Hartmann Grisar

[1] On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision, see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der GÖrresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage der KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. BlÄtter,” 135, 1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp. 238-287. See below, p. 6 f.

[2] To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the commencement we read: “Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi iuris, non divini.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3, ibid., pp. 92-8.

[3] “Briefwechsel,” ibid., p. 88. In the revision the passage still reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or Queens” (p. 93).

[4] See vol. iii., p. 259.

[5] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87 seq.

[6] Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n. 1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.

[7] Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520 seq.; see particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis.... Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere.” Cp. G. Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell, ibid., p. 208 ff.

[8] Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851 seq.).

[9] “Wie in Ehesachen und den FÄllen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach gÖttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D. 2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.

[10] The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.

[11] Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.

[12] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem ei esse concubinatum quam” to distract his whole country and nation, “sed tandem eam repudiavit.”

[13] Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.

[14] [Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St. Augustine (“De bono conjugali,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be lost sight of. Note to English Edition.]

[15] Cp. Paulus, ibid., 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet mediÆval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’ in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided by the mediÆval theory and practice, he would never have given his consent to the Hessian bigamy.”

[16] “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, KÖhler writes (ibid.): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”

[17] “Theol. JB. fÜr 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.

[18] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1 ff.

[19] Letter published by Th. Kolde in the “Zeitschr. fÜr KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 605.

[20] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 106, in 1540. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 995.

[21] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 928. Melanchthon’s language, and Luther’s too, changed when, later, Henry VIII caused those holding Lutheran opinions to be executed. See below, p. 12 f.

[22] Beginning of Dec., 1535. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges AngliÆ, qui illos occiderent!”

[23] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1032, n. 1383. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 369.

[24] Thus G. Mentz, the editor of the “Wittenberger Artickel,” drawn up for the envoys from England (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2, 1905), pp. 3 and 4. He points out, p. 7, that King Henry, in a reply to Wittenberg (March 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 48), requested “support in the question of the divorce” and desired certain things to be modified in the “Confessio” and the “Apologia.’”

[25] For full particulars concerning the change, see Rockwell, loc. cit., 216 ff. The latter says, p. 217: “Luther’s opinion obviously changed [before March 12, 1536].... Yet he expressed himself even in 1536 against the divorce [Henry the Eighth’s]; the prohibition [of marriage with a sister in-law] from which the Mosaic Law admitted exceptions, might be dispensed, whereas the prohibition of divorce could not be dispensed,” and, p. 220: “In the change of 1536 the influence of Osiander is unmistakable.... Cranmer, when at Ratisbon in 1532, had visited Osiander several times at Nuremberg, and finally won him over to the side of the King of England.” At the end Rockwell sums up as follows (p. 222): “The expedient of bigamy ... was approved by Luther, Melanchthon, GrynÆus, Bucer and Capito, but repudiated by Œcolampadius and Zwingli. Hence we cannot be surprised that Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer should regard favourably the Hessian proposal of bigamy, whereas Zwingli’s successors at ZÜrich, viz. Bullinger and Gualther, opposed it more or less openly.”

[26] On Feb. 16, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 436. Cp. ibid., p. 584, Letter of Jan. 18, 1545.

[27] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 152, in 1540.

[28] Mentz, loc. cit., p. 11.

[29] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 327).

[30] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174, in 1540.

[31] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 324.

[32] Ibid., p. 326.

[33] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400, with reference to “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076.

[34] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 537, where the words have been transferred to July 10, 1539.

[35] Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1029.

[36] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 178.

[37] Ibid., p. 145.

[38] Ibid., p. 198.

[39] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 145. On account of his cruelty he says of Henry VIII, in Aug., 1540: “I look upon him not as a man but as a devil incarnate. He has added to his other crimes the execution of the Chancellor Cromwell, whom, a few days previously, he had made Lord Chief Justice of the Kingdom” (ibid., p. 174).

[40] For Luther’s previous statements in favour of polygamy, see vol. iii., p. 259 ff.; and above, p. 4.

[41] To Philip of Hesse, Nov. 28, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 411 f.

[42] “Briefwechsel des A. Corvinus,” ed. Tschackert, 1900, p. 81.

[43] “Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des GrossmÜtigen von Hessen mit Bucer, hg. und erlÄutert von Max Lenz” (“Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven,” Bd. 5, 28 und 47 = 1, 2, 3), 1, 1880, p. 345. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911 (p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) p. 504.

[44] We quote the instructions throughout from the most reliable edition, viz. that in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12 (1910, p. 301 ff.), which G. Kawerau continued and published after the death of Enders.

[45] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 352.

[46] Best given in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319 ff. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 258 ff.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 237, which gives only the Latin version; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851 seq.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 18, 1846, p. 236 ff.

[47] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.

[48] W. KÖhler, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen” (“Histor. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.), p. 399, 400.

[49] Luther’s letter, June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony (below, p. 37) ed. Seidemann from a Kiel MS. in his edition of “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff.

[50] Thus Philip to his friend, Duke Ulrich of WÜrtemberg, Oct., 1540, when seeking to obtain his agreement to the bigamy. Ulrich, however, advised him to give up the project, which would be a great blow to the Evangel. F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog von WÜrttemberg,” 3, p. 226 ff.

[51] Cp. above, p. 3 ff.; also Enders’ “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 308, where it is pointed out that in the copy of the letter to Henry VIII sent to Hesse (ibid., 9, p. 81 ff.) the passage in question concerning bigamy was omitted; the Landgrave Philip, however, learnt the contents of the passage, doubtless from Bucer.

[52] Letter of Luther to the Elector of Saxony. See above, p. 16, n. 3, and below, p. 37 f.

[53] Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 30 ff.

[54] This error has been confuted by Th. Brieger on good grounds in the “Untersuchungen Über Luther und die Nebenehe des Landgrafen Philipp,” in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, p. 174 ff.; ibid., p. 403 ff. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 405 (N. Paulus).

[55] Dec. 10, 1539, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 326.

[56] [Unless the reference be to certain reputed consulta of Gregory II or of Alexander III. Cp. “P.L.,” lxxxix., 525, and Decr. IV, 15, iii. Note to English Ed.]

[57] See above, p. 14.

[58] Cp. Luther’s “Consideration,” dated Aug. 23, 1527, concerning the husband of a leprous wife, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80), where he says: “I can in no wise prevent him or forbid his taking another wedded wife.” He here takes for granted the consent of the leprous party.

[59] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.

[60] Cp. the remarks in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 327 f., and Brieger, loc. cit., p. 192.

[61] Seckendorf, “Commentarius de Lutheranismo,” 3, 1694, p. 278.

[62] E. Brandenburg, “Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs Moritz von Sachsen,” 2, 1903, p. 101.

[63] Sailer to Philip of Hesse, Nov. 6, 1539, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 345; above, p. 15. Other similar statements by contemporaries are to be found in the article of N. Paulus (above, p. 15, n. 1).

[64] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.

[65] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 356 ff., and Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 388.

[66] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 308. Cp. Rockwell, ibid., p. 30.

[67] Rockwell, ibid., p. 31.

[68] Ibid., p. 37.

[69] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 326 and 328.

[70] Rockwell, ibid., p. 43.

[71] Ibid., p. 41 f.

[72] Melanchthon to Camerarius, Sep. 1, 1540, first fully published by Rockwell, ibid., p. 194.

[73] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. To Chancellor BrÜck, soon after Jan. 10, 1542, ibid., 4, p. 296. Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich on Dec. 11, 1541, concerning Lening: “Monstroso corpore et animo est.”

[74] Thus Rockwell, ibid., p. 48 f.

[75] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 362 f. Rockwell’s statement, p. 45, that Luther had been offered 200 Gulden by the Landgrave as a present, but had refused the gift, is, in both instances, founded on a misunderstanding. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1905, p. 405.

[76] Luther to the Landgrave, Aug. 22, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 389.

[77] “Briefwechsel des Corvinus,” (see p. 14, n. 2), p. 79. Paulus, ibid., p. 563.

[78] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 1, p. 394.

[79] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, p. 397.

[80] Account of the Marshal in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 335.

[81] To Anthony von SchÖnberg, in Rockwell, ibid., p. 51, according to information taken from the archives.

[82] Rockwell, loc. cit., p. 53.

[83] Rockwell, loc. cit., p. 60.

[84] “Carolina,” ed. KÖhler, 1900, p. 63. Cp. the Imperial Law “Neminem” in “Corp. iur. civ., Cod. Iustin.,” ed. KrÜger, 1877, p. 198. Bucer pointed out to the Landgrave, that “according to the common law of the Empire such things were punished by death.” “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 177; cp. pp. 178, 180.

[85] He declared on Jan. 3, 1541: “This much and not more the law may take from us.”

[86] On July 8, 1540, ibid., p. 178 ff. Before this, on June 15, he had exhorted the Landgrave to hush up the matter as far as possible so that the whole Church may not be “defiled” by it. Ibid., p. 174, Paulus, loc. cit., p. 507.

[87] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 185 f.

[88] Ibid., p. 183.

[89] Ibid., p. 341.

[90] “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 353 seq. Cp. Rockwell, loc. cit., p. 71, n. 1.

[91] E. Friedberg remarks in the “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 36, 1904, p. 441, that the Wittenbergers “did not even possess any power of dispensing.”

[92] Cp. N. Paulus, “Das Beichtgeheimnis und die Doppelehe Philipps usw.,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 317 ff.

[93] Cp. Rockwell, loc. cit., pp. 154, 156.

[94] Yet in a later missive to Philip of Hesse (Sep. 17, 1540) he too speaks of the “counsel given in Confession in case of necessity.” Here, however, he bases his injunction of silence on other considerations.

[95] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 208.

[96] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 394.

[97] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 79.

[98] Ed. by Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff., with the notice, “Written in April or June, 1540.” Rockwell gives the date more correctly, as, probably, June 10 (pp. 138, 364).

[99] Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 82, n. 4, the remark of G. Kawerau. “The regret felt by Luther was caused by the knowledge that the Landgrave had already a ‘concubine of his own’ and had not been satisfying his lusts merely on ‘common prostitutes’; had he known this at the time he gave his advice he would certainly have counselled the Landgrave to contract a sort of spiritual marriage with this concubine.” KÖstlin had seen a difficulty in Luther’s later statement, that he would not have given his counsel (the advice tendered did not specify the lady) had he known that the Landgrave had “long satisfied, and could still satisfy, his craving on others,” etc. That there is really a difficulty involved, at least in Luther’s use of the plural “others,” seems clear unless, indeed, Kawerau would make Luther counsel the Landgrave to contract “spiritual marriage” with all these several ladies. Elsewhere Luther describes as a “harlot” a certain Catharine whom Kawerau (ibid.) surmises to have been this same Essweg. By her Philip had a daughter named Ursula whom, in 1556, he gave in marriage to Claus Ferber.

[100] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 160. The Landgrave to Bucer. He was to tell his sister “that she must surely recollect having told him that he should keep a concubine instead of having recourse to numerous prostitutes; if she was willing to allow what was contrary to God’s law, why not allow this, which is a dispensation of God?”

[101] “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 267 f., and, better, in Rockwell, p. 165, after the original.

[102] “Briefe,” 6, p. 263 seq. For the address see Rockwell, ibid., p. 166, where the date is fixed between July 7 and 15, 1540.

[103] Cp. vol. iii., p. 30 ff.

[104] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 397 f.

[105] Thus Gualther from Frankfort, Sep. 15, 1540, to Bullinger, in Fueslin, “EpistolÆ,” p. 205. Rockwell, ibid., p. 176.

[106] The chief passage will be found in Kroker (Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156 f.) more correctly than in Loesche (Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 ff.). It is headed “De Macedonico negotio,” because in Luther’s circle Philip of Hesse was known as the “Macedonian.” Where no other reference is given our quotations are taken from this passage.

[107] On the sign, see present work, vol. iii., p. 231.

[108] Philip’s father and his uncle William I (the elder brother) died insane. (See below, p. 61.)

[109] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.

[110] On the Marcolfus legend (again to be mentioned on the next page), cp. vol. iii., p. 268, n. 4; F. H. von der Hagen, “Narrenbuch,” Halle, 1811, p. 256 ff., and Rockwell, pp. 160 and 163, where other instances are given of Luther’s use of the same figure.

[111] “‘Ipsi tamen occidunt homines [heretics], nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores.’ HÆc lÆtissimo vultu dixit, non sine magno risu.”

[112] Cp. ibid., p. 139.

[113] Ibid., p. 133. He speaks in the same way of the Emperor on p. 160.

[114] Ibid., p. 139. May 21 to June 11, 1540.

[115] For the quotations from Terence, see Rockwell, p. 164. Cp. Kroker, ibid., p. 158.

[116] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 153.

[117] Ibid., p. 138.

[118] To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” 4, p. 298: “miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.”

[119] Ratzeberger, p. 102 f. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 162.

[120] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.

[121] Ibid., p. 478.

[122] Thus Hassencamp, vol. i., p. 507, though he was using the earlier editions of the Table-Talk, which are somewhat more circumspect.

[123] Vol. xviii., p. 461.

[124] “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 403 f.

[125] Gualther, in Rockwell, ibid., p. 186, n. 1.

[126] Ibid.

[127] Ibid.

[128] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 369 f.

[129] Ibid., p. 373. Concerning the notes which the editor calls the “Protokoll,” see N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. B1.,” 135, 1905, p. 323 f.

[130] Ibid., p. 375.

[131] Rockwell, ibid., p. 179. The Protestant theologian Th. Brieger says (“Luther und die Nebenehe,” etc., “Preuss. Jahrb.,” 135, 1909, p. 46): “As is known, in the summer of 1540, when the matter had already been notorious for months, Luther gave the Landgrave the advice, that he should give a flat denial of the step he had taken.... ‘A lie of necessity was not against God; He was ready to take that upon Himself.’—Just as in our own day men of the highest moral character hold similar views concerning certain forms of the lie of necessity.”

[132] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373.

[133] P. 182.—Rockwell (p. 181, n. 4) also reminds us that Luther had written to the Elector: “In matters of Confession it is seemly that both the circumstances and the advice given in Confession” should be kept secret. Luther, in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196, see p. 37, n. 2. The Elector wrote to the Landgrave in a letter dated June 27, 1540 (quoted by Rockwell, ibid., from the archives), that the marriage could not be openly discussed, because, otherwise, “the Seal of Confession would be broken in regard to those who had given the dispensation.” In this he re-echoes Luther.—Rockwell, p. 182 (cp. p. 185, n. 3), thinks, that Luther was following the “more rigorous” theologians of earlier days, who had taught that it was “a mortal sin for the penitent to reveal what the priest had told him.” This is not the place to rectify such misunderstandings.

[134] Cp. Rockwell, ibid., p. 175, with a reference to Luther’s statement of July 17: If the Landgrave would not be content with a dispensation, “and claimed it as a right, then they were quit of their advice” (“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 375). It is difficult to follow Luther through all his attempts to evade the issue.

[135] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373 f. “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 356 seq.

[136] “Bichte,” not “Bitte,” is clearly the true reading here.

[137] “Briefe,” 6, p. 272 f., dated July 20, 1540.

[138] Kolde, loc. cit., p. 357-360.

[139] Kolde, loc. cit., p. 362 seq.

[140] Dated July 18, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 380 ff.

[141] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 273 ff.

[142] On July 27, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 385 ff.

[143] Rockwell, loc. cit., p. 190. Cp. p. 61.

[144] Ibid., p. 192, from Philip’s letter to Luther, on July 18.

[145] Rockwell, loc. cit., p. 193.

[146] Ibid., p. 194.

[147] “Alcibiadea natura non Achillea.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. 4, p. 116. Rockwell, ibid., p. 194.

[148] “HÆc sunt principia furoris.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143. Above, p. 45.

[149] Ibid., on the same day (June 11, 1540), Luther’s statement. Above, p. 44.

[150] Rockwell, ibid., p. 159, n. 2; p. 4, n. 1.

[151] Ibid., p. 102.

[152] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 175, 7-24 Aug., 1540.

[153] To the Elector Johann Frederick, March, 1543, see Rockwell p. 199 f., from archives. Rockwell quotes the following from a passage in which several words have been struck out: “I have always preferred that he [...?] should deal with the matter, than that he should altogether [...?].” Was the meaning: He preferred that Luther should be involved in such an affair rather than that he [the Landgrave] should desert their party altogether? Other utterances of Melanchthon’s and Luther’s, given above, would favour this sense.

[154] Rockwell, ibid., p. 194. Text of Camerarius in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1077 seq.

[155] Ibid., p. 103.

[156] “ErgrÜndete ... DuplicÄ ... wider des ChurfÜrsten von Sachsen Abdruck,” etc. The work is directed primarily against the Elector Johann Frederick, the “drunken Nabal of Saxony,” as the author terms him.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 58.

[158] Ibid., p. 77: “Concerning the Landgrave, whom he abuses as bigamous, an Anabaptist and even as having submitted to re-baptism, though in such ambiguous terms as to suit a cardinal or a weather-cock, so that were his proofs asked for he could twist his tongue round and say, that he was not sure it was so, but merely suspected it ... of this I will not now say much. The Landgrave is man enough and has learned men about him. I know of one Landgravine in Hesse [one only bore the title], who is and is to be styled wife and mother in Hesse, and, in any case, no other will be able to bear young Princes and suckle them; I refer to the Duchess, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. And if her Prince has strayed, that was owing to your bad example, which has brought things to such a pass, that the very peasants do not look upon it as sin, and have made it difficult for us to maintain matrimony in honour and esteem, nay, to re-establish it. From the very beginning none has abused matrimony more grievously than Harry of WolffenbÜttel, the holy, sober man.” That is all Luther says of the Hessian bigamy.

[159] Rockwell, ibid., p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager” against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.

[160] Cp. Rockwell, ibid., p. 108.

[161] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.

[162] On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell, ibid., p. 117, n. 1.

[163] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other points in the text, see Rockwell, ibid., p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)

[164] The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.

[165] See above, note 163.

[166] In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says, that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from, than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”

[167] Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.

[168] Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, BrÜck, “shortly after Jan. 10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius had not written “‘contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem individuÆ personÆ,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only “inveighed ‘contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiÆ,’ which we also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too feebly.”

[169] Cp. his outburst against “those who teach polygamy” in his “In evangelium s. Mt. Commentaria,” Tiguri, 1543, p. 179.

[170] To Oswald Myconius, Sep. 13, 1540, in Rockwell, ibid., p. 325: “pudet imprimis inter theologos talium authores, tutores et patronos posse reperiri.”

[171] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 149 f.; and Rockwell, ibid., pp. 130, 132.

[172] Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 497.

[173] Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 499.

[174] “Briefwechsel,” ibid., p. 368 f.

[175] Feige to the Landgrave, July 19, 1541, published by Rockwell, ibid., p. 331; cp. p. 100 f.

[176] No. 35, August 30, 1906.

[177] “Das politische Archiv des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen; Repertorium des landgrÄfl. polit. Archivs,” Bd. 1. (Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven, Bd. 78). Year 1556, No. 27.

[178] KÖln. Volksztng., 1906, No. 758.

[179] K. v. Weber, “Anna ChurfÜrstin zu Sachsen,” Leipzig, 1865, p. 401 f. Rockwell, ibid., p. 132 f.

[180] Rockwell, ibid., p. 133. William IV wrote a curious letter to Coelestin on this “great book of discord and on the ‘dilaceratio ecclesiarum’”; see G. Th. Strobel, “BeitrÄge zur Literatur, besonders des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1786, p. 162.

[181] “Theologos Witenbergenses et in specie Megalandrum nostrum Lutherum consilio suo id factum suasisse vel approbasse, manifeste falsum est.” Rockwell, ibid., p. 134.

[182] Rockwell, ibid., p. 131.

[183] Altenburg ed., 8, p. 977; Leipzig ed., 22, p. 496; Walch’s ed., 10, p. 886. (Cp. Walch, 10², p. 748.) See De Wette in his edition of Luther’s Letters, 5, p. 236, and Enders-Kawerau, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319.

[184] Page 221.

[185] “Luthers Werke fÜr das deutsche Volk,” 1907, Introd., p. xvi.

[186] Bd. 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.

[187] “Studien Über Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” Schaffhausen, 1857 (anonymous), p. 104.

[188] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.

[189] “Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre,” GÖttingen, 1910, p. 271.

[190] That the death penalty for bigamy also dated from the Middle Ages need hardly be pointed out.

[191] For the proofs which follow we may refer to the selection made by N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) in the article “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen.”

[192] Amsdorf’s “Bedenken,” probably from the latter end of June, 1540, published by Rockwell, ibid., p. 324.

[193] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, pp. 394, 396. Above, p. 27, n. 1. Further details in Paulus, ibid., p. 562.

[194] Jonas, ibid., p. 397.

[195] P. Tschackert, “Briefwechsel des Anton Corvinus,” 1900, p. 79. Paulus, ibid., p. 563.

[196] G. T. Schmidt, “Justus Menius Über die Bigamie.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol.,” 38, 1868, p. 445 ff. More from it in Paulus, p. 565. Cp. Rockwell, ibid., p. 126.)

[197] Th. Pressel, “Anecdota Brentiana,” 1868, p. 210: “Commaculavit ecclesiam temeritate sua foedissime.”

[198] Paulus, ibid., p. 569 f.

[199] Ibid., p. 570 ff.

[200] Fr. Roth, “Augsburgs Reformationsgesch.,” 3, 1907, p. 56.

[201] Ibid., p. 95.

[202] Ibid., p. 154.

[203] See above, p. 18, 21 f., 46, 62 n. 2.

[204] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 475. Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 489, and “RE. fÜr prot. Theol.,” 15³, p. 310.

[205] “Defectionem etiam minitabatur, si nos consulere ei nollemus.” To Camerarius, Aug. 24, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. p. 863. Above, p. 62.

[206] “Hoc fere tantumdem est ac si minatus esset, se ab Evangelio defecturum.” Pressel, p. 211.

[207] MÖller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 146 f.

[208] The scandal lay rather elsewhere. According to Kawerau Luther’s “principal motive was his desire to save the Landgrave’s soul by means of an expedient, which, though it did not correspond with the perfect idea of marriage, was not directly forbidden by God, and in certain circumstances had even been permitted. The questionable nature of this advice is, however, evident,” etc.

[209] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.

[210] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 393 ff.

[211] O. Clemen, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 30, 1909, p. 389 f. Cp. the views of the Protestant historians, K. Wenck, H. Virck and W. KÖhler, adduced by Paulus (loc. cit., p. 515), who all admit the working of political pressure.

[212] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 382, 383.

[213] Bd., 2, p. 488 f.

[214] Page 736.

[215] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 403.

[216] The larger portion of the present chapter appeared as an article in the “Zeitschr. fÜr kath. Theol.,” 29, 1905, p. 417 ff.

[217] See above, p. 51.

[218] W. Walther, “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1904, No. 35. Cp. Walther, “FÜr Luther,” p. 425 ff.

[219] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.

[220] Ibid., 39, p. 356.

[221] Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier volumes.

[222] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.

[223] Ibid., p. 316.

[224] To Christoph Scheurl, ibid., p. 348.

[225] To Johann Lang, ibid., p. 410.

[226] To Willibald Pirkheimer, ibid., p. 436.

[227] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. fÜr KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204 f.

[228] Strange to say, this document has not been taken into consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die LÜge, eine Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the “Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s behalf in his art. “Luther und die LÜge,” and in his “FÜr Luther.” See above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers DoppelzÜngigkeit” (“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.

[229] On May 22, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 149.

[230] On Feb. 15, 1518, ibid., p. 155.

[231] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 469.

[232] July 10, 1520, ibid., p. 432.

[233] Ibid., Schauenburg’s letter, ibid., p. 415.

[234] Ibid., p. 433.

[235] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.

[236] Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 72.

[237] Ibid., p. 70, 68 f.

[238] Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 284; Erl. ed., 24², p. 367. On indulgences for the departed, see our vol. i., p. 344.

[239] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 432.

[240] Historien (1566), p. 11.

[241] Ed. Cyprian., p. 20.

[242] “Reformationsgesch. von H. Bullinger,” ed. Hottinger u. VÖgeli, 1, 1838, p. 19.

[243] One such tale put in circulation by the Lutherans in the 16th century has been dealt with by N. Paulus in “Gibt es AblÄsse fÜr zukÜnftige SÜnden?” (“Lit. Beil. der KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1905, No. 43.) Here, in view of some modern misapprehensions of the so-called Confession and Indulgence letters, he says: “They referred to future sins, only inasmuch as they authorised those who obtained them to select a confessor at their own discretion for their subsequent sins, and promised an Indulgence later, provided the sins committed had been humbly confessed. In this sense even our modern Indulgences promised for the future may be said to refer to future sins.”

[244] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.

[245] To Count Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).

[246] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, from Eisenach, May 9, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 74 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 144).

[247] To Spalatin, (11) October, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 491: “credo veram et propriam esse bullam.”

[248] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29 ff.

[249] Ibid., p. 138=27, p. 80, in February, 1520.

[250] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 214, 759.

[251] The letter was written after Oct. 13, 1520, but is dated Sep. 6, the Excommunication having been published on Sep. 21. Cp. Miltitz to the Elector of Saxony, Oct. 14, 1520, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.

[252] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 441 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 323 f.

[253] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 279: “It was much better and safer to declare them damned than saved.”

[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, 1906, p. 133, sermons here printed for the first time.

[255] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 240.

[256] Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, p. 223.

[257] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 37 f.

[258] Ibid., Weim. ed., 8, p. 658; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 360

[259] Ibid., p. 601=p. 278.

[260] Ibid., 1, p. 323=1, p. 338; 1, p. 534=2, p. 142.

[261] Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 44. Denifle has shown that the passage in question occurs in the form of a prayer in St. Bernard’s “Sermo XX in Cantica” “P.L.,” 183, col. 867: “De mea misera vita suscipe (Deus), obsecro, residuum annorum meorum; pro his vero (annis) quos vivendo perdidi, quia perdite vixi, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicias. Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt et prÆterierunt sine fructu. Impossibile est, ut revocem; placeat, ut recogitem tibi eos in amaritudine animÆ meÆ.” Denifle points out that the sermon in question was preached about 1136 or 1137, about sixteen years before Bernard’s death, thus certainly not in his last illness.

[262] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 249.

[263] Ibid., p. 145; cp. p. 204.

[264] “Luther als Kirchenhistoriker,” GÜtersloh, 1897, p. 391, referring to Sabellicus, “Rhapsod. hist. Ennead.,” 9, 8.

[265] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 766, p. 350, n. 1. For the literature dealing with the Ulrich fable, see N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 253; and particularly J. Haussleiter, “BeitrÄge zur bayerischen KG.,” 6, p. 121 f.

[266] Cp. Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 40, and Flacius Illyricus in his two separate editions of the letter. Flacius also incorporated the Ulrich letter in his “Catalogus testium veritatis” and repeatedly referred to it in his controversial writings. See J. NiemÖller’s article on the mendacity of a certain class of historical literature in the 16th century, “Flacius und Flacianismus” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 12, 1888, pp. 75-115, particularly p. 107 f.).

[267] Cp. Knaake, “Zeitschr. fÜr luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362.

[268] Cp. Kolde on Luther’s “private print,” in MÜller, “Bekenntnisschriften”[10], p. xxvi., n. 1.

[269] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.

[270] For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p. 226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.

[271] “Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.

[272] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.

[273] Joh. Karl Seidemann, “BeitrÄge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.

[274] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.

[275] Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.

[276] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.

[277] K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther Über die Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of Luther’s assertions in the “De servo arbitrio,” that “he was led away by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p. 79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla, ‘De libero arbitrio’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p. 2).—H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polÉmique sur le libre arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done to Erasmus by Luther.

[278] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii., p. 398 f.

[279] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. our vol. i., p. 400 f.

[280] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391 (“Tischreden”).

[282] Cp. e.g. the summarised teaching of an eminent theologian, Denis the Carthusian, in Krogh-Tonning, “Der letzte Scholastiker,” 1904.

[283] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391.

[284] From Kleindienst, “Ein recht catholisch Ermanung an seine lieben Teutschen,” Dillingen, 1560, Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., 1903, p. 276.

[285] To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461: “Nos hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi sedem, in cuius deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur.” This must not be translated “to their deceiving and destruction,” but, “against their trickery and malice.” The passage strictly refers to his passionate work “An den christlichen Adel,” but seems also to be intended generally.

[286] To Melanchthon, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235. Cp. vol. ii., p. 386. Luther says: “dolos et lapsus nostros facile emendabimus”; thus assuming his part of the responsibility. The explanation that he is speaking merely of the mistakes which Melanchthon might make, and simply wished “to console and sympathise with him,” is too far-fetched to be true. In his edition of the “Briefwechsel” Enders has struck out the word “mendacia” after “dolos,” though wrongly, as we shall see in vol. vi., xxxvi., 4. According to Enders the handwriting is too faint for it to be accepted as genuine. As there is no original of the letter the question remains how it came into the old copies which were in Lutheran hands. In any case, such an interpolation would be more difficult to understand than its removal. Cp. also Luther’s own justification of such mendacia in 1524 and 1528, given below on p. 109 ff.

[287] To the apostate Franciscan Johann Briesmann, July 4, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 360. These instructions to the preacher who was to work for the apostasy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are characteristic of Luther’s diplomacy. Cp. the directions to Martin Weier (above, vol. ii., p. 323).

[288] “Briefe,” 6, p. 386 ff.

[289] Cp. v. Druffel in the “SB. der bayer. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl.,” 2, 1888, and “Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.,” 25, p. 71.

[290] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 693, p. 612, n. 1.

[291] Ibid., p. 612.

[292] “Briefe,” 6, p. 401.

[293] Ibid., p. 386.

[294] Ibid.

[295] Ibid., p. 387.

[296] Ibid., p. 391.

[297] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29.

[298] Ibid., 26, p. 532 f. = 63, p. 276.

[299] G. Buchwald, “Simon Wilde” (“Mitt. der deutschen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung vaterlÄnd. Sprache und Altertums in Leipzig,” 9, 1894, p. 61 ff.), p. 95: “libellum calumniis refertissimum.”

[300] “Zwinglii Opp.,” 8, p. 165: “calumniandi magister et sophistarum princeps.”

[301] Letter to J. Vadian, April 14, 1528, “Die Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 4, p. 101. “Mitt. zur vaterl. Gesch. von St. Gallen,” 28, 1902.

[302] “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Hft. 118, 1893, pp. 19, 29, etc.

[303] Cp. MÜnzer in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 374, n. 6. Ibid., p. 373, n. 1, “the mendacious Luther.”

[304] “Vergleichung D. Luthers und seines Gegenteiles vom Abendmahl Christi,” 1528, p. 23.

[305] “Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 6, p. 16 (“Mitt. z. v. G. v. S.G.”, 30, 1, 1906): Pappus calls the book: “librum famosissimum, plaustra et carros convitiorum. Misereor huius tam felicissimi ingenii, quod tantis se immiscet sordibus; et profecto, ut est Lutherus vertendo et docendo inimitabilis, ita mihi iam quoque videtur calumniando non parem habere.” Letter of April 13, 1541. Pappus was Burgomaster of Lindau.

[306] E. Thiele, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1907, p. 265 f.

[307] “Ep.,” 1, 18; “Opp.,” 3, col. 1056.

[308] “Hyperaspistes,” 1, 9, col. 1043.

[309] Letter to George Agricola, in Buchwald, “Zeitschr. fÜr kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 5, Leipzig, 1884, p. 56.

[310] “Antwort auf das BÜchlein,” 1531. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89.

[311] “De votis monasticis,” 1, 2, Colon., 1524, Bl. S 5´: “Omnium mendacissimus, qui sub coelo vivunt, hominum.”

[312] “Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. E 2´. The author was Abbot of Altzelle.

[313] “Ein Maulstreich dem lutherischen lÜgenhaften, weit aufgesperrten Rachen,” Dresden, 1534.

[314] See above, vol. ii., p. 147.

[315] See vol. ii., p. 40: “Quum ita frontem perfricuerit, ut a nullo abstineat mendacio,” etc.

[316] Letter of George, in Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges Karls V,” pp. 604, 606. Denifle, 1², p. 126, n. 3.

[317] Vol. ii., p. 395 f.

[318] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.

[319] Ibid., p. 86.

[320] Ibid., p. 210. The last three passages are from sermons preached by Luther at Wittenberg in 1528 when doing duty for Bugenhagen.

[321] “Luther,” 1², p. 400 ff. We may discount the objection of Protestant controversialists who plead that Luther at least described correctly the popular notions of Catholics. The popular works then in use, handbooks and sermons for the instruction of the people, prayer-books, booklets for use in trials and at the hour of death, etc., give a picture of the then popular piety, and the best refutation of Luther’s statements.

[322] “Werke,” Erl. ed.. 5², p. 378.

[323] Cp. “Comment. in Gal.,” 2, p. 175. “Opp. lat, exeg.,” 16, p. 197 seq. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 218.

[324] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 255.

[325] Ibid.

[326] Ibid., p. 256. “The Pope’s teaching and all the books and writings of his theologians and decretalists did nothing but revile Christ and His Baptism, so that no one was able to rejoice or comfort himself therewith”; this he knew, having been himself fifteen years a monk. Ibid., 19², p. 151, in a sermon of 1535, “On Holy Baptism.”

Even in the learned disputations of his Wittenberg pupils similar assertions are found: The Papists have ever taught that the powers of man after the Fall still remained unimpaired (“adhuc integras”), and that therefore he could fulfil the whole law; doctrines no better than those of the Turks and Jews had been set up (“non secus apud Turcas et IudÆos,” etc.). “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 340.

And so Luther goes on down to the last sermon he preached at Eisleben just before his death: The Pope destroyed Baptism and only left works, tonsures, etc., in the Church (ibid., 20², 2, p. 534); the “purest monks” had usually been the “worst lewdsters” (p. 542); the monks had done nothing for souls, but “merely hidden themselves in their cells” (p. 543); “the monks think if they keep their Rule they are veritable saints” (p. 532).

In his accusations against the religious life we find him making statements which, from his own former experience, he must have known to be false. For instance, when he says, that, in their hypocritical holiness, they had regarded it as a mortal sin to leave their cell without the scapular (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 347; 38, p. 203; 60, p. 270). Denifle proves convincingly (1², p. 54), that all monks were well aware that such customs, prescribed by the Constitutions, were not binding under sin, but merely exposed transgressors to punishment by their superiors.—Luther also frequently declared, that in the Mass every mistake in the ceremonies was looked upon as a mortal sin, even the omission of an “enim” or an “Æterni” in the Canon (ibid., 28, p. 65), and that the incorrect use of the frequently repeated sign of the cross had caused such apprehension, that they were “plagued beyond measure with the Mass” (ibid., 59, p. 98). And yet his own words (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 164) show he was aware that such involuntary mistakes were no sin: “cum casus quispiam nullum peccatum fuerit.”

[327] “Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 221.

[328] “Cinquante raisons,” Munich, 1736, 29, p. 37. Above, vol. iii., p. 273, n. 2.

[329] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 395 ff.

[330] Cp. ibid., 31, p. 279.

[331] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 227.

[332] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 430 f.: “Yet how few can ever have had such a thought, much less expressed it?” Denifle-Weiss, 17², p. 774. Speaking of this passage, Denifle rightly remarks: “I have frequently pointed out that it was Luther’s tactics to represent wicked Catholics as typical of all the rest.” Here again Denifle might have quoted Luther against Luther, as indeed he often does. In one passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 412) Luther points out quite correctly, that to make all or even a class responsible for the faults of a few is to be guilty of injustice.

[333] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.

[334] “There are passionate natures gifted with a strong imagination, who gradually, and sometimes even rapidly, come to take in good faith that for true, which their own spirit of contradiction, or the desire to vindicate themselves and to gain the day, suggests. Such a one was Luther.... It was possible for him to persuade himself of things which he had once regarded in quite a different light.” Thus Alb. M. Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 424. Ad. Hausrath rightly characterises much of what Luther says that he had learnt of Rome on his trip thither, as the “product of a self-deception which is readily understood” (“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 79). “During a quarrel,” aptly remarks FÉnelon, “the imagination becomes heated and a man deceives himself.”

[335] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 510 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 200 seq.

[336] In his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 241 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 152 ff.), he frequently asserts this principle.

[337] “Si mentiris, etiam quod verum dicis mentiris.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 214 in “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.”

[338] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 15; Erl. ed., 35, p. 18. The passage in vindication of the Egyptian midwives was not merely added later.

[339] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 18.

[340] Ibid., 3, p. 139 seq.

[341] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 85: “Mentiri et fallere differunt, nam mendacium est falsitas cum studio nocendi, fallacia vero est simplex.”

[342] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 12, Sermon of Jan. 5, 1528.

[343] “Summa theol.,” 2-2, Q. 111, a. 3.

[344] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 288.

[345] “Corp. iur. can.,” ed. Friedberg, 2, p. 812. Yet a champion of Luther’s “truthfulness” has attempted to prove of Alexander III, that “the objectivity of good was foreign to him,” and that he taught that the end justifies the means. As K. Hampe has pointed out in the “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 93, 1904, p. 415, the letter from the Pope to Thomas Becket (“P.L.,” 200, col. 290), here referred to, has been “quite misunderstood.” The same is the case with a letter of Gregory VII to Alphonsus of Castile, which has also been alleged to show that a Pope “had not unconditionally rejected lying, nay, had even made use of it.” Gregory on the contrary declares that even “a lie told for a pious object and for the sake of peace” was a sin (“illud peccatum esse non dubitaveris, in sacerdotibus quasi sacrilegium coniicias.” “P.L.,” 148, col. 604). Cp. Hampe, ibid., p. 385 ff.; N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage der KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 51.

[346] “N. Lehrb. der Moral,” GÖttingen, 1825, p. 354. Sodeur (“Luther und die LÜge”) says that in his teaching on lies Luther led the way to “a more profound understanding of the problem” (p. 2), he taught us “to act according to simple and fundamental principles”; “under certain conditions” it became “a duty to tell untruths, not merely on casuistic grounds as formerly [!], but on principle; Luther harked back to the all embracing duty of charity which constitutes the moral life of the Christian” (p. 30); he desired “falsehood to be used only to the advantage of our neighbour,” “referring our conduct in every instance to the underlying principle of charity” (p. 32 f.). Chr. Rogge, another Protestant, says of all this (“TÜrmer,” Jan., 1906, p. 491): “I wish Sodeur had adopted a more decided and less apologetic attitude.”

W. Walther, in the article quoted above (p. 81, n. 1), admits that Luther taught “in the clearest possible manner that cases might occur where a departure from truth became the Christian’s duty.... It is probable that many Evangelicals will strongly repudiate this thesis, but, in our opinion, almost everybody follows it in practice”; if charity led to untruth then the latter was no evil act, and it could not be said that Luther accepted the principle that the end justifies the means. It was not necessary for Walther, having made Luther’s views on lying his own, to assure us, “that they were not shared by every Christian, not even by every Evangelical.” As regards the end justifying the means, Walther should prove that the principle does not really underlie much of what Luther says (cp. also above, p. 94 f.). Cp. what A. Baur says, with praiseworthy frankness, in a work entitled “Johann Calvin” (“Religionsgeschichtl. Volksb.,” Reihe 4, Hft. 9), p. 29, concerning the reformer of Geneva whom he extols: “Consciously, or unconsciously, the principle that the end justifies the means became necessarily more and more deeply rooted in Calvin’s mind, viz. the principle that the holy purpose willed by God justifies the use of means—the employment of which would otherwise appear altogether repugnant and reprehensible to a refined moral sense—at least when no other way presents itself for the attainment of the end. To renounce the end on account of the means appeared to Calvin a betrayal of God’s honour and cause.” And yet it is clear that only a theory which “transcends good and evil” can approve the principle that the end justifies the means.

We may add that, according to Walther (“Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 11 f.), Luther, in view of the exalted end towards which the means he used were directed, “gradually resolved” to set the law of charity above that of truth; he did not, however, do this in his practical writings, fearing its abuse; yet Luther still contends that Abraham was permitted to tell an untruth in order “to prevent the frustration of God’s Will,” i.e. from love of God (ibid., p. 13).

[347] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289.

[348] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 139-144.

[349] To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, above, p. 95, n. 3.

[350] See vol. ii., p. 384 ff.

[351] “Corp. ref.,” 20, p. 573.

[352] The document in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578.

[353] “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur TÄuferbewegung,” MÜnster, 1910, p. 75.

[354] Cp. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 320.

[355] Loc. cit., p. 74 f.

[356] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 156 seq. N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 509.

[357] “Quod defendam ipsum facinus, equidem nullum [scriptum] scripsi aut subscripsi.” Paulus, ibid., p. 511.

[358] F. W. Hassenkamp, “Hessische KG.,” 1, p. 510. Paulus, ibid., p. 512.

[359] H. Rocholl, in N. Paulus’s art. on the Catholic lawyer and writer, Conrad Braun († 1563), in “Hist. Jahrb.” (14, 1893, p. 517 ff.), p. 525.

[360] Paulus, “Johann Hoffmeister,” 1891, p. 206, and in “Hist. Jahrb.,” loc. cit.

[361] “Theol. Rev.,” 1908, p. 215.

[362] Bd. 1, 1908, p. 66: “Nullis conviciis parcemus quantumvis turpibus et ignominiosis,” etc.

[363] Luther’s friend Jonas also distinguished himself in controversy by the character of the charges he brings forward against his opponents as true “historia.” (See above, vol. iii., p. 416, n. 3.)

[364] W. KÖhler, “Luthers Werden” (“Prot. Monatshefte,” 1907, Hft. 8-9, p. 292 ff., p. 345 ff., p. 294).

[365] W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform.,” pp. 221, 220.

[366] “Fortschritte in Kenntnis und VerstÄndnis der RG.” (“Schriften des Vereins fÜr RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16 f.). The author’s standpoint is expressed on p. 13: “It is self-evident that this does not in any way detract from Luther’s importance.... Luther merely stands out all the more as the last link of the previous evolution,” etc. On p. 17 he declares that the author of “Luther und Luthertum” lacked entirely the “sense of truth.” See the passage from BÖhmer in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1901, p. 144.

[367] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 581.

[368] “Luther und die KG.,” 1, 1900, p. 363.

[369] “Sermo 60 in Dom. 6 post. Trin.” (“Sermones de tempore,” TubingÆ, 1500).

[370] “Sibend und Acht ader letzte Sermon,” Lipsie, 1533. On this work cp. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 66, n. 2.

[371] “Reportata in quatuor S. BonaventurÆ sententiarum libros, Scoti subtilis secundi,” BasileÆ, 1501. L. 2 d. 5 q. 6.

[372] Bl. 2. On the work, see Hasak, “Der christl. Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des MA.,” 1868, p. 67 ff.

[373] “Sermones super epistolas dominicales,” s. l. e. a. Bl. 51. N. Paulus quotes more of Herolt’s sayings in “Johann Herolt und seine Lehre, Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiÖsen Volksunterrichts am Ausgang des MA.” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 417 ff., particularly p. 429).

[374] Paulus, ibid., pp. 429, 430.

[375] “Evangelibuch,” Augsburg, 1560, Bl. 15. Cp. the Basle “Plenarium,” 1514, Bl. 25.

[376] “Errettunge des christl. Bescheydts,” usw., 1528, 32, Bl. 4º, h. 2.

[377] “De imitatione Christi,” 1, 15; and 3, 4.

[378] Ibid., 1, 17, 19.

[379] Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 143.

[380] See the figures in Grisar, “Analecta Romana,” 1, tab. 10-12.

[381] On the origin of the waxen “Agnus Dei” and its connection with the oldest baptismal rite, see my art. in the “CiviltÀ Cattolica,” June 2, 1907. From the beginning it was a memorial of the baptismal covenant and served as a constant stimulus to personal union with Christ.

[382] “De imit. Christi,” 4, 1, 2.

[383] Freiburg, i/B., 1902, p. 730 f.

[384] Ibid., p. 737 f.

[385] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 407.

[386] N. Paulus, “KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 961. Cp. Paulus “Der Katholik,” 1898, 2, p. 25: “Had Luther’s intention been merely to impress this fundamentally Catholic message on Christendom [the trustful relations between the individual and God] there would never have been a schism.”

[387] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740.

[388] Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297.

[389] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418.

[390] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 184.

[391] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 186.

[392] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 230.

[393] Ibid., p. 193.

[394] Ibid., p. 323.

[395] “Sermo 25 de tempore.”

[396] “Sermo 55 de tempore.”

[397] “Sermones super epistolas dominicales.” Sermo 15.

[398] “Eine nutzliche Lere,” usw., Leipzig, 1502, c. 1.

[399] In a “Novelle,” published by Ph. Strauch in the “Zeitschr. fÜr deutsches Luthertum,” 29, 1885, p. 389.—For further particulars of the respect for worldly callings before Luther’s day, see N. Paulus, “Luther und der Beruf” (“Der Katholik,” 1902, 1, p. 327 ff.), and in the “Lit. Beil. der KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 20, p. 148; likewise Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 138 ff.

[400] “Sermo 25 de tempore.”

[401] “Cp. Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 496 ff. (N. Paulus on O. Scheel).

[402] Basle, 1522, B. 1´.

[403] “Von dem waren christl. Leben,” Bl. C. 3´.

[404] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178.

[405] Ibid.

[406] What follows has, it is true, no close relation to “Luther and Lying”; the author has, however, thought it right to deal with the matter here because of the connection between Luther’s misrepresentations of the Middle Ages and his calumny against Catholic times, both of which were founded, not on the facts of the case, but on personal grounds. Cp. below, p. 147.

[407] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 71 ff., pp. 155, 238, 242.

[408] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55.

[409] Cp. Denifle, ibid., p. 239 f.

[410] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 152; Erl. ed., 28, p. 194. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”

[411] Ibid., Weim. ed., 14, p. 157.

[412] Ibid., 24, p. 123 f.

[413] Ibid., 27, p. 26.

[414] “Werke.” Erl. ed., 18², p. 92.

[415] Ibid., 31, p. 297.

[416] Sermo 343, n. 7; Denifle, 1², p. 243, refers also to “De bono coniugali,” n. 9, 27, 28.

[417] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 138 f.: “A married man cannot give himself up entirely to reading and prayer, but is, as St. Paul says, ‘divided’ and must devote a great part of his life to pleasing his spouse.” The Apostle says that though the “troubles and cares of the married state are good, yet it is far better to be free to pray and attend to the Word of God.”—Luther is more silent concerning our Lord’s own recommendation of virginity (“Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est,” etc., Mat. xix. 11 f.). Of his attitude towards voluntary virginity we have already spoken in vol. iii., 246 ff.

[418] “Werke.,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178 (Table-Talk).

[419] Ibid., 64, p. 155. From his glosses on the Bible.

[420] Ibid., 31, p. 390. From the “Winckelmesse,” 1534.

[421] Ibid., 44, p. 376.

[422] Ibid., p. 25², p. 432; cp. p. 428.

[423] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 283: “Ipse ego, cum essem adhuc monachus, idem sapiebam, coniugium esse damnatum genus vitÆ.”

[424] And yet a Protestant has said quite recently: “The Church persistently taught that love had nothing to do with marriage.” As though the restraining of sexual love within just limits was equivalent to the exclusion of conjugal love.

[425] Ed. Ph. Strauch, “Zeitschr. fÜr deutsches Altertum,” 29, 1885, pp. 373-427.

[426] P. 385.

[427] Munich State Library, cod. germ., 757.

[428] Ibid., cod. 756.

[429] Heinemann, “Die Handschriften der Herzogl. Bibliothek zu WolfenbÜttel,” 2, 4, p. 332 f.

[430] “Überlieferungen zur Gesch.,” etc., 1, 2, p. 204 f.

[431] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1892, p. 487.

[432] “Sermones Fratris Barlete,” Brixie, 1497 and 1498, several times republished in the 16th century. See sermon for the Friday of the fourth week of Lent.

[433] “Opus super Sapientiam Salomonis,” ed. Hagenau, 1494 (and elsewhere), “Lectio” 43 and 44, on Marriage. Cp. ibid., 181, the “Lectio” on the Valiant Woman, and in his work, “In Proverbia Salomonis explanationes,” Paris, 1510, “Lectio” 91, with the explanation of Prov. xii. 4: “A diligent woman is a crown to her husband.”

[434] Luther, on the other hand, declares: “The work of begetting children was not distinguished from other sins, such as fornication and adultery. But now we have learnt and are assured by the Grace of God that marriage is honourable.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 116.

[435] On Barletta and Holkot, cp. N. Paulus in “Lit. Beil. der KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1904, Nos. 19 and 20; and his art., “Die Ehe in den deutschen Postillen des ausgehenden MA.,” and “Gedruckte und Ungedruckte deutsche EhebÜchlein des ausgehenden MA.,” ibid., 1903, Nos. 18 and 20. See also F(alk) in “Der Katholik,” 1906, 2, p. 317 ff.: “Ehe und Ehestand im MA.,” and in the work about to be quoted. Denifle, “Luther,” 1, has much to say of the Catholic and the Lutheran views of marriage.

[436] “Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“ErlÄut. und ErgÄnz. zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4).

[437] “Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“ErlÄut. und ErgÄnz, zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4), p. 67.

[438] Ibid., p. 66.

[439] “Die Stellung der Frau im MA.,” Oct. 1 and 8, 1910, p. 1253.

[440] Ibid., p. 1299.

[441] Ibid., p. 1248.

[442] Cp. F. Schaub, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 117 ff., on H. Crohns, who, in order to accuse St. Antoninus and others of “hatred of women,” appeals to the “Witches’ Hammer”: “It is unjust to make these authors responsible for the consequences drawn from their utterances by such petty fry as the producers of the ‘Witches’ Hammer.’” Cp. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 134, 1904, particularly p. 812 ff.

[443] Finke, ibid., p. 1249.

[444] Ibid., p. 1256.

[445] Ibid., p. 1258.—Finke’s statements may be completed by the assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a writer, so deeply versed in mediÆval Scholasticism, is worthy of note: “There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point [esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally. Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage” (p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,” he says (ibid.) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16, “Symb. BÜcher¹⁰,” ed. MÜller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.” Jos. LÖhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, bes. der ErzdiÖzese KÖln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911, “Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.

[446] Prov. xxxi. 10 f.: “Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?” etc. The Lesson of the Mass De communi nec virginum nec martyrum.

[447] The Gradual of the same Mass, taken from Psalm xliv.

[448] Falk, op. cit., p. 71.

[449] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 207 (Table-Talk). In his translation of the Bible Luther quotes the German verse: “Nought so dear on earth as the love of woman to the man who shares it” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 113), in connection with Proverbs xxxi. 10 ff. (“Mulierem fortem,” etc.). In the Table-Talk he quotes the same when speaking of those who are unfaithful to their marriage vow in not praying: “People do not pray. Therefore my hostess at Eisenach [Ursula, Cunz Cotta’s wife, see vol. i., p. 5 f., and vol. iii., p. 288 f.] was right in saying to me when I went to school there: ‘There is no dearer thing on earth than the love of woman to the man on whom it is bestowed’” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 212). Luther’s introduction of the phrase in connection with the passage on the “Mulier fortis” was an injustice, and an attempt to prove again the alleged contempt of Catholicism for the love of woman.

[450] N. Paulus, “Zur angeblichen GeringschÄtzung der Frau und der Ehe im MA.,” in the “Wissensch. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 10 and 12.

[451] Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 119.

[452] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 246 f.

[453] Ibid., 16², p. 536 ff.

[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 51 ff.

[455] Ibid., p. 58.

[456] Ibid., pp. 66, 68.

[457] Ibid., 30, 3, p. 278; Erl. ed., 25², p. 6. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[458] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 420.

[459] Ibid., Erl. ed., 16², p. 538.

[460] Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 519. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 263 and p. 241 ff.

[461] Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 205 (Table-Talk).

[462] Cp. the passages in the Table-Talk on marriage and on women, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 182-213, and 57, pp. 270-273.

[463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 205.

[464] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.

[465] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “reicio ... ubi possum.” There are, however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.

[466] See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.

[467] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second edition of the Sermon.

[468] Ibid., p. 168 f.=63 f.

[469] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.

[470] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353 seq. “Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.

[471] “Apol. Conf. AugustanÆ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften, ¹⁰, p. 242: “Ita virginitas donum est prÆstantius coniugio.”

[472] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.

[473] Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L. v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,” Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde, however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediÆval views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl, usw., ErgÄnzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).

[474] “Die kath. Moral,” 1902, p. 118.

[475] On Dec. 6, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 279. See vol. iii., p. 269. The passage was omitted by Aurifaber and De Wette probably because not judged quite proper.

[476] Aug., “De bono coniug.,” c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 6. According to Denifle, 1¹, p. 277, n. 2, the Schoolmen knew the passages through the Lombard “Sent.,” 4, dist. 31, c. 5. He also quotes S. Thom., “Summa theol.,” Supplem., q. 41, a. 4; q. 49, a. 5; q. 64, a. 4: “ut sibi invicem debitum reddant.”

[477] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 654; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 355. On the text, see Denifle, 1², p. 263, n. 3.

[478] Ibid., 20, 2, p. 304; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541. “On Married Life,” 1522.

[479] Ibid., 12, p. 114. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 10.

[480] N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 495, art. “Zu Luthers Schrift Über die MÖnchsgelÜbde”: “Luther’s false view of the sinfulness of the ‘actus matrimonialis’ was strongly repudiated by Catholics, particularly by Clichtoveus and CochlÆus.”

[481] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. “Sermon on the Married Life,” 1522.

[482] Ibid., 12, p. 66; Erl. ed., 53, p. 188.

[483] Ibid., p. 113.

[484] Cp. vol. iii., p. 264 ff.

[485] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101. Then follows a highly questionable statement concerning a rule of the Wittenberg Augustinian monastery, in which Luther fails to distinguish between “pollutiones voluntariÆ” and “involuntariÆ,” but which draws from him the exclamation: “All the monasteries and foundations ought to be destroyed, if only on account of these shocking ‘pollutiones’!”

[486] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 73, where some improper remarks may be found on the temptation of St. Paul (according to the notes, on account of St. Thecla) and that of St. Benedict, who, we are told, rolled himself in the thorns to overcome it.

[487] See vol. iii., p. 267, n. 10.

[488] Ibid., p. 122: “Scribis, mea iactari ab iis qui lupanaria colunt.”

[489] “Briefe,” ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 419, undated.

[490] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 373. To a bridegroom in 1536.

[491] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 364 f.; Erl. ed., 41, p. 135. Brandenburg, “Luther Über die Obrigkeit,” p. 7.

[492] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 437.

[493] Ibid., p. 219.

[494] See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.

[495] To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders (p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least are obviously referred to: “Quod illi vero prÆtexunt, certos sese fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus potentissimus est,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.

[496] On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.

[497] On May 26, 1525, “Werke,” ibid., p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).

[498] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).

[499] Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in 1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to curtail our freedom!”

[500] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.

[501] In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.

[502] Mathesius, ibid. For further explanation of this statement, cp. Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff. He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “Est nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur, quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra papam.” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic ordinances. “Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a magistratu peteret dispensationem.”

[503] Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.

[504] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Jan., 1537.

[505] Luther’s memorandum, Aug. 18, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 326 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 228). Cp. Enders’ Notes to this letter.

[506] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98 seq. “De captivitate babylonica.”

[507] Ibid., 10. 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 513 f.

[508] Dec. 28, 1525, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 289.

[509] Dec. 19, 1522, “Akten und Briefe des Herzogs Georg von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, I, 1905, p. 402.

[510] Jan. 1, 1523, ibid., p. 415. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 137, 1906, p. 56 f.

[511] “Postille,” Mainz, 1542, 4b. DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 52.

[512] “Professio catholica,” ColoniÆ, 1580 (reprint), p. 219 seq. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 8¹⁴, p. 456. Several replies were called forth by this over-zealous and extremely anti-Lutheran polemic.

[513] “Vormeldung der Unwahrheit Luterscher Clage,” Frankfurt/Oder, 1532. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 33.

[514] Cp. above, p. 152 f.

[515] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 340. Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 252.

[516] Cp., for instance, present work, vol. iii., p. 268, and vol. ii., p. 378.

[517] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 281.

[518] This was Elisabeth Kaufmann, a niece of Luther’s, yet unmarried, who lived with her widowed sister Magdalene at the Black Monastery. The “pastoress” was the wife of the apostate priest Bugenhagen, Pastor of Wittenberg, who, during Bugenhagen’s absence in Brunswick, seems to have enjoyed the hospitality of the same great house. The “many girls” are Luther’s servants and those of the other inhabitants.

[519] Aurifaber suppressed the end of this conversation. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 201.

[520] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 221.

[521] Cp. vol. iii., p. 175 f. Cp. p. 179.

[522] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.

[523] Cp. vol. v., xxxi., 5.

[524] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 396.

[525] Ibid., p. 415.

[526] Ibid., p. 405 f.

[527] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426. See vol. iii., p. 273. Akin to this is his self-congratulation (above, p. 46), that he works for the increase of mankind, whereas the Papists put men to death.

[528] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 430.

[529] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.

[530] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 388.

[531] Ibid., 61, p. 193. The last words are omitted in the two old editions of the Table-Talk by Selnecker and Stangwald.

[532] Ibid., 20², p. 365. At the marriage of the apostate Dean of Merseburg.

[533] Ibid., 25², p. 373; cp. p. 369 and above, vol. iii., p. 251, n. 3.

[534] Ibid., 61, p. 204 (Table-Talk).

[535] “Werke,” ibid., p. 205 (Table-Talk).

[536] Ibid., p. 211.

[537] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262.

[538] For similar instances of the use of such signs see vol. iii., p. 231. The Nuremberg MS. of the Mathesius collection substitutes here, according to Kroker, a meaningless phrase. The MS. in the Ducal Library at Gotha, entitled “Farrago” (1551), omits it altogether.

[539] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525. On the “strangling,” cp. vol. iii., p. 253, n. 3.

[540] “Wie man fÜrsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German ed. (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.,” Hft. 6).

[541] “De stultitia mortalium,” Basil., 1557, 1, 1, p. 50 seq. Denifle, 1², p. 287.

[542] “Von werlicher Visitation,” Eisleben, 1555, Bl. K. 3. Denifle, 1², p. 280.

[543] “Annotationen zu den Propheten,” 2, Eisleben, 1536, fol. 88. DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 48.

[544] “Ein unÜberwindlicher grÜndlicher Bericht was die Rechtfertigung in Paulo sei,” Leipzig, 1533. DÖllinger, ibid., p. 40.

[545] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[546] Dan. xi., 37. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 155.

[547] “Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, fol. 198´. DÖllinger, ibid., p. 106.

[548] The passages referred to are, according to the text of the Vulgate: 1 Cor. vii. 32: “Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quÆ Domini sunt,” etc. Ibid., 38: “Qui non iungit (virginem suam) melius facit.” Ibid., 40: “Beatior erit, si sic permanserit,” etc. Mat. xix. 12: “Sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum Dei. Qui potest capere capiat.” Apoc. xiv. 3 f., of those who sing “the new song before the throne” of the Lamb: “Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocunque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex hominibus primitiÆ Deo et Agno.” 1 Tim. v. 12, of those widows dedicated to God who marry: “Habentes damnationem, qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt.”—Against Jovinian St. Jerome wrote, in 392: “Adv. Iovinianum” (“P.L.,” 23, col. 211 seq.), where, in the first part, he defends virginity, which the former had attacked, and demonstrates its superiority and its merit.

[549] “Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, 1536, fol. 198´, on Daniel xi., 37. DÖllinger, ibid., p. 105 f.

[550] “HomiliÆ XXII,” VitebergÆ, 1532. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 278.

[551] “De corruptis moribus utriusque partis,” Bl. F. III. In the title page the author’s name is given as Czecanovius; this is identical with Staphylus, as N. Paulus has shown in the “Katholik,” 1895, 1, p. 574 f.

[552] F. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten Verstandt des gÖttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, fol. 202´.

[553] Cp. the quotations in Denifle (1², Preface, p. 15 ff.), commencing with one from Billicanus: “By the eternal God, what fornication and adultery are we not forced to witness”; also those on pp. 282 ff., 805 f.

[554] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 8¹⁴, pp. 378 f., 384 ff., 392.

[555] See above, p. 167, n. 3.

[556] J. LÖhr, “Methodisch-kritische BeitrÄge zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, besonders der ErzdiÖzese KÖln, am Ausgange des MA.” (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, 1910).

[557] Page 44.

[558] Page 59.

[559] Page 65. That all offenders without exception were punished is of course not likely.

[560] Ibid., pp. 1-24.—For the 16th and 17th centuries we refer the reader to J. Schmidlin, “Die kirchl. ZustÄnde in Deutschland vor dem DreissigjÄhrigen Kriege nach den bischÖflichen DiÖzesanberichten an den Heiligen Stuhl,” Freiburg, 1908-1911 (“ErlÄuterungen usw. zu Janssens Gesch.,” 7, Hft. 1-10). In the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 31, 1910, p. 163, we read of the reports contained in the first part of the work: “They commence by revealing the sad depths to which Catholic life had sunk, but go on to show an ever-increasing vigour on the part of the bishops, in many cases crowned with complete success.”

[561] “De vita et miraculis Iohannis Gerson,” s.l.e.a. (1506), B 4b; Janssen-Pastor, 1¹⁸, p. 681. Wimpfeling is, however, answering the Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who had attacked the secular clergy; elsewhere he witnesses to the grave blots on the life of the secular clergy.

[562] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400 (“Tischreden”). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “Cum summo fletu spectatorum.”

[563] Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 239; Erl. ed., 16², p. 234.

[564] We may here remark concerning Luther’s stay at Cologne (passed over in vol. i., p. 38 f., for the sake of brevity), that at the Chapter then held by Staupitz—to whose party Luther had now gone over—the former probably refrained, in his official capacity, from putting in force his plans for an amalgamation of the Observantines and the Conventuals of the Saxon Province. There is no doubt that Luther came to Cologne from Wittenberg, whither he had betaken himself on his return from Rome. After the Chapter at Cologne he made preparations for his promotion. Possibly the project of securing the Doctorate was matured at Cologne. He speaks of the relics of the Three Kings in a sermon of January 5th, of which two accounts have been preserved (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 22: “I have seen them.” “I too have seen them”). In the so-called “Bibelprotokollen,” of 1539, he says (ibid., p. 585): “At Cologne I drank a wine quod penetrabat in mensa manum” (which probably means, was so fiery that soon after drinking it he felt a tingling down to his finger-tips). “Never in all my life have I drunk so rich a wine.” Cp., for the Cologne Chapter, Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 242 f., and for the same and Luther’s Cologne visit, Walter KÖhler, “Christl. Welt,” 1908, No. 30; N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 142, 1908, p. 749; and G. Kawerau, “Theol. Stud, und Krit.,” 81, 1908, p. 348. Buchwald refers to a statement of Luther’s on a monument at Cologne (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 371=“Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 4, p. 625) in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 609.

[565] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 86.

[566] Ibid., p. 308.

[567] Jan. 25, 1526, ibid., p. 312.

[568] Cp. Enders on the letter last quoted.

[569] “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 322 f. Hasenberg’s Latin letter, Aug. 10, 1528, p. 334 ff.; v. der Heyden’s German one of same date.

[570] Cp. Duke George’s fierce letter to Luther of Dec. 28, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.), which was also printed forthwith. He will speak freely and openly to him, he says: “Seek the hypocrites amongst those who call you a prophet, a Daniel, the Apostle of the Germans and an Evangelist.” “At Wittenberg you have set up an asylum where all the monks and nuns who, by their robbing and stealing, deprive us of our churches and convents find refuge.” “When have more acts of sacrilege been committed by people dedicated to God than since your Evangel has been preached?” Did not Christ say: “By their fruits you shall know them”? All the great preachers of the faith have been “pious, respectable and truthful men, not proud, avaricious or unchaste.” “Your marriage is the work, not of God, but of the enemy.... Since both of you once took an oath not to commit unchastity lest God should forsake you, is it not high time that you considered your position?”—The greater part of the letter was incorporated by CochlÆus in his Acta (p. 119).

[571] On p. 336 von der Heyden says: Luther is “beginning to draw in his horns and is in great fear lest his nun should be unyoked.”

[572] Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana, may be the author of this anonymous work, printed in “P.L.,” 16, col. 367-384.

[573] For the full text of this anonymous hymn (incorporated in the Office for Virgins in the Breviary), see “P.L.,” 16, col. 1221.

[574] “Literarii sodalitii apud Marpurgam aliquot cachinni super quodam duorum Lypsiensium poetarum in Lutherum scripto libello effusi” (MarburgÆ), 1528.

[575] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 539 ff. (with the editor’s opinion on the authorship); Erl. ed., 64, pp. 324-337.

[576] Ibid., p. 540=339. The writing aptly concludes: “... tuo, vates, carmine tergo nates.”

[577] Ibid., p. 548=330.

[578] Ibid., p. 547=327 f.

[579] Ibid., p. 544=344.

[580] Ibid., p. 553 f.=335 f.

[581] “Sermones dominicales des gnadenreichen Predigers Andree Prolis” (with notes), Leipzig, 1530, fol. K. 4´.

[582] “Apologeticus adv. Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro Libro Conformitatum,” AntverpiÆ, 1607, p. 101.

[583] “Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 9, col. 1249 seq.

[584] See vol. ii., p. 242 ff.

[585] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 29.

[586] Ibid., p. 96 f.

[587] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 311.

[588] See vol. ii., p. 249 ff.

[589] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 368 f.

[590] Ibid., p. 382.

[591] Ibid., 10, p. 8 ff., about March 11, 1534.

[592] On March 31, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 36.

[593] At the conclusion Luther says of the young people: “Hac levitate et vanitate paulatim desuescit a religione, donec abhorreat et penitus profanescat.” And: “Dominus noster Iesus, quem mihi Petrus non tacet Deum, sed in cuius virtute scio et certus sum me sÆpius a morte liberatum, in cuius fide hÆc omnia incepi et hactenus effeci, quÆ ipsi hostes mirantur, ipse custodiat et liberet nos in finem. Ipse est Dominus Deus noster verus.”

[594] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 709: ?e???t??? p???.

[595] Ibid., 3, p. 69.

[596] On April 15, 1534, Burckhardt-Biedermann, “Bonif. Amerbach,” 1894, p. 297. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 24.

[597] Enders, ibid., p. 23.

[598] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 312.

[599] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 526, seq.

[600] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.

[601] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1494 seq.

[602] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, admits that Luther’s charge was “groundless.”

[603] Most of the above passages from Erasmus’s reply are quoted by Enders, p. 25 ff. The outspoken passage last quoted is given in Latin in vol. iii., p. 136. n. 2.

[604] Quoted by KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, p. 313, n. 1.

[605] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 275: “Vixit et decessit ut Epicureus sine aliquo ministro et consolatione.... Multa quidem prÆclara scripsit, habuit ingenium prÆstantissimum, otium tranquillum.... In agone non expetivit ministrum verbi neque sacramenta, et fortasse ilia verba suÆ confessionis in agone ‘Fili Dei miserere mei’ illi affinguntur.” Cp. Luther’s words in 1544 in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343: “He died ‘sine crux et sine lux’”; here again Luther says he had been the cause of many losing body and soul and had been the originator of the Sacramentarians. See our vol. ii., p. 252, n. 1, for further details of Erasmus’s end. We read in Mathesius, p. 90 (May, 1540): “The Doctor said: He arrogated to himself the Divinity of which he deprived Christ. In his ‘Colloquia’ he compared Christ with Priapus [Kroker remarks: ‘Erasmus did not compare Christ with Priapus’], he mocked at Him in his ‘Catechism’ [’Symbolum’], and particularly in his execrable book the ‘Farragines.’”

[606] See the whole passage in “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 272 seq.

[607] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89. See above, p. 101.

[608] “Werke,” ibid., p. 92.

[609] Ibid.

[610] Luther to Duke George, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 338 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281, with amended date and colophon). George to Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.

[611] More in the same strain above, p. 173, n. 4.

[612] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 134.

[613] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 411, Table-Talk.

[614] Ibid., 31, p. 250 ff.

[615] Ibid., 61, p. 343, Table-Talk.

[616] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 107 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[617] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 343 f., Table-Talk.

[618] Ibid., 58, p. 412 (Table-Talk), where Luther bases his tale on a remark of the Protestant Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony.

[619] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 413 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. See our vol. ii., p. 295 f.

[620] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.

[621] P. 135.

[622] P. 130.

[623] P. 144.

[624] “Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen,” p. 53.

[625] Above, p. 38, and vol. iii., p. 262.

[626] Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 271.

[627] To Johannes Cellarius, minister at Dresden, Nov. 26, 1540, Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 229.

[628] Ibid., cp. the letter to Wenceslaus Link of Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 270: “Proceres veteri odio despiciunt Wittembergam.”

[629] Letter of Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” ibid., p. 313.

[630] To Provost George Buchholzer at Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539, ibid., p. 316. At the Wittenberg Schlosskirche the elevation had gone before 1539, and soon after was discontinued throughout the Saxon Electorate. It was retained, however, in the parish church of Wittenberg until Bugenhagen did away with it on June 25, 1542. Luther reserved to himself the liberty of re-introducing it should heresy or other reasons call for it. He had retained the elevation at Wittenberg for a while as a protest against Carlstadt’s attacks on the Sacrament, at least such was the reason he gave in May, 1542, to Landgrave Philip, who wanted its abrogation. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 578.

[631] Dec., 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266).

[632] Cp. Enders, ibid., 10, p. 98, n. 7.

[633] Letter to Coler, April 30, 1535. Enders, ibid., p. 151, n. 5.

[634] To Justus Jonas, Dec. 17, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 98.

[635] To Erhard Schnepf at Stuttgart, May 15, 1535, ibid., p. 150.

[636] Letter to the Chancellor Leonard v. Eck, Jan. 21, 1535, in Wille, “Anal. zur Gesch. Oberdeutschlands, 1534-1540” (“Zeitschr. fÜr die Gesch. des Oberrheins,” 37, p. 263 ff.), p. 293 f.

[637] G. Bossert in “WÜrttemberg. KG.,” ed. Calwer Verlagsverein, Calw. 1893, p. 335.

[638] Cp. ibid., p. 336.

[639] Ibid., p. 347.

[640] Ibid., p. 348.

[641] Hans Werner to Chancellor Eck, Jan. 14, 1536, Wille, ibid., p. 298.

[642] Bossert, ibid., remarks, p. 333: “Many mediÆval works of art were preserved.”

[643] Ibid., p. 356.

[644] In Heyd, “Ulrich Herzog von WÜrtenberg,” 3, p. 89.

[645] The passages are given in greater detail in “Erinnerung nach dem Lauf der Planeten gestellt,” TÜbingen, 1568, and “Dreizehn Predigten vom TÜrken,” TÜbingen, 1569, in DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, pp. 376-378.

[646] Bossert, ibid., p. 357.

[647] Thus, e.g. Bossert, loc. cit., and in other studies on WÜrtemberg Church-History in the 16th century, called forth by Janssen’s work.

[648] Cp. above, passim.

[649] See above, p. 65.

[650] “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 334 f.

[651] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 315 f. On his marriage, see above, p. 157.

[652] A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,” 1, p. 290.

[653] “Leben,” etc. (“Zeitschr. des Vereins fÜr hess. Gesch.,” Suppl. 2, Bd. 1 und 2), 1, p. 379 ff.

[654] Neudecker, “Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit,” p. 684 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, pp. 88-91.

[655] Hassencamp, “Hess. KG. im Zeitalter der Reformation,” 2, p. 613 f. Janssen, ibid.

[656] “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 121 f. Janssen, ibid.

[657] Cp. above, passim, and vol. iii., p. 324; vol. ii., pp. 123 ff., 218 ff. 344, 349 f.

[658] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173.

[659] Ibid., p. 100.

[660] Ibid., p. 373.

[661] Hausrath, 2, p. 391.

[662] Letter of Feb. 9, 1541. See G. Mentz, “Johann Friedrich der GrossmÜtige,” 3, Jena, 1908, p. 344, according to certain “archives.”—Steinhausen (“Kulturgesch. der Deutschen,” p. 508), calls the Elector Johann Frederick quite simply a “drunkard.” He points out that Anna of Saxony died of drink and that the Saxons, even in the 15th century, were noted for their drinking habits.

[663] Letter of Jan. 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 302.

[664] “Luthers Leben,” 2, Berlin, 1904, p. 391.

[665] 3 Teil, Jena, 1909, p. 343 f.

[666] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, p. 213.

[667] Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Karls V. wider die Schmalkaldische,” 1, Gotha, 1645, p. 1837.

[668] Ibid., p. 1869 f.

[669] N. Paulus, who examined the matter more closely in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 154, comes to the conclusion that Mentz in his Life of Johann Frederick has not laid sufficient weight on the testimony of the witnesses.

[670] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 391 f.

[671] Cp. above, passim.

[672] Vol. i., p. 601.

[673] Frankfurt, 1699, 2, p. 44.

[674] Ibid.

[675] “Allg. deutsche Biographie,” 7, p. 781 (Flathe).

[676] Hausrath, loc. cit., 2, p. 67.

[677] Ibid., p. 68.

[678] “Martin Luthers Werke fÜr das deutsche Volk,” 1907, p. xiii.

[679] Hausrath, ibid., 2, p. 390.

[680] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 209, from the original at Weimar, written by Bugenhagen: “Utcunque sint in quibusdam peccatores et non in omnibus puri, calumniantibus hoc etiam vel forte accusantibus adversariis, tamen confidant de Domini bonitate,” etc. And before this, concerning the “adversariorum clamores ‘Rapiunt bona ecclesiastica,’” etc., they were to comfort themselves, “quia non sic rapiunt, quemadmodum quidam alii; video enim eos per hÆc bona curare quÆ sunt religionis. Si quid prÆterea ipsis ex talibus bonis accedit, quis potius ea susciperet? Principum sunt talia, non nebulonum papistarum.” The general spoliation of church property disturbed his mind, as we can see, but he overcomes his scruples, and persuades himself that their action, like his own, was really directed against Antichrist: “Iube meis verbis, ut faciant in Deo confidenter pro causa evangelii quicquid Spiritus sanctus suggesserit; non prÆscribo eis modum. Misericors Deus confortet eos, ut maneant in ista sana doctrina et gratias agant, quod sunt liberati ab Antichristo.”

[681] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 588.

[682] This ex-priest, Michael Kramer, first took a wife at Cunitz, and when she began to lead a bad life, married a second at Dommitzsch “on the strength of an advice secured.” On account of matrimonial squabbles he married a third time, after obtaining advice from Luther through the magistrates. C. A. Burkhardt, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” p. 87; cp. his “Gesch. d. sÄchs. Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen,” p. 48.

[683] “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 888, 913, 982. DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 1, pp. 362 f., 369. Above, vol. iii., p. 324.

[684] Quoted in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 100 f.

[685] From Burkhardt, ibid. Janssen, ibid.

[686] Janssen, ibid., 6, p. 521, given as Melanchthon’s words.

[687] A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, pp. 181, 192 f. Janssen, ibid., p. 523. W. Schmidt (“Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen im sÄchs. Kurkreis von 1555,” 1907, Hft. 1-2, “Schriften des Vereins fÜr RG.,” No. 90) fancies he can discern a certain improvement in ecclesiastical life and in the school system about the year 1555.

[688] For the way Metzsch was dealt with, see Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 163, 167. “Briefe,” 6, p. 213 f. Below, vol. v., xxx., 3.

[689] “Briefe,” 5, p. 223 f.

[690] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”

[691] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411, conclusion of the “Auslegung Über etliche Kapitel des fÜnften Buches Mosis,” 1529.

[692] Ibid., Erl. ed., 9², p. 330 f., “Kirchenpostille.”

[693] Ibid., 4², p. 4, “Hauspostille.”

[694] Ibid.

[695] Ibid., p. 6.

[696] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443.

[697] “Comment, in ep. ad Galatas,” 2, p. 351.

[698] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443, according to another set of notes of the sermon quoted in n. 1.

[699] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.

[700] Ibid., 59, p. 6. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.

[701] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 455.

[702] Ibid., 30, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 86, “Auff das vermeint Edict,” 1531.

[703] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 385 ff.=86 f.

[704] March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 722, letter called forth by the death of George Held Forchheim, to whom the Prince was much attached.

[705] To Catherine Bora, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753.

[706] To Justus Jonas, June 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 570.

[707] On Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 615.

[708] “Vermahnung,” Feb. or Nov., 1542, “Briefe,” 6, p. 302.

[709] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 80 ff.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23 ff.

[710] Ibid., 27, p. 408 f., in the newly published sermons of 1528.

[711] Ibid., p. 418 f.

[712] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.

[713] Ibid., p. 153.

[714] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” 179.

[715] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 402.

[716] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.

[717] Ibid., p. 138.

[718] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185.

[719] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 323 (Table-Talk).

[720] “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 19.

[721] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. (Table-Talk).

[722] “Historien,” p. 136´. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 126 and ibid., Introduction, p. 72; Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 13. See above, p. 210.

[723] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 70, Khummer.

[724] Ibid., p. 80.

[725] Above, vol. iii., p. 410.

[726] G. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Cp. Luther’s letter to Spalatin, quoted in vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1, where he tells him: “Tristitia occidet te”; by his (Luther’s) mouth Christ had raised up Melanchthon from a similar state induced by the “spiritus tristitiÆ”; such continuous sorrow over sin was an even greater sin; he was still inexperienced “in the battle against sin or conscience and the law”; now, however, he must look upon Luther as St. Peter, who speaks to him as he did to the lame man: “In the name of Christ, arise and walk”; Christ did not wish him to be “crucified with sorrow”; this came from the devil.—We do not learn that these words had any effect.

[727] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 416.

[728] DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 193.

[729] “Fortgesetzte Sammlung,” Leipzig, 1740, p. 519.

[730] M. Hempel, “Libellus H. Welleri,” LipsiÆ, 1581, p. 60.

[731] H. Weller, Preface to Beltzius, “On Man’s Conversion,” Leipzig, 1575.

[732] He wrote “Against the grievous plague of Melancholy,” Erfurt, 1557, and “A useful instruction against the demon of melancholy,” 1569 (s.l.). In the latter work he says in the Preface that he considered himself all the more called to comfort “sad and sorrowful hearts” because he himself “not seldom lay sick in that same hospital.”

[733] “We experience in our own selves, that our hearts become increasingly stupid, weak and timid, and often know not whence it comes or what it is.” “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, NÜrnberg, 1565, p. 94.—On his edition of the Table-Talk, cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.

[734] Cp. Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 231, where Capito’s letter to Luther of June 13, 1536, is given. The letter is also in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 353. Capito there laments, “me deiectiorem apud me factum, adeo ut in morbum melancholicum prope inciderim. Hilaritatem, si potero, revocabo.” The internal dissensions, which pained and distressed him to the last degree, were the immediate cause of his sadness, so he declares.

[735] C. Gerbert, “Gesch. der Strassburger Sektenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation,” Strasburg, 1889, p. 183 f.

[736] Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 462 seq.

[737] Contemporary account in J. C. Siebenkees, “Materialien zur NÜrnberg. Gesch.,” 2, Nuremberg, 1792, p. 754.

[738] Fischlin, “Memoria theologorum Wirtembergensium,” 1, UlmÆ, 1720, pp. 144, 171.

[739] Cp. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer und Elend menschlichen Lebens und Wesens,” Leipzig, 1574, Bl. 3´.

[740] “Handbuch,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1613, p. 725 f. (1 ed., 1603).

[741] “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nuremberg, 1565, p. 94.

[742] Sarcerius, “Etliche Predigten,” etc., Leipzig, 1551, Bl. C 2´.

[743] Strigel, “Ypomnemata 1,” LipsiÆ, 1565, p. 219.

[744] Sachse, “Acht Trostpredigten,” Leipzig, 1602, Bl. A 5´.

[745] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. On the Disputation held at Leipzig by Beyer, the ex-Augustinian, see vol. i, p. 316.

[746] G. Loesche, “Joh. Mathesius,” 1, Gotha, 1895, p. 223.

[747] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.

[748] “Fest-Chronika,” 2 Tl., Leipzig, 1602, Bl. 2´ (1 ed., 1591).

[749] G. Th. Strobel, “Neue BeytrÄge zur Literatur,” 1, Nuremberg, 1790, p. 97.

[750] Hondorf-Sturm, “Calendarium Sanctorum,” Leipzig, 1599, p. 338.

[751] L. Osiander, “Bauren-Postilla,” 4 Tl., TÜbingen, 1599, p. 188.

[752] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 365.

[753] Hocker-Hamelmann, “Der Teufel selbs,” 3 Tl., Ursel, 1568, p. 130.

[754] Celichius in a work on suicide: “NÜtzlicher und nothwendiger Bericht von den Leuten, so sich selbst aus Angst, Verzweiffelung oder andern Ursachen entleiben und hinrichten,” Magdeburg, 1578, Bl. A 2, S 5, R 5´.

[755] Helding, “Von der hailigisten Messe,” Ingolstadt, 1548, p. 7.

[756] “Postilla oder Auslegung der Sonntagsevangelien,” Nuremberg, 1565, p. 14.

[757] Selnecker, “TrÖstliche schÖne Spruch fÜr die engstigen Gewissen,” Leipzig, 1561, Preface.

[758] Georg Major (a Wittenberg Professor), “HomiliÆ in Evangelia dominicalia,” 1, WittenbergÆ, 1562, p. 38.—Johann Pomarius, preacher at Magdeburg: “People are growing so distressed and afflicted that they droop and languish,” etc., the Last Day is, however, “at the door.” “Postilla,” Bd. 1, Magdeburg, 1587, p. 6 f.

[759] Nikol. Kramer, “WÜrtzgÄrtlein der Seelen,” Frankfurt a. M., 1573, Bl. V., 3´. Still more emphatically the preacher Sigismund Suevus (“Trewe Warnung fÜr der leidigen Verzweiffelung,” GÖrlitz, 1572, p. A 3´): The devil raves and rages in these latter days like a mad dog and tries above all to make people despair.

[760] Christoph IrenÆus, preacher at Eisleben, “Prognosticon,” 1578, (s.l.), Bl. D d 3.

[761] Joh. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer,” etc., Bl. B 3´.

[762] Ruprecht Erythropilus, preacher at Hanover, “Weckglock,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1595, p. 181 f.

[763] Valerius Herberger, preacher at FraustÄdt, “Herzpostilla,” Bl. 1, Leipzig, 1614, p. 16 ff.

[764] Andreas Celichius, “Notwendige Erinnerung,” etc., Wittenberg, 1595, Bl. A 3 ff. He enumerates with terror thirty possessed persons in Mecklenburg alone, among whom, however, he probably includes many who were simply mad. “Here, in the immediate vicinity,” he says, “three preachers have lost their minds, and would even appear to be bodily possessed.” J. Moehsen (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in der Mark Brandenburg,” Berlin, 1781, p. 500) rightly remarked: “The plentiful writings and sermons on the devil’s power, ... on the portents of the Last Judgment, such as comets, meteors, bloody rain, etc., cost many their reason during the latter half of the 16th century.”

[765] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452: “‘Articulus fidei’ won’t go home, ‘ideo tot accidunt tristitiÆ’”

[766] “Extract oder Ausszug aus der Postill,” Magdeburg, 1584, p. 16 f.

[767] See N. Paulus, “Die Melancholie im 16 Jahrh.” (“Wiss. Beilage zur Germania,” 1897, No. 18), p. 137 ff.; on p. 140 he refers to G. Draudius, “Bibl. libr. germ.,” for the titles of many such works of consolation. For the above description we have made use of this rich article by Paulus and of his other one: “Der Selbstmord im 16. Jahrh.,” ibid., 1896, No. 1.

[768] “Eyne schÖne Artzney, dadurch der leidenden Christen Sorge und BetrÜbnus gelindert werden,” LÜbeck, 1555, p. 145.

[769] Op. cit., Bl. A 3´, R 5.

[770] “FÜnff fÜrnemliche Zeichen ... vor dem jÜngsten Tag,” Jena, 1554, Bl. B 4´.

[771] Op. cit., Magdeburg, 1584, p. 733.

[772] “VerthÄdigung deren, so sich diser Zeit ... in den Frid der rÖmischen Kirchen begeben,” Dillingen, 1574, p. 72 f.

[773] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 9, 76, 88.

[774] Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.

[775] Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.

[776] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 21.

[777] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418 f., in the sermons of 1528, recently published.

[778] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 154´; Kroker, “Mathesius’ Tischreden,” Einleitung, p. 70.

[779] Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. Euling, p. 40.

[780] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 572, n.

[781] May 13, 1543, “Briefe,” 5 (De Wette and Seidemann), p. 560.

[782] 1542, possibly Feb. or Nov. “Briefe,” 6, p. 302. Cp. the Rector’s exhortation to the students on Feb. 18, 1542, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 780 seq.

[783] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178.

[784] Published from notes taken at the time.

[785] “Historien,” p. 216.

[786] He says this to Pastor Bernard of DÖlen, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 272 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 140.

[787] “Werke,” ibid., p. 273.

[788] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 389.

[789] See above, vol. iii., p. 309.

[790] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 184: “PrÆdicator ascendat suggestum, aperiat os et desinat,” etc. See, ibid., No. 316a, also pp. 139 and 196.

[791] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 214.

[792] “Luthers SprichwÖrtersammlung,” ed. E. Thiele, Weimar, 1900, No. 483.

[793] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 113 seq.

[794] “Historien,” pp. 144, 148, 151, etc.

[795] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 31.

[796] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 265.

[797] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 82.

[798] The lack of religious instruction in the schools is confirmed by Falk, “Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu Mainz (1491-1518),” 1904, p. 17.

[799] “Historien,” 12 Predigt.

[800] To Margrave George of Brandenburg, Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[801] See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.

[802] Cp. O. Clemen, “Zeitschrift fÜr KG.,” 1909, p. 382.

[803] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352. Agricola had excused himself by saying he had not attacked Luther but Cruciger and RÖrer. Luther replied: “Catechismus, tabulÆ, confessio Augustana, etc., mea, non Crucigeri nec Roereri sunt.”

[804] See vol. vi., xxxv., 6, on his attitude to the taking of interest.

[805] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², pp. 89 ff., 105 ff.; 19², p. 243 ff. Cp. above, p. 142.

[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 437.

[807] Ibid., p. 641 ff., “Collections” is our amendment for “Lections.”

[808] Luther must have known that in Catholic worship the Divine Son is more honoured by the veneration of Mary than she herself. That adoration was paid to God alone and not to Mary he could see from the text of the prayers of the ancient Church. Luther, for instance, was acquainted with the Invitatories of the Office for the Feasts of Mary’s Nativity and Assumption, the first of which commences with the words: “Let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary,” and then at once adds: “Let us adore her Son Christ our Lord”; while the second sets Our Lord in the first place and says: “Come, let us adore the King of Kings Whose Virgin Mother was to-day assumed into Heaven.” Thus in the Liturgy which he himself had celebrated, the leading thought, that Christ was honoured in Mary, ran through the celebration of all her Feasts, from that of her entrance into this life to that of her exit. The Hymns to the Mother of God in Luther’s day concluded as they do now: “Jesu, to Thee be glory, Who wast born of a virgin,” etc. Any adoration of the Blessed Virgin as of a “goddess” was so alien to the people that it would have been rejected with indignation.

In the same way that the Invitatories just quoted expressly reserve adoration for the Divine Son, so the veneration of the Mother of God in the Church’s Offices is justified on exactly the same grounds as those which, according to Luther, result from the mystery of the Visitation and from the Magnificat. The Church has always extolled Mary simply in the spirit of the Magnificat.—Luther himself had published a printed exposition of the Magnificat in 1521. There he still speaks of the Blessed Virgin in the usual way (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 545 f.; Erl. ed., 45, p. 214 f.). At the commencement of the work he invokes her assistance with the words: “May the same tender Mother of God obtain for me the spirit to interpret her song usefully and practically ... that we may sing and chant this Magnificat eternally in the life to come. So help us God. Amen” (p. 546 = 214). In the same way, at the close, he expresses his hope that a right understanding of the Magnificat “may not only illumine and teach, but burn and live in body and soul; may Christ grant us this by the intercession and assistance of His dear Mother Mary. Amen” (p. 601 = 287). Thus he was then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint, and declared it to be one of “the abuses of Antichrist.” (See KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370 ff.)—Luther wrote his exposition of the Magnificat in the spirit which must inspire every theologian who studies the canticle, and which had been even stronger in him during his Catholic period. At the same time he obviously wished to work upon the wavering and cautious Court of the Elector, and for this reason dedicated this work, which, though peaceful in tone, contained hidden errors, to Prince Johann Frederick in a submissive letter. It should be noted that Luther wrote this dedication soon after receiving his summons to Worms. It is dated March 10, 1521 (ibid., p. 545=212. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 109).

[809] He admitted this belief handed down in the Catholic Schools, though not proclaimed a dogma till much later, in the sermon he preached in 1527 “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of God”: “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 58). The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear. (Cp. N. Paulus, “Lit. Beil. der KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 41.) In a work of 1521 he says: Mary not only kept God’s commandments perfectly but also “received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we believe” (“Rationis LatomianÆ confutatio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8. p. 56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 416). As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

[810] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 64-302; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.

[811] Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.

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

[813] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505 seq.

[814] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 145 f.

[815] Ibid., p. 192 ff.

[816] Ibid., pp. 148-200.

[817] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 1 f.; 12², p. 408.

[818] DÖllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 58; “KL.,” 8², col. 343.

[819] “Cod. germ. Monacensis,” 4842, Bl. 1, 2´.

[820] “Gesch. Luthers,” German edition, Mayence, 1836, p. 463 f.

[821] E. Gutjahr, “Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache”; “Studien zur deutschen Rechts- und Sprachgesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1906.

[822] “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 3, p. 238.

[823] “Leichenrede” of Feb. 19, 1546, commencement; “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.

[824] “Wellers Deutsche Schriften,” Tl. 3, p. 215. Before this Weller remarks: “For he was equal to the greatest prophets and Apostles in spirit, strength, wisdom, ability and experience.” He attributes to him “a prophetical spirit, notable strength, generosity and a power of faith such as we read existed in the prophet Elias....” Great persecutions and temptations had been his masters and teachers; they it was who had taught him the art of speaking.

[825] Above, p. 210.

[826] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 27, 37.

[827] On the inner connection between his own teaching and Antinomianism and on his controversy with Agricola, see vol. v., xxix., 2 and 3.

[828] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 504.

[829] See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.

[830] E. Thiele, “Luthers SprichwÖrtersamml.,” Weimar, 1900.

[831] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 346.

[832] “Briefe an Stephan Roth,” ed. Buchwald (“Archiv des deutschen Buchhandels,” 16, 1893), p. 37; KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.

[833] L. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volkes,” Bonn, 1903, p. 125.

[834] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10.

[835] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 176; Erl. ed., 27, p. 367.

[836] Cp. vol. i., pp. 290 ff., 379 ff., 384 f.; vol. ii., p. 59 ff.

[837] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 251; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 23; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; 46, p. 123.

[838] “An den Rat zu NÜrnberg, Gutachten Luthers und Melanchthons” (April 18, 1533); “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 8 (“Briefwechsel” 9, p. 292).

[839] KÖstlin, ibid., p. 252 f.

[840] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 17 f.

[841] KÖstlin, ibid., p. 249.

[842] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 107 ff.; 46, p. 292; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 136. See also KÖstlin, ibid., p. 250. Absolution may also be sent by one far away, as Luther wrote to Spalatin: “Audi et crede iis quÆ Christus per me tibi loquitur. Neque enim erro, quod scio, aut satanica loquor. Christus loquitur per me et iubet, ut fratri tuo in communi fide in eum credas. Ipse absolvit te ab hoc peccato et omnibus.” Aug. 24, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.

[843] Ibid., 44, p. 109.

[844] At Nuremberg Osiander had opposed the general absolution, and then, in spite of a memorandum from Wittenberg to the contrary (above, p. 349, n. 3), persisted in his opposition so that the magistrates made another application to Wittenberg on Sep. 27 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 337) and again got a similar reply (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 27; “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 343). In the new “memorandum” it was also stated that the public and the private absolution were real absolutions; but Osiander was not to be compelled to give the general absolution.

[845] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 398. Form of Absolution dated Feb. 15, 1540, for the Nurembergers. The editor remarks: “The questionable point in this form, viz. that the Absolution was attached to an eventuality (‘should God to-day or to-morrow call one of you from this vale of tears’), and might thus be regarded as valid only in this event, can merely be hinted at here.”

[846] These words were added by Luther in 1538 to his “Unterricht der Visitatorn” (1528); “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; KÖstlin, ibid., p. 251.

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

[848] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 251).

[849] P. 565 ff.=381 ff.

[850] P. 567 f.=383, 385.

[851] P. 569=386.

[852] P. 569=385.

[853] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 133 f.

[854] Ibid., Erl. ed., 23, p. 87 ff.

[855] “Drei BeichtbÜchlein nach den Zehngeboten aus der FrÜhzeit der Buchdruckerkunst,” MÜnster, 1907 (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 2).

[856] F. W. Battenberg, “BeichtbÜchlein des Mag. Wolff,” Giessen, 1907, pp. 189, 205.

[857] Falk, ibid., p. 13. Falk also quotes (p. 14) a noteworthy observation of Luthmer’s (“Zeitschr. fÜr christl. Kunst,” 9, p. 5): “The close of the 15th century was the time when the Decalogue, as the starting-point for Confession, was most frequently commentated, described and depicted pictorially. For those unable to read, tables with the Commandments luridly pictured hung in the churches, schools and religious institutions, and the books on this subject were abundantly illustrated with woodcuts.”

[858] “Die Reue in den deutschen Beichtschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” in “Zeitschr. fÜr kath. Theol.,” 28, 1904, pp. 1-36. “In den deutschen Erbauungsschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” ibid., pp. 440-485. “In den deutschen SterbebÜchlein des ausgehenden MA.,” ibid., pp. 682-698.—Cp. also, Luzian Pfleger, “Die Reue in der deutschen Dichtung des MA.” (“Wiss. Beil. zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 45-47).

[859] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 566, 568 f.; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 382, 385.

[860] Cp. on the abuses of the Penitentiary and for an elucidation of certain misunderstandings, E. GÖller, “Die pÄpstl. PÖnitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis ... Pius V.,” 2 vols., Rome, 1907-1911.

[861] More on Luther and Hymnology in vol. v., xxxiv., 4.

[862] See Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 111, 150, 389: “egregias cantilenas post coenam cecinerunt.” He himself on one occasion sung “octavo tono,” ibid., p. 332; cp. p. 391.

[863] Cp., e.g., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 307; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 148 seq.

[864] See vol. ii., p. 171 f.

[865] The whole in KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 503.

[866] Grauert, “Heinrich Denifle,”² 1906, p. 7.

[867] “He possessed all the gifts which go to make an emotional man, as is apparent everywhere; depth, however, and true inwardness were not his.” A. M. Weiss, “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 223. What he says of Luther’s “depth” must be read in the light of what is said in the text above.

[868] See vol. v., xxxi., 5.

[869] Above, p. 244.

[870] Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701. Further details on Luther’s prayers below, p. 274 ff.

[871] The account by CochlÆus, taken from a special print of 1540 “of which sufficient account has hardly been made,” in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 174 ff. New edition of the “Colloqium CochlÆi,” by J. Greving, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” 4, Hft. 3, Leipzig, 1910.

[872] So Jonas declares in his funeral address on Luther. “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.

[873] Ibid.

[874] In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.

[875] “Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo, perchÈ portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”

[876] 6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24) calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.” Ibid., p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,” which he is ready to prize.

[877] “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.

[878] Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung” (a reply to Denifle), 1904.

[879] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.

[880] Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.

[881] Cp. H. BÖhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.

[882] There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was objectionable—the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no exception to the rule—without sufficiently discriminating between what was true and what was false (B. Duhr, S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den LÄndern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general encyclopÆdias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some examples, H. BrÜck (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.” J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J. A. MÖhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law than his own will.” J. v. DÖllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language. His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole Protestant world.”

[883] For the collections of the Table-Talk see vol. iii., p. 218 ff.

[884] See vol. iii., p. 223.

[885] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311.

[886] Cp. the emotion which accompanied another fine utterance spoken “ex pleno et accenso corde” (Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 23). There Luther was speaking of the profundity of the Word of God and of reliance on His Promises. See also below, p. 265.

[887] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 309.

[888] Ibid., p. 311, with the heading “PapÆ tyrannis.”

[889] Ibid., p. 310.

[890] Ibid., pp. 310-322.

[891] In his “Sabbata,” ed. GÖtzinger in the St. Gallen “Mitteilungen zur vaterlÄnd. Gesch.,” 1869; new edition, St. Gallen, 1902, p. 76 ff.

[892] Burrer’s letter, in Baum, “Capito,” 1860, p. 83.

[893] “Historien,” p. 147.

[894] Cp. ibid., pp. 142, 143.

[895] Ibid., p. 153´.

[896] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.

[897] In F. S. Keil, “Luthers LebensumstÄnde,” 1, 1764, p. 2. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 243 f.

[898] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 442. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 322.

[899] “Vita Lutheri,” in “VitÆ quattuor reformatorum,” p. 14.

[900] See our remarks above, p. 112 ff., on the way he came to believe in the truth of the falsehoods he so often repeated and even to convince his pupils of it too.

[901] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.

[902] Jos. Hundhausen, “Kirche oder Protestantismus,” a Catholic work, Mayence, 1883, p. 225.

[903] In a sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 408 f.

[904] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.

[905] See vol. ii., p. 133.

[906] To Amsdorf, Feb. 6 and 12, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, pp. 432, 434.

[907] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.,” 8², col. 339.

[908] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.

[909] To Anton Unruhe, Judge at Torgau, June 13, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 205 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 371).

[910] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 323 ff.; Erl. ed., 317 ff. N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 133, 1904, p. 201) also points out the “Courage which Luther showed in the time of the plague,” also his “liberality, his cheerful, sociable ways, how easily he was contented and how tirelessly he laboured.” George Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 6) recognises, amongst many other good qualities, the courage he showed during the plague.

[911] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 285.

[912] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.

[913] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 31.

[914] To Justus Jonas, April 19, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 87.

[915] To Nicholas Hausmann, Aug. 20, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 77.

[916] Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 254.

[917] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 26. It may be remarked incidentally that possibly Luther was not aware, that, not long before, the people of Wittenberg, though no longer Catholic, had been shocked at his eating meat on fast days. In 1523 the people, who still kept the old custom of the Church, as a traveller remarks, were disposed to regard the overflow of the Elbe as Heaven’s judgment on Luther’s and his preachers’ laxity in the matter. See the account of Bishop Dantiscus, of Ermeland, who visited Wittenberg in that year, in Hipler, “Kopernikus und Luther,” Braunsberg, 1868, p. 72: “I heard from the country people on my way much abuse and many execrations of Luther and his co-religionists,” etc.

[918] Letter of Dec. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” p. 702.

[919] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 94.

[920] “Einfeltige Weise zu beten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 215 ff.

[921] Pp. 217, 221 f. The booklet was dedicated to Master Peter Balbier. This master, after having stabbed in anger a foot-soldier, was sentenced to death. Luther’s intercession procured the commutation of the sentence into one of banishment.

[922] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 6, “Tischreden.” The whole section in question, “Tischreden vom Gebete,” really belongs here.

[923] Ibid., p. 28.

[924] Cp. ibid., p. 24, and above, vol. iii., p. 437.

[925] Dietrich to Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 159. Cp. vol. iii., p. 162, his prayer for F. Myconius who was sick, which concludes: “My will be done. Amen.”

[926] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 315.

[927] Ibid.

[928] For more on this subject see vol. v., xxxii., 5. We see this even in his prayers at the Wartburg.

[929] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 130 f. In the second edition the closing chapter containing these passages is omitted. The comparison with Calvin made by BÖhmer in this same chapter on Luther’s talent for organisation, is also worthy of notice. “At that time Luther hardly had his equal as pastor, preacher and writer, but, unlike Calvin, he was no born organiser or church-founder. Hence, as soon as he was confronted with the great problem how to organise the evangelical movement now becoming more and more powerful, he ceased to be the one leader and commander of the Reformation. It is true he always remained the supreme authority to his own followers; he reigned indeed, but did not govern; he no longer inspired, instructed or guided his fellow-workers individually. In this respect, also, Calvin was his exact opposite. His position at the outset was incomparably more humble than that of Luther. Yet his reputation grew constantly, till Church and State in Geneva unhesitatingly obeyed him, whilst his sphere of action went on extending till his very death, till finally it embraced the greater part of Western Europe” (p. 131 f.). “Down to the year 1689, nay, down to the 19th century, the nations of the West were still engaged in the solution of the political problems with which Luther’s reform had confronted them. For these Luther himself had but slight comprehension. If anything, he rendered their solution more difficult. He, however, took more interest in the legal reforms which had become necessary in consequence of his undertaking” (p. 136).

[930] “Luther’s domestic life displays, as a whole, a not unpleasant picture, and its description would form the kindliest portion of a life which really does not offer much that is pleasing.” Thus Georg Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 1.

[931] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2 f.

[932] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 487.

[933] Letters of Jan. 25 to Feb. 14, 1546, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 149, 151-154.

[934] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 314: “Fax domestica.” The cause of Caspar Beier, the clandestinely married student, with regard to which she fanned the flames of Luther’s anger, was, according to Cruciger, “none of the best,” KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 571, n. 1, and p. 569 f.

[935] To Bernard v. DÖlen, Aug. 31, 1538, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 398.

[936] “Opp.,” Lovanii, 1566, f. 116´.

[937] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 316.

[938] Cp. Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den JÜden” (“N. Stud. zur Gesch. der Theol. und Kirche,” 10), 1911.

[939] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 135.

[940] Ibid., p. 177 f.

[941] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298.

[942] Ibid.

[943] Ibid., p. 242.

[944] Ibid., p. 244 f.

[945] Ibid., p. 244 f.

[946] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261. Cp. vol., iii., p. 289 f.

[947] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 271; Erl. ed., 27, p. 206.

[948] Ibid., Erl. ed., 65, p. 79.

[949] See vol. ii., p. 280.

[950] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 196.

[951] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 137.

[952] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 306; Erl. ed., 40, p. 250 f.

[953] To Caspar MÜller, March 18, 1535; “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[954] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. See above, vol. iii., 93 f.

[955] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 56 f.

[956] Ibid., p. 86.

[957] Ibid., 25¹, p. 192.

[958] Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 676; Erl. ed., 27, p. 292.

[959] Ibid., 6, p. 302=27, p. 110.

[960] Ibid., 26, p. 351=30, p. 224.

[961] Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, p. 404.

[962] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469.

[963] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 289 seq. The date, Dec. 4, 1538, must be taken for what it is worth.

[964] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 14.

[965] Ibid., p. 8 f.

[966] On Invocavit Sunday, KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 471.

[967] See vol. ii., pp. 297, 305 ff.

[968] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.

[969] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 265 = 86.

[970] Ibid., p. 267 f. = 89.

[971] Ibid., p. 268 = 90.

[972] Ibid., p. 270 = 92 f.

[973] E. Brandenburg (“Schriften des Vereins fÜr RG.,” No. 70, Halle, 1901), p. 21.

[974] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 265.

[975] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139 f.

[976] Ibid.

[977] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 504 f.; 6, p. 319 ff.; “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 84. The “printed Mandate” was affixed to the church door. Cp. E. Michael (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895), p. 455 ff.

[978] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette & Seidemann, 6, p. 320 ff.

[979] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179, Aug., 1540.

[980] Ibid., p. 180.

[981] Ibid., p. 171. Still more strongly against the Franciscans on p. 180.

[982] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 222.

[983] Ibid., p. 226 f.

[984] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 301.

[985] Ibid., p. 292 f. Letter of Oct. 10, 1540. De Wette, 5, p. 308, also has 80,000 ducats. In the passage that follows Luther speaks of 18,000 crowns.

[986] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 213.

[987] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 762; Erl. ed., 36, p. 410. See below, p. 304.

[988] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 171.

[989] P. 64.

[990] P. 25.

[991] P. 149.

[992] P. 64.

[993] P. 30.

[994] P. 163.

[995] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 439, “Tischreden.”

[996] Ibid.

[997] Ibid., p. 441, and Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 100.

[998] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, p. 5.

[999] P. 2.

[1000] P. 3.

[1001] P. 7.

[1002] P. 9.

[1003] P. 9.

[1004] P. 10.

[1005] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391, “Tischreden.”

[1006] Ibid., 60, p. 227 f., in chapter xxvii. of the Table-Talk.

[1007] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 68.

[1008] Ibid., 57, p. 80.

[1009] Ibid., 60, p. 206.

[1010] Ibid., p. 183.

[1011] Ibid., p. 214.

[1012] Ibid., 62, p. 222.

[1013] Ibid., 60, p. 180.

[1014] Ibid., p. 195.

[1015] P. 305.

[1016] Ibid., p. 200.

[1017] Ibid., 61, p. 149.

[1018] Ibid., 57, p. 206.

[1019] Ibid., 60, p. 255.

[1020] Ibid.

[1021] Ibid., p. 185.

[1022] Ibid., p. 291.

[1023] Ibid., 57, p. 367 f.

[1024] Ibid., 60, p. 379, chapter xxvii.

[1025] Ibid., p. 184.

[1026] “Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers, 1535-1545,” ed. P. Drews, pp. 532-584. Cp. the Theses already published in Luther’s “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 442 seq.

[1027] They are thus summed up by Drews (p. 533).

[1028] Thesis 56: “Papa est illud monstrum, de quo Daniel dicit, quod adversatur omni Deo, etiam Deo deorum.”—Thesis 58: “Nostri Germani vocant Beerwolf, quod GrÆci, si forte notum illis fuisset, dixissent ???t??????” (i.e. “Bearwolf”).—Thesis 59: “Hoc animal lupus est quidem, sed a dÆmone arreptus, lacerat omnia et elabitur omnibus venabulis et armis.”—Thesis 60: “Ad quod opprimendum necessarius est concursus omnium pagorum,” etc.—Thesis 61: “Nec est hic expectanda iudicis sententia aut consilii auctoritas,” etc.—Thesis 66: “Ita si papa bellum moverit, resistendum est ei sicut monstro furioso et obsesso seu vere ???t?????.”—Thesis 68: “Nec curandum, si habeat militantes sibi principes, reges vel ipsos cÆsares, titulo ecclesiÆ incantatos.”

[1029] Drews, p. 544.

[1030] Ibid., p. 549. Given in Luther’s German Works, Jena ed., 7, p. 285, and Halle ed. (Walch), 19, p. 2438 f.

[1031] Ibid., p. 552.

[1032] Ibid., p. 559, Jena ed., 285´, Walch, p. 2440.

[1033] Ibid., p. 566.

[1034] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127.

[1035] Ibid.

[1036] Ibid. See above, p. 208. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 111: “Quando frigeo in corde ... oppono contra me impietatem papÆ,” etc.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 107 f.; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.

[1037] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 74.

[1038] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 180.

[1039] Ibid., p. 177 f.

[1040] Ibid., Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.

[1041] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.

[1042] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 286; Erl. ed., 25², p. 16.

[1043] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.

[1044] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 269.

[1045] Ibid., p. 307.

[1046] Ibid., p. 249; cp. p. 115.

[1047] See vol. ii., p. 153.

[1048] Letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14, 1518, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 4 (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 249).

[1049] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 206. Cp. what he says of Duke George, above, p. 190.

[1050] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 295.

[1051] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 274. On Brand of Berne cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, pp. 16-45; on p. 29 f. there is a remark of Luther’s on the “poor smoking ‘brand’ which escaped the fire of Berne,” rightly taken by Paulus to apply to Mensing (Seckendorf, Walch, De Wette and Enders were of a different opinion).—J. Koss, the Leipzig preacher, is again described by Luther in a letter to N. Hausmann (Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260) as a “preacher of blasphemy.”

[1052] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 158. Under the heading “Mortes persecutorum,” the list commences with the words: “Pauci prÆsentia Dei miracula observant.” It contains the names of Richard von Greifenklau, Archbishop of Troves, Ernest Count of Mansfeld, Count Wartenberg, Dr. Matthias Henning, son of Henning the lawyer, CÆsar Pflug, Chancellor of Treves, and, besides, a Catholic preacher at Leipzig, a minister who had fallen away from Lutheranism at Kunewalde, a monk who was alleged to have spoken against the Apostle Paul, and a Silesian Doctor of Divinity. Then followed various additions. Cp. N. Paulus, “Luther Über das schlimme Ende seiner Gegner” (“Katholik,” 1899, 2, pp. 490-505).

[1053] Letter to Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260.

[1054] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 289.

[1055] All of the above expressions are taken from the first pages of “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526).

[1056] Ibid., 28, p. 868=36, p. 410.—For the tone of Luther’s polemics against his theological opponents among both the Catholics and the Protestants, cp. vol. ii., p. 153 f., where the opinions of contemporaries, and friends of Luther’s immediate circle are given. For further criticisms of Catholic contemporaries see below, p. 251 ff., also vol. v., xxxiii., on the extreme tension of Luther’s polemics against Popery towards the end of his life.

[1057] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 83 ff.

[1058] Cp. below, p. 320, n. 15, and p. 323, n. 2.

[1059] Letter written soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.

[1060] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 277 ff., on the Epistle James i. 16-21, on the 4th Sunday after Easter.

[1061] Ibid., p. 286.

[1062] P. 282.

[1063] P. 288.

[1064] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115 f.

[1065] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 166, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.”

[1066] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 167.

[1067] Ibid., p. 169.

[1068] See vol. iii., p. 379 f.

[1069] Letter of Nov. 5, 1525, to Gregory Casel, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 263 ff.

[1070] “Summa, utros oportet esse SathanÆ ministros, vel ipsos, vel nos.”

[1071] To the Strasburg preachers, Nov. 5, 1525: “Christum a nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari, at huius negationis iam traducit nos Zwinglius.” Ibid., p. 262.

[1072] “Hist. des variations des Églises protestantes,” Paris, 1702, 1, p. 69.

[1073] “Iudicium de controversiis theol. inter Luther. et Ref.,” 1650, c. 53.

[1074] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411.

[1075] To Caspar MÜller, Chancellor at Mansfeld, Jan. 19, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 119 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 290).

[1076] To the preacher, Balthasar Rhaide, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288. Cp. p. 293: “Vides, quantas illi nobis faciant turbas, qui a nobis exierunt,” and before this: “Spero, quod non discedes a forma doctrinÆ quam hic hausisti.”

[1077] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 129; “Tischreden,” DÖllinger. “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251, erroneously quotes the passage as being in Walch: it does, however, occur in FÖrstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 136 f. The commencement is remarkable: “At times I consider the Pope and say: What after all is the Pope that I should honour him, even though you [the devil] magnify him? See what an abomination he has wrought and works even to-day! Before myself I set Christ and the forgiveness of sins, but under Satan’s nose I put the abominations of the Pope. The abomination and the horror is so great that I am encouraged and am quite ready to allow that,” etc.

[1078] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251.

[1079] To Spalatin, soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.

[1080] July 31, 1530, ibid., 8, p. 157.

[1081] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261; Erl. ed., 65, p. 25; “Widder den Radschlag,” etc., 1526.

[1082] Aug. 19, 1520, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 463.

[1083] April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 342: “Miror, quid mihi acciderit, ut tam moderatus fuerim.”

[1084] Ibid., p. 341: “Certum est ipsum [Christum] pedetentim descendere de throno ad iudicium illud exspectatissimum; multa sunt nimis signa, quÆ id mihi persuadent.”

[1085] DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 266, from the notes of one of his table-companions: Cod. Manh., 355. Coll. Camerar. v. (Ms. Bibl. Monac.), fol. 148 a.

[1086] Cp. vol. iii., 148 f. See also “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ed. C. A. H. Burkhardt, 1866, p. 357.

[1087] Cp. our vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.

[1088] To Spalatin, July 26, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 435.

[1089] Aug. 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 349 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447). Cp. the letter to Spalatin of Nov. 11, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 246 f.

[1090] Cp. letters of Nov. 11, 1517, and Feb., 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126, and 2, p. 345.

[1091] April 13, 1531, in Seidemann, “Beitr. zur RG.,” 1. p. 207; Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 389, n. 1.

[1092] April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 225 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).

[1093] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87, at the end of “Auff das vermeint Edict.”

[1094] Cp. ibid., p. 386=86 f.

[1095] Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 188; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 397, in “Contra Henricum regem AnqliÆ,” 1522.

[1096] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 27 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 3 ff. in “Auff des KÖnigs zu Engelland Lesterschrift,” 1527.

[1097] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 311; Erl. ed., 25[9], p. 38, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[1098] Ibid.

[1099] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.

[1100] Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 486; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.

[1101] Ibid., Erl. ed., 41, p. 17.

[1102] Ibid., Weim. ed., 16, p. 469; Erl. ed., 36, p. 81.

[1103] Ibid., Erl. ed., 38, p. 176.

[1104] Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 7; Erl. ed., 53, p. 46.

[1105] Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 404.

[1106] Ibid., p. 393.

[1107] Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 674; Erl. ed., 27, p. 290.

[1108] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 29.

[1109] Cp. ibid., 64, p. 324.

[1110] “Briefe,” 6, p. 373.

[1111] Ibid., 5, p. 622.

[1112] “Werke,” Weim. ed, 30, 2, p. 485; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.

[1113] Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 148.

[1114] Ibid., Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[1115] Ibid., 33, p. 673=48, p. 407.

[1116] Ibid., Erl. ed., 42, p. 67.

[1117] Ibid., Weim. ed., 19, p. 400; Erl. ed., 41, p. 30.

[1118] Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 296.

[1119] Ibid., 45, p. 153.

[1120] Ibid., 44, p. 257.

[1121] Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 495; Erl. ed., 31, p. 167.

[1122] Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 321.

[1123] Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, pp. 3, 335; Erl. ed., 25², p. 52.

[1124] Ibid., Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 562.

[1125] Ibid., 20², 1, p. 19.

[1126] Ibid., 25², p. 253.

[1127] Ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 429; Erl. ed., 30, p. 282.

[1128] “Briefe,” 6, p. 296.

[1129] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 43; Erl. ed., 29, p. 378.

[1130] Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 318.

[1131] Ibid., p. 316.

[1132] Ibid., Weim. ed., 33, p. 458; Erl. ed., 48, p. 222.

[1133] On June 30, 1530, to Johann Agricola, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 57.

[1134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 207.

[1135] Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 468; Erl. ed., 25², p. 125.

[1136] Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 216.

[1137] Ibid., p. 216 f.

[1138] Ibid., p. 205.

[1139] Calvin also suffered, though in a less degree, from this mania for invective; of him and of the excuse some have sought in the tone and habits of the age a recent French historian says: Even though such abuse was not entirely unparalleled, “yet it cannot but surprise and grieve us in the case of a religious reformer.” H. Lemonnier, “Histoire de France,” ed. E. Lavisse, 5, 2, 1904, p. 230, dealing with French Calvinism.

[1140] See our vol. ii., p. 153 ff.

[1141] In the reply “Auf das chmÄhbÜchlein,” usw., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 143, published under Arnold’s name.

[1142] Thus F. Polygranus, O.S.F., in his “Assertiones quorundam ecclesiÆ dogmatum,” printed at Cologne in 1571, Bl. 10: “insatiabilis maledicendi libido ... a seculis inauditÆ conviciorum voces.”

[1143] To Ulrich Zasius, Oct. 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel der BrÜder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 66.

[1144] Cp. “KL.,” 5², col. 1958 f.

[1145] “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” p. 514.

[1146] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57 f.; “KL.,” 8², p. 343.

[1147] “Wider das unchristenliche Buch M. Luthers,” ed. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” vol. i., 1889, p. 132.

[1148] “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557.

[1149] Ibid., col. 1155: “ista tam effrenis in omnes maledicentia,” etc.

[1150] “Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss der Dieneren an der Kilchen zu ZÜrych,” ZÜrych, 1545, Bl. 130 f.

[1151] Ibid., Bl. 10.

[1152] To Bucer, 1543, Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 2, p. 224. Another remark of Bullinger’s is given above, vol. iii., p. 417.

[1153] To Bullinger, 1543, Lenz, ibid., p. 226. Cp. what Bucer said, in our vol. ii., p. 155.

[1154] On May 19, 1545, Lenz, ibid., p. 343.

[1155] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 279, Table-Talk.

[1156] On Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 255, printed in the 2nd edition of the Psalter of Hessus of 1538.—The following remark of Luther’s on those who wanted to call themselves after him has also been quoted: “Fool that you are, just listen: First of all I beg people to leave my name out and to call themselves, not Lutherans, but Christians. What has Luther to do with it? The doctrine is not mine, nor was I ever crucified for anyone. St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. [4, 5], would not hear of Christians being called Pauline or Petrine, but simply Christians. How then should I, poor smelly sack of maggots that I am, suffer the children of Christ to be called by my unholy name? Hence, dear friend, let us do away with party names and be called after Christ, Whose teaching we follow. It is only right that the Papists should have a party name, because they are not content with Christ’s teaching and name, but insist on being Popish; let them then be the Pope’s, since he is their master. As for me, I neither am nor wish to be anyone’s master. I share with the congregation the teaching of Christ Who alone is our Master. Mt. xxiii. [8].” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55 f., “Vormanung sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr,” 1522. He blames those who, by their stupid zeal, “cause calumny and a falling away from the holy Evangel,” and “affright” the people and prevent their accepting it. Just then it was to his interest to represent his teaching as peaceable and his action as moderate. Cp. pp. 677, 682 f.=46, 51, 53.

[1157] We have chosen this somewhat unusual setting for the following collection of Luther’s sayings in order to prevent monotony. The texts, indeed, belong to various times, but there are periods in Luther’s history, for instance, about the time of the Diet of Augsburg, and in 1540 and 1541, when, within a short chronological space, he contrived to make a vast number of statements regarding his greatness; for this reason the above arrangement is not altogether untrue to the reality.

[1158] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2, and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422. Words taken from his Will of Jan. 6, 1542, by which he intended to show the lawyers (who questioned his power to make a valid Will on account of his marriage) that he was not bound by the formalities on which they insisted.

[1159] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 366; Erl. ed., 25², p. 75.

[1160] Ibid., p. 290=22.

[1161] Ibid., 10, 2, p. 105=28, p. 143.

[1162] Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.

[1163] “Briefe,” 5, p. 754.

[1164] Ibid., 1, p. 101.

[1165] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 70.

[1166] Ibid., p. 73.

[1167] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 442. See above, vol. iii., p. 165 f.

[1168] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520.

[1169] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.

[1170] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. See above, vol. iii., p. 165.

[1171] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 4.

[1172] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.

[1173] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716.

[1174] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2. p. 309 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 491; “Briefe,” 2, p. 238 (“Briefewechsel,” 3, p. 438).

[1175] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 151.

[1176] Ibid., p. 193.

[1177] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.

[1178] Ibid., 30, 2, p. 109 f.=31, p. 34 f. “Vom Kriege widder die TÜrcken,” 1529.

[1179] Ibid., 36, p. 447=18², p. 334. Sermon of 1532.

[1180] Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 178, Table-Talk.

[1181] Cp. vol. iii., p. 131 f., and above, p. 102.

[1182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184.

[1183] Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 422.

[1184] W. Walther, “FÜr Luther, wider Rom,” pp. 526-543.

[1185] Other Protestant writers are of a different opinion. Friedrich Paulsen says in his “Gesch. des Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 178: “It is certain that humility towards men, respect for human wisdom and human laws, did not enter into Luther’s make. He is altogether deficient in that humility towards the actual Church which is so characteristic of St. Augustine, Luther’s great predecessor in theology. The more Luther, during the course of his life, passes from the position of a mere heretic to that of head of a new Church, the more does that formula [My cause is God’s own] become tinged with bitterness, with obstinacy and with pride.”

[1186] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. “An die Radherrn,” etc., 1524.

[1187] Ibid., 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421. “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle,” 1530.

[1188] Ibid., p. 585 f.=420.

[1189] Ibid., 62, p. 443 f., Table-Talk.

[1190] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface to the edition of the Latin works (1545).

[1191] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.

[1192] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 445 f., Table-Talk (in Latin).

[1193] Ibid., 31, p. 389 f. “Ein Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” 1534.

[1194] Ibid., 63, pp. 271, 274, Table-Talk.

[1195] Preface to his Commentary on Galatians, Irmischer, 1, p. 9.

[1196] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.

[1197] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.

[1198] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 153.

[1199] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.

[1200] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403, Preface, 1539.

[1201] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 121.

[1202] Ibid., p. 41.

[1203] Ibid., from Veit Dietrich’s “Aufzeichnungen.”

[1204] Ibid., p. 9.

[1205] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.

[1206] To Ambros. Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der BrÜder Blaurer,” 1, p. 42 ff. R. Stintzing, “Ulr. Zasius,” 1857, p. 231, Cp. p. 371.

[1207] MÜnzer and Ickelsamer in our vol. ii., p. 377.

[1208] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 310 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 57. “Grund und Ursach aller Artickel,” 1521.

[1209] Ibid., p. 311=58.

[1210] Ibid.

[1211] Ibid., p. 313=59.

[1212] Ibid.

[1213] Ibid.

[1214] Ibid.

[1215] Ibid., p. 315=61.

[1216] Ibid., p. 317=61 f.

[1217] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 389 f.

[1218] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186.

[1219] “Briefe,” 6, p. 402.

[1220] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 94.

[1221] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 113.

[1222] “Briefe,” 5, p. 418 f.

[1223] Ibid., p. 743.

[1224] Ibid., p. 746.

[1225] Ibid., p. 750.

[1226] Ibid., p. 777.

[1227] To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51 f., during the Diet of Augsburg.

[1228] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.

[1229] “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, No. 10, col. 304. Harnack adds: “Towards God he remained humble; this humility was, however, couched in a language which must have affrighted the monkish devotees.”

[1230] “Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen,” with the sub-title: “Martin Luther, by God’s grace Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to the Popish Bishops my service and to them knowledge in Christ.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 ff. The book was partly written at the Wartburg (see Introd. in the Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 93 f.), and was published in 1522, probably in Aug.

[1231] Bossuet, “Hist. des variations,” Paris ed., 1702, 1, p. 26.

[1232] To Spalatin, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 232.

[1233] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 275.

[1234] Above, p. 58.

[1235] Above, p. 327.

[1236] P. 28. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (Khummer), p. 141; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.

[1237] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 346 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 90 and 427.

[1238] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f., in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1530.

[1239] Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus, Von des werthen Gottes Mannes Doctor Martin Luther 21 Predigten” (preached after 1562), Ursel, s. a. Bl. 12´.

[1240] Letter written after Oct. 24, 1545, “Briefe,” 6, p. 392.

[1241] “For we account a man to be justified by faith alone without the works of the law.” Cp. vol. v., xxxiv. 3.

[1242] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 635 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 107 (cp. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 249), in the “Sendbrieff von DolmetzscheÑ,” which is in fact no “letter” but a polemical treatise in the form of a letter, published by Wenceslaus Link in September, 1530, at Luther’s instance.

[1243] “Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 817.

[1244] Letter of Jan. 16, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17 f.

[1245] On his theology cp. the numerous instances given in Denifle, e.g., 1², pp. 467, 469, 657. P. 466: “He is always playing with grotesque ideas.” Cp. also, ibid., p. 454 f.

[1246] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 162.

[1247] “Briefe,” 6, p. 185 f., in the so-called “first Will.”

[1248] Jonas, in his panegyric on Luther.

[1249] Cp. e.g. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 83 and 126.

[1250] For proofs see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 89, n. 3. Cp. vol. ii., p. 162 f., vol. iii., p. 322 and above, p. 269.

[1251] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 650; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 512.

[1252] Schlaginhaufen, “Anfzeichnungen,” p. 31.

[1253] “Dicta memorabilia,” ColoniÆ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.

[1254] “Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).

[1255] “Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’” Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534), B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sÄchs. Gesch.,” 26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say, viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this legend.

[1256] Cp. above, p. 101.

[1257] Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12, from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “vel a malo dÆmonio agitari.”

[1258] In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534, “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “a sinistro quopiam agitari genio” (for the whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “Hyperaspistes” against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio” (c. 1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “Num hÆc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriÆ?” And before this: “Sed longe perniciosior est philautiÆ et odii temulentia quam vini” (c. 1546). “Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hÆc deliramenta inauspicatis illineret chartis” (c. 1545). “Ipsa febris non posset loqui febrilius” (c. 1546). “Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla” (c. 1547). “Hic nihil crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, MegÆras, aliasque voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; certe hÆc esse solent venturÆ insaniÆ prÆsagia” (c. 1542). “QuÆ cum scribit, videtur sibi mire de????; verum hÆc de???s?? sobriis videtur esse mera insania” (c. 1543). Martin may wish to make him out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him himself as mad (“citius lymphatum,” etc., c. 1557, first passage given above).—In the first book of his “Hyperaspistes” (ib.) he writes: “HÆc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non eras sobrius, quum scriberes” (c. 1281). “Totus enim hic sensus sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hÆc scripsisse” (c. 1367). “Si qui hÆc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem” (c. 1371). “Quis non videt hÆc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum, quum hÆc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiÆ” (c. 1394). “An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?” (c. 1411; in connection with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh). “Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia, sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur, quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit” (c. 1477). “Quam multa hic delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba” (c. 1472).—Luther’s contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“Replica,” s. l. et. a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus ClichtovÆus (“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same way.—All these statements, with those already given, are worth the consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their number gives them importance.

[1259] Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later more detailed explanation of the same incident.

[1260] “Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,” DresdÆ, 1529 (dedication).

[1261] “Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt., 1549), p. 1.

[1262] Ibid.

[1263] “Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” end. In Enders, “Luther und Emser,” 2, p. 25 f.

[1264] “Auss was Grund und Ursach Luthers Dolmetschung ... verbotten worden sey,” 1523. In “Zu Luthers Vorred zum RÖmerbrief,” Bl. 65´.

[1265] “Historia sui temporis,” ed. Aretin (“Beitr. zur Gesch. und Lit.,” 7, Munich, 1806, p. 535 ff.), p. 666: “Quam elata cervice tumidisque moribus expresserit prodideritque superbiam, ut sathanÆ veteris vel etiam prÆsentanei hospitis illius et prÆceptoris quÆdam in eo imago spectaretur.”

[1266] Ibid., p. 663.

[1267] “Dadelung,” p. 14.

[1268] Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” pp. 147, 143. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen Aleanders vom Wormser Reichstage”², 1897, p. 171.

[1269] “Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 1, p. 718 ff.

[1270] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 f.

[1271] Quoted by W. Walther, “FÜr Luther,” p. 213. Ibid., 214, from Dietenberger’s work against Luther’s doctrine of auricular Confession: To speak and teach as Luther did was to have “a compact and alliance with the poison of the devil and with eternal death.” Ibid., similar statements from Emser and others.

[1272] O. Kronseder, “Christophorus Hoffmann,” 1898, p. 57, with reference to Cod. Monac. lat. 14626, p. 326.

[1273] Cod. Monac. germ., 4842, Bl. 2. Cp. above, p. 242.

[1274] Ed. Reithmeier, p. 2, 165.

[1275] N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 63.—What the Catholics thought will be better understood when we remember that even H. Bullinger, in his “History of the Reformation” (ed. Hottinger and Voegeli, 2, Frauenfeld, 1838, p. 239), says of Luther’s “Kurtz Bekentnis” of 1544: “Although he had previously written much that was illogical, insulting and even blasphemous, yet he outdoes himself in the shameful, wanton and offensive words he uses in this booklet. He bursts for very devils ... and acts like a man possessed.”

[1276] “KG.,” ed. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 105 f.

[1277] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188.

[1278] Ed. Friedensburg (“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,” 1533-1559, vol. i.), p. 541, report on Nov. 13, 1535.

[1279] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.

[1280] “Melanchthoniana,” ed. O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.; see also above, vol. i., p. 279, n. 2.) According to Erasmus Alber, a personal acquaintance, friend and admirer of Luther’s, the latter had a “fine, open and brave countenance and hawk’s eyes.” Cp. Alber, “Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter,” Bl. f. 3 ff.; see KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.

[1281] “Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 2, p. 632: “en los ojos no ben seÑalado.”

[1282] According to Myconius, “Historia Reformationis,” p. 30 sq. (written after 1541). Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 97: “Cardinalis AugustÆ dixit de me: iste frater habet profundos oculos, ideo et mirabiles phantasias in capite habet.”

[1283] Pollich’s remark (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 154, from Rebenstock) has been characterised quite wrongly by O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 2, 1878, p. 627) as spurious and a late interpollation. As a matter of fact it had merely been excluded from the Table-Talk by Aurifaber; see Seidemann in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, 1879, p. 305. Cp. vol. i., p. 86, n. 5.

[1284] Above, vol. i., p. 86.

[1285] Letter of Aug. 8, 1523, in Hipler, “Nikolaus Kopernikus und Luther,” 1868, p. 73. HÖfler, “Adrian VI,” p. 320, n. 2, quotes a remark of Dantiscus on Luther: “affirmans eum esse dÆmoniacum.” Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2¹⁸, p. 194, n. 3.

[1286] “Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.

[1287] He refers simply to what he knew from some of Luther’s intimate friends “concerning his birth and past life up to the time of his becoming a monk.”

[1288] In his Exposition of the Ten Commandments, published in 1518 and frequently reprinted during his lifetime, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 407; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 18: “Among the devils there are ‘incubi’ and ‘succubi,’ of which I shall speak more fully immediately,” which he then proceeds to do. The children are, according to him, abortions. According to a statement in the Table-Talk, however, they were “devils with bodies like the mother’s,” or stolen children, or changelings, like one he wished to have drowned because the devil constituted the soul in its body (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6O, pp. 37-42). In his exposition of Genesis (cap. vi.) Luther admits the existence and activity of the said “incubi.” He declares he had heard from many persons credible instances and had himself met with such (!), and even appeals to St. Augustine (“Hoc negare impudentiÆ videtur,” “De civ. Dei,” 15, c. 23); he remarks, however, that it was altogether false to believe that “anything could be born of a union of devil and man”; on the contrary, those taken for the devil’s offspring, some of whom he had seen, had either been distorted by the devil though not actually begotten by him, or were real devils who had either assumed flesh in appearance or borrowed it elsewhere with the devil’s help. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 127. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” Freiburg, 1910, p. 35 f.

[1289] “Commentaria,” p. 2: “sive ex occulto aliquo cum dÆmone commercio.”

[1290] The writing in question, “Ein Maulstreich,” etc., is not by CochlÆus but by Paul Bachmann. See above, p. 352, n. 3.

[1291] Paulus (p. 356, n. 3), p. 63 f., from Sylvius, “Zwei neugedruckte BÜchlein,” 1533, p. 3´, and “Die letzten zwei BÜchlein,” 1534. Cp. also his work of 1531, “Ein besonder nÜtzliches ... BÜchlein.”

[1292] Friedensburg (above, p. 356, n. 6), p. 554.

[1293] Letter to Bartholomew Golsibius, in Weller, “Altes aus allen Theilen der Gesch.,” 1, p. 178. DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 133.

[1294] Letter to Nicholas Œcander; Weller, ibid., 2, p. 780 f.; DÖllinger, ibid., 135.

[1295] “EpistolÆ,” ed. Riegger, UlmÆ, 1774, p. 72. DÖllinger, ibid., p. 178.

[1296] R. Stintzing, “Ulrich Zasius,” Basle, 1857, p. 230, from the letter of Zasius to Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521. “Briefwechsel der BrÜder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.

[1297] Stintzing, ibid.

[1298] Ibid., p. 97. DÖllinger, ibid., p. 179.

[1299] On March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[1300] “Retectio,” Hb seq. DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 57 f.

[1301] Ibid., G 2b: “cepit omnium animos mirus pavor,” etc. DÖllinger, ibid., p. 61.

[1302] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.

[1303] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159.

[1304] Ibid., p. 161 f.

[1305] Ibid., p. 147.

[1306] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.

[1307] See A. RÄss, “Die Convertiten seit der Reformation,” 1, 1866, where the “Apologia” is reprinted, p. 184. Cp. Wicel’s remarks above, p. 165 f.

[1308] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 117; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 420 f.

[1309] “Werke,” ibid.

[1310] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.

[1311] On Feb. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.

[1312] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 342.

[1313] Ibid.

[1314] “PrÆcipuÆ constitutiones Caroli M.,” etc., Ingolst., 1545, prÆf. f. A 3a, A 8a; DÖllinger, ibid., 1, p. 160.

[1315] “Comment.,” p. 1.

[1316] Ibid., p. 56.

[1317] N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (3. “Vereinsschr. der GÖrres-Ges.,” 1893), p. 15.

[1318] Ibid.

[1319] Ibid., p. 34.

[1320] Ibid., p. 35.

[1321] Ibid., p. 40.

[1322] Ibid., p. 13 f.

[1323] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 450-455; Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 152 f.

[1324] Janssen, ibid., p. 264 f.

[1325] Ibid., p. 264 f. Passages taken from Luther’s writing, “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 282 ff.

[1326] On May 29, 1545. Janssen, ibid., p. 286 f.

[1327] Hortleder, “Von RechtmÄssigkeit usw. Karls V.,” 1645, p. 486 ff. Janssen, ibid., p. 288.

[1328] M. J. Schmidt, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 1, 1785, p. 23 f. Janssen, ibid.

[1329] See above, passim.

[1330] See, for instance, above, pp. 96 ff., 102 ff.

[1331] Vol. ii., p. 48.

[1332] “Transfiguratur coram te satanas ille in angelum lucis.” The text in Raynaldus, “Annales eccles.,” ann. 1522, n. 72.

[1333] At the end of the second series of Theses (“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., “Opp. lat var.,” 1, p. 312) occur the words, “bestia, quÆ montem tetigerit,” the sole quotation from that sort of biblical language mentioned above.

[1334] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.

[1335] LÖscher, “Reformationsacta,” 1, p. 484 ff.

[1336] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 380 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 10 ff.

[1337] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 345.

[1338] Ibid., p. 368.

[1339] Ibid., p. 370.

[1340] Ibid., p. 351.

[1341] Ibid., p. 365.

[1342] Ibid., 2, p. 1 seq.

[1343] Ibid., p. 68 seq.

[1344] Ibid., p. 81 seq.

[1345] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 50; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 68.

[1346] Ibid., 6, pp. 328-348=2, pp. 79-108. See the actual words in our vol. ii., p. 12 f. Cp. vol. i., p. 338 f., for the first interchange of amenities between the two champions.

[1347] In W. Walther, “FÜr Luther,” p. 215.

[1348] G. Kawerau (“Hieronymus Emser,” 1898, p. 2) remarks that it must be admitted of Emser, “that he was an honest curmudgeon, averse to all subterfuge and pretence, amazingly frank in his admissions concerning himself, and, in controversy, very rude. Only rarely do we see him departing from this frankness.”

[1349] “KL.,” 4², col. 483.

[1350] “Lutheri Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 410.

[1351] Ibid., p. 408, in the editor’s Introduction to the “Asterisks” and “Obelisks.”

[1352] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 281; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 411.

[1353] “Enchiridion,” Ingolst., 1556, f. 167, 167´. In the prefatory letter of dedication to Cardinal Farnese, Eck expresses himself in his usual manner against the ill-advised attempts of Catholics at mediation: “Hinc parum profecit conventus Ratisponensis (1541) in causa fidei et plurimorum fidelium exspectationem fefellit.”—In the matter of religious conferences and disputations Eck had ripe experience on his side. Though once very ready to accept a challenge to dispute, he nevertheless wrote later in the “Enchiridion” concerning controversies with heretics: “HÆretici non quÆrunt disputationem nisi multis malitiis involutam.... Fraudulenter obtendunt disputare non coram doctis et literatis ac in theologia exercitatis, sed coram indoctis, vulgaribus laicis”; the learned men at the Universities would otherwise have already tackled Luther. After mentioning the other disadvantages of the disputations he concludes: “Catholici ergo debent vitare disputationem cum huiusmodi” (ibid., p. 163 seq.).

[1354] The state of his Ingolstadt parish and Eck’s pastoral labours have recently been placed in a clear and favourable light by J. Greving in his “Johann Ecks Pfarrbuch,” 1908 (“RGl. Stud. und Texte,” Hft. 4-5).

[1355] See above, p. 258.

[1356] “Z. f. preuss. Gesch.,” 5, p. 481.

[1357] “Septiceps Lutherus, ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius, in visitationem Saxonicam editus,” DresdÆ, 1529; in part repeated in the “Commentaria,” 1549, F. 196 C.

[1358] Cp. ibid., F. III´ seq.: “Non ex Deo sed ex diabolo esse tantam in doctrina dissensionem.... Cucullatus draco iste noster,” etc.—M. Spahn, “Joh. CochlÄus,” Berlin, 1898.

[1359] N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1894, 2, p. 571 ff.

[1360] N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 78.

[1361] Ibid., p. 258.

[1362] Ibid., p. 315.

[1363] N. Paulus, “Schatzgeyer,” 1898; “Hoffmeister,” 1891; A. Postina, “Billick,” 1901.

[1364] J. Negwer, “Conrad Wimpina,” Breslau, 1909 (in “KGl. Abh.”)

[1365] Karl Goedeke, Introd. to his edition of Murner’s “NarrenbeschwÖrung,” Leipzig, 1879. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 333.

[1366] Goedeke, ibid.

[1367] “Memoriale B. Petri Faber,” ed. Marc. Bouix, Paris, 1873, pp. 378, 370.

[1368] Dan. Bartoli, “Opere,” 5, Torino, 1825, pp. 110, 116. Cp. B. Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten,” etc., 1, 1907, 3 ff. Not all the members of the Order to which Favre and Canisius belonged were faithful to Favre’s principles in the controversy against Luther and his teaching, particularly during the excited polemics of the 17th century. Many, at their own costs, disregarded those laws of urbanity which Bellarmine, for instance, ever respected in his controversial writings. Such was the case, for instance, with Conrad Vetter, † 1622 (K. A. J. AndreÆ).

[1369] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 404; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 247. He refers to Panormitanus, “De elect.,” c. Significasti.

[1370] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 18 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 385 seq.

[1371] Ibid., p. 288=p. 75.

[1372] Ibid., p. 303=p. 97 seq.: “Concilium aliquando errasse, prÆsertim in iis quÆ non sunt fidei.” Cp. the following: “conciliorum statuta in iis quÆ sunt fidei, sunt omnimodo amplectenda.”

[1373] Letter of Aug. 18, 1519, “Briefe,” 1, p. 315; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 19 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12). At Worms in 1521 he had declared in this same sense, that he would not submit, “nisi convictus fuero testimoniis scripturarum aut ratione evidente; nam neque papÆ neque conciliis solis credo, cum constet eos et errasse sÆpius et sibi ipsis contradixisse; victus sum scripturis a me adductis et capta conscientia in verbis Dei.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 883; cp. p. 853.—He writes emphatically in reply to King Henry VIII (see p. 391): “Ego vero adversus dicta patrum, hominum, angelorum, dÆmonum pono non antiquum usum, non multitudinem hominum, sed unius maiestatis ÆternÆ verbum, evangelium.... Dei verbum est super omnia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 214 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 437.

[1374] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.

[1375] Ibid., p. 425=p. 278.

[1376] Ibid., p. 324=p. 131.

[1377] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 359; Erl. ed., 16², p. 446.

[1378] Ibid., 11, p. 409=22, p. 143.

[1379] Ibid., 8, p. 484 f.=28, p. 32.

[1380] Ibid., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff.

[1381] In his “Com. in Ep. ad. Galatas,” 1, p. 104.

[1382] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 383 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 11.

[1383] Ibid., p. 385 = 13.

[1384] Ibid., 10, 2, p. 256 f.=28, p. 379 f.

[1385] Ibid., p. 90=340. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden,” 1522.

[1386] Ibid., p. 90=341. See below, Luther’s denial of the Augustinian “Non crederem evangelio,” etc.

[1387] Otto Scheel, “Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift,” TÜbingen, 1902 (“Sammlung gemeinverstÄndl. VortrÄge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol. und RG.,” No. 29), p. 38 (on p. 37 the last quotation is also given with an incorrect reference) and p. 41 f.

[1388] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 489; Erl. ed., 29, p. 334. “Sermon von dem Sacrament,” 1526.

[1389] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 565: “Quod est eius opus? Quod drive into the heart prÆdicationem Christi, qui non fails. Christ failed, quia multis prÆdicaverit et nihil effecit; Spiritus sanctus presses the word in cor.... Si etiam a hundred thousand verbum prÆdicatur, nihil facit; cum Spiritus sanctus hoc suum officium facit, tum it makes its way.”

[1390] Cp. above, vol. iii., pp. 12 ff., 398.

[1391] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 181; Erl. ed., 29, p. 260.

[1392] Ibid., p. 137=209 (“Widder die hymelischen Propheten”): “Do you see how the devil, the enemy of divine order, opens his mouth at you with the words, ‘spirit, spirit, spirit’?” etc.

[1393] Ibid., p. 180=258.

[1394] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 85.

[1395] Ibid., Weim. ed., 15, p. 42; Erl. ed., 22, p. 187. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands, das sie christliche Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen,” 1524.

[1396] Ibid., p. 39=184.

[1397] At the German Protestant Congress at Berlin in 1904, Dr. Max Fischer of Berlin appealed to the above writing of Luther’s as a proof that the latter had relinquished his idea of the Bible being in the hands of each individual the sole source of doctrine. “That this, as a foundation of all doctrine, is impossible in Protestantism,” he said, speaking from his standpoint, “has long been admitted, and we have simply to bear in mind how Protestant theology has come to examine freely, not only the contents of the Bible, but the Bible itself. Theology has no rights other than those enjoyed by any other branch of worldly learning.” In the sequel the writer declared himself against the Divinity of Christ and any set system of doctrine. According to him particular doctrines, even those of the Apostles’ Creed, were of no importance. “He has all the faith required who makes his faith for himself.” (See the report of the discourse in the “KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 834.) We may compare this principle with Luther’s own on freedom. The same principles were recently invoked in the case of the Protestant Pastor Jatho of Cologne, when he was charged with being an unbeliever. On his dismissal from office his friends declared that “a chain had been riveted on free and unbiassed research in Prussian Protestantism, and that the official representatives of Protestantism had banned that spirit of personal Christianity which once had impelled Luther to nail up his Theses to the door of the Castle-church at Wittenberg.” (“KÖln. Ztng.,” 1911, No. 712; cp. “KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 545.) During the trial Jatho, too, had appealed to his “inward experience” and personal knowledge. (“KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 592.)

[1398] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 236; Erl. ed., 39, p. 133.

[1399] Ibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 606=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 124. “De servo arbitrio.”

[1400] Ibid., 7, p. 317=24, p. 58.

[1401] Ibid., 7, p. 97=“Opp. lat. var,” 5, p. 161.

[1402] Ibid., Erl. ed., 57, p. 16, Table-Talk.

[1403] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 75; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.

[1404] Ibid.

[1405] Sermon of Aug. 2, 1528. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 287.

[1406] On Dec. 23, 1526, he said in his afternoon sermon, speaking of the sermon that morning: “Hodie dixi, biblia esse hÆresium librum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 624. And as a matter of fact the notes contain the passage, ibid., 20, p. 588.

[1407] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 362.

[1408] Ibid., p. 360.

[1409] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 144.

[1410] “With reference to this Luther declares (‘De servo arbitrio’): In the words of Scripture which lie open to us and all the world, no one, owing to the darkening of the mind, is able to discern the smallest iota so long as he has not the Spirit of God; no one possesses the inner sense or the true knowledge requisite—‘nihil horum sentiunt aut vere cognoscunt’—no one believes that God exists and that he is His creature. For him the ‘iudicium interius,’ in the Christian who has attained to the true light and his salvation through the Spirit of God, consists in being able to test with certainty all doctrines and beliefs (1 Cor. ii. 15). This individual judgment is essential for every Christian and for his faith; it does not, however, profit others: For them the ‘exterius iudicium’ is intended, which is exercised by the preacher of the Word.” KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 380.

[1411] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 145; Erl. ed., 47, p. 353. From Notes of the Sermon published in 1564.

[1412] Ibid., p. 161=367; cp. p. 165=371.

[1413] P. 148=356.

[1414] P. 152=360.

[1415] P. 150=358.

[1416] P. 152=359.

[1417] P. 146=354.

[1418] P. 148=356.

[1419] Ibid., Erl. ed., 5², p. 251, Hauspostille. Sermon of 1533.

[1420] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 313, “Enarr. in Genes.”

[1421] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the second part of the first complete edition of his works (compiled from his writings).

[1422] KÖstlin, ibid., 2², p. 36.

[1423] KÖstlin, ibid., and p. 15, 30.

[1424] Ibid., p. 35.

[1425] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 23 f., where Luther says, the predictions of the prophets (or of the Apocalypse) concerning wars, the Kings, etc., were “things pleasing to the inquisitive ... but were unnecessary prophecies, for they neither taught nor furthered the Christian faith”; in those prophecies “concerning Kings and worldly events” the Prophets had “often been wrong.”

[1426] Thus O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 67 f.

[1427] “Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicÆ ecclesiÆ commoveret auctoritas ... qua infirmata iam nec evangelio credere potero.” “Contra epistolam fundamenti ManichÆorum,” c. 5.

[1428] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 429-432; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 284-288. “Resol. super propos. Lipsienses.”

[1429] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 90; Erl. ed., 28, p. 341.

[1430] According to KÖstlin (“Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 10 ff.), it was only the orthodox Lutherans after his day who developed this into the doctrine of the “testimonium Spiritus Sancti,” which assures every reader of the canonicity of the books of the Bible. In reality, however, Luther himself already stood for this “testimonium.” Thanks to it he judged of the relative importance of the Sacred Books and only “allowed himself to be determined by the spirit speaking to him out of them.” Thus KÖstlin himself, 1², p. 319.

[1431] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 325; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 131: “Non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libra, quam per se ipsum habeat.” The question, however, was who was to attest this authority.

[1432] See our vol. v., xxxiv., 3.

[1433] O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 47, after having instanced Luther’s adverse criticism of the Epistle of St. James and the prophetical books, remarks: “He took exception to the Epistle of Jude, to Hebrews and to the Apocalypse. The Book of Esther deserved no place in the Canon any more than the second Book of Machabees, though the first was worthy of canonisation. [It was, as Luther says in the Preface to his German translation of it (Erl. ed., 63, p. 104), ‘not unworthy of being included amongst the sacred writings of the Hebrews,’ because in the history of Antiochus it gives us a picture of the fall of the real Antichrist, viz. Popery!] Luther makes a distinction even between the books he does not impugn. Of the Pauline writings he gives the first place to Romans, just as he places St. John’s first among the Gospels. He esteems the synoptics less highly because they record the works and deeds of Christ and not the message of righteousness by grace.” Scheel notes (p. 49 f.), that Luther’s criticism was based, not on learned historical arguments, but on the “religious stimulus” these writings supplied, viz. on the extent to which they might prove of service to his doctrine, i.e. on “inward considerations.” “The fact that the Epistle of James says nothing of Christ and Justification by grace was ground enough for Luther to reject it. Analogous is the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews.... From all this it is evident how much Luther placed religious criticism in the foreground and what secondary importance he attached to historical criticism.” He cares little whether a writing is apostolic or not; what he wants to know is whether its contents agree with what he has perceived to be the kernel of Scripture. “He did not even shrink from impugning the authority of the Apostles in favour of a higher standard” (p. 52). Scheel then deals with the statements more favourable to Luther made by J. Kunze (“Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift und Taufbekenntnis,” Leipzig, 1899, pp. 509, 521) and H. Preuss (“Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther bis zur Leipziger Disputation,” Leipzig, 1901, p. 99). “With Luther’s independent criticism of Scripture,” he says (p. 64 f.), “the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture hardly agrees.... Kunze also denies that the effect of the mediÆval doctrine of inspiration appears at all in Luther; the belief that the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost should not be identified with the doctrine of inspiration in its concrete and historical shape.” True enough Kunze admits (p. 504, n. 1) “some after-effects” of that doctrine upon Luther, but the question is “how such after-effects were compatible with the uniform theory of Scripture,” which he finds in Luther. On the consistency of Luther’s theory, see Scheel’s remarks below, p. 407.—Adolf Harnack repeatedly declares, that Luther’s attitude towards the Bible was characterised by “flagrant contradictions” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], pp. 868, 878; cp. pp. 771 f., 791 f.), because his criticism “demolished the external authority of the written Word.”—Of Luther’s treatment of the Apocalypse, G. Arnold, the spokesman and historian of the Pietists, complains in his Church History (Frankfurt edition, vol. ii., 1699, p. 39); he said of it “very much what all the fanatics said, viz. that each one might believe concerning it what his Spirit inspired him with; his [Luther’s] Spirit could not agree with the book, and the fact that Christ was neither taught nor recognised in it was sufficient for him not to esteem it highly.” Arnold also complains that, in the Preface to the Apocalypse (“now usually omitted”), Luther says, “that it was too bad of John to command and threaten about this book,” etc.; the book, according to Luther, was neither apostolic nor prophetical, indeed not by the Holy Ghost at all, seeing that it did not treat of faith or Christian doctrine but merely of history.

[1434] KÖstlin, ibid., 2², p. 29.