Luther, vol. 6 of 6 :: FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

[1] “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands das sie Christl. Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 9 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 170 ff.

[2] Weim. ed., 15, pp. 30, 34, 35 f.; Erl. ed., pp. 22, 173, 178, 180 f.

[3] In such passages “beast” more often merely implies stupidity; cp. “bÊte” in French. Hence it would be a mistake to think that Luther is here crediting the Germans with any actual “bestiality.” Cp. below, p. 15 and above, vol. v., p. 534, n. 2.

[4] Weim. ed., 15, p. 44; Erl. ed., 22, p. 189.

[5] “De constituendis scholis,” etc.

[6] Weim. ed., 15, p. 53; Erl. ed., 22, p. 198.

[7] A schoolmaster of Zwickau remarked on the writing to the Councillors: “With this pamphlet Luther will win back the favour of many of his opponents.” KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.

[8] Erl. ed., 14², pp. 390, 389.

[9] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381, in “Das man Kinder,” etc. The object of furthering the Evangel which is set forth in both this and the former writing is indicated by the very title of the first writing with its reference to “Christian” schools.

[10] Ib., p. 518=379, in the writing mentioned below. See, however, below, p. 36.

[11] Ib., p. 519=380.

[12] “Predigt, das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 508 ff.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 378 ff. As early as July 5, 1530, Luther wrote from the Coburg to Melanchthon that he was “meditating” this writing and adds: “Mirum, si etiam antea fui tam verbosus, ut nunc fieri mihi videor, nisi senectutis ista garrulitas sit.” It is curious to hear him already speaking of his old age. When sending the finished work to Melanchthon on Aug. 24, 1530, he wrote: “Mitto hic sermonem de scholis, plane Lutheranum et Lutheri verbositate nihil auctorem suum negans, sed plane referens. Sic sum. Idem erit libellus de clavibus” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 80, 204). The latter remark certainly applies to his long writing, “Von den SchlÜsseln,” 1530 (Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 428 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff.).

[13] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381.

[14] P. 554=401, 402.

[15] Pp. 556, 559=403, 404.

[16] P. 586=420 f.

[17] P. 587=421.

[18] Ib., 15, p. 34=22, p. 178.

[19] “Reformation und Gegenreformation” (W. MÖller, “Lehrb. der KG.”), 3³, p. 437, No. 2.

[20] Cp. Kawerau, ib.

[21] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 197.

[22] See below, p. 20, n. 3.

[23] See above, vol. iii., p. 361.

[24] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 15: “ScholÆ crescentes verbi Dei sunt fructus,” says Luther, “et ecclesiarum seminaria”; if these are furthered, then, so God will, things will be in a better case (in Rebenstock: “HÆc si promoveantur, tunc Deo volente, nostrum inceptum meliorem habebit progressum”). Ib., p. 14: Although the work of the schools was performed quietly, “attamen magnum fructum exhibent, ex quibus ecclesiÆ conservatio consistit.… Inde collaboratores et ludimagistri vocantur ad ministerium ecclesiÆ.”—Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 208: “Wretched parsonages are not the place for schoolmasters”; they deserve to be superintendents and to rule over others. Ib., p. 213 on the importance of the schools.

[25] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 173.

[26] Ib., p. 35 f.=175.

[27] See also above, n. 1.

[28] Proofs in G. Rietschel, “Luther und die Ordination,” ², 1889. Cp. Paulsen, p. 203.

[29] Weim. ed., 15, p. 47 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 193.

[30] Ib., p. 40=185.

[31] Ib., p. 53=198.

[32] Ib., 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421 f.

[33] See above, p. 6, n. 3.

[34] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 582; Erl. ed., 17², p. 418.

[35] Ib., p. 584=419.

[36] P. 530=387.

[37] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 456; Erl. ed., 17², p. 396.

[38] P. 586=421.

[39] Ib., 15, p. 36 f.=22, p. 181 f.

[40] Cp. F. M. Schiele, in H. DelbrÜck, “Preuss. JahrbÜcher,” 132, 1908, Art. “Luther und das Luthertum in ihrer Bedeutung fÜr die Gesch. der SchÜle und der Erziehung,” p. 381 ff. P. 386: “The principal motive with Melanchthon … is the love of learning, Luther’s motive [in the above writings] is to educate leaders for Christendom who shall deliver her from the unholy abominations of the olden days.… With this is connected the fact that for him ‘government,’ whether exercised by the sovereign, the bishop, or the father of the family, is a work of charity.” P. 384: According to Luther “the erection of schools must always remain a matter which concerns the Christian authorities.” To those historians of education, who, according to Schiele, are wont to ask: “Was not Luther the father of the national schools?” he replies: “The matter wears a different aspect when viewed in the light of history.” He roundly describes as fabulous the supposed foundation of the national schools by Luther. “Nor do we find in Luther’s schemes for the organisation of education the slightest trace of any tendency to the secularisation of the schools” (pp. 384, 381 f.). The last words are aimed at the friends of the secularised or undenominational schools of the present day.

[41] In the Introduction to the Weimar edition of the writing “An die Radherrn” (15, 1899, p. 9 ff.) we read: “It is very characteristic of the reformer’s attitude to the question of education in his day that he does not, as we might expect, give the preference to these German elementary schools in which we can see the beginnings of the national schools, but, whilst admitting their claims, insists emphatically on the need of a classic training.” “To characterise the writing in question as ‘of the utmost importance for the development of our elementary-school system’ (“Mon. Germ. PÆdag.” III, iii.) is to be unfair to it.”

[42] Erl. ed., 62, p. 307.

[43] Ib., p. 306.

[44] Ib., p. 297; cp. p. 289.

[45] Weim. ed., 19, p. 445; Erl. ed., 26², p. 7: “Proposal how permanent order may be established in the Christian community.”

[46] Compare with this Luther’s letter to Johann, Elector of Saxony (Nov. 22, 1526), advocating the Visitation; Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefe,” 5, p. 406). Of the final article of the Instructions for the Visitors (1538), which refers to the schools, KÖstlin-Kawerau says, 2, p. 37: “The chief point kept in view here, as in Luther’s exhortations referred to above [in his writing to the Councillors], was the need of bringing up people sufficiently skilled to teach in the churches and to be capable also of ruling. Hence the regulations prescribed the erection of schools in which Latin should be taught.”

[47] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311, a conversation dating from 1542-3 noted down by Heydenreich.

[48] Ib., p. 332. It may be mentioned here that amongst the German universities, Erfurt, where he had received his own education, always held a high place in his memory. “The University of Erfurt,” he once said in later years, “enjoyed so high a reputation that all others in comparison were looked upon as apologies for universities—but now,” so he adds sadly, “its glory and majesty are a thing of the past, and the university seems quite dead.” He extols the pomp and festivities that accompanied the conferring of the mastership and doctorate, and wishes that such solemnities were the rule everywhere. Erl. ed., 62, p. 287.

[49] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 198.

[50] Weim. ed., 15, p. 46 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192.

[51] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 37.

[52] Schiele (above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 389, where he adds: “What the children needed to fit them for household work they could as a matter of fact have learnt better from their parents or at the dame-school than in the Councillors’ schools which Luther so extols.” Cp. above, p. 7, Luther’s statement: “German books are principally intended for the common people to read at home,” etc.

[53] Weim. ed., 26, pp. 236-240.

[54] Ib., 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.”

[55] Erl. ed., 62, p. 458 f., “Tischreden.”

[56] Ib., p. 344.

[57] Paulsen, ib., p. 204. O. Schmidt, “Luther’s Bekanntschaft mit den Klassikern,” Leipzig, 1883.

[58] “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 191 f.

[59] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 431. Uttered in 1537 and noted by Lauterbach and Weller.

[60] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 13, p. 166.—K. v. Raumer, “Gesch. der PÄdagogik,” 1, Stuttgart, 1843, p. 272, says: “It seems to us incredible that the learning by heart and acting of plays so unchaste as those of Terence could fail to exert a bad influence on the morals of the young.… If even the reading of Terence was questionable, how much more questionable was it when the pupils acting such plays identified themselves wholly with the events and personages of the drama.”—Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 443 f., Melanchthon on the Roman condemnation of the school edition of Erasmus’s “Colloquia.” Luther condemned this book of his opponent in very strong language.

[61] “An die Radherrn,” etc., Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192.

[62] Ib., p. 47=192.

[63] “Martin Luthers Werke,” Stuttgart und Leipzig, 1907, p. 231.

[64] Before this Boehmer had said: “The importance of the lower schools, girl schools and national schools, was fully recognised. Luther’s concern was, however, with higher education.… It was not indeed his intention to promote classical studies as such, but he wished to see them harnessed to the service of the Gospel and to the furthering of its right understanding. Hence, though Luther had in view other classes besides the theologians, and though he advanced other motives in support of his plans, still it was the religious standpoint which was the determining one.”

[65] Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 350, “An den Adel.”

[66] Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185.

[67] Weim. ed., 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 347, 348, “An den Adel.”

[68] Ib., Erl. ed., 62, p. 304 f., “Tischreden.”

[69] Ib., 63, p. 281 f. (“Briefe,” 7, p. 73). Written in the middle of March, 1529, this served at the same time as a preface to the work by Justus Menius, “Œconomia christiana.”

[70] Ib., p. 280.

[71] Thus in the Introduction to Luther’s “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 9 f.

[72] See above, p. 6.

[73] Erl. ed., 63, p. 280 f.

[74] Luther expressed this in his way as follows: Of all “the wiles of Satan” this, aimed at the holy Gospel, was perhaps the worst, for it suggested to men such dangerous ideas as these: Now that there is “no longer any hope for the monks, nuns or priestlings there is no need of learned men or of much study, but we must rather strive after food and wealth,” “truly a masterpiece of diabolical art,” for creating “in the German lands a wild, hideous mob of ‘Tatters’ or Turks.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 522 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 383, Preface to the work on the schools (1530).

[75] “Werke,” ib., 6, p. 462=21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.”

[76] The violence of the tone in which Luther speaks of the Universities in the writings which followed his “An den Adel,” as the real strongholds of the devil on earth, has perhaps never been equalled in any attack on these institutions either before or after his day. See passages in Janssen, ib., Engl. Trans., iii., passim. Some of the preachers of the pure Gospel, who soon sprang up in great numbers, went a step further: “The Word of God alone was sufficient and in order to understand it what was required was, not learning, but the spirit.” Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185.

[77] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177.

[78] Erl. ed., 62, p. 319. The Note is by Lauterbach. Copernicus is not named, but is merely alluded to as “the new astrologer”=astronomer. His work “De orbium coelestium revolutionibus,” with its detailed proofs in support of the new theory of the heavens, appeared only in 1543, at Nuremberg.

[79] Cp. for proofs H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” p. 35 f.

[80] Weim. ed., 15, p. 36; Erl. ed., 22, p. 180 f., “An die Radherrn.”

[81] “Didymi Faventini pro M. Luthero adversus Thomam Placentinum oratio,” “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, particularly p. 343. Cp. Paulsen, ib., p. 186 f.

[82] “Preuss. JahrbÜcher,” 132, 1908 (see above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 381 f. The author safeguards himself by remarking that the above account contains “nothing new.” In Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” vol. xiii., this subject is dealt with in full.

[83] P. 382. In the “Archiv fÜr Kulturgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 120, Schiele’s art is described as “an excellent piece of criticism.”

[84] To Eobanus Hessus, March 29, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 118.

[85] Hessus had told Luther of this complaint, as is evident from the latter’s reply.

[86] For a detailed account see above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff.

[87] Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., p. 258.

[88] Ib.

[89] Luschin v. Ebengreuth, “GÖtt. Gel. Anz.,” 1892, p. 826 f., in a review of Hofmeister, “Die Matrikel der UniversitÄt Rostock,” Part II., 1891. Cp. Janssen, ib., p. 266.

[90] F. Eulenburg, “Über die Frequenz der deutschen UniversitÄten in frÜherer Zeit,” “JahrbÜcher f. NationalÖkonomie u. Statistik,” 3. Vol. 13, 1897, pp. 461-554, 494, 525. Janssen, ib.

[91] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 550; Erl. ed., 17², p. 399, “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.”

[92] N. Paulus, “Wolfgang Mayer, Ein bayerischer Zisterzienserabt des 16. Jahrh.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 575 ff.), p. 587 f. from MS. notes.

[93] Weim. ed., 15, p. 28; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171 f., “An die Radherrn.”

[94] Cp. on Wittenberg, Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., 286 and below, xxxix, 1.

[95] Erl. ed., 53, p. 387. See above, vol. v., pp. 582, 590.

[96] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

[97] Cp. Chr. Scheurl, “Briefbuch, ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Ref.,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, 1872, pp. 127, 132, 138, 177. See also KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 790 (p. 653, N. 2).

[98] Cp. for the change in Humanism, above, vol. ii., p. 38 ff., etc.

[99] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177.

[100] “Opp.,” 3, col. 777: “Lutherana factio … perdit omnia studia nostra.”

[101] Ib., col. 915: “… intolerabili degravavit invidia.”

[102] Ib., col. 1089: “Tantam ignaviam invexit hoc novum evangelium.”

[103] Ib., col. 1069: “Amant viaticum et uxorem, cetera pili non faciunt.”

[104] To Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 164.

[105] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29; Erl. ed., 22, p. 172, “An die Radherrn.”

[106] Work cited above, p. 29, n. 2 (p. 525).

[107] Ib., p. 260.

[108] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 68 ff.

[109] Raynald., “Annal. eccles.,” a. 1514, n. 29.

[110] Cp. Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., 9 ff.

[111] Ib., i., p. 25 ff.

[112] Weim. ed., 15, p. 33; Erl. ed., 22, p. 177, “An die Radherrn”: “When I was young there was a saying in the schools: ‘Non minus est negligere scholarem quam corrumpere virginem.’ This was said in order to frighten the schoolmasters.”

[113] “Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus. Et tamen hoc genus hominum maxime litteris alitur. Duo tantum quÆrunt, censum et uxorem. CÆtera prÆstat illis evangelium, i.e. potestatem vivendi ut volunt.” To Pirkheimer, 1528, from Basle. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1139.

[114] Schiele, ib., p. 391.

[115] C. Hagen, “Deutschlands literarische und religiÖse VerhÄltnisse im Reformationszeitalter,” 3², 1868, p. 197. Janssen, ib., xiii., p. 100.

[116] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1363 sq.

[117] M. TÖppen, “Die GrÜndung der UniversitÄt KÖnigsberg,” etc., 1844, p. 78. Janssen, ib., p. 101.

[118] Janssen, ib., p. 102.

[119] Cp. DÖllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 483 ff.; 2, p. 584 ff.

[120] For proofs see Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., p. 71 ff.

[121] “Preuss. Jahrb.,” loc. cit., p. 392.

[122] Ib., p. 393.

[123] Janssen, ib., p. 43. Schiele, ib., p. 593.

[124] Schiele, ib., p. 390.

[125] He even says: “AcademiÆ nunc quidem Dei beneficio omni genere doctrinarum florent.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1068. Bishop Julius Pflug informed Pope Paul III, in a letter in which he gives him a vivid picture of the needs of the country in order to determine him to active assistance: “ScholÆ Lutheranorum cum privatÆ tum publicÆ florent, nostrÆ frigent plane ac iacent.” “EpistolÆ Mosellani,” etc., p. 150 sq. Kawerau, “Reformation und Gegenreformation”³, (MÖller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, p. 437.)

[126] G. Steinhausen, “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig and Vienna, 1904, p. 515. There we read (p. 514) in the description of the education given by the Protestant Universities that it was “rendered sterile” by the new theology. “The intellectual leaders of the time became more and more Court theologians. It is noteworthy that many of the edicts and regulations begin with an improving theological preface.… What had become of the intellectual revival of the first decades of the 16th century?” Eobanus Hessus had prophesied in 1523 that the new theology would bring in its train a worse barbarism than that which had been overthrown, and already in 1524 he had been obliged to speak of the “New Obscurantists.”

[127] DÖllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1², p. 509.

[128] M. Ritter, “MatthiÄ Flacii Illyrici Leben”², 1725, p. 105 Janssen, ib., p. 265.

[129] For proofs see Janssen, ib., p. 286 ff.

[130] Ib., p. 295.

[131] On the contrast between mediÆval and Lutheran charity, see above, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xv., pp. 425-526.

[132] Adolf Bruder, art. “Armenpflege,” “Staatslexikon der GÖrresgesellschaft.”

[133] F. Ehrle, “BeitrÄge z. Gesch. u. Reform der Armenpflege,” 1881; do. “Die Armenordnungen von NÜrnberg (1522) und von Ypern (1525),” “Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888, p. 450 ff. Ratzinger, “Gesch. d. kirchl. Armenpflege”², 1884, p. 442 ff. Janssen, p. 431.

[134] L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Jahrb. fÜr Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. (I), and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff. (II), I, p. 169.)

[135] “De origine, situ, moribus et institutis NorimbergÆ,” cap. 12.

[136] Reprint of the Regulations of 1522 according to the oldest revision, in Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” p. 459 ff. For the passage “Our salvation,” etc., see p. 467.

[137] Ehrle, ib., p. 477 f. Feuchtwanger, ib., I., p. 184.

[138] Janssen, ib., xv., p. 439 ff.

[139] Feuchtwanger, ib., p. 182. For all the towns mentioned above see Janssen, loc. cit.

[140] Weim. ed., 26, p. 639; Erl. ed., 63, p. 270.

[141] Ib., 6, p. 450 f.=21, p. 335 f.

[142] Cp., for instance, the passage in the Church-Postils, Erl. ed., 14², p. 391: “The whole world is full of idle, faithless, wicked knaves, among the day labourers, lazy handicraftsmen, servants, maids, to say nothing of the greedy, work-shy beggars,” etc.

[143] Weim. ed., 6, p. 42; Erl. ed., 16², p. 87. (Longer) Sermon on Usury, 1520.

[144] Ib., 19, p. 654 f.=22, p. 281 in “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn kÜnden.”

[145] Barge, “Andreas Karlstadt,” 2, p. 559 f.

[146] E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1, p. 696 ff.

[147] Ib., p. 596 ff.; also “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 112 ff. On Leisnig cp. above, vol. v., p. 136 ff.

[148] Ib., pp. 11 ff., 14=106 ff., 110.

[149] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 551.

[150] It was the first to be established with so much pomp and circumstance.

[151] To Spalatin, Nov. 24, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 72 f.

[152] Cp. Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” etc. (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888), p. 475. The Altenburg regulations are no longer extant.

[153] Feuchtwanger, “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., I., p. 173. He quotes the enthusiastic words written on this occasion by the Wittenberg student Ulscenius: “O factum apostolicum, fervet hodie in Wittenbergensium cordibus Dei et proximi dilectio ardentissima,” etc., and remarks: We may take in conjunction with this statement the libertinism which actually prevailed in the town at the end of 1521.

[154] Cp. below.

[155] Weim. ed., 19, p. 74 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231.

[156] Ib., 30, 2, p. 584 f.=17², p. 419 f.

[157] See DÖllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 303 ff.

[158] Erl. ed., 14², p. 391. Church Postils.

[159] Ib., p. 389.

[160] Weim. ed., 32, p. 409; Erl. ed., 43, p. 164. Expos. of Matt. vi.

[161] Ib., Erl. ed., 44, p. 356. Sermons on Matt. xviii.-xxiii.—For similar statements see the passage in the last Note and Erl. ed., 23, p. 317; also above, vol. iv., passim. Cp. also Luther’s statements in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 465 ff.; DÖllinger, “Die Ref.,” 2, p. 215, 306, 349.

[162] Erl. ed., 23, 313 f. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher.” 1539.

[163] Feuchtwanger, II. (see above, p. 44, n. 2), p. 192.

[164] Ib., pp. 197, 180, 177 f., 176.

[165] The quotations here and in what follows are from Feuchtwanger.

[166] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 197. He quotes from the compilation of A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” and Sehling (above, p. 49, n. 3) Bugenhagen’s “Ordnungen” subsequent to those set up for Wittenberg in 1527. Cp. in K. A. Vogt, “Bugenhagen,” 1867, p. 101 ff., on the latter’s “Von den Christen-loven,” etc., 1526.

[167] Cp. Janssen, xv., p. 456 f.

[168] Feuchtwanger, ib., II., p. 206.

[169] Cp. ib., p. 214.

[170] Ib., p. 212.

[171] In his instruction against the Anabaptist doctrines (Wittenberg, 1528, D 3b) Melanchthon says: “Never have the people shown themselves more unfriendly and malicious towards the parsons and ministers of the Church than now. Some who wish to be thought very Evangelical seize upon the property given to the parsons, pulpits, schools and churches, and without which we should end by becoming heathen. The common people and the mob refuse to pay the parson his dues,” etc.

[172] See Janssen, ib., xv., p. 480, n. 1, where the touching complaint of Eber’s is quoted, viz. that the ministers of the Church were stripped and left to starve. He prophesies that future times will show how “little blessing spoliation brought those who warmed and fed themselves on Church property.” It was everywhere worst in the villages and small towns.

[173] Ib., xv., p. 477.

[174] Ib., p. 469 ff.

[175] Ib., p. 481 ff.

[176] For proofs see Janssen, ib.

[177] G. Kawerau, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, ed. W. MÖller, 3rd ed., 1907, p. 434, with a reference to the works of Bossert.

[178] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541 (in 1522).

[179] Cp. Janssen, ib., xv., p. 501.

[180] O. Jolles, “Die Ansichten der deutschen nationalÖkonomischen Schriftsteller des 16. und 17. Jahrh. Über BevÖlkerungswesen” (“Jahrb. f. NationalÖkonomie u. Statistik,” N.F. 13, 1886, p. 196). Janssen, ib.

[181] Janssen, ib., xv., p. 505. Feuchtwanger must have been familiar with all this though he never quotes Janssen. He says (p. 214): “Only one who was unfavourable to the reformation would judge Protestantism by the fruits of its first two centuries.”

[182] “Reden und AufsÄtze,” 2, 1904, p. 52, in the lecture “Die evangelischsoziale Aufgabe im Lichte der Gesch. der Kirche.”

[183] F. Schaub, “Die kath. Caritas und ihre Gegner,” 1909, p. 45.

[184] See the excellent work by Schaub, p. 14 ff., quoted in the previous Note, where it is stated, that, under present conditions, private charity certainly does not suffice and that, therefore, State relief is necessary; yet the latter is always merely subsidiary, because what is assumed by real Christian charity, i.e. self-sacrifice, and individual care, can only be realised in private relief of the poor; the State, on the other hand, has its efficient compulsory taxation (“caritas coacta”) and its own bureaucratic means of carrying out its work; in any case the State must not monopolise any branch of poor relief, and public and private charity ought to be in close touch. These remarks may serve to assist in the right appreciation of the historical movement described above.

[185] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 194.

[186] Ib., pp. 212, 214.

[187] Cp. ib., p. 214.

[188] Vol. iv., p. 127 ff.

[189] Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533. Above, vol. v., p. 59.

[190] Ib., p. 239 f.

[191] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, pp. 202-204.

[192] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.,” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, pp. 725-755). “Similar testimony,” Paulus says, p. 740, “dating from the close of the Middle Ages is to be found in abundance.” He lays particular stress on the witness of monks and friars.

[193] Sermon on Marriage in his “Sermones dominicales,” Leipzig, 1530, Bl. J. 4a, L1. Q 2b. Paulus, ib., p. 741.

[194] Of pilgrimages in particular, Luther is fond of saying, that the monks enjoined them at the expense of the duties of a man’s calling. Cp., for instance, the passage cited above, p. 67, n. 1 (p. 203): “Mater familias … non faciat, quÆ in papatu solent, ut discurrat ad templa,” etc. For the passages from Hollen see Paulus, ib., p. 740, and Fl. Landmann, “Das Predigtwesen in Westfalen in der letzten Zeit des MA.,” 1900, p. 179 f.

[195] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 9 f. Paulus, ib., p. 749.

[196] Janssen, ib. Paulus, ib., p. 748.

[197] Cp. Paulus, ib., p. 750 ff., and H. Pesch, “Lehrb. der NationalÖkonomie,” 2, 1909, p. 726.

[198] Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn kÜnden?” 1526.

[199] Ib., 18, p. 394=24², p. 324. “Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin widder die Bauren,” 1525.

[200] Ib., 19, p. 659=22, p. 287.

[201] Ib., 10, 2, p. 157=28, p. 200.

[202] Ib., p. 631=255. He speaks before this of nobles, who, after the peasant risings, had gone too far in their revenge.—Luther inveighs in the strongest language against the way in which the nobles oppressed the poor “burghers, unhappy pastors and preachers,” and says: “Here the lion has caught a mouse and fancies he has overcome the dragon. Germany is now full of such nobles and Junkers, who stink out the beer-houses and draw their steel only on the poor, wretched, defenceless people; such are the nobles. Out on such abandoned people! We Germans are indeed swine and savage beasts, and have no noble thoughts or courage in us, as the world too thinks!” This in the Commentary on the Four Psalms of Consolation, 1526. Weim. ed., 19, p. 604 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 439 f.

[203] Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523, Preface.—Cp. what was said, above, vol. ii., p. 205 f., etc.

[204] Weim. ed., 19, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 43. “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey,” 1526 (not published by him on account of his sovereign’s prohibition).

[205] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175.

[206] Weim. ed., 28, p. 520; Erl. ed., 36, p. 175.

[207] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 137 ff.

[208] K. J. Fuchs, “Die Epochen der deutschen Agrargesch.” (“Allg. Ztng.,” 1898, Suppl. 70).

[209] Weim. ed., 16, p. 244; Erl. ed., 35, p. 233 (1524-26).

[210] Ib., 33, p. 659=48, p. 385 (1530-32).

[211] Ib., 24, p. 367 f.=33, p. 389 f.

[212] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Erl. ed., 55, p. 239; “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.

[213] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 388.

[214] Ib.

[215] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 245.

[216] Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 529 f.

[217] Ib., p. 518 ff., Sermon of June 11, 1531.

[218] Ib., p. 109.

[219] Ib., p. 334 f.

[220] Weim. ed., 28, p. 329; Erl. ed., 50, p. 350. “We are ministers in a hostel where the devil is the landlord and the world the landlady, and the barmaids all kinds of wicked lusts, and all these, landlord, landlady and barmaids, are enemies and opponents of the Evangel.”

[221] Erl. ed., 32, p. 77.

[222] Above, vol. v., p. 403 ff.

[223] Erl. ed., 62, p. 375 f., “Tischreden.”

[224] Ib., p. 366.

[225] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 49 ff. Lucas Osiander the Elder sent Luther’s Schem Hamphoras to Duke Frederick of WÜrtemberg in 1598 in support of his petition for the expulsion of all Jews. For the same purpose, in 1612, the theological faculty of Giessen had some of Luther’s strongest sayings against the Jews reprinted. Ib., p. 51, n.

[226] C. Krause, “Eoban Hessus, sein Leben und seine Werke,” 2, 1879, p. 107. Janssen, ib., xiii., p. 101.

[227] 1, p. 279.

[228] To Johann Lang, Dec. 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 281: “facturus, ut multo plures offendat Christi pura doctrina.”

[229] Weim. ed., 6, p. 38; Erl. ed., 16², p. 82. Sermon on Usury, 1519.

[230] Ib., p. 37 f.=81, on the words of Christ, Matt. v. 40 f., that, to him who takes our coat we should leave our cloak also: “Many fancy this is not commanded or to be observed by every Christian, but is merely a voluntary counsel of perfection, and, like virginity and chastity, counselled not commanded.” But “these are the artifices whereby the teaching and example of our dear Lord Jesus Christ as given in the holy Gospel, together with that of all His Martyrs and Saints, is reversed, neglected and altogether suppressed.… God will blind and disgrace those who turn His clear and holy Word into darkness.… No excuse is of any avail, it is simply a command which we are bound to observe.” He continues: As true Christians we have to observe it, but, as members of a commonwealth we enjoy a divine institution whereby “the secular sword” protects us from any injury to our possessions.

[231] Ib., p. 50 f.=98.

[232] Ib., p. 6=117; cp. p. 50=98.

[233] Weim. ed., 15, p. 294 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 201.

[234] Ib., p. 312 ff.= 223 ff.

[235] Ib., 6, p. 466=21, p. 357.

[236] Cp. ib., 15, p. 304=22, p. 214 f.

[237] “Darstellung und WÜrdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 83.

[238] Quoted by Luther in 1540, see Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 78.

[239] Ib.

[240] Weim. ed., 6, p. 466; Erl. ed., 21, p. 357.

[241] Ib., 15, p. 304=22, p. 213 f. Von Kauffshandlung, etc.

[242] Ib., p. 36=181. “An die Radherrn.”

[243] Ib., 6, p. 465 f.=21, p. 356.

[244] Ib., p. 466=356.

[245] Ib., 24, p. 351 f.=33, p. 370 f.

[246] Ib., 18, p. 391=24², p. 320 (1525).

[247] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 73.

[248] Kampschulte, “Johannes Calvin,” 1, 1869, p. 430. Ward, ib.

[249] Ward, ib., p. 74.

[250] Weim. ed., 15, p. 296; Erl. ed., 22, p. 204. Ward, ib., p. 75.

[251] “Werke,” ib., p. 295=202.

[252] Ward, p. 101.

[253] Ward, ib., p. 94

[254] Weim. ed., 24, p. 368; Erl. ed., 33, p. 390.

[255] On June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 244 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 354).

[256] Cp. Enders in n. 3 to the above letter.

[257] See above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[258] Weim. ed., 24, p. 8; Erl. ed., 33, p. 11 (1527).

[259] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 279. Cp. J. Schneid, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 108, 1891, pp. 241 ff., 473 ff., and B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. Kath. Theol.,” 24, 1900, p. 210.

[260] Cp. the Sermons on Usury of 1519, also certain passages in his “An den christl. Adel,” the booklet “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher,” 1524, and the Sermon against Usury of April 13, 1539, which he followed up by a written appeal to the Wittenberg magistrates. M. Neumann, “Gesch. des Wuchers in Deutschland,” Halle, 1868, pp. 481, 618 ff.

[261] Erl. ed., 23, p. 283 f.

[262] Ib., p. 285.

[263] The Anabaptist Jorg Schnabel said in 1538, that on 20 gulden two or three were now taken as interest. For the text, see Janssen, ib., xv., p. 38.

[264] Erl. ed., 23, p. 285.

[265] Ib., p. 304 f.

[266] Ib., p. 285.

[267] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259; according to Heydenreich’s Notes. Erl. ed., 57, p. 360.

[268] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[269] Ib., p. 319.

[270] Ib., cp. above, p. 80, n. 4.

[271] Ib., p. 311 f.

[272] P. Schanz, “Commentar Über das Lukasevang.,” 1883, p. 226.

[273] Printed in H. Grisar, “Iacobi Lainez Disputationes TridentinÆ tom. 2: Disaput. variÆ; accedunt Commentarii morales,” Oeniponte, 1886, pp. 227-321, with Introduction, pp. 60*-64*.

[274] P. 240; cp. p. 63*.

[275] P. 244 sqq.

[276] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 432.

[277] P. 287.

[278] P. 294.

[279] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259.

[280] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[281] Ib., p. 338.

[282] Sep. 19, 1525, Erl. ed., 65, p. 239 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243).

[283] To Dorothy JÖrger, March 7, 1532, Erl. ed., 54, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 160).

[284] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 94.

[285] Ib., p. 95.

[286] Weim. ed., 6, p. 53; Erl. ed., 16², p. 102 (1519).

[287] Ib., p. 51=99.

[288] Ib., p. 466=21, p. 356 f.

[289] Ib.

[290] Ib., 6, p. 58=16², p. 108 (1519).

[291] June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 245 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 354).

[292] To Sebastian Weller at Mansfeld, July 26, 1543, Erl. ed., 56, p. lviii.

[293] To Count Wolfgang von Gleichen, March 9, 1543, ib., p. 57.

[294] Ib., 45, p. 7.

[295] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. “The properties have risen. Where formerly an estate was worth one hundred florins it is now worth quite three; qui ante potuit dare 5, potest nunc dare 6 vel septem.”

[296] Erl. ed., 23, pp. 286, 338. In the above letter to Sebastian Weller he declares (p. lviii) that, in his epistle to the parsons, he had only spoken “of mutuum and datum.”

[297] Ib., p. 289.

[298] Ib., p. 298.

[299] Ib., p. 289.

[300] Ib., p. 296. Very mild indeed are the directions he gives in his letter to the town-council of Dantzig on the charging of interest (May 5 (?), 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 296, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 165): “The Gospel is a spiritual rule by which no government can act.… The spiritual rule of the Gospel must be carefully distinguished from the outward, secular rule and on no account be confused with it. The Gospel rule the preacher must urge only by word of mouth and each one be left free in this matter; whoever wishes to take it, let him do so, whoever does not, let him leave it alone. I will give an example: the charging of interest is altogether at variance with the Gospel since Christ teaches ‘lend hoping for nothing.’ But we must not rush in here and suddenly put an end to all dissensions in accordance with the Gospel. No one has the right or the power to do this, for it has arisen out of human laws which St. Peter does not wish abrogated; but it is to be preached and the interest paid to those to whom it is due, whether they are willing to accept this Gospel and to surrender the interest or not. We cannot take them any further than this, for the Gospel demands willing hearts, moved by the Spirit of God.” The letter seems also to be aimed at the fanatics, whose violent action in opposing the charging of interest as un-Evangelical, Luther frowned on.

[301] “Luthers Theol. in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung,” 2², 1901, p. 328.

[302] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 331, quotes G. Schmoller (“Zur Gesch. der nationalÖkonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland wÄhrend der Reformperiode,” in the “Zeitschr. f. die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,” 16).

[303] From the Munich Kreisarchiv, in B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1905, 29, p. 180.

[304] Duhr, ib., 1908, 32, p. 609. Cp. 1900, 24, pp. 208 f., 210, on Eck.

[305] G. Scherer, “Drey unterschiedliche Predigten vom Geitz,” etc., Ingolstadt, 1605, p. 57 f.

[306] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158. “VitÆ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, vol. i., p. 17.

[307] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 158: “Totus stupebam et cohorrescebam.… Tanta maiestas (Dei),” etc.; Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 89: “I thought of fleeing from the altar … so terrified was I,” etc. (1532); Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “fere mortuus essem”; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 119; 3, p. 169; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400. See above, vol. i., p. 15 f.

[308] Erl. ed., 58, p. 140; cp. 60, p. 129. Of his “territus” we hear also from Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95, and “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 292.

[309] See above, vol. i., p. 16 f.

[310] Mainz, 1549, Bl. B. 8a. The book was written in Latin in 1533.

[311] “Acta Lutheri,” p. 1.

[312] What Denifle urges to the contrary (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 726, n. 2) is not convincing.

[313] Cp. Kawerau, “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, p. 447: “What anguish of soul he went through in the monastery is related by himself as early as 1518 in the touching account contained in the ‘Resolutiones’ to his 95 Theses.”

[314] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 30.

[315] See above, vol. i., p. 381 f.

[316] Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 180 sq.

[317] See above, vol. ii., p. 170.

[318] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.

[319] To Spalatin, Jan. 13, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 12: “me subito sanguinis coagulo circum prÆcordia angustiatum poeneque exanimatum fuisse.”

[320] Cp. vol. v., p. 333, above, and KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[321] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 1, p. 104 ff.; also “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 sqq. Cp. Bugenhagen’s account in his “Briefe,” ed. Vogt, p. 64 ff.

[322] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 109: “in illis undis tentationum.” Cp. above, vol. v., pp. 334, 339.

[323] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 200, where we read (under Dec. 19, 1536): “Eo die Lutherus magno paroxysmo angustia circa pectus decubuit.” The dates given in the Table-Talk are not as a rule altogether reliable, but here they may be trusted because they happen to coincide with a portent in the sky looked upon as a bad omen.

[324] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 622 f.

[325] We may here call attention to what will be said in the next chapter concerning similar phenomena in Luther’s early days. This chapter, no less than the present one, is important for forming a just opinion on Luther’s pathological dispositions.

[326] To Johann Hess at Breslau, Jan. 31, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 50.

[327] To Johann Agricola, Feb. 1, 1529, ib., p. 51.

[328] Enders, ib., p. 54, n. 3.

[329] To Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, Feb. 13, 1529, ib., p. 53.

[330] To the same, March 3, 1529, ib., p. 61: “fere assidue cogor sanus Ægrotare.”

[331] To Melanchthon, Aug. 1, 1530, ib., 8, p. 162: “ut neque tuto legere litteras possim neque lucem ferre”—common symptoms of neurasthenia.

[332] Ib.

[333] Aug. 3, 1530, ib., 8, p. 166. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 346.

[334] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, Oct. 2, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).

[335] Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 313.

[336] Dietrich’s Latin account, ed. Seidemann, “Sachs. Kirchen- und Schulblatt,” 1876, p. 355. Cp. KÜchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 71; KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 264; Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 314.

[337] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 125.

[338] To Melanchthon, April 12, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 300.

[339] Ib.

[340] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, pp. 189, 223, 226.

[341] Cp. above vol. v., pp. 107-16, and vol. iv., p. 284 ff.

[342] See vol. ii., p. 163, n. 3.

[343] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[344] On uric acid and gout as the explanation of all his bodily troubles, see below, xxxvi. 5.

[345] Cp. above, vol. v., 333 ff.

[346] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[347] For the different passages quoted cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315: Other temptations were nothing compared with this interior “angelus SathanÆ colaphizans, s?????,” where a man is nailed to the gibbet. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 53: “Ego vertigine seu capite hactenus laboravi, prÆter ea quÆ angelus SathanÆ operatur. Tu ora pro me Deum, ut confortet me in fide et verbo suo” (to N. Hausmann, Feb. 13, 1529). The “sting of the flesh” was not in his case, as has been asserted, the result of nervousness, but an intellectual temptation to waver in the “faith” he preached, and to doubt of the “Word.”

[348] Cp. the numerous statements of contemporaries who were unable to explain Luther’s uncanny behaviour, his “infernal outbreaks of fury” and morbid hatred of the Pope (above, vol. v., p. 232 f.), otherwise than by supposing him to be possessed or mad (vol. iv., p. 351 ff.).

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

[350] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Staupitz: “dicebat, se nunquam sensisse.”

[351] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[352] See vol. i., pp. 120 ff., 223 ff., 269 ff.

[353] Weim. ed., 18, p. 633; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 154.

[354] Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[355] July 16, 1517, ib., p. 102.

[356] Oct. 26, 1516, ib., p. 67: “prÆter proprias tentationes cum carne, mundo et diabolo.” Cp. above, vol. i., p. 275.

[357] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.

[358] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

[359] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 166 ff., and, in particular, pp. 230-40.

[360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 50: “illos horrores contra Deum,” etc., March 29, 1538.

[361] June 4, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 207.

[362] (In Sep.?) 1516, ib., p. 55.

[363] May 18, 1517, ib., p. 100.

[364] March 1, 1517, ib., p. 88.

[365] Nov. 11, 1517, ib., p. 124.

[366] Luther wrote this about the time of the “Tower incident” (above, vol. i., p. 377 ff.), when engaged in wrestling after “certainty.”

[367] Weim. ed., 5, p. 165. Cp. W. KÖhler, “Luther und die KG.,” I, 1 (1900), p. 260.

[368] “Werke,” ib., p. 203; KÖhler, ib., p. 259.

[369] Erl. ed., 10², p. 67.

[370] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 70.

[371] Weim. ed., 9, p. 215; Erl. ed., 16², p. 52, in the first non-expurgated form of the sermon (cp. above, vol. ii., p. 148).

[372] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[373] Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431. For “titillatio” see vol. ii., p. 94.

[374] To Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. An attempt has been made to deprive the word libido of the sense it always has with Luther (cp. 1st Comm. on Galatians, 1519, and the later Commentary of 1531). It was alleged to mean “nothing more than an unusual desire for food and drink”; in the same way the word “flesh” was taken merely as the antithesis of “spirit,” i.e. the Holy Ghost!

[375] Ib., p. 193: “peccatis immergor in hac solitudine.”

[376] Aug. 3, 1521, ib., p. 213.

[377] To Nicholas Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, ib., p. 240.

[378] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1521, ib., p. 247 f.

[379] Ib.

[380] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9.

[381] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55. Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 81.

[382] “Myconii Historia reformationis,” ed. E. S. Cyprianus, p. 42.

[383] “Ratzebergers Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 54.

[384] “Hist.,” Bl., 196.

[385] Ib.

[386] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 440.

[387] Erl. ed., 59, p. 340 f.

[388] “Tagebuch,” p. 293.

[389] Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.

[390] Ib.

[391] Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[392] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 85, where Loesche remarks that the Gotha Codex 263, 122 proved this by an instance taken from Luther’s life. Cp. also Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[393] Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[394] Ib., 57, p. 65.

[395] Ib., 60, p. 108.

[396] Ib., 58, p. 128 f. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 286 f.

[397] In Aurifaber’s edition, 1568, Bl. 91, 92. Stangwald, who as a rule eliminates, as he assures us, all that was not Luther’s very own, has retained it in his edition of the Table-Talk (1571); likewise Selnecker (1577). For this reason we also find it in FÖrstemann’s 1st ed., 1844, p. 400. It is not given in the Latin Table-Talk, but, as a comparison with Bindseil’s “Tabellen,” 3, p. 471, shows, we miss in the Latin a whole number of unquestionably authentic Luther conversations occurring in the German editions. It is to be found in “Werke,” Erl.

[398] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 517.

[399] Erl. ed., 58, p. 128.

[400] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 72.

[401] Ib., p. 71.

[402] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532. The passage commences: “Tanta spectra vidi,” seemingly referring to the ghosts at the Wartburg.

[403] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.

[404] Erl. ed., 58, p. 4.

[405] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface dating from 1545.

[406] See below, p. 142 ff.

[407] “Fui (dignus), cui sub ÆternÆ irÆ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem.” Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81, n. From Khummer’s “Tagebuch.” Reference to some external apparition is not excluded.

[408] See above, p. 125.

[409] Cp. above, p. 117, etc.

[410] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 42. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.

[411] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[412] Cordatus, ib., p. 95. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 305.

[413] From the MS. quoted by Kawerau, “Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1, 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. KÜchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 67 f.

[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., on the German Bible, 3, p. xlii. Risch, “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 80.

[415] Above, p. 123.

[416] “Deutsch-evangel. BlÄtter,” 29, 1904, p. 310.

[417] Alber Erasm., Dialogus vom Interim, 1548, Bl. B. III. Cp. Seidemann, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1876, p. 564 f.

[418] Above, p. 123 f.

[419] C. F. Kahnis, “Die deutsche Reformation,” 1, 1872, p. 142.

[420] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed. 21, Suppl., p. 325.*

[421] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 133.

[422] Ratzeberger, ib.

[423] To Cath. Bora, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 786. Cp. the letter of Feb. 7 to the same, ib., 5, p. 787: “I think that hell and the whole world must be empty of devils who have all forgathered here at Eisleben on my account; so great are the difficulties.”

[424] “FÜnf Briefen aus den letzten Tagen Luthers,” ed. Kawerau (”Stud. und Krit.,“ 54, 1881, p. 160 ff.), p. 162: “Ut video, Sathan nates videndas porrigit mihi et ultro derisum adest (addit?)”; after this, adds Friedrich, the way was paved for some sort of reconciliation.

[425] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 773: “Satanica sunt hÆc, sed Deus, quem rident, ridebit eos suo tempore.” Cp. also vol. v., passim.

[426] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 113. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73.

[427] p. 193 ff.

[428] Ib., p. 200.

[429] Erl. ed., 31, p. 311.

[430] To Nich. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363.

[431] Cp. G. Koffmane, “Handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907. See above, vol. iv., p. 520 f.

[432] This was the view taken, e.g. by Fr. Balduinus, who published a work at Eisleben in 1605 against the unfortunate attempt of the learned Jesuit, Nicholas Serarius, to uphold the reality of the dialogue with the devil. According to Balduinus it was really a “gravissima tentatio beati Lutheri,” by which the devil sought to reduce him to despair.

[433] Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Dec. 14, 1531.

[434] Ib., p. 89, in May, 1532, thus only a few months after the above statement.

[435] Seb. FrÖschel, “Von den heiligen Engeln, vom Teuffel und des Menschen Seele. Drey Sermon,” Wittenberg, 1563, Bl. L2 to Bl. 4a.—Friedr. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten waren Verstandt des gÖttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, p. 154´.

[436] “Whereupon Luther became even more anxious and alarmed.… It was wonderful to see how he ran about the sacristy meanwhile, wringing his hands for very fear.”

[437] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. xxiv., where the exorcism is transposed to Jan. 18(19).—Ib., p. 772, Luther relates how he had cured the madness (“mania”) of a “melancholy” person who had been subjected by the devil to this “temptation,” and also explains how blessings were to be given.

[438] See above, vol. v., p. 240 f.

[439] To Bora, July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 107.

[440] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 138-40.

[441] Luther to Ebert, Aug. 5, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 21.

[442] Kirchhoff is alluding to the case of the “changelings” mentioned above, vol. v., p. 292. It is true Luther did not regard them as human beings.

[443] “Allg. Zeitschr. fÜr Psychiatrie,” 44, 1888, p. 329 ff.—For Luther’s view of the insane as possessed, see above, vol. v., p. 281.

[444] See above, p. 128, n. 7.

[445] Vol. i., p. 391.

[446] Above, vol. v., p. 322.

[447] Above, vol. v., p. 226 ff.

[448] Erl. ed., 9², p. 358 f.

[449] See above, vol. i., p. 391 ff.

[450] Above, vol. i., p. 398.

[451] Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296, end of Feb., 1522). Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 111.

[452] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 106 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 143 f.

[453] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81; above, p. 128, n. 7.

[454] Above, vol. iv., p. 258.

[455] 1 Cor. xiv. 30. The passage, however, refers to the “charismata” of the early Church and sets up no sort of standard for judging of doctrine in later times.

[456] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 175 f. Greving, p. 18 f. Cp. Steph. Ehses, “RÖm. Quartalschrift,” 12, 1898, p. 456, on M. Spahn, “CochlÆus,” p. 81, who criticises CochlÆus unfavourably because he demanded signs and wonders from Luther.

[457] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211, from notes taken at the time.

[458] Jonas, i., 2: “Surrexit Ionas, ut fugeret a facie Domini.”

[459] “Werke,” ib., pp. 11=214.

[460] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40; Erl. ed., 28, p. 316 in the revision of the above Wittenberg sermon entitled: “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes zu nehmen.”

[461] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391: “Certus sum, dogmata mea habere me de coelo” (against Henry VIII).

[462] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 496; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23: “revelatione divina ad hoc vocatus.”

[463] Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. The passage is from the WolfenbÜttel MS., which reproduces RÖrer’s Notes (revised, possibly, by Flacius). In another set of Notes Luther speaks here of his doctrine as “evangelium veritatis.”—Cp. vol. iv., p. 408: “not without a revelation of the Holy Ghost.”

[464] Weim. ed., 32, p. 477; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[465] Note in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81.

[466] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 169: “Deus revelavit in hoc schola verbum suum. Quicumque nos fugiunt et sugillant nos clanculum, ii defecerunt a fide,” etc. In 1540.

[467] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 sq.; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211.

[468] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 363* f. Seckendorf, “Commentaria de Lutheranismo,” gives the passage as follows: “Ionas sÆpe eum dixisse memorat, se nemini mortalium aperturum esse, etc., fore autem ut in die novissimo innotescant, sicut et revelationes egregiÆ, quÆ sub initium doctrinÆ habuerit et nemini detexerit” (Lips., 1694, lib. 3, sect. 36, p. 647). Bugenhagen says in his funeral oration (Walch, 21, p. 329*), that God the Father had revealed His Son through Luther, whilst Melanchthon goes so far as to boast that the latter had received his doctrine, not from “human sagacity,” but that God had revealed it to him (see “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 sq., and KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 625). The expression that Luther’s gospel had been “revealed” became quite usual, as we see from the heading of a chapter in the Latin “Colloquia,” entitled: “Occasio et cursus evangelii revelati” (ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178).—Just as Luther asserted he was reforming the Church, “divina auctoritate” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 16), so Calvin, too, claimed to derive his ministry of the Word (which differed from that of Luther in so many points) from Christ. Zwingli did the same, and his followers cared but little for Luther’s claim to the contrary.

[469] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.

[470] Ib., 10, 2, p. 23=28, p. 298.

[471] P. 40=316.

[472] Ib.

[473] P. 23=298; op. Gal. i. 28.

[474] Paul forbade his disciples to say: “Ego sum Pauli,” and asked: “Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis?” (1 Cor. i. 12 sq.).

[475] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 363 ff.

[476] In Casel’s account, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[477] Weim. ed.; 25, p. 120; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, p. 93 sq.

[478] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49; cp. above, vol. v., p. 352. Above, vol. v., pp. 339 f., 319, 328. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176.

[479] Above, vol. v., p. 327 f.

[480] Weim. ed., 5, p. 385. “Operationes in Psalmos,” 1519-21.

[481] Erl. ed., 38, p. 225.

[482] Ib., p. 221.

[483] See vol. iv., p. 222.

[484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53; cp. Erl. ed., 49, p. 91, on John xiv.-xv.

[485] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 181 sq. Enarr. ps. cxxx.; cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 206 ff.; Erl. ed., 37, p. 420 ff.

[486] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27 f.

[487] On Marcus, cp. Weim. ed., 61, pp. 1, 73.

[488] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 377 f., 371 f., and, with regard to Campanus, p. 378.

[489] Cordatus, ib., p. 28.

[490] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362. “De servo arbitrio.” See vol. ii., p. 276.

[491] To the Elector Augustus of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766: “Stoica et manichÆa deliria.” Cp. vol. v., p. 258.

[492] Ib., 24, p. 375; cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrb.,” p. 81.

[493] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 45, 75 f., 125 f.

[494] On his discovery of Antichrist see above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff. He reached it amidst strange fears: “Ego sic angor,” etc. To Spalatin, Feb. 24, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332. On the thoughts of Satan see the letter to Egranus of March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “Nisi cogitationes SatanÆ scirem, mirarer quo furore ille [Eccius] amicitias solveret,” etc.

[495] Vol. iii., p. 149 ff.

[496] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 301.

[497] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 176-311.

[498] Cp. his statement in Schlaginhaufen’s Table-Talk, p. 56: “Adversariorum verbi natura non est humana, sed plane diabolica” (1532).

[499] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 404 f. (Jan., 1537), with reference to Dan. xi. 36; xii. 1. The “Sic volo,” etc., from Juvenal, “Sat.,” 6, 223, he applies to himself, above, vol. v., p. 517.

[500] Mathesius, ib., p. 293. In 1542-3. The picture given at the beginning of this portion of the Table-Talk of how Luther the “monk” and Catherine the “nun” seated at table after dinner raise the cross hand-in-hand against Antichrist and say: “Post scripturam non habemus firmius argumentum quam crucem!” speaks volumes for their infatuation.

[501] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410, in a sermon of Nov. 1, 1531.

[502] Erl. ed., 63, p. 276. On his abnormal hatred see vol. iv., p. 300 f.

[503] Ib.

[504] To Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461.

[505] Cp. vol. iv., p. 95 f. My belief that in the passage in question in Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of Aug. 28, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235), the word “mendacia” should be read after “dolos” as in the oldest Protestant editions, has since received confirmation from P. Sinthern in the “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1912, p. 180 ff., where the quotations from Johann Lorenz Doller, “Luthers katholisches Monument,” Frankfurt-am-Main, 1817, p. 309 ff., are set forth in their true light.

[506] Erl. ed., 25², p. 425.

[507] Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.

[508] Vol. iv., p. 304.

[509] See vol. iv., p. 327 ff., and the remark of Harnack, ib., p. 340 f.: “Either he suffered from the mania of greatness or his self-reliance really corresponded with his task and achievements.”

[510] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 210.

[511] Ib., p. 308 (1540). Cp. above, vol. v., p. 241 ff.

[512] To Lang: “Sitne libellus meus [De captivitate babylonica] tam atrox et ferox tu videris et alii omnes. Libertate et impetu fateor plenus est, multis tamen placet, nec aulÆ nostrÆ penitus displicet. Ego de me in his rebus nihil statuere possum. Forte ego prÆcursor sum Philippi [Melanchthonis], cui exemplo HeliÆ viam parem in spiritu et virtute, conturbaturus Israel et Achabitas [cp. 1 Kings xviii. 17] oratione itaque opus erit, si quid peccatum est.” A little later he says of Antichrist: “Odi ego ex corde hominem illum peccati et filium perditionis [2 Thes. ii. 3] cum universo suo imperio.”

[513] In Casel’s report (Nov. 29, 1525), Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[514] To Lang, Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[515] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 6.

[516] Erl. ed., 57, p. 73. “Tischreden,” ed. Aurifaber, Eisleben, 1566, pp. 18 and 18´.

[517] Above, vol. iii., p. 121.

[518] Erl. ed., 65, p. 62, preface to his translation of Jeremias.

[519] See below, xxxviii, 1.

[520] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 169.

[521] Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[522] Ib., p. 473=265.

[523] Cp. Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” pp. 45 and 51.

[524] See above, vol. iii., p. 159 ff. On the nun Florentina.

[525] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 92: “Articulus remissionis peccatorum est in omnibus creaturis” (a. 1532). Cp. p. 139: “Deus in omnibus officiis, statibus intromisit remissionem peccatorum,” etc.

[526] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201 (Khummer): “Melanthon retulit, Lutherum sÆpe dixisse, articulum de remissione peccatorum esse fundamentum, unde exstruatur articulus de creatione.”

[527] Erl. ed., 58, p. 390.

[528] See vol. iii., p. 195 ff.

[529] See above, vol. v., p. 517.

[530] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 585; vol. iv., pp. 331, 343; vol. ii., p. 294.

[531] Weim. ed., 26, p. 531; Erl. ed., 63, p. 273 (1528).

[532] Ib., p. 530=272.

[533] See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[534] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129 f.: “Break out at once into abuse, particularly if the devil attacks you with justification! He frequently assails me with an argument that is not worth a snap, but in the turmoil and temptation I do not notice this; but when I have recovered I see it plainly.”

[535] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.

[536] To Chancellor BrÜck, Jan. 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282.

[537] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129.

[538] To Melanchthon, Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 166: “My head is indeed obstinate as you fellows say.”

[539] Paul Pietsch, in the preface (p. xxi. f.) to vol. 32 of the Weim. ed.: “His annoyance and his tendency to see only the darker side of things show plainly enough … that Luther was suffering from that deep depression to which great men are sometimes liable. In later life, for instance in 1544, this depression again overtook Luther, and he even resolved to quit Wittenberg, and it was only with difficulty that he was dissuaded from doing so. In 1545 again something similar occurred. Yet in 1544 and 1545 his discouragement had again no real cause.”

[540] Cp. Paulus, “KÖln. Volksztng.” (Lit. Beil.), 1906, p. 355, on vol. 32 of the Weimar edition.

[541] To Link, Dec. 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.

[542] “Si quid hic iocis aut conviciis excedit.”

[543] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 67 ff.

[544] We remember having recently read in a review, that many, at the present day, consider “mental aberration an indispensable condition of mental greatness.”

[545] “Si hÆc a febricitante dicerentur, quid dici possit insanius!” “Opp.,” 10, col. 1282, in 1526.

[546] The passages are given in Latin above, vol. iv., p. 353, n. 3.

[547] Cp. above, vol. ii., pp. 267 and 274; cp. also below, what Hausrath and MÖbius say. The expression “abnormal state of temper” is used by W. KÖhler in the “Theol. Literaturbericht,” vol. 23 (1903), p. 499. Elsewhere he calls Luther “the most paradoxical figure imaginable, who speaks differently to every hearer” (ib., vol. 24, 1904, p. 517).—See also DÖllinger (“Kirchenlexikon,”[2] art. “Luther,” col. 344), and MÖhler, “Symbolik,” § 48, 1873 ed., p. 423. U. BerliÈre, O.S.B., recently remarked: “Une Étude psychologique de Luther ne peut Être sÉparÉe de son histoire ni de l’Évolution de sa vie intÉrieure, encore moins de son État pathologique.… Cette Étude n’est pas encore achevÉe” (“Revue bÉnÉdictine,” 1906, p. 630 f.).

[548] See KÖhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 27.

[549] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 383. Cp. also the remarks on the next page, n. 2.

[550] In the art. “Luthers Bekehrung” (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,” 6, 1896), p. 193.

[551] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1905, p. 109 f. The author speaks of the “secret sufferings of soul” which did not, however, interfere with the thoroughness of his work (p. 110); incidentally, in exoneration of the violence of Luther’s writings against Zwingli, he urges that Luther wrote it “at a time of great depression, which he even wished his opponents might endure for but a quarter of an hour to see if it would not convert them” (2, p. 213). At the Wartburg “his mental suffering returned, as it always did when he remained for any length of time without outward stimulus or active intercourse with the outside world” (1, p. 475). In the supplement to his unaltered 2nd edition Hausrath deals with the objections raised against his “pathological” view though he considerably modifies his wordings (1, p. 573 ff.).

[552] On Ebstein see below, p. 176 f. Ebstein’s is an improvement on KÜchenmeister, “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankengesch.,” Leipzig, 1881. KÜchenmeister did not do justice to the historical material and always quotes at second hand. Th. Kolde rightly speaks of his work as a “book that had better not have been written” (“Anal. Lutherana,” p. 50). He also thinks Berkhan’s treatment of the subject (ib., p. 51) “of small value.”

[553] “Deutsch-evangelische Bl.,” 29, Halle, 1904, p. 303 ff.

[554] See above, p. 109 ff.

[555] P. 316.

[556] “Archiv f. Psychiatrie,” 11, Berlin, 1880-1, p. 798 ff.

[557] P. 799. Cp. above, p. 100 ff.

[558] MÖbius proceeds on the principle that “in each of us what is healthy is mixed with what is morbid and the more anyone rises above the average, the further he departs from the normal.” “The pathological element is part of every eminent man.” This, according to MÖbius, is particularly the case with the genius. Hence, in his studies, it is his aim to show how psychiatry “may be used for appreciating great men.” MÖbius intended to deal in detail with the pathology of Luther but was prevented by death from carrying out his plan. In his study on Schopenhauer (“AusgewÄhlte Werke,” Bd. 4)—who according to him was certainly not insane in the ordinary sense—he says: “I consider Schopenhauer one of the best instances to prove that it is only pathology which teaches us rightly to understand great writers and their works.… Schopenhauer became the philosopher of pessimism because, from the beginning, he was a sickly man. It was not the recognition of the evils in the world that made him take this line, but he deliberately sought out and described the evils because he needed to vindicate his own pessimism. He had displayed the latter even as a boy, having inherited it from his father, and his morbid disposition influenced his whole mode of thought.”

[559] In “Schmidts Jahrb. der in- und auslÄndischen gesamten Medizin,” ed. P. J. MÖbius and H. Doppe, 288, Leipzig, 1905, Hft. 12, Dec., p. 264 in the notice of my articles “Ein Grundproblem aus Luthers Seelenleben,” in the “KÖln. Volksztng.,” Lit. Beilage, 1905, Nos. 40 and 41.

[560] [Above, p. 173.]

[561] [Emil Kraepelin, “Psychiatrie, Ein Lehrbuch fÜr Studierende und Ärzte,”6 Leipzig, 1899, Cap. ix.: “Das manisch-depressive Irresein,” pp. 359-425.]

[562] “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankheiten und deren Einfluss auf seinen kÖrperlichen und geistigen Zustand,” Stuttgart, 1908.

[563] Pp. 7, 64.

[564] Pp. 45 ff., 56 ff.

[565] Pp. 62, 10, 63 f., 60, 55, 54, 64.

[566] This Ebstein admits (p. 44), though he argues that the “seizures in the joints” of which Luther complains must have had a gouty origin.

[567] Ib., p. 40. But cp. above, p. 110 f.

[568] Cp. in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 191, for the proofs in support of this letter quoted by Enders from Kawerau.

[569] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[570] Ebstein, ib., p. 44.

[571] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 691 f.

[572] Pp. 49, 53.

[573] P. 55 f.

[574] P. 56.

[575] P. 12.

[576] P. 62.

[577] P. 10.

[578] P. 44 f.

[579] “Luther auf dem Standpunkt der Psychiatrie beurteilt,” Wien, 1874. Bruno SchÖn declares that Luther was “in part excused by the fact that he was deranged” (p. 3); this derangement Luther contrived to explain away by laying it all down to the devil, whom he had seen in actual hallucinations (p. 9); he had regarded all his opponents as fools, just as the inmates of an asylum look upon all others as fools and on themselves as perfectly sane (p. 28), etc.

[580] “Grundriss einer Gesch. der deutschen Irrenpflege,” 1890, p. 76.

[581] “Antwort auf das Sendschreiben,”³ Sulzbach, 1817, p. 70 ff.

[582] See the 2nd ed. of this writing, bearing the same title as the 1st, “SeitenstÜck zur Weisheit Luthers.” The 1st ed. is weaker in its animadversions than the 2nd.

[583] P. 188.

[584] See above, vol. i., p. 16.

[585] “Zeitschr. des Harzvereins,” 39, 1906, p. 191 ff. It cannot be proved from the records that the second Hans Luther had been guilty of actual manslaughter. Hence in vol. i., it was not necessary to point out that the manslaughter of which Wicel accuses Martin Luther’s father, repeating his accusation most emphatically in public writings without its being called into question by Luther, cannot be placed to the account of the second Hans with any semblance of likelihood (though it has been done, cp. “Luther-Kalender,” 1910, p. 76 f). Wicel came to Eisleben in 1533, thus only a few years after the father’s death, and was able to assure himself of the facts, concerning which there was not likely to be any mistake owing to Martin Luther’s celebrity at that time.

[586] Aug. Cramer, “Die NervositÄt,” Jena, 1906.

[587] “Grundriss der Psychiatrie,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 104.

[588] Ib., p. 141 f.

[589] “Monatsschr. fÜr Psychiatrie,” Berlin, 1907, p. 230.

[590] Ib., p. 236.

[591] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.

[592] Ib., p. 432 f.

[593] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169.

[594] Ib., (from Rebenstock).

[595] Ib., p. 175.

[596] Ib., p. 170.

[597] Ib.

[598] Erl. ed., 31, p. 257.

[599] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.

[600] Ib., p. 188: “… et D. Staupitius me incitabat contra papam.”

[601] Ib., p. 176.

[602] See above, vol. i., pp. 104 ff., 184 ff., 303 ff., where his theological attitude previous to the indulgence theses is discussed. It is taken for granted that the account of his development given in vol. i. is already known to the reader. The fictions have already been discounted in vol. i., p. 20 f. and p. 110 f.

[603] “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung” (“Sammlung ausgewÄhlter kirchen- und dogmengesch. Quellenschriften,” 2, Reihe 9. Hft.), 1911, p. 11 ff.

[604] Luther’s untrustworthiness here, where it is a question of his polemics, does not render untrue certain other data of a non-polemical character and otherwise supported. This is the case, e.g. with the date given above when the meaning of Rom. i. 17 first dawned upon him; this happens to agree with the facts. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[605] Erl. ed., 63, p. 405, in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[606] See vol. iii., p. 153 ff. Cp. “Werke,” ib., p. 370, in a preface of 1531, where, referring to the “many and great miracles,” he makes no distinction between Evangel and Gospel.

[607] Ib., p. 373 (1542).

[608] Ib., p. 400 in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[609] Ib., p. 328.

[610] Ib., p. 295 (1530).

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

[612] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” p. 219.

[613] “Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft. 100, 1910, p. 14.—Cp. K. A. Meissinger, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 362, n. 2.

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

[615] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.

[616] Weim. ed., 33, p. 431 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 201.

[617] Ib., 49, p. 118.

[618] Ib., 20², 2, p. 420.

[619] “Comment. in Galat.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 138; Irmischer, 1, p. 109 sq.

[620] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[621] Ib., 7, p. 74.

[622] Weim. ed., 33, p. 560; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306.

[623] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27. Cp. 20, 2, p. 420.

[624] Weim. ed., 33, p. 575; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.

[625] Erl. ed., 46, p. 73.

[626] At the time the present writer’s series of articles on Luther’s intellectual development was appearing in the “KÖln. Volkszeitung” (1903, 1904), Denifle’s work which also insists on the unreliable nature of the legend (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹ 1904, pp. 389 ff., 725 f., 739 f.) was already in print.

[627] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183.

[628] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 123 (1545).

[629] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300. Comm. on John xiv.-xvi., of 1537.

[630] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 72. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c.a. 1541.

[631] Ib., 5, p. 267, a. 1539.

[632] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27 (1537).

[633] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. Comm. on John vi.-viii., 1531.

[634] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273. “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch,” 1533.

[635] Comment. in Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 107. Cp. p. 138=p. 109. The passage was only introduced by Luther in the 1538 ed., a fact remarkable for the history of the legend.

[636] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.

[637] Comment. in Galat. ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 20, 1535.

[638] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enar. in ps. 45, a. 1532.

[639] See above, p. 126.

[640] See above, p. 150.

[641] Erl. ed. 58, p. 377.

[642] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 401. Enarr. in Is. (1543).

[643] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137; Irmischer, 1, p. 109, of 1535.

[644] Erl. ed. 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.

[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36. From Khummer, no date, but a late utterance.

[646] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23, preface to the Latin works (1545).

[647] N. Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 ff.

[648] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100 (1532).

[649] To Bugenhagen (1532), preface to the latter’s edition of Athanasius, “De trinitate,” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).

[650] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410 (1531). In the text, for “deinde quando,” read “deinde quanto.” A second hasty report, ib., gives the passage in this form: “Multos scio, et ego unus fui, quando confessus and clean et dixi orationes meas, I came to the altar it was all not worth a straw; vocabam presbyterum, et quando absolutio had been pronounced et missa perfecta [erat], tum certus ut antea [eram] and as much at peace with God ut antea, …” Of the Last Day: “Ego non libenter audiebam istum diem.”

[651] Above, vol. i., p. 290 f.

[652] Ericeus, “Sylvula,” l. c.

[653] G. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers 1537-1540,” 1905, p. 61 f. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. x., n.

[654] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 122 (1532).

[655] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.

[656] Ib., p. 154, from the same sermon.

[657] Ib., 31, p. 279. “Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.”

[658] Dr. Kirchhoff, “Zeitschr. f. Psychiatrie,” vol. 44, 1888, p. 376.

[659] Cp. previous volumes, passim, particularly vol. iv., pp. 120-31.

[660] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182. See above, p. 192.

[661] Erl. ed., 14², p. 342.

[662] Comment. in ep. ad Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137. Irmischer, 1, p. 109.

[663] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.

[664] Ib., 49, p. 27.

[665] Ib., 45, p. 156 f.

[666] Ib.

[667] Ib., 14², p. 185.

[668] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 10, p. 232.

[669] Ib., 19, p. 100.

[670] See above, vol. i., p. 278.

[671] Cp. apart from the “Dicta Melanchthoniana” (ed. Waltz, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.), p. 330:—“diebus Sabbati, cum esset vacuus a concionibus,” etc., “initio evangelii—” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, where the same thing is related no less than three times: 1, p. 67; 1, p. 198; 3, p. 279, the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 59, pp. 10 and 21, and Ericeus, “Sylvula Sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 sq.

[672] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.

[673] Ib., 49, p. 315.

[674] Aquinas, “Summa theol.,” 3, q. 40, a. 2 ad 1. In ep. ad Tim. c. 4, lect. 2. “Summa theol.,” 2, 2, q. 88, a, 2 ad 3. Denifle, ib., 1², p. 365 f., where other quotations are given from Thomas and the mediÆval theologians.—Cp. the wholesome teaching of the “Imitation”—already widely read in Luther’s day—on the value of outward works compared with interior virtue and charity (Bk. II., cap. 1): “Regnum Dei intra vos est, dicit Dominus,” are the words with which it begins. Bk. I., c. 19: “Multo plus debet esse intus quam quod cernitur foris,” and, again: “Iustorum propositum in gratia Dei potius quam in propria sapientia pendet,” etc. On the need of discretion see ib., 3, c. 7.

[675] “De non esu carnium ap. Carthus.,” “Opp.,” 2, pp. 723, 729. Denifle, ib., p. 370.

[676] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 49.

[677] See above, vol. i., p. 80 ff.

[678] Weim. ed., 4, p. 626. Denifle, 1², p. 376 f.

[679] Ib., 6, p. 246; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180. Denifle, 1², p. 377 f.

[680] Weim. ed., 37, p. 661. Sermon of Feb. 1, 1534.

[681] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enarr. in ps. 45. Jan., 1532.

[682] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. In the Comment. on John vi.-viii., 27 Oct., 1531.

[683] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300 (1537): “I myself must testify from my own experience: After having been a pious monk for over twenty years.” This reading of the sermons reported and edited by Cruciger is embodied in the text, whereas, in the notes, it is corrected to “fifteen.”

[684] Erl. ed., 46, p. 78, Sermon of 1537.

[685] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 490: “Fraterculus in Christo … in angulo sepultus,” etc.

[686] To Joh. Braun, April 22, 1507, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 1 f; “sola et liberalissima sua misericordia … tanta divinÆ bonitatis magnificentia.”

[687] March 17, 1509, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6.

[688] From a MS. sermon of Luther’s of 1544 at Gotha. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. 20.

[689] To N. Paulus is due the credit of having drawn attention in 1893 to the description given by Luther to Usingen. Hausrath in his article “Luthers Bekehrung” in 1896 (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,”) also noted how happy Luther had at first been in the convent. Cp. his “Leben Luthers,” 1, p. 22.

[690] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 197 (Khummer): The good old man had taught him to commit perplexing matters of conscience “divinÆ bonitati.”—Preface to Bugenhagen’s edition of St. Athanasius “De Trinitate”: “Vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo verus christianus.”—Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100, on the preceptor’s words (above, vol. i., p. 10): “Fili quid facis, an nescis, quod ipse Dominus iussit nos sperare?”—Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 84 (Khummer): Luther’s reminiscence of the wise exhortation of his preceptor on conversations with women (“pauca et brevia loquatur”).—Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 1.

[691] See above, vol. i., p. 11.

[692] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.

[693] Flacius Illyr., “ClarissimÆ quÆdam notÆ verÆ ac falsÆ religionis,” Magdeburgi (1549), pages not numbered, end of cap. xv.: “Affirmabat is Martinum Lutherum apud ipsos sancte vixisse, exactissime regulam servasse et diligenter studuisse.” Copy of this rare work in the Vienna Hofbibliothek.

[694] On the passages in the Comm. on Rom. of 1515-16 in which he speaks well of the religious life, see above, vol. i., p. 270.

[695] Weim. ed., 2, p. 736; Erl. ed., 21, p. 242. Denifle, 1², p. 39.

[696] Ib., 2, p. 644; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 500, and in his “Letter to the Minorites of JÜterbogk,” May 15, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 40: “Media quibus facilius implentur prÆcepta.” Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 36.

[697] Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 226.

[698] Above, vol. ii., p. 181 ff.

[699] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183: “in gloriam Dei et confusionem sathanÆ.”

[700] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “etiam in complexus veni coniugis,” etc. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See above, vol. v., p. 354; vol. iii., p. 175.

[701] To Nich. Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241: “ut nihil iam auribus meis sonet odiosius monialis, monachi, sacerdotis nomine et paradisum arbitrer coniugium vel summa inopia laborans.” Thus the monk and priest, four years before his marriage.

[702] To George Mascov, Provost of the Premonstratensian house at Leitzkau, end of 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 76. At the close of the letter, of which only fragments have been preserved, we read: “Quam maxime rogo ut pro me Dominum ores; confiteor enim tibi, quod vita mea in dies appropinquet inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et miserior,” which must, of course, be understood of his moral, not his physical, condition. The “drawing nigh to hell” is an echo of Ps. lxxxvii., which was such a favourite of his, where we read: “repleta est malis anima mea et vita mea inferno appropinquavit” (v. 3), and: “In me transierunt irÆ tuÆ, et terrores tui conturbaverunt me” (v. 17).

[703] Above, vol. i., p. 88.

[704] To Spalatin, Dec. 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73 f., where he begins by humbly confessing his unworthiness to receive any attention from the Elector (“talis tantusque princeps”), at whose Court Spalatin held a post.

[705] To Joh. Lang, Feb. 8, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 86. “Quid enim non credant, qui Aristoteli crediderunt, vera esse, quÆ ipse calumniosissimus calumniator aliis affiingit et imponit tam absurda, ut asinus et lapis non possint tacere ad illa?” (ib., p. 85).

[706] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 44, from Dietrich’s MSS.

[707] To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.

[708] “Videbis,” Staupitz had said, according to him, “quod ad res magnas gerendas te ministro (Deus) utetur. Atque ita accidit,” Luther goes on. “Nam ego magnus (licet enim hoc mihi de me iure prÆdicare) factus sum doctor.” Such utterances, he continues, have in them something of the “oraculum et divinatio.” Then follows the statement quoted above concerning the other prophecy of his future greatness: “huius dicti sÆpissime memini,” and again he declares such words contain “aliquid divinationis et oraculi.”

[709] Above, p. 102.

[710] Reprinted in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 79: “De tua prÆstantia, bonitate, eruditione creber sermo incidit.” After having spoken of Luther’s “celebris fama,” Scheurl expresses the wish “to become his friend.” The words are simply those in common use among the humanists.

[711] Jan. 27, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 82 ff.

[712] Weim. ed., 1, p. 30; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 57: “Nolunt audire, quod iustitiÆ eorum peccata sint.… Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam iactant.”

[713] “Incurrunt inobedientiam et rebellionem.” See vol. i., p. 69.

[714] “HÆc est lux angeli SathanÆ” (ib.).

[715] Ib., p. 53.

[716] Weim. ed., 1, p, 12; “Opp. lat. var.,” I, p. 33.

[717] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 41: “prÆsulari id est pergrÆcari sodomitari, romanari.”

[718] To Spalatin, in the spring, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 91: “eruditio sÆculi nostri ferrea, immo terrea, sive sit GrÆcitatis sive Latinitatis sive HebrÆitatis.”

[719] To Lang, March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.

[720] See above, vol. i., p. 228.

[721] Ib., p. 70.

[722] To Nich. Hausmann at Zwickau, “Briefwechsel,” p. 144: “Corpore satis bene valeo, sed tot distrahor externis actibus, ut spiritus prope extinguatur raroque sui curam habeat. Ora pro me, ne carne consummer.” Cp. Gal. iii. 3: “Sic stulti estis, ut quum spiritu coeperitis, nunc carne consummemini.”

[723] To Lang, Oct. 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67: “raro mihi integrum tempus est,” etc.; above, vol. i., p. 275.

[724] To Lang, Sep. 4, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 106. Cp. vol. i., p. 313.

[725] To Chr. Scheurl, May 6, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 97: “Sunt paradoxa modestis et qui non ea cognoverint, sed eudoxa et calodoxa scientibus, mihi vero aristodoxa. Benedictus Deus, qui rursum iubet de tenebris splendescere lumen.”

[726] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31: “sola prudentia sensus nostri causa et radix universÆ inquietudinis nostrÆ.”

[727] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88: “si nulli placerent, mihi optime placerent.”

[728] March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489.

[729] Vol. i., p. 391: “furebam ita sÆva et perturbata conscientia,” etc.

[730] Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.

[731] To Sylvius Egranus (Joh. Wildenauer), March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “Ego quo magis illi furunt, eo amplius procedo; relinquo priora, ut in illis latrent, sequor posteriora, ut et illa latrent.”

[732] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 512.

[733] To Staupitz, Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 430: “Deus rapit, pellit, nedum ducit me; non sum compos mei, volo esse quietus et rapior in medios tumultus.”

[734] Above, vol. ii., p. 17.

[735] Lectures on Romans, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Scholia, p. 221.

[736] Ib., p. 220.

[737] Ib.

[738] Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366. “Vom Abendmal Bekentnis,” 1528.

[739] Melanchthon in his “Elogium” on Luther, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158: “VitÆ Reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, p. 100.

[740] To supplement what we said in vol. i., p. 4, we may give a passage from RÖrer’s notes of the Table-Talk (ed. Kroker, in “Archiv f. RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 346): “Cum in monasterium intrabam et relinquebam omnia desperans de me ipso, postulavi iterum biblia.” Ib., p. 369 f. “Causa ingrediendi monasterii fuit, quia perterrefactus tonitru, cum despatiaretur ante civitatem ErphordiÆ, votum vovit HannÆ et fracto propemodum pede [? through being thrown down by the stroke of lightning?] he entered the cloister and bound himself by vows.”

[741] Vol. i., p. 16.

[742] Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” etc., Bl. 14.

[743] “Chronik.” etc., ed. Euling, 1891, p. 30.

[744] Account published by Tschakert in “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1897, p. 578. The passage may possibly have been influenced by Luther’s statement above concerning his father’s words “illusio et prÆstigium.” Cp. below, p. 224, n. 6.

[745] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 408 (in 1537).

[746] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187, related by Luther to his friends on the feast-day of St. Anne, July 16 [? 26], 1539.

[747] Ib., under date, July 16 (1539), the anniversary of his entering the convent.

[748] See above, vol. i., p. 4.

[749] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.

[750] Ib., 3, p. 185.

[751] Weim. ed., 8, p. 573 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 239, in the dedication to his father of “De Votis monasticis” (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 249).

[752] Ib., he refers to the same remark of his father’s in a letter to Melanchthon of Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225: “Utinam non esset sathanÆ prÆstigium.… Videtur mihi per os eius Deus velut a longe me allocutus, sed tarde, tamen satis.”

[753] To Joh. Braun at Eisenach, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6: “Quod si statum meum nosse desideras, bene habeo Dei gratia, nisi quod violentum est studium.”

[754] B. Heyne, “Über Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen ErkrankungszustÄnden,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 126.

[755] Erl. ed., 44, p. 127.

[756] Ib., 45, p. 156. See above, p. 197.

[757] Ib., Weim. ed., 36, p. 553 f.; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146, Comment. on 1 Cor. xv.

[758] See above, p. 99 ff.

[759] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156.

[760] Note, ib.

[761] Ib., 44, p. 127.

[762] G. Buchwald, “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten 1528-1546,” vol. iii., 1885, p. 50: In Popery “horrible fears” had been caused by the doctrine of Christ as Judge. “Iuventus non intelligit; videat ne amittat hanc lucem [of his Evangel]. Si scivissemus non ivissemus in coenobia. Quando Christum inspexi, vidi diabolum.”

[763] W. KÖhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 28. The mental struggle had not been denied, either by Denifle, or in my article in the Beilage of the “KÖln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 44.

[764] KÖhler, ib., pp. 27-29. Cp. KÖhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 69.

[765] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 330; Erl. ed., 24², p. 391.

[766] Ib., p. 280=365.

[767] Ib., p. 279 f.=364.

[768] Ib., p. 290=370.

[769] Late in June, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.

[770] See above, vol. i., p. 269 f.

[771] Above, p. 101 f.

[772] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362.

[773] Ib.

[774] Weim. ed., 28, p. 48, June 10.

[775] Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372.

[776] Ib., p. 504=366.

[777] Ib.

[778] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.

[779] Weim. ed., 32, p. 241. Cp. the similar passage quoted above, p. 197, from Schlaginhaufen.

[780] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273 in “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.” Given more in detail above, p. 195.

[781] Weim. ed., 36, p. 554; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.

[782] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.

[783] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 109.

[784] Cp. Erl. ed. 31, p. 273.

[785] “Opp. lat. exeg.” 11, p. 123.

[786] Erl. ed., 14², p. 343.

[787] See above, vol. iii., p. 206; vol. iv., p. 213 f.

[788] Denifle, 1², p. 392.

[789] Erl. ed., 19², p. 151 f.

[790] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317 f.

[791] Ib., 14², p. 342 ff.

[792] Erl. ed., 63, p. 369 f., 1542.

[793] Ib., p. 372.

[794] Ib., 63, p. 374. Preface to his “Barfuser Eulenspiegel und Alcoran,” 1542.

[795] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.

[796] Weim. ed. 42, p. 504; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 119.

[797] Ib., p. 505=200.

[798] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 368 and above, p. 202.

[799] Ib.

[800] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156 f.

[801] Ib., 31, p. 279.

[802] Cp. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 408-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 141-151.

[803] Above, vol. v., p. 432 ff., and vol. iii., p. 9 ff.

[804] Cp. vol. ii., p. 346.

[805] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 265, 1524.

[806] Above, vol. iii., p. 392 f.

[807] Ib., p. 10.

[808] Weim. ed., 1, p. 624; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 288. In the Resolutions, 1518.—Weim. ed., 7, pp. 139, 439; Erl. ed., 24², p. 139. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, 221. In the “Assertio omnium articulorum.” Cp. proposition 33 condemned by Leo X, 1520, in the Bull “Exsurge Domine.” N. Paulus, in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 140, 1907, p. 357 ff., and “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16 Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 26 f.

[809] Weim. ed., 7, p. 139; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 221.

[810] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 424: “Hence there is no alternative, you must either believe everything or nothing,” and vol. v., p. 398, n. 3.

[811] Weim. ed., 11, p. 267; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.

[812] Weim. ed., 18, p. 298 f. Erl. ed., 24², p. 276.

[813] Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356). He adds that he had notified the Altenburgers that “the rights, authority, revenues and power of the Canons were at an end because they were publicly opposed to the Evangel.”

[814] To the Wittenberg Canons, July 11, 1523, Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 176).

[815] In a sermon of Aug. 2, 1523, Weim. ed., 12, p. 649; Erl. ed., 17², p. 57. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 5.

[816] Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 76. According to Burkhardt, Hier. Schurf and the licentiate Pauli were entrusted with the mission to Luther; but “Luther continued to storm, and the council took steps to forbid the Mass and even intercourse with others. So far had Luther carried matters!”—Bezold, “Gesch. der deutschen Ref.,” Berlin, 1890, p. 563, observes of Luther’s attitude at that time: “It is of interest to note his transition from the principles of freedom of conscience and the independence of the Church to religious coercion and State assistance.”

[817] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 327 ff.; vol. iv., p. 510.

[818] Cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 10.

[819] Reprinted in Kolde’s, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 68 ff.

[820] Ib., p. 72.

[821] The Memo. of the three preachers in “Mitteil. der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1866, p. 513 ff.; cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318, n. 1. On Altenburg, see above, vol. ii., p. 314 ff.

[822] Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).

[823] In Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 102, and Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 320.

[824] Text in Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” Abt. 1, 1. HÄlfte, 1902, p. 142 ff. See above, vol. v., p. 592 f.

[825] Ib. These stern measures were aimed at the followers of Carlstadt and Zwingli, but were also applied to the Catholics.

[826] The writing, most probably by Link (spring, 1524), is in the “Mitteilungen der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 119 ff.

[827] In the Mem. referred to above, p. 241, n. 3.

[828] Paulus, ib., p. 12.

[829] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.

[830] Cp. their petition to George drafted by Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 285.

[831] Letter of the first half of July, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 243 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 318).

[832] Sep. 19, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.

[833] Beginning of July, 1539, in the Memorandum on the need of abolishing the Mass at Meissen. Ib., p. 189. Paulus, ib., p. 15.

[834] Paulus, ib.

[835] To Jos. Levin Metzsch of Mila, Aug. 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).

[836] On Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[837] Sehling, “Kirchenordnungen,” 1, 1, pp. 175, 176, 187, 195. Cp. Luther to Beier of Zwickau, 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[838] Above, vol. ii., p. 311, and present vol., p. 240, n. 1.

[839] Ib., vol. ii., p. 318.

[840] Ib., p. 381.

[841] Ib., p. 319.

[842] Ib., p. 318.

[843] Above, vol. iv., p. 298.

[844] Above, vol. iii., p. 45.

[845] Ib., p. 359.

[846] Ib., p. 79 f.

[847] Above, vol. v., p. 367.

[848] Ib., p. 578.

[849] Ib., p. 580.

[850] Ib., p. 579.

[851] Paulus, ib., p. 32.

[852] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f. Paulus, ib., p. 35.

[853] Above, vol. iii., p. 431.

[854] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,”¹ p. 801. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 384, and elsewhere.

[855] Above, vol. ii., p. 324.

[856] Above, vol. v., p. 110.

[857] Vol. ii., p. 13.

[858] Above, vol. v., p. 383.

[859] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 156 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 136).

[860] Liborius Magdeburger (Dec. 2, 1536) to the Town Clerk of Zwickau Johann Roth. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ib., p. 136, n. 3.

[861] Enders, ib.

[862] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 171.

[863] Ib., p. 180.

[864] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 44 ff.

[865] Vol. ii., p. 101.

[866] Ib.

[867] Vol. iii., p. 46.

[868] Ib.

[869] Ib.

[870] Ib., p. 126.

[871] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 f.

[872] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 117.

[873] Weim. ed., 18, p. 299; Erl. ed., 24², p. 276. Paulus, ib., p. 28 f.

[874] Erl. ed., 4², p. 290 f. Paulus, ib., p. 30 f.

[875] Letter of July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299: “In hac causa terret me exempli sequela, quam in papistis et ante Christum in Iudoeis videmus.… Idem sequuturum esse timeo et apud nostros.” If on the other hand they erred on the side of severity in the matter of banishment, the evil was not so great. Paulus, p. 31.

[876] Paulus, ib., p. 29.

[877] Ib., p. 31.

[878] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 17 sq. Paulus, ib., p. 32.

[879] Erl. ed., 39, p. 224 ff.

[880] Ib., pp. 250, 252, 254. The Commentary was printed in the spring of 1530.

[881] U. Haussdorff, “Leben Spenglers,” Nuremberg, 1741, p. 190 ff. Paulus, ib., p. 34.

[882] Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 163.

[883] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740. Cp. Paulus, ib., p. 41 f.

[884] Printed at Wittenberg in 1536 and signed by Luther, Bugenhagen, Cruciger and Melanchthon on June 5. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 347; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 195 sqq.

[885] Vol. 32, 1911, p. 155, in a review of Wappler’s work. For further details from Wappler and from the valuable studies of W. KÖhler see below, p. 266 ff.

[886] Weim. ed., 32, p. 507; Erl. ed., 43, p. 313.

[887] Ib., p. 475=264 f. Paulus, ib., p. 45.

[888] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552 f.; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 f., Letter of Feb. or the beginning of March, 1532 (“Briefwechsel.” 9, p. 157).

[889] Erl. ed., 1², p. 196 f. (c. 1533).

[890] Ib., 39, pp. 318-320.

[891] Weim. ed., 18, p. 148; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[892] Ib., p. 148 ff.=68 f.

[893] See Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur TÄuferbewegung,” 1910 (“RGI. Studien und Texte,” ed. J. Greving), p. 156.

[894] Wappler, ib., p. 4.

[895] Ib., pp. 12, 36, 85.

[896] P. 204 f.

[897] P. 37 ff., 83 ff.

[898] Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 28 ff., 70 ff. Paulus, ib., p. 316.

[899] Wappler, ib., p. 96 ff.

[900] Hasche, “Diplomatische Gesch. Dresdens,” vol. ii., 1817, p. 221. Paulus, ib., p. 317.

[901] Wappler, “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 242. Paulus, ib., p. 319.

[902] Wappler, ib., p. 164. Paulus, ib., p. 314.

[903] Wappler, ib., pp. 155, 234. Paulus, ib., p. 311.

[904] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525. This is one of the answers he gave to opponents who say, “neminem debere cogi ad fidem et evangelion,” and “principes in externis solum ius habere.” To the latter he replies: “principes cohibent externas abominationes,” and goes on to add: “Cum igitur ipsimet [adversarii] fateantur, in externis rebus esse ius principum, ipsi sese damnant.” If they wanted an example let them remember Christ Who drove the sellers out of the Temple. This he wrote, relying on the favour which the new Elector had extended to his cause: “Nosti quantum princeps iste noster est evangelii studiosus,” so he remarks with satisfaction. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271.

[905] In the Visitation Rules of 1527, Sehling, ib.

[906] Brandenburg, “Moritz von Sachsen,” 1, p. 22 f.

[907] Erl. ed., 57, p. 6.

[908] Commentary on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 257 f.

[909] Memorandum of 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 179 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 105).

[910] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., p. 251 f.

[911] Ib.

[912] Ib., p. 252 f. Paulus, ib., p. 39.

[913] Above, p. 252, n. 1.

[914] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 346.

[915] Comment. on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.

[916] Ib., p. 251 f. Paulus, ib., p. 36.

[917] To Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg. “Ein Sendbrief und Vorred der Dieneren zu ZÜrich,” ZÜrich, 1532, A 4b. Paulus, ib., p. 48.

[918] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., ib.

[919] Ib.

[920] Above, vol. ii., p. 347.

[921] Vol. iii., p. 390.

[922] Ib., p. 392.

[923] Above, vol. v., p. 399.

[924] Ib., p. 448.

[925] Above, p. 144.

[926] Erl. ed., 20², p. 555 ff. Aurifaber assures us that he “took down the sermon from Luther’s lips” and revised it “with diligence” at Wittenberg. Paulus, ib., p. 57 f.—Cp. the intolerant sermon preached at Halle shortly before, below, p. 274.

[927] Above, vol. iii., p. 39.

[928] Erl. ed., 54, p. 98 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151).

[929] “Briefwechsel,” ib.

[930] Weim. ed., 26, p. 223; Erl. ed., 23, p. 45 f.

[931] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 349; Erl. ed., 21, p. 7.

[932] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 104, n. 11.

[933] In 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[934] Sehling, 1, p. 195.

[935] “Ordnungen,” etc., Dresden, 1573, Bl. 132, 146. Paulus, ib., p. 318.

[936] Cp. the Rescript of Sep. 1, 1623. Paulus, ib.

[937] HannoviÆ, 1652, p. 861. Cp. ib., p. 858 sqq. Paulus, ib., n. 4.

[938] “Practica nova,” I, q. 44, n. 45: “Usu ac consuetudine saxonica obtinuit, eiusmodi hÆreticos seditiosos aut blasphemantes igne comburi.” Paulus, ib., p. 323, n. 7.

[939] Paulus, ib., p. 49 against O. Ritschl.

[940] C. E. FÖrstemann, “Liber Decanorum facultatis theol. acad. Vitebergensis,” 1838, p. 152 sqq.

[941] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², p. 212.

[942] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57.

[943] Ib., p. 35, April 18, 1540.

[944] Luther to Myconius at Gotha, Oct. 24, 1535, ib., 10, p. 248.

[945] “Corp. ref.,” 23, p. cvii. sq.

[946] P. 25 f.

[947] P. 29.

[948] P. 38.

[949] KÖhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1906, p. 211.

[950] “Ref. und Ketzerprozess,” p. 23.

[951] Cp. above, p. 252.

[952] “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 123 f.

[953] Ib., p. 125.

[954] Ib., p. 126 f.

[955] “Die Inquisition,” p. 70 f.

[956] Ib., p. 69 ff.

[957] “Inquisition,” etc., p. 6 f.

[958] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der RZ.,” 1874, p. 20.

[959] “Die Reformation und die Älteren Reformparteien,” 1885, p. 446. Paulus, ib., p. 314.

[960] “Die rechtliche Stellung der evangel. Kirche in Deutschland,” 1893, p. 90.

[961] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 816.

[962] “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, 1905, pp. 138, 187.

[963] “Literarisches Zentralblatt,” 1905, No. 36.

[964] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1896, No. 2, on Paulus, “Über die Reformatoren und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1895.

[965] “Deutsche Zeitschr. fÜr KR.,” 1896, p. 138.

[966] Neander, “Das Eine und Mannigfaltige des christl. Lebens,” 1840, p. 224.

[967] “Ursachen, warumb die altgleubige catholische Christen bei dem alten waren Christenthumb verharren sollen,” Cologne, 1589, p. 354.

[968] “Kirche und Kirchen,” 1861, p. 68.

[969] Ib., p. 50 f.

[970] Above, vol. iii., pp. 358 ff., 438 ff.

[971] Ib., p. 358.

[972] Ib., Cp. Paulus, ib., p. 74 f.

[973] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 851 sqq.: “QuÆstio, an politica potestas debeat tollere hÆreticos.”

[974] “Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch.,” 8, 1869, p. 264.

[975] “Die Theol. der Gegenwart,” 3, 3, 1909, p. 49.

[976] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.

[977] M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 70 ff. Paulus, ib., p. 33. Luther’s “booklet” to which his opponents appealed is the letter of July, 1524, to the Saxon Princes, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 365.

[978] Paulus, ib., p. 143.

[979] Ib., p. 144.

[980] P. 156 ff.

[981] P. 166.

[982] Paulus, pp. 223, 226.

[983] Cp. Kawerau in MÖller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 471 ff.

[984] Ib., p. 474.

[985] To Martin Frecht at Ulm, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 955. Cp. his letter to Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558, against Schwenckfeld, ib., 9, p. 579. Paulus, ib., p. 78.

[986] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 983. Cp. on Franck’s objections to compulsion, A. Hegler, “Geist und Schrift bei S. Franck,” 1892, p. 260 ff.—See also below, p. 289.

[987] Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” pp. 155, 223, 234. Paulus ib., p. 311.

[988] Paulus, ib., p. 75. Cp. vol. iii., p. 358.

[989] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 274, 1542. Cp. vol. iii., p. 409.

[990] Feb. 4, 1538, to Luther and “Domini in Christo et venerandi et amandi,” i.e. the other theologians at Wittenberg, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 328: “Parata est paulo post satis feliciter per Christum ordinatio ecclesiarum totius regni DaniÆ a sereniss. rege,” etc. “Per totum regnum DaniÆ regnat Christus in omnibus ecclesiis,” etc.

[991] See vol. iii., p. 413.

[992] See J. C. v. Dreyhaupt, “AusfÜhrliche Beschreibung des Saal-Kreyses,” 1, 1749, p. 982 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 2, p. 1. Paulus, ib., p. 80 ff.

[993] On this sermon of Jan. 26, 1546, see below, xxxix., 3.

[994] Dreyhaupt, ib., p. 210 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 191.

[995] To Lang the Erfurt preacher, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 224: Halle, with the whole of its Church, had submitted to the Elector “beneficio altissimi Dei … a cultu Baal, a fanis idololatricis et omni idololatria tandem expurgata.”

[996] Above, p. 240 f.

[997] Ib. Cp. his letter to the Elector, Oct. 1, 1525, Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72. Paulus, ib., p. 11.

[998] To Philip of Hesse, Jan. 15, 1532. Wappler. “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 156.

[999] His letter of 1533, above, p. 255 f.

[1000] “Verlegung,” etc. (Wittenberg, 1536), Bl. A 4a, E 3a. Paulus, ib., p. 71 f.

[1001] “Prozess,” etc., Worms (1557). Paulus, ib., p. 72 f.

[1002] “Ob eine weltliche Obrigkeit … mÖge die WiedertÄufer … richten lassen,” Marburg, 1528. Paulus, ib., p. 115, correcting Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers.”

[1003] Melanchthon, Feb., 1530, to a friend, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 18.

[1004] F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog zu WÜrtemberg,” 3, 1844, p. 172. Paulus, ib., p. 123.

[1005] Chr. Besold, “Virginum sacrarum monimenta,” etc., 1636, p. 237 sqq. Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 7, pp. 80-90.

[1006] “Von den Worten Christi, Matt. xiii. (v. 30),” no place, 1541, Bl. C 1 to D 3, Paulus, p. 92 f.

[1007] Cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 86-91.

[1008] Cp. ib., pp. 100-115, with extracts from A. Wrede, “Die EinfÜhrung der Reformation im LÜneburgischen durch Herzog Ernst den Bekenner,” 1887. Cp. Wrede, “Ernst der Bekenner,” 1888.

[1009] “Responsio de missa, matrimonio et iure magistratus in religionem,” Argentorati, 1537. 2nd ed. 1540. Extracts from the latter in Paulus, p. 129 ff.

[1010] C. Hagan, ib., quoted p. 153.

[1011] Paulus, ib., p. 155.

[1012] P. v. Stetten, “Gesch. der Stadt Augsburg,” 1, 1743, p. 445.

[1013] Paulus, ib., p. 160.

[1014] On Bucer, cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 142-175.

[1015] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 7, p. 91.

[1016] Ib.

[1017] To Anton Lauterbach, May 7, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 468. The persons in question had already frequently communicated under both kinds as a sign of their entry into Lutheranism, but had passed unfavourable criticisms on certain measures of Luther’s. He commissions Lauterbach: “Ubi etiam poenituerint, hoc exigendum est, ut hactenus a nobis gesta et in posterum gerenda probent. Alioqui quÆ erit poenitentia, si nostra facta damnaverint hoc est sua omnia per fictam poenitentiam stabilierint?”

[1018] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 322.

[1019] Deut. xiii. 5 ff., above, p. 273.

[1020] Erl. ed., 61, p. 7, “Tischreden.”

[1021] Ib., p. 26.

[1022] P. 8 f.

[1023] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 377.

[1024] “Werke,” ib., p. 26.

[1025] P. 30.

[1026] P. 11.

[1027] P. 27 ff.

[1028] P. 31.

[1029] P. 14.

[1030] See e.g. the next quotation.

[1031] Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f., “Vier trostliche Psalmen … an die KÖnigyn zu Hungern.”

[1032] Ib., p. 585=414.

[1033] Ib., Weim. ed., 7, p. 394; Erl. ed., 24², p. 112.

[1034] Ib., 19², p. 273.

[1035] Ib., 38, p. 177 f.

[1036] Ib., Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 235; Erl. ed., 39, p. 114.

[1037] Ib., 10², p. 193 f.

[1038] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83.

[1039] Erl. ed., 61, p. 17.

[1040] Cp. Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 56.

[1041] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.

[1042] Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.

[1043] Ib., Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.

[1044] Ib., 11², p. 267.

[1045] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.

[1046] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295.

[1047] Ib., p. 317.

[1048] Ib., p. 295.

[1049] Erl. ed., 61, p. 21.

[1050] Ib., p. 1.

[1051] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 153 ff.

[1052] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 162.

[1053] Letter of Aug. 21, 1524, Weim. ed., 15, p. 240 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377 f.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 538).

[1054] Above, vol. iii., p. 154.

[1055] “Briefe,” 6, p. 199 f. See above, vol. iv., p. 292.

[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 549.

[1057] Erl. ed., 60, p. 318 f. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 156 sq.

[1058] See above, vol. iii., p. 234, n. 1.

[1059] Ed. Const. v. HÖfler, “SB. der bÖhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 79 f.

[1060] P. 123 Lemnius says the following of Luther’s private life: “Dum se episcopum iactitat evangelicum, qui fit, ut ille parum sobrie vivat? Vino enim ciboque sese ingurgitare solet suosque adulatores et assentatores secum habet, habet suam Venerem ac fere nihil prorsus illi deesse potest, quod ad voluptatem ac libidinem pertinet.” Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 274.

[1061] “Apologia,” p. 136.

[1062] See above, vol. v., pp. 169 ff., 250 ff.

[1063] Erl. ed., 61, p. 16

[1064] Ib., p. 7 f.

[1065] P. 8 f.

[1066] P. 17.

[1067] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 249.

[1068] Ib., p. 239.

[1069] P. 167.

[1070] P. 90.

[1071] P. 154.

[1072] P. 253.

[1073] P. 109.

[1074] P. 166.

[1075] P. 403.

[1076] Erl. ed., 61, p. 19 f.

[1077] Ib., p. 22.

[1078] P. 24.

[1079] P. 25.

[1080] Above, vol. ii., p. 377.

[1081] Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the 2nd part of his German Works (compiled from his writings). Cp. vol. 28, pp. 64, 89.

[1082] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 529 (1534).

[1083] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 407; Erl. ed., 63, p. 303 (1531).

[1084] Erl. ed., 49, p. 163 f.

[1085] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17.

[1086] “EcclesiÆ ratio diligenter habenda est.” Ib.

[1087] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 128: a bishop has no ecclesiastical authority, no “potestas statuendi quidquam … quia ecclesia est libera et domina.”

[1088] Weim. ed., 6, p. 300 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 107. Cp. ib., p. 296 f.=102; the Church is chiefly “inward, spiritual Christianity,” though she, like the soul in the body, has also an external existence of a kind; P. 297 f.=103: She is governed only by Christ. “Who can tell who really believes or not?”

[1089] Weim. ed., 7, p. 719: “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 309 (1521): “Dicet autem, si ecclesia tota est in spiritu et res omnino spiritualis, nemo ergo nosse poterit, ubi sit ulla eius pars in toto orbe.”

[1090] Erl. ed., 25², p. 440 (1539).

[1091] Weim. ed., 8, p. 419; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 127 (1522): “Quis ecclesiam nobis monstrabit, quum sit occulta in Spiritu et solum credatur? Sicut dicimus: Credo ecclesiam sanctam.”

[1092] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20.

[1093] KÖstlin, Art. Kirche, in “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901.

[1094] Weim. ed., 6, p. 301; Erl. ed., 27, p. 108.

[1095] Cp. the passage quoted by MÖhler, “Symbolik,” § 49, p. 427, from “De servo arbitrio.”

[1096] Erl. ed., 25², p. 416.

[1097] Cp. the theological doctrine of the distinction between the body and soul of the Church. H. Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” 1¹¹, 1903, p. 259. Tract iii., art. 2.

[1098] Erl. ed., 25², p. 418.

[1099] Ib., p. 419.

[1100] P. 420.

[1101] P. 421 ff.

[1102] For Bellarmine, see “ControversiÆ,” Colon., 2, 1615, 1. 3. “De ecclesia militante,” p. 65 sq.

[1103] Cp. above, p. 150 ff.

[1104] Bellarmine, l. c., p. 65.

[1105] Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” p. 227.

[1106] Erl. ed., 25², p. 434.

[1107] “Symbolik,” §49, p. 424 f.

[1108] Cp. “Apol. conf. August.,” art. 7. MÜller-Kolde,¹ p. 153.

[1109] The Church, according to his explanation of the article of the Creed in question, is “the assembly of the Saints, i.e. an assembly composed only of saints,” not an assembly of all those who have been baptised. Cp. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², pp. 257, 278.

[1110] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 21.

[1111] Erl. ed., 66, p. 440 f.

[1112] Art. “Kirche,” in “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, pp. 337, 349.

[1113] Cp. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 262, with the quotation from Erl. ed., 9², p. 285 f.: “In her each one must be found, in her each one must be enrolled, whoso wishes to be saved and to come to God, and, outside of her, no one will be saved.”

[1114] KÖstlin, ib., p. 269.

[1115] Ib., p. 169.

[1116] See above, vol. ii., pp. 267 f., 287 f.

[1117] Prop. 23.

[1118] Prop. 24.

[1119] See above vol. i., p. 371.

[1120] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 224.

[1121] See above, vol. iii., p. 143 ff.

[1122] And yet he declares later (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 15) that he would gladly have acknowledged the Pope (i.e. sacrificed his doctrine of the Church) “modo evangelium docuisset,” i.e. if the Pope had agreed to his doctrine of Justification. Indeed at the end of Feb., 1519, he says, in the “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell” (see below, p. 307) “for no kind of sin or abuse” is it lawful to begin a schism. Weim. ed., 2, p. 72; Erl. ed., 24², p. 10. Cp. W. Walther, “FÜr Luther,” 1906, p. 20.

[1123] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.

[1124] To Spalatin, Jan. 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 352; he adds: “Non ligat nec nocet ira Decretalium, quando tuetur misericordia Christi.”

[1125] Weim. ed., 2, p. 183 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 296 sqq.

[1126] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 250.—Other statements made by Luther at this time must be read in the light of the above theory, e.g. his words in the “Comm. on Gal.”: “As widely, broadly, and deeply as possible do I distinguish between the Roman Church and the Roman Curia.” “They must know that they are mistaken when they cry out that I do not hold with the Roman Church; I who love so truly not only the Roman Church but the whole Church of Christ.” “Comm. on Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 134 sq. Cp. W. Walther, “FÜr Luther,” 1906, p. 24.

[1127] Weim. ed., 2, pp. 399, 404 ff., 427, 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 240, 244 sqq., 281, 284. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 255 ff.

[1128] For his earlier days cp. the passage in “Freiheyt dess Sermons Bepstlichen Ablass belangend” (1518), Weim. ed., 1, p. 384; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12: “If already so many and thousands more, and all of them holy Doctors had held this or that, yet they are of no account as compared with a single verse of Holy Writ, as St. Paul says, Gal. (i. 8): ‘Even though an angel from heaven,’ etc.”

[1129] Weim. ed., 2, p. 431; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.

[1130] Ib., p. 183 ff.=296 sqq. (Thesis 13).

[1131] Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion,” p. 259.

[1132] Cp. MÖhler, “Symbolik,” §44, p. 399.

[1133] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 387 ff. and vol. ii., p. 368.

[1134] Above, p. 237.

[1135] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 256, from Weim. ed., 2, p. 430; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 285.

[1136] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349. Augustine, however, is speaking of truth in general.

[1137] See above, vol. iv., p. 403 ff.

[1138] Cp. MÖhler, “Symbolik,” §46, p. 409, with the following quotation from Luther’s “De captiv. Babylon.”: “Christianis nihil nullo iure posse imponi legum, sive ab hominibus, sive ab angelis, nisi quantum volunt; liberi enim sumus ab omnibus.”

[1139] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398. The work is printed in Weim. ed., 7, p. 704 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 286 sqq.

[1140] Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 sqq.

[1141] Cp. the passages quoted by MÖhler, “Symbolik,” §45, p. 405, n. 2: “Christianus ita certus est, quid credere et non credere debeat, ut etiam pro ipso moriatur, aut saltem mori paratus sit.” Thus to teach as a priest involved nothing very dreadful, “cum verbum Dei hic luceat et iubeat, simul necessitas animarum cogat.”

[1142] “Symbolik,” §45, p. 409.

[1143] Ib., §45, p. 406.

[1144] Ib., §44, p. 399.

[1145] Art. Kirche, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, p. 337.

[1146] Cp. MÖhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 427.

[1147] Erl. ed., 26², p. 188.

[1148] KÖstlin in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 7², p. 716. Omitted in the 3rd ed.

[1149] “Christl. Welt,” ed. Rade, 1, 1902, No. 38.

[1150] Weim. ed., 2, p. 69 ff; Erl. ed., 24², p. 5 ff.

[1151] Ib.,6, p. 477 ff.; 9, p. 302 ff.=12 ff.

[1152] Ib., 2, p. 72 f.=24², p. 10 f.

[1153] Ib., 6, p. 480=24², p. 13. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 303 f.; 9, p. 476 f.

[1154] Ib., 10, 2, p. 232=28, p. 350.

[1155] Ib., p. 232=351.

[1156] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 86 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 337 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 151 sqq. Kolde, “Die Augsburgische Konfession,” p. 123 ff.

[1157] Vol. ii., p. 179.

[1158] Cp. MÖhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 428 n.

[1159] “Confessio August.,” art. 7. “Symbolische BÜcher,” ed. MÜller Kolde, p. 40.

[1160] “Apol. confess.,” art. 7, “Symbol. BÜcher,” p. 152.

[1161] Art. 14, “Symbol. BÜcher,” p. 42.

[1162] “De potestate et iurisdict. episcoporum” (by Melanchthon). “Symbol. BÜcher,” p. 341 f.

[1163] Erl. ed., 31, p. 348 f. (1533).

[1164] Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 230.

[1165] In “Von den SchlÜsseln,” 1530, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 435 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 222 f.

[1166] See above, vol. ii., p. 112.

[1167] “Symbolik,” §47, p. 416.

[1168] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398.

[1169] “Christlicher Gegenbericht,” 1561, Bl. Y III´. (The copy in the Munich State Library contains the autograph dedication of Staphylus to Joh. Jacob Fugger.) Also in the “Apologia,” by Laur. Surius, Colon, 1562, p. 353. Cp. Bellarminus, “ControversiÆ,” t. 2 (Colon, 1615), p. 58.

[1170] “Centur.,” 1, lib. 1, c. 4, col. 170, in Bellarmin, ib. In recent times Protestant theologians have divided on the subject, some favouring more the visible, others the invisible Church. The latter are the more logical. Cp. G. Kawerau’s statement: “We may dispute as to whether the term invisible ‘Church’ is well chosen or not, but what it means is clear; for what else is it but a decided protest against every attempt to attribute within the domain of the Evangel, to a visible, ecclesiastical, legally constituted society the attributes of the Church in which we believe? Protestantism by its very nature cannot make of its outward edifice an ‘ecclesia proprie dicta.’” “Über Berechtigung und Bedeutung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” 1887, p. 12.

[1171] See above, p. 265.

[1172] Testimonial of May 17, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57 f.

[1173] Testimonial of April 18, 1540, ib. p. 35 f.

[1174] Above, vol. iii., p. 41.

[1175] See above, vol. v., p. 250.

[1176] Erl. ed., 43, p. 281. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 102.

[1177] Above, vol. v., p. 191, n. 4.

[1178] Ib.

[1179] Above, vol. v., p. 170.

[1180] Ib.

[1181] Ib., p. 171.

[1182] Ib.

[1183] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 138 f.

[1184] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 26.

[1185] Above, vol. v., p. 180.

[1186] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47.

[1187] Aug. 26, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151.

[1188] KÖstlin, Art. “Kirche” in the “RE. f. prot. Th. und Kirche,” vol. 10³.

[1189] Above, vol. v., p. 180.

[1190] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20: “Lutherus dicebat de usu et necessitate consistorii, quod lapsam et pendentem ecclesiam iterum fulciret,” etc.

[1191] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 520; Erl. ed., 31, p. 217, in the writing “Von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern” (1532), Luther directs “officials, judges and whoever has to rule” to ask the teachers who were under suspicion: “Who has sent you?” “Why are you after setting up something new?” “If this work was done with zeal it would be of great profit.… Otherwise, unless they insisted on the call or command, there would come to be no Church left.”—Concerning the provision for the Church’s needs Luther speaks of the “duty” of the Elector to see in some way that the parsonages were adequately supported “in order that the Universities and divine worship be not hindered from want, from the needs of the poor belly.” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331.

[1192] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552.

[1193] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 50; Art. “Luther,” “KL.,” 8², p. 338.

[1194] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 625 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358.

[1195] Ib., Erl. ed., 50, p. 8.

[1196] Ib., 46, p. 226.

[1197] Luther says, for instance, that, in earlier days, “Emperors and Kings had commanded and instituted public worship in their lands” (KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42).

[1198] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42.

[1199] To Albert Count of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90).

[1200] We may quote the remarkable letter to the Town Council of Zwickau, dated Sep. 27, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 146 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 88): “My feeling is always that the two rules, the spiritual and the secular, or Church and Town-Hall, are not to intermingle, otherwise the one devours the other and both perish as happened in Popery.” Cp. on the other hand, above, vol. v., p. 580: “everything must be equal and made to intermingle whether it be termed spiritual or secular.”

[1201] To Daniel Cresser, parson at Dresden, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596.

[1202] Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.

[1203] Mejer (†) und Sehling, “Kirchengewalt,” in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³. Cp. the art. “Kirchenregiment”: “The Church, as a body separate from the State, is something modern (?) and quite unknown to Luther.”

[1204] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 22.

[1205] See Emil Richter, “Gesch. der evangel. Kirchenverfassung in Deutschland,” 1851, p. 64.

[1206] Erl. ed., 25², p. 424 f.

[1207] Ib., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 424 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 122 f.

[1208] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 129 f.

[1209] H. Hermelink, “Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft., 98, pp. 37-70), 1908, p. 49.

[1210] Ib., p. 66, n.

[1211] Above, vol. v., p. 565.

[1212] See Paulsen, above, vol. v., p. 57.

[1213] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. vi., p. 148.

[1214] KÖstlin refers to the same thing when he says: “The fact that there was originally in Christianity a well defined office of overseers was either not recognised by him at all, or at least not adequately.” Art. “Kirche,” “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³.

[1215] Scholia to Romans, p. 248 f. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 323.

[1216] Above, p. 297.

[1217] Memo. of Aug. 22(?), 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 40 ff.

[1218] “An die Christen zu Erfurt,” Jan.-Feb., 1527, Erl. ed., 53, p. 411 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15).

[1219] Above, vol. ii., p. 360.

[1220] Sep. 30, 1533, Erl. ed., 55, p. 25 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 341).

[1221] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff.

[1222] In the Notes to the memorandum of 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 342.

[1223] To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596. See the text, above, vol. v., p. 182.

[1224] Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.

[1225] Cp. above, p. 320 n. 1.

[1226] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 130 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 58 f.

[1227] Erl. ed., 65, p. 177.

[1228] See above, vol. ii., p. 297 ff.

[1229] To the Elector Johann, Aug. 26, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 188 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, 215).

[1230] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 272.

[1231] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, pp. 554, 563. In the 2nd ed. the chapter has been altered and not always for the better.

[1232] Ib., p. 563.

[1233] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 339 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 396 ff.

[1234] Ib., p. 338-396.

[1235] Joh. Mensing, “GrÜndtliche Unterrichte, was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirche … halten sol,” 1528, in Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” 1903, p. 25.

[1236] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.

[1237] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, p. 546.

[1238] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.

[1239] “Digamy” as a canonical hindrance to ordination is founded on the prescription of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. For the history of this impediment see Phillips, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, p. 519 ff.

[1240] Erl. ed., 25², p. 427.

[1241] Ib., p. 428.

[1242] Erl. ed., 26², p. 45 f.

[1243] Ib., p. 46.

[1244] Ib., p. 43. This, some years later, was to form the frontispiece of his book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[1245] Cp. what he says elsewhere: “The Church is an assembly of the people which is founded on the invisible. It is the ungodly who see in the Church nothing but misery, weakness, scandal and sin. The wise of this world take offence at her look because she is subject to scandals and divisions; they dream of a holy, pure and undefiled Church, the Divine Dove. It is true that, in God’s sight, the Church does so appear, but to the eyes of men she resembles her bridegroom Christ Who according to Isaias liii., seemed torn, bruised, spit upon, crucified, mocked at” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 14).—Luther was perfectly aware of the works of holiness by which the Catholic Church is distinguished, her penitential practices and life of prayer. Speaking of this he is fond of depreciating it as something external and declaring: “Hence we must speak differently of the matter and learn to know that the Christian Church is holy, not in herself nor in this life, but in Christ; a holiness by grace is indeed received here, but it is completed in the next world.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 408 f.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 304 f. Preface to Crossner’s “Sermon von der Kirche,” 1531.

[1246] Erl. ed., 26², p. 55.

[1247] P. 66.

[1248] P. 55.

[1249] These errors constituted, according to Luther, a “flood of all kinds of human doctrine, lies, errors, idolatry and abominations,” “countless devilish dens of murderers in which the welfare of souls suffers gruesomely” (Erl. ed., 31, p. 336 f.).

[1250] Ib., 26², p. 53. Cp. ib., 31, p. 337: “The Church, or Christendom, has remained and will stand, this is undoubtedly true.”

[1251] Above, p. 330 n. 3. Paulus, ib., p. 24.

[1252] KÖstlin’s summary, “Luther’s Theol.,” 2¹, p. 552.

[1253] Erl. ed., 31, p. 333.

[1254] Ib., p. 332.

[1255] Ib., p. 334.

[1256] Ib., p. 332.

[1257] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 552: “While he … repeatedly declared, that, in spite of the Divine promises, Christendom had fallen into error on certain points, he could never be induced to admit this of the article of the Presence of the Body [of Christ in the Sacrament].”

[1258] Erl. ed., 31, p. 339. Elsewhere he likewise admits, that, in the olden Church and particularly in the convents “there lived many great saints”; it was true that they, “the elect of God,” had been led astray, “yet they were at last delivered and made their escape through faith in Jesus Christ.” Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366 (1528).

[1259] Erl. ed., 26², p. 46 f.

[1260] Ib., p. 43.

[1261] “Augustinus voluit scribere iudicanda non credenda, sicut alius locus eiusdem scriptoris testatur: Nolo meis scriptis plus credi,” etc. (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17). Cp. vol. iv., p. 400.

[1262] “Ecclesia verbo Dei generatur, alitur, nutritur, roboratur” (Erl. ed., 25², p. 420).

[1263] Mensing, in Paulus, ib., p. 25.

[1264] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 13-25: “Ecclesia, quÆ regnum Christi dicitur.”

[1265] Erl. ed., 26², p. 172 ff., “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft,” 1545.

[1266] As early as the Leipzig Disputation Luther had been obliged to have recourse to the explanation, that by the rock was meant either the faith Peter had confessed, or else Christ Himself. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, 245, remarks on this: “We cannot honestly deny its weakness.”

[1267] “Das MatthÄusevangelium und seine Parallelen,” Halle, 1876, p. 393.

[1268] “Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.,” ed. Hilgenfeld, 1878, p. 115.—H. A. Meyer, “Kritisch-exegetisches Handb. Über das Evangelium des MatthÄus,”6 GÖttingen, 1876, says of Matt. xvi. 18 f.: “There is no doubt that the primacy among the Apostles is here bestowed on Peter.”—Schelling wrote (“Philosophie der Offenbarung,” 2, Stuttgart. 1858, p. 301): “These words of Christ (Matt. xvi. 18 f.) are conclusive to all eternity as to the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles; it requires all the blindness of party spirit to fail to see this or to give them any other meaning.”

[1269] P. 185.

[1270] Above, p. 305.

[1271] P. 188.

[1272] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 638.

[1273] See vol. iv., p. 329. Cp. vol. iii., p. 436 f.

[1274] Jan. 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.

[1275] Dec. 2, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 701.

[1276] To Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 17, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 714.

[1277] May 7, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 737.

[1278] Ib., p. 735.

[1279] P. 733.

[1280] P. 737.

[1281] P. 738.

[1282] P. 739.

[1283] See below, p. 355 ff.

[1284] “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.

[1285] Ib., p. 742.

[1286] P. 743.

[1287] Ib., 6, p. 379.

[1288] Ib., 5, p. 380.

[1289] P. 739.

[1290] P. 745.

[1291] P. 746.

[1292] P. 746.

[1293] P. 750.

[1294] Pp. 744, 750 f.

[1295] P. 751.

[1296] P. 754. To Ratzeberger, Court Physician to the Elector, Aug. 6, 1545: “credo, nos esse tubam illam novissimam, qua prÆparatur e prÆcurritur adventus Christi.” Cp. above, vol. v., p. 239.

[1297] P. 740.

[1298] See below, p. 352.

[1299] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 606.

[1300] To Amsdorf, June 15, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743.

[1301] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 513. Cp. also the passage quoted above, vol. v., p. 237.

[1302] For the breaking off of the sermons in 1530 see above, p. 168. We read in the “Historien” of Mathesius, that Luther “In [15]39 said wildly that he would never again get up in the pulpit.”

[1303] “Briefe,” 5, p. 752 f.

[1304] On Catherine’s position at Wittenberg the following words speak volumes: “After my death the four elements [Faculties] at Wittenberg will most likely not put up with you, hence it would be better that what there is to do were done during my lifetime.” Luther was right in his anticipations. After his decease “the sad fate of a poor parson’s widow was not spared her. In countless petitions to the King of Denmark, ‘Dr. Martin’s widow’ had year by year to beg for support now that ‘everyone looks at me askance and no one comes to my assistance.’” Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 497 f.

[1305] Cp. Cruciger, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313.

[1306] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” p. 125.

[1307] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 608. What Aurifaber relates in the German Table-Talk of a conversation of Luther’s on the bigamy of Philip of Hesse “at Leipzig in 1545 during a convivial gathering” (Erl. ed., 61, p. 302) rests on a false chronology and only repeats a conversation which took place much earlier. For the incorrectness of the date given, see Cristiani in the “Revue des questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.

[1308] “Briefwechsel,” ed. Burkhardt, p. 482 f.

[1309] In Latin in “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 480 sqq. German according to the Wittenberg original ed. of 1545, in Erl. ed., 65, p. 170 ff.

[1310] See above, vol. iii., p. 268.

[1311] Theses 31 and 32, p. 173.

[1312] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 609.

[1313] Letter of Jan. 17, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 778.

[1314] See vol. iii., p. 147.

[1315] “Briefe,” 5, p. 761

[1316] Above, vol. v., p. 394 f.

[1317] Cp. “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1894, p. 771 f.

[1318] “Briefe,” 5, p. 764 f.

[1319] Aug. 19, 1545, ib., p. 757.

[1320] Ib., p. 768.

[1321] P. 769.

[1322] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 325.

[1323] To Amsdorf, Jan. 19, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 780.

[1324] To Prince George, Administrator of Merseburg, Oct., 1545, ib., p. 759.

[1325] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 771.

[1326] Hausrath, “Leben Luthers,” 2, p. 483.

[1327] See above, vol. v., p. 261.

[1328] “Orthodoxa TigurinÆ ecclesiÆ ministrorum confessio … cum responsione ad vanas et offendiculi plenas D. Martini calumnias, condemnationes et convicia, etc.,” 1545.

[1329] To Jakob Probst, Jan. 17, 1546, “Briefe,” 4, p. 778. Cp. Ps. 1, 1: “Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit et in cathedra pestilentiÆ non sedit.”

[1330] April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 728.

[1331] Hausrath, ib., 2, p. 469.

[1332] See KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 570. He was referring to Luther’s attitude towards the lawyers. On Melanchthon’s earlier plan of leaving the town, see above, vol. iii., p. 370 f.

[1333] Cp. No. 16 of the Theses “Wider die Theologisten zu LÖven,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 171, and the passage from Mathesius quoted in the following note.

[1334] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 with Kroker’s remarks; the latter places this important utterance recorded by Besold (1544) in its right chronological setting, as against Loesche and KÖstlin. Here Luther says, in condemnation of processions: “Alia res est circumferri, alia elevari.” The Wittenberg Concord says evasively: “The Body of Christ is present when the bread is received, and is truly given.” KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 346.

[1335] Hausrath, “Leben Luthers,” 2, p. 475. The latter says of the charges made by the Zwinglians: “It is not surprising that his opponents found that his (Luther’s) obstinacy and his hatred of everything Zwinglian was leading him into palpable self-contradiction.”

[1336] Hausrath, ib., p. 465.

[1337] Hausrath, ib., p. 477 f.

[1338] “Briefe,” 5, p. 715.

[1339] [The 4th Commandment, with the Lutherans as with the Catholics, is that known as the 5th by Anglicans and the English sects. Note to the English edition.]

[1340] KÖstlin-Kawerau (above, vol. iv., p. 288).

[1341] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 207: Erl. ed., 23, p. 95 f.

[1342] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469 f.

[1343] See vol. iv., p. 289 f.

[1344] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 292.

[1345] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 614.

[1346] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 570. The text is embodied in the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 62, p. 240. See in vol. iii., p. 39 ff. some further utterances of Luther’s on the marriages in question. The allusion above to “the paternal consent that follows” is probably to be understood as referring to the unlawfulness of any subsequent ratification by the parents. Such in any case was Luther’s view: “In his eyes the secret betrothals were sinful, even when the consent was obtained afterwards, nay actually invalid,” Kawerau, 2, p. 570. After Luther’s “victory” in 1545 it was, however, decided that such marriages should be null and void until the parents gave their consent, or until the Consistories had determined whether the parents’ refusal was based on valid, important or sufficient grounds.

[1347] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 571, 687, n. “Fax domestica,” see above, vol. iii., p. 216.

[1348] To Spalatin, Jan. 30, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 626.

[1349] To Caspar Beier, Jan. 27, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 721: “Responde amori te amantis et anxie expectantis, nihil moratus SatanÆ et Satanicorum verba, quorum mundus plenus.”

[1350] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 340. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 355 f. and Erl. ed., 62, pp. 95 and 282.

[1351] Erl. ed., 62, p. 214 ff. and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 287 sqq.

[1352] Erl. ed., 62, p. 245.

[1353] To Melanchthon, Feb. 6, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 785.

[1354] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 3.

[1355] Ib., p. 14, and see above, vol. iv., p. 289 f.

[1356] Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 81.

[1357] From the sermon of Feb. 23, 1539, “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295.

[1358] Jan. 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 712.

[1359] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 284.

[1360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.

[1361] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 290.

[1362] To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[1363] To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 10, 1541, ib., p. 407.

[1364] To Duke Maurice of Saxony, 1541 (not dated), ib., p. 417.

[1365] To a Town Councillor, Jan. 27, 1543, ib., p. 537.

[1366] To Amsdorf, July 21, 1544, ib., p. 675.

[1367] To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, ib., p. 552.

[1368] To Justus Menius, May 1, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 467.

[1369] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 124.

[1370] Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[1371] Erl. ed., 62, p. 245.

[1372] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 131.

[1373] Erl. ed., 62, p. 234.

[1374] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 132.

[1375] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 472 ff.

[1376] Ib., p. 479 f.

[1377] P. 479.

[1378] P. 475. This is not the only passage in which Luther labels the concupiscence “which everyone feels” as a “sin.”

[1379] P. 481.

[1380] P. 480.

[1381] P. 482.

[1382] Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773: “Spiritus Munsterianus post rusticos nunc nobiles invasit,” etc.

[1383] Feb. 10, 1546, ib., p. 789.

[1384] To Beier, see above, p. 359, n. 3.

[1385] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.

[1386] Erl. ed., 62, p. 287. Cp. the chapter of the Table-Talk dealing with the “schools and universities” (ib., pp. 285-308), and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 13-20 where many excellent thoughts are found.

[1387] See above, vol. iv., p. 228 f.

[1388] Erl. ed., 62, p. 291 f.

[1389] Hausrath, 2, p. 487 f.

[1390] Ib., p. 488.

[1391] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 87.

[1392] Ib., p. 135.

[1393] The fragmentary work, ed. E. Thiele in the “Neudrucken deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 76, according to the Cod. Ottobon. 3029 in the Vat. Library. For an older ed. see “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 14, p. 1365 f.—Cp. Luther’s praise of Æsop and hints on its use, in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 379.

[1394] End of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753. See above, vol iii., pp. 280 f., 307.

[1395] Feb. 7, 1546, ib., p. 787.

[1396] Erl. ed., 32, p. 426. The Latin verses begin: “Dura lues pestis, sed mors est durior illa.” One may well ask whether the broadside, which bears no date, was not perhaps written in Germany by friends of Luther’s to afford a pretext for inveighing anew against the Catholics.

[1397] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 323 f., 12, 113.

[1398] Erl. ed., 61, p. 435.

[1399] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 115.

[1400] To Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 439.

[1401] Mathesius, ib., p. 113.

[1402] Ib., p. 384.

[1403] Ib., p. 113.

[1404] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.

[1405] Erl. ed., 52, p. 36.

[1406] Ib., 61, p. 432; 64, p. 289. Cp. ib., 3², p. 418 f.; 11², p. 148; Weim. ed., 16, p. 418 f.=Erl. ed., 36, p. 27. “Briefe,” 6, p. 411.

[1407] “Briefe,” 5, p. 780. For the devil’s preference for water see above, vol. v., p. 285.

[1408] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 483 ff.

[1409] Hausrath, 2, p. 493. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 618.

[1410] To Catherine Bora, Feb. 14, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 792.

[1411] “Briefe,” 5, p. 783 f.

[1412] Ib., p. 789 f.

[1413] Erl. ed., 65, 187 ff.

[1414] March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 725.

[1415] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 282.*

[1416] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 619.

[1417] Above, p. 132.

[1418] “Briefe,” 5, p. 791 f.

[1419] Ib., p. 792.

[1420] Erl. ed., 61, p. 437.

[1421] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 614.

[1422] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773.

[1423] The phrase was a popular one and, though not above a suspicion of frivolity, was certainly not “blasphemous.” The account here is that of Jonas.

[1424] “Briefe,” 6, p. 414: “Scripturas sacras sciat se nemo degustasse satis, nisi centum annis cum prophetis, ut Elia et ElisÆo, Ioanne Baptista, Christo et Apostolis ecclesias gubernavit. Hanc tu ne Æneida tenta, sed vestigia pronus adora [cf. Statius, Thebaid. l. 12, v. 816 sq.]. We are beggars, hoc est verum. 16 Februarii anno 1546.”

[1425] The following narrative is based on the account of witnesses who were present at the death or called in immediately after, viz. on the letter of Jonas to the Elector of Saxony dated in the night of Luther’s death (Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 177 ff.), the letters of Count Albert of Mansfeld and Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt to the same and sent on the same day (FÖrstemann, “Denkmale,” 1846, p. 17 f.), the letter of Johann Aurifaber to Michael Gutt, also of the same date (Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 427); then on the panegyric of Michael Coelius on Feb. 20 at Eisleben, published together with the panegyric of Jonas at Wittenberg, 1546, and reprinted together with other matter in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 274* ff. and particularly, the “Historia” of the death written by Jonas, Coelius and Aurifaber which appeared at Wittenberg in the middle of March, 1546. It is also reprinted in Walch, ib., p. 280* ff. For the report of the apothecary Johann Landau see below, p. 379. Of no importance for the account of the death is the so-called “Neues Fragment zu Luthers Tod,” given by G. L. Burr in the “Americ. Hist. Rev.” (July, 1911, pp. 723-736), as it is merely a repetition by one of Melanchthon’s pupils of the latter’s funeral address. The account, first made public at Philadelphia by A. Spaeth, and printed in the “Lutherkalender” for 1911 (p. 88), likewise contains nothing substantially new.

[1426] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” p. 138. That the idea embodied in the verse was familiar to Luther is clear from other sayings: cp. above, vol. v., p. 102 and below, p. 394. Ratzeberger’s narrative cannot, however, compare in value with the other authorities quoted above, p. 376, n. 2, and Catholic writers have lent too much credence to it. Luther’s prayer, for instance, which Ratzeberger quotes as having been overheard by a servant, Johann Sickell, is given only by him (p. 140).

[1427] With the silence of the witnesses present it is rather difficult to square the statement contained in an Autograph of Paul, Luther’s son, which according to KÖstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 695) lies in the library at Rudolstadt; it tells how he, and his brother Martin, while standing by their father’s bedside had heard him repeat three times the text, John iii. 16.

[1428] In CochlÆus, “Ex compendio actorum M. Lutheri caput ultimum, etc.,” MoguntiÆ, 1548. In 1565 the account was embodied in the larger work of CochlÆus: “De actis et scriptis M. Lutheri.” To N. Paulus (below, p. 381, n. 2) belongs the credit of having examined in detail the report (p. 67 ff.) and pointed out the author.

[1429] For some further remarks of the apothecary see above, vol. iii., p. 304.

[1430] “Visa enim est tortura oris et dexterum latus totum infuscatum.”

[1431] On the grave see KÖstlin, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1894, p. 630 ff, 1897, pp. 192 ff., 824 ff. and in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 11³, p. 752 f. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 626.

[1432] Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende, eine kritische Untersuchung” (“ErlÄuterungen und Erganzungen zu Janssens Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” vol. i., Hft. 1), 1898, p. 63.

[1433] Paulus, ib., pp. 67-82. It may be added that, in the 2nd decade of the 17th century the fable had no support at Munich, for Ægidius Albertinus in his work “Der Teutschen Recreation,” printed there in 1613 (which contains many falsehoods about Luther), says he “died a sudden death”; it is said that “a stroke, apoplexia, or the hand of God, smote him” (p. 85 f.). That his sudden death as the result of a stroke was known abroad is also plain from the account of Pedro de Gante, Secretary to the Duke of Najera. This contemporary of Luther’s writes in his “Relaciones” (Madrid, 1873), p. 149: Luther went to bed without feeling ill, but, “early in the morning he was found dead in his bed, wearing such a dreadful countenance that it was impossible to look at him without being dismayed.” Cp. “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 454.

[1434] See above, vol. iv., p. 304.

[1435] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 236. Paulus (p. 27) notes that, according to Aurifaber in Luther’s Table-Talk (Eisleben, 1566), p. 586, and Spangenberg in his “Theander Lutherus,” p. 191´, the Papists had told the same tale of Luther whilst he was still alive. Thus Luther’s own methods were applied to himself.

[1436] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83. Erl. ed., 60, p. 327.

[1437] “Werke,” ib., p. 329.

[1438] See the chapter of the Table-Talk entitled “The end of the enemies of God’s Word,” ib., p. 327 ff.

[1439] Ib., p. 328.

[1440] Paulus, p. 5 ff.

[1441] Erl. ed., 31, p. 318. Cp. Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 116. Paulus, ib., p. 7.

[1442] “Rechte Ausslegung der geheymen Offenbarung” (no place), 1589, p. 19; Paulus, ib., p. 21. Staphylus, as Paulus points out, really died a very edifying death.

[1443] Paulus, ib., p. 61, n. 2.

[1444] Ib., p. 61 f.

[1445] Ib., p. 60, n. 6.

[1446] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 sq.

[1447] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., p. 365* ff.

[1448] Ib., p. 329* ff.

[1449] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans., 6, p. 419). Cp. on the medals M. C. Juncker, “Vita Lutheri nummis illustrata,” Francof. et LipsiÆ, 1699, e.g. p. 176 (Plate II), and p. 459. Juncker enlarged this work and published it in German as “Das Guldene und Silberne EhrengedÄchtniss Lutheri,” Franc. and Leipsig, 1706. Cp. on p. 212 the medal of 1546. On p. 260 he says that at the Wittenberg Schlosskirche there was “an altar over which was a life-size effigy of Luther as he stood in the pulpit”; beside him was Melanchthon baptising a child and Bugenhagen sitting in the confessional. On another picture in the parish church see F. S. Keil, “Luthers merkwÜrdige LebensumstÄnde,” Leipsig, 1764, p. 280.—Albertinus (above, p. 382, n.) speaks, p. 87, of a wooden effigy of Luther in the Schlosskirche bearing the inscription: “Divus et sanctus doctor Martinus Lutherus, propheta GermaniÆ.”

[1450] We find them in reprints of 1519, 1520 and 1521. One edition with the Wittenberg imprint contains the picture, but was really printed at Strasburg. Thomas Murner, writing from Strasburg, refers to the picture in 1520. See below, section 4.

[1451] “Historien von des ehrwirden in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris M. Lutheri Anfang, Lehr, Leben und Sterben,” NÜrnberg, 1566, Bl. 200.

[1452] Ib., Preface.

[1453] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 211.

[1454] See above, vol. iii., p. 228.

[1455] Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.

[1456] Account of Hieronymus Mencel, dated Nov. 1, 1562, KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 695.

[1457] “Theander Lutherus,” Ursel, pp. 45, 193.

[1458] Flacius, “ClarissimÆ quÆdam notÆ verÆ ac falsÆ religionis,” Magdeburgi, 1549, end of cap. 15.

[1459] “Luthers Werke,” Jena ed., 1555 ff., vol. i., Preface.

[1460] That the proposition “‘Good works are harmful to salvation’ is a right, true and Christian one, taught and preached by Saints Paul and Luther.” 1559.

[1461] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 24, p. 250.

[1462] Ib., 21, p. 380.*

[1463] H. Lietzmann, “Zu Luthers Grabschrift,” in “Zietschr. f. wiss. Th.,” 1911, p. 171 f., points out that as there can be no doubt that Luther was born on Nov. 10, 1483, his age as given in the epitaph ANN. LXIII M(enses) II D(ies) X is “quite wrong,” but that the error can be explained by the fact that the writer or the workman transposed one of the strokes from the months to the years; it should read: ANN. LXII M. III D. X.

[1464] Reprinted in Walch, 24, p. 250 ff. The poem begins: “Hic prope Martini rursus victuri Lutheri.”

[1465] Walch, 24, p. 253 f.

[1466] Walch, 24, p. 258, commencing “Hoec erat effigies operose facta Luthero.”

[1467] Vol. ii., p. 355; vol. v., p. 341.

[1468] Above, p. 29.

[1469] Vol. ii., p. 253; vol. iv., p. 354.

[1470] Vol. ii., p. 335.

[1471] De Rossi, “Inscriptiones christ. Urbis RomÆ,” 2, 1, p. 147.

[1472] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.

[1473] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 66.

[1474] K. L. Grube, in the “KL.,” 12², Sp. 1720.

[1475] Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222.

[1476] Erl. ed., 65, p. 221.

[1477] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

[1478] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119. The Bible passage alluded to (Rom. vi. 7) says rather that, in the man who is justified, the old man being crucified with Christ is dead to sin.

[1479] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 383.*

[1480] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 74.

[1481] Weim. ed., 23, p. 36; Erl. ed., 30, p. 13.

[1482] Ib., Erl. ed., 49, p. 359 ff., 1538.

[1483] Weim. ed., 33, p. 626 f; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358 f.

[1484] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 10.

[1485] To Justus Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 591.

[1486] Weim. ed., 23, p. 32; Erl. ed., 30, p. 8.

[1487] Ib., p. 27 ff.=2 ff.

[1488] Ib., p. 27=3.

[1489] Ib., 33, p. 630=48, p. 361.

[1490] Ib., p. 634 f.=365.

[1491] Weim. ed. 10, 2, p. 105; Erl. ed. 28, p. 143.

[1492] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 54.

[1493] See above, vol. iv., p. 44.

[1494] To Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[1495] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.

[1496] “Luther, eine Skizze,” pp. 51, 57; “KL.,” col. 339, 343.

[1497] Dec. 22, 1525, to Duke George of Saxony (?), Erl. ed., 53, p. 340 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281). Cp. Weim. ed., 7, p. 274; Erl. ed., 27, p. 210, where the assertion also occurs that, my doctrine “is not mine but God’s,” “because it is the very Gospel itself” (1521). The allusion is of course to Galatians, i. 1 ff.

[1498] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 f.

[1499] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 159.

[1500] Cp. the 18th-century Protestant historian, G. J. Planck, “Gesch. der Entstehung des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 1², Leipsig, 1791, pp. 2, 3, 41.

[1501] Above, vol. i., p. 45 ff.

[1502] Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 53.

[1503] Ib., p. 684=54.

[1504] On the ecclesiastical and social disorders see above, vol. i. and ii., passim.

[1505] Weim. ed., 10, 1, p. 707 ff.: Erl. ed., 10², p. 464 f.

[1506] Ib.

[1507] For Luther’s strange idea that the rapid spread of his doctrine was really a “miracle,” see above, vol. iii., p. 156, etc.

[1508] See, for instance, the passages from Aurifaber and Spangenberg, below, p. 416.

[1509] See above, vol. v., p. 393.

[1510] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1898, p. 1005.

[1511] M. Spahn, “J. CochlÄus,” 1898, p. 90.

[1512] Cp. J. Schlecht, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 19, 1898, p. 938, quoted from CochlÆus’s “Vorrede zu Hertzog Georgs Entschuldigung,” 1533.

[1513] “De Actis,” etc., MoguntiÆ, 1549, Preface.

[1514] Letter to Pirkheimer, Sep. 5, 1525. Quoted by Schlecht, “Jahrb.,” ib.

[1515] “De Actis,” etc., p. 318.

[1516] Preface.

[1517] Ib.

[1518] “De Actis,” p. 317.

[1519] “De Actis,” p. 318.

[1520] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” Engl. Trans, vii., p. 304.

[1521] See above, vol. iv., p. 475. Characteristic of Amsdorf is his assurance in the Preface to vol. i. of the Jena ed. of Luther’s works (1555), that Luther, whose books “could not be paid for with all the world’s goods and gold,” was especially deserving of praise because he had eradicated “the worst and most pernicious heresy that had ever appeared on earth, viz. that good works are necessary for salvation.”

[1522] Kawerau, “RE. f. prot. Th.”³, Art. “Menius.”

[1523] The only one of all the “reformers” who did not regard the Pope as Antichrist was, according to R. Mumm (“Die Polemik des Martin Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trient,” Part I., p. 41), the Calvinist theologian Zanchi. The latter, however, protested against such a “calumny,” as he called it; see Paulus, against Mumm, in the “Theolog. Revue,” 1906, p. 17.

[1524] “Luthers Werke,” Jena ed., vol. i., 1555.

[1525] To Ehrhard Schnepf, Nov. 10, 1553, “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 171.

[1526] “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 798.

[1527] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 157.

[1528] “Theander Lutherus, Vom werthen Gottes Manne D.M. Luther,” 12.

[1529] A. Kluckhohn, “Briefe Friedrich des Frommen, KurfÜrsten von der Pfalz,” 1, p. 478.

[1530] Ib., p. 587. Of Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature the Prince says, “it degrades the manhood of Christ and makes it something so intangible that it exists in all stones, wood, leaves, grass, apples, pears and in all that lives, also in the stinking swine and, as someone had admitted to the old Landgrave, in the great wine-tun at Stuttgart.”

[1531] Janssen, ib., 8, 175.

[1532] Janssen, ib., p. 176.

[1533] Janssen, ib., p. 176 f. Cp. the 1571 inscription under Luther’s memorial at Jena where the Latin verses on the founder of the University run as follows:

“Esset ut hÆc sanctÆ doctrinÆ strenue custos

Condidit ad SalÆ pulcra fluenta scholam

QuÆ tumidos docto confunderet ore sophistas,

Nec sineret falsis dogmata vera premi,

Sed quia mox Ætas mundi trahet Ægra ruinam,

Pullulat errorum nunc numerosa seges, etc.”

[1534] “Tischreden,” Eisleben, 1566, Preface.

[1535] Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” Preface.

[1536] V. E. LÖscher, “AusfÜhrliche Historia motuum zwischen den Evangelisch-Lutherischen und reformierten,” 3², 1723-1724, p. 158.

[1537] H. Heppe, “Gesch. des deutschen Prot. in den Jahren 1555-1581,” 2, Marburg, 1852, ff., p. 419 f.

[1538] L. Hutter, “Concordia concors,” WittenbergÆ, 1614, c. 8. R. Calinich, “Kampf und Untergang des Melanchthonismus,” Leipzig, 1866, p. 128 ff.

[1539] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 8, p. 189 f.

[1540] G. J. Planck, “Gesch. der Entstehung, usw., des prot. Lehrbegriffs”, vol. v., Part 2, Leipzig, 1781 ff., p. 600 f.

[1541] Janssen, ib., p. 190.

[1542] Ib., p. 192.

[1543] Ib., p. 193.

[1544] Wagenmann, Art. “Peucer,” “Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” 25, p. 555. An attempt has been made of recent years to exonerate Peucer from the charge of pure Calvinism. This may possibly prove successful, but his guilt lay in the fact that, “under the semblance of Lutheranism, he abandoned Luther’s Christology and his doctrine of the Supper and advocated something so closely resembling Calvinism that it was easily mistaken for it.” Kawerau, “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³ Art. “Peucer.”

[1545] See above, vol. v., p. 592 f.

[1546] J. A. Dorner, “Gesch. der prot. Th.,” (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in Deutschland,” vol. v.), Munich, 1867, p. 370 f.

[1547] Janssen, ib. (Engl. Trans.) 8, p. 406.

[1548] Cp. “BeitrÄge zur evangel. Concordie,” “Festschrift,” etc., by Chr. G., no place, 1717, p. 42 f. Janssen, ib., p. 413.

[1549] The Landgrave demanded, e.g. that it should be pointed out to him where in Holy Scripture it was stated that the Body of Christ was not in heaven, that the Virgin Mary did not bring forth like another woman, or that the human nature of Christ was everywhere; “all these are new-fangled dogmas, let them smear and daub them with Luther’s excrement as much as they please”; “the poor old spoonbill goose did not know what he was writing about.” Report of the envoys, in L. Hutter, “Concordia concors,” 1614, p. 215 sq. Janssen ib., p. 420 f.

[1550] “Symbol. BÜcher,”¹ ed. MÜller-Kolde, p. 702.

[1551] Heppe, “Gesch. des Prot.,” 3, p. 116.

[1552] Ib., 4, p. 150. Janssen, ib., p. 419.

[1553] Heppe, ib., 3, p. 299 ff. Janssen, ib., p. 429.

[1554] Janssen, ib., p. 414 f.

[1555] Ib., p. 415.

[1556] J. C. Johannsen, “Pfalzgraf Johann Kasimir und sein Kampf gegen die Concordienformel,” in Niedner’s “Zeitschrift f. hist. Th.,” 31, 1861 (pp. 419-476), p. 461 ff. Janssen, ib., p. 436.

[1557] Aurifaber, “Tischreden,” Eisleben, 1566, Cap. I. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 19, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 47, 48.

[1558] Above, p. 419.

[1559] “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 160 f.

[1560] H. Grauert, “P. Denifle, ein Wort zum GedÄchtnis,” etc., p. 6: “The strength and energy of Luther’s personality it was that for centuries kept wide circles of his followers true to the belief in the Redeemer of the world, the God-man, Jesus Christ. With a practical and highly significant inconsequence, for all his principles of freedom Luther transmitted to his followers a relatively fixed doctrinal system, and, with it, a summary of the articles of faith which have preserved even to the present day a certain spiritual community of faith between the believing Protestant world and Catholicism.”

[1561] Words of Canisius in the passage quoted below, p. 429.

[1562] A. Ehrhard, “Der Katholizismus und das 20ste. Jahrh.,”¹² 1902, p. 126.

[1563] “Votorum monast. Tutor,” in Cod. lat. Monac., 2886, fol. 35´ Denifle, ib., 1², p. 9.

[1564] Lemmens, “Pater Augustin von Alfeld,” 1899, p. 72. Denifle, ib.

[1565] Grauert, ib., p. 37.

[1566] The “Exercises” were approved by Pope Paul III in 1540. Cp. the “RegulÆ ad sentiendum vere, sicut debemus, in ecclesia militante,” which St. Ignatius appended as early as 1541 to the Exercises, reg. 1 and 13. Without naming the new heresy the author gives in these rules practical hints as to how to counteract the spirit of the age. He urges that all the commandments of the Church should be zealously upheld, that the respect due to the authorities both spiritual and temporal should not be diminished by seditious public censure, since efforts after reform were more effectual when carried out quietly; also that the traditional learning of the Church, Scholasticism and positive studies should be held in honour (“a right understanding of Holy Scripture and the saintly Doctors is of great advantage to the modern theologians of the schools,” etc., Reg. 11); prudence too should be exercised in the matter of controversy, for instance, in sermons and writings grace should not be exalted at the expense of free-will, or faith emphasised so as to depreciate good works; the motive of the pure love of God should be recommended, but at the same time the fear of punishment admitted, because a “childlike fear is pious and holy and bound up with the love of God, whilst servile fear, if a man is unable to rise any higher, at least helps him to forsake mortal sin and to rise to a childlike fear.” At the same time he recommends all the usual Catholic devotions, not merely the frequent reception of the sacraments but also the keeping of the feasts and fasts, the veneration of relics, office in choir, processions, the use of lights and the beautifying of the churches. Above all, in harmony with the spirit of the Exercises, the interior virtues are extolled and vows, virginity and the inward and outward works of penance recommended. Thus did the founder of the Order, whose ideal was the extension of the Kingdom of Christ to the utmost limits, provide for the needs of the day. That the Jesuit Order was founded in order to oppose Protestantism can only be maintained by one who has not read the first pages of the Constitutions of St. Ignatius.

[1567] “Memoriale b. Petri Fabri, primi S. Ignatii alumni,” ed. M. Bouix, Lut. Paris. 1873, p. 19. CochlÆus too wished to go through the Exercises under Favre. The latter informs Ignatius in a letter from Spires dated Jan. 23, 1541, that after he had discussed with CochlÆus the distinction between “scientia” and “sensus spiritualis” (enjoyment of the higher truths) the latter, “subridens coelesti lÆtitia,” had said; “gaudeo quod tandem magistri circa affectus inveniantur.” Braunsberger, “Canisii EpistulÆ,” 1, p. 77 note 2.

[1568] To Francis Borgia from Dillingen, Sep. 8, 1570. Janssen, 8, p. 241. Canisius also pointed out to his General, Aquaviva, the necessity of “publicly defending the Catholic truths with the pen and thus meeting with prudence the demands of our day; such a work was of no less importance than the conversion of the wild Indians.” F. Sachinus, “De vita Petri Canisii.” Ingolstadii, 1616, p. 361 sq.

[1569] To the General of the Order, Lainez, April 22, 1559. Janssen, ib., p. 237. Braunsberger, ib., 2, 398.

[1570] Memo. for the General of the Order, Aquaviva, Janssen, ib., p. 235 f.

[1571] “Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 658: “Ut insanum sit, omnia probare quÆ scripsit aut scripturus sit Lutherus, ita non placet, odio auctoris damnare quÆ vera sunt, ea depravare quÆ recta sunt.”

[1572] Ib., 9, p. 1084, “Hyperaspistes,” 1, 1: “Quis enim est tam malus scriptor, ut non aliquid admisceat probandum.”

[1573] Ib., 10, col. 1251.

[1574] To the Emperor’s brother Ferdinand, Nov. 20, 1524, ib., 3, col. 826.

[1575] To Auerbach, Dec. 10, 1524, ib., col. 833.

[1576] To Duke George of Saxony, Dec. 12, 1524, ib., col. 838.

[1577] May 20, 1520, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 378 (ed. J. Fijalyek). On the last sentence cp. John viii. 21 and Ez. xxxvi. 25.

[1578] “An den grossmechtigsten.… Adel tÜtscher Nation,” etc., Strasburg, 1520 (anonymously published), Bl. K 1´. Murner attributes the contempt for the Ban to its abuse (D 4) and says, it would be better were some of the precepts and some of the numerous Church holidays done away with (H 1´).

[1579] “De actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 29. He adds, however, that the good was often all sham.

[1580] Ib., p. 55 sqq. German ed., Dillingen, 1611, p. 109 ff. Cp. “Lutheri Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 146. “Nunc omnes artes illustratÆ florescunt. So too God has now made us a present of the press, prÆcipue ad premendum papam.” Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, pp. 498-533.

[1581] W. Friedensburg in the art. “Fortschritte in Kenntnis und VerstÄndnis der Reformationsgesch.” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59), p. 40, where it is true, he says of CochlÆus that “Vanity as a rule played a great part in his character.”

[1582] “Vormeldunge der Unwarheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, 1532.

[1583] Cp. for instance Falk, “Pfarramtliche Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu St. Christoph in Mainz, 1491-1518” (“ErlÄuterungen u. Erg. zu Janssen,” vol. iv., Hft. 3). Falk, ib., p. 5: “The family was at that time responsible for the religious instruction of the young.” In many of the schools the Catechism was taught, but the schools were not as yet generally attended.

[1584] Otto, “Joh. CochlÄus,” Breslau, 1874, p. 3.

[1585] He only advises a “consilium plebani” when the result of the instructions to the Communicants was doubtful. “Sermones,” Hagenau, 1510, “De festivitatibus Christi,” xix., “on Maundy Thursday,” “on preparation for communion.”

[1586] In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl, ed., 22, p. 232. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 50.

[1587] O. Braunsberger, “Entstehung und erste Entwicklung der Katechismen des sel. Petrus Canisius” (“ErgÄnzungshefte zu den Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” No. 57, 1893). Cp. J. Fijalyek, “Über das wahre Jahr der Erstlingsgabe des Grossen Katechismus des sel. Petrus Canisius” in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 17, 1896, p. 804 ff.

[1588] Published in 1556 as shown by N. Paulus, “Zeitsch. f. kath. Th.,” 27, 1903, p. 172.

[1589] K. Kehr, “Gesch. der Methodik des deutschen Volksunterrichts,” 1, 1877 ff., p. 33.

[1590] Sess. 24, “De reform.,” c. 4.

[1591] See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xiii., passim.

[1592] Janssen, ib., p. 58 ff.

[1593] Janssen, ib., p. 129.

[1594] See the statements of Albert of Mayence, of Pflug and Wicel, in Janssen, ib., p. 58.

[1595] W. BÄumker, in Wetzer and Welte’s “KL.,” 7², p. 606 f.

[1596] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 287 ff.

[1597] To Cardinal Otto Truchsess (Dec. 7, 1560) (Cod. Vat. 6417): “Abundat Roma viris doctis et historiarum peritis. Magni profecto referret, ex his deligi aliquem ad conscribendas pontificum vitas. Nunc sectarii quÆ volunt effingunt, nobis plane stertentibus. Iudicet R?? D.V. quomodo succurri possit non modo prÆsenti sed etiam sequenti ecclesiÆ. Ita de catechismis et postillis quoque dixerim, salvo semper iudicio sapientium. Sed opus plane videtur, ut ad huius Ætatis rationem docendi modus accommodetur,” etc. Cp. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii epist.,” 3, p. 30, and Jos. Schmid, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 17, 1896, p. 79.

[1598] And yet it would have been better had even Panvinius and Baronius shown themselves more critical, particularly in dealing with the Saints, relics, etc. The Council of Trent itself had been most urgent in demanding the removal of false relics; nor were preachers to be allowed to relate untrue stories about the souls in Purgatory for filthy lucre’s sake (“incerta vel quÆ specie falsi laborant, evulgari ac tractari non permittant”; Sess. 25; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 983). The false indulgences were among the abuses condemned by the Council of Trent in the Decree “De indulgentiis” (Sess. 25): “abusus qui in his irrepserunt et quorum occasione insigne hoc indulgentiarum nomen ab hÆreticis blasphematur.”

[1599] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 sqq. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252 f.

[1600] “Bibliotheca sanctorum Patrum,” Paris, 1575-79, in 9 folio volumes.

[1601] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 810.

[1602] To Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der BrÜder Ambr. und Thom. Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.

[1603] Cp. Horst Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” Giessen, 1907 (“Stud. zur Gesch. des neueren Protestantismus,” Hft. 1). This book has been largely utilised in what follows. Cp. J. Schmidlin, “Luther im Luthertum,” in the “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 441 ff. The words we quote in inverted commas without further reference are from H. Stephan.

[1604] Stephan, ib., pp. 17, 34, 67.

[1605] Schmidlin, ib., col. 445.

[1606] Stephan, ib., p. 126.

[1607] “Martin Luther und seine Bedeutung fÜr die Wissenschaft und Bildung,” Giessen, 1883. New ed. 1911, p. 4.

[1608] Stephan, ib., pp. 15, 18, 22.

[1609] Stephan, ib., p. 23 calls the prophecy on Luther (Rev. xiv. 6) “that most frequently used from Styfel’s time down to LÖscher’s ‘Unschuldige Nachrichten.’”

[1610] Sermon of Reisner, pastor of Mittweida near Chemnitz, printed 1677. Ib., p. 24. Joh. Alb. Fabricius appeals in his “Centifolium Lutheranum” (Hamburg, 1728), p. 331, to Bugenhagen’s funeral oration on Luther where the passage is taken to refer to Luther, and remarks quite seriously that Samuel Benedict Carpzov had seen in the other two angels mentioned there Flacius Illyricus and Martin Chemnitz.

[1611] In the “Centifolium Lutheranum” just mentioned, p. 339, Fabricius quotes from Theophrastus Paracelsus, “Descriptio CarinthiÆ” (Argentor. 1616, p. 250), the inscription in question, said to be in a church at Ingingen in Carinthia, to which some statues had been presented by the Emperor.—The swan is mentioned in Bugenhagen’s funeral address and in Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 199.

[1612] Stephan, ib., p. 25. Cp. Hutter, “Compendium locorum theologicorum,” 1610, and “Concordia concors,” 1614.

[1613] Stephan, ib., p. 21. Claius, “Grammatica GermanicÆ linguÆ, ex bibliis Lutheri,” etc., LipsiÆ, 1578, PrÆf.

[1614] “Centifolium Lutheranum,” p. 330 ff.

[1615] “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, Leipzig, 1872, pp. 178, 179, 399.

[1616] “Unparteiische Kirchenhistorie,” Part II, Frankfurt, 1699-1700, pp. 42, 45, 48. See the epitaph above, p. 393.

[1617] Zierold, rector at Stargard, quoted by Stephan, ib., p. 36.

[1618] See above, vol. v., p. 147 f. Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 16. Stephan, ib., p. 34, here rightly draws on Ritschl, “Gesch. des Pietismus.”

[1619] Stephan, ib., p. 34.

[1620] Ib., pp. 35-38, 43.

[1621] See above, vol. iii., p. 293.

[1622] “Werke,” ed. Suphan, 7, p. 258.

[1623] “Werke,” ed. Suphan, 7, p. 500.

[1624] “Rettungen des Lemnius und CochlÄus,” 1754, Stephan, ib., p. 73. Cp. below, p. 448.

[1625] Stephan, ib., p. 54.

[1626] Ib., p. 46.

[1627] In Nicolai, “Allg. deut. Bibliothek,” 1797. G. Frank, “Luther im Spiegel seiner Kirche” (“Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,” 1905, p. 465 ff.), p. 475.

[1628] Ritschl, “Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, p. 575. Stephan, ib., p. 58. Ritschl adds that, according to this view (BÜsching’s), “religion was a matter of the individual and only incidentally of the congregation.”

[1629] Stephan’s words, ib., p. 59.

[1630] Ib., p. 74; cp. ib., p. 72, Lessing’s high opinion of Luther.

[1631] “Pantheon der Deutschen,” 1, Chemnitz, 1794, p. 232.

[1632] Conversation with Eckermann, March 11, 1832.

[1633] “Novalis’ Schriften,” 2, ed. Minor, Jena, 1907, p. 27 f.

[1634] See vol. i., p. xxxv, f.

[1635] Quoted by Franck, “Gesch. d. prot. Theol.,” 4, p. 144.

[1636] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. xiii.

[1637] Of the legendary traits common in the popular literature on Luther there is no lack in KÖstlin’s “Martin Luther.” G. Kawerau, who, after the author’s death, finished the latest edition of the book already in the press, would doubtless have depicted many things differently had he had a free hand.

In the long discussion of Luther’s monastic days his later utterances are accepted implicitly without being submitted to criticism. Thus his account of his penitential martyrdom, by which he even “endangered his life,” is taken at its face value, and so is his testimony to his own saintliness. “Of any more evangelical conception of the road to salvation,” Luther heard nothing at Erfurt, indeed there was “no Christian preaching at all,” etc., etc. “In the convent he was left practically to himself.” “The lax standard by which his scholastic teachers judged of sin [the motions of concupiscence] did not alleviate what he had to endure,” viz. “the standard of the law.” In the theological lectures he heard nothing of “how, in the Man Christ, the Godhead descends to us”; on the contrary they led him to turn away in terror from the Master and Judge. It was a cause of deep grief to him that forgiveness was made “to depend on the worthiness and the works of the sinner himself,” etc., etc. The Church gave him no “insight into the meaning of the Mediatorship of Christ.” Even at Erfurt the Bible “had led him to see many errors in the Papal Church,” but the most important thing was that, by means of this same Bible he attained “by the gracious dispensation of God” to the “overthrow of all proud self-righteousness.” His flying for refuge simply to the merciful Love of God became the salvation of the quiet, laborious, struggling monk, whose destiny was to mould the world’s history (pp. 55, 60-66, 72, 75, 77 f.).

According to KÖstlin Luther began “this attack on ecclesiastical abuses straightforwardly, conscientiously, with moderation and prudence” (1, 142). “At last he came forward from the ‘corner’ where he would gladly have remained and entered upon the struggle” (2, 626). During the struggle itself he was calm and peaceful, etc., “what would ensue he did not know, but committed it to Him Who sits on High” (1, 354). This grand tranquillity was permanent with him. “Of good courage, inwardly peaceful and confident, we see Luther (after his marriage) living his new life” (738). KÖstlin indeed repeatedly mentions his inward struggles, but, according to him, Luther conquers the burden of his temptations with “a bold faith” (2, 178). “He warns his followers against the belief that the Papacy was to be overthrown by the use of force” (1, 583). He also demands that no constraint should be used in the “purely interior domain of faith”; the heretics were to “be resisted only by the Word,” so long at least as they did not “outwardly manifest” their errors (1, 584), which, however, they nearly always did.

Luther’s sovereign “merely looked on while the Word and the Spirit did the work” (1, 603). Luther never “imposed on him either the duty or the right to protect him and his work against Emperor and Empire.” “Never did he lend a hand to measures that might have been of advantage to the furtherance of the evangelical cause, but which would have militated against his principles” (2, 522).

No trace of false enthusiasm dominates Luther, but rather a “conscientious sobriety”; the passion that urges him on is merely “fiery enthusiasm for the faith and his absolute confidence” (cp. 2, 517).

“It is from the religious foundations on which his life is based that proceeds the freedom to which he has attained with regard to temporal things, his joyousness in using them and the calmness with which he renounces them and awaits what is better” (2, 512). “The faith with which he embraces God, holds intercourse with Him and seeks strength and victory through Him alone bears a character of childlike simplicity” (2, 513). It is a “bold faith,” a courageous faith, that animates him. “In heartfelt prayer lies for Luther all his strength” (2, 514).

His “modesty as to his theological achievements” (2, 512) ought not to be overlooked. He had no fears as to the permanency of his Evangel. “That it was the Evangel of God for which he was working and that He would not let His Evangel fall to the ground, of this he was quite sure” etc. (2, 522).

At the time of his death “true religious interests were once more paramount and Rome’s domination, till then all-powerful, was for ever shaken to its foundation” (2, 626).

[1638] “Stud. und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Ref.,” Leipzig, 1874, Introd. and pp. 208, 212 f., 237. Cp. above, vol. i, p. xxix.

[1639] (Anonymous) Schaffhausen, 1857, pp. 104, 111, 113.

[1640] This was the opinion of H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 115.

[1641] See above, vol. v., p. 432 ff.

[1642] Cp. C. Stange, “Die Ältesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers,” 1900, p. vi. ff.

[1643] 4th edition, 1906, Preface, p. vii. f.

[1644] Troeltsch, “Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit,” in “Kultur der Gegenwart,” 1, vol. iv.,²; Stephan, ib., p. 128 f.

[1645] J. Schmidlin, “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage der Germania,” 1909, No. 15), pp. 117, 119.

[1646] “Leitfaden der Dogmengesch.,”³ p. 535.

[1647] Stephan, ib., p. 69.

[1648] Ib., p. 110 ff.

[1649] Boehmer, ib., p. 120.

[1650] Ib., 2nd ed., p. 140.

[1651] Ib., 2nd ed., p. 153.

[1652] Boehmer, ib., p. 153.

[1653] Stephan, ib., p. 93.

[1654] In the lecture quoted above, p. 441, n. 4.

[1655] “FrÖhliche Wissenschaft,” Pocket edition, 6, p. 202. Stephan, ib., p. 120.

[1656] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” 1905, p. 52 f.

[1657] W. KÖhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 303.

[1658] Cp. also H. Boehmer, ib.,¹ p. 136.

[1659] Ib., p. 100; 2nd. ed., p. 139 f.

[1660] Ib., p. 10.

[1661] In the lecture mentioned above, p. 441, n. 4.

[1662] “With this knowledge the Holy Ghost inspired me in this cloaca on the tower.”

Clyx.com