CHAPTER XX

ATTEMPTS AT UNION IN VIEW OF THE PROPOSED COUNCIL

1. Zürich, Münster, the Wittenberg Concord, 1536

THE tension between Luther and the Swiss theologians grew ever greater after Zwingli’s death. Zwingli’s successors complained bitterly of the unkind treatment and the reprobation meted out at Wittenberg to themselves, as well as to Zwingli’s memory, and their doctrines.

Leo Judæ, one of the leaders of the Swiss party, writing in 1534 to Bucer, a kindred spirit, concerning the latter’s rough treatment of Schwenckfeld, takes the opportunity to voice his bitter grudge against Luther: “If it is right to oppose Schwenckfeld, why do we not write in the same way against Luther? Why do we not issue a proclamation warning people against him, seeing that he advocates theories, not only on the Sacrament but on other matters too, which are utterly at variance with Holy Scripture? Yet he hands us over to Satan and decrees our exclusion.”[1408]

Martin Bucer himself complained in 1534 to his Zwinglian friend Bullinger: “The fury is intolerable with which Luther storms and rages against everyone who he imagines differs from him, even though not actually an opponent. Thus he curses the most pious men and those who have been of the greatest service to the Church. It is this alone which has brought me into the arena and induced me to join my voice to yours in this controversy on the Sacrament.”[1409]

Heinrich Bullinger, on whom, after Zwingli’s death, devolved the leadership of the Swiss innovators, wrote later to Bucer: “Luther’s rude hostility might be allowed to pass would he but leave intact respect for Holy Scripture.... To such lengths has this man’s proud spirit carried him, while all the preachers and ministers worship his writings as so many oracles, and extol his spirit as apostolic, of whose fulness all have received. What has already taken place leads us to apprehend that this man will eventually bring great misfortune upon the Church.”[1410]

Just as Luther’s work differed from the religious innovations in Switzerland, so it differed equally, or even more, from that of the Anabaptists, despite the fact that the latter traced their origin to Luther’s doctrine of the Bible as the one source of faith, and were largely indebted to him for the stress he had laid on the inward Word.[1411] “The Anabaptist movement was a product of the religious innovations of the sixteenth century,” “the fanatical sect an outcome of the so-called Reformation.”[1412] Notwithstanding the severe persecution they encountered, particularly in Switzerland and in the German uplands, they soon spread throughout other parts of Germany, thanks chiefly to the attractions of their conventicle system. An Imperial mandate of January 4, 1528, imposed the death penalty on Anabaptist heretics, their sacrilegious repetition of baptism being taken as equivalent to a denial of this sacrament and therefore as a capital offence against religion.

The growth of the Anabaptist heresy, in spite of all measures of repression, filled Luther with astonishment, but its explanation is to be found not only in the religious subjectivism let loose among the masses, but also in the fact, that, many elements of revolt smouldering even before Luther’s day helped to further the Anabaptist conflagration. The fanatics also gained many adherents among those who were disappointed in Luther owing to their hopes that he would ameliorate morals not being realised; instead of returning to the true Church they preferred to put their trust in these new sects, thinking that their outward rigour was a guarantee that they would amend the life of the people. The popular preaching and ways of the Anabaptist missioners, recalling the apostolic age of the Church, had a powerful effect upon those of the lower classes who had religious leanings; the sufferings and persecution they endured with such constancy also earned them admiration and sympathy. The sectarians were proud of “the self-sacrificing brotherly love existing in their communities, so different from the stress laid upon a faith only too often quite barren of good works.”[1413]

They were so firm in their repudiation of the Lutheran doctrine of Justification and held fast so frankly to the Catholic principle of the necessity of man’s co-operation in order to secure God’s pardon, that Luther angrily classed them with the Papists: “They are foxes,” he wrote, “who are tied to the Papists by their tails, though the head is different; they behave outwardly as though they were their greatest enemies, and yet they share with them the same heresy against Christ our only Saviour, Who alone is our Righteousness.”[1414] The Anabaptists also opposed the Lutheran doctrine of the Supper, denying, like the Zwinglians, the Real Presence. Their congregations, however, differed vastly both in belief and in observance. To all intents and purposes their strictness was merely outward, serving to cloak the vices of their lives and their frivolous enjoyment of the “freedom of the Gospel.”

Luther’s hostility to the Anabaptists was in many respects of service to Lutheranism; it was inspired and promoted by the law of self-preservation. The culmination of the movement at Münster, in Westphalia, showed that the Wittenberger’s instinct had not erred. It is true, however, that Luther’s harsh and repellent conduct towards the Anabaptist sects caused the loss to the Protestants of much that was good which might well have been retained had he shown a little more consideration at least for the better minds among the “fanatics”; their criticism might have done much to remedy what was really amiss.

When, in 1534, the Anabaptists became all-powerful at Münster, and that under their very worst form, they made haste to attack Luther. He, of course, was in duty bound to disapprove of their fearsome excesses, particularly when the freedom of the Evangel degenerated into obligatory polygamy and the most revolting service of the flesh. The seditious spirits, in their hatred, declared that “there are two false prophets, the Pope and Luther, but that, of the two, Luther is the worse.”[1415] Luther, on his side, retorted: “Alas, what can I write of these wretched creatures at Münster? It is perfectly evident that the devil reigns there in person, yea, one devil sits on the back of another, like the toads do.”[1416]

After the siege of Münster had closed in its capture on June 25, 1535, and the reign of terror had been brought to an end by the execution of the leaders, viz. Johann of Leyden and his friends, some of Luther’s followers turned their attention to the Sacramentarian Zwinglians of Switzerland and South Germany, in the hope that some basis might be found for union.

Paul III. had ascended the Papal throne in 1534. On his showing a real intention to summon an [Œcumenical Council in order to put an end to the religious schism, the Reformers began to feel keenly how necessary it was to unite for the purpose of offering practical resistance to their common foe, viz. Catholicism. The political situation was likewise favourable to such efforts. The Nuremberg truce in 1532 had expressly been intended to last only for a limited period, hence the necessity to find new means to make their position secure and increase their numbers.

In 1535 a star of hope which seemed to forebode some agreement rose on the horizon. On this Luther wrote as follows to a trusted friend in August: “An attempt is being made, with great hopes and yearning, to come to some agreement (‘_concordia_’) between ourselves and the Sacramentarians. Christ grant it to be realised and of His Goodness remove that great scandal so that strong measures may not be necessary as at Münster.”[1417] Hence the Swiss theologians in his eyes were scarcely better than the authors of the disgraceful abominations in Westphalia.

What sort of “concord” was to be expected while such a temper held sway unless, indeed, the Zwinglians were prepared to renounce their own existence and throw their master overboard?

The prime movers in the attempt to bring about an understanding between the Lutherans and the Swiss and the like-minded Evangelicals of Upper Germany, were the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, and the theologian Martin Bucer.

Bucer, who was unremitting in his efforts to secure that union which was his life-ideal, had already, at the Diet of Augsburg, paved the way for an understanding, not without some success. At the Coburg (September 25-26, 1530) he managed to win over Luther to his view, viz. that an agreement might be looked for with the Strasburgers regarding the Sacrament.[1418] He then travelled through Upper Germany and Switzerland with a plan for compromise, in which the contradiction between the denial and assertion of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament was ably concealed; Melanchthon he met at Cassel in 1534, and on this occasion, ostensibly in the name of many South-German theologians, made proposals which seem to have satisfied Luther.

After further preliminaries, peace negotiations were to have taken place at Eisleben in the spring of 1536, but as Luther, owing to illness and new scruples, did not appear, discussion was deferred till May 22, the delegates to meet at Wittenberg. Thither representatives of Strasburg, Augsburg, Memmingen, Ulm, Esslingen, Reutlingen, Frankfurt, and Constance betook themselves, accompanied by the Lutherans, Menius from Eisenach and Myconius from Gotha. No Swiss delegate was present.

After protracted negotiations the South-German theologians accepted a number of articles drawn up by Melanchthon and known as the Wittenberg Concord.[1419]

In this they recognised the practice of infant baptism; as regards Confession, they admitted that, though confession as formerly practised could not be tolerated, yet a humble private interview with the preacher, and private absolution previous to the reception of communion, were useful and wholesome. On the other hand, however, the main difference, viz. that concerning the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, was only seemingly bridged over. It is true the South-German delegates accepted the formula, that in the Sacrament, the Body and Blood of the Lord are “really and substantially” present by virtue of Christ’s words of institution, so that even the “unworthy” verily receive the Body and Blood of Christ. The interpretation which they, headed by Bucer, placed upon the words showed, however, quite plainly, that they did not agree with Luther, but still clung to the view that Christ is not corporally present but only by that faith, which even the “unworthy” may have, and that He does not bestow on the communicant His Flesh and Blood, but merely His grace. “The Real Presence of Christ was to him [Bucer] after all only a spiritual presence.”[1420] At any rate “the South-Germans, under stress of political danger, rejoined Luther,”[1421] though some of the towns subsequently added conditions to their acceptance of the arrangements made by their theologians.

Having been thus far successful Bucer, with consummate ability and eloquence, proceeded to try to win over the friendly Swiss Zwinglians to the Concord.

The Swiss were not, however, to be so easily induced to take this step. In spite of several friendly letters from Luther they could not arrive at the same apparent agreement with him as the South-Germans. For this the blame rested to some extent on Luther’s shoulders, his conduct at this juncture, owing to political considerations, being neither well-defined nor straightforward. The Burgomasters and Councillors of the seven towns, Zürich, Bern, Basle, Schaffhausen, St. Gall, Mühlhausen and Bienne, addressed letters to him couched in conciliatory language, but Luther, in spite of Bullinger’s request, would not even enumerate in detail the points of difference which separated them from him. For the nonce he preferred the policy of leaving doctrine alone and of “calming down, smoothing and furthering matters for the best,”[1422] though all the time he was well aware of their theological views and firm in his repudiation of them.

“The matter refuses to suit itself to us, and we must accordingly suit ourselves to it,”[1423] such was, for a long while, his motto. He is willing to hold out to the Zwinglians the hand of friendship without, however, consenting to regard the points in dispute as minor matters. Possibly he cherished the hope that, little by little, agreement would be reached even on these points.

Luther’s attitude has rightly been considered strange, particularly when compared with his former severity. Even Protestants have instanced it as remarkable, that he should have contrived “to close his eyes to the differences which still remained in spite of the Concord, and to agree with people whose previous teaching he had regarded as dangerous heresy, requiring to be expelled by a determined testimony to the truth.”[1424] At any rate “the broadness manifested by Luther in this matter of faith” was something very foreign to his usual habits.

The explanation of the change in his behaviour lies chiefly in his urgent desire “to become terrible to the Pope and the Emperor” by forming an alliance with the Swiss Churches and townships, a hope which he even expressed to his Wittenberg friends, adding, however, that “in men one can never trust,” and, “I will not surrender God’s Word.”[1425] To Duke Albert of Prussia he wrote full of joy, in May, 1538: “Things have been set going with the Swiss, who hitherto have been at loggerheads with us on account of the Sacrament.... I hope God will put an end to this scandal, not for our sake, for we have deserved it, but for His Name’s sake, and in order to vex the abomination at Rome, for they are greatly affrighted and apprehensive at the new tidings.”[1426] Considerations of policy had entirely altered Luther’s tone to the Zwinglians.

The bridge, however, collapsed before its completion.

The unrestrained language which Luther again employed towards the Swiss did much to demonstrate how little real foundation there was in the efforts at conciliation. The experiences he met with made him regret his passing opportunism, and in later life the tone in which he spoke of the Zwinglian errors and their supporters was violent in the extreme. When a letter reached him from the Evangelicals of Venice bewailing the dissensions aroused by the controversy on the Sacrament, he said in his reply, dated June, 1543: These Zwinglians and their neighbours “are intoxicated by an alien spirit, and their company must be avoided as infectious.”[1427]

To his friend Link he wrote about that time: “These Swiss and Zürichers pronounce their own condemnation by their pride and madness, as Paul says” (Titus iii. 11).[1428] To Zürich itself he soon made no secret of his changed temper, writing in August that: he could have no fellowship with the preachers there; they were determined to lead the unfortunate people to hell; the judgment of God which had overtaken Zwingli would also fall upon these preachers of blasphemy, since they had made up their minds to follow Zwingli.[1429]

In September of that same year appeared his energetic “Kurtz Bekentnis Doctor Martin Luthers vom heiligen Sacrament.”[1430]

Complying with a need he felt he sought in this writing to give public testimony to his faith in the Eucharist; in order at once to disperse the ghosts of the Concord, and to bar the progress of the denial of the Sacrament which had already infected Melanchthon and other friends around him, he here speaks frankly and openly. In his usual vein he says, that it was his wish “to be able to boast at the Judgment Seat of the Lord” that “I condemned with all my power the fanatics and enemies of the Sacrament, Carlstadt, ‘Zwingel,’ [Œcolampadius, ‘Stinkfield’ [Schwenckfeld], and their disciples at Zürich and wherever else they be.” The fanatics, he says, make a “great to-do” about a spiritual eating and drinking, but they are “murderers of souls.” They have a “devilish heart and lying lips.” Whoever believed not the Article concerning Christ’s Presence in the Sacrament, could not believe in the Incarnation. “Hence there is no alternative, you must either believe everything or nothing.” Thus Luther himself at last comes to urge against his opponents what Catholic apologists had long before urged against him. They had said: If you set aside this or that article of faith on the grounds of a higher illumination, the result will be the complete subversion of the faith, for the edifice of doctrine is one inseparable whole; the divine and the ecclesiastical authority is the same for all the articles, and, if everything be not accepted, in the end nothing will remain.

2. Efforts in view of a Council. Vergerio visits Luther

Pope Clement VII. († 1534), though at first apprehensive, owing to his knowledge of what had happened in the time of the Reforming Councils, had nevertheless, towards the end of his life, promised the Emperor Charles V. at Bologna, in 1533, that he would summon an [Œcumenical Council. He had also sought to persuade the King of France, François I., on the occasion of their meeting at Marseilles in the same year, to agree to the Council’s being held in one of the Italian towns which Pope and Emperor had agreed on at Bologna.[1431] But while Rome showed herself willing enough, the King of France put great obstacles in the way of a Council, in the hope, that, by preventing it, he would prevent Germany from securing peace within her borders.

Paul III., the successor of Clement VII., was more successful, though he too had to battle with his own scruples and to overcome obstacles greater even than those which faced his predecessor.

Soon after beginning his pontificate he dispatched three Nuncios to pave the way for the Council, Rodolfo Pio de Carpi to France, Giovanni Guidiccione to Spain, and Pierpaolo Vergerio to Germany. The last of these found the Catholic Courts perfectly willing to support the Council; the heads of the Evangelical party, however, chose to observe an attitude to be more fully described further on.

Charles V. having agreed to the choice of Mantua as the town where the Council was to be held, Paul III., in spite of the refusal of the Protestants, by his Bull of June 2, 1536, summoned the bishops to meet at Mantua on May 23 of the following year. Needless to say, the assembly and its procedure were to be governed by the same rules as in the case of earlier Councils of the Church.

The journey of Vergerio, the Nuncio, through Germany deserves closer attention on account of his meeting with Luther.

The Papal envoy, who hailed from Capodistria and was more skilful in Court transactions than in theology, commenced his journey on February 10, 1535. From Vienna he proceeded to visit the Bavarian Dukes and Suabia. He then travelled along the Main and the Rhine as far north as Liège, returning by way of Cologne through Saxony to Brandenburg. Coming south from Berlin he passed a night at Wittenberg, where he met Luther, and returned by way of Dresden and Prague to Vienna. Everywhere he did his best not only to secure consent to the Papal plan of holding the Council in an Italian town, but also, as he had been instructed, to combat the dangerous though popular opposite plan of a German national Council. He could talk well, had a sharp eye for business, and a fine gift of observation. His expectations as regards the Protestants were, however, far too rosy. The polite reception he met with from the Protestant sovereigns and the honours done him flattered his vanity, indeed, but were of little service to the cause he represented.

What his intention was in going to Wittenberg and interviewing Luther is not clear. He had no instructions to do so. If he hoped to win over Luther to work for the Council and for reunion, he was sadly deceived. In reality all he did was to expose himself and his cause to insult and to furnish his guest a welcome opportunity for boasting. In that same year, in a work in which he held up the Council of Constance to derision, Luther told the people how little Councils were to be respected; by this Council the Church had said to Christ: “You are a heretic and your teaching is of the devil”; hence the Roman Church was possessed, “not of seven, but of seven and seventy barrelfuls of devils”;[1432] now at last it was time for Christ to uncover back and front the “raving, bloodthirsty scarlet woman and reveal her shame to the whole world” in order to put an end to “the insult which has been, and still is being, offered to our dear Saviour by the dragon heads which peer out of the back parts of the Pope-Ass and vomit forth abuse.”[1433]

From Vergerio’s circumstantial reports as Nuncio, and from other sources,[1434] we learn the details of the historic meeting between the standard-bearer of the religious innovations and the envoy of the head of Christendom.

On his arrival at Wittenberg, on November 6, the Nuncio, accompanied by twenty-one horsemen, proceeded to the Castle, where he was to be the guest of Metzsch, the Commandant. He sent an invitation by Metzsch to Luther to spend the evening with him, but the latter refused to come so late and the visit was accordingly arranged for the following morning. Luther dressed himself in his best clothes, put on a gold chain, had himself carefully shaved and his hair tidily brushed. To the astonished barber he said jestingly, that he must appear young in the eyes of the Legate so as to give him the impression that he was still able to undertake and accomplish a great deal and thus make them fear him at Rome; he was determined to read the Roman gentry a good lesson; they had molested him and his followers enough, now it was his turn to get his own back. As he sat in the carriage with Bugenhagen the pastor of Wittenberg, ready for the drive to the Castle, he said: “Here go the German Pope and Cardinal Pomeranus, the chosen instruments of the Almighty.”

After being presented to the Legate, during which ceremony he doffed his hat (the only sign of respect he was willing to vouchsafe), he was invited to breakfast with him. During the conversation which ensued he was at pains to show his real feelings by a demeanour as hostile and threatening as possible. “During the whole of the meal,” as he himself related later to Justus Jonas,[1435] “I played the true Luther; what sort of things I said could not be put on paper.” At the first greeting he at once asked the Nuncio ironically, whether he had not perchance already heard him decried in Italy as a drunken German.

Pope Paul III. being mentioned by the Nuncio, Luther said, that he might quite well be a prudent and honest man; such was the common report concerning the Farnese when he (Luther) was at Rome; but then, he added with a mocking smile, at that time he himself was still in the habit of saying Mass.

Luther himself in the Table-Talk relates his reply to the proposal to attend the Council: “I shall come,” he said, “but you Papists are working and exerting yourselves in vain ... for, when in Council, you never discuss wholesome doctrine, the Sacraments, or the faith which alone makes us just and saves us ... but only foolish puerilities, such as the long habits and frocks which religious and priests are to wear, how wide the girdle shall be and how large the tonsure,” etc. The account goes on to say, that, at this sally, Vergerio, turning to his companion, said: “Verily he has hit the nail on the head.” It is difficult to believe that Vergerio actually made such a statement in this connection.

Speaking of the [Œcumenical Council which had been summoned, we read in Vergerio’s report that Luther with insufferable arrogance exclaimed: “We stand in no need of a Council for ourselves or our followers, for we already have the firm Evangelical doctrine and rule; but Christendom needs the Council in order to learn to distinguish truth and error, so far as it is still held captive by false doctrine.” At this outburst the Nuncio expressed his astonishment: “Yes, I will come to the Council,” Luther interrupted him angrily, “I will forfeit my head rather than fail to defend my teaching against the whole world. What proceeds from my mouth, is not my own anger, but the wrath of God!”—Whoever knows the man can scarcely doubt that Luther would actually have gone to the Council under certain conditions, particularly if furnished with a safe-conduct, though, of course, only once again to “play the real Luther.” He certainly did not lack the audacity. He even declared himself willing to agree to any of the places proposed for the Council, whether Mantua, Verona, or Bologna; when it was pointed out that Bologna belonged to the Pope, Luther, in the presence of the Pope’s own representative, cried: “Good God, so the Pope has grabbed that city too!” Curiously enough, in the report he forwarded to Rome, the Nuncio declares himself satisfied with Luther’s readiness to attend the Council.

Vergerio also led the conversation to Henry VIII., the King of England; as Robert Barnes, an emissary of his, was then staying with Luther at Wittenberg, he may have hoped to learn something of the King’s intentions. Luther, however, was extremely reticent. As he himself expressed it in a letter, he acted the part of Barnes’s representative with “most vexatious sayings,” i.e. with such as would most annoy and vex the Nuncio. When mention was made of the cruel execution of Bishop John Fisher—created Cardinal whilst awaiting his fate in prison—Luther ejaculated that his death was a judgment from on high because he had won the Cardinalate by withstanding the Gospel.

Vergerio coming to speak of the Wittenberg hierarchy, Luther admitted that, at Wittenberg, they ordained priests and that Pastor Bugenhagen, who was then present, “was the bishop appointed for that work; he ordained as St. Paul had taught”; all in vain had the “most holy bishops” of the Papists refused to ordain the Lutheran preachers. Alluding to his family, he said he hoped to leave behind him in his firstborn a great preacher, priest and teacher of the Evangel. The “reverend” nun “whom he had married had so far presented him with three boys and two girls.” Various religious practices came under discussion and Vergerio, hoping to please, remarked, that he had found much amongst the German Protestants different from what he had been led to expect. He also spoke of fasting, but Luther bluntly declared, that, just because the Pope had commanded it, they would refuse to observe it; if, however, the Emperor were to give the order, they would comply with it; he himself would be right glad were the Emperor to set apart two days in every week to be kept as strict fasts.

Though all this, which, moreover, the Nuncio took quite seriously, made him angry, as is evident from his report, yet he found leisure during the conversation to observe his guest closely. He describes his dress: A doublet of dark camelot cloth, the sleeves trimmed with satin; over this a rather short coat of serge, edged with fox skin.[1436] The large, rough buttons used struck the Italian as peculiar. On Luther’s fingers he saw several rings and round his neck the heavy gold chain. He found that Luther did not speak Latin very well and ventured to surmise that certain books, couched in better Latin, were probably not really written by him. Of this, however, there is no proof. Luther admitted to him that he was not used to speaking Latin and that he was more at home in German. He looked strong, so Vergerio says, and though past fifty did not appear to be even forty years of age. He considered Luther’s features extremely coarse, tallying with his manners, which displayed “presumption, malice and want of reflection.” His way of speaking showed that “everything he did was done in irritation, annoyance and out of spite; he was a silly fellow, without either depth or discernment.”[1437]

Vergerio also fancied he saw in him something devilish. The longer he observed the piercing, uncanny glance of Luther’s eyes, so he writes, the more he was put in mind of certain persons who were regarded by many as possessed; the heat, the restlessness, the fury and frenzy expressed in his eyes were quite similar to theirs.[1438] He even casually refers to circumstances (which, however, he does not describe) of Luther’s birth and earlier years, which he had learnt from friends of Luther’s who had been intimate with him before he became a monk; they confirmed him in his belief that the devil had entered into Luther.[1439] Although Vergerio immediately after admits his doubt (“whether he be possessed or not”), yet in what he had written Contarini discovered sufficient to justify him in saying that Vergerio “found that Martin was begotten of the devil.”[1440] Contarini here is really building on a stupid fable, which, as will be shown later (vol. iv., xxvii. 1), is first met with in the writings of Petrus Sylvius, a Catholic author. What the Legate says concerning the circumstances of Luther’s parents is not of a nature to excite any confidence in the reliability of his information about Luther’s youth. In Rome people were already perfectly acquainted with Luther’s antecedents, as information had been obtained from reliable witnesses even before his final excommunication. The tittle-tattle of this new informant could accordingly have no influence on the opinion concerning him already prevailing there.

After Vergerio the Nuncio had returned to Rome in the beginning of 1536, full of extravagant hopes, he took part in the drafting of the Bull already mentioned, summoning the Council to meet at Mantua in 1537. In the same year he was consecrated bishop. He was not, however, employed in diplomacy as frequently as he wished. In 1541 unfavourable reports began to circulate concerning his attitude towards the Church; he was charged with Protestant leanings, though some of the witnesses in the trial which he had to stand at Venice protested his entire innocence. At any rate, towards the close of 1548 he openly apostatised and fled to the Grisons, where he placed his services at the disposal of the Swiss Reformers. His desire to distinguish himself next caused him to abandon the Swiss Zwinglians and to settle at Tübingen. After many journeys, undertaken with the object of thwarting the Church of Rome, this pushful and unrestrained man died at Tübingen in 1565, still at enmity with Catholicism.[1441]

3. The Schmalkalden Assembly of 1537. Luther’s Illness

The Schmalkalden League, established in 1531 (see above, p. 64 ff.), was in the main directed against the Emperor and the Empire. It had grown stronger by the accession of other Princes and States who bound themselves to render mutual assistance in the interests of the innovations. In the very year Vergerio started on his mission of peace in December, 1535, the warlike alliance, headed by Hesse and the Saxon Electorate, had been renewed at Schmalkalden for ten years. It undertook to raise 10,000 foot soldiers and 2000 horse for the defence of the Evangel, and, in case of need, to double the number.

To oppose this a more united and better organised league of the Catholics was imperatively called for; the alliance already entered into by some of the Princes who remained true to the older Church, required to be strengthened and enlarged. In 1538 the new leaguers met at Nuremberg; at their head were Charles V. and Ferdinand the German King, while amongst the most prominent members were the Dukes Wilhelm and Ludwig of Bavaria and the Archbishops of Mayence and Salzburg, whose secular principalities were very considerable.

Arming of troops, threats of war, and petty broils aroused apprehension again and again, but, on the whole, peace was maintained till Luther’s death.

The protesting Estates were desirous of deciding, at a convention to be held at Schmalkalden on Candlemas Day, 1537, upon the attitude to be assumed towards the Council convened by the Pope to Mantua. Hence, on August 30, 1536, Johann Frederick, Elector of Saxony, instructed Luther to draw up a preliminary writing; he was to state on Scriptural grounds what he felt it his duty to advance concerning all the Articles of his teaching as though he were in the presence of a Council or before the Judgment-Seat of God, and also to point out those Articles regarding which some concessions might be made “without injury to God or His Word.”

Luther therefore set to work on his “Artickel so da hetten sollen auffs Concilion zu Mantua,” etc., duly printed in 1538, with some slight alterations.

Here, whilst expounding theologically the various Lutheran doctrines, he gives his opinion on the Pope; this opinion is all the more remarkable because incorporated in a document intended to be entirely dispassionate and to furnish the Council with a clear statement of the new faith. The Pope, so Luther declares, is “merely bishop or parish-priest of the churches of Rome”; the universal spiritual authority he had arrogated to himself was “nothing but devilish fable and invention”; he roared like the dragon in the Apocalypse, who led the whole world astray (Apoc. xii. 9); he told people: “All you do is done in vain unless you take me for your God.” “This point plainly proves that he is the real Endchrist and Antichrist, who sets himself up against and above Christ, because he will not allow Christians to be saved without his authority.... This even the Turks and ‘Tatters’ do not dare to attempt, great enemies of Christians though they be.” “Hence, as little as we can adore the devil himself, as Lord and God, so little can we suffer his apostle, the Pope, or Endchrist, to rule as our Head and Lord. For his real work is lying and murder, and the eternal destruction of body and soul, as I have proved at length in many books.”[1442]

Luther concludes this memorable theological essay (at least in the printed version) with an application to the projected Council: “If those who obey the Evangel attend it, our party will be standing before the Pope and the devil himself.” At the Diet of Augsburg they stood before the Empire, “before the Emperor and secular authorities,” who had been gracious enough to give the cause a hearing; now, however, we must say to the Pope, as in the book of Zacharias [iii. 2] the angel said to the devil: ‘May God rebuke thee, Satan.’[1443]

When engaged on this work, and whilst the Schmalkalden meeting was in progress, Luther appears to have been the prey of a perfect paroxysm of fury. Hate, as a positive mental disorder, then attained in him an acute crisis. Later on, his anger abated for a while, as though exhausted, until, just before his death, the spirit of the storm broke out afresh with hurricane violence in his “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft.”

At the time he wrote his work in preparation for the Schmalkalden meeting he was already ailing. His nervous system was strained beyond all limit. Hence we can more readily understand the passion which seems to possess him against that Church of Rome, which, instead of collapsing, as he had fondly hoped she would, was daily growing stronger in spite of all her losses.

The “Artickel,” which were submitted to Johann Frederick the Elector, on January 6, 1537, were signed likewise by Jonas, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, and Melanchthon. Melanchthon, however, because the abuse of the Pope did not meet with his approval and was scarcely to be squared with his previous temporising assurances, added that, he, for his part, was ready, “in the interests of peace and the common unity of those Christians who are now subject to him and may be so in the future,” to admit the Pope’s supremacy over the bishops; but the Pope was to hold his office only by “human right” and “in as far as he was willing to admit the Evangel.” Johann Frederick was sufficiently clear-sighted to see through this proposal—so typical of Melanchthon—and to recognise in it a vain attempt to square the circle. He expressed his disapproval of the addition, pointing out that any recognition of the Papacy would involve a return to the old bondage. The Pope “and his successors would leave no stone unturned to destroy and root out us and our successors.”

The opinion of the Elector prevailed in the Council of the Princes and among the preachers assembled at Schmalkalden.

For all their exasperation against the Pope, Luther, and the Wittenberg theologians, were not averse to taking part in the Council. Luther, for instance, opined, that they ought not to give the Papists an excuse for saying they had made impossible the holding of a Council.[1444] In a memorandum of December 6, 1536, the theologians, with Luther and Amsdorf, advised that the Council should be promoted, so as to render possible a protest. The proposal of the Elector to hold an opposition Council they rejected, urging that such a Council would “look terribly like establishing a schism”; moreover, the lack of agreement among themselves would permit of no such thing, for they would be exposing themselves to the contempt of their opponents, and holding back foreign countries from joining the Evangel. On the other hand, it was the duty of the authorities to offer resistance in the interests of their subjects and Divine worship, should the Council prove unjust; open violence and notorious injustice were to be met by violence.[1445] In this memorandum Melanchthon’s influence is clear enough in the apprehension of any appearance of setting up a “schism.” Luther signed it with the words: “I, Martin Luther, will do my best by prayer, and if needs be, with the fist.”[1446] The Schmalkalden delegates, however, as we shall see below, strode rough-shod over this memorandum and declined to have anything to do with the Council.

On January 31, 1537, Luther, with Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, set out for Schmalkalden where a Papal envoy, the Bishop of Acqui, was also expected. On the journey he said in the presence of several gentlemen of the Nuncio’s retinue: “So the devil is sending the Papal emissary as his ambassador to Schmalkalden to see if, perchance, he can destroy God’s work.” Besides the secular delegates, some forty Protestant theologians had gathered at Schmalkalden, and Melanchthon was in the greatest apprehension lest quarrels should break out amongst them.[1447] His fears were not altogether groundless, for it was not long before the usual want of unanimity became apparent amongst the Lutheran preachers. The “Artickel,” drawn up by Luther, aroused dissension. They were not equally acceptable to all, some, for instance, taking offence at his teaching on the Supper, so that a controversy on this point between such men as Amsdorf and Osiander on the one side and Blaurer on the other, was to be feared. Melanchthon, however, was more cautious and avoided insisting on his own divergent view regarding the Eucharist. He and Cruciger were sternly charged by Cordatus, the minister, with not preaching aright Luther’s doctrine of Justification by Faith, and the charge was supported also by Amsdorf. Osiander, the Nuremberg theologian, finally set against a sermon of Luther’s on the divine sonship conferred on the Christian by faith in Christ (1 John iv. 1 ff.), a sermon of his own, embodying quite other views.

Luther could think of no better plan than to lay before the Elector his fears lest internal strife should prove the undoing of his whole enterprise, and to implore him, as father of the country, to take some steps to prevent this.

Owing to the disunion rife among the preachers, Luther’s “Artickel” were never officially discussed by the delegates. This was primarily Melanchthon’s doing; by means of an intrigue which he started at the very outset of the Conference, and thanks to the assistance of the Landgrave of Hesse, he had caused it to be settled behind Luther’s back, that no explicit acceptance of Luther’s exposition of faith was called for, seeing that the Estates had already taken their stand on the basis of the Augsburg Confession and the Wittenberg Concord. “The device was characteristic enough of Melanchthon, but his procedure as a whole can scarcely be acquitted of insincerity.” (Ellinger.)

Melanchthon was now entrusted with the preparation of a fresh work on the Papal Primacy, to be described more fully later.[1448] Although it far exceeds in malice any other work of Melanchthon’s, or perhaps for that very reason, it was accepted by the Princes and the theologians.

The truth is, that, in their hostility to Popery all were at one. Opposition to the Church was the bond which united them.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, whilst at Schmalkalden, Luther had been visited by a severe attack of stone, an old trouble which now seemed to put his life in danger. During this illness his hatred of the Pope broke out afresh, yet, later, he felt justified in boasting of the moderation he had displayed during the convention, because, forsooth, of his advice regarding attendance at the Council. He prides himself on the consideration which at Schmalkalden he had shown the Papists: “Had I died there, it would probably have been the ruin of the Papists, for only after I am dead will they see what a friend they have had in me; for other preachers will prove incapable of the same moderation and ‘_epieikeia_.’”[1449]

Luther’s illness increased to such an extent that fears were entertained for his life. He himself thought seriously of death, though never for an instant did he think of reconciliation.

His prayer, as he related later, was as follows: “O God, Thou knowest that I have taught Thy Word faithfully and zealously.... O Lord Jesus Christ, how grand a thing is it for a man to die by the sword for Thy Word.... I die as an enemy of Thine enemies, I die under the ban of the Pope, but he dies under Thy ban.... I die in hatred of the Pope (‘_ego morior in odio papæ_’).”[1450] “Thou, Lord Christ,” he said, “take vengeance upon Thine enemy; I have done well in tearing the Pope to pieces.” On February 25, when racked with pain, he said to Herr von Ponikau, one of the Elector’s chamberlains: “I have to be stoned like Stephen, and the Pope will rejoice. But I hope he will not laugh long; my epitaph shall be verified: ‘In life, O Pope, I was thy plague, in dying I shall be thy death (‘_Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua, Papa_’).’”[1451]

On February 26 the sick man was brought away from Schmalkalden in a carriage, the intention being to convey him to Wittenberg. Luther was anxious not to rejoice the Papists by breathing his last in a locality where the Bishop of Acqui, the Papal envoy, was stopping. “At least not in the presence of the monster, the Pope’s ambassador,” as he said. “I would die willingly enough were not the devil’s Legate at Schmalkalden, for he would cry aloud to the whole world that I had died of fright.” This he said before his departure.[1452] Seated in the carriage as the horses were being got ready, he received the greetings of those present and made the sign of the cross over them, saying: “May the Lord fill you with His blessing and with hatred of the Pope.”[1453] Mathesius, his pupil, adds in his 11th Sermon on Luther: “Then and there, in the carriage, he made his last will and testament, willing and bequeathing to his friends the preachers, ‘_odium in papam_,’ viz. that they should not allow themselves to be deceived by the Pope’s doctrine but remain constant to the end in their hostility to his idolatry.”[1454] According to Ericeus he also said on leaving: “Take heed to this when I am dead: If the Pope lays aside his crown, renounces his throne and primacy, and admits that he has erred and destroyed the Church, then and only then will we receive him into our communion, otherwise he will always remain in our eyes the real Antichrist.”[1455]

After Luther’s departure the assembly considered the question of the Council. Any share in it was refused point-blank. Even the letters on the subject which the Legate had brought with him were returned unopened. In the final resolution the proposed [Œcumenical Council—although it was to be held in complete accordance with ancient ecclesiastical rules—was described as a partisan, unreliable and unlawful assembly because it would consist exclusively of bishops, would be presided over by the Pope and would not be free to decide according to the Word of God.

In its outspoken rejection of the Council the Conference was more logical than Luther and his theological counsellors. The warlike company brushed aside all the considerations of prudence and policy alleged by the more timid theologians.

They further declared, that they would maintain the Wittenberg Concord of 1536; it was also stated in the resolutions that their theologians were agreed upon all the points of the Augsburg Confession and “_Apologia_”; one article only, viz. that concerning the authority of the Pope, had they altered; in other words, they had accepted the recently drafted document of Melanchthon’s, which, however, repudiated the Papacy far more firmly than the Augsburg Confession had done. (See below, p. 439.)

Luther, though absent, had every reason to be satisfied with what had been achieved.

Luther’s condition had meanwhile improved, and he had already returned to Wittenberg. On the very first day of his journey he had felt some relief, and on the following day he wrote to Melanchthon to inform him of it, crowning the joyful tidings with his blessing:

“May God preserve you all and cast down Satan under your feet with all his crew, viz. the monsters of the Roman Curia.”[1456]

On his arrival at Gotha, the journey having proved toilsome and exhausting, and the malady again threatening to grow worse, he made his so-called “First Will.” It commences with the words: “I know, God be praised, that I have done rightly in storming the Papacy with the Word of God, for Popery spells blasphemy against God, Christ and the Gospel.” In his name they were to tell the Elector, our sovereign, and also the Landgrave, that “they were not to allow themselves to be disturbed at the howls of their opponents, who charged them with stealing the possessions of the Church; they do not rob like some others do; indeed, I see [such at least was his _hope_] how, with these goods, they provide for the welfare of religion. If a little of it falls to their share, who has a better right to it than they? Such possessions belong to the Princes rather than to the rascally Papists. Both sovereigns were to do confidently on behalf of the Evangel whatever the Holy Ghost inspired them to do.... If they are not pure in all things, but in some respects sinners, as our foes allege, yet they must trust in God’s mercy.... I am now ready to die if the Lord so will, but I should like to live at least till Whitsun, in order, before all the world, to write against the Roman beast and its Kingdom with a heavier fist.... If I recover I intend to do far worse than ever before. And now I commend my soul into the hands of the Father and my Lord Jesus Christ, Whom I have preached and confessed upon earth.”[1457]

His friends related that at Gotha he made his confession, and received “absolution” from Bugenhagen. After his state of health had greatly improved he was able to continue his journey to Wittenberg, where he arrived safely. Thence, a week later, he was able to announce to Spalatin the progress of his “convalescence, by God’s grace,” commending himself likewise to his prayers.[1458]

His anger against the Pope, to which hitherto he had not been able to give free rein, he now utilised to stimulate and refresh his exhausted bodily and mental powers. He once said, that, to write, pray or preach well, he had first to be angry. In Mathesius we find Luther’s own description of the effects of his anger: “Then my blood is refreshed, my mind becomes keen and all my temptations vanish.”[1459]

Here we must revert once more to his maledictory prayer against the Pope and the Papists, and to certain other of his sayings.[1460]

“If I am so cold at heart that I cannot pray,” so he said on one occasion to Cordatus, “I call to mind the impiety and ingratitude of my foes, the Pope and King Ferdinand, in order to inflame my heart with righteous hate, so that I can say: Hallowed be Thy Name, etc., and then my prayer glows with fervour.”[1461] As given in the German edition of the Table-Talk, his words are briefer, but none the less striking: “I conjure up the godlessness of the Pope with all his ulcers and parasites, and soon I grow warm and burn with anger and hate.”[1462] As already related, in his maledictory Paternoster, he accompanies the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer with a commentary of curses.[1463] He would fain see others too, “cursing the Papacy with the Our Father, that it may catch St. Vitus’s Dance.”[1464] Concerning his Paternoster he assures us, “I say this prayer daily with my lips, and in my heart without intermission.” And yet he does not shrink from adding: “Nevertheless I preserve a friendly, peaceable and Christian spirit towards everyone; this even my greatest enemies know.”[1465]

In 1538, the year after his serious illness, an amended edition of his “Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pharhern” was issued by him. Although he exhorts the pastors to “refrain from abusive language” in the pulpit, yet he expressly tells them to “damn the Papacy and its followers with all earnestness as already damned by God, like the devil and his kingdom.”[1466]

Luther’s character presents many psychological problems which seem to involve the observer in inextricable difficulty; certain phenomena of his inner life can scarcely be judged by common standards. The idea of the devil incarnate in Popery distorts his judgment, commits him to statements of the maddest kind, and infects even his moral conduct. It is not easy to say how far he remained a free agent in this matter, or whether the quondam Catholic, priest and monk never felt the prick of conscience, yet such questions obtrude themselves at every step. For the present we shall merely say that his freedom, and consequently his actual responsibility, were greater at the time he first gave such ideas a footing in his mind, than when he had fallen completely under their spell.[1467]

4. Luther’s Spirit in Melanchthon

During the spring of 1537, when Luther was at Schmalkalden writhing under bodily anguish and the influence of his paroxysm of hate, a notable change took place in Melanchthon’s attitude towards the older Church. The earlier spiritual crisis, if we may speak of such a thing, ended in his case in an almost inexplicable embitterment against the Church of his birth.

A proof of this is more particularly to be found in the document then drawn up by Melanchthon, “On the power and primacy of the Pope.”[1468]

But a short time before he had looked upon the declaration against the Pope, drafted by Luther for the Schmalkalden Conference, as too strong. Yet, after having, as related above,[1469] all unknown to Luther, contrived to prevent any discussion of the latter’s so-called “Artickel,” and having, at the request of the Princes and Estates, set to work on a statement concerning the Primacy and the Episcopate, he himself came gradually, perhaps without noticing it, under the influence of the passion of anti-popery which found expression at this Assembly.

In Melanchthon’s Schmalkalden writing “On the Power and Primacy,” we read, that “the Popes defend godless rites and idolatry”; they had introduced horrible darkness into the Church. “The marks of Antichrist agree with the empire of the Pope,” as is plain from Paul.[1470] “The Pope arrogates to himself the right to alter the doctrine of Christ.... He even claims rights over the souls of the departed.” “He makes himself God,” for he recognises no authority above him. “These errors he vindicates with the utmost cruelty ... slaying all who differ from him.” All the faithful must therefore “curse” him and regard his teaching as “devils’ doctrine.”

After this profession of pure doctrine comes the chapter on abuses.[1471] “The profanation of Masses,” amongst the Papists, “is idolatry”; the “most revolting money-making” is carried on by this means. “They teach that sin is forgiven on account of the value of our works and then require each one to be ever in doubt as to whether his sins have really been forgiven. Nowhere do they clearly say that it is on account of the merits of Christ that sins are forgiven gratuitously. On the other hand, they do away with true worship, viz. the exercise of that faith which wrestles with despair.”[1472] “Vows they have stamped as righteousness before God, declaring that they merit the forgiveness of sins.” It is the duty of the Christian Princes to intervene; they must see that “errors are removed and consciences healed.” They “must not assist in strengthening idolatry and other infamies, or in slaughtering the Saints.” They, beyond all others, “must place a check on the licentiousness of the Popes,” the more so “since the Pope has bound the bishops under terrible curses to support his tyranny and his godless behaviour.”

A shorter memorandum of Melanchthon’s, appended to the above, referred to the “Power and jurisdiction of the Bishops.”[1473] This in the clearest and most decided fashion marks the breakdown of all the author’s earlier seeming concessions concerning the retention of the episcopate. “Since the bishops,” he says towards the close, “in their dependence on the Pope defend his godless doctrine and godless worship ... second the Pope’s cruelty and tyrannically abuse the jurisdiction they have wrenched from the clergy ... the churches must not acknowledge them as bishops.”

At the end there is a hint at the wealth of the bishops, doubtless not unwelcome to the Princes: “The bishops can no longer hold their lands and revenues with a good conscience” because they do not make use of them for the good of souls; their possessions ought rather to be employed “for the Church,” “to provide for the preachers [ministers], to support students and the poor, and in particular to assist the law-courts, especially the matrimonial courts.” Here we have his sanction to the Church’s spoliation.

We may be certain that Melanchthon never came to use such language, so similar to Luther’s, concerning the Papal Antichrist, idolatry and murder, solely as the result of pressure on the part of the Princes, who had been enraged by the invitation to attend the Council, and were determined to crush once and for all every hope of conciliation. We may take it that his new frame of mind was partly due to Luther’s serious illness. Luther believed that his end was nigh, he adjured the Princes and his friends manfully to tackle Antichrist, and he cursed the dissensions that had broken out amongst his theologians, and promised soon to ruin his life’s work. This made a great impression on Melanchthon. As a matter of fact the relations between him and Luther, subsequent to the latter’s recovery, became closer than they had been for years.

The change in Melanchthon at Schmalkalden was immortalised by his frightful document on the Pope and the Bishops being subscribed to by thirty-two of the theologians and preachers there present.[1474] When, at a later date, the formulæ of Concord were drawn up, it was included amongst the “symbolical books” of Lutheranism.[1475] As such, along with the others, it appears down to the present day, even in the latest edition (1907), at the head of which is printed the traditional motto of the whole series: “One Lord, one faith, one Baptism” (Eph. iv. 5).

At the Schmalkalden Conference, Melanchthon, in spite of what he had written concerning the Pope, declared himself, like Luther, in favour of accepting with due reserves the invitation to the Council, as otherwise they would be rendering their position more difficult and would make the whole world think that they had rudely refused the olive-branch. The rejection of his proposal annoyed him, as also did the discourteous treatment—described by Melanchthon as “very vulgar”—which the Papal Legate endured at the hands of the Elector Johann Frederick. His fit of indignation does not, however, seem to have lasted long, as he did not refuse the invitation to draw up a statement, addressed in the name of the Assembly to all Christian Princes, in which the Council was repudiated in the strongest terms. The refusal to take any part in it, so it declares, was rendered imperative by the clear intention of the Pope to suppress heresy.[1476]

His hostility and his irritation against, the Papacy repeatedly found expression in after years.

It was quite in Luther’s style, when, in a little work which appeared at Wittenberg in 1539, he called the Pope, with his bishops and defenders, “the tyrants and persecutors of Christ,” who “are not the Church; neither are those who support them or approve such acts of violence.”[1477]

Before the War of Schmalkalden he republished several times Luther’s inflammatory pamphlet, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” of 1531 (see vol. ii., p. 391), in order to move public opinion against the Empire. To these new editions of the booklet against the Popish “bloodhounds”[1478]—one of the most violent the author ever wrote—Melanchthon added a preface in which he shows himself “animated and carried away by Luther’s words.”[1479] In reading it we feel the warmth of the fiery spirit which glows in Luther’s writings, for instance, when he classes his opponents with the “cut-throats of the streets,” whom “to resist was a work well-pleasing to God.”[1480] The Pope, according to him, is anxious “to re-establish his idolatry and his errors by dint of bloodshed, murder, everlasting devastation of the German nation and the destruction of the Electoral and Princely houses.” Thus “Spaniards and Italians, and perhaps even possibly the Turks,” will break into the German cities. “The devils rage and cause all manner of desolation.” Our enemies are “knowingly persecutors of the truth and murderers of the Saints.” Whoever is about to die let him consider, that the death of the righteous is more pleasing to God than “the life of Cain and the luxury and power of all the bishops and cardinals.”

Hence it was but natural that violent measures of defence should appear to Melanchthon both called-for and meritorious.

As a just measure of defence and resistance he regarded his own suggestion made to the Elector of Saxony through his Chancellor on the occasion of the Protestantising of the town of Halle, the residence of Albert of Brandenburg, viz. that Albert’s whole diocese of Halle and Magdeburg should be taken possession of by the Elector. Owing to Luther’s dissuasion this act of violence, which would have had momentous consequences, was, however, prevented. Melanchthon’s advice was, that they “should, as opportunity arose, seize the bishoprics, in order that the priests might be emboldened to abstain from knavish practices, to co-operate in bringing about a lasting peace, and to leave the Word of God unmolested for the future.”[1481]

In this way Melanchthon more than once gave the lie to those who extol his kindliness. Luther once said, that, whereas he stabbed with a hog-spear, Philip preferred to use goads and needles, though his little punctures turned out more painful and difficult to heal; the “little man” (Melanchthon was of small stature) was pious, and, even when he did wrong, meant no ill; he sinned because he was too lenient and allowed himself to be taken in; but this sort of thing was of little use; he, on the other hand, thought it best to speak out to the knaves; for clods a pick-axe was very useful; Philip allowed himself to be devoured, but he, on the contrary, devoured everything and spared no one.[1482]

In his controversial writings and memoranda, written in well-turned and polished language, Melanchthon went on as before to accuse the Catholic theologians and the Popes of holding doctrines and opinions, of which, as Döllinger rightly said, “no theologian had ever thought, but the opposite of which all had taught.”[1483]

He refused to recognise what was good and just in the long-looked-for proposals for the amelioration of the Church which the Papal commission submitted to Paul III. in 1537. They were made known at Wittenberg through their publication by Johann Sturm of Strasburg.

Luther at once took the field against them with his favourite weapons, the “pick-axe” and the “hog-spear.”[1484] Melanchthon mentions them, but has “not a word to say in favour of the important reforms they proposed.... The fact, however, that one of Erasmus’s writings was therein characterised as harmful, incensed him against Sadolet [one of the Cardinals whose signatures were appended].” “With good reason, and, from the schoolmaster’s point of view, quite justly,”[1485] they say of the “_Colloquia familiaria_” of Erasmus, that “this book should be forbidden in the schools,” as it might do harm to young minds.[1486] This greatly displeased Melanchthon, himself a writer on pedagogy;[1487] and yet the “_Colloquia_” in question are so permeated with indecent elements that they have been rightly instanced to prove how lax were the views then prevalent in Humanistic circles.[1488] Luther himself strongly disapproved of the “_Colloquia_” of Erasmus, declaring it a godless book, and forbidding his children to read it; therein the author put his own antichristian ideas in the mouths of others.[1489] “Erasmus, the scoundrel,” he says, gives vent to his contempt for religion “more particularly in his ‘_Colloquia_.’”[1490] “He is an incarnate scamp, as is shown by his books, notably by the ‘_Colloquia_.’”[1491]

In the Antinomian controversy at home, between Johann Agricola and Luther, it was Melanchthon who sought by means of adroit formulæ and memoranda to achieve the impossible, viz. to square Agricola’s views with Luther’s teaching at that time. In reality Melanchthon was merely working for the success of his own milder version of Luther’s view of the law, to which moreover the latter had already given his assent. To Agricola, Melanchthon wrote feelingly: “In all that Luther does there is a certain Achillean violence, of which you are not the only victim.”[1492]

On the outbreak of the Osiander controversy on Confession, the ever-ready Melanchthon again set to work, endeavouring to pour oil on the troubled waters. He assured Osiander that “were I able to bind down with chains of adamant the tempers of all the clergy, I should assuredly make this the goal of my most earnest endeavour.”[1493]

Melanchthon’s 1540 edition of the Augsburg Confession, the so-called “_Confessio variata_,” was a good sample of his elasticity and power of adaptation in the domain of dogma. The “_Variata_” caused, however, quite a commotion amongst the representatives of the innovations.

In the “_Confessio Variata_” Melanchthon, in order to curry favour with the Swiss and the adherents of the _Tetrapolitana_, with whom his party was politically leagued, set aside the “semblance of Transubstantiation” contained in the Article concerning the Supper (Art. x.) and struck out the words “_quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint_,” as well as the rejection of the contrary belief. For these was substituted: “Together with the bread and wine in the Supper the communicants are shown [’_exhibeantur_’ instead of the former ‘_adsint et distribuantur_’] the Body and Blood of Christ.” This was practically to abandon the Real Presence. “Neither the doctrine of Bucer [who was a Zwinglian] on the Supper, nor that of Calvin, is excluded.”[1494]

At a later date, in 1575, Nicholas Selnecker, a Leipzig professor, whilst actual witnesses were yet living, declared that he had been informed by officials of high standing that the alterations concerning the Supper in the “_Variata_” were due to Philip of Hesse’s epistolary representations to Melanchthon. The former had held out the hope that he, and also the Swiss, would accept the Confession should his suggestion be accepted.[1495] We may call to mind that about that same time, i.e. about December, 1539, the Landgrave was desirous of yet another concession in his favour, viz. of sanction for his bigamy, and that Bucer, who had been sent by him to Wittenberg, threw out the hint that, were permission refused, the Prince would forsake the Evangelical cause.

Melanchthon also obliterated in the “_Variata_” several other “traces of a too diplomatic attempt to conciliate the Romanists.... Melanchthon’s clearer perception of the doctrine of Justification also made some alteration necessary.” The Article “_De iustificatione_” (Art. iv.) was accordingly revised, and likewise the Article “_De bonis operibus_” (Art. xx.), that both might correspond with the doctrine already embodied in the 1535 edition of the “_Loci_.” In Article iv. the brief “_hanc fidem imputat Deus pro iustitia_” was removed and replaced by: “_homines iustos pronuntiari, id est reconciliari_,” by the imputation of righteousness, this being explained at considerable length. A new interpretation was also given to the doctrine of good works, i.e. by the thesis, that obedience to the law is necessary on the part of the justified.[1496] In conversion, the necessity of contrition, and that not merely passive, previous to Justification by faith is asserted, the Divine Will that all men be saved is openly advocated, that God is the author of sin is more strongly denied than before.[1497]

In spite of all these alterations, which, more particularly that concerning the Supper, might have wounded Luther’s susceptibilities, “Melanchthon was never reproved on account of the ‘_Variata_’ either by Luther or by others [of the sect]; what we hear to the contrary is nothing but an invention of the anti-Philippians. The truth is that the ‘_Variata_’ was generally accepted without question and made use of officially, for instance, at the religious conferences.”[1498] In January, 1541, the Augsburg Confession was to be made the basis of the first religious conference at Worms. When Melanchthon appealed to the “_Variata_,” Eck drew particular attention to the difference between the new and the old version. Melanchthon, however, insisted on the identity of their contents and would only admit that, in the “_Variata_,” he had toned down and chosen his expressions more carefully.[1499] As Eck, in order to come to the point, desisted from any further objections, the diversity was passed over. The conference, owing to other causes, was a failure, and so was the next, held at Ratisbon in April of the same year, which was fruitless owing to Melanchthon’s own conduct. Calvin, who was present, wrote on May 12 of the practices of the Protestant leaders: “Melanchthon and Bucer drew up equivocating and ambiguous formulæ on Transubstantiation, seeking to hoodwink their adversaries. They were not afraid to deal in equivocal phrases though there is nothing more mischievous.”[1500]

In connection with the eventual fate of the “_Variata_” we may here refer to the deep animosity which the more zealous Lutherans, with Flacius Illyricus at their head, displayed towards Melanchthon on account of the alterations in the Augsburg Confession. So serious did the rupture become that the dissension between the Protestant theologians actually rendered impossible any public negotiations with the Catholics. This fact proves how little Melanchthon, the then leader of the Protestants, had been successful in welding together with “chains of adamant” the theologians of his party.

The standpoint of the amended Confession of 1540, however, enlisted all Bucer’s sympathies on Melanchthon’s behalf.

With Bucer’s smooth ways Melanchthon had already found himself in harmony during the negotiations in view of the Wittenberg Concord. Mentally the two had much in common. Melanchthon had worked with Bucer at Bonn in 1543, making use of every kind of theological artifice and enlisting the service of those who were in revolt against the moral laws of the Church, in order to bring about the apostasy of Cologne, though their efforts were fruitless. Want of success here was, however, not due to any half-measures on Melanchthon’s part, for the latter repeatedly spoke against any toleration being shown to the ancient “errors.” In his reply to Eberhard Billick he attacked, for instance, the “idolatry” which prevailed in the Rhineland, witnessed to by the invocation of Saints, the veneration of images, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Processions of the Sacrament.[1501]

By this attack on the citadel of Catholicism in the Rhine Province he again reaped a harvest of trouble and anxiety, in consequence of his and Bucer’s differences with Luther on the doctrine of the Supper.

In the text of the “Cologne Book of Reform,” composed by both, Luther failed to find expressed his doctrine of the Presence of Christ, but rather the opposite. For this reason an outbreak on his part was to be feared, and Melanchthon trembled with anxiety, since, as he says in one of his letters,[1502] Luther had already begun to “stir up strife” in his sermons. He fully expected to have to go into exile. It was said that Luther was preparing a profession of faith which all his followers would have to sign. But, this time again, Melanchthon was spared, though Bucer was not so fortunate; in Luther’s furious writing against the deniers of the Sacrament, the latter was pilloried, but not Melanchthon.[1503] Outwardly Luther and Melanchthon remained friends. In the Swiss camp they were well aware of the difficulties of the scholar who refused to place himself blindly under the spell of Luther’s opinions. Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor at Zürich, invited him to come there and promised to see that the magistrates provided him with a suitable stipend. Calvin declared later, in 1560, that Melanchthon had several times told him sorrowfully, that he would much rather live in Geneva than in Wittenberg.[1504] Concerning Melanchthon’s views on the Eucharist, Calvin said: “I can assure you a hundred times over, that to make out Philip to be at variance with me on this doctrine is like tearing him away from his own self.”[1505] This explains why Melanchthon always sought to evade the theological question as to how Christ is present in the Sacrament.

One of the last important works he carried out with Luther was the so-called “Wittenberg Reformation,” a writing drawn up at the Elector’s request. The document, which was presented by Luther and the Wittenberg theologians on January 14, 1545, was intended, in view of the anticipated Diet, to express theologically the position of the Reformers with regard to a “Christian Settlement.” Here Melanchthon found himself in his own element. In this work he distinguished himself, particularly by his cleverly contrived attempts to make out the new doctrine to be that of the old and real Church Catholic, by his stern aversion to Popish “idolatry” and by his repudiation of anything that might be regarded as a concession, also by the unfeasible proposal he made out of mockery, that the bishops, in order to make it possible for the Protestants to join their congregations, should “begin by introducing the pure evangelical doctrine and Christian distribution of the Sacraments,” in which case Protestants would obey them.[1506]

The Wittenbergers, in other words, offered to recognise the episcopate under the old condition, upon which they were ever harping, though well aware that it was impossible for the bishops to accept it.[1507]

They thus showed plainly how much store was to be set on the tolerance of certain externals promised by the wily Melanchthon. In this document he “retained certain outward forms to which the people were accustomed, proposing, however, to render them innocuous by imbuing them with a new spirit, and to use them as means of religious and moral education in the interests of the Evangelical cause. It was in the same sense that he was ready to recognise the episcopate.”[1508] In reality it was the merest irony to demand, that all the bishops of Christendom should prepare the way for and welcome the innovations. Such was, however, the spirit and tone of Melanchthon’s “very mild reform,” as Brück the Chancellor described it to the Elector. Luther, however, in order as it were to furnish a commentary on its real sense, at that very time put his pen to his last and most revolting work against the Papacy.[1509]

END OF VOL. III

PRINTED BY WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD. PLYMOUTH

FOOTNOTES:

[1] According to Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” p. 235, Luther “fell back from the position he had assumed from 1519 to the beginning of 1521 owing to the subjective, and also objective, impossibility [of proceeding in so radical a way as previously.]” H. Lang, a Protestant, whose “M. Luther, ein religiöses Charakterbild,” 1870, he quotes, goes still further, and ascribes to Luther the entire abandonment of his own principles; he is also of opinion that Luther does not disguise the fact that [in the Anabaptist business] he would have considered all in order had the reforms been carried out by himself. “That he was vexed to see others reap where he had sown, is only human nature,” says Lang; thus he “sided with the reactionaries,” though he had really taught what the fanatics were putting in practice; from that time forward he advocated a “mediæval ecclesiasticism,” deprived the Congregations of the management of the reform, which they had set about so vigorously, and transferred it to the rulers. Such a view is widely held among Protestant historians to-day.

[2] Cp. vol. ii., p. 398 f.

[3] J. Schmidlin, in the article “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” in the “Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1909, Nos. 14-16, p. 117. The writer even speaks of the “Klotz-Abhängigkeit” on God which was Luther’s ideal.

[4] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 436 ff.; Erl. ed., “Comment. in Galat.,” 1, p. iii. ff.; 3, p. 121 f.

[5] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275 f.

[6] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche, p. 75 ff.).

[7] Cp. Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott, etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 214; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15: “Faith is divided into three principal parts, according to the three persons of the Holy Trinity,” etc.

[8] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 41 ff., 143 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 322 _seq._, 329 _seq._

[9] _Ibid._, pp. 686, 689; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 259, 261. In the latter passage he refers to the “sign of Grace,” which is “Christ on the Cross and all His dear Saints.”

[10] In “Bull. de littér. ecclésiast.,” 1909, p. 198 f.

[11] O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus” (“Prolegomena. Biblicismus und Traditionalismus in der altprotest. Theol.”), 1908, p. 98.

[12] _Ibid._, pp. 102, 103, 105.

[13] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 63. Cp. _ibid._, p. 7 and p. 100 and other passages where similar phrases occur. He says, for instance, of belief: “The Articles of Faith are contrary to all philosophy, geometry, arithmetic and indeed to all reason. It is a question of ‘_est_,’ ‘_non_,’ yes and no. This no one can reconcile.” For this reason he would not come to any “agreement” with Zwingli, who thought otherwise.

[14] Ritschl, _ibid._, p. 79.

[15] “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 136, 1909, p. 35, in dealing with Luther’s “thisworldliness.”

[16] “De captivitate babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68.

[17] From the writing “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 23, 27 f.; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 179, 185 f.

[18] “De capt. bab.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 70.

[19] _Ibid._, p. 536 f.=68, 70.

[20] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 258 ff.; Erl. ed., 13², p. 228 f.

[21] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 157; Erl. ed., 27, p. 343.

[22] “Since Christ never commanded that the Sacrament should be received by everyone, it is permissible not only to receive only under one kind, but under neither.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 79; Erl. ed., 27, p. 72. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 507: “_Cum Christus non praecepisset ulla (specie) uti_”.

[23] The Larger Catechism of 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 129: “Here (in Scripture) we have God’s command and institution”; hence it is “seriously and strictly commanded that we be baptised on pain of not being saved.”

[24] To Haupold and others on September 17, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 257, and _ibid._, 53, p. 77 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 236).

[25] The editor of the Weimar ed., 8, p. 132.

[26] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 127 (omitted in the 2nd edition). In 1524 Luther, when engaged with Münzer, still held that “all should preach stoutly and freely as they were able and against whomsoever they pleased.... Let the spirits fall upon one another and fight it out. Should some be led astray, so much the worse.” True doctrine being the fittest would nevertheless survive and prevail. To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 265 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). The contradiction involved in the freedom which Luther apparently concedes to him was pointed out by Münzer in his “Schutzrede,” Fol. C. III., “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375. Hence when Luther counselled that the revolt should be put down by force of arms, those who considered the war unjust, for instance because they happened to hold Anabaptist views, could well appeal to Luther and refuse to lend their assistance. (See present work, vol. ii., p. 311 f.)

[27] A. Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum,” Denifle, vol. ii., 1909, p. 251 f.

[28] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.

[29] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 12², p. 221.

[30] Though it might be urged that he subordinates the first too much to the second even in his earlier period. In the “Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott,” etc. (1520), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 215; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15, he teaches: “that there are two ways of believing: First, concerning God, when I believe what is said of God to be true, just as I believe that to be true which is said of the Turks, of the devil, or of hell; this faith is more a sort of knowledge, or observation, than real faith. According to the other we believe _in_ God (_Credo in Deum_), i.e. when I not only believe that to be true which is said of God, but place my trust in Him.... It is only such a faith which hazards all on God ... which makes a Christian.... This is a living faith ... and this none can give but God alone.” The Catholic Church, however, had always required a “living faith,” one working by charity (_fides caritate formata_). It is remarkable how much, in the above passage, Luther allows the formal principle of historical faith, viz. the authority of the Revealing God, to recede into the background.

[31] O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus,” 1, p. 81.

[32] “Histor. Zeitschrift,” 97, p. 1 ff. Art.: “Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt,” p. 28: “It is evident that Protestantism cannot be regarded as directly paving the way for the modern world. On the contrary, it appears rather as an entire reversion to mediæval fashions of thought. It is shown that Protestantism was and yet is, at least to some extent, a hindrance to the development of the modern world.”

[33] “Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 830, n.

[34] Letter of December, 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266). There we read: “God is older than all the Councils and the Fathers.” “Are we to send God to school and prune the feathers (quill pens) of the Holy Ghost?” “We hazard all on the Word ... against all the Churches.” _Ibid._, p. 235-238=21-25.

[35] “Theolog. Literaturztg.,” 1884, p. 37 _seq._

[36] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 228. Church postils.

[37] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.

[38] _Ibid._, 6, p. 540=5, p. 74.

[39] Through the “Reformer sent by God,” the Father had “revealed” the mystery of His Son. Thus Bugenhagen, on February 22, 1546. Cp. vol. vi., XL., 2.

[40] “Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16 Jahrh.,” 1904, p. 30 ff.

[41] “Die christliche Religion” in “Kultur der Gegenwart,” 1, p. 4, 397. _Ibid._: “The final result is the recognition by Protestantism of an internal antinomy of religion and Church, which are unable to subsist without each other nor yet to suffer each other, from which conflict there can only spring a fresh presentment of the purer, churchless, Christian idea.”

[42] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 689 (1², p. 723).

[43] “Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, p. 74 _seq._, 147 _seq._

[44] “Christliche Welt,” 1904, No. 26.

[45] “Monatskorr. des Evangel. Bundes,” 1908, No. 9.

[46] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. vii. f.

[47] “An den christlichen Adel,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 428; Erl. ed., 21, p. 307.

[48] _Ibid._, 429=308.

[49] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 258; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 197 f.: “Seeing that Bishops and Prelates remain quiescent, do not resist, care but little and so leave Christendom to go to destruction, we must humbly implore God’s help to oppose the evil, and after that put our own hands to the job.... It is not right that we should support the servants and menials of the Pope and even his court fools and harlots to the harm and injury of our souls.... These, surely, are the real Turks whom the King, the Princes and the Nobles ought to attack first,” just as a father of a family who has gone out of his mind “must be placed under restraint and controlled.... The best and only thing to do was, for the King, Princes, Nobles, townships and parishes to put their hands to the business and make an end of it themselves, so that the bishops and clergy, who are so timorous, may be able to follow.... Nor must any attention be paid to the ban and the threats by means of which they fancy they can save their skins.”

[50] In strange contrast, to the last passage quoted, he goes on to inculcate the most respectful obedience to the secular authorities: “Even though they do what is wrong, still God wills that they should be obeyed without subterfuge or danger” (p. 259=198). They have “nothing to do with the preaching and the faith.” “They must not be resisted even though they do what is unjust” (_ibid._). “There are many abuses prevalent amongst the secular authorities,” etc. (p. 260=199). He is accordingly very anxious for their improvement.

[51] To Spalatin, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90.

[52] Preface to the writing “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt wie weytt man yhr Gehorsam schuldig sey” (1523). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.

[53] “Vom Missbrauch der Messen,” 1521-1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139. To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 219: “_Principem esse et non aliqua parte latronem esse, aut non aut vix possibile est, eoque maiorem, quo maior princeps fuerit_.” This he says in excuse of his acceptance of the hospitality of the Wartburg offered him by the Elector.

[54] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”

[55] To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 f.; Erl. ed., 55, p. 256 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). Cp. for above passages P. Drews “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” in “Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, Ergänzungsheft, p. 31 ff.

[56] Drews, _ibid._, p. 34.

[57] Cp. vol. ii., p. 113.

[58] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Church Postils. Sermon for Easter Monday, published in 1523. Order and instruction [how henceforward the sacrament is to be received]. Cp. _ibid._, p. 197. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 298, where Luther says: “Those who do not believe do not belong to the kingdom of Christ, but to the kingdom of the world.”

[59] “Troubled consciences” alone would appreciate the consolation in his chief doctrine, viz. that of Justification, for which reason Melanchthon in the apology of the Augsburg Confession (“Symbol. Bücher^[10],” pp. 87, 90, 118, 120, 174) is fond of representing Justification by faith alone under the aspect of a solace and consolation amidst the terrors of conscience caused by the consciousness of sin. Whoever had not experienced such fears could have no real understanding of Justification. Such a view of Justification, K. Holl, a Protestant theologian, remarks had its value while it was still a question of winning over Catholics to the new teaching, since, according to Luther, the Catholic trust in works necessarily led to “despair.” But, in the new generation, who had grown up as Lutherans, “consciences were already comforted before ever they experienced any terrors”; nor did Luther make it at all plain how often, i.e. whether “once only or more frequently,” it was necessary to experience the consoling power of the Gospel amidst terrors of conscience in order to arrive at the full assurance of Justification. “Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906, p. 14.

[60] “Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne ... Macht habe alle Lere zu urteylen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.

[61] We have indicated in the above our own position with respect to two opposing views recently put forward concerning the development of the early Lutheran Church, viz. P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (see above, p. 24, n. 4), and H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., with epilogue on Drews. See also vol. v., xxx., 2, on State and State Church according to Luther’s views and complaints. While Drews emphasises the “congregations of true believers” as “Luther’s ideal” (p. 103), Hermelink lays stress on the fact that Luther always believed that in the last instance the Christian authorities would be forced to introduce and see to the uniformity of worship in their lands. The disagreement on so vital an historical question only emphasises anew the want of consistency in Luther and the contradictions contained in his statements. See vol. ii., p. 112, n. 1. Cp. p. 294 ff., and the quotation (from W. Hans): “The contradictions in the theory [Luther’s] and between his theory and practice can never be explained.”

[62] Cp. Melanchthon’s tract “_De potestate papæ_” added to the Schmalkalden Articles in “Die symbolischen Bücher,”^[10] 1907, ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 339: “_Imprimis autem oportet præcipua membra ecclesiæ, reges et principes, consulere ecclesiæ.... Prima enim cura regum esse debet, ut ornent gloriam Dei._” Above all, he says, referring to the Papacy, they must not make use of their power “_ad confirmandam idolatriam et cetera infinita flagitia et ad faciendas cædes sanctorum_.”

[63] R. Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 561, who appeals to passages in Luther’s “Von guten Wercken,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198 f. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 299.

[64] Sohm, _ibid._, p. 579.

[65] Melanchthon even describes it as the first duty of the principal member of the Church: “_curare, ut errores tollantur et conscientiæ sanentur_.” “Symbolische Bücher,” _ibid._

[66] Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 579.

[67] _Ibid._, p. 615, where the passages from Jonas’s writings are given.

[68] _Ibid._, pp. 630, 618; for further details on the Consistories and Luther’s relations to them, see our vol. v., xxx., 3; cp. xxxv., 2.

[69] Wilhelm Hans, a Protestant theologian, quoted in our vol. ii., p. 312.

[70] First edition, p. 127. In the second edition the passage commencing with the words “The so-called” has been altered.

[71] “Luthers Anschauung vom Staate und der Gesellschaft” (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.”), 1901, p. 25. Elsewhere Luther speaks otherwise. We must remember that in the above writing he has in mind chiefly the Catholic authorities who were opposing the new Evangel.

[72] _Ibid._

[73] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 183.

[74] _Ibid._, p. 185.

[75] Brandenburg, p. 24, from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 257. Commentary on Psalm lxxxii.

[76] “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., 479 ff.

[77] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 344 f.

[78] On the development of Luther’s idea of the Church, see vol. vi., xxxviii., 3 and 4. On the shaping of the relations between Church and State by Luther, see vol. v., xxxv., 2.

[79] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 259).

[80] On November 30, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 337 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 277 ff.).

[81] C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächsischen Kirchen-und Schulvisitation von 1524 bis 1545,” 1879, p. 16.

[82] To Johann, Elector of Saxony, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[83] To the Elector Johann in the letter quoted above.

[84] To Spalatin, on March 19, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 263).

[85] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[86] Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 114.

[87] In the work “An den christlichen Adel” of 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 285. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 296.

[88] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413=290.

[89] To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).

[90] To the Elector Johann, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[91] To Spalatin at Altenburg, January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 2 ff. Spalatin had resigned the Court Chaplaincy on the death of the Elector Frederick and become pastor of Altenburg. From this time Luther’s letters to him assume a different character, the consideration for the Court and the desire to work on it through Spalatin being no longer apparent. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 23.

[92] To Amsdorf, January 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 532.

[93] See below, xvii., 5, and vol. iv., xxii., 5.

[94] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 205; Erl. ed., 23, p. 93. “Von Ehesachen,” 1530.

[95] “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 204, art. 13.

[96] _Ibid._, p. 343.

[97] On January 7, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 6.

[98] _Ibid._, pp. 6, 7.

[99] “Werke,” Wittenberg ed., 9, p. 244. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 8, n. 1.

[100] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 240. “Table-Talk.”

[101] On January 18, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716 f.

[102] On January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 4.

[103] Will of January 6, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422.

[104] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 469; Erl. ed., 25², p. 126. Dating from the commencement of 1531.

[105] _Ibid._, p. 447=111.

[106] See vol. ii., p. 391.

[107] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332 _seq._ “Table-Talk.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 133 of the year 1540.

[108] On May 8, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 5 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274).

[109] On same date, _ibid._, p. 6 (“Briefwechsel,” _ibid._).

[110] On March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[111] In the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8. It is true that this and the following statement belong to the period subsequent to the Diet of Augsburg, but they also throw light on the earlier period.

[112] In a Latin memorandum which Enders with some probability assigns to the latter half of August, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76: “_Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus; pacem enim ad ima tartara relegandam esse dico, quæ cum evangelii iactura redimitur_.” There are no grounds for doubting Luther’s authorship, but the original was probably written in German.

[113] W. Walther, “Luthers Waffen,” 1886, p. 158, and his “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 246 ff., 278 ff.

[114] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of the Gospel of St. John, 1530-1532. Cp. Walther, _ibid._

[115] Walther, _ibid._, p. 170.

[116] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.

[117] _Ibid._, p. 224.

[118] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 621; Erl. ed., 24², p. 46, in the work “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” 1520.

[119] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 330 in the “Kirchenpostille.”

[120] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121, “Kirchenpostille.”

[121] An earlier explanation of Luther’s as to the way in which he understood destruction only shows that then, in 1522, he was averse to the carrying out of such a project: “This destruction and annihilation I would not have understood as meaning the use of violence and the sword. For they are not worthy of such chastisement nor would anything be gained by it—but as Daniel viii. teaches: Antichrist shall be destroyed without hands, when everyone teaches, speaks and holds God’s Word against him.... This is a true Christian destruction.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178. Even H. Preuss recognises in his “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” p. 115, that, in Luther’s replies to Alveld and in his epitome of Silvester Prierias, “there smoulders such anger as shows that recourse to arms was imminent.” Cp. passages from Luther’s writings referred to in vol. ii., p. 190, n. 3.

[122] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 180 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 105), in a “Memorandum on the abolition of the Mass and monastic life, etc.,” dated July 13, and assigned by Enders to the year 1530.

[123] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. trans.), 5, p. 288.

[124] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 76 _seq._, where will be found the opinions of Link, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and Amsdorf, given at the same time as to “whether a ruler may protect his subjects against religious persecution by the Emperor or other Princes by engaging in war?” Cp. the printed form of Luther’s opinion given in G. Berbig, “Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” Hft. 5, Leipzig, 1908, p. 98 f.

[125] “_(Oportet) ut id vocante aliquo singulari spiritu et fide faciat; alias omnino cedere debet et ipse gladio superiori et cum christianis, quos patitur, mori._” Instead of “_patitur_,” as Enders has it, Berbig has “_fatetur_,” which is certainly better.

[126] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, pp. 1 and 55, p. 264 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231) (March 28, 1528).

[127] To Chancellor Brück, March 28, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 266 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231).

[128] v. Schubert, “Beiträge zur Gesch. der evangel. Bekenntnis-und Bündnisbildung, 1529-1530,” “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 273 f., an article giving interesting details concerning the earlier history of the League of Schmalkalden.

[129] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxiii., and, still better, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette (Seidemann), 6, p. 105 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 192). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 647 f.

[130] v. Schubert, _ibid._, p. 306 f.

[131] Cp. Melanchthon in the letter to Bugenhagen, Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 248.

[132] v. Schubert, _ibid._, p. 313.

[133] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 138 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 239).

[134] _Ibid._, p. 142.

[135] _Ibid._, p. 140 f. On the memorandum destined to become famous, cp. O. Clemen’s article in “Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.

[136] Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 20.

[137] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[138] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 284.

[139] Reprinted by Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 286. Written on October 21, 1530.

[140] Luther to Lazarus Spengler, February 15, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361): “It happened that they disputed sharply with us at Torgau.”

[141] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.

[142] See vol. ii., p. 391 ff.

[143] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 265.

[144] _Ibid._, p. 266 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296, dated “end of October, 1530”).

[145] Cp. Enders “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 299 f.

[146] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[147] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344. See below, p. 60.

[148] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 225. Enders (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298) gave reasons for dating it at the “end of October, 1530.”

[149] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[150] Text in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296 f. For above date see also O. Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 1530-1532, und der Nürnberger Religionsfriede,” 1892, p. 271.

[151] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298, from M. M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 78.

[152] Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22; Mayer, _ibid._, p. 73.

[153] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 469.

[154] _Ibid._, p. 471.

[155] Enders, 8, p. 322.

[156] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 290, in the “Hauspostille,” Second Sermon for the 5th Sunday after Epiphany (_c._ 1532).

[158] To Lazarus Spengler, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361). Cp. Ludw. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volks im Luthertum und im Calvinismus des 16. Jahrhunderts, Diss.,” 1903, pp. 6-18.

[159] To a Nuremberg burgher, March 18, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 221 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 378).

[160] Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund,” p. 91. Cp. Enders, 8, p. 361, n. 2.

[161] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22.

[162] From the Gotha Cod., 399, fol. 139, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 242.

[163] Sammelschrift ohne Gesamttitel, Dresden, 1532. Vorne: Innhalt dieses Büchleins. 1. Ein Auszug usw.; 2. Rathschlag M. Luthers an den Churfürsten von Sachsen; 3. Erklärung usw.

[164] For further particulars of the criticism of Cochlæus, see Enders, 7, p. 242 ff.

[165] Cp. the extract given by Enders, _ibid._, 244.

[166] See vol. ii., p. 171 f. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 277.

[167] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. Enders refers it to the “latter half of August, 1531.”

[168] On December 12, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 204 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 331).

[169] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 3^[18], p. 292 ff.

[170] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332 and Mathesius “Tischreden,” p. 133. Account given in his own words.

[171] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 334 _seq._

[172] On July 14, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 63.

[173] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 134.

[174] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 362.

[175] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 334, “Tischreden.”

[176] _Ibid._

[177] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 363 _seq._

[178] _Ibid._, p. 366 _seq._: “_Ita ut nos habeamus gladium traditum possessorium. Cæsar vero tantum in nobis habet gladium petitorium_, these are not times _ut tempore martyrum, ubi Diocletianus solus regebat_.”

[179] The passage from “indeed if one” to “as a tyrant” was omitted by Rebenstock in his Table-Talk and is differently worded in the German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 194 f.

[180] “Colloquia,” l.c., pp. 365, 367: “_Papæ adimo gladium, non cæsari, quia papa non debet esse magistratus neque tyrannus_.”

[181] In the “Tischreden” of Mathesius (p. 80), Luther says: “We shall never be successful against them [the Turks] unless we fall upon them and the priests at the right moment and smite them dead.” The editor remarks: “By this he can only mean the priests in general, not those only of the two small bishoprics.” See vol. ii., p. 324. Cp. vol. ii., p. 325, and N. Paulus, “Luther über die Tötung katholischer Geistlichen” (Histor.-polit. Blätter 147, 1911), p. 92 ff.

[182] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 402.

[183] Commencement of December, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “_Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ qui illos occiderent._”

[184] See xv., 4. For reply see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.

[185] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78, and Letters ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 223.

[186] Thus the editor of the memorandum, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 80 f., with a reference to the document in question in the Weimar Archives, and to Seckendorf, 3, pp. 200, 252.

[187] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” p. 6, 60 f.

[188] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87; “Briefe,” 5, p. 159.

[189] “That given under the Elector Johann,” says Luther, i.e. that of March, 1530 (above, p. 52), in which Luther had declared that armed resistance against the Emperor “can in no way be reconciled with Scripture.”

[190] “Briefe,” 5, p. 188. The passage concludes with a translation of the Latin text appended by a later hand.

[191] On June 11, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 165; “Briefe,” 5, p. 188.

[192] On December 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 313; “Briefe,” 5, p. 233.

[193] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 245 ff., where he gives extracts from the publication in question. According to him, Luther’s friend, J. Menius, also introduces the memorandum with the words: “An old writing _said to be_ by the Reverend D. M. L.” “On self-defence,” 1547.

[194] The tract is printed by Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges,” 2, Gotha, 1645, p. 39 ff., and the passage in question (p. 50) runs: “D. Pommer and Melanchthon have repudiated D. Martin’s counsels to the Elector Johann ... in a public writing, and not only declare that they are not D. Martin’s but have condemned them as false, and contrary to the plain truth of God’s Word.” P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 134, says: “Naturally the repudiation of this memorandum of Luther’s of March, 1530, on the part of theologians of the standing of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, who had actually sanctioned it themselves, was not of a nature to enhance the reputations of those theologians amongst such as had read Luther’s early writings on the behaviour to be observed towards the secular authority.” Cp. O. Clemen, “Bemerkungen zu Luthers Rathschlag an Kurfürst Johann von Sachsen vom 6. März 1530,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.

[195] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, 2^[18], p. 355 ff. The passage in question is also reprinted in Luther’s “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 273 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 241 f.

[196] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 40 ff.

[197] _Ibid._, p. 41. In Köstlin-Kawerau also (1, p. 600) it is pointed out that Luther “warns against any compliance with the [Emperor’s] call.”

[198] _Ibid._

[199] “_Ne susciperetur ullo modo bellum huiusmodi._” Cp. Luther to Spalatin, December 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333.

[200] _Ibid._

[201] Propos., 34. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”^[9], p. 178. P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” 1905, seeks the actual source of the proposition condemned. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 352, merely quotes the passage from the Resolutions in which Luther incidentally speaks of the “Great lords in the Church,” “who dream of nothing but war against the Turks [for which purpose the Pope was at that time imposing taxes], and, instead of fighting sin, withstand God’s chastisement for sin and thus resist God Himself.”

[202] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 108 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f. “On the Turkish War,” 1529.

[203] _Ibid._, p. 110=35 f.

[204] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 708 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 18; “Bul. of the Evening Feed of our most Holy Lord the Pope.”

[205] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 f. “On the Turkish War.” “I fear that Germany will fall to the Turks. But I, poor Luther, am supposed to be to blame for everything; even the Peasant Revolt and the denial of the Sacrament are laid to my charge.” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 392, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[206] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 ff.

[207] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 160 ff.=80 ff. The Turk as a “Maker of Martyrs,” p. 175=96.

[208] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 205 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 248 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 514 _seq._

[209] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396 f. “Table-Talk.”

[210] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.

[211] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 397.

[212] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 115; Erl. ed., 31, p. 40. “On the Turkish War.”

[213] _Ibid._, p. 196=119. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 149: “_Ego credo Turcicum regnum non posse vi opprimi_” (a. 1540).

[214] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 197=121.

[215] _Ibid._, p. 113=39. Even the taking of Rome in 1527 proves the proposition which the Pope had condemned. “Christ has determined to teach them to understand my Article, that Christians must not fight; the condemned Article is now avenged” (p. 115=41).

[216] _Ibid._, p. 111=36.

[217] _Ibid._, p. 148=79. At the Diet of Spires in 1529.

[218] _Ibid._, p. 148=79.

[219] “Werke,” p. 195=118. This he continued to assert to the very end of his life. In 1545 he writes: “The Turk also seduces the world, but he does not sit in the Temple of God, does not take the name of Christ and St. Peter ... but this destroyer in our midst pretends to be a friend, wants to be styled father, and is twice as bad as the Turk. This is the abomination of desolation,” etc. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 211. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom, vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[220] _Ibid._, p. 195=119.

[221] _Ibid._, p. 148=79. It is impossible to concur in the unconditional praise usually bestowed upon Luther by Protestants on account of his attitude in the midst of the Turkish peril. It was even said that he gave expression in powerful language, and without any thought of personal interest, to what God required “of every Christian and every German” in this emergency. Nor is it correct to state “that the contradiction with his later views was merely apparent” when he expressed himself at first as against the campaign. How real the contradiction is can be seen not only from the above and from what follows, but also from his later recommendations based on religious motives in favour of the war. Thus he says in the “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken” of the year 1541 (see vol. v., xxxiv. 2): “We are fighting to preserve God’s Word and His Church,” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 95 f.).

[222] “Dialogue de bello contra Turcas, in antilogias Lutheri.”

[223] On December 16, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 205. For Brück’s reply, cp. Hassencamp, “Hessische Kirchengesch.,” 1, p. 215, 1.

[224] To Melanchthon, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 303. At the end are greetings to the two other friends referred to. The latter would inform the Elector of the anxieties and prayers of the writer.

[225] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 396.

[226] On Ezechiel xxxviii.-xxxix., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 219 ff., Erl. ed., 41, p. 220 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 200.

[227] Cp. A. Westermann, “Die Türkenhilfe und die politischkirchlichen Parteien auf dem Reichstag zu Regensburg 1532,” Heidelberg, 1910.

[228] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 389. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405, concerning the news of an impending attack by the Turks in 1538: “I look upon it as a fresh invention of Ferdinand’s; he is planning another tax such as he devised before.”

[229] _Ibid._, p. 401.

[230] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.

[231] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 393.

[232] _Ibid._, 55, p. 202 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 370).

[233] On Ferdinand’s reason for not seeking the Elector’s help, see Enders on the letter referred to, p. 371.

[234] Cp., for instance, Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 257: “Pray! _Quia non est spes amplius in armis, sed in Deo._ If anyone is to beat the Turk, it will surely be the little children, who say the Our Father,” etc. (1542).

[235] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 394.

[236] To Amsdorf, June 13, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 196.

[237] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 406.

[238] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 399.

[239] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 113; Erl. ed., 31, p. 39. “On the Turkish War,” 1529. “The angels are arming themselves for the fight and are determined to overthrow the Turk, together with the Pope, and to cast them both into hell” (1540). Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 244.

[240] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, p. 395 _seq._; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 379. Other instances of the hatred which caused him to compare Pope with Turk are to be found in the “Table-Talk” ed. by Kroker, according to the collection of Mathesius: “_Propter crudelitatem_, Philippus [Melanchthon] is hostile to the Turk ... but Philippus is not yet sufficiently angry with the Pope,” p. 307 (1542-1543). “_Deus hunc articulum (incarnationis) defendit hodie contra Turcam et papam semperque miraculis approbat_,” p. 94 (1540).

[241] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 401.

[242] _Ibid._, 403.

[243] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391.

[244] This is the only possible explanation of the following prayer contained in the solemn service for the Ordination of Ministers which he had drafted: “That Thou wouldst at length restrain and put an end to the wicked atrocities of the Pope and Mahometh and other factious spirits, who blaspheme Thy Name, destroy Thy Kingdom and resist Thy Will” (_ibid._, 64, p. 292).

[245] _Ibid._, 62, p. 389.

[246] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 31, p. 33.

[247] _Ibid._, 19, p. 631, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526.

[248] _Ibid._, 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[249] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406 f. “Tischreden.”

[250] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231. “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottisdiensts,” 1526. In connection with Luther’s favourite expression “We Germans,” we may here remark that Luther’s opponents at Leipzig spread the report that he was really of Bohemian origin. This they did when, in his Sermon on the Body of Christ, preached in 1519, he had demanded the general use of the chalice at communion, as did the Utraquists of Bohemia. As to this statement that “I was born in Bohemia, educated at Prague and instructed in Wiclif’s writings,” Luther replied in his writing: “Erklerung etlicher Artickel yn seynem Sermon von dem heyligen Sacrament,” 1520, that this was a “piece of folly.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 81 f.

[251] Cp. “Tischreden.” c. 76: “Von Landen und Städten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 405 ff. Before this we read, _ibid._, p. 390: “Germany has always been the best land and nation; but what befell Troy will also befall her,” etc.

[252] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406.

[253] Cp. above p. 55, p. 71 f. and p. 77, the passages against the Emperor, who “boasts so shamelessly of being the true, chief protector of the Christian faith,” though he is but “a poor bag of worms,” and against his blind and hidden falsehoods. Other abuse of the Emperor, interspersed with praise, will be quoted below (p. 104 f.).

[254] To Johann Ludicke, Pastor at Cottbus, on February 8, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87. Cp. above, p. 72 f.

[255] To the Elector Johann Frederick in January, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78. Cp. above, p. 70 f.

[256] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 281 f., 300 f.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 10 f., 30.

[257] _Ibid._, p. 290=22.

[258] Doctor Johann Mensing, O.P., a literary opponent of Luther’s, in dedicating a polemical tract of 1526, defends the Catholics’ sense of patriotism, speaking of Luther as the “destroyer of our fair German land” (see “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 478). Another Dominican, Thomas Rhadinus Todischus, in 1520, in the title of a work published at Rome, describes him as “violating the glory of the nation” (“_nationis gloriam violans_”). The latter work was attributed by Luther and Melanchthon to Emser, who, however, repudiated the authorship. Cp. _ibid._, 7, p. 259.

[259] See vol. i., p. 403.

[260] _Ibid._

[261] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 289; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 9 f.

[262] “Luthers Stellung zu Concil und Kirche,” 1876, p. 69.

[263] H. Meltzer, “Luther als deutscher Mann,” Tübingen, 1905, p. 56.

[264] Cp. above, p. 45 f. “Let things take their course and do their worst, whether it be war or rebellion, as God’s anger may decree.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[265] On November 10, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 407: “_Ego pæne de Germania desperavi_,” etc. Of this passage we read in Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 572): “The exaltation which had been experienced by every grade of the nation during the first period of the Reformation had, as a matter of fact, largely died out, and now the lowest motives held sway.”

[266] On March 7, 1543, _ibid._, p. 548: “_Neque bene habebit Germania, sive regnet Turca sive nostrates_,” etc.

[267] See vol. v., xxxv., 6.

[268] _Ibid._, xxxv., 3.

[269] _Ibid._

[270] “Deutsche Literaturztg.,” 1905, No. 10, Scheel’s Review of H. Meltzer’s “Luther als deutscher Mann” (see above, p. 98, n. 1).

[271] Meltzer, _ibid._, 56.

[272] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57.

[273] “Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat,” p. 10, 386 f.

[274] “Vorträge über die Wiedervereinigung der chr. Kirchen,” authentic edition, 1888, p. 53 f. Cp. E. Michael, “Döllinger,³” p. 230 ff. Michael rightly quotes the following striking passage of the earlier Döllinger as descriptive of the attitude of the Church towards Luther: “May not the time come, nay, be already at hand, when [Protestant] preachers and theologians will take a calmer view of things and realise that the Catholic Church in Germany only did what she could not avoid doing? All the reproaches and charges made against this Church amount in fine to this, that she rejected the demand made of her in the name of the Reformation to break with her past, that she remained faithful to her traditions, that she persisted in developing along the lines originally laid down, and resolved to fulfil her task while holding fast to the uninterrupted continuity of her ecclesiastical life and her connection with the other portions of the Church” (“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 490).

[275] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 14, p. 408 f.

[276] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 77, in “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”

[277] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222. “Zwey keyserliche ... Gepott,” 1524.

[278] In the same way that he here abuses the Emperor, so he also knows how to bestow praise upon him; for instance, in the official writing referred to above (p. 89) to the Electoral Prince Joachim of Brandenburg and in his “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” where he declares, strangely enough, that “our beloved Emperor Carol” has shown himself hitherto, and last of all at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, such, that he has won the respect and love of the whole world and deserves that no trouble should befall him, and that our people should only speak in praise of his Imperial virtue (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23), and yet, even there, in consequence of his edict against the new faith at the Diet of Augsburg, he puts the Emperor with the Pope, as the originators of a resolution which “must prove an eternal blot upon all the Princes and the whole Empire, and make us Germans blush for shame before God and the whole world,” so that “even the Turk, the ‘Tattars’ and ‘Moscobites’ despise us.” “Who under the whole expanse of heaven will for the future fear us or think well of us when they hear that we allow ourselves to be hoaxed, mocked, treated as children, as fools, nay, even as clods and blocks by the cursed Pope and his tools [who hold the Emperor in leading strings]?... Every German may well regret that he was born a German and is called a German” (_ibid._, p. 285=15). On the strength of the words quoted above in praise of the Emperor we find Luther credited in Protestant works of history with “the old, loyal sentiments of a good, simple German for his Emperor,” nay, even with “the language of charity which according to Holy Scripture believes all things, hopes all things.” And yet Luther in his letters to his confidential friends spoke after this of Charles V. in the following terms: “The Emperor was, is, and shall ever remain a servant of the servants of the devil,” and the worst of it is, that he “lends the devil his services knowingly” (to Jonas, etc., March or April, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 275). “God’s wrath has come upon him and his friends.... We have prayed enough for him, if he does not want a blessing, then let him take our curse.” He accuses him of hypocrisy (“_purus hypocrita_”) and of breach of faith with the Turks after his stay at Vienna; he had swallowed up the Bishopric of Liège and intended to do the same with all the bishoprics along the Rhine (to Melanchthon, June 17, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 370). “I suspect the Emperor is a miscreant (‘_quod sit nequam_’) and his brother Ferdinand is an abominable bounder” (to Amsdorf, October 21, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 764).

[279] Commencement of the work: “Zwey keyserliche Gepott,” 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 221.

[280] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22 in the “Warnunge” referred to above.

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”

[282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 463 f; Erl. ed., 21, p. 352 f. “An den christl. Adel.”

[283] It will not be possible to enter one by one into the somewhat remarkable reasons assigned in the popular Protestant biographies of Luther as to why Luther should be regarded as the type of the German character. We there read, that the stamp of the German character is to be found in the fact that he “always acted upon impulse”—which seems to be based on the correct view of Luther as a child of impulse, who allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. The following reason is less clear, viz. that he was “A German through and through because he sought for the roots of all life, of the family, the race, the State and civilisation, in personality as directly determined by feeling.” Reference is frequently made to Luther’s frank and upright character and to his undaunted love of truth. The facts bearing upon this point, already adduced, or to be dealt with in chapter xxii. of the present work (vol. iv.), dispense us from treating of this matter here. To base Luther’s claim to being a typical German on his manner of speech is to run the risk of bringing Germans into disrepute, if we recall the rude invective in which he often indulges and which he employs when, as he says, he is speaking plain German to his opponents. “This is the German way of speaking,” he constantly repeats after explosions of anger and vulgar abuse. This, for instance, is the way in which he gives the “Romans a German answer.” On one occasion he describes in a repulsive manner how the “strumpet church of the Pope” behaves: “She plays the whore with everyone,” is an “apostate, runaway, wedded whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore”; compared with her “light women are holy, for she is the devil’s own whore,” who makes of many of the faithful virgins of Christ, born in baptism, arch-whores. “This is what I call plain German speaking, and you and everyone can understand what I mean.” On the same page he continues: “It has happened to them [the Papists] according to the proverb: the dog has returned to his vomit and the sow that was washed to wallow in the mire. That is what you are, and what I once was. There you have your new, apostate, runaway churches described for you in plain German.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26² p. 46. “Wider Hans Worst,” 1541.

[284] Cp. vol. i., p. 396 f., his statements concerning the incident in the Tower. See also vol. i., p. 166 ff., and p. 280 ff.

[285] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. “_Hanc doctrinam mihi (Deus) revelavit per gratiam suam._” In 1527.

[286] Cochlæus in his account (June 12, 1521) of his conversation with Luther at Worms: “_Est mihi revelatum_,” etc. In Enders’ reprint, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 176; in the new edition by Greving (“Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit,” 4, 3, 1910), p. 19.

[287] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23 (a. 1523).

[288] “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 81, n.

[289] Khummer in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 62, n.: “_Doctor Martinus Lutherus indignus sum, sed dignus fui creari ... redimi ... doceri a filio Dei et Spiritu sancto, fui (dignus) cui ministerium verbi crederetur, fui qui pro eo tanta paterer, fui qui in tot malis servarer, fui cui præciperetur ista credere, fui cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem_.” Cp. “Briefe,” 5, p. 324, and 6, p. 520, n. 6.

[290] On March 5, 1522, at Borna, on the journey from the Wartburg to Wittenberg. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[291] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379, in the work: “Antwort auff König Henrichs Buch,” 1522.

[292] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 276. “Table-Talk.”

[293] See vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.

[294] See vol. v., xxxii.

[295] See, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641: “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162 _seq._ “_De servo arbitrio_,” 1525.

[296] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 314. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 208.

[297] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315.

[298] See, for instance, iv., xxvi., 2.

[299] Cp. for instance, his letter to Nicholas Amsdorf, about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 23.

[300] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261, in the work “Widder den Radschlag der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.”

[301] To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344: “_Data est mihi notio futuræ alicuius insignis turbulæ.... Vidi cogitationes eius (Satanæ) artificiosissimas_,” etc.

[302] To Spalatin, July 9, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 429 f.

[303] In 1519, after February 24, _ibid._, 2, p. 6.

[304] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6.

[305] To Wenceslaus Link on June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201.

[306] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 185.

[307] To Christoph Scheurl, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 433: “_Dei consilium_.”

[308] To Staupitz, February 20, 1519, _ibid._, 1, p. 431.

[309] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 109 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[310] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 280; Erl. ed., 27, p. 217. In 1521.

[311] _Ibid._, p. 281=219.

[312] _Ibid._, p. 281=218.

[313] To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.

[314] To the Archbishop of Mayence, December 1, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 251).

[315] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.

[316] See below, p. 153 ff.

[317] _Ibid._

[318] To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, in July, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 f. He admits that he has not “the _fulness_ of the Spirit.”

[319] Mathesius, “Historien,” pp. 195´, 196.

[320] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 156.

[321] P. 150.

[322] See especially vol. v., xxxi. Many other proofs will be found scattered throughout our volumes.

[323] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 348; 60, p. 31, 70; 53, p. 342 (Letter of the beginning of April, 1525, to the Christians at Antwerp, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151, and “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547).

[324] His intention was to collect the “_portenta Satanæ_” in order to make the “_salutaria miracula Evangelii quotidie inundantia_” known everywhere. Thus to Justus Jonas on January 23, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 429.

[325] Regarding his psychic troubles and hallucinations, see vol. vi., xxxvi.

[326] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 99.

[327] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. Link, as Staupitz’s successor in the Vicariate of the Order, had proclaimed at the commencement of the year in the Augustinian chapter at Wittenberg the freedom of religious to forsake their convents and the abolition of the so-called “Corner-Masses,” which Luther refers to in the letter in question as being a singular “deed of the Holy Ghost.”

[328] To Staupitz at Salzburg, Wittenberg, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.

[329] Beginning of April, “Letters,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 339. Cp. a similar statement made to the Elector on June 24, 1541, _ibid._, p. 373: “God, Who has begun it without our strength or reason, will carry it out as He sees best” (of the Ratisbon Interim).

[330] _Ibid._, pp. 339, 340.

[331] On April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” _ibid._, p. 341 f.

[332] On March 26, 1542, to Jacob Probst, “Briefe,” 5, p. 451. Similarly on December 3, 1544, to Cordatus, _ibid._, p. 702.

[333] From the letter to Justus Jonas of September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.

[334] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 26², p. 8, in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[335] “Considerations on the proposed Conditions of Peace,” of August, 1531(?), “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. See above, p. 45, n. 5.

[336] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of St. John’s Gospel, 1530-1532.

[337] _Ibid._, p. 605 _seq._=342.

[338] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 253; Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.

[339] _Ibid._, 6, p. 621=24², p. 46.

[340] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121.

[341] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 298, 304).

[342] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 691; Erl. ed., 24², p. 168.

[343] _Ibid._, p. 709=189.

[344] _Ibid._

[345] Thus it is that he excuses the blustering character of his writings against those who defended the Church.

[346] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 176, 229, 242, in the work “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[347] _Ibid._, p. 242.

[348] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.

[349] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 147.

[350] _Ibid._, p. 163 f.

[351] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 195 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 119.

[352] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 25², p. 283.

[353] _Ibid._, 60, p. 180.

[354] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 404 _seq._

[355] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 288; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91.

[356] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 27, p. 77.

[357] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 77.

[358] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 263.

[359] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 106.

[360] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 260.

[361] _Ibid._, p. 263.

[362] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 155.

[363] _Ibid._, 20², p. 233.

[364] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 83.

[365] _Ibid._, p. 404.

[366] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432.

[367] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 269.

[368] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5, p. 346 f.

[369] _Ibid._, 46, p. 10.

[370] The passages quoted stand in the following order: pp. 77, 81, 82, 77, 78, 82. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 18 f.

[371] P. 81.

[372] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 8.

[373] Letter in 1521 to “the poor little flock of Christ at Wittenberg,” before August 12, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 213; Erl. ed., 39, p. 128 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 217).

[374] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14, p. 158.

[375] _Ibid._, 26², p. 145.

[376] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 307.

[377] Cp. vol. iv., xxiii., 1, where Luther’s attitude to Erasmus subsequent to the publication of “_De servo arbitrio_” (1525) is treated of more fully.

[378] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 301.

[379] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489 f.

[380] Luther to Amsdorf about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 8 ff. The letter was published by Luther.

[381] “_Quodsi Martinus illud sibi proposuit, persuadere mundo Erasmum hoc agere callidis artibus et insidiosis cuniculis, ut omnes Christianos adducat in odium veræ religionis, frustra nititur. Citius enim persuaserit omnibus se aut odio lymphatum esse aut mentis morbo teneri, aut a sinistro quopiam agitari genio._” “_Purgatio adversus Epistolam non sobriam Martini Lutheri._” “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., t. 10, col. 1557.

[382] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff.

[383] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 264.

[384] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162.

[385] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406 f.

[386] To Spalatin, May 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 193.

[387] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 527: “_Christus viderit, suane sint an mea_.”

[388] Vol. ii., p. 41 f.

[389] “Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, Frankfurt, 1699, p. 42 (with the epitaph quoted above), and p. 75.

[390] “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in vol. xxiv. of his edition of Luther, pp. 379, 376.

[391] How little this view of Luther fits in with his own estimate of himself may be seen from the following statements which occur in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1531, vol. i., in Irmischer’s ed.): Heretics, owing to a delusion of Satan, consider their doctrines as absolutely certain; founders of sects, more particularly, will never allow themselves to be converted by our proofs from Scripture, as we see in the case of the fanatics; so well does the devil know how to assume the shape of Christ. “I, however, am persuaded by the Spirit of Christ, that my doctrine of Christian righteousness is true and certain (_sum certus et persuasus per spiritum Christi_, p. 288); therefore I cannot listen to anything to the contrary.” Hence “the Pope, the Cardinals, bishops, and monks and the whole synagogue of Satan, and in particular the founders of the Religious Orders (some of whom, nevertheless, God was able to save by a miracle), confuse men’s consciences and are worse than false apostles” (p. 83). Like St. Paul he pronounces anathema on all angels and men who rise up to destroy the Gospel preached by Paul; of such subverters the world is now, alas, full (p. 89). By the fanatics, he says (p. 90), he too was accounted such a one, though he only paid homage to pure Scripture as to his “Queen” (p. 93). “Like Paul I declare with the utmost certainty every doctrine to be anathema which differs from my own.... Its founder is the messenger of Satan, and is anathema.” “_Sic nos cum Paulo securissime et certissime pronuntiamus, omnem doctrinam esse maledictam, quæ cum nostra dissonat.... Qui igitur aliud evangelium vel contrarium nostro docet, missum a diabolo et anathema esse confidenter dicimus_” (p. 94).

Just as in Paul’s day the Galatians had become inconstant, so “some, who at the outset had accepted the Word with joy and among whom were many excellent men, had now suddenly fallen away,” because the Lord had withdrawn His Grace (p. 99). They bring forward as objections against us the belief of the Church and of antiquity. But “should Peter and Paul themselves, or an angel from heaven, teach differently, yet I know for a certainty that my teaching is not human but Divine, i.e. that I ascribe all to God and nothing to man” (p. 102). “It is true that this very argument prejudices our cause to-day more than anything else. If we are to believe only him who teaches the pure Word of God, not the Pope, or the Fathers, or Luther, whom then are we to believe? Who is to reassure man’s conscience as to where the true Word of God is preached, whether amongst us or amongst our opponents? For the latter also boast of having and teaching the true Word of God. We do not believe the Papists because they do not and cannot teach the Word of God. They, on the other hand, declare us to be the greatest heretics. What then is to be done? Is every fanatic to be permitted to teach whatever comes into his head, while the world refuses to hear us or to endure our teaching?” In spite of our assurances of the certainty of our teaching, he complains, they call our boasting devilish; if we yield, then they, the Papists and the fanatics, grow proud and become still more settled in their error. “Therefore let each one see that he is convinced of the truth of his own calling and doctrine, so that, like Paul, he may venture to say with absolute certainty and conviction: ‘If an angel from heaven,’ etc.” The revelation of the Gospel is made to each one individually, and is “effected by God Himself, yet the outward Word must precede and then the inward Spirit will follow.... The Holy Ghost is given for the revealing of the Word, but the outward Word must first have been heard” (p. 114).

In opposition to the fanatics Luther is fond of tracing back his own great illumination, which had brought salvation to the world, to the preliminary action, of the outward Word of Holy Scripture on his mind. Towards the end of his life he wrote (on May 7, 1545) to Amsdorf: “I glory in the certainty that the Son of God is seated at the right hand of the Father and most sweetly speaks to us here below by His Spirit even as He spoke to the Apostles, and that therefore we are His disciples, and hear the Word from His lips.... We hear the Divine Majesty speaking through the word of the Gospel. The angels and the whole creation of God congratulate us on this, while the Pope, that monster of the devil, wobbles in sadness and fear and all the gates of hell tremble with him” (“Briefe,” 5, p. 737). At an earlier date, in 1522, he had declared: “This is what you must say: Whether Luther is a saint or a scamp does not matter to me; his doctrine is not his, but Christ’s ... leave the man out of the question, but acknowledge the doctrine” (“Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40). “I don’t care in the very least whether a thousand Augustines or a thousand Harry-Churches are against me, but I am convinced that the true Church clings to the Word of God as I do” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379. “Against King Henry VIII.”) “I was he to whom God first revealed it” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8).

J. A. Möhler rightly remarks: “Seeing that it was Luther’s design to break with the existing, visible Church, it was essential that he should give the first place to the invisible Church and look on himself as directly sent by God.” He points out that Calvin also appealed to a direct mission, and quotes from his answer to Sadolet’s letter to the inhabitants of Geneva: “_ministerium meum, quod Dei vocatione fundatum ac sanctum fuisse non dubito_”; “_ministerium meum, quod quidem a Christo esse novi_.” “Opusc.,” pp. 106, 107 (“Symbolik,” 49, n 1).

[392] To Nicholas Amsdorf, November 7, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 600, Jer. li. 9.

[393] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 477; Erl. ed., 24², p. 16 (in 1520). Here again we find the “she-ass that rebuked the prophet.” This enables us to understand his asseveration in the same year (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 277; Erl. ed., 27, p. 213), that he was ready to die for his doctrine. Döllinger says of such assurances as the above: “Such a tone of unshaken firmness was in Luther’s case largely due to the excitement caused by his polemics ... and to the sense of his natural superiority” (“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53; also “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 340). He points out that Luther had formed his peculiar views “during a period of painful confusion of mind and trouble of conscience,” and that at times when Holy Scripture did not entirely satisfy him he would even seemingly set Christ against Scripture, as in the following passage: “You Papist, you insist much on Scripture, but it is no more than a servant of Christ, and to it I will not listen. But I am strong in Christ, Who is the true Lord and Emperor over Scripture. I care nothing for any texts of Scripture, even though you should bring forward many more against me; for I have the Lord and Master of Scripture on my side,” etc. (_ibid._, p. 59=col. 344).

[394] Daniel viii. 17 ff.

[395] 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ff.; 2 Peter ii. 1 ff.

[396] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 392 _seq._, at the end of the “_Responsio ad librum Ambrosii Catharini_.”

[397] “_Id quod hac Danielis explanatione arbitror me præstitisse egregie._” _Ibid._ Hence what he wrote was intended in all seriousness and in no sense as a joke.

[398] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p, 392. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 399, and our vol. ii., p. 56 f.

[399] Cp. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik,” Leipzig, 1906. See our vol. ii., p. 56, n. 1.

[400] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.

[401] “_Epitome_” against Prierias, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 79.

[402] To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 345.

[403] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 262; cp. _ibid._, n. 3.

[404] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332.

[405] “_Ne quid monstrosissimi monstri desit_,” etc.

[406] To Spalatin (previous to June 8), 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 414.

[407] “_Epitome_” against Prierias, _loc. cit._

[408] To Spalatin, August 3, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 456.

[409] To the same, August 5, 1520, _ibid._, p. 457.

[410] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 498, 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 17, 70.

[411] See vol. ii., p. 49. The Latin text appeared a little before the German.

[412] “Symbolische Bücher,^[10]” pp. 308, 324, 337, and in particular p. 336, No. 39.

[413] In the so-called “Lufft Bible,” Luther applies Daniel xii. to the Papal Antichrist. Kawerau, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 269.

[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, at the beginning of the work “_Bulla Cœnæ Domini_” of 1522. See other references in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 646, 696; _ibid._, 2, pp. 156, 283, 529, 586.

[415] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278.

[416] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1265 f.

[417] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 397.

[418] January 12, 1523, _ibid._, 4, p. 62.

[419] Cp. “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 242, and the notes of Enders (in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 18) on the letter of the Frankfurt preacher Andreas Ebert to Luther, dealing with these phenomena. See also N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage” to the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, No. 30.

[420] “Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg funden. Philippus Melanchthon. Doctor Martinus Luther.” Wittenberg, 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.

[421] To Camerarius, April 16, 1525. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 738.

[422] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.

[423] _Ibid._, 10², p. 65.

[424] “Oh, dear little Pope-Ass, don’t try to lick ... for you might fall and break a leg or do something else, and then all the world would laugh at you and say: For shame, look what a mess the Pope-Ass has got itself into.” “You are a rude ass, you Pope-Ass, and that you will ever remain.” “When I [the Pope-Ass] bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith ... but all is sealed with devil’s ordure—in the Decretals—and written in the Pope-Ass’s dung” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 148 _seq._, 169). One word, used in this connection, and spelt by Luther “Fartz,” he employs in endless variations. Pope Paul III. he calls “Eselfartz-Bapst,” “Bapst Fartzesel,” “Fartzesel-Bapst” and “Eselbapstfartz.” “We see,” remarks Conrad Lange, “how the apparition of the Roman monstrosity continued to act upon his imagination, and how, even at the close of his life, it still appeared to him suited to excite the masses in the religious struggle.” “Der Papstesel, ein Beitrag zur Kultur-und Kunstgesch. des Reformationszeitalters.” With four illustrations, Göttingen, 1891, p. 88.

[425] “Abbildung des Bapstum,” by Martin Luther, 1545. The verses run as follows:

“Was Gott selbs von dem Bapstum helt, Zeigt dis schrecklich Bild hie gestellt. Dafur jederman grawen solt, Wenn ers zu Hertzen nemen wolt.”

[426] Cp. Lange, _ibid._, p. 92 ff.

[427] “Annali Veneti” (“Archivio storico italiano,” 7, p. 422). Lange, _ibid._, p. 18.

[428] Picture in Lange, _ibid._, plate 2.

[429] _Ibid._, plate 1.

[430] P. 84 _seq._

[431] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724: “_In malam rem abeat._” Cp. in general the Wittenberg sermons against Carlstadt and the fanatics which appeared under the title “Acht Sermone,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 202 ff.

[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724.

[433] To the Council and congregation of Mühlhausen, August 21, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 240; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377).

[434] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 5.

[435] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 205 ff.

[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 248; Erl ed., 50, p. 292, in the exposition of John xviii.

[437] Cp., for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict.”

[438] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.

[439] I. Andreæ, “_Oratio de studio sacr. litt. in acad. Lipsiensi recitata_,” Tübing., 1577, c. 2.

[440] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 12, p. 218-221. Cp. Erl. ed., 12², p. 235-238; Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145.

[441] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184: “All the world is astonished and is obliged to confess that we have the Gospel almost as pure and unchanged as in the time of the Apostles, in fact, in its primitive purity.”

[442] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 141 ff. Cp. _ibid._, 15, p. 39 ff.=22, pp. 184, 186; 8, p. 117=27, p. 331; 15, p. 584 ff.=19, p. 186 ff. “Hence it is plain that the Councils are uncertain and not to be counted on. For not one was so pure that it did not add to or take away from the faith.... The Council of the Apostles, though the first and purest, left something to be desired, though it did no harm.”

[443] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 36; Erl. ed., 35, p. 61.

[444] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 386=25², p. 87.

[445] Cp. _ibid._, 10, 2, p. 105 _seq._=28, p. 143. Cp. _ibid._, 28, p. 248=50, p. 292: “Because I am a doctor of Holy Scripture I have a right to do so [even to interfere in the office of the bishops]; for I have sworn to teach the truth.” Continuation of the passage quoted above, p. 154, n. 3. Thomas Münzer he reproaches with having no call. Of the necessity of a call he says: “If things went ill in my house and my next-door neighbour were to break in and claim a right to settle matters, surely I should have something to say.”

[446] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 139 f.

[447] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144, at the commencement of the work “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”

[448] _Ibid._, 15, p. 86 _seq._=29, p. 103 ff.: “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawê ausgelffen hat.”

[449] _Ibid._, p. 93=112.

[450] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 87=104.

[451] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 205 ff.

[452] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 25, p. 120.

[453] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145 f.; Erl. ed., 12², p. 201, in the Church-postils.

[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724. See above, p. 153.

[455] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 12; Erl. ed., 28, p. 288. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” 1522.

[456] See vol. iv., xxi. 2, towards the end.

[457] “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in his edition of Luther, 24, p. 357.

[458] _Ibid._, p. 359 f.

[459] To Myconius, January 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.

[460] P. 361, where he quotes Mathesius’s Sermons on Luther, 13, p. 148 (Nuremberg edition, 1566, p. 157). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 11, and what Weller says (vol. vi., xxxviii. 2) of the two dead people raised to life by Luther. In the German “Table-Talk” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 3) Luther says of prayer: “The prayer of the Church performs great miracles. In our own time it has restored three dead men to life; first me, for often I was sick unto death, then my housekeeper Katey, who was also sick unto death, finally Philip Melanchthon, who, anno 1540, lay sick unto death at Weimar. Though _Liberatio a morbis et corporalibus periculis_ is not the best of miracles, yet it must not be allowed to pass unheeded _propter infirmitatem in fide_. To me it is a much greater miracle that God Almighty should every day bestow the grace of baptism, give Himself in the Sacrament of the altar and absolve _et liberat a peccato, a morte et damnatione æterna_. These are great miracles.” Cp. Förstemann’s notes, “Tischreden,” 2, p. 230.

[461] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 169.

[462] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 324, and _ibid._, quotation from Rebenstock’s Latin Colloquies. Seidemann in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch” also quotes Khummer’s MS., p. 397.

[463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 362.

[464] _Ibid._, 14², p. 399.

[465] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “_Vaticinium Lutheri de seditione nobilium in Germania._”

[466] “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1718, p. 316, with quotation from “Church Agenda, p. 52.”

[467] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 217.

[468] Walch, 23, p. 1132.

[469] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 186.

[470] Walch, 23, p. 688 f.

[471] _Ibid._, 14, p. 1360: “_Vaticinium mense Augusto_, _a._ 1532.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 391 f.

[472] _Ibid._, 7, p. 1353; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23, in the sermon of 1531 on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Walch’s edition under the heading: “Luther’s Prophecy concerning Germany,” “Luther’s Prophecy on Wittenberg and its magistrates.”

[473] _Ibid._, 12, p. 1865, Sermon on the Gospel for the 8th Sunday after Trinity, Luke xix. 41. In his “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” Walch, however, expressly admits that Luther “had not the gift of predicting; if he has been spoken of as a prophet, this depended on the sense in which the word was used; he had rightly foreseen much of what would happen to the German Church,” etc. “Neither did God bestow on him the gift of working miracles,” but he did not need it, since he preached no new doctrine and what he taught he proved sufficiently from Holy Scripture; indeed, the Reformation as a whole was not miraculous, since God had not intervened in it in any extraordinary manner.

[474] “Postilla,” pars. iii., Dom. 3, post Adv. “Corp. ref.,” 25, p. 916.

[475] “Of the horrible monstrosities and many other similar signs of the wrath of God at this time, a veracious account by a minister of the Holy Evangel,” 1562, Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 6^[16], p. 470.

[476] In addition to the passage quoted, p. 155, n. 1, cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 83, at the end of Luther’s edition of “Etliche Briefe Johann Hussens,” 1537. See also Luther on the swan, xix. 2, and vol. iv., xxvi. 4.

[477] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 438. “Tischreden,” Cp. Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tischreden,” p. 36, n., and Mathesius, “Historien,³” p. 199. Cp. p. 211´.

[478] “Symbolische Bücher,”^[10], p. 270 f.

[479] “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 171.

[480] Reply of Myconius, December 2, 1529, _ibid._, p. 194.

[481] Cp. the account of an apostate friar, who had been a comrade of Hilten’s and who was with him during his last days, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 198; cp. also the literature quoted by Enders. Hilten’s prophecy, and likewise that of the Roman Franciscan, was nevertheless, in 1872, quoted in Luther’s favour by C. F. Kahnis, Professor of Theology at the University of Leipzig, in his “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, p. 178. He says: “What the Spirit of God in him bore witness to in condemnation of the fallen Church of the Middle Ages, was attested by prophetic utterances.” “While Luther was at school at Eisenach, a monk named Hilten languished in the prison of the Franciscan convent,” etc. He appeals to Mathesius, “Historien,” Predigt, 15, p. 319; V. E. Löscher, “Vollständige Reformationsacta,” 1, 1720, p. 148, and K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassstreite,” 1, 1846, p. 295.

[482] Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 250 ff. Lichtenberger’s book was re-translated in this edition by Stephen Roth.

[483] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 145.

[484] Preface, p. 253.

[485] _Ibid._, p. 258.

[486] _Ibid._, 2, p. 641, n. 1, to p. 145.

[487] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139 f. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen.” The passage commences: “When a child I frequently heard a prophecy current in the country, viz. that an Emperor Frederick would rescue the Holy Sepulchre.” This had been misunderstood and applied to the tomb at Jerusalem; but it is “of the nature of prophecies to be fulfilled before being understood.” The passage on Frederick also occurs in the Latin text of this work, published previously under the title “_De abroganda missa_.” In “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 475, we there read: “_Videtur mihi ista (prophetia) in hoc Fridrico nostro impleta._” Luther then proceeds to recount in a pleasant vein certain doubtful interpretations.

[488] Bonaventura, “Expos. in cap. ix. Lucæ.”

[489] To the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony, January 4, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 195; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323).

[490] Reprinted in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 38 _seq._ That the author was J. Findling has been proved by N. Paulus in his work “Kaspar Schatzgeyer,” 1898, p. 137 f. Cp. “Katholik,” 1900, ii., p. 90 ff. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 65, n. 1, should be corrected from this.

[491] See Enders, _ibid._

[492] _Ibid._, p. 56.

[493] See Enders, p. 52 f.

[494] _Ibid._, p. 60.

[495] _Ibid._, p. 49.

[496] Cp. Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53 (“KL.,” 8², col. 340).

[497] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 57.

[498] _Ibid._, p. 55.

[499] _Ibid._, p. 48.

[500] “Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Ludg., 10, col. 1327.

[501] _Ibid._, col. 1335.

[502] Cp. col. 1334.

[503] To Duke George of Saxony, June 30, 1530, “Opp.,” col. 1293.

[504] “Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 374 ff., communicated by Joh. Fijalek.

[505] “Gesch. des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 2, p. 135.

[506] In July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, 159-161. In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date.

[507] “_Utinam possem aliquid insigne peccati designare modo ad eludendum diabolum!_” “_Designare_” may mean “to paint.” According to Forcelli it also sometimes means “to perform,” “to do.” Cp. Horace, “Ep.,” 1, 5, 16: “_Quid non ebrietas designat_,” and Terence “Ad.,” 1, 2, 7: “_Quid designavit? Fores effregit._”

[508] Those, i.e., who are unwilling to feel that they are sinners. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 9.

[509] _Ibid._, p. 20.

[510] _Ibid._, p. 88. In May, 1532. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 308.

[511] Schlaginhaufen, p. 88.

[512] _Ibid._, p. 9. Here and in what follows, according to Preger, the MS. notes of Veit Dietrich agree with Schlaginhaufen’s account.

[513] _Ibid._, p. 11.

[514] _Ibid._

[515] _Ibid._, p. 88 f. “Papst und Bischof haben mir die Hände gesalbt, und ich habe sie beschissen im Dreck, do ich den Ars wuschet.”

[516] _Ibid._, p. 89

[517] “Tagebuch über M. Luther,” by C. Cordatus, ed. by H. Wrampelmeyer, 1883, p. 450: “_Etiam in complexus veni coniugis, ut saltem ille pruritus auferret illas cogitationes satanæ.... Laborandum est omnibus modis, ut vehementiore aliquo affectu pellantur._”

[518] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. The Halle MS. on which Bindseil bases his work really depends on the statements of Luther’s pupil Lauterbach. Here Luther’s words run: “_Quoties meam uxorem complexus sum, nudam contrectavi, ut tantum sathanæ cogitationes illo pruritu pellerem._ But all to no purpose, _nolebat cedere_,” etc.

[519] “Colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, etc. M. Lutheri,” Francof., 1571, 2, p. 225´ (=125´).

[520] As to this, Wrampelmeyer, a Protestant, remarks (p. 451) in his edition of Cordatus’s Diary, mentioned above: “The German ‘Table-Talk,’ which agrees almost entirely with the Latin version, does not, in Erl. ed., 60, p. 110, and Förstemann, 3, p. 122, contain these words, but replaces them by the following: ‘I have frequently made use of various means in order to drive away Satan, but it was of no use.’ It is clear that words so compromising gave offence and that others were substituted instead of those given in the Latin text, which formed the basis of the German ‘Table-Talk.’ According to the Notes of Cordatus, however, Luther’s words appear in quite a different light.” “The words of the Latin ‘Table-Talk’: ‘_ut de puella pulchra, avaritia, ebrietate_,’ have also been replaced in the German version by more harmless expressions.”

[521] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 11.

[522] “Opp.,” Antwerpiæ, 1706, 3, p. 242 _seq._; p. 589 _seq._ Aug. Hardeland (“Gesch. der speziellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation,” Berlin, 1898, p. 261) remarks: “The idea that we must always do the exact opposite of what the devil suggests, is the leading one in Gerson’s Tractate ‘_De remediis contra pusillanimitatem_.’” He is of opinion that, in advising Weller to sin, Luther was “using this maxim of Gerson’s, and probably only meant: ‘Do not be afraid to do what, from the standpoint of your scrupulosity, appears to be sinful.’” Luther’s advice, however, was not intended for a scrupulous person predisposed to exaggeration or to narrowness of heart, but for all those who despaired of their salvation and were unable to believe in Luther’s doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and in his assurance of salvation. “_Cogitationes immanissimæ_,” Luther calls Weller’s ideas, “_quando diabolus reos (nos) egerit mortis et inferni.... In æternum condemnaberis?_” Weller, the disciple, has first to learn: “_novi quendam, qui passus est pro me ac satisfecit_,” etc.

[523] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 254.

[524] _Ibid._, 50, p. 248.

[525] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 360.

[526] _Ibid._, 51, p. 284.

[527] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 367; Erl. ed., 33, p. 5.

[528] Cp. vol. iv., xxviii. 3 and 4. Luther’s famous “_pecca fortiter_” is discussed at length below (p. 199 ff.), and all that might tend to explain the words is passed in review.

[529] See J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², 1901, p. 215.

[530] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.

[531] Cp. passages quoted by Köstlin, _ibid._

[532] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.

[533] _Ibid._, p. 59.

[534] See above, p. 26.

[535] H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 73.

[536] _Ibid._, 2, p. 156.

[537] _Ibid._, p. 292.

[538] _Ibid._, p. 430.

[539] _Ibid._, 1, p. 213.

[540] “Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck,” Freiburg, 1892, p. 24 f.

[541] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 188. Luther does not admit the “_timor servilis_” of Catholic theology, and in his arbitrary fashion he represents it as equivalent to mere “fear of the gallows,” “_timor serviliter servilis_.”

[542] _Ibid._, p. 190.

[543] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 506; Erl. ed., 31, p. 181.

[544] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 189.

[545] Council of Trent, Sess. VI., “_decretum de iustificatione_,” c. 6.

[546] _Ibid._, c. 15.

[547] _Ibid._, c. 14.

[548] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 529; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 59, in the work “_De captivitate babylonica_.”

[549] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 157, in the “Hauspostille.”

[550] _Ibid._, 4, p. 131, “Hauspostille.” Cp. Weim. ed., 36, p. 187.

[551] _Ibid._, p. 132, “Hauspostille.”

[552] _Ibid._, 62, p. 267, “Tischreden.”

[553] Cp. vol. i., p. 289 ff.

[554] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 248.

[555] _Ibid._

[556] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370.

[557] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 369.

[558] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 691 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 231 _seq._, “_De servo arbitrio_.”

[559] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 359.

[560] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 263, “_De servo arbitrio_.”

[561] _Ibid._, p. 711=p. 258.

[562] Cp. Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 355.

[563] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 359. Köstlin admits the “questionable character” of the doctrine, though in rather mild language, e.g. p. 370.

[564] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.

[565] “_Prussia est plena dæmonibus_,” etc. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.

[566] “The devil is in the world, _vel potius ipse mundus concretive vel abstractive_.” Letter of January 3, 1534, to Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 376.

[567] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.

[568] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.

[569] To Justus Jonas, December 29, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 163: “_Christus infirmus per vestras orationes adhuc superat vel saltem pugnat fortiter_.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 173.

[570] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 165, “Table-Talk.”

[571] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 133. The passage will be given in detail later.

[572] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; Erl. ed., 33, p. 374.

[573] _Ibid._, p. 341=359.

[574] _Ibid._, p. 342=360.

[575] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 356 f.

[576] Cp., _ibid._, p. 279 ff.

[577] Letter to Reissenbusch, March 27, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 277; Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).

[578] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.

[579] _Ibid._

[580] See below, p. 196.

[581] “Der rechte Weg. Welche Weg oder Strass der Glaubig wandeln soll,” etc. Dillingen, 1553. The passages are quoted by N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 252.

[582] “Christl. Predigt. an S. Matthei Tag,” Mainz, 1557, in Paulus, _ibid._, p. 168.

[583] “Predigten über die erste Canon. Epistel Johannis,” Cologne, 1571. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 173.

[584] “Vormeldunge der Unwahrheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt a.d. Oder, 1532, Paulus, _ibid._, p. 33. The three writers above quoted were all Dominicans. Luther’s Catholic contemporaries cannot have been acquainted with his “_Pecca fortiter_,” otherwise their language would have been even stronger.

[585] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. The letter no longer exists in its entirety. One portion, however, became known and was published by Joh. Aurifaber in 1556 in the first vol. of Luther’s letters (p. 343) and described as “_Fragmentum epistolæ D.M. Lutheri ad Philippum Melanchthonem ex Pathmo scriptæ, a. MDXXI., repertum in bibliotheca Georgii Spalatini_.” Melanchthon had possibly sent the extract to Spalatin when the latter was troubled regarding his own salvation.

[586] (See below.) “_Vides quantis urgear æstibus_,” etc. To Melanchthon, August 3, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 213.

[587] See vol. ii., p. 82 f.

[588] Passages tallying with the “_Esto peccator_” are to be found elsewhere in Luther’s writings. Cp. for instance his letter of 1516 (vol. i., p. 88 f.) to Spenlein, where he says: “_Cave, ne aliquando ad tantam puritatem aspires, ut peccator tibi videri nolis, imo esse. Christus enim nonnisi in peccatoribus habitat.... Igitur nonnisi in illo pacem invenies._” In “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236 _seq._, it is likewise explained why one must be a great sinner; he insists that “_credenti omnia sunt auctore Christo possibilia_” and condemns strongly “_affectus propriæ iustitiæ_,” until he arrives at the paradox, “_Ideo est peccatum, ut in peccatis apti ad spem simus_” (p. 239). In perfect harmony with such early statements is the letter he wrote towards the end of his life to Spalatin when the latter was sunk in melancholy; here he says: “_Nimis tener hactenus fuisti peccator.... Iunge te nobis veris magnis et duris peccatoribus_”; he must, so Christ speaking through Luther tells him, hold alone to faith in the Divine mercy. August 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.

[589] “Symbolik,” § 16, p. 161.

[590] 1, p. 301. Other Protestant writers, such as Carové “Alleinseligmachende Kirche,” 2, p. 434 (see K. A. Hase, “Polemik,”^[4] p. 267), declared it to be “a downright calumny to say that so shocking a doctrine occurred in a work of Luther’s.”

[591] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 58.

[592] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” Tübingen, 1904, pp. 38-45.

[593] Köhler here quotes Denifle (“Luther,” p. 442; ed. 2, p. 465), who gives these words in their full context from Luther’s MS. Commentary on Romans. We may point out that Denifle quotes an abundance of similar passages from Luther’s works, amongst which those taken from his early Commentary on Romans are particularly interesting.

[594] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 27; Erl. ed., 27, p. 185; Köhler, _ibid._, p. 43 f.

[595] _Ibid._, p. 25=181=44.

[596] On June 29, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 44. Melanchthon had told Luther his fears and anxieties on account of the impending discussion of the point of faith before the Diet of Augsburg. Luther is encouraging him.

[597] To Melanchthon, June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.

[598] In the letter quoted above, n. 1 (p. 43): “_carnificem illum spiritus_.”

[599] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 98.

[600] _Ibid._, p. 79.

[601] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19, p. 325.

[602] _Ibid._, 58, p. 363 f.

[603] _Ibid._, p. 374.

[604] _Ibid._, p. 380.

[605] _Ibid._, p. 26.

[606] _Ibid._, p. 385.

[607] _Ibid._, p. 402.

[608] “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 146.

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

[610] “Comment. in Gal.” (1531), ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 102. Cp. above, p. 139, n. 1.

[611] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 79.

[612] _Ibid._, p. 147 f. We shall treat more fully of Luther’s “Temptations” against faith and his inner wavering in vol. v., xxxii.

[613] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 153. Exposition of John xvi.

[614] _Ibid._, p. 154.

[615] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 407, in a Sermon on Genesis xxviii. Joh. Poliander’s Collection.

[616] _Ibid._, 11, p. 197, Sermon in 1523 from Rörer’s notes. Though in the passages just quoted he lays great stress on the fact, that nothing is needed on our part for the obtaining of forgiveness (not even as Catholics taught any co-operation on our part with God’s helping grace), yet he speaks here again of the “emptying of the heart of all affection” for creatures, and of the “works” which proceed from a heart that is purified by faith. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 409. “If you have now the wedding garment, then serve your neighbour, give yourself up to him entirely, take compassion on him. [For] the Christian life consists in faith in God and charity towards our neighbour.” _Ibid._, 12, p. 670, in another set of notes of the sermon just quoted. “First we become brides [of Christ] by faith, and, then, through charity, Christs to every man.” _Ibid._, 11, p. 197.

[617] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 42.

[618] Veit Dietrich, in Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.

[619] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 179.

[620] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209.

[621] _Ibid._, p. 238.

[622] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.

[623] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.

[624] _Ibid._, p. 95.

[625] “Comment. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, p. 351.

[626] “Briefe.,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 515, 566.

[627] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 428 f.

[628] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 178.

[629] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 631; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 321, “_De votis monasticis_,” 1521.

[630] _Ibid._

[631] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 254 f. “Rathschlag von der Kirche,” 1538.

[632] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128, at the close of “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.

[633] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 22, “Tischreden.”

[634] Letter of July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157.

[635] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 49.

[636] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 294. Noted in the winter of 1542-3 by Heydenreich.

[637] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 21. Certain prayers spoken by Luther at critical moments, which appear in Protestant biographies, more particularly the older ones, are purely legendary. So, for instance, his solemn prayer at Worms: “O God, my God, stand by me against all the wit and wisdom of the world,” etc. (Uckert, “Luthers Leben,” 2, Gotha, 1817, p. 6, and also in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 10, p. 1720). From Melanchthon’s time (_ibid._, 21, Nachl. 354) and that of such enthusiastic pupils of Luther as Spangenberg, it became the custom to extol Luther as a man of prayer. Spangenberg even declares that “no one can deny” that Luther during his lifetime “checked and prevented God’s chastisements, wars and desolation” by means of his “Christian prayers, so full of faith.” See Preface to his “Lutherus Theander,” No. 18. A certain Protestant theological periodical assured its readers quite recently, that “Luther spent three hours of his working day in prayer”; it is true that people pray even in the Roman Church, but amid much “superficiality and desecration.”

[638] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. (Khummer).

[639] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245, in the Sermon for Easter Monday, 1525.

[640] _Ibid._, p. 243 f.

[641] _Ibid._, p. 244.

[642] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.

[643] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 207.

[644] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 630 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 378 _seq._ in Concl., 3 _seq._ (of 1518). Passages in which he advocates contrition will, however, be quoted below. Cp. vol. i., p. 293.

[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 33, 51.

[646] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 435 (“Tischreden”).

[647] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Cp. p. 210, n. 1.

[648] Above, p. 24 ff. and vol. v., xxix. 8.

[649] Cp. G. Kawerau, “Warum fehlte der deutschen evang. Kirche des 16. u. 17. Jahrh. das volle Verständnis für d. Missionsgedanken der H. Schrift? Vortrag,” Breslau, 1896. The author says that “none of the reformers” found in Holy Scripture the duty of missionary effort on the part of Christendom; an exception must, however, be made in the case of Bucer. See N. P(aulus) in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 18, 1897, p. 199.

[650] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 33; Erl. ed., 30, p. 9. “Against the King of England,” 1527.

[651] Letter of February 23, 1542, in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 378.

[652] “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 f. Art. by E. Thiele on some Notes of Joh. Agricola’s in a Hebrew Bible at Wernigerode.

[653] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313 _seq._ The passage will be given later.

[654] G. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 282.

[655] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 484.

[656] See Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 2.

[657] Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 286. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 485 _seq._ Rebenstock, 2, p. 20.

[658] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 141.

[659] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 569.

[660] On this girl, see below, p. 280 f.

[661] E.g. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.

[662] For biographical data concerning these, see Kroker, “Luthers Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung,” Einl., p. 8 ff. For Rörer’s Collections of the Table-talk, etc., cp. G. Koffmane, “Die hds. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, p. xviii. ff., and Kroker, “Rörers Handschriftenbände und Luthers Tischreden” (“Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch,” 5, 1908, p. 337 ff., and 7, 1910, p. 57 ff.). Among the occasional guests was Ch. Gross, Magistrate at Wittenberg, who is mentioned in Luther’s letters (De Wette, 5, p. 410) in 1541 as “_praefectus noster_.” In his Catholic days the last had served for three years as one of the bearers of the Pope’s sedan; a great traveller, he was noted as an excellent conversationalist and a thorough man of the world. There can be no doubt that he reported to Luther many of the malicious and unveracious tales current of Roman morals, which the latter made use of in his attacks on Popery. Cp. with regard to him “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 424, and 1, p. 372 (where accounts, probably by him, follow), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 431 (“Tischreden”). He makes unseemly jests on the Latin word for “art,” and it appears highly probable that he was the “M. Christo,” whom we meet with in Kroker, p. 175, n. 287, in Luther’s Table-Talk of 1540, whose “_calida natura_” is mentioned in excuse of a love affair. This gives an answer to Kroker’s question: “Who is this Magister Christophorus?” We learn from Bindseil’s “Colloquia” that Christopher Gross was anxious to become a widower because his wife was a “_vetula_.”

[663] “Historien,” Nuremberg, 1566, p. 139.

[664] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18; Erl. ed., 28, p. 260. The passage was omitted in the later Luther editions; cp. _ibid._, p. 18=219 f.

[665] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337.

[666] For the full titles of the publications referred to here and elsewhere under an abbreviated form as “Tagebuch,” “Aufzeichnungen,” etc., see the Bibliography at the commencement of vol. i. of the present work. Besides these collections heed must be paid to the old German Table-Talk in the Erlangen edition (“Werke,” 57-62) and the Latin Table-Talk in Bindseil. Only exceptionally do we quote the other editions, such as the Latin one by Rebenstock, and the older and more recent German editions of Förstemann and Bindseil. Moreover, the Table-Talk in most cases merely serves to prove that this or that idea was expressed more or less in the language recorded, not that Luther actually uttered every word of it. The historical circumstances under which the words were uttered are in most cases unknown. Kroker’s publication has been of great service in determining the dates of the various collections. As regards the present position of the investigation of the sources whence the Table-Talk is derived, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 479-481, and P. Smith, “Luther’s Table-Talk,” New York, 1907, which sums up the results arrived at in Germany.

[667] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xxxxviii. _seq._, and Kroker, p. 9.

[668] See the title of Rebenstock’s Collection. Rebenstock’s assurance that, in his Collection he sought nothing but the honour of God and had not introduced any extraneous matter, is reprinted in Bindseil, 1, p. lii.

[669] Page 64.

[670] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 107.

[671] Walch, in the edition of the Table-Talk, Luther’s Works, in Jena ed., 22, quotes various passages from Protestant scholars who thought as he did. Preface, p. 25 f.

[672] He points out incidentally (p. 36) that the authority for the Table-Talk was not absolutely unquestioned. He was not acquainted with the original documents, most of which have now been published.

[673] Bindseil also remarked of the “_Colloquia_”: “We cannot deny that it would have been better had much of this not been written.” “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann and Bindseil, 4, p. xi. Cp. similar passages, _ibid._, p. xxiv., n., and contrast with them Aurifaber’s eulogy of the Table-Talk which came “from the saintly lips of Luther,” p. xxii.

[674] Kroker, p. 2.

[675] _Ibid._, p. 192.

[676] _Ibid._, p. 3. Moreover, the rough notes drafted at the table were afterwards re-copied and amended, and this amended form alone is all we have. Cp. Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 84. In the Weimar ed. a first volume, edited by E. Kroker, of the Table-Talk is at present appearing. In it are found the accounts given by Veit Dietrich, and another important collection dating from the earlier portion of the third decade of the sixteenth century. Vol. ii., commencing with Schlaginhaufen, is already in the hands of the printers.

[677] Vol. i., Preface, p. vii. In the Latin edition of the Table-Talk Bindseil, in spite of the scruples alluded to above (n. 1), speaks in praise of the Table-Talk, and makes his own the words of J. Müllensiefen (1857). The Table-Talk showed Luther as “the noblest offshoot of his nation”; it is true the coarseness and plainness of speech are inexcusable, but it all contributes towards the “perfect characterisation of the great man,” for “the wrinkles and furrows are part of his portrait” (“Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xiii.). Luther’s opponents were, however, of a different opinion even in the early days. G. Steinhausen, in his “Deutsche Kulturgesch.,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 513, quotes Johann Fickler of Salzburg, who describes the Table-Talk as “full of obscene and stinking jests,” and compares it to the erotic products of the Epicureans. Steinhausen himself is loath to go so far.

[678] “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 23, p. 488.

[679] Wetzer and Welte, “KL.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” H. Böhmer likewise admits that: “Although their [the principal witnesses’: Dietrich, Lauterbach, and Mathesius] statements must always be critically examined, yet it is established, that they have preserved for us an exceptional number of data concerning Luther’s life, acts, and opinions. They supply us with what on the whole is an accurate account, arranged in chronological order, which brings the real Luther almost as closely before us as his own letters and writings.” In his objections against the “principal witnesses” he does not pay sufficient attention to the existence of the original notes (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² 1910, p. 105). Protestant theologians and historians of Luther are now in the habit of laying stress on the Table-Talk, no less than on Luther’s other works, and that even in the case of weighty and controverted questions. Examples might be quoted from Loofs, Drews, G. Kawerau, J. Köstlin, G. Ward, etc.

[680] “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” In the “Abh. der Kgl. Ges. d. Wissensch. Götting., Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F.,” 1, Wilhelm Meyer deals with the Collections of Lauterbach and Aurifaber. In the same way Kawerau points out in his “Studien und Kritiken,” 81, 1908, p. 338, “the importance of these notes for Luther’s biography and for a knowledge of his home life.” Cp. Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 354, on the old re-arrangement according to the subject-matter. The “authenticity” of the sayings which occur in these revised editions can be proved in many instances from the original writings and from the light thrown on them by parallel passages now in print, but the “dates” are another matter. Where, in the present work, any date is taken from the revised editions, it rests solely on the authority of the latter. Cp. Kroker’s remarks on the Table-Talk of 1540 in the “Archiv f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, above, p. 218, n. 2. On Aurifaber’s re-arrangement of the Table-Talk, see Cristiani, “Revue de questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.

[681] Lauterbach, Luther’s pupil, who was also the author of the Diary, revised his Collection and sought to improve upon the arrangement; a similar, later revision of this formed the basis of the “_Colloquia_” of Rebenstock. Kawerau, _ibid._

[682] Cp. below, p. 231, n. 2.

[683] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 23.

[684] _Ibid._, p. 11.

[685] _Ibid._, p. 48.

[686] _Ibid._, p. 108.

[687] _Ibid._, p. 115.

[688] _Ibid._, p. 26.

[689] _Ibid._, p. 79.

[690] _Ibid._, p. 88 (Khummer).

[691] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.

[692] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115.

[693] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.

[694] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f. Sermon in 1524.

[695] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7, p. 213. Church-Postils.

[696] _Ibid._, 13², p. 108, Church-Postils.

[697] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 35.

[698] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 304, “Tischreden.”

[699] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 136, 135.

[700] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 465. Church-Postils.

[701] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 1: “_Qui me invito hec describit, tantum tali animo describat, quali ego, simplici et candido, et laudet verba Lutheri magis quam Apollinis miracula [oracula]._”

[702] “Historien von des ehrwürdigen in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris Martini Lutheri Leben,” etc., Nuremberg, 1566, p. 146.

[703] _Ibid._, p. 147: “_Arvinam quaerunt multi in podice porci_” (Philo), applied by Luther to the marriage of a “young fellow with an old hag (_vetula_).”

[704] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.

[705] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.

[706] _Ibid._, p. 89.

[707] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78. In the first edition of the German Table-Talk, 1566, p. 307. Cp. against O. Waltz, on the authenticity of the account, N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, p. 39.

[708] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, said between October 28 and December 12, 1536. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121: “The village pastor and the schoolmaster had their own way of dealing [with the witches] and plagued them greatly. But D. Pommer’s way is the best of all, viz. to plague them with filth and stir it well up and so make all their things to stink.”

[709] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.

[710] _Ibid._, p. 74 (Khummer).

[711] _Ibid._, p. 111.

[712] Cp. N. Paulus in his art. on Kroker’s edition of the “Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung” (“Hist, polit. Blätter,” 133, 1904, pp. 199 ff., 208 f.).

[713] W. Preger, “Tischreden ... nach den Aufzeichnungen von J. Schlaginhaufen,” p. iv.

[714] Cp. N. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 40; Kroker, pp. 156, 158, 262. Kroker says (p. 158), “Luther probably made use of a colloquial word for phallus, or something similar.” Luther is complaining of the excesses to which the Catholics gave themselves up on pilgrimages, and which the Pope constantly indulged in. One MS. there cited omits the passage altogether. The Table-Talk of Mathesius (p. 141) contains the following speech of Luther’s in 1540 under the title “_Exemplum verecundiae Lutheri_”: “_Rochlicensis princeps. Is interrogabat ‘Qui vocatur verum_ [sic] _de domina vestra natante cum equite per aquas? Non volo autem obscoenum audire sed verum._’ Ich mein, das heisst: die × ausgeschwembt”. For the liberty which Aurifaber permits himself in the matter of toning down and weakening the original text of the Table-Talk, cp., for instance, the remarks in the Preface to the Cordatus Collection. What the latter gives in all its crudity (see the twenty-four passages there quoted by Wrampelmeyer) Aurifaber either does not reproduce at all or does so in an inoffensive form, or accompanied with such expressions as “to speak decently,” etc. Cordatus knew and acknowledged that it was an “_audax facinus_” to write down all he heard, but his opinion was that “_pudorem vincebat utilitas_”; Luther, who was watching his work, never gave him to understand by so much as one word that it did not meet with his approval.

[715] “Beil. zur Münchener Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.

[716] G. Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701), for instance, says that “In his Table-Talk we find not merely plain-spoken, but really cynical discourses, and much which to us sounds obscene. Still, his admirers may possibly be right when they absolve him of indecency or of any intention to arouse sensual passion.”

[717] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche), p. 218.

[718] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 83.

[719] _Ibid._, p. 61, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 296.

[720] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.

[721] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 7.

[722] _Ibid._, p. 65.

[723] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 106.

[724] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 154.

[725] _Ibid._, p. 203.

[726] _Ibid._, p. 88.

[727] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 417.

[728] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 428.

[729] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.

[730] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 219.

[731] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 188. For the equivalent passages in Latin see “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 306, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock (Francof., 1571), 1, p. 149´, where the famous “_adorabunt nostra stercora_” occurs. Cp. the passages in the old German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 397, which agrees substantially with the above: “They will oppress us until we forget ourselves, and then they will worship our filth and regard it as balsam,” and in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303: “I am ripe dung,” etc.

[732] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 81.

[733] _Ibid._, p. 340. A revolting collection of low abuse of the lawyers might be made from the Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 229, 233, 235, 244, 246 f.

[734] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139, with the disgusting verses: “_Ventre urges merdam vellesque cacare libenter | ingentem. Facis at, merdipoeta, nihil._” Within ten lines the word “_merda_” occurs twelve times. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 673, N. 422.

[735] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 48.

[736] See the detailed examples given in vol. iv., xxv. 3.

[737] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 149.

[738] _Ibid._, p. 148. Cp. above, p. 151, n. 3.

[739] _Ibid._, p. 169 f.

[740] _Ibid._, p. 173 f. Jonas, in his Latin edition of the work “Wider das Bapstum,” rendered the passage: “_Ne sine ullo laxativo vel pillulis ventris onere honores papam_,” etc.

[741] _Ibid._, p. 201. Cp. Luther’s insolent language towards the Pope in his other writings and letters; for instance, when he declares that the Princes who were not on his own side were “dem Papst in den Arsch gebacken” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 398); or: “I s—— on the dispensation of the legate and his master” (Briefwechsel, 8, p. 53; cp. p. 113); or “that Pope and Legate ‘im Arsch wollten lecken’” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233). As early as 1518, in a Lenten sermon, he shows his predisposition to crudity: “If we drag our good works into the light, ‘so soll der Teufel den Arsch daran wischen,’ as indeed he does” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 276). Cp. also his discourse in 1515 against the “Little Saints” (vol. i., p. 69 f.). In the saying just referred to he is playing on a coarse proverb. In his collection of proverbs (not intended for publication, but edited by Thiele) he has accumulated quite a number of filthy sayings, those containing the word “Dreck” being unpleasantly numerous. Many of the obscenities occurring in his sermons and writings were suggested by proverbs which themselves reek too much of the stable, but which he sometimes still further embellishes. The manner in which he uses the gross word “Farzen” with reference to the Pope or the monks can be seen in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 715, and Erl. ed., 25², p. 74. In one of his attacks on the Jews he says: “Kiss the pig on its ‘Pacem’ and ‘Pirzl,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 211); and again: “Here, here for a kiss! The devil has ‘in die Hosen geschmissen und den Bauch abermal geleeret.’ This is indeed a holy thing for the Jews, and all would-be Jews to kiss, eat, drink, and worship, while the devil in his turn must eat and drink what his disciples ‘speien, oben und unten auswerfen können.’ Host and guest have indeed met, have cooked and served the meat.... The devil is feasting with his English [angelic?] snout and gobbles up greedily whatever ‘der Juden unteres und oberes Maul speiet und spritzet.’ Yes, that is the dainty he enjoys” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 282).

[742] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 203.

[743] Such was the writer’s indignation that his words are scarcely worthy of a Humanist. The following comes from the “_Responsio ad convitia Lutheri_” (1523, “Opera,” Lovanii, 1566, p. 116´), not published under More’s own name: “_Nihil habet in ore (Lutherus) praeter latrinas, merdas, stercora, quibus foedius et spurcius quam ullus unquam scurra scurratur.... Si pergat scurrilitate ludere nec aliud in ore gestare quam sentinas, cloacas, latrinas, merdas, stercora, faciant quod volent alii, nos ex tempore capiemus consilium, velimusne sic bacchantem ... cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem cacatumque relinquere._”

[744] In “_Replica contra periculosa scripta_,” etc., 1522, O, 4´. Also in “Opp. omnia,” Ingolstadii, 1543.

[745] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 315.

[746] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 57.

[747] Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 72; 2 ed., p. 106.

[748] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 153; cp. 44. p. 321.

[749] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 296. In a sermon.

[750] Lutherophilus (Wilh. Walther), “Das sechste Gebot und Luthers Leben,” 1893, p. 33 f.; and “Für Luther,” p. 593 ff.

[751] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. Sermon on the Married Life, 1522, i.e. long before his own marriage.

[752] Letter of June 2, 1525, _ibid._, 53, p. 311; Letters, ed. De Wette, 2, 676 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).

[753] To Reissenbusch, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).

[754] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 191.

[755] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 53 ff.

[756] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 156=28, p. 199.

[757] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 196.

[758] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 94; Erl. ed., 51, p. 6.

[759] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276=53; p. 288; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 639 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).

[760] _Ibid._, p. 410=311=676 (to Archbishop Albert of Mayence).

[761] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 515, in sermon quoted above, p. 242, n. 1; Luther here speaks of “three kinds of men” whom God has exempted from matrimony.

[762] In the letter to the Archbishop of Mayence. “I speak of the natural man. With those to whom God gives the grace of chastity I do not interfere.”

[763] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 291 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 527 f. “Vom Eelichen Leben,” 1522.

[764] Letter of July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82 f., 94 f.

[765] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 511; cp. p. 512.

[766] For other passages in which Luther inculcates either chastity or faithfulness in the married state, see, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 298, 302; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 132 f., 137, and “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 95; “_Deus omnipotens ... castus_, etc., _castitatem diligit, pudicitiam et verecundiam ornat_,” etc.

[767] To Nicholas Gerbel, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241, from the Wartburg. _Ibid._: “_De votis religiosorum et sacerdotum Philippo et mihi est robusta conspiratio, tollendis et evacuandis videlicet. O sceleratum illum Antichristum cum squamis suis!_”

[768] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 139.

[769] Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.

[770] See vol. ii., p. 115 ff., and vol. iv., xxii. 5.

[771] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 114; Erl. ed., 51, p. 30. “1 Cor. vii.,” 1523.

[772] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 212. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 3; “_Maior enim pars conjugatorum vivit in adulteriis_,” etc.

[773] _Ibid._, p. 302 _seq._, in c. 4.

[774] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.

[775] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 115; Erl. ed., 51, p. 32. “1 Cor. vii.,” etc.

[776] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 113. Sermon on Married Life.

[777] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 302=137.

[778] _Ibid._, 12, p. 137=51, p. 63 f.

[779] _Ibid._, p. 99=10.

[780] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 151 f. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.

[781] _Ibid._, p. 153, where he tells a tale of how St. Bernard and St. Francis made snow-women, “to lie beside them and thus subdue their passion.”

[782] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 126 _seq._

[783] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55; Erl. ed., 33, p. 59. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.

[784] _Ibid._, 12, p. 104=51, p. 16 f. “1 Corinthians, vii.,” etc.

[785] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 22. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 24.

[786] _Ibid._, 7, p. 286, in c. 30.

[787] _Ibid._, 20, p. 131. “Enarr. in Ps. 128.”

[788] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 488 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 160 _seqq._ “_Decem praecepta praedicata populo_,” 1518.

[789] _Ibid._, 2, p, 168; Erl. ed., 16², p. 62. Sermon on the conjugal state, 1519, “altered and corrected.” Cp. also present work, vol. iv., xxii. 5.

[790] “Die Stellung des Christentums zum Geschlechtsleben,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 40.

[791] _Ibid._, p. 53.

[792] _Ibid._, p. 49.

[793] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 137; Erl. ed., 51, p. 64.

[794] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 104 f.=16 ff.

[795] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 291. For proofs that the Western law of continence goes back to the early ages of the Church, and was spoken of even at the Synod of Elvira in 305 or 306, see my “History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Eng. Trans.), iii., p. 271 ff.

[796] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 298.

[797] _Ibid._, p. 297; “Colloq.,” 2, p. 366 _seq._

[798] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 553 _seq._; Erl ed., 28, p. 128.

[799] _Ibid._, 24, p. 517=34, p. 139 f., in the Sermons on Genesis, 1527.

[800] _Ibid._, 518=140. We may add some further statements characteristic of Luther’s unseemly language on the necessity of marriage and the alleged abuses on the Catholic side. Of these passages the first two are for obvious reasons given in Latin.

“_Major pars puellarum in monasteriis positarum non potest voluntarie statum suum observare.... Puella non potest esse sine viro, sicut non sine esu, potu et somno. Ideo Deus dedit homini membra, venas, fluxus et omnia, quae ad generandum inserviunt. Qui his rebus obsistit, quid aliud facit, quam velle ut ignis non urat?... Ubi castitas involuntaria est, natura non desistit ab opere suo; caro semen concipit sicut creata est a Deo; venae secundum genus suum operantur. Tunc incipiunt fluxus et peccata clandestina, quae s. Paulus mollitiem vocat_ (1 Cor. vi. 10). _Et, ut crude dicam, propter miseram necessitatem, quod non fluit in carnem, fluit in vestimenta. Id deinde accusare et confiteri verentur.... Vide, hoc ipsum voluit diabolus, docens te coercere et domare naturam, quae non vult esse coacta_” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 156 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 199).

He had spoken in much the same way in the Tract against celibacy which preceded in 1521 his book on Monastic Vows, and which appeared again in the Church Sermons and also several times separately (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694 ff.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448 ff.; Sermon on the Feast of the Three Kings, 1522): “_Ubi magna et coelestis gratia non assistit, oportet naturam secundum ordinem suum fluxus pati. Si non conveniunt vir et femina, natura tamen propriam viam sequitur et indignatur; ita ut melius sit masculum et feminam esse simul, sicut Deus (eos) creavit et natura vult.... Interrogo igitur, quid consilii dabis ei, qui se continere non potest? Si dicis, inhibitione utendum, respondeo, unum ex tribus secuturum esse: aut masculus et femina sese conjungent, ut placuerit sicuti nunc fit sub sacerdotibus papistarum, aut natura sponte sese solvet, aut, deficiente primo et secundo, sine cessatione homo uretur et clam patietur. Hoc modo creasti martyrium diabolicum, et fiet, ut vir mulieri deformissimae sese sociaret et mulier viro taediosissimo prae malo impetu carnis. Ignoscant mihi aures pudicae, debeo tractare animi morbos, sicut medicus tractat stercus et latrinam.... Tu facis, ut ille pauper homo continuo corde peccet contra votum suum, et melius fortasse sit, quod masculus nonnunquam secum habeat femellam et femina juvenem.... At papa sinit eos fluxus pati, uri et torqueri sicut possunt, ita ut eos habeam pro infantibus immolatis a populo Israel idolo igneo Moloch ad concremandum.... Non vis impedire tandem aliquando, quominus fornicentur, fluxibus maculentur et urantur?_” _Ibid._, p. 108= “_Si in singulis civitatibus forent vel quinque juvenes et quinque puellae viginti annorum, integri, sine fluxibus naturae, tunc dicerem, primitiva tempora apostolorum et martyrum rediisse. Nunc autem qualem Sodomam et Gomorrham fecit diabolus ubicunque plane per istam singularem castitatem votorum!_”

In the sermon on conjugal life, in 1522, he says: “It is true that the man who does not marry is obliged to sin. How can it be otherwise, seeing that God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply? But why do we not forestall sin by marriage?” (“ Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537). In his latter years he penned the following attack upon the older Church of which the obscenity vies with its untruth: “The chaste Pope does not take a wife, yet all women are his. The lily-white, chaste, shamefaced, modest, Holy Father wears the semblance of chastity and refuses to take a wife honourably and in the sight of God; but how many other women he keeps, not only prostitutes, but married women and virgins, look at his Court of Cardinals, his Bishoprics, Foundations, Courtesans, Convents, Clergy, Chaplains, Schoolmasters and his whole curia, not to speak of countless unnamable sins. Well, may God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and Mohammed with all their devils!” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 204, in the Preface to the writing: “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi,” 1542). It is simply an example of Luther’s habitual misrepresentation when we read in one of his sermons dating from 1524 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667): “Up to this time marriage has been a despised state, being termed a state of easy virtue; but Scripture says: ‘Male and female He created them’ (Gen. i. 27): that is enough for us. In practice we all extol this state. Oh, that all men lived in it! Whoever has not been exempted by God, let him see that he finds his like [a spouse].” Upon himself he looked as one “exempted by God,” at least he declared in several passages of this sermon, delivered in the very year of his marriage, that “by the Grace of God he did not desire a wife; I have no need of a wife, but must assist you in your necessity.” He himself could not yet make up his mind to carry out what he urged so strongly upon others.

[801] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526, in the Sermon on conjugal life, 1522.

[802] _Ibid._, 10, 3, p. 222=23, p. 116 f., in the work “On marriage matters,” to the pastors and preachers, 1530. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 119.

[803] As regards the authorities, Luther’s wish was that they should interfere in the matter from the outset, and that strongly, although he can scarcely have hoped to see this carried out in practice. “The authorities must either coerce the woman or put her to death. Should they not do this, the husband must imagine that his wife has been carried off by brigands and look about him for another” (_ibid._).

[804] How the expression was at once taken up among Luther’s opponents is plain from a letter of Duke George of Saxony to his representative at the Diet, Dietrich von Werthern, in F. Gess, “Akten und Briefe Georgs,” etc., 1, p. 415. Cp. Weim ed., 10, 2, p. 290 n., and vol. iv., xxii. 5.

[805] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 323 f.

[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525 f. Sermon on conjugal life.

[807] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 123; Erl. ed., 51, p. 44 n., in the work “Das siebẽdt Capitel S. Pauli zu den Corinthern aussgelegt,” 1523.

[808] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 515. She was to say: “Permit me to enter into a secret marriage with your brother, or your best friend,” etc. Luther is speaking of the case “where a healthy woman had an impotent husband,” etc. He here refers to the similar answer he had already given in his work: “On the Babylonish Captivity” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98 _seq._)

[809] To Joachim von Weissbach, August 23, 1527, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80). In 1540 he says: “_Ego concessi privatim aliquot coniugibus, qui leprosum vel leprosam haberent, ut alium ducerent._” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141. In a sermon of 1524 he says coarsely of an impotent wife: “I would not have such a one beside me” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560). The marriage bond was also dissolved where husband or wife had become impotent “owing to an evil spell”; his convictions forced him to teach this (_ibid._, p. 562).

[810] Letter of February 16, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 436; cp. _ibid._, p. 584. The question was thoroughly gone into by Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps von Hessen,” 1904, p. 202 ff., who says: “About 1536 a change took place in the attitude of the Wittenbergers towards marriage with relatives-in-law” (p. 216). “Thus it is evident that Luther’s views underwent a change” (p. 217). For the answer to the question how far this change was due to the hope of winning over Henry VIII. to the New Evangel, see vol. iv., xxi. 1.

[811] To Chancellor Brück, January 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 283.

[812] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 380 _seq._

[813] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 131; Erl. ed., 51, p. 55. “Das siebẽdt Capitel.”

[814] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 124 f.; Erl. ed., 51, p. 45 f. “Das siebẽdt Capitel.”

[815] _Ibid._, p. 124=44 f.

[816] _Ibid._, p. 124=45.

[817] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 519.

[818] Op. cit., above, p. 249, n. 6.

[819] _Ibid._, p. 51.

[820] “Die Frau und der Sozialismus,”^[19] Stuttgart, 1893, p. 61.

[821] _Ibid._, p. 64.

[822] _Ibid._, p. 61. On Philip of Hesse, see vol. iv., xxi. 2.

[823] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 559; “Op. lat. var.,” 6, p. 100, “De captivitate babylonica,” 1520, “_an liceat, non audeo definire_.”

[824] _Ibid._, 24, p. 304; Erl. ed., 33, p. 323. Sermons on Genesis.

[825] _Ibid._, p. 305=324; on the date see Weim. ed., 14, p. 250 ff.

[826] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 283: “_Viro qui secundam uxorem consilio Carlstadii petit._”

[827] The Elector forwarded it together with a letter to Philip of Hesse on July 3, 1540. See Enders, “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, No. 5.

[828] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 523; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 368, in the “_Propositiones de digamia episcoporum_.”

[829] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92 ff.

[830] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.

[831] Thus Landgrave Philip, on May 16, 1542, to his theologian Bucer (Lenz, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 82).

[832] “De bono coniugali,” c. 15; “P.L.,” 40, col. 385: “_nunc certe non licet_.” “Contra Faustum,” 1. 22, c. 47; “P.L.,” 42, col. 428: “_nunc crimen est_.”

[833] “In IV. Sent.,” Dist. 33, q. 1, a. 1.

[834] “Commentarii in Pentateuchum,” Romae, 1531, f. 38´; “Commentarii in Evangelia,” Venet., 1530, f. 77; “Epistolae s. Pauli enarr.,” etc., Venet. 1531, f. 142.

[835] Ambr. Catharinus, “Annotationes in Comment. Cajetani,” Lugd., 1542, p. 469, “_In hoc prorsus omnes theologi, neminem excipio, consenserunt_.” Cp. Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (“Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 18), and in “Cajetan und Luther über Polygamie” (Hist.-pol. Blätter, 135, 1905, p. 81 ff.). On the opinions in vogue regarding the Old Testament exceptions, see Hurter, “Theol. spec.,”^[11] P. ii., 1903, p. 567, n. 605. Cp. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps von Hessen,” p. 236 ff.

[836] Letter to the Elector of Saxony, 1540, reprinted by Seidemann in Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 198.

[837] _Ibid._

[838] Letter of December, 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 237 f.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266). For the letters, to the Teutonic Order and concerning the Abbots, cp. our vol. ii., p. 120.

[839] To the Elector Johann of Saxony, May 25, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 102).

[840] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 559.

[841] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 219.

[842] _Ibid._

[843] To Spalatin, December 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 278 f.

[844] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 96 f.

[845] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 550 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 88 _seq._

[846] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 307 f., 311.

[847] See vol. iv., xxii. 5.

[848] In the first Erl. ed., vol. 20 (in the 2nd edition, vol. 16, p. 508 ff.); The Exposition in vol. 51, p. 1 ff.

[849] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 118 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 158 ff.

[850] _Ibid._, p. 127=165.

[851] The passage was given above, p. 251, n. 3. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448.

[852] Appeal to the Old Testament: “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448, with the addition: “We are ashamed where there is no need for shame.” _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 118=28, p. 158; St. Peter’s words (2 Peter ii. 1 ff.) obliged him to paint as it deserved the virtue of our clerical squires.

[853] “_Tractatus de modo dicendi et docendi ad populum_,” printed at Landshut, 1514, pars 2, cap. 1.

[854] His Catholic pupil Oldecop says in his “Chronicle” (p. 191), that he would not repeat Luther’s “shameful words” on the Sixth Commandment.

[855] R. Seeberg, “Luther und Lutherthum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung,”² 1904, p. 19.

[856] W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 616.

[857] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 90.

[858] _Ibid._, p. 49.

[859] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 177 f.

[860] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 426.

[861] _Ibid._, p. 430.

[862] _Ibid._, p. 431.

[863] _Ibid._, p. 432.

[864] _Ibid._

[865] _Ibid._, 436.

[866] _Ibid._, 432 _seq._

[867] _Ibid._, p. 432.

[868] _Ibid._, 430. In Rebenstock’s Latin version: “_Cocus jocundus ... cum carnem ... non poterat, etc., anu illam conspurcaviscat_.”

[869] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 8: “_Ridens sapientiam, qua esse volebat sua Catharina: Creator formavit masculum lato pectore et non latis femoribus, ut capax sedes sapientiae esset in viro; latrinam vero, qua stercora eiciuntur, ei parvam fecit. Porro haec in femina sunt inversa. Ideo multum habent stercorum mulieres, sapientiae autem parum._” Such passages do not tend to the higher appreciation of the female sex with which Luther has been credited.

[870] “_Ego quaero quare mulieres non optant fieri virgines? Et tacuerunt omnes et omnes siluerunt ridentes._” _Ibid._, p. 177 f.

[871] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 166.

[872] _Ibid._, p. 184.

[873] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 74.

[874] Lauterbach, _ibid._, p. 185. Cp. Cordatus, p. 286; “_Eunuchi plus omnibus ardent nam appetitus castratione non perit, sed potentia._” Ich wolt mir lieber zwey paar ° [thus the Halle MS.=_testiculos_] ansetzen lassen, denn eins ausschneiden.

[875] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Kroker), p. 82. Said in 1540.

[876] _Ibid._, p. 373. In 1536. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 361: “Wer nicht Wunder, so er _venereus_ wer, das er sein Freulein todtgearbeitet hette.”

[877] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 69.

[878] The reference to the Hessian is founded on a popular tale of Marcolfus and King Solomon. See Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.

[879] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 f. Cp. in the Table-Talk of the Mathesius Collection, ed. Kroker, p. 156 f., a similar account of this conversation dating from 1540, 11-19 June. It begins: “_Ego occallui sum rusticus et durus Saxo_ [a pun on the Latin word] _ad eiusmodi_ X” (Luther probably made use of a word against which the pen of the writer revolted. Kroker’s note). Later: “_Ipsi (papistae) occidunt homines, nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores._” The end of this discourse, as Loesche and Kroker have shown, contains verbal reminiscences of Terence, with whom Luther must have been well acquainted from the days of his youth.

[880] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” Kroker, p. 373.

[881] “_Saluta tuam conjugem suavissime, verum ut id tum facias cum in thoro suavissimis amplexibus et osculis Catharinam tenueris, ac sic cogitaveris: en hunc hominem, optimam creaturulam Dei mei, donavit mihi Christus meus, sit illi laus et gloria. Ego quoque cum divinavero diem qua has acceperis, ea nocte simili opere meam amabo in tui memoriam et tibi par pari referam. Salutat et te et costam tuam mea costa in Christo. Gratia vobiscum. Amen._” Letter of December 6, 1525. An esteemed Protestant historian of Luther declared recently in the “Theol. Studien und Kritiken” that he was charmed with Luther’s “wholesome and natural spirit, combined with such hearty piety.” The explanation is that this historian disagrees with the “shy reticence” now observed in these matters as at variance with the “higher moral sense,” and looks on what “Thomas says of the _actus matrimonialis_” as an “entire perversion of the sound ethics of matrimony.” Another historian “thanks Luther warmly for this letter,” whilst a third scholar extols “the depth of feeling with which Luther, as a married man, comprehends the mystery of neighbourly love within marriage.”

[882] More on this, vol. v., xxxii. 4 f.

[883] Letter of May 23, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 48; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 55.

[884] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 340 f., 342 ff., 346 f.

[885] _Ibid._, 26, p. 6.

[886] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 23-26.

[887] _Ibid._, 63, p. 394 (“Tischreden”).

[888] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.

[889] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 87 (Khummer).

[890] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 73.

[891] _Ibid._, p. 1.

[892] _Ibid._, p. 2.

[893] _Ibid._, p. 74.

[894] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426.

[895] See above, p. 228, n. 6. It is strange to note that Mathesius commences the paragraph in question thus: “As occasion arose all sorts of wise sayings fell from his lips. The man was full of grace and the Holy Ghost, for which reason all who sought counsel from him as from God’s own prophet found what they needed. One of them once asked whether it would be a real marriage were a young fellow,” etc.

[896] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.

[897] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 204.

[898] _Ibid._, p. 172.

[899] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426.

[900] “Cinquante raisons,” etc., Munick, 1736, consid. 25, p. 32 s. I have access only to the French edition of this work, published originally in German and Latin.

[901] “S.B. Böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 123. In this volume Constantine Höfler has reprinted the lost “Apology” with a preface, p. 79 ff. Cp. E. Michael, “Luther und Lemnius, Wittenbergische Inquisition, 1538,” in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895, p. 450 ff., where the passage in question is given in Latin.

[902] _Ibid._, p. 136. Michael, _ibid._, p. 465.

[903] Vol. ii., pp. 129 f., 364, 368 f., 376.

[904] Ickelsamer, “Clag etlicher Brüder,” ed. Enders, p. 48. See our vol. ii., p. 368 n.

[905] Enders, p. 52.

[906] Münzer, “Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort,” ed. Enders, p. 18 ff.

[907] See vol. ii., p. 130 f.

[908] Art. 17, p. 81.

[909] In answer to the screed, “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen”, 1531, reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 145.

[910] _Ibid._, pp. 139, 141.

[911] _Ibid._, p. 148 f.

[912] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 140.

[913] Venetiis, 1547. In 1548 Johann Cochlæus collected Catharinus’s strictures on Luther out of three of the former’s writings, and entitled his work “De persona et doctrina M. Lutheri judicium fratris A. Catharini,” etc., Moguntiae, 1548. The above quotation appears in this collection, fol. C. 2a. For an account of the great services rendered by Catharinus, who for all his piety was yet too prejudiced and combative, see Joseph Schweizer, “Ambrosius Catharinus Politus,” 1910 (“Reformationsgeschichtl. Studien und Texte,” ed. J. Greving, Hft. 11 and 12). Cp. the remarks of others living at a distance given below, p. 294 ff., and the Roman reports mentioned by Jacob Ziegler (vol. ii., p. 133).

[914] Luther to Spalatin on January 14, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 278. See our vol. ii., p. 133.

[915] See vol. ii., p. 132 f.

[916] Letter of June 16, 1525; “_Maligna fama effecit_,” etc. See vol. ii., p. 175.

[917] See vol. ii., p. 176, n. 3.

[918] Letter to Camerarius, April 11, 1526. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.

[919] Page 205; “aus dem Thesaurus Baum in Strassburg.”

[920] Kolde, _ibid._, p. 229.

[921] Quoted by R. Stähelin, “Huldreich Zwingli,” 2, Basle, 1897, p. 311, and “Briefe aus der Reformationszeit,” Basle, 1887, p. 21: “_si non stultitia Fabrum superat, impuritate Eccium, audacia Cocleum, et quid multa, omnia omnium vitia_,” etc.

[922] Fol. 3, 9. Quoted by N. Paulus in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 852.

[923] “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 ff. (Excerpts given by the Protestant scholar E. Thiele, from a Bible at Wernigerode.)

[924] We have only to recall the exaggerations concerning the power of faith alone, even in the case of the filthiest sins, e.g. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 527 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 92. Cp. above, pp. 177, 180 ff., 185 ff., 196, etc.

[925] “The reading of heretical books was made difficult even for the Jesuits.” B. Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1, 1907, p. 657. The learned polemical writers of the Society did, however, make use of the writings of heretics, Luther’s inclusive, as is clear from their works.

[926] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 395, 506, 625, 753.

[927] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 141, n., and p. v. Andreas matriculated at the University of Wittenberg in 1538.

[928] Cp. also Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 112; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 430.

[929] On February 1, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 783.

[930] Sim. Lemnius, “Monachopornomachia,” a satire against Luther. Cp. Strobel, “Neue Beiträge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff.

[931] In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 334.

[932] “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, Francof., 1571, 2, fol. 95.

[933] They were received on September 29, 1525. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248.

[934] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 486.

[935] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 170. It has been asserted by controversialists that another version of the German translation of these Theses had already been made in 1545 from which some of the most “swinish expressions” were omitted through motives of modesty. Of any such revision during Luther’s lifetime nothing is, however, known. Probably the reference is to Caspar Cruciger’s translation which is placed next to the older translation in Walch’s edition of Luther’s works (19, p. 2258). But examination proves that Cruciger by no means weakened the wording, indeed, his rendering is in some instances even stronger, for instance, that of Theses 35, 42, 61, and 64. The “Swine-theologians of Louvain,” alluded to in his title, do not appear here in the original German edition.

[936] The latter statement was in great part withdrawn by one controversial writer of standing, but not before it had been made their own by the lesser fry.

[937] “Ein christenliche Predig von dem heyligen Ehestandt durch Wolfgangum Agricolam Spalatinum,” Ingolstadt, 1580 (Münchener Staatsbibliothek, Hom. 53, 8º). Cp. the “Eichstätter Pastoralblatt,” 1880, No. 27 ff., where accounts taken from a Spalt Chronicle of Wolfgang Agricola’s, according to an Eichstätt MS. (n. 248), are given, and where is printed the passage referring to Luther in the sermon to be discussed later. In the Suttner index of Eichstätt books the sermon is numbered 258, which explains certain mistaken references to the “ancient deed.”

[938] In the sermon, quoted, p. 95.

[939] See the “Eichstätter Pastoralblatt,” _ibid._ “Spalatins Muttergottesbild.”

[940] To Spalatin, August 21, 1544, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 679 ff. See above, p. 197, n. 1. In the last years of his life Spalatin fell into incurable melancholy which finally brought him to the grave (January 16, 1546). Cp. J. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Luther was unacquainted with the actual cause of his fears, but says that some persons thought they were due to remorse for having given his sanction to an illegal marriage.

[941] Agricola’s Sermon, p. 90.

[942] Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1903, p. 73, where Dungersheim is quoted: “As I have heard more than once from the lips of the said Lord Adolphus.”

[943] “Acta et scripta Lutheri,” p. 1.

[944] “Tischreden Luthers 1531-1532” (1888). Cp. the Introduction by the editor, p. vi. Preger does not appear to have heard of Wolfgang Agricola’s “Hans Schlahinhauffen.” Cp. the Erfurt register, in Weissenborn, “Akten der Erfurter Universität,” 1-2; also the Index published in 1899. The particulars concerning Johannes Schlaginhaufen are contained in the second vol., pp. 301-316. Spalatin is there entered (p. 207) in 1498 as: “_Georgius Burchardi de Sula superiori_.”

[945] Mutian to Johann Lang, December 6, 1516, Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 5 f.

[946] For all the proofs bearing on the matter see E. Schneidewind, “Das Lutherhaus in Eisenach,” 1883.

[947] First ed., fol. 3.

[948] Vol. iv., xxii. 5.

[949] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261.

[950] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 260.

[951] “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders, 6, p. 186.

[952] January 3, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 180.

[953] Cp. W. Walther, “Deutsche Bibelübersetzungen,” 1889 ff., p. 403 f.

[954] “Diarium italicum,” 1708, p. 278.

[955] Tom. 2^[4], La Haye, 1702, p. 134.

[956] “Vita Lutheri, nummis illustrata,” Francof. et Lipsiae, 1699, pp. 225, 227. Joh. Fabricius, “Amoenitates theologicae,” Helmestadii, 1699, p. 676, in the Notes to his “Oratio de utilitate itineris Italiae.” Fabricius says the verses, though usually attributed to Luther, were not in his handwriting, nor could Luther well have composed anything so clumsy. Further, the sub-librarian at Rome had assured him that in the Vatican there was only one quarto book written by Luther.

[957] Cp. Paul Haake, “Johann Fr. v. Wolfframsdorf” (“N. Archiv für sächsische Gesch.,” 22, 1901, pp. 69 f., 76-the text not quoted).

[958] Vol. 1², p. 252.

[959] Noribergae, 1731, p. 124.

[960] Cp. “Anzeiger für Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit,” 1878, p. 16 (“Ein schon Frawe on Kinder”).

[961] _Ibid._, 1879, p. 296 (“Ein schon Weib, viel Rinder wentzig Kinder”). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 682. Walther, “Bibelübersetzungen,” points out concerning the origin of the story, that, owing to people being unaware of the mediæval translations of the Bible, “a German Bible immediately suggested the name of Luther.”

[962] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 15.

[963] _Ibid._, p. 120.

[964] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, 1903, p. 681, n. 498. “Possibly he merely translated the old Italian rhyming proverb:

‘Chi non ama il vino, la donna e il canto Un pazzo egli sara e mai un santo,’

and, being himself an outspoken Voltairean, suppressed the ‘santo.’” H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 84; 2nd ed., p. 117 f.

[965] “Luther Tischreden Mathesische Sammlung,” p. 376, with other passages under the heading: Lauterbach and Weller.

[966] Under the heading “Der ‘gute Trunk’ in den Lutheranklagen” the present writer published an article in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 479 ff., which under a revised form is given anew in the following pages. In view of the strong verdicts frequently pronounced upon Luther’s love of drink, we may point out that P. Albert Weiss, O. P., in his “Lutherpsychologie” (Mainz, 1906, p. 185 f.; 2nd ed., p. 274), goes so far as to declare he was inclined to “tone down this or that opinion expressed by Grisar,” but that he was thankful that he had “treated the subject with such moderation.”

[967] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 348, “Tischreden.”

[968] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 500; Erl. ed., 30, p. 363, in the “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis.” Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 189.

[969] Letter to Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 317. The reference is, of course, to the words of Peter, Acts ii. 13-15.

[970] See n. 1.

[971] Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 71, in the “Relatio Gregorii Caselii” of November 29, 1525. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 234; Erl. ed., 29, p. 20, where he says that God was not drunk when He spoke the words; also _ibid._, 8, p. 507=28, p. 63: Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul were not drunk when they wrote certain things.

[972] Letter of July 29, 1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 61 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 66).

[973] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 437 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Ratzebergers Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 131, and Jonas’s obituary sermon on Luther in Walch’s ed. of Luther’s works, 21, Anhang, p. 373*.

[974] To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[975] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. O. Vogt, 1888, p. 64 ff.

[976] To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.

[977] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141. Cp. vol. ii., p. 133 f.

[978] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29, 1904), p. 303 ff., p. 306.

[979] _Ibid._, p. 311 f.

[980] _Ibid._, p. 306.

[981] The “Itinerarium,” in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 229. From the Bern Archives.

[982] The dots are Kolde’s.

[983] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.

[984] Letter of February 27, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 155.

[985] A passage from a letter of Melanchthon’s to Veit Dietrich, dated March 15, 1537 (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 327), deserves consideration: “_Secuta est hos agones_ (his mental struggles or temptations), _ut fit, magna debilitas; accessit etiam cruditas, quam vigiliae, vomitus et caetera incommoda multa auxerunt_.”

[986] The context is unfortunately not given by Kolde, no more here than in the case of Musculus. A copy of the letter is, he says, found in the Baum Thesaurus of the Strasburg University Library.

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

[988] “Hochverursachte Schutzrede,” etc., ed. Enders, _ibid._, p. 18 ff.

[989] “De consideratione praesentium temporum,” Venetiis, 1547. Cochlæus’s “De persona et doctrina M. Lutheri iudicium fratris A. Catharini,” etc., Moguntiae, 1548, gives the words on fol. C. 2a.

[990] Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” p. 170; “alla quale (ebrietà) è deditissimo.”

[991] “Helluone in crapula et ebrietate cervisiaria, ut audio, foedior.”

[992] Cp. “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” “Texte und Untersuchungen,” 3 Jahrg., Hft. 1, p. 79, article by P. Kalkoff, “Römische Urteilo über Luther und Erasmus im Jahre 1521.” See our vol. ii., p. 133.

[993] “Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 43; “_Tui Wittenbergenses velut quotidie communicant et mox cerevisia inebriantur, ut sese aliquando non cognoscant, ita enim fertur._”

[994] _Ibid._, pp. 58-68.

[995] Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, p. 558.

[996] Henr. Sedulius, O.S.F., “Praescriptiones adv. haereses,” Antwerp, 1606, p. 210. It was he who published the false document concerning Luther’s alleged suicide (see vol. vi., xxxix. 3).

[997] Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” 1898, p. 70.

[998] “De mensuris,” Basileae, 1550, pp. 4, 338.

[999] Luther to Katey, February 7, 1546, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 788.

[1000] Grimm, “Deutsches Wörterbuch,” 8, p. 700.

[1001] Cp. the letter addressed to Katey on February 1, 1546, p. 786: “I drink Neunburgish beer.”

[1002] On July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” ed. Burkhardt, p. 357.

[1003] On July 16, 1540, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 298. De Wette’s edition of this letter is not altogether trustworthy. Cp. Burkhardt, “Briefe Luthers,” p. 358.

[1004] On February 6, 1546, _ibid._, p. 786.

[1005] From the written notes of Veit Dietrich (the “most reliable authority on the Table-Talk”), see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 498. Cp. a parallel passage in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 135.

[1006] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, p. 151.

[1007] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, p. 152.

[1008] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 451 (“Tischreden”).

[1009] Letter of 1530 (July?), “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 _seq._

[1010] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 516, from Veit Dietrich’s MS.

[1011] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.

[1012] _Ibid._, p. 95. Cp. Mathesius’s notes in Loesche, “Analecta Lutherana et Melanthoniana,” p. 100: “Then I would permit you a good drink; _nam ebrietudo est ferenda, non ebriositas_.” Forcellini’s definition: “_ebriositas=propensio in ebrictatem_.” According to Loesche, Luther himself invented the word “_ebrietudo_.” Luther says of the Elector Johann Frederick in his work, “Wider Hans Worst”: “Sometimes he takes a drink too much, which we are sorry to see,” but it was untrue that he was “a drunkard and led a disorderly life” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 74).

[1013] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.

[1014] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 294.

[1015] _Ibid._, pp. 294, 296.

[1016] _Ibid._, p. 297; cp. p. 292.

[1017] _Ibid._, p. 293.

[1018] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 295.

[1019] _Ibid._, 39, p. 353.

[1020] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.

[1021] “Vita Lutheri” (“_Vitæ quatuor reformatorum_,” ed. A. T. Neander-n. 5, p. 5).

[1022] “Historien,” 1566, p. 151. Then follows the passage referred to on p. 305 concerning Luther and the Elector.

[1023] See Loesche’s Introduction to the edition mentioned in the following note.

[1024] G. Mathesius, “Hochzeitspredigten,” ed. Loesche, Prague, 1897 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” Bd. 6). The sermon in question was delivered in a castle in 1553 (pp. 311-335). Loesche says of the same: “It is not necessary to be a rabid teetotaller to feel that Urbanus—from the title of the sermon—treads dangerous ground, and would to-day be considered quite scandalously lax.” Cp. N. P[aulus] in the Köln. Volksztng., 1904, No. 623: on Luther’s admission “I also tipple.”

[1025] Letter of February 20, 1510, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “_expositus et involutus ... crapulae_.” Cp. our vol. i., p. 368. Luther uses the word “_crapulatus_” in the sense of “_ebrius_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 559 and 596. In the larger Commentary on Galatians, however, a distinction is made between “_ebrietas_” and “_crapula_,” 3, pp. 47 and 53; cp. the smaller Commentary (1519), Weim. ed., 2, p. 591: “_Commessatio, quae_ Lc. xxi. 34 [_crapula_] _dicitur; sicut ebrietas nimium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat corda_.”

[1026] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82, 87, 94.

[1027] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 497.

[1028] See above, p. 219.

[1029] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337 (“Tischreden”): “A glass with three ridges ... down to the first the Ten Commandments, down to the second the Creed, the third with the [Our Father of the] Catechism in full.”

[1030] S. Keil, “Des seligen Zeugen Gottes Dr. M. Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” 3, Leipzig, 1764, p. 156 f. He considers that the latter statements in the text were “inventions”; at any rate “there was no harm in the matter itself,” and the “conclusion of the Papists that Luther was a drunkard” were therefore false. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510. On the famous but almost legendary “Luther-beakers,” F, Küchenmeister has an article with interesting sketches in the “Ill. Zeitung,” 1879, November 1.

[1031] Letter of May 12, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 359: “_Fateor culpam meam et conscius mihi sum, effudisse me verba_,” etc.

[1032] Cp. “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” ed. Lenz, 1, pp. 326, 336, 362 f., 389.

[1033] “Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” Berlin, 1904, p. 70 f.

[1034] “Farrago,” etc., cod. chart. Goth., 402, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 681, n. 498.

[1035] “Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” _ibid._

[1036] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[1037] Cod. Ottobon., n. 3029.

[1038] “Luther in rationalistischer und christl. Beleuchtung,” p. 77, n. 3.

[1039] “Christl. Welt,” 1904, No. 6, p. 128.

[1040] “Martin Luther,” 1, Beilage. Cp. _ibid._, p. v. Evers was the first to read “_Doctor plenus_.”

[1041] W. Walther (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1906, p. 473), on the strength of a photograph, now declares “_Johannes_” to be “the most likely” reading, and rightly excludes “_plenus_” on p. 586 of his book, “Für Luther.” H. Böhmer (“Luther,”², p. 116) is also in favour of “_Johannes_.” G. Kawerau for his part thought, judging from the photograph, that “_plures_” might be read instead of “_plenus_,” in which N. Müller agrees with him; he could not, however, understand what “_plures_” meant here. “Studien und Kritiken,” 1908, p. 603. On re-examination of the original I was forced to decide against “_plures_.” K. Löffler (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 317) proposes “_Doctor parvus_,” but this is excluded by the characters, though the sense would be reasonable enough. “_Johannes_” may quite well be the reading, since from 1527 Luther was in the habit of adding greetings from Katey and Hans in his letters.

[1042] To Link at Nuremberg, January 15, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 345.

[1043] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 649, n. 195.

[1044] _Ibid._

[1045] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, October 2, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).

[1046] To Agricola. Letter published by Kawerau in the “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 67 ff.

[1047] Cp. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (see above, p. 299, n. 1), p. 308 ff.

[1048] To Gabriel Zwilling at Torgau, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 11.

[1049] In the letter quoted above.

[1050] To Melanchthon, August 24, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204 f.

[1051] To Justus Jonas, August 28, 1530, _ibid._, p. 237.

[1052] Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 784.

[1053] _Ibid._, p. 470.

[1054] G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (reprinted from “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1-3), p. 31.

[1055] “Loci Communes Phil. Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt,” ed. (with commentaries) Th. Kolde, 3rd ed., 1900.

[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, more particularly 343. Cp. F. Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 186 f. Further particulars of the work will be found amongst the statements concerning Luther’s relations with the schools (vol. v., xxxv. 3).

[1057] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 322.

[1058] _Ibid._, 4, p. 230.

[1059] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 68; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 493.

[1060] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15, 18.

[1061] To Spalatin, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 417.

[1062] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 448 and 451, where he again calls Luther Elias in letters written in 1521 to Spalatin.

[1063] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 763. To the Elector of Saxony.

[1064] _Ibid._

[1065] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 821, memorandum for the Landgrave of Hesse.

[1066] _Ibid._, p. 995. To Balth. During, about September, 1528.

[1067] _Ibid._, p. 981. To Fr. Myconius, June 5, 1528: “_Ego sic angor, ut nihil supra vel cogitari possit, quum considero horum temporum conditionem._” Similar statements of Melanchthon’s in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 366 ff.

[1068] _Ibid._, p. 938. Letter of September 13, 1528.

[1069] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1013. To Myconius, December 1, 1528: “_Meum scriptum ostendas consulibus ut permittant nubere mulierculæ._”

[1070] Cp. _ibid._, p. 839. “_Iudicium_” of 1526.

[1071] “Apologia confess. August.,” art. 23. “Symbolische Bücher,”^[10] ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 242.

[1072] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 979. Cp. “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274.

[1073] See below, xx. 4, his Preface to his new edition of Luther’s “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.”

[1074] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 113 f.

[1075] _Ibid._

[1076] “Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 1 ff.). The appended exposition of Psalm vii. probably told greatly on many, more particularly on pious readers.

[1077] On January 9, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1023. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 115.

[1078] To his friend Camerarius from Spires, April 21, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1060, “_Habes rem horribilem_.”

[1079] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1070.

[1080] To Justus Jonas, June 14, 1529, p. 1076; “_Una res nocuit nobis, quam diutius procrastinati sumus, cum postularetur a nobis, ut damnaremus Zinglianos. Hinc ego in tantam incidi perturbationem, ut mortem oppetere malim, quam has miserias ferre. Omnes dolores interni_ (read _inferni_) _oppresserunt me. Sed tamen spero Christum remedia his rebus ostensurum esse._”

[1081] To Philip of Hesse, June 22, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1078. Cp. p. 1075 _seq._

[1082] On November 14, 1529.

[1083] “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 262 f.

[1084] See Luther’s own doctrine, vol. ii., pp. 223 ff., 265 ff., 291 ff.

[1085] Cp. Kolde in J. J. Müller, “Symbolische Bücher”^[10], Introduction, p. ix.: “There was no mention therein of the Papal power and it was left to the ‘pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, should he see any reason, to attack the Papacy’”—thus the Strasburg envoys in 1537 in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 297; for, as Melanchthon openly admitted to Luther, the Articles must be accommodated to the needs of the moment.

[1086] Kolde, _ibid._ (“Symbol. Bücher”), p. viii. f. Luther to the Elector of Saxony, May 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 145 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 335): “I see nothing I can improve upon or alter, nor would this be fitting seeing that I am unable to proceed so softly and quietly.”

[1087] On the “Gospel-proviso,” our vol. ii., p. 385 ff.

[1088] Cp. Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxiv. ff. K. Müller, “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889, p. 121 ff.), points out why Luther looked askance at any Symbolic Books; the fact is he did not recognise any Church having “a legal and ordered constitution and laws such as would call for Symbolic Books.” G. Krüger says (“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1906, p. 18 f.): “The Confession and its Apology were wrongly interpreted by the narrow-minded orthodoxy of later years as laws binding on faith. And yet why did Melanchthon go on improving and polishing them if he did not regard them as his own personal books, which he was free to alter just as every author may when he publishes a new edition of his work?” Yet they were “the genuine charter of evangelical belief as understood by our Reformers.”

[1089] Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,” Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “_Confutatio_” is reprinted in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the ‘_Augustana_’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on the ‘_Confutatio_.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.” Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”^[10], p. 47): “_Hæc fere summa est doctrinæ apud nos_ [Harnack: _suos_] _in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est_.” On p. 684 Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in the _Augustana_ I cannot admit. The _Augustana_ was the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him.”

As regards the position of the _Augustana_ in the history of Protestantism, Harnack remarks on the same page, that the free teaching of the Reformation then began to develop into a “Rule of Faith.” “When to this was added the pressure from without, and when, under the storms which were gathering (fanatics, Anabaptists), courage to say anything _quod discrepet ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est_, faded away, then the movement terminated in the Confession of Augsburg, which while not actually denying the principle of evangelical freedom, nevertheless begins to pour the new wine into old vessels (cp. even the Articles of Marburg). Did the Reformation (of the sixteenth century) do away with the old dogma? It is safer to answer this question in the negative than in the affirmative. But if we admit that it attacked its foundations, as our Catholic opponents rightly accuse us of doing, and that it was a mighty principle rather than a new system of doctrine, then it must also be admitted that the altogether conservative attitude of the Reformation towards ancient dogma, inclusive of its premisses, for instance, Original Sin and the Fall, belongs, not to its principle, but simply to its history.”

[1090] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 280 ff., with a more detailed appreciation of the _Apologia_.

[1091] Reprinted in the “Symb. Bücher,” p. 73 ff. Cp. Kolde’s Introduction, p. xl. f.

[1092] Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 281.

[1093] “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 9, p. 18 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 501.

[1094] Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxi., on the Latin edition which appeared at the end of April or the beginning of May, being followed by the German edition (probably) in the autumn.

[1095] “Symb. Bücher,” p. 45. The Latin text runs: “_Tota hæc causa habet testimonia patrum. Nam Augustinus multis voluminibus defendit gratiam et iustitiam fidei contra merita operum. Et similia docet Ambrosius.... Quamquam autem haec doctrina (iustificationis) contemnitur ab imperitis, tamen experiuntur piæ ac pavidæ conscientiæ plurimam eam consolationis afferre._”

[1096] In the letter to Brenz mentioned above.

[1097] Cp. the passages, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 92, 104, 151, 218. On p. 104 in the article _De iustificatione_ he quotes Augustine, _De spir. et litt._, in support of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. On p. 218 he foists this assertion on the Catholics, “_homines sine Spiritu Sancto posse ... mereri gratiam et iustificationem operibus_,” and says, that this was refuted by Augustine, “_cuius sententiam supra in articulo de iustificatione recitavimus_.”

[1098] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 173; cp. p. 169.

[1099] G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xix. 3.

[1100] On January 28, 1538. Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 44. Cp. G. Ellinger, “Philipp Melanchthon,” Berlin, 1902, pp. 362 ff., 598.

[1101] To Veit Dietrich, July 8, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 174.

[1102] To Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola at Augsburg, July 15, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 113.

[1103] To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45.

[1104] On August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233. “_Obsecro te, ut Amsdorfice respondeas in aliquem angulum_: ‘Dass uns der Papst und Legat wollten im Ars lecken.’”

[1105] From Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35; “_tuas miserrimas curas, quibus te scribis consumi_.” This was really due to the “greatness of our want of faith.”

[1106] He writes to Melanchthon on June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51: “_Si nos ruemus, ruet Christus una! Esto ruat, malo ego cum Christo ruere quam cum Cæsare stare._” His cause was without “_temeritas_” and quite pure, “_quod testatur mihi Spiritus ipse_.” _Ibid._: “_Ego pro te oro, oravi et orabo nec dubito, quin sim exauditus; sentio illud Amen in corde meo_.” The entire letter mirrors his frame of mind during his stay at the Castle of Coburg.

[1107] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 280.

[1108] To Spengler, September 15, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 372.

[1109] In his “_spes transactionis_” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 261) Melanchthon even described the previous tampering with the Church as “_temerarii motus_” (_ibid._, p. 246 _seq._). Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 112.

[1110] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 297.

[1111] Luther to Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45: “_Sicuti semper scripsi, omnia sis concedere paratus, tantum solo evangelio nobis libere permisso_.”

[1112] August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235: “_dolos ac lapsus nostros facile emendabimus_,” etc. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386. For proof that “_mendacia_” should be read after “_dolos_” see Grisar, “Stimmen aus M.L.,” 1913, p. 286 ff.

[1113] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.

[1114] “_Ubique enim et semper excipimus libertatem et puritatem doctrinæ, qua obtenta tune dominationem episcoporum detrectares?_”

[1115] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 362.

[1116] Cp. Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, August 26, 1530, and previous ones to Melanchthon, July 13; to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola, July 15; to Melanchthon, July 27. “Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 219, 100, 112, 136.

[1117] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.

[1118] “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 5, p. 282. Spoken at the termination of the historic Diet of Augsburg the words of the theologians gain added interest, though this was not the first time similar language was heard. Cp. G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” p. 14 f. Even in 1527 the Visitations had been “arranged by the Elector for the amendment of the conditions” which Luther had exposed “to his sovereign with a heavy heart, viz. ‘how the parsonages are in a state of misery, no one giving or paying anything’; the common man heeds neither preacher nor parson, so that, unless some strong measures are taken by Your Electoral Highness for State maintenance of pastors and preachers, there will soon be neither parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, and so God’s Word and service will come to an end.”

[1119] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 282: “neither were they at all impressed by the declaration of the Emperor that ‘the Word of God, the Gospel and every law, civil and canonical, forbade a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.’”

[1120] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 342.

[1121] Letter of August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233.

[1122] Luther to the Landgrave, September 11, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxvii. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 253): “I heartily thank H.R.H. for his gracious and consoling offer to afford me shelter.”

[1123] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 319 ff.

[1124] “Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, pp. 283 f., 286, 287.

[1125] _Ibid._, p. 596.

[1126] “Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 251.

[1127] _Ibid._, p. 343.

[1128] “Ph. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xiv. 3), p. 90 f. Campeggio, in H. Laemmer, “Monumenta Vaticana,” p. 51.

[1129] Third ed. Art. “Melanchthon,” by († Landerer, † Herrlinger and) Kirn, pp. 518, 529.

[1130] “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358 ff. The page-heading reads: “Melanchthons absichtliche und öffentliche Unwahrheit.”

[1131] Sell, _ibid._, p. 98.

[1132] To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51.

[1133] On August 26, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 219. Cp. his letters of July 13 to Melanchthon, of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin and Melanchthon.

[1134] On September 11, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 252: “_Utinam episcopi eam (iurisdictionem) accepissent sub istis conditionibus! Sed ipsi habent nares in suam rem._”

[1135] To Camerarius, November 2, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1126.

[1136] Cp. his “_Apologia_” of the Augsburg Confession, Art. iv., “Symb. Bücher,” p. 87, where, on the doctrine of Justification, the old German translation runs: “Because the gainsayers know not nor understand what the words of Scripture mean, what forgiveness of sins, or grace, or faith, or justice is ... they have miserably robbed poor souls, to whom it was a matter of life and death, of their eternal consolation.” Page 90: “They do not know what the fear of death or the assaults of the devil are ... when the heart feels the anger of God or the conscience is troubled ... but the affrighted conscience knows well that it is impossible to merit either _de condigno_ or _de congruo_, and therefore soon sinks into distrust and despair,” etc. Page 95: The new teaching alone was able “to raise up our hearts even amidst the terrors of sin and death,” etc. Hence Melanchthon insists in his “_Brevis discendæ theologiæ ratio_” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 458), that Bible study served “_ad usum et ad tentationes superandas comparanda cognitio_.”

[1137] See Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung,” etc. (above p. 319, n. 1), p. 32. Cp. Kawerau, “Studien und Kritiken,” 1897, p. 678 f.

[1138] Plitt-Kolde,³, 1900.

[1139] Melanchthon to Spalatin, September, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 674, after the publication of the “_Diatribe_”: “_Diu optavi Luthero prudentem aliquem de hoc negotio antagonistam contingere_.” “His own testimony (in 1536) is decisive as to the effect of Erasmus on his opinion regarding free-will.” Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 199. On the “_Diatribe_,” see our vol. ii., p. 261 ff.

[1140] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 202. In this he was of course inconsequent, for, as Ellinger says, where it is a question of the religious life, he traces everything back to the action of God. “It is easy to see, that, here, as in Luther’s case (where the _Deus absconditus_ plays a part), we have merely an expedient.” _Ibid._

[1141] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 175 f.

[1142] Above, p. 324. He was being attacked on account of the stress he laid on good works, so he wrote to Camerarius in December, 1536, but though so many preachers were now shouting in stentorian tones that it was erroneous to demand works, “posterity will be astonished that an age so mad could ever have been, when such folly met with applause.” Cp. “_Pezelii Obiectiones et resp. Melanchthonis_,” 5, p. 289, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.

[1143] To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383.

[1144] To the Landgrave of Hesse in 1524, under the title “_Epitome renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ_” (“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 704): “_Iustitia vere christiana est, cum confusa conscientia per fidem in Christum erigitur et sentit, se accipere remissionem peccatorum propter Christum_.” In the same “_Epitome_,” p. 706: “_Ipsissimam iustitiam esse, credere quod per Christum remittantur peccata sine nostra satisfactione, sine nostris meritis_.”

[1145] Cp. the passages in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 291.

[1146] Letter of August or September, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 158.

[1147] Even in his “_Discendæ theologiæ ratio_” of 1530 (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 457), Melanchthon had said: “_Multa sunt in illis (Locis) adhuc rudiora, quæ decrevi mutare_.”

[1148] To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “_Scio, re ipsa Lutherum sentire eadem_.”

[1149] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”^[4], 1906, p. 857. He says, that Melanchthon “was deceiving himself” in asserting that Luther’s teaching was the same.

[1150] “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 3.

[1151] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 837 f.

[1152] _Ibid._, p. 838. He had even ceased to be a true interpreter since 1527, so we read on p. 842.

[1153] Loofs, p. 842.

[1154] _Ibid._, p. 844.

[1155] _Ibid._

[1156] _Ibid._, p. 845.

[1157] _Ibid._, p. 845 ff.

[1158] _Ibid._, p. 853 f.

[1159] J. Haussleiter, “Aus der Schule Melanchthons, Theologische Disputationen usw., 1546 bis 1560,” Greifswald, 1897, p. 35.

[1160] _Ibid._, p. 39.

[1161] Cp. Loofs, _loc. cit._, p. 855.

[1162] Haussleiter, _loc. cit._, p. v. Also Loofs, _loc. cit._ Cp. above, p. 332, n.

[1163] “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889), p. 121 ff.

[1164] Cp. above, p. 3 ff. It should be pointed out in order to supplement the above statements of Haussleiter and Müller that Luther nevertheless looks on faith as the acceptance of certain dogmas (cp. above, p. 14, and vol. v., xxxiv. 1), and thus in some sense recognises a “rule of faith,” and that not seldom in the most peremptory fashion he demands obedience to the “injunctions of faith.”

[1165] Page vi.

[1166] Karl Müller (“Symbole,” p. 127 f.) points out very truly that Melanchthon was in the habit of appealing to Luther’s authority, who, for his part, “claimed immutability for his own view of the Gospel”; and further that later followers of Luther, for instance, Flacius, thanks to this very principle, reverted to the real Luther, and furiously assailed Melanchthon for his deformation of the Reformer. According to G. Krüger, “Melanchthon,” p. 12, Melanchthon “in his revisions (of the ‘_Loci_’) cut himself more and more adrift from Luther, not always happily, but rather to the detriment of the cause.” Page 25: “Many are of opinion that the glorious seed of the German Reformation would have borne much richer fruit had Melanchthon been different from what he was.” Yet Krüger also says: “Should the Luther for whom we long ever come, then let us hope that a Melanchthon will be his right-hand man, that, with the advent of the Titan who overthrows the old and founds the new, the spirit of peace and kindliness may still prevail to the blessing to our Fatherland and Church.” What the aims of the new Luther and new Melanchthon are to be, the author fails to state.

[1167] Above, p. 8 ff.

[1168] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 69.

[1169] Krüger, “Ph. Melanchthon,” p. 12: “Although Melanchthon, the academician, did not look upon himself as a born theologian, although he likened himself to the donkey in the mystery-play, yet he became the father of evangelical theology.”

[1170] To Camerarius, January 10, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 822: “_meam sententiam noli nunc requirere fui enim nuncius alienæ causæ_.”

[1171] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 865.

[1172] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358. He gives no references.

[1173] Above, p. 150 ff.

[1174] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 378; Erl. ed., 29, p. 5.

[1175] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.

[1176] Vol. v., xxxi. 1 and 4.

[1177] “Anal. Lutherana et Melanchthoniana. Tischreden Luthers und Aussprüche Melanchthons,” 1892 (usually quoted here as “Mathesius, Aufzeichnungen”).

[1178] Page 178.

[1179] Page 158.

[1180] Page 143.

[1181] Page 178.

[1182] Page 186. On Melanchthon’a belief in devils and witches see K. Hartfelder, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 1889, p. 252 ff. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, pp. 27, 41, 121.

[1183] Page 184.

[1184] Page 160.

[1185] Page 161.

[1186] “Vita Melanchthonis,” c. 22.

[1187] Page 177.

[1188] Page 19.

[1189] Page 159.

[1190] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400.

[1191] “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 133, in a work against Thamer. Cp. N. Paulus, “Servets Hinrichtung im lutherischen Urteil,” “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 161 ff., and “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1905, pp. 40-53; likewise “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911.

[1192] “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 362.

[1193] _Ibid._, p. 524.

[1194] _Ibid._, p. 852.

[1195] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 602.

[1196] Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” p. 47 ff. Paulus quotes from a pamphlet of Melanchthon’s—which escaped the notice of the editors of his works—entitled “Prozess, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Wiedertäufern,” and dated 1557. Here we read that even the Anabaptist articles which did not concern the secular government were to be punished as blasphemies, as for instance the rejection of infant baptism and the denial of the Trinity. Such articles were not to be regarded as of no account, “for the Jewish fallacy that Christ did not exist previous to His Incarnation is plainly blasphemous, and so is the denial of original sin,” etc. Then follows the list of penalties. The memorandum is signed by the theologians Melanchthon, J. Brenz, J. Marbach, J. Andreae, G. Karg, P. Eber, J. Pistorius and J. Rungius.

[1197] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 45: “No less than nine reasons are alleged to prove that Christian rulers, like the Jewish kings, are bound by Divine law to root out idolatry.”

[1198] Letter to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 538.

[1199] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 154. Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 5.

[1200] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 615.

[1201] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 157.

[1202] “Von der Freyheit eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 34 f., 29; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 195 f., 187.

[1203] Cp. above, p. 324 ff.

[1204] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, pp. 604, 608.

[1205] To Bishop Andreas Cricius, October 27, 1532, in Kawerau, “Die Versuche, Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” p. 13, from T. Wierzbowski, “Materialy,” etc., Warsaw, 1900.

[1206] To Camerarius, November 27, 1539, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 840: “_dolores animi acerbissimi et continui_.”

[1207] To Bucer, August 28, 1544, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 474. In the same letter: “_noster Pericles_ [Luther] _rursus tonare cœpit vehementissime_”; Amsdorf was inciting him against the writer on account of the question of the Sacrament.

[1208] To Camerarius, October 31, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 683.

[1209] To the same, March 23, 1525, _ibid._, p. 729: “_Reliqui vulgus sunt_.”

[1210] To the same, July 4, 1526, _ibid._, p. 804. See his letter on Luther’s marriage in our vol. ii., p. 176.

[1211] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 619, p. 188, n. Melanchthon reminds Camerarius that they had “often censured” Luther’s [Greek: bômoloch’ia]. Cp. vol. ii., p. 178. Camerarius altered not only this letter in the printed edition, but also others; for instance, that mentioned above, p. 364, note 4, about the “_vulgus_.”

[1212] Cruciger to Veit Dietrich, August 4, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 398: “_Cum alia multa, tum maxime obstat_ [Greek: ê gunaikoturann’is].” K. Sell, “Phil. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation,” 1898, p. 57: “The wives do not seem to have got on so well.”

[1213] “Many of the people,” he writes in 1524, “attach themselves to Luther as the champion of freedom; they are weary of the good old customs ... many of them think that Luther merely teaches contempt of human traditions.” (In the _Epitome_ addressed to the Landgrave of Hesse [above, p. 348, n. 1].) Cp. Döllinger, _loc. cit._, 3, p. 301. He laments in similar fashion the results of Luther’s behaviour in 1527, complaining that the people had become “over-confident and had lost the sense of fear” because they heard nothing about penance. This one-sided preaching of the Gospel resulted “in greater errors and sins than had ever existed before.” Döllinger, _ibid._, 3, p. 302. Melanchthon regarded the writings of his friend, particularly on account of their exaggeration, with “ever-increasing distrust.” “The great man’s boisterousness began to alarm him.... There is no doubt that it was from this quarter that the misgivings first arose which nipped and caused to wither the blossoms of their previous so intimate relationship.” Thus Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 187.

[1214] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.

[1215] May 12, 1536. _Ibid._, 3, p. 68 _seq._

[1216] Caspar Aquila, as early as 1527, accused him of abandoning Christianity and of being a Papist. Cp. Melanchthon to Aquila, November 17, 1527. “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 961. Cp. the letter to the same of the middle of November, 1527, _ibid._, p. 959.

[1217] To the Saxon minister Carlowitz, April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879 _seq._

[1218] To Justus Jonas, November 25, 1527, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 913: “_quam si vivus in eiusmodi miserias incideret_.”

[1219] See above, p. 321.

[1220] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 241.

[1221] On June 13, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.

[1222] On June 30, 1530, p. 50.

[1223] “Die Versuche,” p. 65.

[1224] _Ibid._, p. 10.

[1225] This proposition stands at the head of the 1535 edition of the “_Loci_.” He had intended in this work, so he says, “_colligere doctrinam catholicam ecclesiae Christi_,” as taught by those witnesses. “Corp. ref.,” 21, p. 333. In 1540 he declared further that the Churches accepting the Augsburg Confession held fast to the “_perpetuus consensus veræ ecclesiæ omnium temporum_,” as to that of the Prophets and Apostles; Ambrose, Augustine, etc., agreed with them—if only they were rightly understood. “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 494.

[1226] Paolo Vergerio, January 13, 1541, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 22.

[1227] Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 66 f.

[1228] _Ibid._, p. 33. Cordatus to Cruciger, August 20, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 159. In a letter to the latter of September 17, 1536, he bases his blame of Melanchthon on his praise of Luther (“_Præceptor noster, qui est doctor doctorum theologiæ. Amen._”), to whose doctrine it was necessary to hold fast.

[1229] “_Vita Erasmi_,” ed. Lugd. Batav., 1615, p. 259. Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 17.

[1230] Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 31.

[1231] “_In plerisque controversiis iudicandis meam opinionem ad tuam sententiam libenter adiungo._” Letter of May 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68 _seq._

[1232] His theses on the Primacy and his other polemical statements (see below, xx. 4) are scarcely “better-sounding.” A good resolution here made runs as follows: “_Ad has materias tractandas afferam aliquanto plus curæ ac studii quam antea._”

[1233] Kawerau’s opinion, p. 33.

[1234] To Camerarius, November 30, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 193. After mentioning the report Melanchthon adds: “_Nihil mihi obicitur, nisi quod dicor plusculum laudare bona opera_”; all the truth in this was that “_quædam minus horride dico quam ipsi_,” i.e. than Luther and his more enthusiastic followers.

[1235] With the expression “unhappy fate” we may compare his lament over the “_rixæ religionum, in quas meo quodam fato incidi_” (To the Imperial Secretary Obernburger, June 23, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 602). Kawerau remarks (p. 15): “It is indeed sad to find Luther’s greatest friend speaking of his having been involved in the ecclesiastical struggles of his time as a misfortune.”

[1236] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 313: “He probably made use here of an intentionally ambiguous phrase in order to curry favour with the Bishop, for it is clear that he never meant to promote a restoration of the hierarchical order, though Cricius may well have supposed this from his letter. Hence we see that in the execution of his plans, Melanchthon was not above having recourse to craft.”

[1237] Letter of October 27, 1532. For its publication by T. Wierzbowski see Kawerau, p. 78, n. 17. Kawerau rightly emphasises the fact that, according to the text of the letter, Melanchthon refuses to break with Luther merely “on the weak ground that he, as a right-minded man (_vir bonus_), could not make up his mind to approve, let alone admire, the cruel and bloodthirsty plans of the Romanists.... Should the ‘_moderata consilia_’ prevail amongst the Catholic bishops, then he would be quite willing to come to terms.... We cannot but see how gladly he would have taken refuge in a haven where he would be safe from the theological storm. This letter shows him as a moderate, and, at the same time, as a true representative of Humanist interests.” For the further efforts of Cricius, who wrote in 1535, that he was acting on behalf of, or at least with the express sanction of, the Pope and the Cardinals, see Kawerau, p. 18 ff. Melanchthon’s writing of August, 1532, to the Elector-Cardinal Albert of Mayence, in which, in the most respectful terms, he begs the Primate of Germany, so hated by Luther, “to procure a milder remedy (cp. ‘_moderata consilia_’) for the dissensions in the Churches,” is also of importance; all right-minded men in Europe (_boni omnes_) were looking to him. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 611 _seq._ In these letters we see his earnest efforts “to bring about peace and avert civil war,” as he writes to Erasmus.

[1238] On January 31, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 567.

[1239] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 353.

[1240] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 _seq._

[1241] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 266.

[1242] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 349.

[1243] _Ibid._, p. 351 f.

[1244] Ellinger, p. 414. The exclamation was called forth by his sad experience over the Naumburg bishopric (see below, p. 375, and vol. v., xxx. 4).

[1245] This tendency is also manifest in Melanchthon’s many labours for the promotion of education. In place of the old, independent Universities of the Middle Ages, enjoying ecclesiastical freedom and partaking of a quasi-international character, there sprang up, wherever Melanchthon’s influence prevailed, High Schools with a more limited horizon destined to supply the sovereign of the land with servants for the State, officials and preachers, but, above all, to safeguard the true Evangel. “All the reformed Universities established at Melanchthon’s instance,” remarks Carl Sell, a Protestant theologian, “Marburg, Tübingen, Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Leipzig, Königsberg, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Rostock, Jena, and finally Helmstädt, were State Universities, and, like Wittenberg, intended as citadels of the pure faith. Hence their professors were all bound by the new Confession.... The old, unfettered liberty of the Church’s Universities was now subordinated to the ends and needs of the State.” “Philip Melanchthon als Lehrmeister des protest. Deutschland,” 1897, p. 19. _Ibid._, p. 11, Sell thus characterises the State-Church promoted by Melanchthon and by Luther likewise: “The German Reformation never succeeded in producing a new ecclesiasticism. What grew up beneath its sway was rather a confessional State, which declared itself at one with that form of the Christian religion which the head of the State regarded as right.”

[1246] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 281. “Symbol. Bücher,^[10]” p. 339 (in the Articles of Schmalkalden, “_Tractatus de potestate papæ_”).

[1247] Thus Kolde in the Introduction to his edition of the “Symbol. Bücher^[10]” just referred to, p. xxv., n. 2, adding: “A preliminary to this is possibly to be found in ‘Corp. ref.,’ 3, p. 240 _seq._”

[1248] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, pp. 354, 364.

[1249] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 422.

[1250] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 377.

[1251] On this “miracle,” see above, p. 162.

[1252] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578 _seq._ “Zeitschr. für die hist. Theol.,” 28, 1858, 606 f. On Melanchthon’s insincerity cp. also O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch.,” 1, 1908, p. 232.

[1253] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 411.

[1254] _Ibid._, p. 26.

[1255] _Ibid._, p. 16.

[1256] To Julius Pflug, August 20, 1531, “_Erasmi Opp._,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1412. Kawerau, “_Versuche_,” p. 31.

[1257] “_B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ_,” etc., ed. O. Braunsberger, 1, p. 359 _seq._

[1258] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “_Equidem studeo omni officio tueri concordiam nostræ academiæ, et scis me etiam hoc genere artis aliquid adhibere solere_,” etc. It is possible that the above reference to a “_plaga_,” or some other similar passage, gave rise to the singular misapprehension of certain polemics, viz. that Luther had been in the habit of coercing Melanchthon by striking him and boxing his ears, surely one of the most curious, and at the same time baseless, of all the legends concerning Luther.

[1259] On November 4, 1543, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 218.

[1260] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 433. Cp. Melanchthon to Johann Sturm, August 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917: The Court had prevailed on him not to leave Wittenberg, chiefly because it regarded his presence as indispensable owing to his power for mediating: “_me putant aliquanto minus vehementem aut pertinacem esse quam sunt alii_.” He regrets, with a hint at the Luther-enthusiasts, the “_democratia aut tyrannis indoctorum_” prevalent in both Catholic and Lutheran camps.... “_Non dissimulo evectos etiam esse nostros interdum [Greek: hyper ta eskammena], et multa mitigavi._”

[1261] “_Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili_,” he says in the letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879.

[1262] See n. 3 of last page.

[1263] Hipler, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Humanismus,” p. 45. Kawerau, “_Versuche_,” p. 31.

[1264] Explanation of Article xviii., “Werke,” 2, 1908, p. 147.

[1265] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 34 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 11. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 310. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 63.

[1266] See below, p. 409.

[1267] “Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister,” 1527, “Werke,” _ibid._, 38 ff.=14 ff.

[1268] Fragment in Migne’s “P.L.,” 5, col. 348 _seq._

[1269] “_De Trinitate_,” 18, c. 14. “P.L.,” 10, col. 247.

[1270] “_Ep. ad Smyrnæos_,” 7. Migne, “P.G.,” 5, col. 714. Instead of the passages here quoted, certain others were preferred in that controversy.

[1271] We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u. K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation. Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation as any obstacle to joining his party (“_nihil morati si quis eam alibi credat vel non_”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.

[1272] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.

[1273] _Ibid._, p. 130.

[1274] _Ibid._, p. 108.

[1275] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.

[1276] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.

[1277] “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.

[1278] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.

[1279] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.

[1280] See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.

[1281] To Prior Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907 (with a discussion of G. Barge’s “Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt”), and “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.

[1282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 340; Erl. ed., 64, p. 394 f., from the “Report” on their meeting.

[1283] “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 165.

[1284] _Ibid._, p. 86=162: He points out why Andrew Carlstadt, “so far as my prayers may avail, shall not be permitted to come in again, but shall again depart should he secure admittance, unless he becomes a new Andrew, to which may God help him.” He had not interpreted the law of Moses aright nor applied it to the authorities, but to the common people. The authorities ought to forbid the country to such preachers as did not teach quietly but drew the mob to them, pulled down images and destroyed churches at their pleasure behind the backs of the authorities. Carlstadt’s spirit and that of his followers was a “spirit of murder and revolt.” Here he does not refer to the difference on the doctrine of the Sacrament. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” pp. 175-178. For the circumstances attending his banishment, see below, p. 391 f.

[1285] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 676.

[1286] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 125; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205. The first part was in print at the end of 1524, the second part about the end of January, 1525. Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 685.

[1287] Luther to the Elector of Saxony, September 12, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 327 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 240).

[1288] Carlstadt to Luther, previous to September 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 239: “_Fui olim frater (tuus) fortasse non nimium commodus sed posthac mancipium ero et obsequibile et suspiciens._” He describes to Luther the poverty to which he, with his wife and child, were reduced.

[1289] See passage from Alberus, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 240, n. 1.

[1290] K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 194.

[1291] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.

[1292] _Ibid._, p. 161.

[1293] _Ibid._, p. 144.

[1294] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 88.

[1295] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 124.

[1296] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 37.

[1297] On September 13, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 23.

[1298] To Jacob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 452.

[1299] To Amsdorf, April 13, 1542, _ibid._, p. 463.

[1300] To Probst, as above.

[1301] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 213; Erl. ed., 29, 296.

[1302] _Ibid._, p. 134=206.

[1303] In “Thomas Zweifels Rothenburg im Bauernkrieg,” ed. Baumann (“Bibl. des Litt. Vereins in Stuttgart,” 139), p. 20.

[1304] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, pp. 271, 273.

[1305] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 112 ff.; Erl. ed., p. 29, p. 190 ff.

[1306] _Ibid._, p. 114=193.

[1307] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 116; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.

[1308] Ickelsamer, “Clag,” etc. (ed. Enders, “Neudrucke,” No. 118, 1893). Cp. for instance “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 209; 53, p. 274.

[1309] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 687.

[1310] “Summa theol.,” 1-2, q. C. a. 3.

[1311] In a letter to Spalatin as early as May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377.

[1312] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 164; Erl. ed., 29, p. 241.

[1313] _Ibid._, p. 182 f.=261.

[1314] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 115; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.

[1315] Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” p. 53. For the Prophecy see above, p. 165 f.

[1316] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 134; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205.

[1317] _Ibid._, 15, p. 394=53, p. 274.

[1318] Sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 80.

[1319] _Ibid._, p. 287.

[1320] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 391; Erl. ed., 53, p. 271 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).

[1321] _Ibid._, 18, p. 214=29, p. 297.

[1322] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 390 f.=53, p. 276 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).

[1323] Sermon of March 25, 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 76 _seq._

[1324] Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” pp. 43, 44, 45.

[1325] Glatz to Luther, January 18, 1525, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 107.

[1326] To Link at Altenburg on February 7, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 122.

[1327] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 376. Cp. _ibid._, p. 372 ff.

[1328] Förstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” 1, p. 322.

[1329] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.

[1330] _Ibid._, p. 138.

[1331] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.

[1332] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[1333] O. Clemen, “Johann Sylvius Egranus” (“Mitt. des Altertumsvereins für Zwickau und Umgegend,” 1899, Hft. 6 and 7; Sonderabd., 1 and 2), 1, p. 28.

[1334] “Historien,” p. 222.

[1335] _Ibid._, p. 79.

[1336] M. J. Weller, “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” Chemnitz, 1760 ff., 2, p. 783. Weller, 1, p. 177, gives one of Egranus’s letters of 1523, in which he says: “_propter Lutherum neque evangelium neque Christum ... nominare tutum est_.”

[1337] Clemen, _ibid._, 2, p. 11 f.

[1338] Bl. A. 3a. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 135.

[1339] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 488.

[1340] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343 (in 1544).

[1341] _Ibid._, p. 90.

[1342] _Ibid._, p. 207.

[1343] To Wolfgang Wiebel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 208 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 367).

[1344] Clemen, _ibid._, p. 16, with a reference to Loesche’s “Leben des Mathesius,” 1, 1895, p. 88.

[1345] Plentiful proofs in N. Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” p. 1 ff.

[1346] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.

[1347] For these passages and some others, see Döllinger, _ibid._, p, 136 f. Cp. Clemen, _ibid._, 2, p. 14.

[1348] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 267.

[1349] _Ibid._, p. 266 _seq._

[1350] _Ibid._, p. 267.

[1351] L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.

[1352] Reprint of Luther’s _Praefatio_ in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502 _seq._

[1353] First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener Staatsbibl.).

[1354] p. 2.

[1355] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter, which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538 (_illo die_).

[1356] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.

[1357] _Ibid._, p. 412.

[1358] “Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”

[1359] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).

[1360] _Ibid._, p. 381.

[1361] H. Kawerau, “RE. für prot. Theol.,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”

[1362] See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 528, where the “contravention of the rights of the Chapter” is admitted.

[1363] To Bugenhagen, November 24, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 127.

[1364] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 147 f. See above, p. 204.

[1365] Mathesius, _ibid._, p. 274.

[1366] In the work called “_Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi_” (end of August, 1525). See “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 447. Zwingli replied to Bugenhagen in a writing of October, 1525. In the “Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmal Christi,” which Zwingli published in February, 1526, in vindication of his denial of the Real Presence, he, as in his previous writings, avoided naming Luther. Since at Basle in September, 1525, [Œcolampadius also advocated the figurative sense of the words of institution in his writing, “_De genuina verborum Domini expositione_,” and Caspar Schwenckfeld and Valentine Krautwald sought to propagate the same in Silesia, while Carlstadt was winning adherents by his attacks upon the Sacrament, Bugenhagen’s work was all the more timely. Johann Brenz espoused his cause, in opposition to the figurative interpretation, in his “Syngramma” of October, 1525, and so did Jacob Strauss. The “Sacramentarian” movement had grown before Luther followed up his vigorous refutation of Carlstadt’s denial of the Sacrament (in his book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” and in his sermon of 1526 on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the fanatics) by his polemical Tractate against Zwingli and [Œcolampadius on the words of Christ, “This is My Body” (1527). See above, p. 379 f.]

[1367] Spengler to Veit Dietrich, in Mayer’s “Spengleriana,” p. 153. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 141.

[1368] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 25.

[1369] _Ibid._, p. 89.

[1370] E. Hörigk, “Joh. Bugenhagen und die Protestantisierung Pommerns,” Mainz, 1895, p. 19 f.

[1371] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. Cp. p. 220. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 10, where Luther relates how Bugenhagen calmed him when the devil almost choked him with the passage 1 Timothy v. 11, and drove him “from _gratia in disputationem legis_.”

[1372] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.

[1373] Bugenhagen to Luther, Jonas and Melanchthon (beginning of November, 1530), “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 304 ff.: “The words [of the devil] Acts xxix.[15] came to my mind: ‘Jesus I know and Paul I know,’ etc. He has often troubled me ... I have not yet forgotten what he sought to do through the Sacramentarians of Silesia (see p. 409, n. 3). In the matter of other sins he may have seemed to triumph over me, but, thanks be to Christ, he may indeed have come to me, but has not been able to remain. I again exhort you herewith that you pray for me,” etc.

[1374] In the letter, p. 307.

[1375] “Zwo wunderbarliche Hystorien zu Bestettigung der Lere des Evangelii, Johann Pomer, Philipp Melanchthon.” According to Enders, 8, p. 304, probably published at Nuremberg (by Luther’s friend, W. Link) in 1530 or the beginning of 1531.

[1376] Cp. B. Heyne, “Uber Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 52 ff.

[1377] To Wenceslaus Link, December, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.

[1378] Wolfgang Musculus (“Itinerar.,” May 25, 1536), in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 220.

[1379] On July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” p. 245.

[1380] July 26, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 183 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 250).

[1381] Saxo to Bugenhagen, July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 151: “_actum esse de Pauli collo_,” etc.

[1382] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 181.

[1383] _Ibid._, p. 380. See above, p. 230.

[1384] _Ibid._, p. 385.

[1385] Voigt, “Herzog Albrecht,” in Raumer, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 2, p. 314. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 142.

[1386] Bugenhagen, “Wahrhaftige Historie,” Wittenberg, 1547, Conclusion. P. Knittel in “KL.”², Art. “Bugenhagen.”

[1387] Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 142.

[1388] On February 4, 1538, from Copenhagen, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 329.

[1389] The Superintendent of Zealand, Peter Palladius, who had betaken himself to Denmark with Bugenhagen from Wittenberg, writes: “The thieves [monks] have now been driven out of the land, and some of them hanged.” L. Schmitt, “Der Karmeliter Paulus Heliä, Vorkämpfer der kathol. Kirche gegen die sog. Reformation in Dänemark,” Freiburg, 1893, p. 160 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 19.

[1390] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 300 f.

[1391] On November 21, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” p. 162 ff. Hörigk, _loc. cit._, p. 35 f.

[1392] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219.

[1393] _Ibid._, p. 114.

[1394] _Ibid._, p. 178.

[1395] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 83, in 1540.

[1396] _Ibid._, p. 84.

[1397] _Ibid._, p. 106.

[1398] H. Weller to the Councillors at Halle, April 18, 1567, “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 343.

[1399] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 26, where he states that Luther also found fault with Katey’s many words, “_quibus ipsa perpetuo optima verba eius interturbabat. Et D. Ionas eadem erat virtute._”

[1400] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 317 _seq._

[1401] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219. See above, p. 110 f.

[1402] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313, in 1543.

[1403] _Ibid._, p. 79.

[1404] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175: “_tantum unum habere rusticum ex tot pagis_,” etc.

[1405] See vol. iv., xxiv. 4.

[1406] Cp. G. Kawerau, “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. lv. f., and also in “RE. für prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Jonas.”

[1407] Kawerau, in “RE.,” _ibid._ Concerning his polemics with Wicel, Kawerau admits (in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. xxxviii.) that “Georg Witzels historia” by Jonas is no “reliable source,” and of the attack on the Emperor he declares (p. xlix.) that, during the Schmalkalden War, Jonas caused him to be prayed against as “Antichrist.”

[1408] On February 9, 1534, Kolde, “_Anal. Lutherana_,” p. 204. For other similar passages see above, p. 277 f.

[1409] To Bullinger, April 9, 1534, _ibid._, p. 205: “_furit et debacchatur in quoslibet ... sicque devovet viros sanctissimos_,” etc.

[1410] Letter of December 8, 1543. Cp. Hess, “Leben Bullingers,” 1, p. 404 _seq._

[1411] See vol. ii., p. 363 ff.

[1412] F. X. Funk in “KL.,”² Art. “Wiedertäufer,” col. 1491, 1483.

[1413] G. Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 92.

[1414] “Comment. in Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 8.

[1415] So at least says Luther in the Preface to a work of Urban Regius against the Anabaptists of Münster, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 332: “They write: That there are,” etc. Luther strongly urges the contrary.

[1416] In the Preface to the “Neue Zeitung von Münster,” _ibid._, p. 336. Cp. Luther’s letter to Frederick Myconius on July 5, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 62: “_De anabaptistis Monasteriensibus parum curo. Satan furit, sed stat Scriptura._”

[1417] To Jacob Probst at Bremen, August 23, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 197 f.

[1418] Cp. Bucer to Luther, August 25, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 209 ff. Nicholas Gerbel to Luther, from Strasburg, October 21, 1530, ibid., p. 292; Luther to Joh. Brismann at Riga, November 7, 1530, ibid., p. 312: “_Sacramentarios, saltem Strassburgenses, nobiscum in gratiam redire spes est_”; he adds, however, a doubt as to Bucer’s sincerity: “_Si non fallit quod dicit; admonui enim, ne simularet_.”

[1419] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 75 _seq._

[1420] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 348, with account of the acceptance of the Concord.

[1421] Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 125.

[1422] Luther to Jacob Meyer, Burgomaster of Basle, February 17, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 172 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 201). To this letter Luther frequently refers as best expressive of his standpoint.

[1423] _Ibid._

[1424] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 348.

[1425] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 46.

[1426] On May 6, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 200 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 357).

[1427] On June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 567 f.

[1428] June 20, 1543, _ibid._, p. 571.

[1429] To the printer, Christoph Froschauer, at Zürich, August 31, 1543, _ibid._, p. 587.

[1430] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 396 _seq._

[1431] See “_Concilii Tridentini Actorum Pars 1_,” ed. S. Ehses, 1904. Introduction by Ehses, chap. 10. Cp. Pastor, “Gesch. der Päpste,” 4, 2, 1907, pp. 471 ff., 582 ff.; 5, 1909, p. 31 ff.

[1432] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 395 _seq._ In the writing “Etliche Sprüche wider das Concilium Obstantiense” (Constantiense).

[1433] _Ibid._, p. 393. Cp. _ibid_., p. 411; cp. his mocking “Ausschreibung eines heiligen freien, christlichen Conciliums.”

[1434] Vergerio to Ricalcati, November 13, 1535 (“Nuntiaturber.” 1, ed. W. Friedensburg, p. 539 ff.). “Corp. Ref.,” 2, p. 987 (Spalatin’s note). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 58 (Table-Talk), Pallavicini, “Storia del Conc. di Trento,” 3, 18. Sarpi, _idem_, 1, n. 74. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 371 ff. Pastor, _op. cit._, 5, p. 49 f.

[1435] On November 10, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 267: “_Egi Lutherum ipsum tota mensa_.”

[1436] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 375.

[1437] “Senza nervo, sensa iudicio et una bestia.” “Nuntiaturberichte,” p. 543. “Bestia” in such a connection even now does not signify a “beast,” but rather a foolish man of whom no use can be made.

[1438] “Ha li occhi sguerzi, li quali quanto più io mirava, tanto più mi pareva di vederli appunto simili a quelli, che qualche volta io ho veduto, di qualche uno iudicato inspiritato, così affogati, inconstanti et con certo come furor et rabie, che vi si vede dentro” (p. 541).

[1439] “Che egli habbia qualche demonio adosso.”

[1440] In Friedensburg, “Nuntiaturberichte,” p. 554.

[1441] On Vergerio, particularly on his trial, see G. Buschbell, “Reformation und Inquisition in Italien um die Mitte des 16. Jahrh.,” Paderborn, 1910, p. 103 ff.

[1442] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 181 ff.

[1443] _Ibid._, p. 184.

[1444] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 168; also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 51 ff. “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 202. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 385.

[1445] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 126 _seq._ “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 137.

[1446] Seckendorf (“Comment de Lutheranismo,” 3, p. 145) says of the words “with the fist”: “_id est calamo_.” This is confirmed by a statement of Luther’s, according to which he was determined to write against the “Romish beast” with an even stronger fist (below, p. 437).

[1447] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 384.

[1448] See below, p. 439.

[1449] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 413 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169.

[1450] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 436.

[1451] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 389.

[1452] _Ibid._, p. 390 f.

[1453] _Ibid._

[1454] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 130´.

[1455] N. Ericeus in the Sylvula MS., p. 202´; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 186, n.

[1456] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 58.

[1457] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 185.

[1458] _Ibid._, 5, p. 59.

[1459] “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 200.

[1460] Cp. above, p. 208 f.

[1461] “Tagebuch,” p. 111.

[1462] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61; cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.

[1463] _Ibid._, 25², p. 254, 128.

[1464] To Caspar Müller, January 10, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 120 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 291).

[1465] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128.

[1466] _Ibid._, 23, p. 57.

[1467] See vol. vi., xxxvi.

[1468] “Symbolische Bücher,” p. 328 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 272 _seq._

[1469] See above, p. 434.

[1470] “Symbolische Bücher,” p. 336; in n. 39 and 40, the thesis that the Pope is Antichrist is proved syllogistically from 2 Thessalonians ii. 3 f.: “_Plane notæ antichristi competunt in regnum papæ et sua membra_.”

[1471] Page 337 f.

[1472] “_Abolent veros cultus, videlicet exercitia fidei luctantis cum desperatione._” See above, p. 345, how Melanchthon frequently emphasises the terrors which precede the working of the evangelical faith.

[1473] Page 340 ff.

[1474] Kolde, in the Introduction to the 10th edition of the “Symbolische Bücher,” p. 1. “This was the only official Confession agreed to at the Schmalkalden Convention.” When Luther caused his bitter “Artickel”—which had not been accepted at Schmalkalden at all (above, p. 431)—to be printed in 1538 (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 163 ff.), he nevertheless spoke of them as an official deed agreed to at the Schmalkalden Convention, declaring: “They have also been agreed upon unanimously by our followers and accepted, so that—were the Pope and his adherents ever so bold as to hold a Council, without lying and deceit but in all sincerity and truth, as he ought to do—these Articles ought to be publicly put forward as the confession of our faith.” Was he really ignorant of the actual facts of the case? It was surely to his interest, after the Conference of Schmalkalden, to inform himself exactly of the fate of his Articles. Kolde, _ibid._, p. 61, is of opinion that he evidently made the above assertion “in ignorance of the negotiations which had taken place at Schmalkalden during his illness.” Kolde, moreover, shows that Luther’s publication did not even agree with the original as “presented at Schmalkalden”; but contained various additions, some of them of considerable length, though “without any alteration of meaning.”

[1475] “Symbolische Bücher,” _ibid._, p. xlix. f.

[1476] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 346.

[1477] “_De ecclesiæ autoritate et de veterum scriptis._” Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 50.

[1478] One of the terms there used by Luther; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 282; Erl. ed., 25², p. 12.

[1479] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 527, on the preface of 1546, reprinted in “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 190 _seq._

[1480] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 528.

[1481] _Ibid._, p. 416, in 1541.

[1482] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, pp. 201, 203, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 454 f. Cp. above, p. 321.

[1483] “Die Reformation,” p. 280.

[1484] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 251 ff.: “Ratschlag von der Kirche.... Mit einer Vorrede und Glosse M. Luthers,” 1538. The writing begins: “The Pope with his wretched Council is like a cat with her kittens,” and concludes (p. 277): Unchastity “is no sin at Rome.” Yet unchastity was one of the abuses assailed in the very writing which he here reprints, which urges that “Rome ought to be the model and example of all other cities.” Of the ambition prevalent at Rome he writes in his usual way (p. 253): “If all such filth were to be stirred up in a free Council, what a stench there would be.” On the title-page he depicts three cardinals: “Desperate knaves, bent on cleansing the Churches with foxes’ brushes” (p. 254).

[1485] Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 38.

[1486] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 272.

[1487] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 507, to Camerarius, March 31, 1538: “_ridicula deliberatio_,” in which Erasmus’s work was prohibited. _Ibid._, p. 525, to Spalatin, May 16, 1538, where the whole of the proposals for reform are called “_illæ cardinalium ineptiæ_.”

[1488] W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 605 f.; he quotes at length some indecent passages.

[1489] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 346.

[1490] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 212.

[1491] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 96.

[1492] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 371.

[1493] _Ibid._, p. 372.

[1494] Cp. the passage in the reprint of the “_Variata_,” “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 357, with the same in the original Confession (“Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 41). Our quotations are from Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 864 f.: “In view of the new idea of the Eucharist which he gradually adopted, we cannot doubt that Melanchthon was anxious to leave an open door for future agreement with the Swiss.” Thus Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher”^[10], Introd., p. xxvi.

[1495] Selnecker, “_Hist. narratio de Luthero, postremæ ætatis Elia_,” Lipsiæ, 1575, Fol. H2: “_Landgravium concepisse optimam spem de voluntate ipsorum et accessione ad unanimem Augustanam Confessionem amplectendam, si modo improbatio et damnatio sententiæ ipsorum, quam hactenus habuissent, eximeretur, atque hoc ipsum clementer perscripsisse ad D. Philippum et petiisse, exemplaria alia, omissis illis particulis, imprimi_.” Cp. Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxv. n. 3. Selnecker took Melanchthon’s part in the theological controversies of his day.

[1496] “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 367 _seq._

[1497] Kolde (“Symbol. Bücher”^[10], Einleitung, p. xxv.) characterises the enlarging of Articles v. and xx., the stress laid on the necessity of Penance and good works, and also Article xviii. (_De libero arbitrio_) as “real alterations, or at any rate a watering down of their dogmatic character.” “The chief stumbling-block proved, not indeed then, but later, to be the wording of Article x. on the Supper.... That it was here a question of a real change (in the doctrine of the Eucharist) should never have been denied.”

[1498] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 865 _seq._

[1499] _Ibid._, p. 905.

[1500] See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 6, p. 147).

[1501] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 424 f.

[1502] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 582.

[1503] The writing is entitled “Kurtz Bekentnis,” etc. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 396 ff.

[1504] Kawerau, “Stellung” (above, p. 319, n. 1), p. 30.

[1505] “_Ultima admonitio ad Westphalum._” Cp. “RE. für prot. Theol. und Kirche”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 526.

[1506] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 578 _seq._ Cp. “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 370. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 599.

[1507] Köstlin-Kawerau, _ibid._

[1508] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 440.

[1509] On the book “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” see vol. v., xxxiii. 2.

End of Project Gutenberg's Luther, Volume 3 (of 6), by Hartmann Grisar