of Saxony, made Luther very angry; he described them as “wretched
doctrinal monstrosities” (“_misera monstra dogmatum_”).[1149] Their
author he termed an enemy of the Son of God, a blasphemer, a child of
Satan.[1150] Against Campanus Bugenhagen published certain writings
of St. Athanasius, with Luther’s approval, and the latter also wrote
a powerful preface to the edition. He wished, as he says, to strike
a blow at those Italian or German-Italian Humanists, who denied the
Trinity or were alienated from Christianity. In his exaggeration and
bitterness he counted Erasmus, the author of “_Hyperaspistes_,” among
the “_Viperaspides_” pointing him out as one of the anti-Trinitarians
who must be fought against.[1151] In the preface he vents his
indignation in his usual language: The doctrine of the Trinity, like
the other fundamental dogmas, was now being attacked by the “slaves of
Satan”; the example of St. Athanasius, the champion of faith in the
Trinity, demonstrated, how, in order to defend it, we must be ready
to stand against “all the fury let loose in hell, on earth and in
the whole realm”; in our “altogether distracted age” it is necessary
to “set up against these devils, these Epicureans, sceptics, Italian
and German monsters, Him [God the Father], Who had said to Jesus, our
Servant, ‘Thou art My Son,’ and again, ‘Sit Thou on My right hand.’
Thus we will wait and see if these giants come off victorious in their
titanic struggle against God.”
He recalls how, as a young monk, he had read these very writings of
St. Athanasius “with great zeal in the faith,” and informs us that
he had received a copy to read from his pedagogue or Novice-master,
written out in his own writing. He trusts that Bugenhagen’s work will
contribute to the glory of our Lord Jesus, Who, “through His boundless
love for us has chosen to become the servant of us poor sinners,” and
that “the Lord will soon destroy all those giants, which is what we
await and pray for day by day.”
END OF VOL. II
PRINTED BY
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON LTD.
PLYMOUTH
FOOTNOTES:
[1] “Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859, _seq._), 1, p. 433.
[2] _Ibid._, 1, p. 320 _seq._
[3] “Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859, _seq._), 1, p. 320 _seq._
[4] “_Vidimus certe cruentas eius litteras ad Huttenum._” C. Otto,
“Joh. Cochläus,” 1874, p. 121, note. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des
deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 116.
[5] Schauenberg’s letter of June 11, 1520, in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,”
ed. Enders 2, p. 415.
[6] On June 17, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 443.
[7] To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1520, Letters, ed. de Wette, 1, p. 470
(“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444).
[8] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, p. 267; Weim. ed., 6, p. 258. The “_insignis
turbula_” which Luther announces in a letter to Spalatin of February,
1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344), is not the “revolution of the
nobility which Hutten planned,” but the ecclesiastical and political
storm to be roused by Luther’s own action.
[9] Text in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 409 (better than in Böcking,
1, p. 355). At the head of the letter are the words, “_Vive libertas_.”
The phrase, “_Iubet ad se venire N. te, si tutus istic satis non sis_,”
must refer to Sickingen. Before this, Hutten says: “_Si vi ingruent,
vires erunt adversum, non tantum pares, sed, ut spero, superiores
etiam_.”
[10] “_Se iam et litteris et armis in tyrannidem sacerdotalem ruere._”
Luther writes thus to Spalatin on September 11, 1520, “Briefwechsel,”
2, p. 478. Cp. _ibid._, p. 488: “_Armis et ingenio rem tentans_.”
[11] Cp. Enders, 2, p. 480, note 5.
[12] “_Iungam Hutteno et spiritum meum_,” etc. Letter of September 11,
1520, quoted above.
[13] To Spalatin, November 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 523. The
“attack” was supposed to have taken place in the beginning of November.
But Aleander, in the letters he sent to Rome in the middle of December,
does not speak of an actual attack, but merely of threats addressed
by Hutten to the Archbishop of Treves, and reported by the latter to
Aleander. Cp. A. Wrede, “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” Bd.
2, Gotha, 1896, p. 460 f., and P. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen des Nuntius
Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,”² Halle, 1897, pp. 32, 46.
[14] Letter of December 4, 1520, in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p.
5 f. The able politician Capito served Luther well also at a later
date. It was chiefly owing to him that the carrying out of the Worms
proscription was prevented.
[15] Letter of December 9, 1520, Böcking, 1, p. 435 ff.
[16] Luther to Spalatin, December 15, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 20.
If the Papacy be not overthrown, the alternative is “_aut ultima dies
instat_.”
[17] “_Nollem vi et caede pro evangelio certari_,” etc. To Spalatin,
January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.
[18] “_Princeps noster ut prudenter et fideliter ita et constanter
agit_,” etc., February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85. Luther was
then engaged on the “Assertio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 156. “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 55.
[19] Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 64.
[20] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 85 ff.
[21] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 103; Erl. ed., 21, p. 191.
[22] _Ibid._, pp. 91 and 173.
[23] See, for instance, Oldecop’s statements, vol. 1, pp. 24, 280.
[24] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.
[25] _Ibid._, pp. 322, 136.
[26] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 246.
[27] To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.
[28] To Johann Staupitz, March 31, 1518, _ibid._, p. 176.
[29] “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, p. 138; Weim.
ed., 16, p. 323.
[30] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, 80.
[31] Ibid., p. 347 = p. 107. We shall come back later to the harsh
exclamation which occurs in the course of this outburst: “_Cur non
magis hos magistros perditionis ... omnibus armis impetimus et manus
nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus?_” and to the mitigating additions
introduced into the Jena edition of Luther’s works, see below, p. 55,
n. 1.
[32] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 384 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 294
_seq._
[33] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.
[34] To Wenceslaus Link, July 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.
[35] “An den Stier von Wittenberg,” Bl. A.
[36] “Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl. n. 3.
[37] To Johann Lang, November 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 124.
[38] In 1520, soon after February 18, _ibid._, 2, p. 329.
[39] To Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, _ibid._, 1, p. 174.
[40] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 148. On the date see Kalkoff, “Z. für KG.,”
31, 1910, p. 411.
[41] Knaake, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 522. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp.
170, 177.
[42] On May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200.
[43] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 442.
[44] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 224, 355.
[45] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 3 ff., 39 ff., Erl. ed., 53, p.
41, after the German original; “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 210, in Latin
(“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 496).
[46] P. Kalkoff, “Die Miltitziade, eine kritische Nachlese zur Gesch.
des Ablassstreites,” 1911. Miltitz--a man whose ability was by no means
equal to his vanity, and who owed whatever influence he possessed
to his noble Saxon descent--was chosen to bring the Golden Rose to
the Elector of Saxony. His instructions were to induce Frederick to
abandon Luther’s cause and to hand him over to the ecclesiastical
judges. Though Miltitz was a mere “_nuntius et commissarius_” with
very restricted powers, he assumed great airs. The Elector, who knew
his man, soon found means to use him for his own political aims. In
September, 1519, when the Golden Rose had duly been handed over,
Miltitz’s mission was at an end, and he was thereupon engaged for
three years by Frederick himself (Kalkoff, p. 33). His further doings
revealed more and more both his untrustworthiness and his light-hearted
optimism.
[47] To the Elector of Saxony,October 14, 1520, in extract,
“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.
[48] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 468.
[49] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 474 ff., “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 5.
[50] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 338.
[51] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 339.
[52] To Spalatin, August 23 and 31, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, pp. 464,
471.
[53] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 329 _seq._
[54] Sermon of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 260 (2nd impression);
cp. _ibid._, p. 220 (1st impression), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18.
[55] Colloquia, ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178 _seq._
[56] _Ibid._, p. 170.
[57] To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 446: “_Bis monuisti, mi
Spalatine, ut de fide et operibus tum de obedientia ecclesiæ Romanæ in
apologia mea vernacula mentionem facerem_.”
[58] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 433, where he begins, on an enclosed slip;
“_Quod si Princeps etiam hoc adiiciat, esse Lutheranam doctrinam_,”
etc. (a hint for the Elector’s reply to Cardinal Petrucci). Cp.
“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 430, n. 1.
[59] _Ibid._, p. 429.
[60] July 10, 1520, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 351.
[61] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 464.
[62] _Ibid._, p. 432: “_A me quidem iacta est alea, contemptus est
Romanus furor et favor, nolo eis reconciliari nec communicare in
perpetuum_,” etc.
[63] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 432.
[64] To Conrad Saum, one of his followers, October 1, 1520, _ibid._, p.
484.
[65] Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 381 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 274
ff.
[66] Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 256.
[67] _Ibid._, p. 267.
[68] Letter of July 20, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444.
[69] Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 484 ff.; Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat.
var.,” 5, p. 13 _seq._
[70] Printed in Latin, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206 _seq._; “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 7, p. 39 ff. In German, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 12 ff.
Erl. ed., 27, p. 173 ff.
[71] Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 274.
[72] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 23.
[73] _Ibid._, p. 25.
[74] _Ibid._, p. 27.
[75] _Ibid._, p. 29 f.
[76] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29.
[77] Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.”, 1, p. 42.
[78] The true character of such utterances of Luther can be best judged
from the results they produced. “The effect not merely of the radical
tendencies, but of Luther’s sermons, was chiefly to make the people
believe that the freedom of a Christian was to be found in the utmost
contempt for all law, whether human or Divine,” G. Krüger, “Phil.
Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 14.
[79] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 412; Erl. ed., 21, p. 288.
[80] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 411 (287).
[81] “Preussische Jahrbücher,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 35. In his review of
Denifle-Weiss, vol. ii., P. Albert Weiss, in many passages, describes
the consequences alluded to above.
[82] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 561. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. The
summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349.
[83] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 350. “With the nature and extent of the
Christian liberty which he [here] claimed he might have shocked even
libertines. Nor did he shrink from advocating it elsewhere in the same
work.” _Ibid._, p. 345.
[84] “_Dico itaque: Neque papa neque episcopus neque ullus hominum
habet ius unius syllabæ constituendæ super christianum hominem, nisi
id fiat eiusdem consensu; quidquid aliter fit, tyrannico spiritu fit_”
(p. 536 [68]). Cp. p. 554 [93], concerning the superfluousness of laws:
“_Hoc scio, nullam rempublicam legibus feliciter administrari.... Quod
si adsit eruditio divina cum prudentia naturali, plane superfluum et
noxium est scriptas leges habere; super omnia autem caritas nullis
prorsus legibus indiget_” (p. 555 [94]). “_Christianis per Christum
libertas donata est super omnes leges hominum._” On p. 558 [98], with
regard to the alleged corruption of the marriage law: “_Ut nulla
remedii spes sit, nisi, revocato libertatis evangelio, secundum ipsum,
exstinctis semel omnibus omnium hominum legibus, omnia iudicemus et
regamus. Amen._” This latter declaration of war, and other things
too, are not found in the Jena and Wittenberg editions. In all these
utterances we see the excessive zeal of a theorist devoid of experience
whose eyes are blind to the consequences. Many, indeed, are those who
in the course of history have been equally precipitate in pronouncing
on questions of moment, regardless of the number of their readers.
[85] p. 555 [100]: “_Digamiam malim quam divortium, sed an liceat, ipse
non audeo definire_.”
[86] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 348.
[87] p. 558 [99]: “_Consulam, ut cum consensu viri--cum iam non
sit maritus, sed simplex et solutus cohabitator--misceatur alteri
vel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, et proles imputetur
putativo, ut dicunt, patri_.” Cp. his disgusting language regarding
the ecclesiastical impediments of marriage, p. 554, [93]: “_Quid
vendunt [Romanenses]? Vulvas et veretra. Merx scilicet dignissima
mercatoribus istis, præ avaritia et impietate plus quam sordidissimis
et obscoenissimis ... ut in ecclesia Dei loco sancto [sit] abominatio
ista, quæ venderet hominibus publice utriusque sexus pudibunda, seu, ut
scriptura vocat, ignominias et turpitudines, quas tamen antea per vim
legum suarum rapuissent._”
[88] p. 560 [101].
[89] Cp. the Latin edition, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206 _seq._ The
summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.
[90] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 58. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 233.
[91] “Opp. Lat. var,” 4, 233. Some preach, “_Ut affectus humanos
moveant ad condolendum Christo ad indignandum Iudæis et id genus alia
puerilia et muliebria deliramenta_.” One must preach, “_eo fine, quo
fides in eum promoveatur_”; this preaching is in agreement with the
teaching according to which in Christ, “_omnium domini sumus, et
quidquid egerimus, coram Deo placitum et acceptum esse confidimus_.”
[92] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 405; Erl. ed., 21, p. 278 f.
[93] _Ibid._, p. 414 [291].
[94] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 468 f. [360 f.].
[95] _Ibid._, 500 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 20.
[96] _Ibid._, p. 173 f. [= 118].
[97] See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 162.
[98] _Ibid._, p. 165.
[99] See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1², p. 586 f. Cp. 169 ff., 1, p.
xv. Also J. Schlecht, “K. Leib’s Briefwechsel und Diarien,” Münster,
1909, p. 12.
[100] Friedr. Roth, “Wilh. Pirkheimer,” Halle, 1887 (Schriften des
Vereins für Reformationsgesch., v. 4). The author says, Pirkheimer’s
final opinion on Lutheranism is summed up in the words: “God keep all
pious men, countries and peoples from such teaching, for where it is
there is no peace, quiet or unity.” Though Pirkheimer confessed “with
energy that he was once more a member of the olden Catholic Church,”
he nevertheless remained as much a Humanist as a Catholic as he had
been as a Protestant. Yet that he still saw some good in Luther’s cause
is clear from what Melanchthon writes of him as late as April, 1530.
“_Fuimus apud Pirchamerum hodie, ego et Ionas, qui de te et causa
honorifice sentit._” To Luther, April 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel Luthers,”
7, p. 310. P. Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig,
1887, is more sceptical regarding his return to Catholicism, though he
brings forward no definite proofs to the contrary. He himself mentions
how Cochlæus, in a letter of March 10, 1529, invited Pirkheimer
(“Pirkheimer Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 396) to write a satire in verse on
Luther after the model of his own “_Lutherus septiceps_.”
[101] Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 168.
[102] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 514.
[103] His father Albert came from Eptas in Hungary; he was a goldsmith.
[104] A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893,
p. 161 ff.
[105] A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893,
p. 161 ff.
[106] On his adhesion to Protestantism, see M. Zucker, “Albrecht
Dürer,” 1900, chap. xvi., and Lange in the “Grenzbote,” vol. lv. 1,
with reasons which are, however, open to criticism. E. Heidrich (“Dürer
und die Reformation,” 1909) makes Dürer die a Lutheran. For his final
profession of Catholicism see more particularly Ant. Weber, “Albrecht
Dürer,” 3rd ed., 1903. Cp. “Hochland,” 3, 2, 1906, p. 206 ff. W. Köhler
remarks in the “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 1908, vol. xxviii., p. 244:
“Dürer was more a follower of Erasmus than a Lutheran.” See also G.
Stuhlfauth in the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1907, p. 835 ff., and
“Histor. Jahrb.,” 1910, p. 456 ff.
[107] April or May, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 255.
[108] Enders, _ibid._, p. 257, n. 3.
[109] Hagelstange, in “Hochland,” 1906, p. 314.
[110] “Bulla contra errores M. Lutheri,” Romæ, 1520. Printed also
in “Bullar. Rom.,” ed. Taurin., 5, p. 748 _seq._, and in Raynaldus,
“Annales,” a. 1520, n. 51; and with a bitter commentary by Luther, in
“Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 264 _seq._
[111] K. Müller, in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 24, 1903, p. 46 ff.
A. Schulte, in “Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und
Bibliotheken,” 6, 1903, p. 32 ff., 174 ff. P. Kalkoff, “Zu Luthers
römischem Prozess,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, p.
372 ff.; 32, 1911, p. 1 ff.; p. 199 ff., 408 ff., 572 ff.; 33, 1912,
p. 1 ff. He deals fully with the part taken by the Dominicans in the
Indulgence controversy. Kalkoff’s researches have since been published
apart (“Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” Gotha, 1912). A good general
view of the question in Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes,” Engl. Trans., 7,
p. 361 ff.
[112] P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” etc., p. 133.
[113] Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” see above p. 45, n. 2, p. 35.
The statement of K. Müller that from the very outset there had been a
difficulty in proving Luther’s writing, rests, as Schulte shows (p.
43), merely on a misapprehended passage in one of the letters of the
Venetian Orator at Rome.
[114] Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” p. 45.
[115] In Schulte (_ibid._, p. 49) this circumstance, on which theology
must necessarily lay great stress, is passed over. Not all Luther’s
propositions were branded as “heretical.”
[116] Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 543 ff.
[117] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 576 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 17 ff.
[118] _Ibid._, p. 595 ff. [38 f.]. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 132 _seq._
[119] _Ibid._, p. 603; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142.
[120] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 46.
[121] _Ibid._, p. 41.
[122] For the accounts of the burning, see M. Perlbach and J. Luther,
“Ein neuer Bericht über Luthers Verbrennung der Bannbulle” (“SB. der
preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft.,” and also apart), Berlin, 1907, and
Kawerau, in “Theol. Studien,” 1908, p. 587. Luther’s words, quoted
in the new account, run as follows: “_Quia tu conturbasti veritatem
Dei, conturbat et te hodie in ignem istum_ (instead of ‘_igni isto_’).
_Amen_”; whereupon all those present answered, “_Amen_.” The form
given before this ran: “_Quia tu conturbasti sanctum Dei, ideoque te
conturbet ignis æternus_.” Were this correct, “_sanctum Dei_” would
refer to Christ as the “Holy One of God,” according to the biblical
expression, but we should scarcely be justified in taking it to mean
Luther himself, as some Catholics have done, as though he had arrogated
to himself this title. With regard to the books burnt, see also
Luther’s letter to Spalatin, on December 10, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3,
p. 18. On Thomas and Scotus see the source quoted above.
[123] On February 17, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 87. For the printed
verses, Enders, like Köstlin, refers to Selneccer, “Vita Lutheri,”
Witteb., 1687, p. 133.
[124] To Conrad Pellican, at the end of February, 1521, “Briefwechsel,”
3, p. 93.
[125] On February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83.
[126] He praises the Prince, saying that he walks “_prudenter,
fideliter_,” and “_constanter_.” Cp. above p. 8.
[127] January 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 70
[128] Both sentences, _ibid._
[129] Above, p. 49. Epitome of Prierias with Preface and Postscript
(Latin). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 347. The commencement of the passage
is quoted above, p. 13.
[130] On the falsification of Luther’s works in the early editions, see
G. Arnold, “Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, 1727, p. 419
ff.; Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,”
[131] To Spalatin at Worms, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.
[132] In the same month he wrote to Hutten to the same effect: “_Nollem
vi et cæde pro evangelio certari_.” The letter, however, did not reach
its destination. Enders, 3, p. 74, n. 8.
[133] Letter to Spalatin in Worms, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,”
3, p. 90: The wrath of the Papists was being stayed by a Divine decree.
[134] See volume i., p. 359. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom
Antichrist im Mittelalter,” 1909, gives instances of writers who
anticipated Luther in seeing Antichrist in the Pope. He looks upon
Luther’s controversial writings on the subject of Antichrist as
justified. “All Lutheran Christendom at the Reformation period,”
according to him, shared “its master’s” views and expectation of the
approaching end of the world (p. 196); he thinks it quite in order that
the article regarding Antichrist “should have been incorporated in the
Lutheran Confession of Faith” (p. 181).
[135] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 698 ff.
[136] _Ibid._, 11, p. 357-373; Erl. ed., 29, p. 1-16.
[137] To Staupitz in Salzburg, February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
85: “_Princeps noster, cuius iussu assertiones istas utraque lingua
edo_.”
[138] Reprinted “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 284 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p.
206 ff.
[139] “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p.
616; Erl. ed., 24², p. 40.
[140] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 395, where this contradiction is pointed
out.
[141] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 212.
[142] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297; Erl. ed., 24, p. 212.
[143] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 165.
“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 178.
[144] Letter to Spalatin, April 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 121.
“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.
[145] Spalatin’s “Annals,” ed. Cyprian, 1718, p. 38. Cp. Enders,
“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 122, n. 5; “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62,
p. 75.
[146] Janssen-Pastor, 2^[18], p. 174, Engl. Trans., 3, 189.
[147] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 249 ff.
[148] Janssen-Pastor, 2^[18], p. 175, Engl. Trans., 3, 190.
[149] _Ibid._, Enders, p. 156, n. 4.
[150] Previous to May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 147.
[151] About the middle of May, 1521, _ibid._, p. 158.
[152] “Ratzebergers Geschichte,” ed. Neudecker, p. 30.
[153] Janssen-Pastor, 2, p. 177, n. 3. According to the evidence of an
eye-witness, Sixtus Œlhafen.
[154] The report of the whole proceedings at Worms relating to Luther
has been collected in volume ii. of the German “Reichstagsakten,”
new series, 1896, ed. A. Wrede; see particularly Sections VII.
(Negotiations with Luther, etc.) and XI. (Correspondence, with
Aleander’s reports). Cp. H. v. Schubert, “Quellen und Forschungen über
Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms,” 1899.
[155] See below, p. 75 f.
[156] In Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 124. The translation of
“_Equidem atrocissima omnia concipio_,” by “I will dare even the
worst,” is wrong, and the above, “My fancy paints things black,”
i.e. Luther’s treatment at the Diet, is better. Cp. S. Merkle, “
Reformations-geschichtl. Streitfragen,” 1904, p. 56 ff.
[157] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 126.
[158] On May 1, 1521, Janssen-Pastor, p. 184, from Böcking’s edition of
Hutten’s works, 2, p. 59 ff.
[159] Janssen-Pastor, pp. 178, 184 f. The placard was known before,
but a new rendering is found in the Mayence “Katholik,” 1902, vol.
lxxxii., p. 96, from a letter-Codex of the sixteenth century belonging
to the Hamburg city library, No. 469. We give J. Beyl’s translation:
“This protest against Luther’s condemnation is nailed to the Mint [at
Worms]. Whereas we, to the number of IIC simple-minded sworn noblemen
have agreed and pledged ourselves not to forsake that just man Luther,
we hereby advise the Princes, gentlemen, Romanists, and, above all,
the Bishop of Mayence, of our inveterate enmity, because honour and
righteous justice have been oppressed by them; we do not mention other
names [of those threatened] or describe the deeds of violence against
the parsons and their supporters. Bundschuh.” The numbers given vary,
and IIC is perhaps a mistake of the copyist of the illegible placard.
See “Freie Bayer. Schulzeitung,” 1911, No. 6; but cp. also, Kalkoff,
“Reformationsgesch.,” 1911, p. 361 ff.
[160] Spalatin’s “Annales,” p. 50.
[161] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, from the Wartburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3,
p. 154.
[162] _Ibid._, p. 153.
[163] Thus Aleander, in the passage quoted below. Janssen-Pastor, p.
184.
[164] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 168).
[165] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 175 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p.
385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).
[166] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 58, p. 412 f. (“Table-Talk”).
[167] _Ibid._, 63, p. 276.
[168] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 825 ff.
[169] Cp. Thomas Morus, “_Responsio ad convitia Lutheri_” (“Opp.”
Lovanii, 1566), p. 60.
[170] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474 f.
[171] “Reichstagsakten,” 2, p. 825, n. 1. Balan, “Monumenta reform.
Luth.” (1883 _seq._), p. 85. J. Paquier, “Jérôme Aléandre,” Paris,
1900, p. 243.
[172] Paquier, p. 242.
[173] Letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg, a friend of Sickingen (middle
of March, 1522). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 125. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
308).
[174] _Ibid._, p. 126 f.
[175] Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 349.
[176] “Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], 1910, p. 810 f.
[177] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur
Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 213 f.
[178] _Ibid._, p. 173.
[179] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur
Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 212 f.
[180] Thus A. Wrede, who, in his edition of the “Deutsche
Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” 2, p. 555, has dealt anew with the
question. Cp. N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1903, No. 320.
[181] Thus Karl Müller, who treats the subject exhaustively in
“Luthers Schlussworte in Worms, 1521,” in “Philotesia,” dedicated to
P. Kleinert, Berlin, 1907, pp. 269, 289. Cp. the review by N. Paulus,
“Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1908, No. 1000.
[182] “Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,” 1897,
p. 174, n. 2.
[183] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung²,” p. 25.
[184] “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, p. 26.
[185] Cp. above, p. 62, n. 2, the quotation from the “Table-Talk.”
[186] The Frankfort delegate, in Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German
People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 191.
[187] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474.
[188] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 409, 771.
[189] In the Diary of Marino Sanuto, “R. deputaz. Veneta di Storia
Patria,” t. 30, Venezia, 1891, 212. At the end of the passage Denifle
(in “Luther,” 1², p. 589, n. 1) proposed that “_impudentiam_” should
be read in place of “_imprudentiam_” (i.e. “impudenza” in place of
“imprudenza”), as the want of “prudence” had already been blamed. When
Contarini speaks of Luther as “assai incontinente,” the “incontinence”
is that of temper.
[190] Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3,
191.
[191] Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,”² p. 169, n. 1; p. 172, n. 1.
[192] Passages in Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” 1884, p. 170. Cp.
Kalkoff, “Depeschen,” p. 170. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Lutheranæ,” pp.
109, 205.
[193] Preface to the tract, “On the abuse of the Mass,” indited as a
letter to the Wittenberg Augustinians, Latin Works, Weim. ed., 8, p.
411 _seq._ “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 116. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243.
[194] In the Latin text, _ibid._, p. 412 = 116.
[195] To Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148.
[196] To Spalatin, September 9, 1521, _ibid._, p. 229.
[197] Cp. letter to Melanchthon of May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
149.
[198] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 54.
[199] On July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189.
[200] To his intimate friend Johann Lang, December 18, 1521, _ibid._,
p. 256.
[201] On November 1, 1521, _ibid._, p. 240.
[202] _Ibid._, p. 241.
[203] On August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.
[204] On August 3, 1521, _ibid._, p. 213. The above is the real
translation of the words made use of, “_quantis urgear æstibus_,”
according to the context.
[205] On September 9, 1521, _ibid._, 3, p. 224.
[206] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 247.
[207] The Latin work will be found in Weim. ed., 8, p. 564 ff.; in Erl.
ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 234 _seq._ The MS. was sent to Spalatin on
November 22, and was published at the end of February, 1522. Denifle
has carefully analysed the contents and pointed out the fallacies
contained in the book and certain other things not at all to Luther’s
credit. See “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 29, 348. Cp. N. Paulus,
“Zu Luthers Scrift über die Mönchsgelübde” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906,
pp. 487, 517), an article rich in matter, called forth by O. Scheel’s
attack on Denifle. Paulus therein shows once more that Luther was
wrong in ascribing to the Church the teaching that perfection is to be
attained only in the religious state, and by the observance of vows
(cp. present work, vol. iv., xxiv. 4), or in claiming that the Church
has a “twofold ideal of life,” and conception of religion, a lower one
for the laity and a higher one for religious (p. 496 ff.). He proves,
at length, the falsehood of the view cherished among Protestants, in
spite of Denifle’s refutation, that all, or nearly all, entered the
religious life in order to obtain justification (p. 506 ff.), and
fully explains the late mediæval expression which compares religious
profession to Baptism (p. 510 ff.).
[208] Caspar Schatzgeyer, in a polemic against Luther wrote: “One is
almost tempted to think that this book, so brimful of ire, was written
by a drunken man, or by the infernal spirit himself” (“Replica” [sine
loc. et an.], Augsburg, 1522, fol. E1). The opinion of the Paris
theologian, Jodocus Clichtoveus (“Antilutherus,” Parisiis, 1524, fol.
124´), was very similar. As for Johann Dietenberger, he declared
that the book bristled with lies, calumnies, and insults (“De votis
monasticis,” lib. secundus, Colon., 1524, fol. T5´).
[209] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225.
[210] Sermon of 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148: “I have myself had
it [the gift of chastity], although with many evil thoughts and dreams.”
[211] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. 102, p. 464.
[212] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. ed., 10², p. 464.
[213] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “_Otiosus et crapulosus_.”
[214] On February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “_Homo expositus
crapulæ_.”
[215] Cp. Paul de Lagarde, “Mitteilungen,” 3, Göttingen, 1889, p. 336.
[216] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,”
1907, p. 5 ff.
[217] Dedication of the German edition, 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p.
482; Erl. ed., 53, p. 93. The work in Latin in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8,
p. 398 ff. German, _ibid._, p. 477 ff, and in Erl. ed., 28, p. 28. The
German dedication agrees with the Latin. See above, p. 80, n. 1.
[218] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 483; Erl. ed., 28, p. 30.
[219] _Ibid._, p. 488 = 36.
[220] _Ibid._, p. 488 f. = 37 f.
[221] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 510 = 68.
[222] _Ibid._, p. 538, 539, 540 = 106, 107, 109.
[223] _Ibid._, p. 549 = 121.
[224] Cp. volume iv., xxvii.
[225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 559, 560; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 135, 137.
[226] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561 = 138.
[227] _Ibid._, p. 562 = 139 f.
[228] On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,”
3, p. 296).
[229] In Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 62, n. (from Khummer’s Notes).
[230] To Jodocus Trutfetter, Professor at Erfurt, May 9, 1518,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188: “_Uno ore dicunt, sese prius non novisse nec
audivisse Christum et Evangelium_,” etc.
[231] To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.
[232] To Spalatin, January 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.
[233] See vol. i., p. 369, n. 1.
[234] “_Carnis meæ indomitæ uror magnis ignibus_,” in the letter
to Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, where he
also employs the expression, “_tentationes carnis_.” In a letter
to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “_Homo
sum expositus et involutus societati_, _crapulæ_, _titillationi_,
_negligentiæ aliisque molestiis_.” “_Titillatio_” is generally used
by Luther for sensual temptation, e.g. in the Commentary on Romans
(“Schol. Rom.,” p. 133): “_Luxuriosus, dum titillatio venit_,” etc.;
also in the tract on the Ten Commandments, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1,
pp. 485, 491, 497. In the German version he translates the word by
“Kitzel”; see, for instance, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 34, p. 139.
[235] See references below, xiii. 4. The “_molestiæ_” in the passage
from the letter to Staupitz (see previous note) are probably of the
same character.
[236] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.
[237] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773.
[238] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773
[239] C. F. Jäger, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1856, p. 273.
Cp. H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, 1905, p. 355 ff.
[240] Karl Müller, “Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 29.
[241] _Idem_, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 15.
[242] On January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 271 f. Cp. K. Müller,
“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 218.
[243] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211 f.
[244] _Ibid._, p. 8 = 212.
[245] Barge, “Karlstadt,” 1, p. 405; cp. 402 f.
[246] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 670 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 43 ff.
[247] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 93 ff. = 28, p. 141 ff.
[248] _Ibid._, p. 111 = 148 f.
[249] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 140 = 178. It has been asserted,
strangely enough, that these words were spoken by Luther
hypothetically, i.e. in the event of the Romanists refusing to be
converted, and that the word he uses, and which we have rendered as
“destroying,” really means something slightly less drastic.
[250] H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von
weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 29, 1908, p.
489; cp. p. 479 ff.
[251] H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” 1906, p. 146.
[252] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69: “Der jüngste Tag, welchen sie [die
Constellation] gewisslich bedeutet.”
[253] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683, in the “True Admonition,”
published early in December, 1521.
[255] Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 84.
[256] Cp. K. Müller, _ibid._, and the authors quoted in the
above-mentioned studies of P. Drews and H. Hermelink.
[257] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 683, 678.
[258] Hermelink (p. 297). He thinks the “states of excitement may be
easily accounted for.”
[259] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680.
[260] Hermelink, p. 488; cp. p. 322.
[261] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 251 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 68: “The
spiritual government which makes people Christians and holy,” etc.
[262] “Kirchenrecht,” 1892, pp. 528, 633 f.
[263] Hermelink, p. 322.
[264] Cp. Luther’s Memorandum for the Town Council of Altenburg (April
28, 1522), “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347 ff. “For Scripture does not give
to a council but to each individual Christian the authority to decide
on doctrine and discern the wolves,” etc.
[265] Hermelink, p. 309.
[266] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.
[267] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 721.
[268] _Ibid._, p. 720.
[269] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, 10, 2, p. 33.
[270] Cp. the addresses, “To the Christians at Wittenberg,” “To the
Christians at Augsburg,” and similar ones to those at Dorpat, in
Flanders, in Holland, in Livonia, at Miltenberg, at Reval, at Riga, at
Worms, at Antwerp, at Bremen, at Reutlingen, at Strasburg, etc.
[271] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685.
[272] Hermelink, p. 298.
[273] In this Confession we read that in their teaching there was
nothing, “_Quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica
vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est_.” “Corp.
Ref.,” 26, p. 290. So runs the address presented to the Emperor, which
Melanchthon afterwards toned down in the 2nd edition. Cp. Kolde, “Die
Confessio Augustana,” p. 11. Kawerau (Möller’s “Kirchengeschichte,”
3, vol. iii., 1907, p. 108) also quotes the Protestant declaration of
1546 (“Corp. Ref.,” 6, p. 35): “_Nostri affirmant ... confessionis
Augustanæ doctrinam ... esse consensum catholicæ ecclesiæ Dei_,” and
the Wittenberg Ordination-papers that the person in question “_tenet
puram doctrinam evangelii quam catholica ecclesia Christi profitetur
et nos in ecclesia nostra docemus_” (“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, 278;
October 7, 1537).
[274] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140, 143, 144, 139, 110.
[275] Hermelink, p. 302.
[276] K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p.
33, n. 3, where stress is rightly laid on the testimony of Sebastian
Fröschel.
[277] Cp. Müller, _ibid._, p. 34.
[278] See below, xiv. 5, and vol. iv., xxviii. 6.
[279] “_De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ, senatui populoque
Pragensi_,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 194 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,”
6, p. 530 _seq._ It follows from the context of the passage quoted
above that Luther’s assurance is intended to be their guarantee that
they are acting in God’s name, and are not themselves taking the
initiative, but submitting to be led. Cp. letter to the Bohemian
Estates (1522), Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 144 ff.
[280] Paul Drews (“Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?”
p. 36), in the examination of the instruction mentioned in the previous
note.
[281] Thus Hermelink (p. 483), though he does not find the
congregational principle so decidedly expressed in Luther’s writings as
Drews does. Luther’s statements in the years 1522-1525 concerning the
establishment of new congregations are certainly not at all clear, as
Karl Müller admits (“Luther und Karlstadt,” “Luthers Gedanken über den
Aufbau der neuen Gemeinden,” p. 121). Cp. concerning the existence of
Luther’s congregational ideal, “Kirche, Gemeinde,” usw., p. 40 ff.
[282] Above, p. 111, n. 2. The writing is addressed to the Council and
the inhabitants collectively (“_senatus populusque_”). Yet in certain
passages the Council alone is addressed.
[283] In the Preface: “_Nequaquam esse possum autor quidquam tentandi,
nisi per consilium et exhortationem_.”
[284] The title of the work describes it well: “The Scriptural ground
and reason why a Christian congregation or assembly has the right and
power to pass judgment on all doctrines, to call, appoint, or remove
pastors,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p.
140 ff.
[285] _Ibid._, p. 412 = 147.
[286] _Ibid._
[287] _Ibid._, pp. 412, 413, 414 = 147, 148, 149.
[288] _Ibid._, p. 408 = 142.
[289] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 415 f. = 151.
[290] _Ibid._, p. 410 = 145.
[291] _Ibid._, p. 409 f. = 143 f.
[292] _Ibid._, p. 408 f. = 142.
[293] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 228 = 28, p. 346, in his reply to
King Henry VIII “of Engelland” (1522).
[294] To Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 272 f.:
“_Veniam ad prophetas.... Explores etiam, num experti sint spirituales
illas angustias et nativitates divinas, mortes infernosque_.”
[295] _Ibid._, 3, p. 273.
[296] To Wolfgang Reissenbusch, Preceptor at Lichtenberg, “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 18, p.. 270-9; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5,
p. 145).
[297] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537 f.
[298] _Ibid._, p. 302 = 539.
[299] In the letter to Reissenbusch; see above, p. 116, n. 1.
[300] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 127; Erl. ed., 28, p. 165. Against
the clerical state falsely so called.
[301] _Ibid._, p. 130 = 165 _seq._
[302] _Ibid._, p. 279 = 16², p. 514 f. “Sermon on the married life,”
1522.
[303] _Ibid._, 10, 1, 1, pp. 693, 708 = 12, p. 451, 465, “Postils.”
[304] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 71.
[305] Letter of April or June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony, quoted
by J. K. Seidemann in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” 1872, p. 198.
[306] See below.
[307] Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 266 f.
[308] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 556.
[309] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed.
Bindseil, 2, pp. 315, 364; 3, p. 149.
[310] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262.
[311] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315.
[312] To Johann Lang at Erfurt, March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
323 _seq._
[313] _Ibid._, p. 323.
[314] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.
[315] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311, in the
tract “Concerning the Sacrament under both kinds.”
[316] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, 11. Sermon 136´.
[317] “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 13.
[318] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 72 f.
[319] Kampschulte, “Universität Erfurt,” 2, p. 173, quoted from a
publication which is not by the Erfurt preacher Mechler, as he thinks,
but by Eberlin. Cp. N. Paulus in Janssen, 2^[18], p. 240, n. 3.
[320] “Helii Eobani Hessi et amicorum ipsius epistolarum familiarium
libri 12,” Marpurgi, 1543, p. 87. Phyllis, the beloved of Demophon,
became the type of sensual passion.
[321] _Ibid._, p. 90. For date see Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des
Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für die Gesch. von Erfurt,”
part 15, 1892, p. 107.
[322] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372, July,
1524): “I know that we ... as St. Paul says, Romans viii. 23, have the
first fruits of the Spirit, _primitias spiritus_, although we have not
yet received the fulness of the Spirit.”
[323] Letter to W. Pirkheimer, 1528, “Opp.,” Lugduni Batavorum, 1702
_seq._, t. 3, p. 1139.
[324] “Opp.,” 3, p. 1030. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 12.
[325] _Ibid._, 10, p. 1578 _seq._ Döllinger, p. 15.
[326] “Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher
Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.
[327] “Clag etlicher Brüder” (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 47.
[328] “Wider die falsch scheynende, usw.” No place, 1524. A³b. A^[4]ab.
In N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (“3. Vereinsschrift der Görresgesellschaft
für 1893”), p. 3 f.
[329] See below, p. 134, n. 4, and p. 163.
[330] Clag (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 48.
[331] _Ibid._
[332] “Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose
sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders (see above, p. 126, n.
5), p. 29 ff.
[333] “Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose
sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders, p. 31.
[334] _Ibid._, p. 30.
[335] In an anonymous review, important on account of its original
matter, of Burkhardt’s “Briefwechsel Luthers” (“Augsburger Allgemeine
Zeitung,” 1867, Beilage, No. 18). Unfortunately, the learned expert,
who takes Luther’s part, does not mention the source whence the above
passage is taken. It appears to occur in some unprinted MS.
[336] To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 278: “_Quod scortis, aleis,
tabernis vacarem.... Mendaciis satis sum assuetus_.”
[337] “_Summa sententia erat, scortatorem eum esse et compotorem,
qualibus viciis fere laborarent Germani._” “Archiv für
Reformationsgesch.”, 3, 1905, p. 79.
[338] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 774.
[339] To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218: “_Orbis
theatrum sumus_,” etc. Cp. 1 Corinthians iv. 9: “_Spectaculum facti
sumus mundo et angelis et hominibus_.”
[340] To Amsdorf, February 12, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 434.
[341] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.
[342] “Historien,” 1566, p. 154. Cp. “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 121,
and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420.
[343] “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7,
pp. 273, 275; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 208, 210, 211. For the manner in which
his pupils at Wittenberg praised him, see below, p. 157 f. Erasmus’s
eulogy on his manner of life is also an echo from the circle of his
enthusiastic friends; see xiv. 3.
[344] “Opus adv. nova quædam et a christiana religione prorsus aliena
dogmata M. Lutheri,” Romæ, Q 3a. R 2b.: “_Ponis cervicalia sub capita
eorum, qui stertunt_,” etc.
[345] Letter of May 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144; Gal. iii. 3.
[346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 559. See the text in the work mentioned,
p. 137, n. 1.
[347] See proofs given in the “Katholik,” 1892, 2, p. 421 f., in the
article by P. A. Kirsch.
[348] Cp. E. Kroker, “Katharina v. Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 36 f.,
where the legends are ably criticised.
[349] In the writing, “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster
gottlich verlassen mugen,” which Luther sent on April 10, 1523, in the
form of a circular letter to Leonard Koppe. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p.
394 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 132).
[350] Kolde, “Analecta Luth.,” p. 443.
[351] On June 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 169.
[352] To Johann Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523, _ibid._, p. 164:
“_Moniales et monachi egressi mihi multas horas furantur, ut omnium
necessitati serviam_.”
[353] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 560.
[354] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 177 f.
[355] To Spalatin, September 19, 1523, _ibid._, p. 233.
[356] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 728 ff.
[357] To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77.
[358] On April 16, 1525, _ibid._, p. 157.
[359] June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 402 ff.; Erl. ed., 53,
p. 308 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). Albert made no reply. On June
2, the very same day, the peasants were victorious at Königshofen.
[360] Letter of June 3, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 313
(“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189).
[361] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 400; Erl. ed., 29, p. 41, in “Ursach
und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.”
[362] _Ibid._, 10, 1, p. 692; Erl. ed., 10², p. 450, in the Tract
against the state of chastity, embodied in the “Postils.”
[363] “Luther und seine Gegner, Vortrag,” 1903, p. 14. Here it is true
the cynicism is regarded as an “expression of his moral annoyance” with
the supporters of celibacy, who themselves led immoral lives.
[364] On March 8, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.
[365] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 123, on Jonas and his writing materials
(“_schedas natales, hoc est de natibus purgatis_”).
[366] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 93; Erl. ed., 29, p. 169. According to
these foes of his, it is, he says, “die rechten evangelischen Prediger,
die der Braut von Orlamünde das Hembd und dem Bräutigam zu Naschhausen
die Hosen ausziehen.” _Ibid._, p. 84 = 160: “Wie aber, wenn Braut und
Bräutigam so züchtig wären, und behielten Hembd und Rock an? Es solle
freilich nicht fast hindern, wenn sie sonst Lust zusammen hätten.” Cp.
Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 681.
[367] The explanation is Köstlin’s, and is retained in the most recent
edition by Kawerau, 1, p. 736.
[368] See the whole Greek letter below, p. 176. The passage _αἱ μοναχαὶ
πάσῃ ἐμηχαν πιβουλευομέναι προσέσπασαν αὐτόν_, according to our
opinion, conveys the sense attributed to it above. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau,
1, p. 736.
[369] _Articuli sive libelli triginta_, etc., art. 17, p. 81 _seq._
[370] _Articuli sive libelli triginta_, etc., art. 17, p. 83.
[371] Conclusion of the Tract “De Purgatorio,” “Opp.,” Pars II,
Ingolst., 1531, pp. 95´, 96. Cp. volume iv., xxii.: “Luther and Lying.”
[372] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560 ff.
[373] See above, p. 87.
[374] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667.
[375] _Ibid._, pp. 431, 437.
[376] “The 7th chapter,” etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 92 ff.
[377] In the dedication to Hans Loser zu Pretzsch, Hereditary Marshal
of Saxony (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 199).
[378] On April 10, 1519, to Amsdorf; see Enders, “Luthers
Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 16, n. 33.
[379] To Johann Lang, April 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12.
[380] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 162 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 49 ff.,
77 ff. In the Preface we read: “There is a great difference between
bringing something to light by means of the living voice or by the dead
letter” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 166). Of the marriages which were
concluded secretly (see below) and which were then [previous to the
Council of Trent] regarded as valid by the Church, he says here: “After
one has secretly pledged his word to a woman and thereafter takes
another, either publicly or secretly, I do not yet know whether all
that is said and written on the subject is to be accepted or not.”
[381] “_De duplici iustitia._” Pastor Knaake remarks of the first
edition of this sermon, that it is plain “what careful notes of the
reformer’s sermons were made even then.” See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p.
144.
[382] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526. For the
explanation of the phrase, “If the wife will not, let the maid come,”
see volume iii., xvii. 6.
[383] _Ibid._, p. 280 = 515.
[384] _Ibid._, p. 309 = 537 f.
[385] _Ibid._, p. 304 = 541.
[386] “Commentaria,” etc. Magunt., 1549, p. 61: “_Fœdissime contra
naturalem pudorem loquitur de commixtione maris et fœminæ_.”
[387] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 146 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 186 ff.
[388] Luther to Staupitz, repeating his words, June 27, 1522,
“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.
[389] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 226.
[390] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 704 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 166 ff.
[391] “Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10,
2, p. 172 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 _seq._ The German edition
published by Luther later (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 344 ff.) is
abbreviated.
[392] “Contra Henricum,” p. 220 = 445, etc.
[393] _Ibid._, p. 184 = 391.
[394] “Schutzschrift an den Rath in Costnitz,” in L. Hundeshagen,
“Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgesch.,” 1864, 1, p. 423.
[395] Röhrich, “Gesch. der Reformation im Elsass,” 1, 1855, p. 294.
[396] Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, pp. 223, 275, 445.
[397] “Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Basil., 9, pp. 1066, 1096. Cp.
Erasmus in “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 689.
[398] “An den grossmechtigsten ... Adel tütscher Nation,” Strasburg,
1520 (no name), Bl. K. 1.
[399] “Adversus caninas Martini Lutheri nuptias,” Coloniæ, 1530. By
Luther’s “canine marriages,” the author does not refer to Luther’s
union with Catherine Bora, as is usually inferred, but, according to
the preface, to the numerous marriages rendered possible by Luther’s
removal of the matrimonial impediments, so that it might happen that
one man could marry ten times even in the lifetime of the ten women
concerned. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p.
126.
[400] N. Paulus, _ibid._ He refers to Luther’s “Correspondence,” 1, p.
20; 2, p. 362; 6, p. 280.
[401] “Philipp Melanchthon,” 1905, p. 16, 4.
[402] “Correspondence of the brothers Ambrose and Thomas Blaurer,” ed.
Schiess, 1, 1908, pp. 329, 476; Bucer to A. Blaurer, March 5, 1532, and
March 3, 1534.
[403] Wilhelm Walther, “Für Luther Wider Rom,” 1906, p. 232 ff.
[404] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, Preface, pp. x., xiii.
[405] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1904, col. 1613.
[406] To an anonymous correspondent, August 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 53, p. 149, answering the question, “Why I replied so harshly to
the King of Engelland.” Principal reason: “My method is not one of
compromise, yielding, giving in, or leaving anything undone.” “Do not
be astonished that so many are scandalised by my writings. This is
intended to be so and must be so, that even the few may hold fast to
the Gospel.” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447.
[407] Cp. Luther to the Elector Johann, April 16, 1531, “Werke,”
Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388), concerning his two
pamphlets, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” and “Auff das vermeint
keiserlich Edict”: “I am only sorry that [the style] is not stronger
and more violent.” The Elector will “readily perceive that my writing
is far, far, too dull and soft towards such dry bones and dead branches
[as the Papists].” But I was “neither drunk nor asleep when I wrote.”
[408] “Für Luther Wider Rom,” p. 231.
[409] “Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.
[410] Letter of Burer, March 27, 1522, in Baum, “Capito und Butzer,”
1860, p. 83, and in “Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus,” ed. Horawitz
and Hartfelder, 1866, p. 303.
[411] Thomas Blaurer, in a letter to his brother Ambrose, dated
February 15, 1521, calls Luther “_Pater pientissimus_”; previously, on
January 4, he speaks of him as “_christianissimus et sapientissimus
vir_,” and extols the fact that “_omnia contempsit præter Christum;
præter Christum nihil metuit nec sperat et id tamen ita humiliter, ut
clare sentias nullos esse his fucos_.” “Correspondence of the Brothers
Blaurer,” 1, 1908, pp. 33, 29 f.
[412] Cp. vol. i., p. 279, the “Dicta Melanchthonia” on Luther’s eyes.
Catholic contemporaries called them diabolical. See _e.g._ Aleander in
Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 500.
[413] Cp. for what follows H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren
Forschung,”², 1910, p. 4 f. Some of the matter contained in the first
edition is omitted in the second.
[414] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², Pl. IX
[415] The latter are shown in Böhmer, p. 2. Cp. _ibid._, p. 37.
[416] None but an expert can have any idea of the “speed with which
Luther wrote. He was a born stenographer.” It should be noted “that the
haste with which he wrote is far less noticeable in the manuscripts
which have been preserved than in the writings themselves with their
countless defects. Outside a small circle there are but few to-day
who could fall under the magical influence of Luther’s writings, and
not weary of listening to the monotonous song of the ‘Wittenberg
nightingale’” (K. A. Meissinger, in a review of Ficker’s edition of
the Commentary on Romans, “Frankfurter Ztng.,” 1910, No. 300). The
expression “Wittenberg nightingale” occurs, as is well known, in a poem
by Luther’s Nuremberg admirer, Hans Sachs.
[417] “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 122. “Commentar ad Gal.,” 1531,
1, p. 107. In this passage quoted by Denifle, 1², p. 391, Luther speaks
of his great zeal in doing penance in the monastery, and adds a little
further on (p. 109): “So long as I was a Popish monk, _externe non
eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam
castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem_,” which, of course, only means:
“I was a good religious.”
[418] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38.
[419] In the interpretation of Genesis iii. 17; “Opp. Lat. exeg.,”
1, p. 263. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38, 481, where Luther makes
use of the usual word “Franzos” for the malady. In the latter passage
Luther declares himself ready to exchange his very painful gout for
this malady, or even for the plague, were that God’s will. Hence he was
then, i.e. in his later years, free from it.
[420] German translation of the “Chronicle” in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 14;
the passage, _ibid._, p. 1277.
[421] “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 50.
[422] To Spalatin, April 25, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 137.
[423] Melanchthon to Hammelberg, April 29, 1523, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p.
615.
[424] To Nic. Hausmann, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144: “_Corpore satis bene
valeo_.”
[425] See Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 87, 88 n.
[426] Luther sent him a copy of his “Chronicle,” above mentioned, as a
present on May 15, 1544 (Seidemann, “Lutherbriefe,” p. 68).
[427] The text in question runs as follows: “_De Helia Luthero vulgata
est apud (nos) creberrima fama morbo laborare hominem. Giengerius tamen
ex Lipsiis rediens nundinis refert foeliciter, convaluisse scilicet
Heliam, qui nos omnes mira affecit lætitia. Clamabant adversarii
pseudoregem interiisse de Sickingero gloriantes, pseudopapam autem
ægrotum propediem obiturum. Deus tamen, cuius res agitur, melius
consuluit. Apriolus tamen multa mihi ex compassione de Lutheri nostri
mala valetudine adscripsit, et inter reliqua de nimia vigilia, qua
dominus Helias molestetur. Non est mirum, hominem tot cerebri laboribus
immersum, in siccitatem cerebri incidere, unde nimia causatur vigilia.
Tu autem, qui medicum agis, non debes esse oblitus, si lac mulieris
mixtum cum oleo violato in commissuram coronalem ungatur, quam
familiariter humectet cerebrum ad somnumque disponat; et si cum hoc
dolores_ MALI FRANCIE _somno impedimento fuerint, mitigandi sunt cum
emplastro, quod fit ex medulla cervi, in qua coquuntur vermes terræ
cum modico croco et vino sublimato. Hec si dormituro apponuntur,
somnum conciliant, qui somnus maxime est necessarius ad restaurandam
sanitatem. Nam quod caret alterna requie durabile non est. Cura
nobis Lutherum propter Deum, cuius fidei me commenda et charitati.
Melanchthonis (?) notum fac Apriolumque saluta._” (From the “Cod.
Rych.” in the Wolff collection of the Hamburg Town Library, p. 560.)
[428] In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1,
p. 431, Luther complains of “_molestiæ_,” which were not physical
sufferings but the weight of his position and undertaking. In the
letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, he
means by the “other _molestia_” which tormented him, the constipation
which “together with temptations of the flesh had prevented him for a
whole week from writing, praying, and studying.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,”
3, p. 171: “_Malum auctum est, quo Vormaciæ laborabam: durissima
patior excrementa, ut nunquam in vita, ut remedium desperaverim_.” To
Spalatin, June 10, 1521. Cp. above, p. 95.
[429] Above, p. 79 ff. Cp. also volume iii., xviii.
[430] “Contra Henricum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. Lat.
var.,” 6, p. 391.
[431] Preface to Justus Menius’s book, “Œconomia Christiana,” 1529,
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 61; Erl. ed., 63, p. 279 (“Briefwechsel,”
7, p. 73). The preface is in the shape of a letter to Hans Metzsch, the
Captain of the Wittenberg garrison, an unmarried man whom Luther urged
in vain to marry.
[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f.
[433] To Spalatin, March 4, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 133.
[434] _Ibid._
[435] _Ibid._, March 23, 1525, _ibid._, 5, p. 140.
[436] _Ibid._, March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.
[437] _Ibid._, April 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 290,
“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 157.
[438] _Ibid._, March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.
[439] _Ibid._
[440] _Ibid._, April 3, 1525, _ibid._, p. 152. To Amsdorf, April 11,
1525, _ibid._, p. 156.
[441] To the Christians at Antwerp, beginning of April, 1525, “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151).
[442] To Spalatin, March 27, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 147.
[443] _Ibid._, March 11, 1525, _ibid._, p. 136.
[444] _Ibid._, March 27, 1525, _ibid._, p. 147.
[445] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 19 ff. Sermon of 1533, the second in
the “Postils.”
[446] “Contra Henricum regem,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 205 f.;
“Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 424.
[447] “On the two kinds of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311.
[448] On March 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 138.
[449] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 73). See
[450] “_Nos afflicti satis et tentati sumus._”
[451] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 796, n. 2, 729.
[452] See above, p. 133.
[453] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 58.
[454] G. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangelische
Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.
[455] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” p. 59.
[456] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 276. Letters edited by De Wette, 4 (not 3,
as stated by the editor of Ratzeberger), p. 181.
[457] From Psalm iv. 9 ff.
[458] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60 (“Tischreden”).
[459] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61.
[460] _Ibid._, 61, p. 307.
[461] _Ibid._, p. 309.
[462] _Ibid._
[463] On November 30, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77 (see p. 181, n.
2). Here Luther remarks that there is much gossip (“_garriri_”) about
him and his marriage.
[464] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164). In
October, 1524, he speaks of Pastor Caspar Glatz as her future husband,
without mentioning his own intentions (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 35).
[465] To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204. Cp. Enders
in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195.
[466] To the Marshal Johann von Dolzigk, June 21, 1525, “Werke,”
Erl. ed., 53, p. 322 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201). Cp. p. 175, n. 5,
“_coniux_.”
[467] Jonas to Spalatin, June 14, 1525, in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” ed.
Kawerau, 1, 1884, p. 94.
[468] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 238, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 184.
[469] To Spalatin, April 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.
[470] See above, p. 142.
[471] To Johann Rühel, May 4, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 53, 294
(“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 164).
[472] To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 201:
“_Dominus me subito aliaque cogitantem coniecit mire in coniugium_.”
[473] Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 32: “_Maligna fama
effecit, ut doctor Martinus insperato fieret coniux; post aliquot tamen
dies publica solemnitate duximus istas sacras nuptias etiam coram mundo
venerandas_.”
[474] On June 16, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197: “_Os obstruxi
infamantibus me cum Catharina Bora_.” At a much later date he excuses
the haste by his wish to anticipate the proposal of his friends that he
should select some other woman.
[475] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 197, 198.
[476] See Amsdorf in Scultetus († 1625), “Annales Evangelii,” 1, p.
274.
[477] V. Druffel, “Die Melanchthon-Handschriften der Chigi-Bibliothek,”
in “SB. der Bayr. Akad. phil.-hist. Kl.,” 1876, p. 491 ff. W. Meyer,
“Uber die Originale von Melanchthons Briefen an Camerarius,” _ibid._,
p. 596 ff. “Katholik,” 1900, 1, p. 392, an article by P. A. Kirsch
with photo of letter. We are forced to depart from his translation
on certain points. Cp. also Nik. Müller’s reprint in “Zeitschr. für
Kirchengesch.,” 21, 1901, p. 595. The letter runs:
“_Εὖ πράττειν. Ὅτι μὲν ἔμελλε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἡ φήμη οὐχ ὅμοια περὶ τοῦ
γάμου τοῦ Λουθέρου ἀγγεῖλαι, ἔδοξέ μοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς γνώμην ἔχω σοι
ἐπιστέλλειν. μηνὸς ἰουνίου ἡμέρᾳι γ̓ ἀπροσδοκήτως ἔγημε τὴν Βορείαν ὁ
Λούθερος μηδενὶ τῶν φίλων τὸ πρᾶγμα πρὸ τοῦ ἀναθέμενος, ἀλλ̓ ἑσπέρας
πρὸς δεῖπνον καλέσας τὸν Πομερανιέα καὶ Λούκαν τὸν γραφέα καὶ τὸν
Ἄπελλον μόνους ἐποίησε τὰ εἰθισμένα προτέλεια._
“_Θαυμάσειας δὲ ἂν, τούτῳ τῳ δυστυχεῖ χρόνῳ, καλῶν κἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν
πάντοτε ταλαιπωρουμένων τοῦτον οὐ συμπάσχειν, ἀλλ̓ ὡς δοκεῖ μᾶλλον
τρυφᾶν καὶ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἀξίωμα ἐλαττοῦν, ὅτε μάλιστα χρείαν ἔχει ἡ
Γερμανία φρονήματός τε καὶ ἐξουσίας αὐτοῦ. Ἐγὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὕτω πως
γενέσθαι οἷμαι. Ἐστὶν ὁ ἀνὴρ ὡς μάλιστα εὐχερὴς και αἱ μοναχαὶ πασῃ
μηχανᾖ ἐπι βουλευομέναι προσέπασαν αὐτόν. Ἲσως ἡ πολλὴ συνήθεια, ἡ
σὺν ταῖς μοναχαῖς κἂν γενναῖον ὄντα καὶ μεγαλόψυχον κατεμάλθαξε ἤ καὶ
προσεξέκαυσε. τοῦτον τρόπον εἰσπεσεῖν δοκεῖ εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἄαιρον βίου
μεταβολήν. Θρυλλούμενον δὲ, ὃτι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ διακόρευσεν αὐτὴν, ἐψεῦσθαι
δῆλόν ἐστι._
“_Νυνὶ δὲ τὸ πραχθὲν μὴ βαρέως φέρειν δεῖ ἢ ὀνειδίζειν. ἀλλὰ ἡγοῦμαι
ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν. Οὗτος δὲ βίος ταπεινὸς μέν, ἀλλὰ ὅσιός
ἐστι καὶ θεῷ μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀγέμου ἀρέσκει. Καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν τὸν Λούθερον
ἐπίλυπόν πως ὄντα ὁρῶ καὶ ταραχθέντα διὰ τὴν βιου μεταγολήν, πάσῃ
σπουδῇ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ ἐπιχειρῶ παραμυθεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ οὔπω ἔπραξέ τι, ὅπερ
ἐγκαλεῖσθαι ἀξιῶ ἢ ἀναπολόγητον δοκεῖ. ἔτι δὲ τεκμήριά τινα ἔχω τῆς
εὐσεβείας αὐτοῦ ὥστε κατακρίνειν οὐκ ἐξεῖναι. ἔπειτα ἂν μᾶλλον ἠυχόμην
αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦσθαι ἢ ὐψοῦσθαι καὶ ἐπαίρεσθαι, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἐπισφαλές, οὐ
μόνον τοῖς ἐν ἱερωσύνῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. τὸ γὰρ εὖ πράττειν,
ἀφορμὴ τοῦ κακῶς φρονεῖν γίνεται, οὐ μόνον, ὡς ὁ ῥήτωρ ἔφη, τοῖς
ἀνοήτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς._
“_Πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ ἐλπίζω, ὅτι ὁ βίος οὑτοσὶ σεμνότερον αὐτὸν ποιήσει,
ὥστε καὶ ἀποβαλεῖν τὴν βωμολοχίαν, ἧς πολλάκις ἐμεμψάμεθα. ἄλλος γὰρ
βίος ἄλλην δίαιταν κατὰπαροιμίαν καταστήσει._
“_Ταῦτα πρός σε μακρολογῶ ὤστε μή σε ὑπὸ παραδόξου πράγματος ἄγαν
ταράττεσθαι. οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι μέλει σοι τοῦ ἀξιώματος τοῦ Λουθέρον,
ὅπερ νυνὶ ἐλαττοῦθαι ἀχθεσθήσῃ. Παρακαλῶ δέ σε πράως ταῦτα φέρειν,
ὄτι τίμιος βίος ὁ γάμος ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς εἶναι λέγεται. εἰκὸς δὲ
ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν. Πολλὰ τῶν πάλαι ἀγίων πταίσματα ἔδειξεν
ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν, ὄτι θέλει ἡμᾶς βασανίζοντας τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, οὐκ ἀξίωμα
ἀνθρώπων ἢ πρόσωπον σύμβουλον πολεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον αὐτοῦ λόγον. πάλιν δὲ
ἀσεβέστατος ἐστιν, ὃστις διὰ τὸ διδασκάλον πταῖσμα καταγιγνώσκει τῆς
διδαχῆς._
“Michaelis pergrata consuetudo in his turbis mihi est, quem miror, qui
passus sis isthinc discedere. Patrem officiosissime tractato, et puta
te hanc illi pro paterno amore gratiam debere _καὶ ἀντιπελαργεῖν_.
De Francicis rebus a te litteras expecto. Vale foeliciter. Postridie
corp. Christi. Tabellarius qui has reddet, recta ad nos rediturus est.
_Φίλιππος_.” (The seal is still preserved.)
[478] Not _βδελυρίαν_, debauchery, as was thought, but _βωμολοχίαν_,
is the correct reading. The latter might perhaps be translated as “the
passion for making coarse jests.” This is the opinion of G. Kawerau
in “Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter,” 1906, “Luther und Melanchthon”
(in the reprint, p. 37), who remarks that the only thing damning for
Luther in this letter was Melanchthon’s statement “concerning the
coarse jests to which Luther was given in his bachelor days, and which
had so often scandalised his friend.” Kawerau, for this very reason,
thinks that this much-discussed letter, “which Camerarius only ventured
to print after much revision” (p. 34), is much better calculated to
“make us acquainted with Melanchthon than with Luther, and simply
bears witness to the former’s sensitiveness” (p. 37). It is true that
“some of Luther’s talk appears to us to-day frightfully coarse, and
Melanchthon felt as we do on the subject”; but apart from the fact
that Melanchthon’s views were not representative of his age, Mathesius
declares that “he never heard an immodest word from Luther’s lips.” We
shall return later to the question of that age as a linguistic standard
of morality and to Mathesius’s statement, which, we may remark, refers
to a later period.
[479] _εἰκὸς δὲ ἀναγκασθῆναι ἀληθῶς γαμεῖν._ The subject of the
verb _ἀναγκασθῆναι_ is the infinitive _γαμεῖν_, as in the previous
passage _ἡγοῦμαι ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκασθῆναι γαμεῖν_. On the passive form
_ἀναγκασθῆναι_, see e.g. Plato, “Phæd.,” 242a, 254a.
[480] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 750.
[481] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.
[482] To Johann Rühel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 293 (“Briefwechsel,”
5, p. 164).
[483] To Spalatin, November 30, 1524 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77):
“_Animus alienus est a coniugio, cum expectem quotidie mortem et
meritum hæretici supplicium_.” This he wrote under the influence of the
stringent decrees of the Diet of Nuremberg (April 18, 1524), and in
order to work upon his Elector. The decrees had led him to write: “You
are in a great hurry to put me, a poor man, to death,” but that his
death would be the undoing of his enemies. “Two unequal decrees of the
Emperor,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 222 f.; Weim. ed., 15, p. 254.
[484] To Johann Rühel, Johann Thür and Caspar Müller, “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).
[485] Sermon on Psalm xxvi. preached in Wittenberg shortly after his
marriage, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 115.
[486] From the concluding words of the tract of 1525: “Against the
murderous, thievish bands of peasants,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18, p. 361;
Erl. ed., 24², p. 309.
[487] See above, p. 175.
[488] See above, p. 178.
[489] To Leonard Koppe, June 17, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199).
[490] To Michael Stiefel, June 17, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 199.
[491] To Amsdorf, June 21, 1525, _ibid._, p. 204.
[492] To Wenceslaus Link, June 20, 1525, _ibid._, p. 201.
[493] In letter quoted above, p. 181, n. 3.
[494] To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248.
[495] To Johann Brismann (after August 15?), 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5,
p. 226.
[496] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 641.
[497] On May 11, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 340.
[498] In the letter quoted above, p. 174, n. 3.
[499] To Leonard Koppe, June 21, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 202.
[500] To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1525, _ibid._, p. 222.
[501] In the letter quoted above, p. 182, n. 4: “_Vehementer irritantur
sapientes etiam inter nostros_.” These are the followers whom he had
complained of already on April 10, 1525: “_Nostri sapienticuli quotidie
idem (coniugium) ridere_.” To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 153.
[502] To Amsdorf, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p.
204.
[503] “Archiv für Frankfurter Gesch.,” 7, 1855, p. 102 in Enders,
“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 195, n. 4.
[504] To Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 204.
[505] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.
[506] _Ibid._, p. 265.
[507] “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, t. 3, col. 900. Erasmus to Nicholas
Everardus, Präses in Holland, from Basle, December 24, 1525.
[508] _Ibid._, col. 919, to Franciscus Sylvius, from Basle, March 13,
1526.
[509] “_Articuli sive libelli triginta_,” art. 17, p. 87 _seq._
[510] “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., 1703, 3, col. 900, ep. 781.
[511] _Ibid._, col. 919, ep. 801.
[512] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 322; see above, p. 183.
[513] See Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 334.
[514] See Strobel, “Neue Beiträge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff.
Cp. Höfler, “SB. der k. böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892,
p. 110 f. Denifle states, “Luther,” 1², p. 284, n. 3, that there is a
specimen of the above work in the town library at Mayence.
[515] See above, pp. 145, 177.
[516] “Eberlins Sämtliche Schriften,” ed. L. Enders, 3, p. 165.
[517] Eobanus Hessus says of the escaped nuns: “_Nulla Phyllis nonnis
est nostris mammosior_.” Cp. above, p. 125, n. 1.
[518] Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 284.
[519] “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” Oldenburg, 1895, p. 8.
[520] “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” Berlin, 1890, p. 447.
[521] “Die Kultur der Gegenwart,” T. 2, Abt. 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 68.
[522] The passages were quoted above, cp. pp. 6 f., 9 f., 49 f., 55 f.,
63, 69, 100 f., 107.
[523] “Dissertationes quatuor contra M. Lutherum et Lutheranismi
fautores,” Moguntiæ, 1532, fol. 19. See Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the
German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, 1900, p. 56 ff.
[524] Ed. A. Goetze in “Hist. Vierteljahrsschrift,” 4, 1901, p. 1 ff.
[525] In Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 697, after a reference to the
oppression of the peasantry, their insolence and desire for innovation,
we read: “In addition to all this there now supervened the preaching of
the new Evangel.... A higher warrant was bestowed upon the complaints
and the demands concerning secular and material matters.... The
Christian liberty of which the New Testament speaks and which Luther
proclaimed was applied directly to temporal questions. Paul’s words
that in Christ there is neither bond nor free became a weapon.... Even
the Old Testament was also appealed to. From the circumstance that
God had granted to our first parents dominion over the birds of the
air, the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field, they concluded
that at least the right to fish and hunt was common to all. Great
opposition was raised, above all, to the taxes due to the monasteries
and clergy, and even the very existence of the monastic state and
temporal authority of the clergy was called into question. Such ideas
were readily fostered among the excited masses when the new preaching
found its way amongst them by word of mouth or in writings”; p. 701:
“Luther, however, was the man of the Evangel on whom the eyes of the
great mass of the peasants in southern Germany were directed when
their rising commenced.” The editors of the Weimar edition of Luther’s
writings (18, 1908) remark in the first introduction to the same (p.
279): “The rebellion found its encouragement and support in Luther’s
victorious gospel of ecclesiastical reformation; ultimately, however,
it secularised the new gospel. Whence it came to pass that in the
end, not Luther, but rather the religious fanatics, above all, Thomas
Münzer, drew the excited masses under their spell and impressed their
stamp on the whole movement.” Concerning Luther’s attitude towards
the revolt at the time it was preparing, we read on p. 280: “Up to
that time [the spring of 1525], Luther had taken no direct part in the
social movement. He was, however, without doubt indirectly engaged;
his writings had fallen like firebrands on the inflammable masses, who
misunderstood them, interpreted them according to their own ideas and
forged from them weapons for their own use.”
[526] Fritz Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den
ersten Zeiten der Reformation,” in “Schriften des Vereins für
Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910 (p. 275-304), p. 297.
[527] F. Herrmann, _ibid._, p. 298.
[528] F. Herrmann, p. 296. W. Vogt, “Die Vorgesch. des Bauernkrieges”
(in “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” 20, 1887),
points to the general expectation prevailing, more particularly in
the south-west of Germany, that a fundamental change in the existing
state of things was imminent. “Every reform, however, even the most
trifling, in the social sphere encroached upon the political and even
the ecclesiastical domain, for the nobility and clergy, whose authority
and possessions were the subject of discussion, were at the same time
political and ecclesiastical factors.... All felt that in the last
instance the appeal would be to force” (p. 142).
[529] For examples, see above, p. 152 ff., and below, p. 297 ff.
Cp. also P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum Luthers Ideal?”
Tübingen, 1908, p. 31.
[530] Concerning Usingen’s utterance of 1523: “_Nescitis populum esse
bestiam ... quæ sanguinem sitit?_” etc., cp. N. Paulus, “Barthol.
Usingen,” p. 102. And (_ibid._) another striking saying of Usingen
concerning the preacher Culsamer. He declared that he feared Germany
would see a storm similar to that which Constantinople had suffered
at the hands of the iconoclasts (p. 101). The preacher Eberlin von
Günzburg announced in 1521: “There will be no end to the impositions
of the clergy until the peasants rise and hang and drown good
and bad alike; then the cheating will meet with its reward.” See
Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 490 ff.
[531] F. Herrmann, _loc. cit._, p. 297.
[532] The circular letter, reprinted in the “Annalen des Vereins für
Nassauisshe Gesch.,” 17, 1882, p. 16 ff.
[533] W. Stolze, “Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,” Halle, 1907, p. v.
[534] Cp. particularly p. 22 ff. In “Archiv. f. Reformationsgesch.,”
1909, Hft. 1, p. 160, the author’s blame of the “previous prejudiced
insistence on the social side of the Peasant War” meets with
recognition; we read there, “the emphasis laid on the religious side by
Stolze appears to be thoroughly justified.”
[535] “Die scharf Metz wider die, die sich evangelisch nennen und doch
dem Evangelium entgegen sind,” 1525, ed. W. Lucke, in “Flugschriften
aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” vol. i., No. 3, Halle, 1906.
[536] W. Maurenbrecher, “Gesch. der kath. Reformation,” 1, Nördlingen,
1880, p. 257. Janssen, in his “Hist. of the German People,” has brought
this point out clearly. See more particularly (Engl. trans.) volume
iii.: “The populace inflamed by preaching and the press,” and volume
iv.: “The social revolution,” where it is pointed out that even apart
from Luther’s action and that of his followers, risings were imminent,
but that the “social revolution first received the stamp of universal
and inhuman ferocity from the conditions created or developed among
the people by the religious disturbances.” Concerning the effect of
the sermons and pamphlets on the people we read, in the original, vol.
2^[18], p. 490, n. 5, in a letter of Archduke Ferdinand to the Pope,
that the deluded people believed, “_se Dei negotium agere in templis,
cœnobiis, monasteriis diruendis_,” etc. Johann Adam Möhler, in the
Church History (ed. Gams), which appeared after his death, compares (3,
p. 118) the effects of the preaching of the liberty of the children
of God in the primitive Church, and describes the pure, virtuous life
of self-renunciation which resulted, how the lower classes learnt
to be content with their lot and the slaves became more faithful to
their masters. “The contrast between the effects of the old gospel
and the new evangel gave the most convincing proof of the difference
between them.” “From the spirit of the flesh which combined with the
religious in Luther’s writings to form one living whole, a tendency to
revolt gradually spread over all Germany; ecclesiastical and secular,
divine and human, spiritual and corporal, all ran riot together in the
people’s minds; everywhere prevailed a fanatical, perverted longing for
the liberty of the children of God” (p. 116). When Luther urged the
Princes to severity in repressing the movement, his ruling idea was
“to repress the opinion that elements dangerous to public order were
embodied in his principles” (p. 118).
[537] W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der
Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 22.
[538] Cp. the writing, “Handlung, Ordnung und Instruktion,” in which
the delegates to be chosen to negotiate with the Swabian League on
the question of “divine law,” are referred, among others, to “Hertzog
Friederich von Sachsen sampt D. Martin Luther, oder Philipp Melanchthon
oder Pomeran [Bugenhagen].” In the introduction of the Weim. ed. (see
above, p. 191, n. 2), p. 280. Luther refers to this passage in his
“Ermanunge zum Fride auff die 12 Artikel” with the words: “particularly
as they appeal to me by name in the other writing.”
[539] The pamphlet in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, 1908, p. 279 ff. Erl.
ed., 24², p. 271 ff. For the date see _ibid._, Weim. ed., 18, p. 281,
and Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 793.
[540] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 344 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 303 ff.
[541] _Ibid._, p. 375 ff. = 310 ff.
[542] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293 f.=273 f.
[543] _Ibid._, p. 300=277.
[544] _Ibid._, p. 329 f.=296 f. In the Weim. ed., 18, p. 790, it is
rightly remarked that Luther sees in the peasants of South Germany, to
whom the “Ermanunge zum Fride” was principally addressed, persecuted
men, and that from a distance he welcomes their rising with a certain
sympathy.
[545] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 717; cp. p. 792 ff.
[546] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 291; Erl. ed., 24², p. 272.
[547] _Ibid._, p. 316 = p. 288.
[548] _Ibid._, p. 334 = p. 299.
[549] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293=p. 273.
[550] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 55.
[551] K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p.
140.
[552] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 358; Erl. ed., 24², p. 304.
[553] _Ibid._, p. 358 f.=p. 305. “The violent words of the circular
letter ‘Wider die ... Bawren’ were really directed against his bitter
opponent Thomas Münzer, the ‘arch-devil of Mühlhausen,’ and the
seditious Thuringian peasants.” So runs the introduction of the Weimar
edition, with which we may, to some extent, agree, though the pamphlet
speaks throughout of the rebellious peasants generally; on the very
first page we read, however: “More particularly the arch-devil who
reigns at Mühlhausen and who incites to nothing but pillage, murder,
and bloodshed.”
[554] _Ibid._, p. 360; Erl. ed., 24², p. 308.
[555] _Ibid._, p. 359=p. 306.
[556] _Ibid._, p. 361=p. 308.
[557] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, and p. 359 = p. 306.
[558] _Ibid._, p. 360 ff. = 307 ff.
[559] Melanchthon’s and Luther’s words given more in detail in
Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 59.
[560] Luther to Amsdorf, May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182:
“_adulator principum_.” Luther pronounces the “Curse of the Lord” on
those Magdeburg preachers who had sided with the rebels.
[561] On May 21, 1525, Kawerau’s edition of the letter in “Schriften
des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 339 (“
Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 177).
[562] Kawerau’s edition, _ibid._, p. 342 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 180).
[563] Cp. K. Müller above (p. 201, n. 3), p. 148, where another
explanation is given which, however, cannot stand. Müller, p. 140 ff.,
deals with Barge’s “Karlstadt” (vol. ii.), and Barge’s reply to his
criticism. Barge was of opinion that “it is plain the princes and their
mercenaries [in their ruthless treatment of the conquered peasants]
understood Luther aright” (“Frühprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum,”
1909, p. 333). “Luther, in his pamphlet against the peasants, gave
high sanction to the impure lust for blood which had been kindled in
the souls of hundreds and thousands who played the part of hangmen....
By seeking to exalt the cynical thirst for revenge into a religious
sentiment he has stained the cause of the Reformation more than he
could have done even by allying himself with the rebels” (“Karlstadt,”
2, 1905, p. 357).
[564] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).
“I would that in these perilous days you would write a letter of
consolation and exhortation to my most gracious lord of Magdeburg
concerning his making a change in his mode of life; you understand what
I mean. But please send me a copy. I purpose going to Magdeburg to-day
to take steps in the matter. Pray God in heaven to give His grace in
this serious work and undertaking. Be hopeful; you understand me; it
cannot be committed to writing. For God’s sake implore, seek and pray
that grace and strength may be bestowed on me for the work.” Words so
pious concerning such a business prove how far men may be carried away
by their own prepossession.
[565] Cp. Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 64.
[566] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, with the references p. 794 and
Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, Introduction. E. Rolffs (“Preuss. Jahrbücher,”
15, 1904, p. 481): “When, incited thereto by his evangel of the freedom
of a Christian man, the oppressed and down-trodden peasantry sought
by flame and bloodshed to secure for themselves an existence fit for
human beings, then he no longer understood his German people. And
when, thereupon, he wrote his frightful book, ‘Against the murderous
and thieving hordes of Peasants,’ the German people also ceased to
understand him.”
[567] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 58 f.
[568] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 306 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 181).
“This rabble [the peasants under Thomas Münzer] was an enemy of the
evangel, and its leaders bitter opponents of the Lutheran teaching.”
Introduction to the circular-letter. Weim. ed., 18, p. 376.
[569] Luther’s own way of putting the objection, “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
18, p. 399; Erl. ed., 24², p. 331. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, _ibid._
[570] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. The
date is determined by K. Müller in the work quoted above, p. 201, n. 3,
p. 144.
[571] In the sermon at Wittenberg on June 4, 1525, Köstlin-Kawerau, 1,
p. 715.
[572] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 401; Erl. ed., 24², p. 334.
[573] _Ibid._, p. 384 ff.=pp. 311-14.
[574] _Ibid._, p. 387 f.=pp. 315-16.
[575] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 715, 717.
[576] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 390 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 319, 320.
[577] _Ibid._, pp. 392-4 = 322, 324.
[578] _Ibid._, pp. 394, 396; Erl. ed., 24², pp. 324, 327.
[579] _Ibid._, p. 397 = 328.
[580] “Against the murderous Peasants,” _ibid._, p. 358 = 304.
[581] _Ibid._, p. 398 f. = 330.
[582] _Ibid._, p. 399 = 331.
[583] _Ibid._, p. 399 f. = 330-3.
[584] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 29.
[585] “Epp. ad viros aetatis suae doctissimos,” ed. Rieggerus, 1774, p.
97.
[586] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 376, quoted in the introduction to the
circular-letter.
[587] “Hyperaspistes,” “Opp.,” 1, p. 1032.
[588] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 284 (Tischreden). Cp. Cordatus,
“Tagebuch,” p. 307, Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 290.
[589] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 714, 717 f.