Hartmann Grisar

[1] “Gesch. der Moral,” GÖttingen, 1908, p. 209.

[2] Cp. the passages quoted in MÖhler, “Symbolik,” § 11.

[3] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 516; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.

[4] Ib., 10, 2, p. 295=16², p. 532.

[5] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 7.

[6] Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther’s own words, passim, in our previous volumes.

[7] Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.

[8] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 495; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 436.

[9] Ib., p. 495=91.

[10] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.

[11] W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908, p. 310.

[12] Braun, ib., p. 310-312.

[13] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.

[14] “Leitfaden zum Stud. der DG,” Halle, 1906, p. 722.

[15] Ib., pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.

[16] Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 771, n. 4.

[17] But cp. what Loofs says, ib., p. 772, n. 5.

[18] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153.

[19] Ib., 10², p. 96.

[20] Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 721 f.

[21] “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 159; cp. ib., pp. 126, 136 f., 156.

[22] “Dixi ... quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f.; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.

[23] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 238 f.

[24] Ib., Weim. ed., 24, p. 10; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 764, n. 2.

[25] Loofs, ib., p. 773, where he cites the “Comm. on Gal.” (1535), Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.

[26] “Quia Paulus hic versatur in loco iustificationis, ... necessitas postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui possumus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144. “Conscientia perterrefacta ... nihil de lege et peccato scire debet, sed tantum de Christo.” Ib., p. 207 f.=p. 173 sq. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. (“Tischreden”) and “Opp. lat. var.” 4, p. 427.

[27] Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20; vii. 9, etc.

[28] “Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab ea discedat.” “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 284.

[29] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 498; 40, 1, p. 208; Irmischer, 3, p. 236; 1, p. 173.

[30] Loofs, ib., p. 775 f.

[31] “QuÆ (conscientia) sÆpe ad desperationem, ad gladium et ad laqueum homines adigit.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141 sq.

[32] P. 737, n.

[33] Mt. xi. 30; Ps. cxviii. 165.

[34] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 392. Luther frequently uses the term “conteri lege.”

[35] “Dices enim: Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed sunt aliena, Christi videlicet; non ergo me lÆdere poterunt.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141.

[36] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.

[37] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 723; Erl. ed., 16², p. 48.

[38] Ib., 10, 1, l. p. 338 f. = 7², p. 259 ff.

[39] See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.

[40] Vol. i., p. 317 f. and passim.

[41] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 260.—Ammon (“Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre,” 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther “regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror,” and that according to him “the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not in moral perfection, but in faith.” De Wette, “Christl. Sittenlehre,” 2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, “but that Luther was not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible.”

[42] Mathesius, ib. The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.

[43] “Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 91 f.

[44] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 261.

[45] Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv. passim.

[46] It was Luther himself who published the Antinomian theses in two series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 420 sqq. The most offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola’s teaching and attributed them to one of the latter’s pupils; Agricola, however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther’s earlier and later teaching on the Law, proceeds: “He paid no heed to the fact that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer, though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and what others carried to extremes: in the one he already saw the other embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther’s way of conducting controversy.”

[47] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).

[48] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352.

[49] Ib.

[50] Ib., p. 357.

[51] Ib., p. 403.

[52] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after Trinity, and ib., 14², p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers,” 3, p. 108 ff. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.

[53] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323.

[54] Cp. Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” pp. 382, 388, 394; G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” 1881, p. 194.

[55] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 430 sq.

[56] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.

[57] “Briefe,” ib., p. 154.

[58] To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 84.

[59] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 462 f.

[60] (In March, 1540) see C. E. FÖrstemann, “N. Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Kirchenreformation,” 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.

[61] Ib., p. 321 ff.; also in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.

[62] FÖrstemann, ib., p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” “RE. f. prot. Theol.”

[63] FÖrstemann, ib., p. 349.

[64] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.

[65] E. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” 1906, p. 280, from Agricola’s Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.

[66] Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.

[67] “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.

[68] Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560, publ. by Nic. MÜller in “Zeitschr. fÜr KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 139.

[69] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 90. For other statements of Luther’s see our vol. iii., p. 401.

[70] Loofs, ib., p. 858.

[71] On Luther’s attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff., 196.

[72] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 424.

[73] See above, p. 11, n. 2.

[74] “DG.,” 3⁴, p. 842.

[75] Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 860, n. 2 and 4; 790, n. 7, and Harnack, ib.

[76] Harnack (loc. cit.) points out that Luther’s statements on the subject do not agree when examined in detail.

[77] E.g., Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1892.

[78] E.g., Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900.

[79] To the latter passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer draws attention (“Luthers Sermo de poenitentia von 1518,” 1906, p. 36). Galley (loc. cit., p. 20) had also referred to the same as being a further development of Luther’s doctrine on penance.—On Luther’s shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.

[80] “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 452.

[81] Ib., p. 402.

[82] Ib., pp. 402-404.

[83] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 127.

[84] Ib., Erl. ed., 15², p. 40.

[85] Ib., Weim. ed., 7, p. 36; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.

[86] Ib., p. 30=189.

[87] “Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.,” 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).

[88] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.

[89] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.

[90] Ib., 6, p. 269 f.=16², p. 212, “Sermon von den guten Wercken,” 1520.

[91] Our account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His faithful rendering of Luther’s thought shows how actual grace is excluded.

[92] 3⁴, p. 460.

[93] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Cp. ib., Erl. ed., 7², p. 257.

[94] Walther, ib., p. 99.

[95] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 249; Erl. ed., 16², p. 184.

[96] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith “then does all the needful,” and that works are a natural product of faith is summed up thus: “Opera propter fidem fiunt.”

[97] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 386; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523, on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 18², pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on 1 John iv. 17.

[98] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 273.

[99] Ib., 13², p. 97.

[100] Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.

[101] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 219 f.

[102] Ib., 14², p. 257.

[103] Cp. Loofs, “DG.,” ⁴, p. 737. Hence Luther also says: “Dum bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel incredulitate oritur.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 62; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 239.

[104] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 220.

[105] See below, ch. xxxii., 6.

[106] Printed, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 524.

[107] The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, “might well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther’s] doctrine.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 501.

[108] “Werke,” Erl. ed., ib., p. 551.

[109] Ib., p. 552.

[110] Ib., p. 551.

[111] Ib., p. 554.

[112] “Comm. on Gal.,” 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).

[113] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 559; Erl. ed., 12², p. 175. “Comm. on Gal.” (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.

[114] Ib., Erl. ed., 17², p. 94; 49, p. 348.

[115] Ib., 58, pp. 343, 347.

[116] See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.

[117] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.

[118] Ib., p. 548.

[119] Ib.

[120] Ib., p. 549.

[121] Ib., p. 554.

[122] Ib., p. 555.

[123] Cp. p. 552: “Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and exalt Thy Son.”

[124] KÖstlin’s summary, ib., p. 206.

[125] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 40. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, p. 144.

[126] KÖstlin, ib., p. 207.

[127] Cp. vol. i., passim.

[128] KÖstlin, ib., p. 204.

[129] In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.

[130] On Luther’s attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see xxix., 5.

[131] Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff.

[132] See above, p. 32, n. 4.

[133] KÖstlin, ib., p. 206.

[134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 346.

[135] Ib., 20², 2, p. 548.

[136] Ib., p. 545.

[137] Ib., p. 549 f.

[138] Ib., p. 551.

[139] Luther’s opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter under consideration, is expressed by KÖstlin (ib., p. 126 f.) as follows: Luther “does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act which is contrary to God’s will, nor even on the determination to commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay, in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior to any conscious motion.... We do not find in his writings any further information on the other questions here involved” (e.g. of the children who die unbaptised, etc.).

[140] In the Eisleben sermons, ib., p. 551.

[141] Ib., p. 546.

[142] “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 385. Loofs, “DG.,”⁴, p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.

[143] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 153.

[144] Ib., 13², p. 307.

[145] Ib., p. 305 ff.

[146] Ib., 15², p. 524. KÖstlin, ib., p. 213.

[147] Cp. ib., 43, p. 362 ff.

[148] The headings in W. Walther’s “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above.

[149] Above, p. 32 f.

[150] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 304 f.

[151] Walther, ib., p. 102.

[152] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.

[153] Ib., 12², p. 219.

[154] Ib., 8², p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “And though I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am nothing.”

[155] Ib., 15², p. 40.

[156] Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following statement of the Catholic teaching: “We know that free-will of itself without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service. We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts with grace.... But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast, take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy,” etc. “Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 375 sqq., in Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.

[158] Feb. 2, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 408.

[159] See vol. iii., p. 462 ff.

[160] Adolf Harnack, “DG.,” 3⁴, p. 850.

[161] Loofs, “DG.,”⁴, p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.

[162] Harnack, ib., p. 831 f.

[163] “Confutatio calumn. resp.,” E 2a. DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 39.

[164] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 208.

[165] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 33.

[166] KÖstlin, ib., pp. 284, 295.

[167] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. KÖstlin, however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.

[168] “Werke,” ib., 7², p. 68.

[169] Ib., 10², p. 108.

[170] On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 and passim.

[171] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 108.

[172] Ib.

[173] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 206.

[174] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 25. Cp. on Luther’s restriction of good works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above, p. 26, 38 f.

[175] Chr. E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren GrundzÜgen,”², 1875, p. 70.

[176] Cp. “Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat. O.P.,” V. cap. ult.

[177] Quoted from Luthardt, ib., pp. 70-73.

[178] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 68.

[179] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.

[180] Ib., pp. 507, 509=370, 372.

[181] Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”⁴, p. 705.

[182] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 15², p. 60. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 273 sqq.; 19, p. 18; 24, p. 463, sq. “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.

[183] Cp. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 169 f., the passages quoted.

[184] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340; Erl. ed., 7², p. 261.—For the theological and psychological influences which led him to these statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.

[185] Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16: It depends entirely “on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be good or evil,” and “Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its own nature evil,” etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.

[186] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 109, “In Genesim,” c. 3.

[187] See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1.

[188] Denifle-Weiss, ib., p. 528, n. 2.

[189] Denifle-Weiss, ib., p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f.

[190] “In 2 Sent.,” dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle-Weiss, ib., p. 482, n. 1. Cp. Luther’s frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint: Good works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.

[191] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, ib., p. 598.

[192] Denifle-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks: “Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace.”

[193] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 60. After the words quoted above follows the remarkable passage: One builds churches, another makes pilgrimages, etc. “These are self-chosen works which God has not commanded.... Such self-chosen works are nought ... are sin.”

[194] Ib., p. 61 f.

[195] “Symb. BÜcher,” ed. MÜller-Kolde,¹⁰, p. 599 f.

[196] Ib. The Thesis of man’s lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther’s larger Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593), and to Augustine’s “Confessions” (p. 596).

[197] The last remark is from Loofs, “DG.,”⁴, p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii., p. 348 ff. and passim.

[198] “Symb. BÜcher,” ib., p. 601.

[199] Ib.

[200] Ib., p. 602.

[201] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.

[202] Quoted from Loofs, “DG.,”⁴, p. 758. On the statement “without on that account being unjust” see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.

[203] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 675; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 207. Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 757.

[204] Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.

[205] The above largely reproduces Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81 ff.

[206] See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.

[207] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 439; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60: A prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian is dead to the world.

[208] “Werke,” ib.

[209] “Jugenderinnerungen aus seinem Nachlasse,” Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.

[210] Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff.; vol. iii., p. 187 ff.; vol. iv., p. 130 f.

[211] Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81.

[212] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 280 f.

[213] Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther’s earlier idea of the “holy brotherhood of spirits,” in which “omnia sunt indifferentia et libera.” See also vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.

[214] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 108.

[215] Ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.

[216] Ib.

[217] Ib., p. 252=70.

[218] Ib., p. 251=68.

[219] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 451.

[220] Ib., p. 445.

[221] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.

[222] Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², pp. 93-96.

[223] Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the period previous to Luther’s. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff.).

[224] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 42 f.

[225] Cp. W. Walther, “Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 50, where Ritschl’s opinion is disputed. The above complaint of Luther’s “uncertain way” is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make it; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (“Opp. lat. exeg,.” 19, p. 109 sq.) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.

[226] “Symbolik,” § 25.

[227] Ib., § 26.

[228] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.

[229] Ib.

[230] p. 111.

[231] Owing to his assertion of man’s unfreedom and passivity, Luther found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner voice, the “synteresis,” that urges us to what is good and reproves what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice; this we see from his first Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his Commentary on Romans he characterised the “synteresis,” and the assumption of any freedom of choice on man’s part, as the loophole through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)

[232] Cp. W. Walther, “Die christl. Sittlichkeit,” p. 31.

[233] Above, vol. iv., p. 227. “You are to believe without doubting what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God’s authority and commission to speak to and to comfort you.”

[234] Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680: “Believe me, Christ speaks through me.”

[235] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220: “persuasi mihi, esse de coelo vocem Dei.”

[236] Letter of March 8, 1544, “Briefe,” ib., p. 636.

[237] In the letter quoted in n. 2, ib., p. 679 f.

[238] Ib.

[239] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 337.

[240] On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders, 6, p. 300 f.

[241] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. vol. i., p. 319.

[242] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 290 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 209. For fuller quotations see vol. ii., p. 58 f.

[243] Ib., Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.

[244] Ib., Erl. ed., 21, p. 324.

[245] Ib., 28, p. 224.

[246] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 237; Erl. ed., 29, p. 25.

[247] Ib., Erl. ed., 29, p. 23; cp. above, vol. iii., p. 262 ff.

[248] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 653; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 176 sq.

[249] Ib., Erl. ed., 58, pp. 394-398.

[250] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 232; Erl. ed., 39, p. 111. Should a preacher be unable thus to “boast,” he is to “hold his tongue,” so we read there.

[251] See, e.g., vol. iii., pp. 110 ff.-158 f.

[252] “Vita Lutheri,” ColoniÆ, 1622, p. 141.

[253] Above, vol. iii., p. 111.

[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.

[255] Ib., p. 70=20.

[256] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 22.

[257] On July 24, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 274. Above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[258] To Chancellor BrÜck, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282: “Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac certum per verbum Dei, sibi hÆc licere.” Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 259 f.

[259] Letter to Jonas, May 4, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 556.

[260] Text in G. Berbig (“Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” Leipzig, 1908), p. 277 (cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 76 f.). This statement completes what was said in vol. iii., p. 55.

[261] Karl Stange, “Die Ältesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers,” 1904, p. vii.

[262] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.—“He ventured, relying on Christ,” says Adolf Harnack (“DG.,” 3⁴, p. 824), “to lay hold on God Himself, and, by this exercise of his faith, in which he saw God’s work, his whole being gained in independence and firmness, and he acquired such confidence and joy as no man in the Middle Ages had ever known.” Of Luther’s struggles of conscience, to be examined more closely in ch. xxxii., Harnack says nothing. On the other hand, however, he quotes, on p. 825, n. 1, the following words of Luther’s: “Such a faith alone makes a Christian which risks all on God whether in life or death.”

[263] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 253 f.

[264] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 248 f.

[265] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch”: “in quotidiana versor lucta.” On Feb. 26.

[266] “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, Leipzig, 1885, 3, p. 245. Sermon of March 16, 1538.

[267] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 56.

[268] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 411.

[269] To Amsdorf, Oct. 18(?), 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 173.

[270] Cp. A. Zahn, “Calvins Urteile Über Luther” (“Theol. Stud. aus WÜrttemberg,” 4, 1883), p. 187. Pighius had written against Luther in 1543 on the servitude of the will. Cp., ib., p. 193, Calvin’s remark against Gabriel de Saconay.

[271] The words can be better understood when we bear in mind that they occur in the dedication to Duke Johann of Saxony, of his “Sermon von den guten Wercken” (March 29, 1520). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 203; Erl. ed., 16², p. 122 f.

[272] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 273 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). Here also we must remember that he is speaking to preachers, some of whom differed from him.

[273] Ib., 53, p. 276.

[274] Ib., p. 272.

[275] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 174, n.

[276] F. Sawicki, “Kath. Kirche und sittliche PersÖnlichkeit,” Cologne, 1907, pp. 86, 88, and “Das Problem der PersÖnlichkeit und des Übermenschen,” Paderborn, 1909; J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,³”, Cologne, 1911. Part 2, particularly pp. 125 ff., 223 ff.

[277] See vol. iv., p. 118 ff.

[278] “A study of the earliest Letters of C. Schwenckfeld,” Leipzig, 1907 (vol. i. of the “Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum”), p. 268. Karl Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” Berlin, 1911, p. 58.

[279] Cp. Ecke, ib., p. 59. Ecke (p. viii.) speaks of this writing as a “first-rate source.”

[280] “Epistolar Schwenckfelds,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 94 ff. For full title see Ecke, ib., p. 11. Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. fÜr KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff. Cp. below, p. 138 f.

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 383 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 337).

[282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 123; Erl. ed., 53, p. 362 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 302).

[283] “Epistolar,” ib., p. 645. Ecke, p. 87.

[284] Ecke takes these words as his motto on the title-page.

[285] “Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 200. Cp. on the “experience,” Ecke, p. 48 ff.

[286] Ecke, p. 118 f.

[287] See above, p. 79, n. 1.

[288] P. 222.

[289] Thus G. Kawerau in his sketch of Schwenckfeld in MÖller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 475.

[290] Ib., p. 478.

[291] Ecke, p. 217.

[292] “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 579: “Heri Stenckfeldianum librum contra me scriptum accepi.... Talis sophistica principum severitate compescenda est.” To G. Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558.

[293] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 337.

[294] Cp. below, and above, p. 82, n. 5; also Ecke, p. 218.

[295] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 54.

[296] Ib., 57, p. 51.

[297] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 167.

[298] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 613. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 29. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 335.

[299] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ib.

[300] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.

[301] “Werke,” ib., 32, p. 411.

[302] 1520 or beginning of 1521. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 37. Cp., however, Ender’s remark on the authorship.

[303] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 204; Erl. ed., 16² p. 123.

[304] On March 25, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 366.

[305] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 291.

[306] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 209; Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.

[307] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 288.

[308] “Werke,” ib., p. 214=138.

[309] Much the same in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1528), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 485; Erl. ed., 36, p. 100.

[310] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 203; Erl. ed., 16², p. 122.

[311] Ib., pp. 243-245=177-179.

[312] Ib., p. 247 f.=182 f. Cp. the similar statements in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1528), pp. 480 f., 484 f.=93 f., 96 f.

[313] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 245 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180.

[314] Cp. ib., p. 246=181.

[315] P. 247=182.

[316] Elsewhere, however, he treats of the other forms of prayer.

[317] Cp. p. 237=168 f., 238 f.=170 f., 247 f.=182 f.

[318] See vol. iv., p. 501 f.

[319] P. 232=162.

[320] P. 262=202.

[321] P. 258=197.

[322] P. 246=180.

[323] P. 207=127.

[324] Ib.

[325] P. 236.

[326] P. 271.

[327] Kaftan speaks of a theological want which he had attempted to supply in his own “Dogmatik.” In reality, however, he has practice equally in view, and, from his statements we may infer that the want which had been apparent from Luther’s day was more than a mere defect in the theory.

[328] P. 281.

[329] P. 276.

[330] P. 278.

[331] Cp. the letter to Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159; Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 11, 89, etc.; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See our vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[332] See vol. ii., p. 339; iii., p. 180 ff.; above, p. 9 ff.

[333] Above, vol. iii., p. 185 f.

[334] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 155 ff.

[335] Cp. our vol. iii., p. 176 f.

[336] Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

[337] Cp. on Luther’s prayer, vol. iii., p. 206 f.; iv., p. 274 ff.

[338] Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

[339] Vol. iii., p. 207 f.; iv., p. 311.

[340] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553. Cp. pp. 554, 558.

[341] Ib., p. 552.

[342] W. Walther, “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” p. 63.

[343] The Explanation of the Our Father in 1518, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 74 ff; 9, p. 122 ff; Erl. ed., 21, p. 156 ff; 45, p. 203 ff. Noteworthy additions to it were made by Luther in 1519, ib., 6, pp. 8 ff., 20 ff.=45, p. 208 ff. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 116 f., 291 f.

[344] Above, vol. iii., pp. 169 f., 211 f.

[345] Vol. iii., p. 200 ff.

[346] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, pp. 416-477; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 304-361.

[347] Ib., pp. 420=308 f.

[348] P. 448 f.=335 f.

[349] P. 444=331.

[350] P. 452=339.

[351] P. 449 ff.=336 ff.

[352] P. 447=334.

[353] To Melanchthon from the Coburg, July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157: “ex arce dÆmonibus plena.”

[354] To the same, April 23, 1530, ib., 7, p. 308: “HÆc satis pro ioco, sed serio et necessario ioco, qui mihi irruentes cogitationes repelleret, si tamen repellet.”

[355] To the same, May 12, 1530, ib., 7, p. 333: “Eo die, quo literÆ tuÆ e Norimberga venerunt, habuit satan legationem suam apud me,” etc. See vol. ii., p. 390. Cp. to the same, June, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 43), where he calls the devil his torturer, and to the same, June 30, 1530, ib., p. 51, where he speaks of his “private struggles with the devil.”

[356] To the same, July 31, 1530, ib., 8, p. 157.

[357] Cp. to the same, April 23, 1530, ib., 7, p. 303.

[358] To the same, May 12, 1530, ib., p. 333.

[359] To the same, May 15, 1530, ib., p. 335.

[360] To the same, Aug. 15, 1530, ib., 8, p. 190: “Christus vivit et regnat. Fiant sane dÆmones, si ita volunt, monachi vel nonnÆ quoque. Nec forma melior eos decet, quam qua sese mundo hactenus vendiderunt adorandos.” The “monks or nuns” is an allusion to the appearance of the “spectre-monks” at Spires just before the Diet of Augsburg; see vol. ii., p. 389 f.

[361] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 424; Erl. ed., 18², p. 313 f.

[362] Ib., p. 423=312.—The so-called “Sermon on Love” (above, p. 96 f.) seeks to demonstrate in the above words the value of love of our neighbour, and, that this necessarily resulted from true faith. It abounds in beautiful sayings concerning the advantage of this virtue. Cruciger had his reasons for publishing it, one being, as he says in the dedication, to stop the mouths of those who never cease to cry out against our people as though we neither taught nor practised anything concerning love and good works. (Erl. ed., 18², p. 305.) KÖstlin-Kawerau remarks (2, p. 273): “The fundamental evil was that the new Church included amongst its members so many who were indifferent to such preaching; they had joined it not merely without any real interior conversion, but without any spiritual awakening or sympathy, purely by reason of outward circumstances.” It must be added that the Sermon, though intended as a remedy, suffers from the defect of being permeated through and through with a spirit of bitter hate against the Church Catholic; in the very first pages we find the speaker complaining, that the devil, “who cannot bear the Word,” “attacks us ... in order to murder us by means of his tyrants”; “we are, however, forced to have the devil for our guest,” who molests us “with his crew.” Weim. ed., 36, p. 417 f.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 306 f.

[363] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 356 ff.

[364] To Melanchthon, May 12, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 332.

[365] To the same, April 29, 1530, ib., p. 313: “Oratio mea ad clerum procedit; crescit inter manus et materia et impetus, ut plurimos Landsknechtos prorsus vi repellere cogar, qui insalutati non cessant obstrepere.” Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 330.

[366] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199.

[367] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 391 ff.

[368] Ib., p. 395 f.

[369] Ib., p. 406.

[370] Ib., p. 396 f.

[371] Cp. our vol. iii., p. 435.

[372] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144.

[373] To Eobanus Hessus, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 301. Cp. n. 2 in Enders, who suggests the above translation of “tu habes malam vocem.” We read in KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199: “We must admit, that, judging by the tone of this tract [the ‘Vermanug’] Luther’s ‘voice’ would have been out of place at Augsburg, as he admits in his letter to Eobanus Hessus.”

[374] On June 5, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 367.

[375] See vol. iv., p. 338 f.

[376] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 364.

[377] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 363 f.

[378] “Werke,” ib., p. 361; cp. p. 396.

[379] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 313; Erl. ed., 33, p. 331. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.

[380] Ib., p. 312 f.=330 f.

[381] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 108. From the year 1540.

[382] To Jacob Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 353 f.

[383] To Bucer, July 12, 1532, in “Anal. Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 203.

[384] “Anal.,” loc. cit.

[385] Leo Judae, 1. c., 203.

[386] Ib., p. 204.

[387] See our vol. iv., p. 87.

[388] H. Barge, “Carlstadt,” see our vol. ii., p. 154.

[389] F. HÜlsse, “Card. Albrecht und Hans Schenitz,” “Magdeburger GeschichtsblÄtter,” 1889, p. 82; cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 10, p. 182, who remarks of F. W. E. Roth’s review in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 118, 1896, p. 160 f.: “The author does not seem to be acquainted with HÜlsse’s work and therefore condemns Albert.”

[390] Enders, ib., p. 181.

[391] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 419.

[392] Enders, ib.

[393] On July 31, 1535, and Jan.-Feb., 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, pp. 98 and 125 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, pp. 180 and 296).

[394] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 420.

[395] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 297; HÜlsse, p. 61.

[396] On March 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 442.

[397] To Johann GÖritz, judge at Leipzig, Jan. 29, 1544, ib., p. 625. Cp. for the account of Rosina, vol. iii., pp. 217 f., 280 f.

[398] Vol. i., p. 59. “StupidÆ litterÆ” here perhaps means “indignant” rather than “amazed” letters.

[399] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

[400] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.” (Loesche), p. 200. Cp. above vol. iii., p. 437 f.

[401] To Catherine, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 753.

[402] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127. Cp. above vol. iv., p. 276.

[403] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127. “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531.

[404] Ib., 26², p. 242, “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” 1545.

[405] Ib., Weim. ed., 33, p. 605; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342. Expos. of John vi.-viii., 1530-1532.

[406] Ib., p. 341.

[407] Feb. 7, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83 f.

[408] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 427, 428 f.; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 305 and 307. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520. Cp. above p. 88 f.

[409] “Utinam haberent plures reges AngliÆ, qui illos occiderent.” Cp. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 17 ff.

[410] Dec., 1535, “Briefwechsel” 10, p. 275.

[411] Feb. 3, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 410; cp. to Spalatin, Feb. 7, 1519, ib., p. 412.

[412] 4-9 Dec., 1521, ib., 3´, p. 253: “Exacerbabitur mihi spiritus, ut multo vehementiora deinceps in eam rem nihilominus moliar.”

[413] Vol. iv., p. 329 ff.

[414] Oswald Myconius to Simon GrynÆus, Nov. 8, 1534, in KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 665, from a MS. source: “Doctiorem se esse, quam qui ab eiusmodi hominibus doceri velit”; this showed his “tyrannica superbia.”

[415] To Amsdorf, April 14, 1545, “Briefe” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 728.

[416] To Caspar GÜttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326.

[417] Vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[418] Ib., p. 3 ff.

[419] Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386: “For when once we have evaded the peril and are at peace, then we can easily atone for our tricks and lapses (‘dolos ac lapsus nostros’), because His [God’s] mercy is over us,” etc., for the word mendacia after dolos see vol. iv., p. 96.

[420] See vol. iv., p. 95: “In cuius [Antichristi] deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur.”

[421] Ib., p. 81 f.

[422] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 388 f. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 166 ff.

[423] Ib., p. 391. “Even should the Pope, the bishops, the canons and the people wish to remain in the state of celibacy, or the state of whores and knaves—and even the heathen poet admits that fornicators and whoremongers are loath to take wives—still I hope you will take pity on the poor pastors and those who have the cure of souls and allow them to marry.”

[424] Cordatus, “Tageb.,” p. 364.

[425] Cp. vol. iv., p. 102 f.

[426] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.

[427] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 287.

[428] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 364.

[429] Ib., p. 365.

[430] Ib., p. 364.

[431] Ib., p. 361.

[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23.

[433] Ib., p. 285-14 f.

[434] “Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss,” Bl. 9´.

[435] Ib.

[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 290; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22.

[437] “Opp.” 10, col. 1558. “Adv. ep. Lutheri.”

[438] Ib., 1555.

[439] Ib., 1334. “Hyperaspistes.”

[440] Vol. iv., p. 228 ff.

[441] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 442.

[442] Dec. 8, 1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 71 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 88 f.); “Briefe,” 4, p. 567 ff.: “To set ourselves up as judges and ourselves to judge is assuredly wrong, and the wrath of God will not leave it unpunished.” “If you desire my advice, as you write, I counsel you to accept peace, however you reach it, and rather to suffer in your goods and your honour than to involve yourself further in such an undertaking where you will have to take upon yourself all the crimes and wickedness that are committed.... You must consider for how much your conscience will have to answer if you knowingly bring about the destruction of so many people.”

[443] Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. “Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 84-102; 13, p. 13.

[444] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 444.

[445] Cp. C. A. Burkhardt, “Der historische Hans Kohlhase,” 1864.

[446] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178 ff. In “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt,” 1522.

[447] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 84. In the sermons on Mt. xviii.-xxiii.

[448] See xxix., 8.

[449] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 651 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 511. In the “Defensio contra Eccii iudicium.”

[450] Ib., Weim. ed., 15, p. 183; Erl. ed., 24², p. 251. “Widder den newen Abgott und allten Teuffel der zu Meyssen sol erhaben werden.”

[451] Ib., p. 194 f.=264.

[452] Ib., p. 175=249.

[453] Cp. vol. iii., p. 191 f.; 211 f. and Joh. Wieser in “Luther und Ignatius von Loyola” [“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 7 (1883) and 8 (1884), particularly 8, p. 365 ff.].

[454] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 54.

[455] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 231.

[456] Cp. Janssen, ib.

[457] July, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 188.

[458] Cp. my “Hist. of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Engl. Trans., i., pp. 9-26).

[459] In what follows we have drawn largely on J. Wieser (see above, p. 124, n. 1).

[460] Wieser rightly points out that Luther claimed above all to be a “National Prophet”; he was fond of saying that he had brought the Gospel “to the Saxons,” or “to the Germans.” Ib., 8, pp. 143 f., 356.

[461] Ib., 8, p. 352.

[462] Above, pp. 3 ff. and 66 ff.

[463] Cp. Wieser, ib., 8, p. 353.

[464] Wieser, ib., 8, p. 387.

[465] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 174.

[466] See above, vol. iii., p. 25 ff.

[467] Vol. ii., p. 111. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 sqq.

[468] “Werke,” ib., p. 192=p. 528.

[469] Ib., p. 194=532.

[470] “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1908, Suppl., p. 38.) The striking new works of Hermelink, K. MÜller, etc., have already been referred to elsewhere. In addition we must mention K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1911, Suppl.), where the writer takes a view of the much-discussed question different from that of K. MÜller.

[471] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 484 f.; Erl. ed., 11², p. 205 f. Cp. ib., p. 481=201 f., and Erl. ed., 11², p. 82 f.

[472] Ib., Weim. ed., 12, p. 215 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, 13. On the “Formula missÆ,” see below, xxix., 9.

[473] Ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210. The Latin version reads: “Si Dominus dederit in cor vestrum, ut simul probetis,” etc.

[474] Ib., 12, p. 693; cp. 697. On the Wittenberg Poor Box see below, vol. vi. xxxv., 4.

[475] P. Drews, p. 55.

[476] Vol. ii., p. 113; cp. vol. iii., p. 27.

[477] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 70.

[478] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.

[479] Ib., p. 35 ff=153 ff.

[480] Ib., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff. “Ordenug eyns gemeynen Kastens,” 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.

[481] See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4.

[482] Above, p. 78 ff.

[483] “Schwenckfelds Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 ff. Cp. K. Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39, are given, showing that Schwenckfeld “noted down the whole affair from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory.”

[484] Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.

[485] “Epistolar,” ib., pp. 39, 43.

[486] “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff.

[487] See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

[488] Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523, ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.

[489] In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231: “In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it of my own initiative.”

[490] “Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 65. Drews adds: “He was afraid of doing something contrary to God’s will.” That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also stated by K. MÜller (“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 121).

[491] “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10.

[492] As late as June 26, 1533 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317), he wrote: “In hoc sÆculo tam turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda disciplina idoneo non ausim consulere tam subitam innovationem.” Cp. p. 142, below.

[493] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 32), p. 399.

[494] P. 67.

[495] The plan as KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had been formed “mainly on elements previously brought forward by Luther.”

[496] Reprinted in A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 56.

[497] Jan. 7, 1527. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 9).

[498] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.

[499] F. Feuchtwanger: “Gesch. der sozialen Politik ... im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.,” 33, 1909), p. 193.

[500] Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.

[501] June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.

[502] Ib., p. 68.

[503] Below, xxxv., 2.

[504] To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.

[505] To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.

[506] Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.

[507] Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.

[508] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2 sqq.

[509] Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

[510] To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.

[511] “Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular power also urges me to it.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 14², p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, “Lehrb. der Liturgik,” Berlin, 1900, p. 278.

[512] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 95; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.

[513] For Luther’s writing: “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet,” see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.

[514] For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, p. 239, and Kawerau, in MÖller, “KG,” 3³, p. 401.

[515] See below, xxxiv., 4.

[516] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains that the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the “Te Deum” he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in the sense in which he taught it. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.

[517] W. Germann, “Johann Forster” (“N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen Altertums,” Hft. 12), 1894.

[518] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.

[519] Ib., 12, p. 37=22, p. 156.

[520] Ib., 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.

[521] Ib.

[522] Ib., p. 75=230 f.

[523] Ib., 74 ff.=229 ff.

[524] Ib., p. 72=228.

[525] Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.

[526] Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.

[527] On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[528] Kawerau in the “GÖttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”

[529] J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.

[530] Cp. Kawerau’s quotations in his article in the “GÖttinger Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 115.

[531] June 17, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 315 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen’s letter see “Briefwechsel,” p. 207, for Hofmann’s, ib., p. 213.

[532] Kawerau, in MÖller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 400; “The influence of the Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and that it culminated in this ‘office.’ This, even in the 16th century, gave rise to difficulties.”

[533] To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above, p. 145, n. 2.

[534] Kawerau, ib., p. 401.

[535] Ib., p. 400. Luther says: “Diligens verbi Dei prÆdicatio est proprius cultus novi testamenti.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 161.

[536] Gottschick.

[537] This is Kawerau’s opinion, ib., p. 401.

[538] See above, p. 146, n. 3.

[539] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 35; Erl. ed., 22, p. 153. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne,” 1523.

[540] Of the most recent studies we need only mention here H. Greving, “Ecks Pfarrbuch fÜr U.L. Frau in Ingolstadt” (“RGI. Studien”), Hft. 4 and 5, 1908, p. 87 ff. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. i., passim.

[541] This introduction, together with the whole text of the common Preface, enters into Luther’s Latin Mass. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 8. In his German Mass it is suppressed.

[542] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570. Ecke (see below, p. 156, n. 1), p. 159.

[543] “Der erste Teil der christl. orthodox. BÜcher und Schriften.... Schwenckfelds ... durch Mitbekenner zusammengetragen,” 1564, p. 4. Ecke, p. 160; cp. p. 10 f.

[544] “Epistolar,” ib., p. 228; cp. p. 246.

[545] Ib., p. 645.

[546] Ib., p. 519.

[547] “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Ref.,” Berlin, 1911, p. 161.

[548] Ecke, p. 176. The Protestant author adds in a note: “It must, however, be pointed out that this criticism does not affect the apostolic nature of the profound phenomena of Evangelical piety seen among Lutherans.”

[549] “Christl. BÜcher,” etc. (above, p. 155, n. 2), p. 384. Ecke, p. 177.

[550] “Epistolar,” ib., p. 602. In 1550. Ecke, p. 196.

[551] See our vol. iv., p. 210 ff., for instance, and below, vol. vi., xxxix., 1.

[552] “Die andere Verantwortung,” 1556, Aiii. Ecke, p. 190 f.

[553] “Christl. BÜcher,” p. 326 f. Ecke, p. 163.

[554] Ib.

[555] “Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 680. Ecke, p. 164.

[556] “Christl. BÜcher,” p. 362. In 1547. Ecke, ib.

[557] Ecke, p. 164, from a MS.

[558] “Christl. BÜcher,” p. 477. Ecke, p. 164.

[559] Thus G. Arnold, “Kirchenhistorie,” Frankfurt a/M., 1729, 1, p. 413.

[560] Ib., p. 395. Ecke, p. 170 f., where he quotes in support of this and what follows, “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 164 f., 174.

[561] Ib.

[562] Ib., p. 325. Ecke, p. 172.

[563] Ib., p. 377. Ecke, p. 168.

[564] Ib., p. 420. Schwenckfeld’s excuse is, however, worthy of note, p. 401: “Such doctrine is not the outcome of an evil mind but is due to misapprehension.” Ecke, p. 168.

[565] Ib., p. 421. Ecke, p. 169.

[566] Ib.

[567] Ib., p. 401. Ecke, ib.

[568] Ib. Ecke, p. 170.

[569] Ib., p. 361. Ecke quotes “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 217.

[570] Ib., p. 365. Ecke, p. 166, quotes Erl. ed., 13², p. 218; 14², pp. 281 f., 287 ff.

[571] Ib.

[572] Ib.

[573] Ib.

[574] Ib., p. 343 f. Cp. “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 912. Ecke, p. 176. Cp. DÖllinger, on Schwenckfeld, in “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 254 ff.

[575] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 913. Ecke, p. 55.

[576] Ib., p. 427. Cp. “Epistolar,” 1., p. 410.

[577] Ecke’s words, p. 161.

[578] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 513, cp. p. 403 ff.; 1, p. 424. Ecke, ib.

[579] Ecke, p. 162.

[580] Cp. Ecke, p. 160, n. 3.

[581] Ib., p. 222.

[582] Ecke, p. 180 f.; from MS. sources.

[583] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 639. Ecke, p. 179.

[584] “Epistolar,” 1, p. 99. Ecke, p. 181.

[585] Ib. Ecke, p. 182.

[586] Ib., 1, p. 92. Ecke, p. 181.

[587] Ib., p. 736. Ecke, p. 182.

[588] “Christl. BÜcher,” p. 363. Ecke, p. 173.

[589] Ib.

[590] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 1014. Ecke, p. 160.

[591] Ecke, p. 227, MS.

[592] “Christl. BÜcher,” pp. 962, 965. Ecke, p. 191.

[593] “Epistolar,” 1, p. 173. “Christl. BÜcher,” p. 74 f., 549. Ecke, ib.

[594] “Epistolar,” 1, p. iii. B. Ecke, p. 86.

[595] See above, vol. iv., p. 367.

[596] Ch. v. Rommel, “Philipp der GrossmÜthige, Landgraf von Hessen,” 1, 1820, p. 517.

[597] Aug. 5, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 580.

[598] May 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 557.

[599] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 562.

[600] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75 ff. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 91 ff.

[601] Letter to the Emperor Charles V, Aug. 24, 1544, in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1544; in German in “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1253 ff. For the former attitude of the Papacy to the idea of the Council, cp. our vol. iii., p. 424 ff.

[602] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.

[603] Ib., p. 62.

[604] Ib., p. 70.

[605] Ib., p. 114.

[606] Ib., p. 80.

[607] Ib., p. 91 f. Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 90 sq.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 42 f.

[608] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101.

[609] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 138.

[610] Ib., p. 287.

[611] Ib., p. 231.

[612] Ib., p. 169.

[613] Ib., p. 417.

[614] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[615] Ib., p. 475 = 264 f.

[616] In the “Antwort auf das SchmÄhbÜchlein,” etc., “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 146.

[617] April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.

[618] To the Preacher Balthasar Raida of Hersfeld, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288.

[619] April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.

[620] To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 398.

[621] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 18, 1545, ib., p. 716: “I will have them [the lawyers] eternally damned and cursed in my Churches.”

[622] To Justus Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, ib., p. 612.

[623] To Jacob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, ib., p. 703.

[624] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, ib., p. 773 f.

[625] Ib., p. 774.

[626] Cp. (E. v. Jarcke) “Studien und Skizzen z. Gesch. d. Ref.,” 1846, p. 68.

[627] Ib.

[628] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 158.

[629] Ib., p. 198.

[630] Ib., p. 200.

[631] “Theander Lutherus,” Ursel s.a., Bl. 59´.

[632] After June 16, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 20. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312.) The passage in question in the original at Weimar is in Melanchthon’s handwriting. Cp. Enders, p. 313, on the historical connection of the memorandum.

[633] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 139 sqq. Rommel, “Philipp von Hessen,” 1, p. 417. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. v., p. 527 ff. Pastor, “Die kirchl. Reunionsbestrebungen wÄhrend der Regierung Karls V,” p. 95.

[634] To Brenz, April 14, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 340: “Ulyssea philosophia ... multa dissimulantes.”

[635] Letter of March 10, 1540, in Bindseil, “Melanchthonis epistolÆ, iudicia, etc.,” 1874, p. 146.

[636] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 421 ff.

[637] Letter of Dec. 28, 1543, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” 2, p. 227. “Nihil est quod minus multum [read inultum] relinquerem.”

[638] Lenz, ib., p. 241.

[639] Letter of Feb. 25, 1545, Lenz, p. 304.

[640] Letter of Dec. 1, 1545, Lenz, p. 379.

[641] Letter of April 5, 1546, Lenz, p. 426 f.

[642] Letter of May 12, 1545, Lenz, p. 433.

[643] See below, vol. vi., xl., 3.

[644] Seckendorf, “Comm. hist. de Lutheranismo,” 3, Lips., 1694, p. 468. The disputant, Johannes Marbach, received from Luther this testimony: “Amplectitur puram evangelii doctrinam, quam ecclesia nostra uno spiritu et una voce profitetur.” “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 543. Cp. Disputationen, ed. Drews, p. 700 ff. Some of Luther’s other statements concerning unity ring very differently.

[645] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 324, 363, 371 f.

[646] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 230; “Incipiunt de tota religione dubitare.”

[647] “Pezelii Object. et resp. Melanchtonis,” P. V., p. 289. DÖllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.

[648] Nov., 1536, to Myconius, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.

[649] Ib., pp. 460, 488 (1537 and 1538).

[650] To Prince George of Anhalt, June 10, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 379.

[651] Ib.

[652] “Corp, ref.,” 1, p. 907.

[653] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 441, 574.

[654] To Spalatin, Jan. 12, 1541. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 246. “Spalatin foresaw what was to come better than did Luther.” K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 57.

[655] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 223, Table-Talk.

[656] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90). Cp. above, vol. iii., 38 f., 263 f.

[657] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

[658] Ib., p. 152.

[659] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.

[660] To the Visitors in Thuringia, March 25, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 173 “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 118.

[661] To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 596, concerning certain occurrences at Dresden.

[662] See above p. 55, ff., and vol. ii., p. 298.

[663] “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 613.

[664] R. Sohm, ib., p. 615.

[665] Ib., p. 623.

[666] Ib., p. 618.

[667] Ib., p. 632. Sohm’s standpoint is, that a Church with powers of self-government or with a “canon law,” as he calls it, is practically unthinkable. Cp. Carl MÜller, “Die AnfÄnge der Konsistorialverfassung in Deutschland” (Hist. Zeitschr. Bd. 102, 3. Folge Bd. 6, p. 1 ff.). He too arrives at the conclusion, contrary to many previously held views, viz. that it was only gradually in the course of the 16th century that the consistories changed, from organs of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, into organs of State government of the Church. Cp. also O. Mejer, “Zum KR. des Reformationsjahrh.,” 1891, p. 1 ff.

[668] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 66.

[669] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 720 sq. Memorandum as to whether the Schmalkalden League should continue, etc., March, 1545, signed by him first. Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 374.

[670] To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[671] Pars 3, art. 9: “Maiorem excommunicationem, quam papa ita nominat, non nisi civilem poenam esse ducimus non pertinentem ad nos ministros ecclesiÆ.” “Symbol. BÜcher,” ed. MÜller-Kolde¹⁰, p. 323.

[672] To Tileman Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy, June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317: “Hoc sÆculo excommunicatio maior ne potest quidem in nostram potestatem redigi, et ridiculi fieremus, ante vires, hanc tentantes. Nam quod vos sperare videmini, ut executio vel per ipsum principem fiat, valde incertum est, nec vellem politicum magistratum in id officii misceri,” etc.

[673] N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess,” 1911, p. 32, with reference to “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 539, where the note of the Wittenberg Deacon, George RÖrer to Luther’s sermon of Aug. 22 of that year says: “HÆc prima fuit excommunicatio ab ipso pronuntiata.”

[674] Luther to Leonhard Beier, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[675] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 275.

[676] Cp. the passages quoted, ib., p. 675, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.

[677] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 291 sqq. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.

[678] On April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 550. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 162 ff., 159 f.; “We must set up excommunication again.” In the latter passage he speaks of his action against the Wittenberg Commandant, Hans v. Metzsch.

[679] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 42. His words remind us of Luther’s own; above, p. 139.

[680] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 160.

[681] Ib., p. 179 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185 (in 1540).

[682] Ib., p. 169 f.

[683] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 278 (in 1542-1543).

[684] “Kosmographie,” Bl. 44´, 163. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 535.

[685] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 122.

[686] Ib., 1, p. 322.

[687] Ib., 3, p. 306.

[688] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 367, Table-Talk.

[689] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 306. In the statement the year given is uncertain. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 368: “Anno 34,” etc.; elsewhere 1543.

[690] Rebenstock, in Bindseil, 1. c.

[691] P. Drews, “Die Ordination, PrÜfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg” (“Deutsche Zeitschr. fÜr KR.”), 15, 1905, pp. 66 ff., 274 ff., particularly p. 281 ff.

[692] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 22 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80: “Doctor dixit: Nos qui prÆdicamus Evangelium, habemus potestatem ordinandi; papa et episcopi neminem possunt ordinare” (a. 1540). P. 226: “Doctor ad Cellarium; Vos estis episcopus, quemadmodum ego sum papa” (a. 1540). Johannes Cellarius was Superintendent at Dresden.

[693] Janssen, ib. (Engl. Trans.), vi., 181 ff.

[694] Letter of Jan. 24, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 253 f.

[695] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 553 ff.

[696] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 126, in the “Exempel” (see below, p. 195).

[697] “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, p. 302, according to MS. Dresdense B 193, 4.

[698] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 554 f.

[699] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 125, in the “Exempel.”

[700] On March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 451: “Venerabili in Domino viro Iacobo Probst ecclesiÆ Bremensis episcopo vero,” etc.

[701] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 93 ff.

[702] Ib., p. 121.

[703] Ib., pp. 99, 100, 118, 113.

[704] P. 124.

[705] P. 125.

[706] P. 115.

[707] P. 126 f.

[708] Feb. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 432.

[709] Letter of Jan. 13, 1543, ib., p. 532.

[710] Letter of July 23, 1542, ib., p. 485.

[711] To Amsdorf after Jan. 20, 1542, ib., p. 430.

[712] To Amsdorf, Feb. 12, 1542, ib., p. 433.

[713] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 123.

[714] Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773.

[715] Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.

[716] Feb. 10, 1546, ib., p. 790.

[717] April 13, 1542, ib., p. 464.

[718] To the Elector and the Duke, April 7, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 15 ff. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 304 ff.

[719] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 567.

[720] April 9, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. liii. “Briefe,” ib., p. 311.

[721] Leipzig, 1874, p. 28 f.

[722] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 568.

[723] According to Luther’s report to BrÜck, April 12, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. liv., “Briefe,” p. 314.

[724] Ib.

[725] Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sÄchs. Kirchen- u. Schulvisitationen, 1524-1545,” 1879, p. 209 f. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 192.

[726] G. A. Arndt, “Archiv der sÄchs. Gesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1784-1786, p. 333 ff. C. G. Gersdorf, “Urkundenbuch von Meissen,” 3, Leipzig, 1867, p. 375 f. Janssen, ib., p. 193.

[727] April 29, 1544, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 91; “Briefe,” 5, p. 646.

[728] In Luther’s household memoranda, “Briefe,” 6, p. 326.

[729] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 34).

[730] July 7, 1544, “Werke,” ib., p. 104 f.

[731] Cp. Luther’s attitude at the time when the question of armed resistance to the Emperor was mooted, vol. iii., 56 ff., and his views on the relations of Church and State.

[732] To Amsdorf, Nov. 25, 1538, “Briefe,” 5, p. 136 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 38): “Vides, quantis premor oneribus.... Miserrimis miserior, ut qui amplius nihil possum prÆ defectu virium.”

[733] To the Christians at Strasburg, Dec. 15, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 395; Erl. ed., 53, p. 275 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83).

[734] See above, vol. ii., p. 370.

[735] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 67 f.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 141 f. “Against the heavenly Prophets.”

[736] Ib., p. 68=143.

[737] Ib., p. 73=148.

[738] Ib., p. 74=149.

[739] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 334.

[740] Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 26; Erl. ed., 28, p. 225 f.

[741] Ib., p. 29=228.

[742] Ib., 16, p. 440=36, p. 49.

[743] Ib., p. 440 f.=50.

[744] Ib., p. 444=54. Sermon of 1525.

[745] Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 425; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 51 sq. (1518, against the strictures of the Bohemians) and Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 34; Erl. ed., 28, p. 310.

[746] See above, vol. ii., p. 97 f.; vol. iii., p. 385.

[747] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 31 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 229 f.

[748] Ib., 16, p. 440=36, p. 49. Sermons on the Ten Commandments.

[749] Ib., 28, p. 677 f.=36, p. 329 f. Exposition of Deuteronomy.

[750] Ib., p. 716=368.

[751] P. 553=206.

[752] P. 715=367.

[753] April 25, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347).

[754] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 74 f., 82 f.; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 149 f., 159.

[755] Ib., 26, p. 509=30, p. 372.

[756] Ib., 10, 3, p. 114=15², p. 334.

[757] Ib., 18, p. 83=29, p. 159.

[758] Ib., 63, p. 391 f.

[759] Cp. above, p. 203.

[760] See vol. ii., p. 351 f.

[761] Th. Eitner, “Erfurt u. die BauernaufstÄnde im 16. Jahrh.,” Halle, 1903, pp. 59, 95.

[762] Ib., p. 72.

[763] Ib., pp. 74, 84.

[764] Ib., p. 75.

[765] Ib., pp. 78, 76.

[766] See below, p. 230.

[767] Chr. Falk, “Elbingisch-Preuss. Chronik,” ed. M. TÖppen (“Publik. des Vereins f. die Gesch. der Provinzen Ost- und West-Preussen,” Leipzig, 1879), p. 157 f. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 112 ff.

[768] v. Baczko, “Gesch. Preussens,” 4, p. 173 ff. Janssen, ib.

[769] Janssen, ib.

[770] L. Redner’s “Skizzen aus der KG. Danzigs,” Danzig, 1875 (“Marienkirchen”).

[771] Janssen, ib., p. 120.

[772] Janssen, ib., vol. xi., p. 34 ff.

[773] Ib., vol. vi., p. 205.

[774] Whitsuntide Sermon, in Janssen, ib., vol. xi., p. 38. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², pp. 121, 131, 222 f., 330. Cp. Janssen, ib., p. 37, the passages from the sermons of the superintendent George Nigrinus.

[775] Janssen, ib., v., p. 121.

[776] Beckmann, “Historie des FÜrstentums Anhalt,” 6, p. 43.

[777] “Repertorium f. Kunstwissenschaft,” 20, p. 46. Janssen, ib., vol. xi., p. 36.

[778] Oldecop, in 1548. Janssen, ib., vol. xi., p. 36.

[779] “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 9, p. 316 ff.; 10, p. 15 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 209.

[780] “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 10, p. 17.

[781] Ladurner, “Der Einfall der Schmalkaldener im Tirol, 1546,” (“Archiv f. Gesch. u. Altertumskunde Tirols,” 1), p. 415 ff. Janssen, ib., vi., 315 ff.

[782] Janssen, ib., vi., p. 349.

[783] J. Voigt, “Briefwechsel der Gelehrten des Zeitalters der Reformation mit Herzog Albrecht von Preussen,” 1841, p. 30.

[784] Janssen, ib., vi., p. 434.

[785] Aug. 19, 1548, C. W. Hase, “Mittelalterliche Baudenkmale Niedersachsens,” Hannover, 1858, Hft., 3, p. 100.

[786] Janssen, ib., vi., p. 438 f.

[787] Ib., vi., p. 454.

[788] See A. v. Druffel, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1873 ff., p. 668.

[789] Janssen, ib., vi., p. 458.

[790] F. A. Sinnacher, “Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Kirche SÄben und Brixen,” 7, 1830, p. 441. D. SchÖnherr, “Der Einfall des KurfÜrsten Moritz in Tyrol,” 1868, p. 101 ff. Janssen, ib., vi., p. 478.

[791] See SchÖnherr, ib., p. 137 ff.

[792] Janssen, ib., vi., p. 496.

[793] Ib., vi., p. 459.

[794] Melchior von Ossa in his diary, Jan. 1, 1553. F. A. Langenn, “D. Melchior von Ossa,” 1858, p. 161. Janssen, ib., p. 505.

[795] DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 2, p. 318.

[796] “Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. Erhaltung der geschtl. DenkmÄler im Elsass,” 15, 1892, p. 248. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), xi., p. 46.

[797] E. Weller, “Der Volksdichter Hans Sachs u. seine Dichtungen,” 1868, p. 118 ff.

[798] Ib.

[799] He frequently laments that the churches were too ill-provided for. Cp. Walch’s Index, s.v. “Kirche,” & “GotteshÄuser.”

[800] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 82 f.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 158.

[801] See P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers VerhÄltnis zu Kunst und KÜnstlern,” Berlin, 1892, p. 84. Janssen, ib., xi., 39.—On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xi., ch. ii.

[802] March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 451.

[803] Oct. 9, 1542, ib., p. 501.

[804] Oct. 29, 1542, ib., p. 502.

[805] Nov. 7, 1543, ib., p. 600.

[806] Dec. 3, 1544, ib., p. 702.

[807] March 13, 1542, ib., p. 444.

[808] Oct. 5, 1542, ib., p. 501.

[809] Dec. 16, 1543, ib., p. 611 f.

[810] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 144.

[811] Ib., p. 105.

[812] Ib., p. 140.

[813] Ib., p. 122.

[814] Ib., p. 113.

[815] Ib., p. 132.

[816] Below, xxxii., 6.

[817] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 114, in 1538.

[818] Ib., p. 105.

[819] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 303.

[820] According to Mathesius (“Historien,” p. 146) he once said even in the pulpit: “A full belly and ripe dung are easily parted.”

[821] To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[822] Ib.

[823] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117.

[824] To Lauterbach, ib.

[825] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303.

[826] “Hist.,” p. 145´ f. Ecebolius, under the Emperor Constantine, a type of the hypocrite.

[827] To Hans Luther, Feb. 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 130 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).

[828] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[829] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 288.

[830] Ib., p. 179.

[831] Ib., p. 155.

[832] Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefe,” 5, p. 322.

[833] Ib.

[834] To Justus Jonas, Jan. 26, 1543, ib., p. 534.

[835] To Spalatin, Aug. 21, 1544, ib., p. 679 f.

[836] To Amsdorf, April 14, 1545, ib., p. 728.

[837] June 18, 1543, ib., p. 570.

[838] To Justus Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, ib., p. 439: “Carlstadii ista sunt monstra.”

[839] Ib.: “Furiis furiosis aguntur, quia ira Dei pervenit super eos usque in finem. Quare ergo propter istos perditos nos conficere volumus? Mitte, vadere sicut vadit.”

[840] To Dr. Ratzeberger, the Elector’s physician, Aug. 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 754.

[841] April 14, 1545, ib., a letter not in the least intended as a joke.

[842] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185. Rebenstock in Bindseil, l.c.

[843] To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 584. Cp. p. 789: “ne tandem fiat quod ante diluvium factum esse scribit Moises,” etc.

[844] Ib., p. 585.

[845] Sep. 3, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 396.

[846] On the psychology of his humour, see below, xxxi., 5.

[847] To Justus Jonas, April 17, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 642. Cp. p. 629: “testes fidelissimi” report an alliance between the Pope, the Turks, French and Venetians against the Emperor. “Now give a cheer for the Pope.”

[848] To Amsdorf, Jan. 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 713.

[849] To Amsdorf, July 17, 1545, ib., p. 750 f.

[850] Cp. Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. Trans.), vol. x.

[851] June-July, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 379.

[852] June, 22, 1541, ib., p. 372.

[853] Vol. iii., pp. 217, 280 f.

[854] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 155.

[855] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423. In 1537.

[856] Above, vol. iii., p. 116.

[857] “Colloq.,” l.c., p. 156. Cp. Rebenstock, in Bindseil, l.c.

[858] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 125.

[859] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156.

[860] To Melanchthon, April 20, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 346; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 308.

[861] To Melanchthon, March 24, 1541, ib., p. 336=279.

[862] To Jakob Probst, Pastor at Bremen, Oct. 9, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 501.

[863] On Feb. 23, 1545, see DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 269, n. 208, from MS.

[864] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 582. On Melanchthon, cp. above, vol. iii., p. 370.

[865] To Chancellor BrÜck, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 708.

[866] To Amsdorf, May 2, 1545, ib., p. 734.

[867] To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, ib., p. 585: “an colaphus SatanÆ?”

[868] To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 599.

[869] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 561 f., in his last sermon, Feb. 14, 1546, on Mt. xi 25 ff.

[870] Ib., p. 562 ff.

[871] Ib., p. 565.

[872] Ib., p. 564.

[873] Ib., p. 566 f.

[874] Ib., p. 571.

[875] To Ratzeberger, the Elector’s medical adviser, Aug. 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 754: “Credo nos esse tubam illam novissimam,” etc.

[876] To Jonas at Halle, Jan. 23, 1542, ib., p. 429.

[877] To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542, ib., p. 487.

[878] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 385 f. (Dec., 1536).

[879] To Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 72: “videns, rem tumultuosissimo tumultu tumultuantem; forte hÆc est inundatio illa prÆdicta anno 24 futura.”

[880] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423, concluding: “Videte, tanta est potentia SathanÆ in deludendis sensibus externis; quid faciet in animabus?”

[881] Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, particularly pp. 20 f., 48 ff.

[882] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 227.

[883] Ib., p. 129.

[884] Ib., p. 422, from Lauterbach and Weller’s Notes in the summer, 1537.

[885] To Amsdorf, June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741. Amsdorf had sent an inquiry “de monstro illo vulpium.”

[886] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69 f. Kirchenpostille.

[887] Ib.

[888] To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 612: “congruunt omnia signa.”

[889] In the “Chronology of the World,” “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278, from the Latin MS. See above, vol. iii., p. 147 f.

[890] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 22.

[891] Ib., p. 33.

[892] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 86.

[893] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 208; “Historien,” p. 143. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, pp. 18, 25, “Tischreden.”

[894] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1., p. 85.

[895] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 206.

[896] Ib., 62, p. 23.

[897] Ib., p. 24 f.

[898] See above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff., on the rise of his idea of the Pope as Antichrist.

[899] Cp. the index to Walch’s edition, vol. xxiii., s.v. “Antichrist” and “Widerchrist.”

[900] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, “Bulla CoenÆ Domini” (1522), appendix.

[901] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 646. On the Monk-Calf, see vol. iii., p. 149 f.

[902] On this Reply see vol. iii., p. 142.

[903] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 72.

[904] To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 612.

[905] To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, ib., p. 398.

[906] To Jonas, March 13, 1542, ib., p. 445.

[907] To Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, ib., p. 439.

[908] To Jonas, May 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 328: “Ego et Ægrotus et pÆne morosus sum, tÆdio rerum et morborum. Utinam me Deus evocet misericorditer ad sese. Satis malorum feci, vidi, passus sum.”

[909] To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 551: “ubique grassatur licentia et petulantia vulgi.” Cp. p. 552.

[910] To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543, ib., p. 569.

[911] To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, ib., p. 584.

[912] To Jonas, June 18, 1543, ib., p. 570.

[913] To Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, ib., p. 599.

[914] To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, ib., p. 610.

[915] To Duke George of Anhalt, July 10, 1545, ib., 6, p. 370.

[916] Ib.

[917] Vol. ii., p. 522.

[918] To Lauterbach, Feb. 9, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.

[919] To Amsdorf, June 23, 1544, ib., p. 670.

[920] To Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, ib., p. 703.

[921] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (1538), p. 34.

[922] P. 172 f.

[923] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” (1531 and 1532), p. 17.

[924] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 85, 86.

[925] Ib., p. 86.

[926] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 41, p. 233.

[927] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 282. Cp. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” ed. Loesche, p. 393.

[928] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 287.

[929] Above, p. 229.

[930] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.

[931] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 289.

[932] Ib., p. 288.

[933] Ib., p. 179.

[934] Ib., p. 108.

[935] Ib., p. 209.

[936] Ib., p. 111.

[937] To Amsdorf, Nov. 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 600.

[938] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 87.

[939] Ib., p. 89.

[940] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.

[941] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 41, p. 233.

[942] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 130.

[943] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 86.

[944] Ib., p. 87.

[945] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f.

[946] Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 30.

[947] See above, p. 226.

[948] Above, vol. iii., p. 362 ff.

[949] April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879 sqq.

[950] G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (Reprint from “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, 1-3), p. 30.

[951] F. Loofs, “DG.,” 4, 1906, p. 866, n. 3.

[952] G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 535 f.

[953] Nov. 12, 1538, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 606.

[954] To Gelous, May 20, 1559, ib., 9, p. 822: “Pendeo velut ad Caucasum adfixus, etsi verius sum ?p????e?? quam p????e?? et laceror, non ut ille vulturibus tantum, sed etiam a cuculis.”

[955] C. Sell, “Philipp Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” 14, 3, 1897), p. 117.

[956] Nov. 13, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.

[957] Dec. 7, 1537, ib., p. 460.

[958] Feb. 13, 1538, ib., p. 488.

[959] June 24, 1545, ib., 5, p. 776: “tam atrocia certamina inter collegas.”

[960] Dec. 25, 1544, to Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 554.

[961] “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 376.

[962] Oct. 11, 1538, to Caspar Borner, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 596.

[963] April 30, 1550, ib., 7, p. 580.

[964] Cp. DÖllinger, ib., 1, p. 379 f.

[965] From a New-Year’s letter (Jan. 1, 1540) to Veit Dietrich, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 895.

[966] Sept. 9, 1541, to Veit Dietrich, ib., 4, p. 654, where he continues: “Tegere hÆc soleo, sed, mihi crede, manent cicatrices.”

[967] About July 16, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 390 sq. Before this he had said in humanistic style: “Video novum quoddam genus sophistarum nasci; velut ex gigantum sanguine alii gigantes nati sunt.... Metuo maiores ecclesiÆ motus. Hie cum hydra decerto. Uno represso alii multi exoriuntur.”

[968] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 503 sqq. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 451.

[969] Cp. “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 523.

[970] Cp. DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 394.

[971] On March 9, 1559, to the Elector August of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766 sq. Cp. “RE.,” ib., p. 525.

[972] As early as Aug. 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917.

[973] Sep. 8, 1544, to Peter Medmann, ib., 5, p. 478.

[974] Oct. 6, 1538, ib., 3, p. 594.

[975] See DÖllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 354, and 3, p. 270.

[976] See above, vol. iii., p. 421 f.

[977] Kolde in the Preface to the “Symbol. BÜcher,”¹⁰, p. xxvi., No. 3. The Articles of Agreement were published in full by G. Mentz in 1905, “Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2). Letter to the Elector, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 128; “Briefe,” 4, p. 683 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 315, where Enders, as late as 1903, had to admit: “The doctrinal articles herewith transmitted are not known”). On the negotiations with the English, see vol. iv., p. 10 f.

[978] Thus Mentz, the editor, p. 11. Some theses from these Articles of Agreement proposed by the Wittenbergers but not accepted by the English deserve to be quoted from the new sources; their divergence from Luther’s ordinary teaching is self-evident. Of good works: “Bona opera non sunt precium pro vita Æterna, tamen sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia sunt debitum, quod necessario reconciliationem sequi debet.” In support of this Mt. xix. 17 is quoted: “Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata.” Again: “Docemus requiri opera a Deo mandata et quidem non tantum externa civilia opera, sed etiam spirituales motus, timorem Dei, fiduciam,” etc. (p. 34).—“HÆc obedientia in reconciliatis fide iam reputatur esse iustitia et quÆdam legis impletio” (p. 40).—“DocendÆ sunt ecclesiÆ de necessitate et de dignitate huius obedientiÆ, videlicet quod ... hÆc obedientia seu iusticia bonÆ conscientiÆ sit necessaria quia debitum est, quod necessario sequi reconciliationem debet” (p. 42).—Merit, at least in a certain restricted sense, is also admitted: “Ad hÆc bona opera sunt meritoria iuxta illud (1 Cor. iii. 8): Unusquisque accipiet mercedem iuxta proprium laborem.” (Cp. the Apologia of the Confession of Augsburg, “Symb. BÜcher,” pp. 120, 148.) “Etsi enim conscientia non potest statuere, quod propter dignitatem operum detur vita Æterna, sed nascimur filii Dei et hÆredes per misericordiam (which is also the Catholic teaching) tamen hÆc opera in filiis merentur prÆmia corporalia et spiritualia et gradus prÆmiorum,” etc. (p. 46). The ambiguity concerning Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (p. 62) is due to Melanchthon, not to Luther.

[979] Kolde, ib.

[980] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 497.

[981] To Melanchthon, June 18, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 293; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 91; “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 102 ff.; “Corp. ref.,” 3, pp. 1060 sq., 1077, 1081. To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” ib., p. 297; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 109: “mortuum enim invenimus; miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.” See vol. iii., p. 162.

[982] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 689; “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 402; “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 522.

[983] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 524.

[984] Cp., for instance, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 106, 116, 123, etc.; 13, pp. 282, 318.

[985] Discourse of Feb. 22, 1546, “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 726 sqq.

[986] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 59.

[987] For further details, see below, vol. vi., xl., 3.

[988] On what follows, see Loofs, “DG.,”⁴, p. 867 f.

[989] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 554.

[990] Ib., p. 569.

[991] Cp. the report of Peter Canisius to Lainez, General of the Jesuits, Braunsberger, “EpistulÆ b. Petri Canisii,” 2, p. 176 sq.

[992] Ellinger, ib., p. 570.

[993] Ib., p. 571.

[994] Thus the Protestant theologian Nitzsch, see “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 525. Loofs,⁴, p. 904. “The religious conference suffered shipwreck from want of unity amongst the Evangelicals.” The Gnesio-Lutherans demanded (Sep. 27) that all errors on “the Supper” should be condemned, “ whether emanating from Carlstadt, Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Calvin or others.” Calvin’s doctrine was, however, substantially identical with Melanchthon’s at that time.

[995] “RE.,” ib.

[996] To Camerarius, Feb. 16, 1559, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 744.

[997] Ib., p. 822. As a Humanist he was fond of conjuring up heaven under the image of the Academy. In his address to the students on Luther’s death he says, the former had been snatched away “in Æternam scholam et in Æterna gaudia.”

[998] To Buchholzer, Aug. 10, 1559, ib., p. 898.

[999] Ib., p. 1098.

[1000] Thus in his “Testament” of April 18, 1560, ib., p. 1099.

[1001] Reprinted in “Opera Ph. Melanchtonis,” t. 1, VitebergÆ, 1562, p. 364 sqq.

[1002] Jan. 28, 1538, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 20, p. 247 ff. G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kathol. Kirche zurÜckzufÜhren,” 1902 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 73), p. 43.

[1003] To Vergerio, June 1, 1534, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 19, p. 222. Kawerau, ib., p. 79.

[1004] To Bishop Cricius, June 2, 1534, in his “Velitatio in Apologiam Ph. Melanchthonis,” 1534, Bl. A. 6 ff. Kawerau, ib., p. 23 f.

[1005] “Velitatio,” Bl A. 4. Kawerau, p. 25.

[1006] “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 18, p. 424. Kawerau, p. 64 f.

[1007] Vol. ii., p. 438 ff., and above, p. 266. Cp. vol. iii., p. 447 (Cologne Book of Reform).

[1008] Cp. above, p. 265, n. 6.

[1009] The authors of the Article on Melanchthon in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, say, p. 535: “A Humanist mode of thought forms the background of his theology”; Melanchthon strove for a kind of compromise between Christian truth and ancient philosophy.

[1010] “Versuche,” p. 83, with the above example taken from “Corp. ref.,” 12, p. 269.

[1011] Cp., for instance, the letter of May 12, 1536, to Erasmus, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68 sq. Kawerau, ib., p. 32.

[1012] Cp. the Article quoted, p. 268, n. 2.

[1013] Ib., and pp. 532, 537 of the “RealenzyklopÄdie.”

[1014] F. X. Funk in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212 f.

[1015] For a supposed remark of Luther’s to Catherine Bora which would seem even more clearly to admit the uncertainty of the new faith, see below, p. 372 f.

[1016] “L’Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l’hÉrÉsie de ce siÈcle,” l. 2, ch. 9 (Rouen, 1648), p. 166: “On Éscrit, qu’Éstant sur le poinct de rendre l’Âme, l’an 1560, sa mÈre,” etc. The author is quite uncritical (see below, p. 271).

[1017] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083, Melanchthon to Camerarius. C. G. Strobel, “Melanchthoniana,” 1771, p. 9.

[1018] Cp. N. MÜller, “Jakob Schwarzerd,” 1908 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Nos. 96-97), p. 42, on “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 563. MÜller assumes (p. 41) that the visit took place in 1524.

[1019] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1, 1830, p. 119 ff., “Die Schwarzerd.”

[1020] P. 122.

[1021] In the collection of essays published by the Wittenberg “Academy,” “Memoria Ph. Melanchthonis, finito post eius exitum sÆculo II.”

[1022] 3rd ed., Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531.

[1023] G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 191. F. X. Funk remarks in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212: Melanchthon, “after having made her [his mother] repeat her prayers, is said to have assured her, that if she continued thus to believe and to pray, she might well live in hopes of being saved.”

[1024] “Des Teutschen ... Rekreation,” Munich, 1612, 4, p. 143. The author, who died in 1620, is no authority on historical matters beyond his own times and surroundings.

[1025] “VitÆ theologorum,” p. 333.

[1026] “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531, with reference to Melanchthon’s “Postille,” 2, p. 477.

[1027] Above, p. 270, n. 5, p. 41.

[1028] “Historia comitiorum a. 1530 AugustÆ celebratorum,” 3, p. 20.

[1029] Gotha, 1876, p. 191.

[1030] J. B. Hablitzel, “Liter. Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1905, No. 40 f.

[1031] Printed in the Jena edition of Luther’s German works, 5, 1557, p. 41.

[1032] “Apologia,” Ingolstadii, 1542, p. clii.

[1033] Willibald Pirkheimer, who was then on Luther’s side, is usually regarded as the author of this screed published under the pseudonym of J. F. Cottalambergius. Like some others, K. Bauer (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 272) rejects his authorship. The passage in question appears in BÖcking’s edition, “Hutteni opp.,” 4, 1860, p. 533.

[1034] “Johannes Eck,” 1865, p. 275 f.

[1035] 1906, p. 885.

[1036] To Melanchthon, Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 227.

[1037] To Melanchthon, Nov. 21, 1540, ib., p. 215.

[1038] To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[1039] To Jonas, Jan. 23, 1542, ib., p. 429.

[1040] To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, ib., pp. 551, 552.

[1041] To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543, ib., p. 569.

[1042] To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542, ib., p. 487 f.

[1043] To Cordatus, Dec. 3, 1544, ib., p. 702.

[1044] To Probst, Jan. 17 (the year of his death), 1546, ib., p. 778.

[1045] To Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543, ib., p. 591: “quorum glorias pro stercore diaboli habeo.”

[1046] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 426, on “Master Grickel,” i.e. Agricola.

[1047] To Caspar Schwenckfeld’s messenger (1543), “Briefe,” 5, p. 614: “Increpet Dominus in te, Satan,” etc.

[1048] Cp. for what follows N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, where not only Luther’s (pp. 20 ff., 48 ff.) but also the Zwinglians’ and Calvinists’ attitude to the matter is dealt with.

[1049] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 305.

[1050] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; cp. p. 127=28 ff.

[1051] Ib., p. 211=127.

[1052] Ib., p. 205=121.

[1053] Ib., p. 134=36.

[1054] Ib., Erl. ed., 3², p. 477 f., in the first Sermon on the Angels.

[1055] Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 590 f.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 359. In the editions from 1522 to 1540 the word “conjugal” is inserted before “members.”

[1056] Ib.

[1057] Ib., 32, p. 112 ff.=18², p. 64 ff.

[1058] Ib., p. 120=76.

[1059] Ib., 34, 2, p. 263 f.=19², p. 75.

[1060] Ib., 32, p. 114=18², p. 68.

[1061] “Drey Sermon, Von den Heiligen Engeln, Vom Teufel, Von der Menschen Seele,” Wittenberg, 1563. In the sermon “Vom Teufel.” See N. Paulus, “Augsburger Postztng.,” 1903, May 8.

[1062] July 26, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 147.

[1063] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 331.

[1064] On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299. Cp. Mathesius, ib., p. 179: “Nothing is more certain than that the insane are not without their devils; these make them madder; the devil knows those who are of a melancholy turn, and of this tool he makes use.” Thus Luther in 1540.

[1065] “Sic informat [diabolus] animam et corpus, ut obsessi nihil audiant, videant, sentiant; sed ipse est iis pro anima.” Mathesius, ib., p. 198 (in 1540). Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13, with reference to 1 Cor. v. 5. The passage occurs in the Table-Talk, ch. 24, No. 68. Cp. Erl. ed., vol. 59, p. 289 to vol. 60, p. 75. This chapter is followed by others on similar subjects. Demonology occupies altogether a very large place. Ch. 59, “On the Angels,” comprises hardly four pages.

[1066] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 326 (in 1543).

[1067] Dec. 1, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 699 f.

[1068] July 25, 1542: “quum ipse occiderit eos et imaginatione animis impressa coegerit eos putare, quod se ipsos suspenderent.”

[1069] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 59. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 198.

[1070] Mathesius, ib. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 127.

[1071] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 24; cp. pp. 25, 27.

[1072] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 269; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 300.

[1073] Mathesius, in both the passages quoted. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 105 (1538): “habuit foedus cum Sathana ipse et pater eius, et foedissima scortatione occubuit securissime.”

[1074] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 207, under the heading “Spectra.” In the same volume pp. 218-242 treat of the devil under the heading “Diabolus, illius natura, conatus, insidiÆ, figura, expulsio.” In the second volume the ch. on “tentationes,” pp. 287-320, and, in the third, that on “fascinationes et incantationes,” pp. 9-14, are important.

[1075] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 224 f. (1540).

[1076] Ib., p. 402: “dixit de machinis bellicis et bombardis,” etc. (1537).

[1077] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 23.

[1078] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262 (1542-43).

[1079] Ib., p. 380 (1536).

[1080] Ib., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291: “We see how the milk thieves and other witches often do great mischief” (1543). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

[1081] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117 (1532).

[1082] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 304.

[1083] Ib., 60, p. 73.

[1084] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 322 (1543).

[1085] Ib., p. 412 f.

[1086] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 130; Erl. ed., 18², p. 70 (1530).

[1087] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 395 f. (1537).

[1088] Ib., p. 198 (1540).

[1089] Ib., p. 240.

[1090] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[1091] Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed. 10², p. 354.

[1092] Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. Cp. p. 31 and Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.

[1093] Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.

[1094] Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.

[1095] Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.

[1096] Ib., 59, p. 348.

[1097] Ib.

[1098] Ib., 60, p. 70.

[1099] Ib., 59, p. 348.

[1100] Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279, in the fuller Commentary on Galatians (1535). Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 357: “In Antinomis furit Sathan”(1539). Ib., p. 206: “AnabaptistÆ non intelligunt iram Dei, sic excÆcantur a diabolo; quare non anguntur, ut sancti, qui hÆc omnia sentiunt; diabolus enim ipsorum aures et animos tenet occupatos,” etc. (1540).

[1101] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279.

[1102] Ib.

[1103] Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 505 f.; Irmischer, 3, p. 251, in the first Commentary on Galatians.

[1104] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 97 (1540). Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 23, in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1518.

[1105] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 321.

[1106] Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, pp. 315, 317, 319; Irmischer, 1, pp. 278, 280, 283; Erl. ed., 49, p. 19, in the Exposition of St. John xiv.-xvi. Erl. ed., 59, p. 335.

[1107] Cp., for instance, Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 55, 111. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 97, 130, 174, 198, 279, 380, 436. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 317, 320-323; 60, pp. 24, 27, 57, 63, 71, etc.

[1108] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560.

[1109] Ib., 29, p. 401. Sermon of 1529. Similarly in the sermon of July 2, 1536, ib., 41, p. 633. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), p. 31.

[1110] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 136. Sermon on Oculi Sunday.

[1111] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 248.

[1112] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 22. Cp. p. 38 f.

[1113] Ib., 11², p. 136.

[1114] Ib., 59, p. 287.

[1115] Ib., p. 324.

[1116] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 110. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 108.

[1117] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179; “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 87, 127.

[1118] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13.

[1119] Ib., 59, p. 287. There ever was a widespread tendency to connect the Evil One with the water.

[1120] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380 (1536).

[1121] Ib., p. 118 (1540).

[1122] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340.

[1123] Ib., 60, pp. 64, 66

[1124] Ib., 59, p. 138.

[1125] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).

[1126] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 129. The account assures us that he claimed to have seen the apparition himself.

[1127] Ib., 31, p. 363.

[1128] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 140, in the shorter Exposition of Isaias iii. 21.

[1129] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 71.

[1130] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 300 (1542-44).

[1131] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 73.

[1132] Ib., 59, p. 294; cp. 60, p. 123. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 235, 318. For an explanation of the word here used see FÖrstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 132, n. 3.

[1133] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 281 f.

[1134] Ib., 32, p. 291 in “Vom Schem Hamphoras,” 1543.

[1135] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 258 (1542-43).

[1136] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 208.

[1137] Ib., p. 218.

[1138] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 211 f., in the Exposition of John i. and ii. (1537-38).

[1139] Ib., 60, p. 70.

[1140] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 315; Irmischer, 1, p. 277 sq.

[1141] “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), pp. 45, 67.

[1142] “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1909, p. 147. Paulus, ib., p. 46.

[1143] Leipzig, 1904, p. 518. Cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 1-10.

[1144] Cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 1-19.

[1145] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 3 sqq.

[1146] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540): “hoc malum (sagarum) invalescit iterum.” In 1519 he had lamented that “this evil is noticeably on the increase.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426, first Commentary on Galatians.

[1147] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 7.

[1148] Ib., p. 406 f.=16.

[1149] Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 57 (heading).

[1150] Ib., p. 79.

[1151] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).

[1152] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 406 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 20.

[1153] Ib., 12, p. 345. Sermon of 1523.

[1154] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 190.

[1155] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426.

[1156] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156; Nov. 4, 1538.

[1157] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 314 ff.; Irmischer, 1, p. 277 sqq., detailed Commentary on Galatians which is fuller on the question of sorcery than the Commentary of 1519 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426).

[1158] Ib., 40, 1, p. 314; Irmischer, 1, p. 277.

[1159] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.

[1160] See Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 117, for both.

[1161] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 162; Erl. ed., 33, p. 161. Cp. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 37, 39.

[1162] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198 (1540). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 39 f.

[1163] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 40.

[1164] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).

[1165] Ib., p. 380 (1536).

[1166] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.

[1167] Lauterbach, ib.

[1168] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129.

[1169] Ib.: there is no “motus de loco,” etc., all this “phantasmata sunt.” Similarly in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 17 sq.: the metamorphosis of old women into tom-cats and the nocturnal excursions of the witches to banquets are “delusions of the devil, not actual occurrences”; he, however, admits the possibility.

[1170] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.

[1171] See Paulus, ib., pp. 25 ff., 49.

[1172] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.

[1173] Ib., p. 117, Aug. 20, 1538.

[1174] Ib., p. 121, Aug. 25, 1538. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.

[1175] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 79.

[1176] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 551 (“occidantur,” etc.).

[1177] See Paulus, ib., p. 43 f., where he quotes Luther’s “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539), in support of the duty of burning witches on account of their compact with the devil, quite apart from the harm they may cause—“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 441 f.: The witches or “devil’s whores, who are burnt at the stake whenever they are caught, as is right, not for stealing milk but because of the blasphemy by which they strengthen the cause of the devil, his sacraments and Churches.”

[1178] Cp. the Eisleben edition (1569), pp. 280, 280´: “They should be hurried to the stake. The lawyers require too many witnesses and proofs, they despise these open, etc.” The same occurs in the Frankfurt edition (1568), p. 218´.

[1179] “Pythonissa,” Frankfurt, 1660, pp. 471, 472, from Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 58, p. 129 (above, p. 287).

[1180] “Hexenwahn,” p. 75 ff.

[1181] Ib., p. 54 ff.

[1182] See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xvi., pp. 269 to 526, a very full account of the Witch trials, etc.

[1183] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129. From May 21 to June 11, 1540. See above, p. 290, n. 3.

[1184] Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” pp. 52, 66.

[1185] Karl Adolf Menzel, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 3², 1854, p. 65, is of opinion that the reformers of the 16th century lent the whole weight of their position and convictions to strengthening the belief in witches. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” loc. cit.: “Through Luther and his followers belief in the power and influence of the devil, who was active in all men and who exercised his arts especially through witches and sorcerers, received an impetus and spread in a manner never known before.” J. Hansen, “Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess im MA.,” 1900, p. 536 f., also admits that Protestantism had increased the readiness to accept such belief. Cp. the admissions of Riezler, v. Bezold and Steinhausen quoted by Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” p. 48 f.

[1186] Cp. J. Diefenbach, “Der Zauberglaube des 16. Jahrh. nach den Katechismen Luthers und Canisius,” 1900.

[1187] To Catherine Bora, Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.

[1188] See below, vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.

[1189] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295 (1542). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.

[1190] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.

[1191] Ib., p. 267, speaking of a case of long-continued adulterous incest between brother and sister (1542): “This was the work of the devil himself,” etc.

[1192] “Satanicum tempus et sÆculum.” To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703.

[1193] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, ib., p. 774.

[1194] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174 (1540).

[1195] On the great tragedy between God and Satan in which he (particularly in 1541) is so prominently entangled, see the letter to Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.

[1196] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 307 (1542-43).

[1197] To Johann Silvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.

[1198] See above, p. 226 ff.

[1199] Thus as early as June 27, 1522, to Staupitz at Salzburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 407, with the emphatic assurance: “sed Christus, qui coepit, conteret eum, frustra renitentibus omnibus portis inferi.”

[1200] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.

[1201] Ib., 59, p. 342.

[1202] Ib., 57, p. 65.

[1203] Ib., 58, p. 301.

[1204] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1205] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 73, 55. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” ed. Loesche, p. 113.

[1206] P. 200. Cp. above, p. 174.

[1207] P. 193´.

[1208] “CochlÆi Acta, etc.” (1549), p. 2: “quod etiam corporaliter visus quibusdam fuerit cum eo conversari.”

[1209] “I feel him well enough.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 301.

[1210] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198.

[1211] Ib., p. 331.

[1212] To Wenceslaus Link, July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 301.

[1213] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 51; Erl. ed., 33, p. 55.

[1214] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 90 f. (1534).

[1215] Ib., cp. above, p. 5.

[1216] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 279.

[1217] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 235.

[1218] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 586; Erl. ed., 10², p. 355, Church-postils.

[1219] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[1220] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55 f.

[1221] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340. Lauterbach, ib., p. 56.

[1222] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 228. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60, under the heading “Satan flees from music”: “It was thus that David with his harp abated Saul’s temptations when the devil plagued him” (3 Kg. xvi. 23).

[1223] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 313.

[1224] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 343 f.

[1225] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.

[1226] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 165.

[1227] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.

[1228] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 3.

[1229] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.

[1230] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1231] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73.

[1232] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 30.

[1233] Ib., p. 163.

[1234] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 88 f. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 101 f., n. 59.

[1235] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12, and Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, from Notes of Lauterbach and Weller. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78.

[1236] Lauterbach, ib. In the Latin “Colloquia” as well as in the German Table-Talk (ib.), in connection with “the clergy and schoolmasters” of the past, it is related, that, in their day, the head of an ox was taken from the fence and thrown into the St. John’s bonfire, whereby a great number of witches were attracted to the place. Then follows at once in both passages, in order to emphasise the advance which had been made: “But Dr. Pommer’s plan is the best,” etc., etc. See vol. iii., p. 230, n. 2.

[1237] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 218.

[1238] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 59.

[1239] Ib., 31, p. 311.

[1240] Ib., p. 316 f.

[1241] Ib., 60, p. 61.

[1242] Ib., and 59, p. 294.

[1243] See below, xxxiii., 4.

[1244] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[1245] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 312. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 sq., and below, p. 314, n. 3.

[1246] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179 (1540), where Kroker remarks: “A favourite saying with Luther,” and quotes Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” pp. 130 and 295. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 215, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 124.

[1247] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 86 ff.

[1248] Ib., 7, p. 262 ff.=27, p. 200 ff.

[1249] In the writing against Alveld, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 286; Erl. ed., 27, p. 87.

[1250] “Briefe,” 6, p. 321, of 1542. See above, vol. iv., p. 292.

[1251] Nov. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 505; cp. 6, p. 320.

[1252] Feb. 10, 1546, ib., 5, p. 789.

[1253] Feb. 7, 1546, ib., p. 787.

[1254] Feb. 1, 1546, ib., p. 784.

[1255] Above, vol. ii., p. 140 f.; also vol. iii., pp. 233 ff., 264 ff., 301; vol. iv., pp. 161 ff., 318 ff.

[1256] Feb. 6, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 786.

[1257] Above, vol. iii., p. 305.

[1258] Ib., p. 268.

[1259] On certain frivolous expressions which Luther was fond of using of holy things his opponents seized as proofs that he was little better than an atheist or blasphemer. There is indeed no doubt that religious reverence suffered by his jests. Do you suppose Christ was drunk, he repeatedly asks, when He commanded this or that? The Son of Man came to save what was lost, but He set about it foolishly enough. Unless Our Lord God understands a joke, then I shouldn’t like to go to heaven. He even has a jest about the feathers of the Holy Ghost, pokes fun at the Saints, etc., etc.—On the occasion of his journey to Heidelberg, in 1518, undertaken at a grave juncture when the penalties of the Church were hanging over his head, he said jestingly, that he had no need of contrition, confession or satisfaction, the hardships of the journey being equal to “contritio perfecta,” etc. (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 184). The Pietists were not so far wrong when they asked in their day: “Who would wish to approve all the jests of that holy man, our dearly-beloved Luther?” (Cp. Frank, “Luther im Spiegel seiner Kirche” (“Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,” 1905, p. 473.)) “Some readers may, for instance, be scandalised at the passages where Luther makes fun of Scripture texts or articles of faith, e.g. the Trinity.” Thus in the “Beil. z. M. Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.

[1260] See vol. iii., p. 149 ff.

[1261] See vol. ii., p. 137.

[1262] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.

[1263] Ib., p. 391 f.=23.

[1264] March 5, 1522, ib., Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[1265] Ib.

[1266] June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.

[1267] To the Elector Johann Frederick, July 9, 1535, “Werke,” Erl. ed. 55, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 169).

[1268] To Johann RÜhel, etc., June 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).

[1269] See vol. ii., p. 184.

[1270] Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 317.

[1271] Amsdorf to Spalatin, April 4, 1523, see Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 443.

[1272] May 23, 1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed. 55, p. 54 f. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 48.

[1273] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 249.

[1274] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450. For other remedies against sadness mentioned here or elsewhere see above, p. 92 f., and below, p. 323, and vol. iii., pp. 175 ff., 305 ff.; vol. iv., p. 311 f.

[1275] Bugenhagen’s account of Luther’s illness and temptations of 1527, from the Latin. Walch’s ed. of Luther’s Works, 21, p. 158*; Vogt, “Bugenhagens Briefwechsel,” 1888, p. 64 ff.

[1276] April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 308.

[1277] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 310.

[1278] To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 43.

[1279] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 86 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 127). The preface is addressed to Amsdorf.

[1280] See Dietz, “WÖrterbuch, etc.”

[1281] Ib., p. 89.

[1282] Ib., 26², p. 251.

[1283] Ib., p. 275.

[1284] Ib.

[1285] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.

[1286] Ib.

[1287] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 406: “Mentionem fecit morbi sui spiritualis. Nam in 14 diebus nihil edit neque bibit neque dormivit. ‘Quo tempore sÆpius disputavi cum Deo,’” etc.

[1288] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 144.

[1289] Ib., p. 113. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 16.

[1290] To Justus Menius, May 1, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 467.

[1291] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 159, June 18, 1540: “tentari de blasphemia, de iudicio Dei, ibi nec peccatum intelligimus nec remedia novimus.” According to other passages he is here speaking from his own experience.

[1292] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1293] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 65.

[1294] Ib., p. 66.

[1295] Ib., 60, p. 82 f.

[1296] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 266; Erl. ed., 19², p. 76. Sermon at Michaelmas. In place of the devil’s “raging” (“Rasen”), as in Erl. ed., the Weim. ed. reads “nosing” (“Nasen”) [?“Nahsein”]. Rorer’s MS. reads: “Et in me sentio satanÆ nisum.”

[1297] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 476; Erl. ed., 18², p. 359, Sermon on 1 John iv. (16-21).

[1298] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 61 f., 63 f.; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 283, 285, at the end of the eight sermons against Carlstadt.

[1299] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 221 sq.

[1300] Ib., 3, p. 154 sq. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 70. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 107. Taken from Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 26, 1532.

[1301] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 243.

[1302] Schlaginhaufen, p. 11 (Dec. 14, 1531). Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 46.

[1303] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 128.

[1304] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 223.

[1305] See vol. iii., pp. 175 f., 178 f.

[1306] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11. Cp. ib., Veit Dietrich’s statement, and vol. iii., p. 177 f.

[1307] Schlaginhaufen, p. 41, Jan.-March, 1532. Cp. Cordatus, p. 131; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 298; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 402.

[1308] Above, p. 7 ff.

[1309] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 301.

[1310] Ib., p. 301 f.

[1311] Ib., 20², 1, p. 161, Sermon on Gal. i. 4 f. (1538).

[1312] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 48, with the addition: “But the Law must be preached to those who are well.”

[1313] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1314] Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 122.

[1315] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” ed. Loesche, p. 411. Cp. Khummer, in Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 74.

[1316] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 363.

[1317] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, 301.

[1318] Ib.

[1319] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 21.

[1320] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 159.

[1321] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 47.

[1322] “VitÆ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, “Vita Lutheri,” c. 4, p. 5. The text was Rom. xi. 32.

[1323] Cp. above, p. 323.

[1324] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 19 ff.

[1325] Ib., p. 9. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 177 f.

[1326] See vol. ii., p. 180 f. Cp. Melanchthon’s statement, p. 177.

[1327] Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 10.

[1328] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 147 f., June 11-19, 1540. See vol. iii., p. 203 f.

[1329] Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 39.

[1330] July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 300.

[1331] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 40: “TristitiÆ spiritus est ipsa conscientia.” Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 296, 298, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, 108.

[1332] Cp. above, p. 66 ff.

[1333] Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 26, Jan.-March, 1532.

[1334] To Link, July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 301 f.

[1335] March 8, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 635: “solari contra conscientiam, quÆ est mortis sÆvissimum ministerium.” Cp. above, p. 67.

[1336] To the Wittenberg Augustinians, Nov. 1, 1521, in the dedication of his writing “De abroganda missa privata,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 411 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 116 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243). Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 79 ff.

[1337] “Furebam ita sÆva et perturbata conscientia,” etc. “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22. Vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[1338] From the letter to the Augustinians, p. 411 f.=116.

[1339] To Melanchthon, May 26, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 163.

[1340] Khummer (1539), in Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36: “per totum triennium laboravi omnibus desperationibus.” The reading “omnibus desperantibus” is excluded by what follows: “scripserunt quidam ad me fratres ad constantiam me adhortantes.”

[1341] To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[1342] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9.

[1343] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 205. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 80. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 160 f.

[1344] “Acetissimum mihi acetum,” speaking of the rapacity of the despoilers of the churches and of the use of church property for purely private purposes. To Spalatin, Jan. 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 3. On this illness, see below, vol. vi., xxvi., 1.

[1345] “Luthers Werke,” Walch ed., 21, appendix, p. 158*, from the Latin. Best rendered in the original Latin text in O. Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 64 ff.

[1346] Cp. the account of Jonas, “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 sqq., and better still, Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, 1884-85, p. 104 ff. The account begins: “Cum mane, ut ipse fatebatur nobis, habuisset grandem tentationem spiritualem et tamen utcunque ad se rediisset.” Kawerau, ib., p. 109: “Dixit (Lutherus) hesternam tentationem spiritualem duplo fuisse maiorem, quam hanc Ægritudinem ad vesperam subsecutam.”

[1347] Aug. 2, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 71: “Agebar fluctibus et procellis desperationis et blasphemiae.... Deus eruit animam meam de inferno inferiori” (Ps. lxxxv. 13).

[1348] Aug. 12, 1527, ib., p. 73, “Agon iste meus,” etc.

[1349] Ib., p. 78.

[1350] Ib., p. 84 f.

[1351] To Michael Stiefel, ib., p. 104.

[1352] To Justus Jonas, ib., p. 106.

[1353] To Melanchthon, ib., p. 110: “cum aliud non quÆram aut sitiam quam propitium Deum.”

[1354] Ib., p. 111. 2 Cor. vii. 5: “Foris pugnÆ, intus timores”; Luther: “pavores.”

[1355] To Jonas, ib., p. 113. He, however, has a joke even here at the expense of Bugenhagen, who was then staying in his house: “Salutat te Pomeranus, hodie cacator purgandus factus.”

[1356] Cp. Ps. cviii. 17: “compunctum corde mortificare.” Luther, quoting from memory, says: “contritum corde ad mortificandum.”

[1357] “Novissimus omnium hominum.” Cp. Ps. liii. 3: “novissimus virorum,” of the Messias; 1 Cor. iv. 9: “novissimos ostendit,” of the Apostles.—“Quem Deus percussit, persequuntur”; cp. Ps. lxviii. 27.

[1358] For the letters quoted, see “Briefwechsel,” under the dates given.

[1359] To the Elector Johann of Saxony, Jan. 16, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 215 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 195).

[1360] Jan. or Feb., 1527, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 15; Erl. ed., 53, p. 412 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15).

[1361] July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 300.

[1362] Cp. the letter to Link of March 7, 1529, ib., 7, p. 63.

[1363] Cp. vol. iii., p. 218 ff.

[1364] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 350 f., Sermon on Rom. viii. 31 (1537).

[1365] To Link, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 214.

[1366] “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 52: “ut Dominus non me deserat in manu SatanÆ.”

[1367] Ib., p. 87.

[1368] To Johann Brismann at Riga, ib., p. 139. On the extraordinary states and temptations of certain Saints which some have likened to Luther’s “temptations,” see below, vol. vi., xxxv., 5, at the end.

[1369] To Link, Oct. 28, 1529, ib., p. 179 f. On the Marburg Conference, see vol. iii., p. 381 f.

[1370] Ib., p. 180. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 180.

[1371] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 13; Erl. ed., 53, p. 411 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15). Cp. the article on Kling by N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1892, 1, p. 146 ff.

[1372] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 322; Erl. ed., 63, p. 259, in the Preface to the work of Justus Menius against Conrad Kling: “Etlicher gottloser Lere ... Verlegung,” etc., 1527.

[1373] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 530 ff.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 271.

[1374] Ib., Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f. Cp. below, xxxiv., 4. [We give it above in Carlyle’s rendering, “Miscellanies,” “Luther’s Psalm.”]

[1375] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 177, 646.

[1376] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 48 f., 325 f.

[1377] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 41; Erl. ed., 31, p. 20. “Von heimlich? und gestolen Brieffen,” 1529.

[1378] P. Tschackert, “Die Entstehung des Lutherliedes ‘Ein’ feste,’” etc. (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1905, No. 2, and before, in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1903, Hft. 10).

[1379] Exposition of John xvii., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 91; Erl. ed., 50, p. 174.

[1380] Ib., p. 137=213.

[1381] Ib., p. 85 f.=169.

[1382] Ib., p. 159 f.=233 f.

[1383] Ib., p. 199=264.

[1384] Ib., p. 182 ff.=252 f.

[1385] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 295 ff.; Erl. ed., 50, p. 328 f.

[1386] To Spalatin, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 308. See above, p. 315.

[1387] To Melanchthon, May 12, 1530, ib., p. 332 f.

[1388] To Jonas, May 19, 1530, ib., p. 338.

[1389] To Melanchthon, May 15, 1530, ib., p. 335.

[1390] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 203.

[1391] “Spiritus ille, qui me colaphizavit hactenus.” Cp. 2 Cor. xii. 7: “angelus satanÆ, qui me colaphizet.”

[1392] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 43.

[1393] Oct. 31, 1530, ib., p. 301.

[1394] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 87.

[1395] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Oct. 28-Dec. 12, 1536.

[1396] Schlaginhaufen, ib.

[1397] See above, vol. ii., pp. 391 ff.; vol. iv., pp. 191 ff.

[1398] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115, March 21 to June 11, 1540.

[1399] To Jakob Probst, Dec. 31, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 169.

[1400] To Johann Hess, Jan. 27, 1528, ib., p. 199 f.

[1401] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f., “Vier trostliche Psalmen” (1526).

[1402] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295. In 1542-43.

[1403] Ib., p. 317, Spring, 1543. His statement runs, that “no heresiarch can be converted.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 262; cp. 23, p. 73; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.

[1404] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.

[1405] Ib.

[1406] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Eyn trew Vormanung,” etc. Cp. his outbursts against the “obstinacy of the heretics,” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 37 sqq.: “Temeritas Schwermeriorum pestilentissima est,” etc. P. 40, under the heading: “Quomodo sit cum fanaticis agendum.”

[1407] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 24 f. According to his sermons.

[1408] Cp. below, p. 355 f.

[1409] “There is only one article and rule in theology, viz. true faith or trust in Christ.... The devil has opposed this article from the beginning of the world.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 398.—“A Christian must be quite convinced that a thing is so and not otherwise ... so that he may be able to withstand every temptation and stand up to the devil and all his angels, nay, even to God Himself, without wavering.” Ib., p. 394.—“Whoever is not sure of his teaching and faith, and yet wishes to dispute, is done for.” Ib.—“Satan comes to accuse what is best; hence a man must have certainty.” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 221.—“For it is absolutely necessary that consciences should reach certainty and confidence in all matters; if ever a doubt remains, then everything wobbles.” To N. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363.

[1410] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.

[1411] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 38.

[1412] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 406, March 21-28, 1537. Cp. above, p. 319, n. 1.

[1413] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 144.

[1414] Ib., p. 128, Sep. 10.

[1415] Ib., p. 4, Jan. 5.

[1416] Ib., p. 106.

[1417] See below, p. 369 ff. Cp. the previous passage.

[1418] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315. The passage 2 Cor. xii. 7: “Datus est mihi stimulus carnis meÆ, angelus satanÆ, qui me colaphizet,” is generally taken with St. Thomas to refer to temptations of the flesh.

[1419] Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. In 1539.

[1420] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 197.

[1421] Ib., 58, p. 286.

[1422] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49.

[1423] Ib., p. 97.

[1424] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532.

[1425] Ib., p. 214. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. Leonard Beyer had defended Luther’s Theses as a young Augustinian at the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518.

[1426] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[1427] To Jonas, Dec. 30, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 167.

[1428] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “aliquis vehementior affectus.” Vol. iii., p. 174, n. 1.

[1429] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 69, p. 129; above, vol. iv., p. 311.

[1430] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.

[1431] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11. See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[1432] From Veit Dietrich’s MS. Notes, in KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 516.

[1433] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.

[1434] To Wenceslaus Link, July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 301.

[1435] To Hier. Weller, July (?) 1530, ib., 8, p. 160.

[1436] Ib.

[1437] To Wenceslaus Link, in the passage quoted under n. 7; above, p. 339.

[1438] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176, from Veit Dietrich.

[1439] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11, Nov. to Dec., 1531. Same in Veit Dietrich. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 47.

[1440] Schlaginhaufen, ib.