Sermon 136´.

[317] “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 13.

[318] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 72 f.

[319] Kampschulte, “UniversitÄt Erfurt,” 2, p. 173, quoted from a publication which is not by the Erfurt preacher Mechler, as he thinks, but by Eberlin. Cp. N. Paulus in Janssen, 2¹⁸, p. 240, n. 3.

[320] “Helii Eobani Hessi et amicorum ipsius epistolarum familiarium libri 12,” Marpurgi, 1543, p. 87. Phyllis, the beloved of Demophon, became the type of sensual passion.

[321] Ibid., p. 90. For date see Oergel, “BeitrÄge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins fÜr die Gesch. von Erfurt,” part 15, 1892, p. 107.

[322] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372, July, 1524): “I know that we ... as St. Paul says, Romans viii. 23, have the first fruits of the Spirit, primitias spiritus, although we have not yet received the fulness of the Spirit.”

[323] Letter to W. Pirkheimer, 1528, “Opp.,” Lugduni Batavorum, 1702 seq., t. 3, p. 1139.

[324] “Opp.,” 3, p. 1030. DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 12.

[325] Ibid., 10, p. 1578 seq. DÖllinger, p. 15.

[326] “Clag etlicher BrÜder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.

[327] “Clag etlicher BrÜder” (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 47.

[328] “Wider die falsch scheynende, usw.” No place, 1524. A³b. A⁴ab. In N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (“3. Vereinsschrift der GÖrresgesellschaft fÜr 1893”), p. 3 f.

[329] See below, p. 134, n. 4, and p. 163.

[330] Clag (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 48.

[331] Ibid.

[332] “Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders (see above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 29 ff.

[333] “Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders, p. 31.

[334] Ibid., p. 30.

[335] In an anonymous review, important on account of its original matter, of Burkhardt’s “Briefwechsel Luthers” (“Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1867, Beilage, No. 18). Unfortunately, the learned expert, who takes Luther’s part, does not mention the source whence the above passage is taken. It appears to occur in some unprinted MS.

[336] To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 278: “Quod scortis, aleis, tabernis vacarem.... Mendaciis satis sum assuetus.”

[337] “Summa sententia erat, scortatorem eum esse et compotorem, qualibus viciis fere laborarent Germani.” “Archiv fÜr Reformationsgesch.”, 3, 1905, p. 79.

[338] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 774.

[339] To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218: “Orbis theatrum sumus,” etc. Cp. 1 Corinthians iv. 9: “Spectaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis et hominibus.”

[340] To Amsdorf, February 12, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 434.

[341] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.

[342] “Historien,” 1566, p. 154. Cp. “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 121, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420.

[343] “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 273, 275; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 208, 210, 211. For the manner in which his pupils at Wittenberg praised him, see below, p. 157 f. Erasmus’s eulogy on his manner of life is also an echo from the circle of his enthusiastic friends; see xiv. 3.

[344] “Opus adv. nova quÆdam et a christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata M. Lutheri,” RomÆ, Q 3a. R 2b.: “Ponis cervicalia sub capita eorum, qui stertunt,” etc.

[345] Letter of May 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144; Gal. iii. 3.

[346] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 559. See the text in the work mentioned, p. 137, n. 1.

[347] See proofs given in the “Katholik,” 1892, 2, p. 421 f., in the article by P. A. Kirsch.

[348] Cp. E. Kroker, “Katharina v. Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 36 f., where the legends are ably criticised.

[349] In the writing, “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen,” which Luther sent on April 10, 1523, in the form of a circular letter to Leonard Koppe. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 394 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 132).

[350] Kolde, “Analecta Luth.,” p. 443.

[351] On June 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 169.

[352] To Johann Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523, ibid., p. 164: “Moniales et monachi egressi mihi multas horas furantur, ut omnium necessitati serviam.”

[353] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 560.

[354] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 177 f.

[355] To Spalatin, September 19, 1523, ibid., p. 233.

[356] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 728 ff.

[357] To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77.

[358] On April 16, 1525, ibid., p. 157.

[359] June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 402 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). Albert made no reply. On June 2, the very same day, the peasants were victorious at KÖnigshofen.

[360] Letter of June 3, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 313 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189).

[361] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 400; Erl. ed., 29, p. 41, in “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.”

[362] Ibid., 10, 1, p. 692; Erl. ed., 10², p. 450, in the Tract against the state of chastity, embodied in the “Postils.”

[363] “Luther und seine Gegner, Vortrag,” 1903, p. 14. Here it is true the cynicism is regarded as an “expression of his moral annoyance” with the supporters of celibacy, who themselves led immoral lives.

[364] On March 8, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.

[365] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 123, on Jonas and his writing materials (“schedas natales, hoc est de natibus purgatis”).

[366] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 93; Erl. ed., 29, p. 169. According to these foes of his, it is, he says, “die rechten evangelischen Prediger, die der Braut von OrlamÜnde das Hembd und dem BrÄutigam zu Naschhausen die Hosen ausziehen.” Ibid., p. 84 = 160: “Wie aber, wenn Braut und BrÄutigam so zÜchtig wÄren, und behielten Hembd und Rock an? Es solle freilich nicht fast hindern, wenn sie sonst Lust zusammen hÄtten.” Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 681.

[367] The explanation is KÖstlin’s, and is retained in the most recent edition by Kawerau, 1, p. 736.

[368] See the whole Greek letter below, p. 176. The passage a? ??a?a? p?s? ???a? p????e????a? p??s?spasa? a?t??, according to our opinion, conveys the sense attributed to it above. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 736.

[369] Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 81 seq.

[370] Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 83.

[371] Conclusion of the Tract “De Purgatorio,” “Opp.,” Pars II, Ingolst., 1531, pp. 95´, 96. Cp. volume iv., xxii.: “Luther and Lying.”

[372] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560 ff.

[373] See above, p. 87.

[374] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667.

[375] Ibid., pp. 431, 437.

[376] “The 7th chapter,” etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 92 ff.

[377] In the dedication to Hans Loser zu Pretzsch, Hereditary Marshal of Saxony (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 199).

[378] On April 10, 1519, to Amsdorf; see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 16, n. 33.

[379] To Johann Lang, April 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12.

[380] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 162 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 49 ff., 77 ff. In the Preface we read: “There is a great difference between bringing something to light by means of the living voice or by the dead letter” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 166). Of the marriages which were concluded secretly (see below) and which were then [previous to the Council of Trent] regarded as valid by the Church, he says here: “After one has secretly pledged his word to a woman and thereafter takes another, either publicly or secretly, I do not yet know whether all that is said and written on the subject is to be accepted or not.”

[381] “De duplici iustitia.” Pastor Knaake remarks of the first edition of this sermon, that it is plain “what careful notes of the reformer’s sermons were made even then.” See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 144.

[382] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526. For the explanation of the phrase, “If the wife will not, let the maid come,” see volume iii., xvii. 6.

[383] Ibid., p. 280 = 515.

[384] Ibid., p. 309 = 537 f.

[385] Ibid., p. 304 = 541.

[386] “Commentaria,” etc. Magunt., 1549, p. 61: “Foedissime contra naturalem pudorem loquitur de commixtione maris et foeminÆ.”

[387] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 146 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 186 ff.

[388] Luther to Staupitz, repeating his words, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.

[389] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 226.

[390] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 704 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 166 ff.

[391] “Contra Henricum regem AngliÆ,” 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 seq. The German edition published by Luther later (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 344 ff.) is abbreviated.

[392] “Contra Henricum,” p. 220 = 445, etc.

[393] Ibid., p. 184 = 391.

[394] “Schutzschrift an den Rath in Costnitz,” in L. Hundeshagen, “BeitrÄge zur Kirchenverfassungsgesch.,” 1864, 1, p. 423.

[395] RÖhrich, “Gesch. der Reformation im Elsass,” 1, 1855, p. 294.

[396] Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, pp. 223, 275, 445.

[397] “Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Basil., 9, pp. 1066, 1096. Cp. Erasmus in “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 689.

[398] “An den grossmechtigsten ... Adel tÜtscher Nation,” Strasburg, 1520 (no name), Bl. K. 1.

[399] “Adversus caninas Martini Lutheri nuptias,” ColoniÆ, 1530. By Luther’s “canine marriages,” the author does not refer to Luther’s union with Catherine Bora, as is usually inferred, but, according to the preface, to the numerous marriages rendered possible by Luther’s removal of the matrimonial impediments, so that it might happen that one man could marry ten times even in the lifetime of the ten women concerned. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 126.

[400] N. Paulus, ibid. He refers to Luther’s “Correspondence,” 1, p. 20; 2, p. 362; 6, p. 280.

[401] “Philipp Melanchthon,” 1905, p. 16, 4.

[402] “Correspondence of the brothers Ambrose and Thomas Blaurer,” ed. Schiess, 1, 1908, pp. 329, 476; Bucer to A. Blaurer, March 5, 1532, and March 3, 1534.

[403] Wilhelm Walther, “FÜr Luther Wider Rom,” 1906, p. 232 ff.

[404] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, Preface, pp. x., xiii.

[405] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1904, col. 1613.

[406] To an anonymous correspondent, August 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 149, answering the question, “Why I replied so harshly to the King of Engelland.” Principal reason: “My method is not one of compromise, yielding, giving in, or leaving anything undone.” “Do not be astonished that so many are scandalised by my writings. This is intended to be so and must be so, that even the few may hold fast to the Gospel.” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447.

[407] Cp. Luther to the Elector Johann, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388), concerning his two pamphlets, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” and “Auff das vermeint keiserlich Edict”: “I am only sorry that [the style] is not stronger and more violent.” The Elector will “readily perceive that my writing is far, far, too dull and soft towards such dry bones and dead branches [as the Papists].” But I was “neither drunk nor asleep when I wrote.”

[408] “FÜr Luther Wider Rom,” p. 231.

[409] “Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.

[410] Letter of Burer, March 27, 1522, in Baum, “Capito und Butzer,” 1860, p. 83, and in “Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus,” ed. Horawitz and Hartfelder, 1866, p. 303.

[411] Thomas Blaurer, in a letter to his brother Ambrose, dated February 15, 1521, calls Luther “Pater pientissimus”; previously, on January 4, he speaks of him as “christianissimus et sapientissimus vir,” and extols the fact that “omnia contempsit prÆter Christum; prÆter Christum nihil metuit nec sperat et id tamen ita humiliter, ut clare sentias nullos esse his fucos.” “Correspondence of the Brothers Blaurer,” 1, 1908, pp. 33, 29 f.

[412] Cp. vol. i., p. 279, the “Dicta Melanchthonia” on Luther’s eyes. Catholic contemporaries called them diabolical. See e.g. Aleander in KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 500.

[413] Cp. for what follows H. BÖhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1910, p. 4 f. Some of the matter contained in the first edition is omitted in the second.

[414] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², Pl. IX

[415] The latter are shown in BÖhmer, p. 2. Cp. ibid., p. 37.

[416] None but an expert can have any idea of the “speed with which Luther wrote. He was a born stenographer.” It should be noted “that the haste with which he wrote is far less noticeable in the manuscripts which have been preserved than in the writings themselves with their countless defects. Outside a small circle there are but few to-day who could fall under the magical influence of Luther’s writings, and not weary of listening to the monotonous song of the ‘Wittenberg nightingale’” (K. A. Meissinger, in a review of Ficker’s edition of the Commentary on Romans, “Frankfurter Ztng.,” 1910, No. 300). The expression “Wittenberg nightingale” occurs, as is well known, in a poem by Luther’s Nuremberg admirer, Hans Sachs.

[417] “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 122. “Commentar ad Gal.,” 1531, 1, p. 107. In this passage quoted by Denifle, 1², p. 391, Luther speaks of his great zeal in doing penance in the monastery, and adds a little further on (p. 109): “So long as I was a Popish monk, externe non eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem,” which, of course, only means: “I was a good religious.”

[418] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38.

[419] In the interpretation of Genesis iii. 17; “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 263. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38, 481, where Luther makes use of the usual word “Franzos” for the malady. In the latter passage Luther declares himself ready to exchange his very painful gout for this malady, or even for the plague, were that God’s will. Hence he was then, i.e. in his later years, free from it.

[420] German translation of the “Chronicle” in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 14; the passage, ibid., p. 1277.

[421] “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 50.

[422] To Spalatin, April 25, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 137.

[423] Melanchthon to Hammelberg, April 29, 1523, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 615.

[424] To Nic. Hausmann, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144: “Corpore satis bene valeo.”

[425] See Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 87, 88 n.

[426] Luther sent him a copy of his “Chronicle,” above mentioned, as a present on May 15, 1544 (Seidemann, “Lutherbriefe,” p. 68).

[427] The text in question runs as follows: “De Helia Luthero vulgata est apud (nos) creberrima fama morbo laborare hominem. Giengerius tamen ex Lipsiis rediens nundinis refert foeliciter, convaluisse scilicet Heliam, qui nos omnes mira affecit lÆtitia. Clamabant adversarii pseudoregem interiisse de Sickingero gloriantes, pseudopapam autem Ægrotum propediem obiturum. Deus tamen, cuius res agitur, melius consuluit. Apriolus tamen multa mihi ex compassione de Lutheri nostri mala valetudine adscripsit, et inter reliqua de nimia vigilia, qua dominus Helias molestetur. Non est mirum, hominem tot cerebri laboribus immersum, in siccitatem cerebri incidere, unde nimia causatur vigilia. Tu autem, qui medicum agis, non debes esse oblitus, si lac mulieris mixtum cum oleo violato in commissuram coronalem ungatur, quam familiariter humectet cerebrum ad somnumque disponat; et si cum hoc dolores mali Francie somno impedimento fuerint, mitigandi sunt cum emplastro, quod fit ex medulla cervi, in qua coquuntur vermes terrÆ cum modico croco et vino sublimato. Hec si dormituro apponuntur, somnum conciliant, qui somnus maxime est necessarius ad restaurandam sanitatem. Nam quod caret alterna requie durabile non est. Cura nobis Lutherum propter Deum, cuius fidei me commenda et charitati. Melanchthonis (?) notum fac Apriolumque saluta.” (From the “Cod. Rych.” in the Wolff collection of the Hamburg Town Library, p. 560.)

[428] In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431, Luther complains of “molestiÆ,” which were not physical sufferings but the weight of his position and undertaking. In the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, he means by the “other molestia” which tormented him, the constipation which “together with temptations of the flesh had prevented him for a whole week from writing, praying, and studying.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 171: “Malum auctum est, quo VormaciÆ laborabam: durissima patior excrementa, ut nunquam in vita, ut remedium desperaverim.” To Spalatin, June 10, 1521. Cp. above, p. 95.

[429] Above, p. 79 ff. Cp. also volume iii., xviii.

[430] “Contra Henricum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.

[431] Preface to Justus Menius’s book, “Œconomia Christiana,” 1529, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 61; Erl. ed., 63, p. 279 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). The preface is in the shape of a letter to Hans Metzsch, the Captain of the Wittenberg garrison, an unmarried man whom Luther urged in vain to marry.

[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f.

[433] To Spalatin, March 4, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 133.

[434] Ibid.

[435] Ibid., March 23, 1525, ibid., 5, p. 140.

[436] Ibid., March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.

[437] Ibid., April 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 290, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 157.

[438] Ibid., March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.

[439] Ibid.

[440] Ibid., April 3, 1525, ibid., p. 152. To Amsdorf, April 11, 1525, ibid., p. 156.

[441] To the Christians at Antwerp, beginning of April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151).

[442] To Spalatin, March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.

[443] Ibid., March 11, 1525, ibid., p. 136.

[444] Ibid., March 27, 1525, ibid., p. 147.

[445] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 19 ff. Sermon of 1533, the second in the “Postils.”

[446] “Contra Henricum regem,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 205 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 424.

[447] “On the two kinds of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311.

[448] On March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.

[449] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). See

[450] “Nos afflicti satis et tentati sumus.”

[451] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 796, n. 2, 729.

[452] See above, p. 133.

[453] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 58.

[454] G. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangelische BlÄtter,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.

[455] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” p. 59.

[456] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 276. Letters edited by De Wette, 4 (not 3, as stated by the editor of Ratzeberger), p. 181.

[457] From Psalm iv. 9 ff.

[458] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60 (“Tischreden”).

[459] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61.

[460] Ibid., 61, p. 307.

[461] Ibid., p. 309.

[462] Ibid.

[463] On November 30, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77 (see p. 181, n. 2). Here Luther remarks that there is much gossip (“garriri”) about him and his marriage.

[464] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164). In October, 1524, he speaks of Pastor Caspar Glatz as her future husband, without mentioning his own intentions (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 35).

[465] To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204. Cp. Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195.

[466] To the Marshal Johann von Dolzigk, June 21, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201). Cp. p. 175, n. 5, “coniux.”

[467] Jonas to Spalatin, June 14, 1525, in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” ed. Kawerau, 1, 1884, p. 94.

[468] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 238, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 184.

[469] To Spalatin, April 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.

[470] See above, p. 142.

[471] To Johann RÜhel, May 4, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 53, 294 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).

[472] To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201: “Dominus me subito aliaque cogitantem coniecit mire in coniugium.”

[473] Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 32: “Maligna fama effecit, ut doctor Martinus insperato fieret coniux; post aliquot tamen dies publica solemnitate duximus istas sacras nuptias etiam coram mundo venerandas.”

[474] On June 16, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197: “Os obstruxi infamantibus me cum Catharina Bora.” At a much later date he excuses the haste by his wish to anticipate the proposal of his friends that he should select some other woman.

[475] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197, 198.

[476] See Amsdorf in Scultetus († 1625), “Annales Evangelii,” 1, p. 274.

[477] V. Druffel, “Die Melanchthon-Handschriften der Chigi-Bibliothek,” in “SB. der Bayr. Akad. phil.-hist. Kl.,” 1876, p. 491 ff. W. Meyer, “Uber die Originale von Melanchthons Briefen an Camerarius,” ibid., p. 596 ff. “Katholik,” 1900, 1, p. 392, an article by P. A. Kirsch with photo of letter. We are forced to depart from his translation on certain points. Cp. also Nik. MÜller’s reprint in “Zeitschr. fÜr Kirchengesch.,” 21, 1901, p. 595. The letter runs:

“?? p??tte??. ?t? ?? ?e??e p??? ??? ? f?? ??? ???a pe?? t?? ???? t?? ???????? ???e??a?, ?d??? ?? pe?? a?t?? ?? ????? ??? s?? ?p?st???e??. ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?p??sd???t?? ???e t?? ???e?a? ? ????e??? ?de?? t?? f???? t? p???a p?? t?? ??a??e???, ???? ?sp??a? p??? de?p??? ?a??sa? t?? ??e?a???a ?a? ????a? t?? ??af?a ?a? t?? ?pe???? ????? ?p???se t? e???s??a p??t??e?a.

“Ta??se?a? d? ??, t??t? t? d?st??e? ?????, ?a??? ???a??? ??d??? p??t?te ta?a?p???????? t??t?? ?? s?p?s?e??, ???? ?? d??e? ????? t??f?? ?a? t? a?t?? ????a ??att???, ?te ???sta ??e?a? ??e? ? Ge?a??a f????at?? te ?a? ????s?a? a?t??. ??? d? ta?ta ??t? p?? ?e??s?a? ??a?. ?st?? ? ???? ?? ???sta e??e??? ?a? a? ??a?a? pas? ??a?? ?p? ???e????a? p??s?pasa? a?t??. ?s?? ? p???? s????e?a, ? s?? ta?? ??a?a?? ??? ?e??a??? ??ta ?a? e?a??????? ?ate???a?e ? ?a? p??se???a?se. t??t?? t??p?? e?spese?? d??e? e?? ta?t?? t?? ?a???? ??? eta????. T??????e??? d?, ?t? ?a? p?? t?? d?a???e?se? a?t??, ??e?s?a? d???? ?st?.

“???? d? t? p?a???? ? a???? f??e?? de? ? ??e?d??e??. ???? ????a? ?p? f?se?? ??a??as???a? ?ae??. ??t?? d? ??? tape???? ??, ???? ?s??? ?st? ?a? ?e? ????? t?? ????? ???s?e?. ?a? ?t? a?t?? t?? ????e??? ?p???p?? p?? ??ta ??? ?a? ta?a????ta d?? t?? ??? eta?????, p?s? sp??d? ?a? ?????? ?p??e??? pa?a??e?s?a?, ?pe?d? ??p? ?p?a?? t?, ?pe? ???a?e?s?a? ???? ? ??ap?????t?? d??e?. ?t? d? te????? t??a ??? t?? e?see?a? a?t?? ?ste ?ata????e?? ??? ??e??a?. ?pe?ta ?? ????? ?????? a?t?? tape????s?a? ? ????s?a? ?a? ?pa??es?a?, ?pe? ?st?? ?p?sfa???, ?? ???? t??? ?? ?e??s???, ???? ?a? p?s?? ?????p???. t? ??? e? p??tte??, ?f??? t?? ?a??? f???e?? ???eta?, ?? ????, ?? ? ??t?? ?f?, t??? ????t???, ???? ?a? t??? s?f???.

“???? t??t? ?a? ??p???, ?t? ? ??? ??t?s? se??te??? a?t?? p???se?, ?ste ?a? ?p?a?e?? t?? ??????a?, ?? p??????? ?e??e?a. ????? ??? ??? ????? d?a?ta? ?at?pa????a? ?atast?se?.

“?a?ta p??? se a??????? ?ste ? se ?p? pa?ad???? p???at?? ??a? ta??ttes?a?. ??da ??? ?t? ??e? s?? t?? ????at?? t?? ????????, ?pe? ???? ??att???a? ???es??s?. ?a?a?a?? d? se p???? ta?ta f??e??, ?t? t???? ??? ? ???? ?? ???a?? ??afa?? e??a? ???eta?. e???? d? ??a??as???a? ?????? ?ae??. ????? t?? p??a? ????? pta?sata ?de??e? ? ?e?? ???, ?t? ???e? ??? asa?????ta? t?? a?t?? ?????, ??? ????a ?????p?? ? p??s?p?? s?????? p??e??, ???? ???? a?t?? ?????. p???? d? ?se?stat?? ?st??, ?st?? d?? t? d?das????? pta?sa ?ata?????s?e? t?? d?da???.

“Michaelis pergrata consuetudo in his turbis mihi est, quem miror, qui passus sis isthinc discedere. Patrem officiosissime tractato, et puta te hanc illi pro paterno amore gratiam debere ?a? ??t?pe?a??e??. De Francicis rebus a te litteras expecto. Vale foeliciter. Postridie corp. Christi. Tabellarius qui has reddet, recta ad nos rediturus est. F???pp??.” (The seal is still preserved.)

[478] Not de????a?, debauchery, as was thought, but ??????a?, is the correct reading. The latter might perhaps be translated as “the passion for making coarse jests.” This is the opinion of G. Kawerau in “Deutsch-Evangelische BlÄtter,” 1906, “Luther und Melanchthon” (in the reprint, p. 37), who remarks that the only thing damning for Luther in this letter was Melanchthon’s statement “concerning the coarse jests to which Luther was given in his bachelor days, and which had so often scandalised his friend.” Kawerau, for this very reason, thinks that this much-discussed letter, “which Camerarius only ventured to print after much revision” (p. 34), is much better calculated to “make us acquainted with Melanchthon than with Luther, and simply bears witness to the former’s sensitiveness” (p. 37). It is true that “some of Luther’s talk appears to us to-day frightfully coarse, and Melanchthon felt as we do on the subject”; but apart from the fact that Melanchthon’s views were not representative of his age, Mathesius declares that “he never heard an immodest word from Luther’s lips.” We shall return later to the question of that age as a linguistic standard of morality and to Mathesius’s statement, which, we may remark, refers to a later period.

[479] e???? d? ??a??as???a? ?????? ?ae??. The subject of the verb ??a??as???a? is the infinitive ?ae??, as in the previous passage ????a? ?p? f?se?? ??a??as???a? ?ae??. On the passive form ??a??as???a?, see e.g. Plato, “PhÆd.,” 242a, 254a.

[480] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 750.

[481] Loc. cit., p. 36.

[482] To Johann RÜhel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).

[483] To Spalatin, November 30, 1524 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77): “Animus alienus est a coniugio, cum expectem quotidie mortem et meritum hÆretici supplicium.” This he wrote under the influence of the stringent decrees of the Diet of Nuremberg (April 18, 1524), and in order to work upon his Elector. The decrees had led him to write: “You are in a great hurry to put me, a poor man, to death,” but that his death would be the undoing of his enemies. “Two unequal decrees of the Emperor,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 222 f.; Weim. ed., 15, p. 254.

[484] To Johann RÜhel, Johann ThÜr and Caspar MÜller, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).

[485] Sermon on Psalm xxvi. preached in Wittenberg shortly after his marriage, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 115.

[486] From the concluding words of the tract of 1525: “Against the murderous, thievish bands of peasants,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18, p. 361; Erl. ed., 24², p. 309.

[487] See above, p. 175.

[488] See above, p. 178.

[489] To Leonard Koppe, June 17, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199).

[490] To Michael Stiefel, June 17, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199.

[491] To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, ibid., p. 204.

[492] To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, ibid., p. 201.

[493] In letter quoted above, p. 181, n. 3.

[494] To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248.

[495] To Johann Brismann (after August 15?), 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 226.

[496] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 641.

[497] On May 11, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 340.

[498] In the letter quoted above, p. 174, n. 3.

[499] To Leonard Koppe, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 202.

[500] To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1525, ibid., p. 222.

[501] In the letter quoted above, p. 182, n. 4: “Vehementer irritantur sapientes etiam inter nostros.” These are the followers whom he had complained of already on April 10, 1525: “Nostri sapienticuli quotidie idem (coniugium) ridere.” To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.

[502] To Amsdorf, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.

[503] “Archiv fÜr Frankfurter Gesch.,” 7, 1855, p. 102 in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 195, n. 4.

[504] To Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.

[505] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.

[506] Ibid., p. 265.

[507] “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, t. 3, col. 900. Erasmus to Nicholas Everardus, PrÄses in Holland, from Basle, December 24, 1525.

[508] Ibid., col. 919, to Franciscus Sylvius, from Basle, March 13, 1526.

[509] “Articuli sive libelli triginta,” art. 17, p. 87 seq.

[510] “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, 3, col. 900, ep. 781.

[511] Ibid., col. 919, ep. 801.

[512] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322; see above, p. 183.

[513] See Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 334.

[514] See Strobel, “Neue BeitrÄge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff. Cp. HÖfler, “SB. der k. bÖhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 110 f. Denifle states, “Luther,” 1², p. 284, n. 3, that there is a specimen of the above work in the town library at Mayence.

[515] See above, pp. 145, 177.

[516] “Eberlins SÄmtliche Schriften,” ed. L. Enders, 3, p. 165.

[517] Eobanus Hessus says of the escaped nuns: “Nulla Phyllis nonnis est nostris mammosior.” Cp. above, p. 125, n. 1.

[518] Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 284.

[519] “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” Oldenburg, 1895, p. 8.

[520] “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” Berlin, 1890, p. 447.

[521] “Die Kultur der Gegenwart,” T. 2, Abt. 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 68.

[522] The passages were quoted above, cp. pp. 6 f., 9 f., 49 f., 55 f., 63, 69, 100 f., 107.

[523] “Dissertationes quatuor contra M. Lutherum et Lutheranismi fautores,” MoguntiÆ, 1532, fol. 19. See Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, 1900, p. 56 ff.

[524] Ed. A. Goetze in “Hist. Vierteljahrsschrift,” 4, 1901, p. 1 ff.

[525] In KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 697, after a reference to the oppression of the peasantry, their insolence and desire for innovation, we read: “In addition to all this there now supervened the preaching of the new Evangel.... A higher warrant was bestowed upon the complaints and the demands concerning secular and material matters.... The Christian liberty of which the New Testament speaks and which Luther proclaimed was applied directly to temporal questions. Paul’s words that in Christ there is neither bond nor free became a weapon.... Even the Old Testament was also appealed to. From the circumstance that God had granted to our first parents dominion over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field, they concluded that at least the right to fish and hunt was common to all. Great opposition was raised, above all, to the taxes due to the monasteries and clergy, and even the very existence of the monastic state and temporal authority of the clergy was called into question. Such ideas were readily fostered among the excited masses when the new preaching found its way amongst them by word of mouth or in writings”; p. 701: “Luther, however, was the man of the Evangel on whom the eyes of the great mass of the peasants in southern Germany were directed when their rising commenced.” The editors of the Weimar edition of Luther’s writings (18, 1908) remark in the first introduction to the same (p. 279): “The rebellion found its encouragement and support in Luther’s victorious gospel of ecclesiastical reformation; ultimately, however, it secularised the new gospel. Whence it came to pass that in the end, not Luther, but rather the religious fanatics, above all, Thomas MÜnzer, drew the excited masses under their spell and impressed their stamp on the whole movement.” Concerning Luther’s attitude towards the revolt at the time it was preparing, we read on p. 280: “Up to that time [the spring of 1525], Luther had taken no direct part in the social movement. He was, however, without doubt indirectly engaged; his writings had fallen like firebrands on the inflammable masses, who misunderstood them, interpreted them according to their own ideas and forged from them weapons for their own use.”

[526] Fritz Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Zeiten der Reformation,” in “Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910 (p. 275-304), p. 297.

[527] F. Herrmann, ibid., p. 298.

[528] F. Herrmann, p. 296. W. Vogt, “Die Vorgesch. des Bauernkrieges” (in “Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” 20, 1887), points to the general expectation prevailing, more particularly in the south-west of Germany, that a fundamental change in the existing state of things was imminent. “Every reform, however, even the most trifling, in the social sphere encroached upon the political and even the ecclesiastical domain, for the nobility and clergy, whose authority and possessions were the subject of discussion, were at the same time political and ecclesiastical factors.... All felt that in the last instance the appeal would be to force” (p. 142).

[529] For examples, see above, p. 152 ff., and below, p. 297 ff. Cp. also P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum Luthers Ideal?” TÜbingen, 1908, p. 31.

[530] Concerning Usingen’s utterance of 1523: “Nescitis populum esse bestiam ... quÆ sanguinem sitit?” etc., cp. N. Paulus, “Barthol. Usingen,” p. 102. And (ibid.) another striking saying of Usingen concerning the preacher Culsamer. He declared that he feared Germany would see a storm similar to that which Constantinople had suffered at the hands of the iconoclasts (p. 101). The preacher Eberlin von GÜnzburg announced in 1521: “There will be no end to the impositions of the clergy until the peasants rise and hang and drown good and bad alike; then the cheating will meet with its reward.” See Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 490 ff.

[531] F. Herrmann, loc. cit., p. 297.

[532] The circular letter, reprinted in the “Annalen des Vereins fÜr Nassauisshe Gesch.,” 17, 1882, p. 16 ff.

[533] W. Stolze, “Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,” Halle, 1907, p. v.

[534] Cp. particularly p. 22 ff. In “Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 160, the author’s blame of the “previous prejudiced insistence on the social side of the Peasant War” meets with recognition; we read there, “the emphasis laid on the religious side by Stolze appears to be thoroughly justified.”

[535] “Die scharf Metz wider die, die sich evangelisch nennen und doch dem Evangelium entgegen sind,” 1525, ed. W. Lucke, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” vol. i., No. 3, Halle, 1906.

[536] W. Maurenbrecher, “Gesch. der kath. Reformation,” 1, NÖrdlingen, 1880, p. 257. Janssen, in his “Hist. of the German People,” has brought this point out clearly. See more particularly (Engl. trans.) volume iii.: “The populace inflamed by preaching and the press,” and volume iv.: “The social revolution,” where it is pointed out that even apart from Luther’s action and that of his followers, risings were imminent, but that the “social revolution first received the stamp of universal and inhuman ferocity from the conditions created or developed among the people by the religious disturbances.” Concerning the effect of the sermons and pamphlets on the people we read, in the original, vol. 2¹⁸, p. 490, n. 5, in a letter of Archduke Ferdinand to the Pope, that the deluded people believed, “se Dei negotium agere in templis, coenobiis, monasteriis diruendis,” etc. Johann Adam MÖhler, in the Church History (ed. Gams), which appeared after his death, compares (3, p. 118) the effects of the preaching of the liberty of the children of God in the primitive Church, and describes the pure, virtuous life of self-renunciation which resulted, how the lower classes learnt to be content with their lot and the slaves became more faithful to their masters. “The contrast between the effects of the old gospel and the new evangel gave the most convincing proof of the difference between them.” “From the spirit of the flesh which combined with the religious in Luther’s writings to form one living whole, a tendency to revolt gradually spread over all Germany; ecclesiastical and secular, divine and human, spiritual and corporal, all ran riot together in the people’s minds; everywhere prevailed a fanatical, perverted longing for the liberty of the children of God” (p. 116). When Luther urged the Princes to severity in repressing the movement, his ruling idea was “to repress the opinion that elements dangerous to public order were embodied in his principles” (p. 118).

[537] W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 22.

[538] Cp. the writing, “Handlung, Ordnung und Instruktion,” in which the delegates to be chosen to negotiate with the Swabian League on the question of “divine law,” are referred, among others, to “Hertzog Friederich von Sachsen sampt D. Martin Luther, oder Philipp Melanchthon oder Pomeran [Bugenhagen].” In the introduction of the Weim. ed. (see above, p. 191, n. 2), p. 280. Luther refers to this passage in his “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die 12 Artikel” with the words: “particularly as they appeal to me by name in the other writing.”

[539] The pamphlet in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, 1908, p. 279 ff. Erl. ed., 24², p. 271 ff. For the date see ibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 281, and KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 793.

[540] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 344 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 303 ff.

[541] Ibid., p. 375 ff. = 310 ff.

[542] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293 f.=273 f.

[543] Ibid., p. 300=277.

[544] Ibid., p. 329 f.=296 f. In the Weim. ed., 18, p. 790, it is rightly remarked that Luther sees in the peasants of South Germany, to whom the “Ermanunge zum Fride” was principally addressed, persecuted men, and that from a distance he welcomes their rising with a certain sympathy.

[545] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 717; cp. p. 792 ff.

[546] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 291; Erl. ed., 24², p. 272.

[547] Ibid., p. 316 = p. 288.

[548] Ibid., p. 334 = p. 299.

[549] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293=p. 273.

[550] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 55.

[551] K. MÜller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 140.

[552] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 358; Erl. ed., 24², p. 304.

[553] Ibid., p. 358 f.=p. 305. “The violent words of the circular letter ‘Wider die ... Bawren’ were really directed against his bitter opponent Thomas MÜnzer, the ‘arch-devil of MÜhlhausen,’ and the seditious Thuringian peasants.” So runs the introduction of the Weimar edition, with which we may, to some extent, agree, though the pamphlet speaks throughout of the rebellious peasants generally; on the very first page we read, however: “More particularly the arch-devil who reigns at MÜhlhausen and who incites to nothing but pillage, murder, and bloodshed.”

[554] Ibid., p. 360; Erl. ed., 24², p. 308.

[555] Ibid., p. 359=p. 306.

[556] Ibid., p. 361=p. 308.

[557] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, and p. 359 = p. 306.

[558] Ibid., p. 360 ff. = 307 ff.

[559] Melanchthon’s and Luther’s words given more in detail in Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 59.

[560] Luther to Amsdorf, May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182: “adulator principum.” Luther pronounces the “Curse of the Lord” on those Magdeburg preachers who had sided with the rebels.

[561] On May 21, 1525, Kawerau’s edition of the letter in “Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 339 (“ Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 177).

[562] Kawerau’s edition, ibid., p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 180).

[563] Cp. K. MÜller above (p. 201, n. 3), p. 148, where another explanation is given which, however, cannot stand. MÜller, p. 140 ff., deals with Barge’s “Karlstadt” (vol. ii.), and Barge’s reply to his criticism. Barge was of opinion that “it is plain the princes and their mercenaries [in their ruthless treatment of the conquered peasants] understood Luther aright” (“FrÜhprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum,” 1909, p. 333). “Luther, in his pamphlet against the peasants, gave high sanction to the impure lust for blood which had been kindled in the souls of hundreds and thousands who played the part of hangmen.... By seeking to exalt the cynical thirst for revenge into a religious sentiment he has stained the cause of the Reformation more than he could have done even by allying himself with the rebels” (“Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 357).

[564] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). “I would that in these perilous days you would write a letter of consolation and exhortation to my most gracious lord of Magdeburg concerning his making a change in his mode of life; you understand what I mean. But please send me a copy. I purpose going to Magdeburg to-day to take steps in the matter. Pray God in heaven to give His grace in this serious work and undertaking. Be hopeful; you understand me; it cannot be committed to writing. For God’s sake implore, seek and pray that grace and strength may be bestowed on me for the work.” Words so pious concerning such a business prove how far men may be carried away by their own prepossession.

[565] Cp. Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 64.

[566] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, with the references p. 794 and Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, Introduction. E. Rolffs (“Preuss. JahrbÜcher,” 15, 1904, p. 481): “When, incited thereto by his evangel of the freedom of a Christian man, the oppressed and down-trodden peasantry sought by flame and bloodshed to secure for themselves an existence fit for human beings, then he no longer understood his German people. And when, thereupon, he wrote his frightful book, ‘Against the murderous and thieving hordes of Peasants,’ the German people also ceased to understand him.”

[567] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 58 f.

[568] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 306 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181). “This rabble [the peasants under Thomas MÜnzer] was an enemy of the evangel, and its leaders bitter opponents of the Lutheran teaching.” Introduction to the circular-letter. Weim. ed., 18, p. 376.

[569] Luther’s own way of putting the objection, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 399; Erl. ed., 24², p. 331. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, ibid.

[570] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. The date is determined by K. MÜller in the work quoted above, p. 201, n. 3, p. 144.

[571] In the sermon at Wittenberg on June 4, 1525, KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715.

[572] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 401; Erl. ed., 24², p. 334.

[573] Ibid., p. 384 ff.=pp. 311-14.

[574] Ibid., p. 387 f.=pp. 315-16.

[575] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, 717.

[576] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 390 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 319, 320.

[577] Ibid., pp. 392-4 = 322, 324.

[578] Ibid., pp. 394, 396; Erl. ed., 24², pp. 324, 327.

[579] Ibid., p. 397 = 328.

[580] “Against the murderous Peasants,” ibid., p. 358 = 304.

[581] Ibid., p. 398 f. = 330.

[582] Ibid., p. 399 = 331.

[583] Ibid., p. 399 f. = 330-3.

[584] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 29.

[585] “Epp. ad viros aetatis suae doctissimos,” ed. Rieggerus, 1774, p. 97.

[586] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, quoted in the introduction to the circular-letter.

[587] “Hyperaspistes,” “Opp.,” 1, p. 1032.

[588] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 284 (Tischreden). Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 307, Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 290.

[589] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, 714, 717 f.

[590] Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181, n. 1.

[591] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 62.

[592] Ed. W. Friedensburg, “Zur Vorgesch. des Gotha-Torgauischen BÜndnisses der Evangelischen,” 1884. Cp. Kawerau in “Theolog. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 502.

[593] Cp. Fr. Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” in “Schriften fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 275-304.

[594] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 7 f. For the tract, so far as it is known, see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 252 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 22 ff.

[595] Frank G. Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 31.

[596] To Hans Luther, February 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 130 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).

[597] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 526 n. “Luther’s conduct in the Peasant War was not ambiguous, but in both his writings merely violent as usual; in the first, against the nobles, more especially the higher clergy; in the second, against the peasants.”

[598] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 276.

[599] Ibid., 33, p. 390. In the “Exhortation to Peace” Luther had represented to the peasants that their demand for the abrogation of serfdom was “rapacious,” “and directly contrary to the gospel.” Cp. vol. v., xxxv. 5.

[600] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.

[601] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 125. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” 216.

[602] Ibid., p. 127. Cordatus, ibid., p. 217.

[603] Ibid., p. 131. Cordatus, p. 221.

[604] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, undated Fragment.

[605] On August 25, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 333.

[606] P. Schreckenbach, “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” 1895, p. 45.

[607] “De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 776. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 367: “ipsum iugulum petisti.”

[608] To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248 f.

[609] Ibid., p. 248: “metuens, ne non esset divinum, quod gerimus.”

[610] May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182.

[611] In “Eurici Cordi Medici antilutheromastigos calumnias expurgatio pro catholicis,” 1526. Cp. G. Kawerau, “Hieron. Emser,” 1898, p. 83 f. For Emser’s work I made use of the very rare copy in the University library at Munich.

[612] Verse 53 ff.

[613] September 28, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 246.

[614] On September 27, 1525, ibid., p. 245.

[615] Cp. letter of May 26, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).

[616] “Qui te fecit sine te, non iustificat te sine te,” “Serm.,” 160, n. 13.

[617] “De duabus animabus,” 14, n. 22.

[618] Genesis iv. 6 f. According to the Vulgate.

[619] 2 Corinthians vi. 1; 1 Corinthians xv. 10; Philippians ii. 12.

[620] Deuteronomy xxx. 19.

[621] Ed. F. Pfeiffer², 1855, p. 208.

[622] “De nuptiis et concup.,” 2, c. 8.

[623] “Epp.,” 157, c. 2. It is notorious that in his controversial writings against the Pelagians, Augustine, in his later years, came to insist more and more upon grace, yet he never denied free-will nor its consequences, viz. merit and guilt. Some of Luther’s misrepresentations of the statements of this Father of the Church will be given later.

[624] J. Ficker, in the Preface, p. lxxv, referring to “Schol. Rom.,” 38, 42, 71, 90, 91, 93, 101; cp. 171, 179, 188, 218.

[625] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 55 f.

[626] A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre Über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” GÖttingen, 1901, p. 10 f.

[627] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 29 f.

[628] Ibid., p. 78 = p. 177. Cp. F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” GÖttingen, 1875, p. 51 (the 2nd edition is a mere reprint).

[629] Cp. for this and for the other theses Luther’s works mentioned in volume i., p. 310 ff., and also “Die Ältesten Disputationen,” etc., ed. Stange, for instance, p. 5: “Voluntas hominis sine gratia non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”

[630] Stange, ibid., p. 15.

[631] Stange, ibid., p. 16, n. 1, referring to his work, “Die reformatorische Lehre von der Freiheit des Handelns,” in “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1903, p. 214 ff.

[632] Cp. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 48 f.

[633] On Luther’s Determinism, see below. For the deterministic passages in the work, “De servo arbitrio,” 1525, cf. Taube, “Luthers Lehre Über die Freiheit,” p. 21.

[634] Latin text in Stange, ibid., p. 18. Cp. Kattenbusch., ibid., p. 41 ff., for what Luther said in 1516.

[635] See Stange, ibid., p. 35 ff.

[636] Thesis 13, in Stange, ibid., p. 53. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. Thesis 14: “Liberum arbitrium post peccatum potest in bonum potentia subiectiva, in malum vero activa semper.” On the Heidelberg Disputation, see volume i., p. 315 ff.

[637] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 421; “Opp. Lat var.,” 3, p. 272.

[638] Ibid., p. 424 = p. 276.

[639] Jul. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², Stuttgart, 1901, p. 218.

[640] In the “Assertio omnium articulorum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 148; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 234. Cp. ibid., p. 146 = p. 231: “Patimur omnes et omnia: cessat liberum arbitrium erga Deum.”

[641] Ibid., p. 146 = p. 230. This passage was toned down, after Luther’s death, in the Wittenberg ed. (1546) and Jena ed. (1557); KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 316 n.

[642] “Werke,” ibid., p. 143 ff.=p. 227 ff. It is strange but characteristic how he appeals to experience as against the doctrine of free-will: everyone possessed arguments against it “ex vita propria.... Secus rem se habere monstrat experientia omnium” (p. 145=p. 230). His views of concupiscence come in here.

[643] “Non est homo in manu sua, etiam mala operans et cogitans” (ibid., p. 145=p. 230).

[644] “Nam et mala opera in impiis Deus operatur” (ibid.).

[645] “Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 145 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 231 f.

[646] “Contra duas epp. Pelag.,” 1. 3, c. 8.

[647] “De spiritu et litt.,” c. 3, n. 5.

[648] In place of “Neque liberum arbitrium quidquid nisi ad peccandum valet, si lateat veritatis via,” he makes Augustine say: “Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet nisi ad peccandum.” Of the subject itself sufficient explanation will be found in Catholic handbooks. Cp., for instance, Hurter, “Theolog. specialis,” pars. 2¹¹, 1903, p. 55 f.

[649] “Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 146: “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 233.

[650] Ibid., pp. 95=158.

[651] Ibid., p. 148=234.

[652] Ibid.

[653] Weim. ed., 5, p. 149=p. 235.

[654] Ibid., p. 97 f.=p. 161 f.

[655] Ibid., p. 100=p. 165.

[656] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 96=p. 158.

[657] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142 f.=p. 226.

[658] Ibid., p. 145=p. 229.

[659] Cp. ibid., p. 145=p. 230: “Unde non est dubium, satana magistro in ecclesiam venisse hoc nomen liberum arbitrium, ad seducendos homines a via Dei in vias suas proprias.”

[660] Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 106. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 70.

[661] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 235. “Kirchenpostille,” Sermon of 1521. Cp. KÖstlin, ibid., 1², p. 365.

[662] See KÖstlin, ibid., p. 366. He admits (2², p. 82) that Luther “expressly denies free-will” to those who “would not.”

[663] Weim. ed., 7, p. 147; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 232.

[664] KÖstlin, ibid., 1², p. 366.

[665] To Hans von Rechenberg, August 18, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 444). This letter to the promoter of Lutheranism at Freistadt in Silesia, was at once spread abroad in print and is included amongst Luther’s catechetical works. Later he finds in the same passage, viz. Timothy ii. 4, merely an expression of God’s desire that we should render our neighbours “all temporal and spiritual assistance” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 316 ff.). In support of this he appeals to Psalm xxxvi.: “Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord.” To find in Scripture that salvation was open to all men whose free-will was ready to accept it, was “to pluck out some words of Scripture and fashion them according to our own fancy” (p. 317).

[666] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 317.

[667] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 14, p. 73: Erl. ed., 52, p. 271; cp. ibid., p. 69=p. 267.

[668] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 51, p. 317.

[669] “Corpus ref.,” 21, p. 87 f. Later we read: “Fateor in externo rerum delectu esse quandam libertatem, internos vero affectus prorsus nego in potestate nostra esse” (ibid., p. 92). Both passages in Kolde’s edition based on the editio princeps, Leipzig, 1900, 3rd. ed., pp. 67, 74.

[670] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117.

[671] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 144.

[672] Thesis 16 of the Disputation of 1516 (see vol. i., p. 310): “Voluntas non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”

[673] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 212; 9, p. 238; Erl. ed., 16², p. 135.

[674] Ibid., p. 210=235=131.

[675] See above, p. 27 ff.

[676] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39; Erl. ed., 27, p. 199. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.

[677] See below, p. 288, the Sermon in 1531.

[678] To Johann Lang, April 12, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 331.

[679] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 657.

[680] Cp. Luther to Kaspar Borner, Professor at Leipzig, May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.

[681] N. Paulus points out in his article “Georg Agricola” (“Histor-polit. BlÄtter,” 136, 1905, p. 793 ff.), that this scholar had never been one of Luther’s followers, and was particularly repelled by his views on the absence of free-will, which he opposed as early as 1522.

[682] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377, n. 6, from Weller’s “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” 1, 1765, p. 18.

[683] We may allude, for instance, to the beautiful words which, strange to say, have been described by certain Protestants as a moralistic explaining away of the true “evangelical comprehension of the person of Christ and His work”: “Ut certiore cursu queas ad felicitatem contendere, haec tibi quarta sit regula, ut totius vitae tuae Christum velut unicum scopum prÆfigas, ad quem unum omnia studia, omnes conatus, omne otium ac negotium conferas. Christum vero esse puta non vocem inanem, sed nihil aliud quam charitatem, simplicitatem, patientiam, puritatem, breviter, quidquid ille docuit” (“Enchiridion,” Basil., 1519, p. 93). G. Kawerau quotes from the correspondence of Justus Jonas which he edited, 1, p. 31, the words of Eobanus Hessus (1519) on the “Enchiridion”: “Plane divinum opus,” and the following utterance of Ulrich Zasius (1520) on the same, from the correspondence of Beatus Rhenanus, p. 230: “Miles christianus, quem tamen, si vel solus ab Erasmo exisset, immortali laude prÆdicare conveniebat, ut qui christiano homini verÆ salutis compendium, brevi velut enchiridio demonstret.” “Luther und Erasmus,” in “Deutsch-Evangel. BlÄtter,” 1906, Hft. 1, in the reprint, p. 4.

[684] In a letter to P. Servatius, July 9, 1514, Erasmus says: “Voluptatibus etsi quando fui inquinatus nunquam servivi” (“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1527). Perhaps he meant more by this than when he says of Thomas More, in a letter to Ulrich von Hutten, July 23, 1519, which is sometimes cited in comparison: “Cum Ætas ferret, non abhorruit [Th. Morus] a puellarum amoribus, sed citra infamiam, et sic ut oblatis magis frueretur, quam captatis et animo mutuo caperetur potius quam coitu” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 474 seq.).

[685] A. DÜrer’s exclamation given above, p. 41: “O Erasmus Roderdamus, Knight of Christ, ride forth,” etc., is an allusion to the “miles christianus” depicted by Erasmus in the “Enchiridion.” Kawerau, ibid., p. 2.

[686] The passages in proof of his “rationalistic interpretation of Scripture” are to be found in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 21 ff.

[687] Janssen, ibid., p. 15.

[688] Kawerau, ibid., p. 5.

[689] To Christoph von Stadion, Bishop of Augsburg, August 26, 1528, “Opp.,” 3, col. 1095 seq.

[690] On September 3, 1522, “Opp.,” 3, col. 731. Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” Leipzig, 1905, p. 352.

[691] At the end of 1520 he declares that he has only read ten or twelve pages of Luther’s writings. To Campegius, December 6, 1520, and to Leo X, September 13, 1520, “Opp.,” 3, col. 596, 578.

[692] Cp. Max Richter, “Erasmus und seine Stellung zu Luther,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 10 ff.

[693] Ibid., col. 431 seq. Cp. his statement to Jodocus [i.e. Justus] Jonas of July 31, 1518: “Luther had given some excellent advice; had he but gone to work more gently. As to the value of his doctrines, I neither can, nor wish to, express an opinion” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 334).

[694] To Cardinal Wolsey: “Vita magno omnium consensu probatur,” etc. (“Opp.,” 3, col. 322). Cp. his letter to Campegius, of December 6, 1520. To Leo X he writes, on September 13, 1520 (col. 578): “Bonis igitur illius [Lutheri] favi ... immo gloriÆ Chriti in illo favi.” Assurances such as these may well explain Rome’s delay in condemning Luther.

[695] It is of a portion of the work (described briefly in volume i., p. 386) which had then appeared, that Erasmus writes: “Vehementer arrident et spero magnam utilitatem allaturos” (col. 445). How ready he was to express approval of any work of which a copy was presented to him is shown by his reply to the Bohemian Brethren in 1511, who had sent him one of their several confessions of faith founded on the new interpretation of Holy Scripture: Of what he had “read in their book,” he writes, he had “thoroughly approved and trusted that the rest was equally correct”; from any public approval he preferred, however, to abstain in order not to have his writings censured by the Papists, but to “preserve his reputation and strength unimpaired for the general good.” Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 20 f.

[696] The letter is also to be found in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 66 ff.

[697] “Opp.,” 3, col. 514. In his complaints concerning the disorders of the Church he says, for instance: “Mundus oneratus est ... tyrannide fratrum mendicantium”; and then “in sacris concionibus minimum audiri de Christo, de potestate pontificis et de opinionibus recentium fere omnia”; in short: “nihil est corruptius ne apud Turcas quidem.”

[698] Luther to Lang, January 26, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 305: “egregia epistola, ubi me egregie tutatur, ita tamen, ut nihil minus quam me tutari videatur, sicut solet pro dexteritate sua.”

[699] F. O. Stichart, “Erasmus von Rotterdam,” Leipzig, 1870, p. 325, Kawerau, ibid., p. 10.

[700] On August 31, 1521, “Zwinglii Opp.,” 7, p. 310. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. trans., 3, p. 17, where the assertion that Erasmus had won over Pellicanus and Capito to the Zwinglian doctrine of the Last Supper is said to be utterly false. Though Erasmus declares that he never forsook the teaching of the Church on this point, Melanchthon nevertheless says that he was the actual originator of the Zwinglian denial of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament. Melanchthon to Camerarius, July 26, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083: “Nostri inimici illum [Erasmum] amant, qui multorum dogmatum semina in suis libris sparsit, quÆ fortasse longe graviores tumultus aliquando excitatura fuerant, nisi Lutherus exortus esset ac studia hominum alio traxisset. Tota illa tragÆdia, pe?? de?p??? ????a???, ab ipso nata videri potest.”

[701] Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” 1 p. 354.

[702] To Spalatin, July 6, 1520, cp. StÄhelin, “Theol. RealenzyklopÄdie,” 5³, p. 442.

[703] “Opp.,” 3, col. 639 seq.

[704] Ibid., col. 713, 742.

[705] So, for instance, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 698 (1525).

[706] Ibid., p. 693.

[707] “Opp.,” 3, col. 826.

[708] “Opp.,” 3, col. 919.

[709] Ibid., col. 1104.

[710] Ioan. Genesius Sepulveda Cordubensis, “De rebus gestis Caroli Quinti,” in his “Opp.,” 1 (Matriti, 1780), p. 468.

[711] To Johann Œcolampadius at Basle, June 20, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 164: “Forte et ipse [Erasmus] in campestribus Moab morietur (Num. xxxvi. 13).... In terram promissionis ducere non potest ... ut qui vel non possit vel non velit de iis [scripturis] recte iudicare.”

[712] In his “Diatribe” against Luther, Erasmus likewise declares that he submits himself in all to the authority of the Church. Cp. Joh. Walter’s edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” Hft., 8, 1910), p. 3. Later he wrote concerning his attitude to Catholic dogma: “De his quÆ sunt fidei, liberam habeo conscientiam apud Deum” (“Opp.,” 10, col. 1538).

[713] To Christoph von Stadion, in the letter referred to above, p. 246, n. 1. Even in 1520 and 1521 he says that he had been the first to condemn the Wittenberg preaching because he had foreseen danger and disturbance. There, however, he dwells more on the detriment to learning.

[714] “Si quis deus mihi prÆdixisset, hoc sÆculum exoriturum, quÆdam aut non scripsissem, aut aliter scripsissem” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 681).

[715] To quote here only one instance, Luther says (1544) in the “Tischreden” of Mathesius, edited by Kroker, p. 343, that he desired that the “Annotationes in Novum Testamentum” by Erasmus (a much-esteemed and really epoch-making work) should not be further disseminated, “because it contains Epicureanism and other poison.” Erasmus had destroyed many “in body, soul, and spirit,” and had been an “originator of the ‘Sakramentirer’”; he had injured the gospel as much as he had furthered the interests of learning. “He was a terrible man, and Zwingli was led astray by him. Egranus [Johann Wildenauer of Eger, who forsook the Wittenberg teaching] he had also perverted, and he now believes just about as much as Erasmus; his end was “sine crux et sine lux.” The latter remark concerning Erasmus’s death calls for explanation. Erasmus arrived in August, 1535, in a weak state of health at Basle, a city already despoiled of every vestige of Catholic worship—in order to supervise the printing of his “Origenes” by the celebrated Basle printers. His illness had been increasing since March, 1536, and in the night of the 11th to 12th July of that year he died unexpectedly and without having received the sacraments. A fortnight before this, on June 28, in a letter to a friend, Johann Goclen, he had expressed his regret that he was lying ill in a city dominated by the reformers. On account of the difference in religion he would rather be summoned out of this life elsewhere. “Ep.,” 1299. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1522.

[716] Kawerau, ibid., p. 15. He, however, remarks concerning Erasmus: “The instinct of self-preservation forced such admissions from him.” There is no reason for doubting the “veracity” of his statements in favour of the Catholic Church.

[717] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 287.

[718] Joh. v. Walter, “Das Wesen der Religion nach Erasmus und Luther,” 1906, p. 7. “That Erasmus set himself seriously to improve matters is shown by his letters,” thus A. Freitag in the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 594, n. 3.

[719] “Annales” (ed. Aretin, “BeitrÄge zur Gesch. und Literatur,” 9, 1807), p. 1018: “Ubi Erasmus quippiam optat aut fieri velle innuit, ibi Lutherus totis viribus irruit.” Leib’s “Briefwechsel und Diarien,” an important source for that period, J. Schlecht has edited in J. Greving’s “Reformationsgesch. Studien,” Hft. 7.

[720] The preface has been reprinted in O. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii EpistulÆ et Acta,” 3, 1901, p. 280 seq. The passage is on p. 283. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 15, where the work of Canisius, “De incomparabili virgine Maria,” is also quoted.

[721] In the letter of Erasmus to the Lutheran Johann CÄsarius, December 16, 1523: “Ego peperi ovum, Lutherus exclusit, mirum dictum minoritarum istorum magnaque et bona pulte dignum.” “Opp.,” 3, col. 840.

[722] To Sinapius, July 31, 1534, in R. StÄhelin, “Briefe aus der Reformationszeit,” “Programm,” Basle, 1887, p. 24: The “proverbia ?de?f???,” to use the term of Erasmus, runs: “Erasmus est pater Lutheri; Œcolampadius et Erasmus sunt milites Pilati, qui crucifixerunt Iesum.” Similar accusations, he adds, were heard also in other quarters. The Spanish theologian, L. Carvajal, remarks (1528) in his “Apologia diluens nugas Erasmi in sacras religiones,” that the Germans said of Erasmus: “Erasmus peperit ova, Lutherus exclusit pullos.” Ed. Cracow, 1540, Fol. C 1 a. The author was very angry with Erasmus on account of his calumnies against religious: “Utinam Lutherus mentiatur, qui te [Erasmum] atheon dicit.” Fol. E 3a.

[723] In Preface referred to above, p. 253, n. 2.

[724] “Origines de la rÉforme,” 2, Paris, 1909, p. 439, whence what precedes is also taken. The author’s opinion here quoted is the more remarkable owing to the fact, that in this chapter on “Christian Humanism,” he unduly magnifies both it and its followers, for instance, Erasmus. He writes on p. 441: “Presque partout l’humanisme se montrera l’adversaire du mouvement (de Luther) dont il sera la premiÈre victime. C’est qu’entre le principe fondamental de la rÉforme et celui de l’humanisme il y a un abÎme. Ce dernier n’entendait pas seulement rester catholique, il l’Était, et par sa soumission À l’unitÉ extÉrieure et par sa doctrine de la libertÉ, et par un esprit d’Équilibre et de mesure si conforme aux habitudes de pensÉe et de vie du catholicisme.” The first sentence, to dwell only upon this, makes out the opposition of Humanism to the Reformation to have been far more general than was the case, and speaks inaccurately of Humanism as its first victim. The first victim was the Catholic faith and practice throughout a large part of Europe, for the preservation of which the Humanists failed to show sufficient zeal. It is true that they met with a bitter retribution for their share in paving the way for the catastrophe, in the destruction of much they had done which perished in the storm which submerged scholarship. Erasmus twice asserts his conviction: “Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 1139; 10, col. 1618), and often repeats the same in other words. See present work, vol. v., xxxv. 3.

[725] K. Gillert, “Briefwechsel des Konrad Mutianus,” Halle, 1890, p. 300.

[726] Cp. G. Kawerau in W. MÖller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.

[727] From Aleander’s account in Balan, “Monumenta ref. Luth.,” p. 100 (cp. pp. 55, 79, 81); cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 16. Erasmus, in the above letter, dated August 26, 1528, and addressed to Christoph v. Stadion, describes Aleander and his intimate friend the Prince of Carpi as the originators of the charge, that, by his denial of dogma, he had been the cause of Lutheranism: “Cuius vanissimi rumoris prÆcipuus auctor fuit Hieronymus Aleander, homo, ut nihil aliud dicam, non superstitiose verax. Eiusdem sententiÆ videtur Albertus Carporum princeps, Aleandro iunctissimus magisque simillimus.”

[728] Hermelink, “Die religiÖsen Reformbestrebungen des deutschen Humanismus,” TÜbingen, 1908. We may also mention here that Joh. v. Walter, in his edition of the “Diatribe” p. xxiii., criticises Zickendraht (“Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther,” etc., see below), “who lays too much stress on the sceptical utterances of Erasmus [in the ‘Diatribe’].”

[729] On March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 88. See present work, vol. i., p. 43.

[730] “Neque est ut timeam casurum me, nisi mutem sententiam.”

[731] On May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.

[732] “Opp.,” 3, col. 809.

[733] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 656 f. In the note on p. 790 it is pointed out that the passage in question does not refer to any work by Erasmus. A. Freitag, in the introduction to his reprint of the book, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 577, says: “The words of Erasmus, in his letter to L. Vives on Ascension Day, 1527: ‘perdidimus liberum arbitrium,’ do not refer to the work, ‘De libero arbitrio.’” The jesting words used by Erasmus in a letter to Auerbach, dated December 10, 1524, which have also been quoted in support of the legend (“Profecto nunc habere desii liberum arbitrium, posteaquam emisi in vulgus”), only mean that, even had he so desired, it was now impossible to withdraw a book already published. He wrote in exactly the same sense to King Henry VIII on September 6, 1524: “iacta est alea, exiit in lucem libellus de libero arbitrio.”

[734] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 319, “about April 15,” 1524.

[735] “Ceterum clementia et mansuetudo mea erga peccatores et impios, quantumvis insanos et iniquos, arbitror, non modo teste mea conscientia, sed et multorum experientia, satis testata sit. Sic hactenus stilum cohibui, utcunque pungeres me, cohibiturum etiam scripsi in literis ad amicos, quÆ tibi quoque lectÆ sunt, donec palam prodires. Nam utcunque non nobiscum sapias et pleraque pietatis capita vel impie vel simulanter damnes aut suspendas, pertinaciam tamen tibi tribuere non possum neque volo” (p. 320 f.). Cp. Erasmus to Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 672.

[736] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 404, said in 1537, March 21-28.

[737] In the Leyden edition (Lugd. Batav.), 9, col. 1215-48. In German in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 18, p. 1962 seq. New critical edition with introduction by Joh. v. Walter in the “Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 8, Leipzig, 1910.

[738] “Epp.,” ed. Riegger, cp. 45. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 47.

[739] DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 7.

[740] On September 30, 1524. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 675. Cp. Enders, 5, p. 46.

[741] Enders, 5, p. 47.

[742] In the Introduction to the work, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 614; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 131 seq., we read: “An voluntas aliquid vel nihil agat in iis quÆ pertinent ad salutem ... hic est cardo nostrÆ disputationis, hic versatur status causÆ huius. Nam hoc agimus,” etc. “Hoc problema esse partem alteram totius summÆ christianarum rerum,” etc. “Altera pars summÆ christianÆ est nosse, an Deus contingentur aliquid prÆsciat, et an omnia faciamus necessitate.”

[743] At the close of the work mentioned in the previous note, p. 786 = 367: “Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum petisti.”

[744] A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre Über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” GÖttingen, 1901, p. 46. It is true that the author declares on the same page: “Because and in so far as Luther was moved to his denial by his refusal to admit of merit and by his doctrine of the assurance of salvation, every evangelical theologian will agree with him; the admission of a system of salary between God and man is the death of evangelical piety; but belief in free-will does not necessarily lead to this.” Free-will, he declares, is, on the contrary, quite compatible with the “sola fides.” On p. 45 he had said: “Luther’s theology ends in contradictions which can only be obviated by the assumption of free-will and by a positive recognition of the powers of the natural man.”

[745] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 46.

[746] E. Kroker, “Katherina Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 280 f. “Ipsa supplicante scripsi.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 146.

[747] See present work, vol. i., p. 204.

[748] The Latin text in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 113-368, and (with only unimportant differences) in the Weim. ed., 18, p. 600-787. A new German translation with introduction and explanations by O. Scheel, in “Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., sup. vol. ii., Berlin, 1905, p. 203 ff.

[749] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 663 f. This work of Luther’s “was a stumbling-block to his followers, and attempts were made to explain it away by all the arts of violent exegesis; cp. Walch (in his edition of Luther’s works), 18, Introduction, p. 140 ff.” Kawerau in W. MÖller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.

[750] F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen und von der PrÄdestination,” GÖttingen, 1875 (Anastatischer Neudruck, GÖttingen, 1905). Many Protestant theologians have recently defended, with renewed enthusiasm, Luther’s standpoint in the book “De servo arbitrio,” under the impression that it places man in the true state of subserviency to God and thus forms the basis of true religion. See below.

[751] “De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 781; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 359. Cp. ibid., p. 638=160: at most “in inferioribus sciat [homo], sese in suis facultatibus et possessionibus habere ius utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbitrio, licet et idipsum regatur solius Dei libero arbitrio, quocunque illi placuerit.” Taube (see p. 228, n. 2), p. 21, remarks, like Kattenbusch (above p. 264, n. 5), p. 48, that such degradation of free-will, even “in inferioribus,” is to be found in Luther’s earlier writings.

[752] Kattenbusch, p. 7 f.

[753] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 134: “Ex quo sequitur irrefragabiliter: Omnia quÆ facimus, omnia quÆ fiunt, etsi nobis videntur mutabiliter et contingenter fieri, revera tamen fiunt necessario, si Dei voluntatem species. Voluntas enim Dei efficax est,” etc. In the Jena Latin edition of Luther, 3 (1567), this passage has been watered down. Cp. also p. 615 = 133: “Deus nihil prÆscit contingenter, sed omnia incommutabili et Æterna infallibilique voluntate et prÆvidet et proponit et facit,” p. 670 = 200: “Omnia quÆ fiunt (sunt) merÆ necessitatis.”

[754] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 753 = 317: “Deus omnia, quÆ condidit solus, solus quoque movet, agit et rapit, omnipotentiÆ suÆ motu, quem illa non possunt vitare nec mutare, sed necessario sequuntur et parent.” Cp. p. 747 = 308: God works upon the will with His “actuosissima operatio, quam vitare vel mutare non possumus, sed qua (homo) tale velle habet necessario, quale illi Deus dedit, et quale rapit suo motu.... Rapitur omnium voluntas, ut velit et faciat, sive sit bona sive mala.”

[755] Ibid., p. 754 = 317, 318. Luther here shows a quite enigmatical want of comprehension for Erasmus’s exposition of the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the co-operation of the will with grace.

[756] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 133.

[757] Ibid., p. 619 = 138.

[758] Taube, p. 19 f.

[759] “De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 636; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 158.

[760] “De servo arbitrio,” 7, p. 724 seq. = 276.

[761] Ibid., p. 730 = 284.

[762] Ibid., p. 712 seq. = 259 seq.: cp. p. 627-629 seq. = 147, 150 seq.: Kattenbusch, ibid., p. 12.

[763] Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”⁴ p. 758: “God’s universal action and His sovereign will determines [according to Luther’s theory] man’s destiny.” That passages of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy ii. 4, as urged in the “Diatribe” of Erasmus, contradict this, Luther will not admit. “Illudit sese Diatribe ignorantia sua, dum nihil distinguit inter Deum prÆdicatum et absconditum, hoc est inter verbum Dei et Deum ipsum. Multa ... Deus ... vult, quÆ verbo suo non ostendit se velle; sic non vult mortem peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate illa imperscrutabili.” In connection with such thoughts Luther does not shrink from saying (p. 731 = 284): “Si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans,” and (p. 633 = 154): “Sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” The passage here quoted on the “Deus absconditus” is to be found in Luther’s “De servo arbitrio,” p. 685 = 222, and has many parallels, for instance, p. 684, 689 = 221, 227. Of such passages Kattenbusch says (p. 17, ibid.): “Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything, and another which He causes to be proclaimed.” Luther assumes that God makes use of His “exemption from the moral law which binds us” by “not being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His intention [the salvation of all men]—in other words, that He is free to lie.” According to Luther there is a great difference “between God not considering Himself bound by His word, and man acting in the same way” (ibid.).

[764] Taube, p. 35.

[765] See above p. 235 f.

[766] Taube, p. 35. See what has already been said (vol. i., p. 155 ff.) of Luther’s connection with the Nominalism of Occam. It should also be compared with what follows.

[767] P. 729 seq. = 283.

[768] Taube, p. 35 f.

[769] Ibid., p. 33.

[770] P. 719 = 268: “Hoc offendit quam maxime sensum illum communem seu rationem naturalem,” etc. Cp. p. 707 seq. = 252 seq.: “Ratio humana offenditur.... Absurdum enim manet, ratione iudice, ut Deus ille justus et bonus exigat a libero arbitrio impossibilia.... Sed fides et spiritus aliter iudicant, qui Deum bonum credunt, etiamsi omnes homines perderet.” P. 720 = 260: “Cuius (Dei) voluntatis nulla est causa, nec ratio, quÆ illi ceu regula et mensura prÆscribatur, quum nihil sit illi Æquale aut superius, sed ipse est regula omnium.”

[771] P. 784 = 363: “Si enim talis esset eius iustitia, quÆ humano captu posset iudicari esse iusta, plane non esset divina.”

[772] P. 686 = 223.

[773] P. 695 = 236.

[774] Cp. p. 709, 711, 747 = 255, 257, 308.

[775] Cp. M. Scheibe, “Calvins PrÄdestinationslehre, ein Beitrag zur WÜrdigung der Eigenart seiner Theologie und ReligiositÄt,” Halle, 1897, p. 12.

[776] Taube, p. 39.

[777] Kattenbusch, p. 11 f.: “Adam’s sin, from which springs the depravity of the human race, was [according to Luther] called forth by God Himself ... Adam could not avoid acting contrary to the command.”

[778] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 633 = 154: In order that faith may reign, everything must be hidden “sub contrario obiectu, sensu, experientia.... Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” Against this Taube remarks (p. 41): “Theological criticism cannot fail to assert that the Christian faith, viz. belief in a God of almighty and holy love, becomes impossible, if He arbitrarily predestines so many, indeed, the greater part of mankind, to damnation, and is the creator of sin.... In this case faith in the Christian God, and also morality generally, could only remain despite such theological theories.”

[779] P. 632, 633 = 153, 154. Cp. Luther’s Commentary on Romans, 1515-1516, on the humility and despair of self which brings about justification (vol. i., p. 217 ff.).

[780] Taube, dealing with certain Protestants, who, after having duly watered down some of Luther’s theological peculiarities, assert that “the feeling of responsibility is satisfactorily explained in his theology.”

[781] P. 783 = 362 seq.

[782] P. 784 = 363: “Si movet, quod difficile sit, clementiam et Æquitatem Dei tueri, ut qui damnet immeritos,” etc.

[783] Ibid., and p. 785 = 365.

[784] Taube, p. 41 ff.

[785] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 786 = 366.

[786] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 670 = 199.

[787] Ibid., p. 635 = 157.

[788] “Sic humana voluntas in medio posita est, ceu iumentum. Si insederit Deus, vult et vadit quo vult Deus, ut psalmus (lxxiii. [lxxii.], 22) dicit: Factus sum sicut iumentum, et ego semper tecum. Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit quo vult Satan. Nec est in eius arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere aut eum quÆrere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum” (p. 635 = 157). And yet it has recently been asserted by some Protestants, that, according to Luther, grace was “psychologically active,” whereas by the Schoolmen it was regarded as a “dead quality”; Luther’s “delicate psychological comprehension of God’s educational way” is at the same time extolled. N. Paulus rightly remarks (“Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 344), “that the Schoolmen advocated a vital co-operation with grace is known to everyone who is at all acquainted with Scholasticism.” He quotes W. KÖhler’s opinion of Luther’s system: Where man is impelled by God “every psychological factor must disappear.” “All actions become in the last instance something foreign to man” (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1903, col. 526). Paulus also refers to the following criticism by KÖhler concerning the total depravity of man’s nature by the Fall, to which Luther ascribes our unfreedom: “Involuntarily we feel ourselves urged to ask, in view of this mass of sinfulness, how, given the total depravity of man, can redemption be possible unless by some gigantic, supernatural, mechanical means?” (“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” 1904, p. 39).

F. Kattenbusch points out in his criticism of Luther’s doctrine of the enslaved will (“Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 32 ff.) that Luther’s aim was certainly to humble and abase himself before the greatness of God’s grace, but that he went much too far; he wished to feel his salvation as the “result of God’s arbitrary act”; this sentiment was, however, not normal, nor “religiously healthy” (p. 35 f.). He also remarks (p. 10): “If according to this [the comparison with the saddle-horse] the process of regeneration is made to appear merely as a struggle between God and Satan in which God remains the victor, it is clear that the doctrine which Luther cherishes of the ethico-religious life is altogether mechanical and outward.” Kattenbusch was quite aware of the influence of the mediÆval schools on Luther. The after-effects of Nominalism, he says, are not, indeed, so very prominent in the Reformer, “yet it seems to me we must admit, that alongside the principal religious current in Luther, runs a side-stream of religious feeling which can only spring from Nominalism and Mysticism.... In so far as they influence Luther’s doctrines, the latter may be said to spring from a polluted source. And, as regards the doctrine of the ‘servum arbitrium’ and of Predestination, the Church which takes its name from Luther has assuredly done well in improving upon the paths traced out for her by the great Reformer” (p. 94 f.). Cp. Albert Ritschl’s criticism of Luther’s denial of free-will, “Rechtfertigung und VersÖhnung,” 3⁴, pp. 280, 296 ff.

[789] P. 779 = 356: “Dum liberum arbitrium statuis, Christum evacuas.”

[790] Ibid.: “De libero arbitrio nihil dicere poteris, nisi quÆ contraria sunt Christo, scilicet quod error, mors, Satan et omnia mala in ipso regnent.”

[791] Ibid., p. 625 = 143.

[792] Ibid.

[793] Ibid., p. 625 = 144.

[794] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 719 = 268: “Ego ipse non semel offensus sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut optarem, nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam salutaris illa esset desperatio et quam gratiÆ propinqua.”

[795] Ibid., p. 633 = 154. To the reader of the present work it will also be familiar. Compare the passages previously quoted, vol. i., 218 f., 235, 238 ff., 259, 317 f., 379, 381.

[796] Ibid., p. 783 = 362 seq.

[797] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 783 = 262 f.: “Ego sane me confiteor, si qua fieri posset, nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium, aut quippiam in manu mea relinqui, quo ad salutem conari possem,” etc.

[798] Ibid., p. 787 = 368: “Ego vero hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui et assero, ac penes nullum volo esse iudicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut prÆstent obsequium.” The extraordinary self-confidence of these words is more easily explained if we consider them as aimed against the literary device of Erasmus. After the manner of the Humanists, at the beginning of his “Diatribe,” he had declared that he intended merely to enter upon an examination, a collatio (cp. d?at???), and that he hated logical demonstrations, an exaggeration for which Luther soundly rated him in the very first pages, urging that he must be either a “frivolous orator” or a “godless writer,” if he could not take so important a question seriously (p. 120). The termination of Erasmus’s work, where he says: “Contuli, penes alios stet ultimum iudicium” (ed. J. v. Walter, p. 92), is played upon word for word in the conclusion of the “De servo arbitrio.”

[799] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 641 = 162 seq.

[800] “Quod probat eius indignatio. Hoc non fieret, si esset libera vel haberet liberum arbitrium.” The effect of egotism in man depraved by original sin is here classed by him with the enslavement of the will; he was ever given to exaggerating the strength of concupiscence. Cp. vol. i., pp. 70 f., 110 ff.

[801] P. 634 = 156.

[802] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 720 = 269.

[803] Ibid., p. 730 = 283. Here he is seeking to prove, “(Deum non) talem esse oportere, qui merita respiciat in damnandis.”

[804] Ibid., p. 633 = 154.

[805] Ibid., p. 673 = 204.

[806] Ibid., p. 633 = 154.

[807] “Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat.... Si possem ulla ratione comprehendere, quomodo is sit Deus misericors et iustus, qui tantam iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id comprehendi non potest, fit locus exercendÆ fidei.”

[808] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 602 = 119.

[809] Ibid., p. 636 = 158.

[810] Ibid., p. 638 = 160.

[811] P. 605 = 123.

[812] Ibid., p. 601 = 117.

[813] P. 664 = 192. The Weimar editor remarks of a similar assertion of Luther’s on p. 664: “There is no doubt that Luther in this passage draws conclusions from the definition of Erasmus (viz. of free-will) which do not directly follow from it.” In confirmation of this Kattenbusch (p. 28) is quoted where he speaks of “Luther’s tactics in his controversy with Erasmus, the object of which was ... to convict Erasmus in one way or another, usually by distorting his words, of rendering grace, the Holy Ghost, or Christ, superfluous for the attainment of salvation.” Kattenbusch instances in support of this pp. 191 seq., 193, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, etc., in the Erlangen ed.

[814] P. 770 = 342. “And yet Erasmus, as against the Pelagians, always upheld the necessity of the gratia peculiaris.” Thus the Weim. ed., 18, p. 770, n. 2.

[815] Ibid., p. 756 = 320.

[816] Luther says in the passage quoted: “Exstant themata et problemata, in quibus perpetuo asserui usque in hanc horam, liberum arbitrium esse nihil et rem (eo verbo tum utebar) de solo titulo.” The last words refer to the 13th Thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation (see vol. i., p. 317). The Weimar editor quotes against the “perpetuo asserui,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 32, and 4, p. 295, with the remark: “These are exceptions of which Erasmus could not be aware.” It is not, however, a question of Erasmus, but whether Luther was telling the truth when he said: “It is false that I ever admitted free-will” (“antea non nihil illi tribuerim”).

[817] P. 778 = 354.

[818] Cp. vol. v., xxxii. 4.

[819] Luther’s Works ed. by Buchwald, etc., 2. Supplementary volume, 1905, p. 530.

[820] Cp. Melanchthon’s “Loci theologici” (1521), in the third edition by Plitt-Kolde, 1900, p. 87. In this work, in which “the fundamental ideas of Luther found a classical expression,” the theology is “strongly predestinarian in character, and even answers affirmatively the question: ‘utrum Deus mala faciat.’” Kawerau, in MÖller, “Lehrb. der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, pp. 41, 43. The “Loci” Luther speaks of in “De servo arbitrio” (Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117) as an “invictus libellus, meo iudicio non solum immortalitate, sed canone quoque ecclesiastico dignus.”

[821] Scheel, ibid. (above, p. 264, n. 3), p. 400.

[822] “Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si prÆscivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor, nec erat in manu JudÆ aut ullius creaturÆ, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 263.

[823] “Cur permisit (Deus) Adam ruere?... Deus est, cuius voluntatis nulla est causa nec ratio,” etc. Ibid., p. 712 = 260.

[824] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 712 = 260.

[825] Thus Kattenbusch, ibid., p. 22, who points out that, according to Luther, “Nothing takes place in the world without God.” He concludes (ibid.) that “On the whole nothing is gained” by Luther’s supposed attempts to relieve God of the responsibility for Adam’s Fall.

[826] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 709; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 255.

[827] Ibid.

[828] Ibid., p. 730 = 284: “Quia incommodum sibi est, hoc iniquum, hoc intolerabile est, hic expostulatur, hic murmuratur, hic blasphematur.”

[829] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 711, n. 1.

[830] Kattenbusch, ibid., p. 15 f.

[831] Ibid., p. 20. Cp. on the proposition “omnia necessario fiunt,” above, p. 265, n. 3.

[832] P. 20 ff.

[833] Scheel, ibid. (see above, p. 264, n. 3), pp. 211, 529 f., 532, 545. Kattenbusch, ibid.

[834] Scheel, ibid., p. 540.

[835] P. 211 f.

[836] Of the more modern works we shall mention only the Catholic one by H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther,” 1910, and the Protestant one by K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther Über die Willensfreiheit,” 1909. The latter, though on the whole supporting Luther, cannot help perceiving “the contradictions of the whole work ‘De servo arbitrio’” (p. 130), which led Ritschl, whom Kattenbusch follows, to call it an “unhappy piece of patchwork.” Although he characterises Luther’s ideas as “wholly the outcome of the Pauline spirit” (p. 134), yet he speaks of “Luther’s pantheistic determinism” (p. 197), and avers the “incompatibility” of the monistic pantheism which he finds here with the ethical dualism of his general train of thought (p. 168); the presence of “two contradictory theories” is, according to him, an undoubted “fact” (p. 141).

[837] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 640; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 162: “Ex mea parte unus Vuicleff, et alter Laurentius Valla, quanquam et Augustinus quem prÆteris, meus totus est.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 101, 103, 107.

[838] “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 2, p. 66.

[839] Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 619, n.

[840] Zickendraht, ibid., p. 180 f.

[841] “Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545,” edited for the first time by Paul Drews, GÖttingen, 1895, p. 279 f.

[842] Ibid., p. 75.

[843] Ibid., p. 92, n. 29 ff. Drews points out (p. 90) that in the 1538 edition the whole of the theses De homine “are, strange to say, omitted.” Cp. also “Disputationen,” p. 11, n. 29: “Iustificati autem sic gratis tum facimus opera, imo Christus ipse in nobis facit omnia.” Also pp. 92, 94, 95, 266, 318, 481. On p. 160 we meet with the drastic expression: The depravation of human nature by original sin is so great, “ut suspirare ad Deum non possimus, nedum nos explicare aut bonum facere.” Hence there is an end to our “liberum arbitrium; sed restituetur nobis in resurrectione mortuorum, ubi rursum collocabimur in paradisum.”

[844] Cp. Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector August of Saxony, which will be given in detail later, where he characterises as “stoica” and “manichÆa deliria,” on the part of Luther, the view that “all works, good and bad, in all men, whether good or bad, happened by necessity.” Such mad fancies he had rejected “during Luther’s lifetime and afterwards,” “Corp. Ref.,” 9, p. 766. Likewise, in his “Responsiones ad articulos bavaricÆ inquisitionis,” Melanchthon calls such doctrines “stoici et manichÆi furores,” and adds: “Oro iuniores, ut fugiant has monstruosas opiniones, quÆ sunt contumeliosÆ contra Deum et perniciosÆ moribus. Nam si omnia necessaria sunt, nihil opus est deliberatione et diligentia.... Saepe homines applaudunt monstruosis opinionibus tantum quia monstruosÆ sunt et mirantur non intellectas.... Firmissima veritas est, Deum nec velle peccata nec impellere voluntates ad peccandum.” Melanchthon wrote this after Luther had already passed away; he was terrified by the moral results of these “monstrous” doctrines. “Opp.,” WitebergÆ, 1562, 1, p. 369.

[845] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 163, in the first and second set of notes on the sermon.

[846] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 177 f., said between August 7 and 24, from notes taken by Mathesius himself.

[847] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.

[848] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.

[849] Ibid., p. 224.

[850] Ibid., p. 225.

[851] Ibid., p. 222.

[852] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 512 ff.

[853] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 290-300. Cp. on this passage, from a lecture published from notes, KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 6 f., where he very aptly draws attention to the points which Luther here (as elsewhere) evades: (1) “Whether faith is rendered inwardly possible to every man by the will and action of God?” (2) “Why does God fail to instil faith into so many?” (3) “How is final perseverance assured in the elect?”

[854] “The enigmas of predestination were in his case in the last instance inextricably bound up with deterministic ideas—a fact not unimportant for the fate of his predestinarian ideas, for instance, in the hands of Melanchthon.” F. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,” p. 763. Ibid., p. 757. “He was convinced that he was merely advocating Paul’s doctrine of grace. Yet what he expounds is a deterministic doctrine of predestination which shrinks from no consequences, not even from attributing the Fall directly to God.” Loofs points out, that, according to Luther, Adam fell because “the Spirit [of God] did not render him obedient,” and quotes the “De servo arbitrio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 207: “Non potuit velle bonum ... id est obedientiam, quia spiritus illam non addebat.” The same author shows (p. 766 f.) how the above ideas remain with Luther even at a later date, and cause him to represent the faith which, in man, is coincident with justification, as “effected by God simply in accordance with His Eternal Providence.” “We can, however, understand how Luther, in his sermons to the people, prefers to state the case as though faith were the condition demanded of man for the forgiveness of his sins and the receiving of the Spirit”; the fact is he “frequently leaves his predestinarian ideas on one side.”

[855] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 427, no date.

[856] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 80 f., where he states: “This contradicts all that we otherwise know of him.”

[857] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664.

[858] To Capito at Strasburg, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 47: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” In the “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 3, p. 418, Luther says, that Erasmus had “not refuted” his work “De servo arbitrio,” and would “never be able to do so for all eternity.”

[859] To Aquila, October 21, 1528 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 6. In the Schmalkalden Articles, 1537 (3, 1), Luther asserts that it is utterly erroneous to say “hominem habere liberum arbitrium faciendi bonum et omittendi malum, et contra omittendi bonum et faciendi malum.” After enumerating other errors on sin he concludes: “Talia et similia portenta orta sunt ex inscitia et ignorantia peccati et Christi Servatoris nostri, suntque vere et mere ethnica dogmata, quÆ tolerare non possumus. Si enim ista approbantur, frustra Christus mortuus est,” etc. “Die symbolischen BÜcher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” ed. MÜller-Kolde¹⁰, p. 311.

[860] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 124 and 82. In the last passage KÖstlin attempts to base “Luther’s reticence” on a certain “conviction” which he does not describe more particularly and which it is difficult to recognise; he attributes to Luther “a purer, more resigned readiness to listen to the other side.” Yet he had remarked previously: “From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction; he simply discourages reflection on the subject.” M. Staube (“Das VerhÄltnis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und Zwingli,” ZÜrich, 1894) writes with less indulgence than KÖstlin on Luther’s doctrine. This theologian, an admirer of Zwingli, says bluntly: Luther’s doctrine of predestination and the lack of free-will “leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter of man’s salvation” (p. 36). “What then is left of Luther’s Deity?” “A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His mood” (p. 37). “God appears and acts as a blind, naked force, fortuna, fatum,” because what He does is “beyond good and evil” (p. 38). “Why invent the fable of God’s justice and holiness?... We do nothing, God works all in all.... This religion, which is the logical outcome of Luther’s work ‘De servo arbitrio,’ is surely not Christianity but Materialism”; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become “foolish fancies” (p. 39). Diametrically opposed to this are the explanations of certain of Luther’s modern theological admirers, who not only pay homage to the author of “De servo arbitrio” on account of his true piety, but see in Erasmus’s vindication of free-will mere frivolous Pelagianism. Adolf Harnack, in the fourth edition of his “Dogmengeschichte,” 3, p. 841, says: “Rightly the ‘Diatribe’ is looked upon as the masterpiece of Erasmus, yet it is an altogether secular, and, at bottom, irreligious work. Luther, on the other hand, insists on the fundamental fact of Christian experience. On this rests his doctrine of predestination, which is simply the expression of the Omnipotence of the grace of God.” With his doctrine of predestination and the enslaved will, and his treatment of the Deus absconditus, he “gave back religion to religion.” In the Weimar ed. of Luther’s works (18, p. 593), Harnack’s opinion is accepted and (p. 595) we are told that Luther “refuted in a masterly fashion the obscure and unintelligible definition given by Erasmus [of free-will].” Luther’s work appears to the author of the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” in this edition, as “a real achievement” (p. 596), and he quotes with satisfaction A. Ritschl’s opinion, that Luther, its writer, in his sovereign certainty, did not shrink from the contradictio in adiecto. In the “Deutsch-evangel. BlÄtter” (p. 528, n. 1 [reprint, p. 14]), G. Kawerau states that Luther asserted “with relentless logic man’s inability to turn to God, and did not shrink from the harshest predestinarian expressions, phrases, indeed, which gave great trouble to Lutherans at a later date, and which they would gladly have seen expunged from his writings that Calvin’s followers might not appeal to them. And yet we agree with Harnack,” etc. (then follow Harnack’s words as given above). KÖstlin concludes: “The death of all religion, as K. MÜller (‘Kirchengesch.,’ 2, p. 307) rightly remarks, is to take our own works and doings into account.”

[861] Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 28, where in proof of such perversions he refers to “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, pp. 191 seq., 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, adding at the end an “etc.” which is full of meaning.

[862] Luther, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236.

[863] Ibid.

[864] The theories of some theologians on the direct authority of the Church to interfere in secular matters do not here come into consideration.

[865] Fr. v. Bezold says: “Luther claimed the merit of having exalted the true understanding of the secular power in a way that no one else had done since the time of the Apostles.... The indefensibility of this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated” (“Kultur der Gegenwart,” 2, 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 66).

[866] Some of his reservations were, however, of doubtful practical value. K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911 (p. 1 ff.), shows how Luther urges the secular power to make an end of the “thievery” of the clerics, and how he ascribes to this power the right of summoning Councils, though only “when needful.”

[867] This will be done in the present work as occasion arises. See more particularly vol. iii., xv. 2 and 3, and vol. v., xxxv. 1 and 2.

[868] See vol. iv., xxviii.

[869] For a Protestant criticism of them see Erich Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,” 1901 (“Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” Hft. 70), and Karl MÜller, “Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.

[870] “To the Christian nobility,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.

[871] Ibid.

[872] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 410 = 285.

[873] “On the secular power,” 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268; Erl. ed., 22, p. 89.

[874] Cp. ibid., Erl. ed., pp. 83-6, 88, 89, 91-3.

[875] Ibid., p. 69.

[876] Cp. ibid., Erl. ed., p. 94.

[877] Ibid., p. 93. Whereas Luther’s other ideas to be described changed considerably in later years, this one of an “abrogated spiritual government” always remained, though with some modifications. According to the Preface to his “Instruction for Visitations” (1528) and the “Instruction” itself, “the visitors have of themselves no official public authority for holding the Visitation, but must be conversant with the Bible, find therein their qualification and be appointed by the Elector, in the name of the preachers, to hold the Visitation. In this quality they are unable to exercise any sort of force or compulsion, this being reserved to the Elector, but, as representing him, they also share in his secular power.” “It is part of the duty of the authorities” to “establish and regulate the Matrimonial Courts”; the secular authorities are bound where the work of the pastors has been of no avail, to take their “own means for the spiritual and temporal protection of the Christianity of the country, against scandal and false doctrine,” and to make God’s Word the only public and authorised code and authority. For the spiritual government consists exclusively “in the Word and the preaching-office, and can only penetrate into the heart by means of the Word and the work of the pastor.” Karl MÜller thus sums up the teaching of the documents in question in “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 74 f.

[878] “Werke,” ibid., p. 69.

[879] “Werke,” ibid., p. 72 f.

[880] Ibid., p. 73.

[881] A Utopian idealism, certainly unknown in the earlier ages, is apparent in the following, taken from Luther’s writing referred to above: “A Christian must be ready to suffer all kinds of evil and injustice ... and not to defend himself before the law.... But in the case of others he may and ought to seek for revenge, justice, protection, and assistance, and do his best to this end according as he is able. The authorities, therefore, ought, either of their own initiative or at the instigation of others, to help and protect him without any complaining, appealing, or effort on his part. But where this is not done he must allow himself to be fleeced and oppressed and not offer any resistance, according to the words of Christ” (p. 78).

[882] Cp. ibid., p. 87 ff.

[883] Ibid., p. 89.

[884] Ibid.

[885] Ibid., p. 82.

[886] Cp. ibid., p. 83.

[887] Ibid., p.84 ff.

[888] Ibid., p. 85.

[889] Ibid., p.90 f.

[890] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.

[891] Ibid., p. 94 ff.

[892] “The main work which Luther required of the Princes has always been regarded by Lutheran rulers as their first duty, viz. to be the guardians and protectors of the Evangel and the true faith in their lands, to repress all public evil and falsehood and to provide for the regular ministry of the Word.” Karl MÜller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81 f.

[893] “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 85.

[894] P. Drews, as above, p. 193, n. 2, p. 74. Drews adds: “But it would be premature to conclude from the above that this thought, because not expressed here, is altogether excluded.” Yet it would appear to be excluded by the reference to the bishops, who alone were to trouble themselves concerning any danger to the Church through heresy (p. 301). How Luther, nevertheless, makes the duty of the Lutheran rulers to protect religion the foundation first of his practice, and then of his theory, is shown in the next section, also in vol. iii., xv. 2, and vol. v., xxxv. 2.

[895] See above, p. 104 ff.

[896] “Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1904, p. 36.

[897] “Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” (“Theolog. Arbeiten aus dem rhein. wiss. Predigerverein,” N. F., Hft. 12, TÜbingen, 1910, pp. 44-79, 54).

[898] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 86 seq.

[899] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 92.

[900] Ibid., p. 97.

[901] Ibid., p. 90.

[902] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293; Erl. ed., 24², p. 273.

[903] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[904] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 359.

[905] Ibid., p. 361.

[906] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 357.

[907] Ibid., p. 358.

[908] Ibid., 17, 1, p. 478.

[909] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, pp. 89, 90.

[910] “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 278.

[911] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 93.

[912] With regard to the peasants, compare the passages quoted above, p. 217.

[913] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 140.

[914] Cp. particularly vol. vi., xxxviii.

[915] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 100 f.

[916] In the “Sermon on Good Works,” to Duke Johann of Saxony, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198.

[917] In a sermon of 1532 in the “Hauspostille,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 182.

[918] “Kultur der Gegenwart,” p. 85, see above, p. 295, n. 1.

[919] To the Elector Frederick, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 108 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[920] See above, pp. 1-4, 20 f., 24, 101.

[921] Cp. p. 190, n. 3.

[922] N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 4. Cp. p. 327.

[923] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 209.

[924] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, May 8, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356).

[925] To Spalatin, 1520, soon after February 18 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 328).

[926] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 206; Weim. ed., 6, p. 265.

[927] J. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 274.

[928] “Gutachten und Streitschriften Über das ius reformandi des Rates vor und wÄhrend der EinfÜhrung der offiziellen Kirchenreform in Augsburg, 1534-1537” (Augsburg, 1901, p. 73 f.).

[929] “Luther, eine Skizze,” reprinted in Wetzer and Welte, “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 319 f.

[930] On May 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 357.

[931] On April 28, 1522, ibid., p. 347.

[932] Above, p. 311. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.

[933] Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 334, n. 2.

[934] For text, see “Mitteilungen der Geschichts-und Altertumsgesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1886, p. 119 ff.

[935] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 324 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 221).

[936] See Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72.

[937] For text, see “Mitteilungen ... des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 513 ff.

[938] On February 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).

[939] C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sÄchs. Kirchenvisitationen, 1524-1545,” Leipzig, 1879, p. 44.

[940] See above, p. 116 f.

[941] On December 12, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 154 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 36).

[942] On May 5, 1522, “ex arce Eylenburgensi,” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 351.

[943] “Contra Henricum regem AngliÆ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 220; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 445.

[944] Ibid., p. 215 = 437.

[945] Ibid., p. 214 = 437.

[946] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 245. According to the above new doctrine the Sacrament was not to be reserved in the tabernacle. For further particulars it may suffice to refer to the Memoranda which Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon addressed to the Council of the Margrave of Ansbach and to that of Nuremberg, August 1, 1532, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 319 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312).

[947] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 228. A Mass in German was, however, also introduced by him because, as he said, many had requested it and “the secular authorities urged him to it.” See vol. v., xxix. 9.

[948] “On the twofold species of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 29; Erl. ed., 28, p. 304.

[949] Ibid., p. 29 = 305; cp. Erl. ed., 28, p. 215.

[950] Ibid., p. 29 = 305.

[951] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 31 = 307.

[952] Ibid., p. 31 = 306. To Gregor BrÜck, Chancellor to the Elector of Saxony, beginning of April, 1541.

[953] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.

[954] Ibid.

[955] “Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 842; cp. p. 845. In reply to Luther’s grievances against the celebration of Mass in earlier times, W. KÖhler remarks (“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 46) that one might form a better opinion of the Mass from A. Franz’s book, “Die Messe im Mittelalter” (1902), than from Luther’s writings.

[956] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 265, and ibid., n. 83.

[957] To Albert, Elector of Mayence, June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 35, p. 309 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).

[958] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80. In parallel passages in other collections the words read “the priests at Zeitz and Meissen”; obviously the proper names are misprints for “Zeit” and “schmeissen.”

[959] On April 14, 1512, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 335.

[960] About the middle of March, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 119 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).

[961] Luther to Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149: “Hartmannus Cronenbergius renuntiavit CÆsari stipendium 200 aureorum nummorum, nolens servire ei, qui impios istos (Luther’s princely foes) audiat ... Deus vivit et regnat in sÆcula sÆculorum. Amen.”

[962] H. Ulmann, “Franz von Sickingen,” Leipzig, 1872, p. 186.

[963] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 251 f.

[964] The passages quoted, ibid., p. 252.

[965] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 525.

[966] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 90. Cp. the contradiction between this and his statement given above, p. 295 (cp. p. 328, n. 3), on the right and duty of the authorities in regard to Divine worship.

[967] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 176).

[968] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649.

[969] Very different are his words in the “Exhortation to abstain from revolt” of the end of 1521 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680): “Pay heed to the authorities. So long as they do not take up the matter and give orders, remain quiet. If they are against action, you must be so also. For if you do anything, you are unjust and much worse than the opposite party.”

[970] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649 f.

[971] The Elector’s Instructions to Hier. Schurf, Joh. Schwertfeger and Melanchthon re Luther, August 7, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 203.

[972] Hier. Schurf, etc., to the Elector, August 13, 1523, ibid., p. 207.

[973] The Elector pointed out that “he himself preached that the Word of God must be allowed to settle the question, and that this would in its own good time have the desired effect, so God willed” (November 24). See Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 55, n.

[974] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 269 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 54).

[975] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.

[976] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.

[977] Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” p. 34.

[978] C. A. Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1866, p. 76.

[979] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 550.

[980] Cp. Spalatin to V. Warbeck, September 30, 1525, in Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222.

[981] Kolde, ibid., p. 72.

[982] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271 seq.

[983] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 524.

[984] Reprinted in the “Mitteil. der Gesch. und Altertumsges. des Osterl.,” 6, 1886, p. 513. Cp. N. Paulus, “War Luther im Prinzip tolerant?” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 12, 13, p. 96).

[985] Letters, ed. De Wette, 3, p. 88 seq., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318). It is therefore incorrect to assert that Luther was thinking only of the peace which would be a result of uniform preaching, and not of the damnable nature of the worship to be prohibited. See the passages quoted here and above, p. 315 ff.

[986] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 321.

[987] E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff.

[988] Luther to Levin Metzsch, August 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149); to Thomas LÖscher of same date, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 150; to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[989] W. Friedensburg, “Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 50.

[990] “Charitas Pirkheimers DenkwÜrdigkeiten aus dem Reformationszeitalter,” ed. C. HÖfler, 1852, p. 130. Cp. Franz Binder, “Charitas Pirkheimer”², 1878.

[991] On September 8, 1541, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 398 f. The nature of the complaints made by Link are inferred from this letter.

[992] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 378 f.

[993] Ibid.

[994] Cp. Kolde, “Das religiÖse Leben in Erfurt beim Ausgang des Mittelalters,” 1898, p. 3, and the work of the Erfurt expert, Georg Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” 1899, p. 42.

[995] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 808 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 251.

[996] Ibid., p. 810 = 254.

[997] Cp. G. Oergel, “BeitrÄge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins fÜr Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” Hft. 15, Erfurt, 1892, p. 85 ff., who points out certain errors of Kampschulte in his “Gesch. der Erfurter UniversitÄt.”

[998] On May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 153.

[999] About the middle of May, 1521, ibid., p. 158.

[1000] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” 3, p. 246 ff.

[1001] Janssen, “Hist. of German People,” 3, p. 248.

[1002] To Lang, December 18, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256).

[1003] On March 28, 1522, ibid., p. 323.

[1004] Cp. above, p. 123 ff., and Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 565, where reference is made to the letters of Eobanus Hessus: “He speaks of the increase of crime and the executions which took place almost daily; for instance, that of a father who had dishonoured his own daughter; the prisons did not suffice for the number of criminals.” Nossenus remained with Lang.

[1005] In letter last referred to, p. 323 f.

[1006] N. Paulus, “BartholomÄus von Usingen,” p. 92, n. 2-4.

[1007] Ibid., pp. 90, 91, n. 1.

[1008] Ibid.

[1009] Ibid., p. 90, n. 2.

[1010] “BartholomÄus von Usingen,” p. 16, 54 f. Cp. Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 132.

[1011] Paulus, ibid., p. 100, n. 1.

[1012] Ibid., p. 93 f.

[1013] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 403.

[1014] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 164 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 139 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 431).

[1015] Ibid., p. 167 = 143.

[1016] Ibid., p. 168 = 144.

[1017] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 358-61, 362 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 445, 446, 447, 451, 454, 460, 461.

[1018] p. 354 = 439.

[1019] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 359 = 445 f.

[1020] Ibid., p. 359 f. = 446.

[1021] Ibid., p. 354 = 440.

[1022] Ibid., p. 364 f. = 453.

[1023] On March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323.

[1024] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 167; Erl. ed., 53, p. 143.

[1025] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 361 = 16², p. 452.

[1026] Ibid., p. 365 f. = 452-4.

[1027] Ibid., p. 370 = 461.

[1028] Ibid.

[1029] Ibid., p. 356 = 442.

[1030] Ibid., p. 357 = 443.

[1031] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, pp. 363, 366 f. = 455 f.

[1032] Ibid., p. 368 = 458.

[1033] Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 94, n. 2.

[1034] Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 100, n. 2.

[1035] Ibid., p. 91, n. 4.

[1036] In the first half of November, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 27: “Unsingen insanire lubens audio,” etc.

[1037] Paulus, ibid., p. 102, n. 2.

[1038] Ibid., p. 102, n. 4.

[1039] Ibid., p. 101, n. 2.

[1040] Paulus, ibid., p. 35.

[1041] See Th. Eitner, “Erfurt und die BauernaufstÄnde im 16. Jahrhundert,” Halle, 1903, p. 58 f. This writing, which is also printed in the “Mitteilungen des Vereins fÜr Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” 24, 1903, p. 3-108, is founded on detailed studies of the archives and local history, and has been made the basis of the following account.

[1042] Present work, vol. v., xxx. 6.

[1043] Eitner, ibid., p. 57-60.

[1044] Cp. also Janssen. Ibid., 4, p. 301 f.: “The Erfurt preachers had for years long been among the most violent agitators in town and country.... On the news of the insurrection in Swabia and Franconia several gatherings of peasants were held in the Erfurt district in the spring, 1525,” etc.

[1045] Eitner, p. 33 f., pp. 43, 48.

[1046] Eitner, p. 68. According to Eitner we learn from local sources, “that, in view of the state of affairs, the council thought it the most prudent course to do as in 1521, and to set the peasants and the citizens against the common foe, the clergy of Mayence, in order thus to satisfy the coarser instincts of the mob and to divert their thoughts from dangerous projects.”

[1047] Ibid., p. 98.

[1048] Ibid., p. 70, n. 1.

[1049] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 304.

[1050] Eitner, p. 85 f.

[1051] “The peasant rising in the neighbourhood of Erfurt did nothing but harm [from the material point of view]. A phase in the business decay of the once flourishing community, a desperate attempt to mend what was wrong by what was worse, it merely sapped the strength of the town and so prepared the way for the event which some hundred and forty years later robbed her for ever of her political independence” (Eitner, ibid., p. 108).

[1052] It is thus that Melanchthon describes the object of the invitation in a letter to Camerarius of May 19, 1525, “Corp. reform.,” 1, p. 744.

[1053] It is true that the council declared on this occasion “that it was by no means its mind, desire or intention to oppress the people without necessity, contrary to evangelical equity and right, or to refuse them anything which it was its duty to permit or tolerate.” Eitner, ibid., 2, p. 93, where he remarks: “It will probably be best not to attribute any duplicity to the councillors.”

[1054] Eitner, ibid., p. 94.

[1055] On September 19 (according to Enders), 1525, in “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 59, and Erl. ed., 56, p. xii. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243). The first sentences quoted are contained in the letter itself, the others in the marginal notes to the various articles, which in De Wette’s collection are printed together with the articles themselves after the letter.

[1056] This is Luther’s disdainful note to Art. 7, in itself a quite reasonable one, viz. “That the present councillors shall give an account of all expenditure and receipts.” His dislike for the “rabble” here made Luther unjust, and not here alone. His question concerning Art. 6 (on the protection of the “wards and trades”) is not to the point: “If councillors are not trusted, why appoint them?”

[1057] Eitner, ibid., pp. 102, 104.

[1058] Ibid., p. 107.

[1059] Eitner, ibid., p. 107.

[1060] Matthias Flacius, “ClarissimÆ quÆdam notÆ verÆ ac falsÆ religionis,” 1549 (Vienna Court Library), in showing “Holiness” as a mark sufficiently discernible in Luther’s church and person. According to O. Clemen, the Erfurt monastery dragged on a miserable existence until 1525. On July 31 of that year, Adam Horn, the Prior, received from the Vicar-General of the Congregation, Johann von Spangenberg, permission to leave the monastery since he was no longer safe in it. “Aus den letzten Tagen des Erfurter Augustinerklosters,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1899, p. 278 ff. It may be that Usingen quitted Erfurt at that time for the same reason (above, p. 337). The last trace of Nathin is found at the Chapter of the Order at Leipzig in 1523, at which he represented the Erfurt priory.

[1061] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 353; Erl. ed., 16², p. 438.

[1062] We may here mention what K. A. Meissinger, of Strasburg, says: “The period previous to 1517 has been looked upon as Luther’s age of immaturity and shyness, and his own numerous statements on the subject have contributed not a little to this fiction. The legend of Martin, the zealous young Papist, seeking to get to heaven by his monkish practices and wasting away in utter despair, gives (a fact which has become apparent only of recent years) quite a false picture of that decisive and truly momentous period in the inward growth of the great Reformer” (“Der junge Luther,” Frankfurter Ztng., 1910, No. 300).

[1063] Ed. E. L. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Halle, 1893, No. 118, p. 3 ff.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 ff. Erl. ed., 53, p. 256 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).

[1064] “Neudrucke,” p. 7; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 214.

[1065] “Neudrucke,” p. 9 = 215.

[1066] In “Neudrucke,” this work also is edited by Enders (p. 19 ff.). The passage will be found on p. 37 f.

[1067] In vol. vi., xxxviii. l, it will be shown that the ground of his demand for the execution of the Anabaptists was not merely the revolutionary character of the sect, but also the crime of religion involved in their error.

[1068] Matthew xxviii. 19, Luke x. 16, Acts i. 8, Matthew xxviii. 20.

[1069] Passages quoted by Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 373, n. 3.

[1070] “Neudrucke,” p. 35.

[1071] Letter of August 3, 1524, to the Elector of Saxony, in FÖrstemann’s “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” p. 248. Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.

[1072] In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375, n. 8.

[1073] Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.

[1074] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 265 f.

[1075] The proofs for this wonderful enlightenment of children will be quoted below in another connection. To the opposition between faith and reason, Luther appeals in the question of infant baptism, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 53, where he says (in the “Table Talk”) that “reason is of no avail in the matter of faith. And for this very reason children should be baptised when they are without reason.... Because reason is the greatest hindrance to faith.” Ibid., he proves from the fact that the Christian Church still existed in early ages that infant baptism is lawful, for it would have ceased to exist had infant baptism, which was universally upheld by tradition, been invalid.

[1076] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. See above, p. 206 f., where some quotations from this writing have already been given.

[1077] Ibid., p. 373 = 20.

[1078] Ibid., 23, p. 280-3 = 30, p. 150.

[1079] Erl. ed., 19¹, p. 237.

[1080] Ibid., 63, p. 272. In 1528.

[1081] See vol. iv., xxv. 4.

[1082] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55.

[1083] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 684; Erl. ed., 61, p. 91.

[1084] Ibid.

[1085] Ibid., p. 1.

[1086] Ibid., p. 19.

[1087] To Justus Menius, January 10, 1542, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426.

[1088] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.

[1089] To Schwenckfeld’s messengers, 1543, De Wette, 5, p. 614.

[1090] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 295.

[1091] See vol. iii., xix. 1.

[1092] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.

[1093] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 372.

[1094] P. 364, cp. 130.

[1095] Enders’ ed. in “Neudrucke” (see above, p. 126, n. 5), No. 118, p. 19.

[1096] Ibid., pp. 29-39.

[1097] “Clag etlicher BrÜder,” etc., in Enders’ “Neudrucke,” pp. 44, 54.

[1098] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 38, p. 177.

[1099] Ibid., 53, p. 276 f.

[1100] Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.

[1101] Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.

[1102] Ibid., 63, p. 405.

[1103] Erl. ed., 39, p. 109.

[1104] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.

[1105] “Comm. in. Epist. ad Gal.” (ed. Irmischer), 1, p. 279.

[1106] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 335.

[1107] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 220 ff.

[1108] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 40.

[1109] Ibid., p. 44 f.

[1110] W. Friedensburg, “Der Reichstag zu Speyer, 1526,” Berlin, 1887, p. 482, and in the “Archiv fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 93 ff. Th. Brieger (“Der Speierer Reichstag und die religiÖse Frage,” Leipzig, 1909) disagrees.

[1111] The text of the Edict of 1529 taken from the Frankfurt Reichstagsakten, 43, Fol. 61´ ff. Janssen, ibid., 5, 209 ff.; also in Luther’s Works, ed. Walch, 16, p. 328 ff.

[1112] December, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 63 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 209).

[1113] “Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 1059, “Articuli ibi facti non gravant nos, imo plus tuentur nos quam superioris conventus (1526) decretum.”

[1114] Wilh. Walther, “FÜr Luther,” 1906, p. 330 f. The author characterises the resolution against which the protest was raised as a “horrible demand,” even when the Edict simply enacts, “that no one be prohibited, hindered, or prevented from hearing Mass in those places where the other [Lutheran] teaching had sprung up.” He sees in the Edict an outrage on conscience, a “deadly blow,” and the forcing of the Lutheran Princes and Estates to “comply with the frightful Edict of Worms.”

[1115] See vol. iii., xviii. 1, where more details are given of the Augsburg Confession and Diet.

[1116] Walther, “FÜr Luther,” p. 434.

[1117] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 193 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 237).

[1118] On the interpretation of “dolos, mendacia ac lapsus,” see Enders on this passage, p. 235, n. 3, and further on, vol. iv., xxii., and vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.

[1119] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 236.

[1120] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 270.

[1121] October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.

[1122] F. W. Hassenkamp, 1, 1852, p. 297.

[1123] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 277; Erl. ed., 25², p. 4.

[1124] Fr. W. Schirrmacher, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des ReligionsgesprÄchs zu Marburg und des Reichstags zu Augsburg,” 1876; “These reports were communicated to H.I.M.” etc. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 186, n. 9.

[1125] To Luther, August 8, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 185: “plane significat horribilem tumultum.”

[1126] See vol. iii., xix. 1.

[1127] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 202.

[1128] Ibid.

[1129] Ibid., p. 219.

[1130] On September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.

[1131] Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 270 ff.; Erl. ed., 25, p. 1 ff.

[1132] Reprinted, ibid., p. 331 ff., 49 ff.

[1133] Reprinted, ibid., p. 424=88.

[1134] Ibid., p. 424 ff. = 89.

[1135] Ibid., p. 425 = 91.

[1136] Compare Luther’s quotations and statements, p. 84, with the text of the Decretals given by Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici,” 2, pp. 172, 196. In the latter passage we have the words, “in spiritualibus antecellit (pontifex),” with which every canonist is acquainted.

[1137] See vol. iii., xv. 3.

[1138] On October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.

[1139] To the Elector, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).

[1140] Ibid., 54, p. 225.

[1141] Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 416 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 9 ff.

[1142] Reprinted, ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 446 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. He calls the Duke an assassin because he had attacked him anonymously, as from an ambush, p. 447 = 111.

[1143] In the pamphlet entitled, “Auf das SchmÄhbuchlein ‘Wider den Meuchler,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.), written by Duke George, but published under Arnoldi’s name (p. 129).

[1144] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 457 = 118.

[1145] Ibid., p. 460 = 120.

[1146] Ibid., p. 470 = 127.

[1147] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 148 f.

[1148] In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “Contra Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum,” which he then reedited for the people as “GÖttlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One of his propositions was: “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a devilish liar” (KÖstlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323).

[1149] To George Wicel (then on Luther’s side) and Anton Hermann, April 1, 1530, (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 238).

[1150] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 323.

[1151] The preface in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 523; in the form of a letter to Bugenhagen in 1532 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).