[591] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 62.
[592] Ed. W. Friedensburg, “Zur Vorgesch. des Gotha-Torgauischen
Bündnisses der Evangelischen,” 1884. Cp. Kawerau in “Theolog.
Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 502.
[593] Cp. Fr. Herrmann, “Evangelische Regungen zu Mainz in den ersten
Jahren der Reformation,” in “Schriften für Reformationsgesch.,” No.
100, 1910, pp. 275-304.
[594] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 7 f. For the tract, so far as it is
known, see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 252 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 22 ff.
[595] Frank G. Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und
seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 31.
[596] To Hans Luther, February 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 130
(“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).
[597] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 526 n.
“Luther’s conduct in the Peasant War was not ambiguous, but in both his
writings merely violent as usual; in the first, against the nobles,
more especially the higher clergy; in the second, against the peasants.”
[598] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 276.
[599] _Ibid._, 33, p. 390. In the “Exhortation to Peace” Luther had
represented to the peasants that their demand for the abrogation of
serfdom was “rapacious,” “and directly contrary to the gospel.” Cp.
vol. v., xxxv. 5.
[600] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.
[601] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 125. Cp. Cordatus,
“Tagebuch,” 216.
[602] _Ibid._, p. 127. Cordatus, _ibid._, p. 217.
[603] _Ibid._, p. 131. Cordatus, p. 221.
[604] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, undated Fragment.
[605] On August 25, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 333.
[606] P. Schreckenbach, “Luther und der Bauernkrieg,” 1895, p. 45.
[607] “_De servo arbitrio_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 776. “Opp. Lat.
var.,” 7, p. 367: “_ipsum iugulum petisti_.”
[608] To Michael Stiefel, September 29, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 248
f.
[609] _Ibid._, p. 248: “_metuens, ne non esset divinum, quod gerimus_.”
[610] May 30, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 182.
[611] In “Eurici Cordi Medici antilutheromastigos calumnias expurgatio
pro catholicis,” 1526. Cp. G. Kawerau, “Hieron. Emser,” 1898, p. 83 f.
For Emser’s work I made use of the very rare copy in the University
library at Munich.
[612] Verse 53 ff.
[613] September 28, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 246.
[614] On September 27, 1525, _ibid._, p. 245.
[615] Cp. letter of May 26, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 304
(“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).
[616] “_Qui te fecit sine te, non iustificat te sine te_,” “Serm.,”
160, n. 13.
[617] “_De duabus animabus_,” 14, n. 22.
[618] Genesis iv. 6 f. According to the Vulgate.
[619] 2 Corinthians vi. 1; 1 Corinthians xv. 10; Philippians ii. 12.
[620] Deuteronomy xxx. 19.
[621] Ed. F. Pfeiffer², 1855, p. 208.
[622] “De nuptiis et concup.,” 2, c. 8.
[623] “Epp.,” 157, c. 2. It is notorious that in his controversial
writings against the Pelagians, Augustine, in his later years, came to
insist more and more upon grace, yet he never denied free-will nor its
consequences, viz. merit and guilt. Some of Luther’s misrepresentations
of the statements of this Father of the Church will be given later.
[624] J. Ficker, in the Preface, p. lxxv, referring to “Schol. Rom.,”
38, 42, 71, 90, 91, 93, 101; cp. 171, 179, 188, 218.
[625] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 55 f.
[626] A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre
1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 10 f.
[627] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 29 f.
[628] _Ibid._, p. 78 = p. 177. Cp. F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom
unfreien Willen,” Göttingen, 1875, p. 51 (the 2nd edition is a mere
reprint).
[629] Cp. for this and for the other theses Luther’s works mentioned
in volume i., p. 310 ff., and also “Die ältesten Disputationen,” etc.,
ed. Stange, for instance, p. 5: “_Voluntas hominis sine gratia non est
libera, sed servit, licet non invita_.”
[630] Stange, _ibid._, p. 15.
[631] Stange, _ibid._, p. 16, n. 1, referring to his work, “Die
reformatorische Lehre von der Freiheit des Handelns,” in “Neue kirchl.
Zeitschr.,” 3, 1903, p. 214 ff.
[632] Cp. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 48 f.
[633] On Luther’s Determinism, see below. For the deterministic
passages in the work, “De servo arbitrio,” 1525, cf. Taube, “Luthers
Lehre über die Freiheit,” p. 21.
[634] Latin text in Stange, _ibid._, p. 18. Cp. Kattenbusch., _ibid._,
p. 41 ff., for what Luther said in 1516.
[635] See Stange, _ibid._, p. 35 ff.
[636] Thesis 13, in Stange, _ibid._, p. 53. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p.
354; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. Thesis 14: “_Liberum arbitrium
post peccatum potest in bonum potentia subiectiva, in malum vero activa
semper_.” On the Heidelberg Disputation, see volume i., p. 315 ff.
[637] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 421; “Opp. Lat var.,” 3, p. 272.
[638] _Ibid._, p. 424 = p. 276.
[639] Jul. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², Stuttgart, 1901, p. 218.
[640] In the “Assertio omnium articulorum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7,
p. 148; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 234. Cp. _ibid._, p. 146 = p. 231:
“_Patimur omnes et omnia: cessat liberum arbitrium erga Deum_.”
[641] _Ibid._, p. 146 = p. 230. This passage was toned down, after
Luther’s death, in the Wittenberg ed. (1546) and Jena ed. (1557);
Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 316 n.
[642] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 143 ff.=p. 227 ff. It is strange but
characteristic how he appeals to experience as against the doctrine
of free-will: everyone possessed arguments against it “_ex vita
propria.... Secus rem se habere monstrat experientia omnium_” (p.
145=p. 230). His views of concupiscence come in here.
[643] “_Non est homo in manu sua, etiam mala operans et cogitans_”
(_ibid._, p. 145=p. 230).
[644] “_Nam et mala opera in impiis Deus operatur_” (_ibid._).
[645] “_Assertio_,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 145 ff.; “Opp. Lat.
var.,” 5, p. 231 f.
[646] “Contra duas epp. Pelag.,” 1. 3, c. 8.
[647] “De spiritu et litt.,” c. 3, n. 5.
[648] In place of “_Neque liberum arbitrium quidquid nisi ad peccandum
valet, si lateat veritatis via_,” he makes Augustine say: “_Liberum
arbitrium sine gratia non valet nisi ad peccandum_.” Of the subject
itself sufficient explanation will be found in Catholic handbooks. Cp.,
for instance, Hurter, “Theolog. specialis,” pars. 2¹¹, 1903, p. 55 f.
[649] “Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 146: “Opp. Lat. var.,”
5, p. 233.
[650] _Ibid._, pp. 95=158.
[651] _Ibid._, p. 148=234.
[652] _Ibid._
[653] Weim. ed., 5, p. 149=p. 235.
[654] _Ibid._, p. 97 f.=p. 161 f.
[655] _Ibid._, p. 100=p. 165.
[656] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 96=p. 158.
[657] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142 f.=p. 226.
[658] _Ibid._, p. 145=p. 229.
[659] Cp. _ibid._, p. 145=p. 230: “_Unde non est dubium, satana
magistro in ecclesiam venisse hoc nomen liberum arbitrium, ad
seducendos homines a via Dei in vias suas proprias_.”
[660] Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 106. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,”
2², p. 70.
[661] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 235. “Kirchenpostille,” Sermon of
1521. Cp. Köstlin, _ibid._, 1², p. 365.
[662] See Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 366. He admits (2², p. 82) that Luther
“expressly denies free-will” to those who “would not.”
[663] Weim. ed., 7, p. 147; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 232.
[664] Köstlin, _ibid._, 1², p. 366.
[665] To Hans von Rechenberg, August 18, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22,
p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 444). This letter to the promoter of
Lutheranism at Freistadt in Silesia, was at once spread abroad in print
and is included amongst Luther’s catechetical works. Later he finds in
the same passage, viz. Timothy ii. 4, merely an expression of God’s
desire that we should render our neighbours “all temporal and spiritual
assistance” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 316 ff.). In support of this he
appeals to Psalm xxxvi.: “Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord.”
To find in Scripture that salvation was open to all men whose free-will
was ready to accept it, was “to pluck out some words of Scripture and
fashion them according to our own fancy” (p. 317).
[666] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 317.
[667] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 14, p. 73: Erl. ed., 52, p. 271; cp. _ibid._,
p. 69=p. 267.
[668] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 51, p. 317.
[669] “Corpus ref.,” 21, p. 87 f. Later we read: “_Fateor in externo
rerum delectu esse quandam libertatem, internos vero affectus prorsus
nego in potestate nostra esse_” (_ibid._, p. 92). Both passages in
Kolde’s edition based on the _editio princeps_, Leipzig, 1900, 3rd.
ed., pp. 67, 74.
[670] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117.
[671] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 144.
[672] Thesis 16 of the Disputation of 1516 (see vol. i., p. 310):
“_Voluntas non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita_.”
[673] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 212; 9, p. 238; Erl. ed., 16², p. 135.
[674] _Ibid._, p. 210=235=131.
[675] See above, p. 27 ff.
[676] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39; Erl. ed., 27, p. 199. Cp.
Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.
[677] See below, p. 288, the Sermon in 1531.
[678] To Johann Lang, April 12, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 331.
[679] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 657.
[680] Cp. Luther to Kaspar Borner, Professor at Leipzig, May 28, 1522,
“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.
[681] N. Paulus points out in his article “Georg Agricola”
(“Histor-polit. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 793 ff.), that this scholar had
never been one of Luther’s followers, and was particularly repelled by
his views on the absence of free-will, which he opposed as early as
1522.
[682] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377, n. 6, from Weller’s “Altes aus
allen Teilen der Gesch.,” 1, 1765, p. 18.
[683] We may allude, for instance, to the beautiful words which,
strange to say, have been described by certain Protestants as a
moralistic explaining away of the true “evangelical comprehension
of the person of Christ and His work”: “_Ut certiore cursu queas
ad felicitatem contendere, haec tibi quarta sit regula, ut totius
vitae tuae Christum velut unicum scopum præfigas, ad quem unum omnia
studia, omnes conatus, omne otium ac negotium conferas. Christum
vero esse puta non vocem inanem, sed nihil aliud quam charitatem,
simplicitatem, patientiam, puritatem, breviter, quidquid ille docuit_”
(“_Enchiridion_,” Basil., 1519, p. 93). G. Kawerau quotes from the
correspondence of Justus Jonas which he edited, 1, p. 31, the words
of Eobanus Hessus (1519) on the “_Enchiridion_”: “_Plane divinum
opus_,” and the following utterance of Ulrich Zasius (1520) on the
same, from the correspondence of Beatus Rhenanus, p. 230: “_Miles
christianus, quem tamen, si vel solus ab Erasmo exisset, immortali
laude prædicare conveniebat, ut qui christiano homini veræ salutis
compendium, brevi velut enchiridio demonstret_.” “Luther und Erasmus,”
in “Deutsch-Evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1, in the reprint, p. 4.
[684] In a letter to P. Servatius, July 9, 1514, Erasmus says:
“_Voluptatibus etsi quando fui inquinatus nunquam servivi_” (“Opp.,”
ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1527). Perhaps he meant more by this than when
he says of Thomas More, in a letter to Ulrich von Hutten, July 23,
1519, which is sometimes cited in comparison: “_Cum ætas ferret, non
abhorruit [Th. Morus] a puellarum amoribus, sed citra infamiam, et sic
ut oblatis magis frueretur, quam captatis et animo mutuo caperetur
potius quam coitu_” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 474 _seq._).
[685] A. Dürer’s exclamation given above, p. 41: “O Erasmus Roderdamus,
Knight of Christ, ride forth,” etc., is an allusion to the “_miles
christianus_” depicted by Erasmus in the “_Enchiridion_.” Kawerau,
_ibid._, p. 2.
[686] The passages in proof of his “rationalistic interpretation of
Scripture” are to be found in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People”
(Engl. trans.), 3, p. 21 ff.
[687] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 15.
[688] Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 5.
[689] To Christoph von Stadion, Bishop of Augsburg, August 26, 1528,
“Opp.,” 3, col. 1095 _seq._
[690] On September 3, 1522, “Opp.,” 3, col. 731. Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten
und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” Leipzig, 1905, p. 352.
[691] At the end of 1520 he declares that he has only read ten or
twelve pages of Luther’s writings. To Campegius, December 6, 1520, and
to Leo X, September 13, 1520, “Opp.,” 3, col. 596, 578.
[692] Cp. Max Richter, “Erasmus und seine Stellung zu Luther,” Leipzig,
1907, p. 10 ff.
[693] _Ibid._, col. 431 _seq._ Cp. his statement to Jodocus [i.e.
Justus] Jonas of July 31, 1518: “Luther had given some excellent
advice; had he but gone to work more gently. As to the value of his
doctrines, I neither can, nor wish to, express an opinion” (“Opp.,” 3,
col. 334).
[694] To Cardinal Wolsey: “_Vita magno omnium consensu probatur_,”
etc. (“Opp.,” 3, col. 322). Cp. his letter to Campegius, of December
6, 1520. To Leo X he writes, on September 13, 1520 (col. 578): “_Bonis
igitur illius [Lutheri] favi ... immo gloriæ Chriti in illo favi_.”
Assurances such as these may well explain Rome’s delay in condemning
Luther.
[695] It is of a portion of the work (described briefly in volume i.,
p. 386) which had then appeared, that Erasmus writes: “_Vehementer
arrident et spero magnam utilitatem allaturos_” (col. 445). How ready
he was to express approval of any work of which a copy was presented
to him is shown by his reply to the Bohemian Brethren in 1511, who had
sent him one of their several confessions of faith founded on the new
interpretation of Holy Scripture: Of what he had “read in their book,”
he writes, he had “thoroughly approved and trusted that the rest was
equally correct”; from any public approval he preferred, however, to
abstain in order not to have his writings censured by the Papists, but
to “preserve his reputation and strength unimpaired for the general
good.” Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 20 f.
[696] The letter is also to be found in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p.
66 ff.
[697] “Opp.,” 3, col. 514. In his complaints concerning the disorders
of the Church he says, for instance: “_Mundus oneratus est ...
tyrannide fratrum mendicantium_”; and then “_in sacris concionibus
minimum audiri de Christo, de potestate pontificis et de opinionibus
recentium fere omnia_”; in short: “_nihil est corruptius ne apud Turcas
quidem_.”
[698] Luther to Lang, January 26, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 305:
“_egregia epistola, ubi me egregie tutatur, ita tamen, ut nihil minus
quam me tutari videatur, sicut solet pro dexteritate sua_.”
[699] F. O. Stichart, “Erasmus von Rotterdam,” Leipzig, 1870, p. 325,
Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 10.
[700] On August 31, 1521, “Zwinglii Opp.,” 7, p. 310. Cp. Janssen,
“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. trans., 3, p. 17, where the
assertion that Erasmus had won over Pellicanus and Capito to the
Zwinglian doctrine of the Last Supper is said to be utterly false.
Though Erasmus declares that he never forsook the teaching of the
Church on this point, Melanchthon nevertheless says that he was the
actual originator of the Zwinglian denial of Christ’s presence in the
Sacrament. Melanchthon to Camerarius, July 26, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1,
p. 1083: “_Nostri inimici illum [Erasmum] amant, qui multorum dogmatum
semina in suis libris sparsit, quæ fortasse longe graviores tumultus
aliquando excitatura fuerant, nisi Lutherus exortus esset ac studia
hominum alio traxisset. Tota illa tragædia, περὶ δειπνου κυριακοῦ, ab
ipso nata videri potest._”
[701] Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog
Georgs,” 1 p. 354.
[702] To Spalatin, July 6, 1520, cp. Stähelin, “Theol.
Realenzyklopädie,” 5³, p. 442.
[703] “Opp.,” 3, col. 639 _seq._
[704] _Ibid._, col. 713, 742.
[705] So, for instance, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 698 (1525).
[706] _Ibid._, p. 693.
[707] “Opp.,” 3, col. 826.
[708] “Opp.,” 3, col. 919.
[709] _Ibid._, col. 1104.
[710] Ioan. Genesius Sepulveda Cordubensis, “_De rebus gestis Caroli
Quinti_,” in his “Opp.,” 1 (Matriti, 1780), p. 468.
[711] To Johann Œcolampadius at Basle, June 20, 1523, “Briefwechsel,”
4, p. 164: “_Forte et ipse_ [_Erasmus_] _in campestribus Moab morietur_
(Num. xxxvi. 13).... _In terram promissionis ducere non potest ... ut
qui vel non possit vel non velit de iis_ [_scripturis_] _recte
iudicare._”
[712] In his “_Diatribe_” against Luther, Erasmus likewise declares
that he submits himself in all to the authority of the Church. Cp. Joh.
Walter’s edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,”
Hft., 8, 1910), p. 3. Later he wrote concerning his attitude to
Catholic dogma: “_De his quæ sunt fidei, liberam habeo conscientiam
apud Deum_” (“Opp.,” 10, col. 1538).
[713] To Christoph von Stadion, in the letter referred to above, p.
246, n. 1. Even in 1520 and 1521 he says that he had been the first
to condemn the Wittenberg preaching because he had foreseen danger
and disturbance. There, however, he dwells more on the detriment to
learning.
[714] “_Si quis deus mihi prædixisset, hoc sæculum exoriturum, quædam
aut non scripsissem, aut aliter scripsissem_” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 681).
[715] To quote here only one instance, Luther says (1544) in the
“Tischreden” of Mathesius, edited by Kroker, p. 343, that he desired
that the “_Annotationes in Novum Testamentum_” by Erasmus (a
much-esteemed and really epoch-making work) should not be further
disseminated, “because it contains Epicureanism and other poison.”
Erasmus had destroyed many “in body, soul, and spirit,” and had been
an “originator of the ‘Sakramentirer’”; he had injured the gospel as
much as he had furthered the interests of learning. “He was a terrible
man, and Zwingli was led astray by him. Egranus [Johann Wildenauer
of Eger, who forsook the Wittenberg teaching] he had also perverted,
and he now believes just about as much as Erasmus; his end was “_sine
crux et sine lux_.” The latter remark concerning Erasmus’s death calls
for explanation. Erasmus arrived in August, 1535, in a weak state of
health at Basle, a city already despoiled of every vestige of Catholic
worship--in order to supervise the printing of his “_Origenes_” by the
celebrated Basle printers. His illness had been increasing since March,
1536, and in the night of the 11th to 12th July of that year he died
unexpectedly and without having received the sacraments. A fortnight
before this, on June 28, in a letter to a friend, Johann Goclen, he had
expressed his regret that he was lying ill in a city dominated by the
reformers. On account of the difference in religion he would rather be
summoned out of this life elsewhere. “Ep.,” 1299. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1522.
[716] Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 15. He, however, remarks concerning Erasmus:
“The instinct of self-preservation forced such admissions from him.”
There is no reason for doubting the “veracity” of his statements in
favour of the Catholic Church.
[717] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 287.
[718] Joh. v. Walter, “Das Wesen der Religion nach Erasmus und Luther,”
1906, p. 7. “That Erasmus set himself seriously to improve matters is
shown by his letters,” thus A. Freitag in the Preface to the “_De servo
arbitrio_,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 594, n. 3.
[719] “_Annales_” (ed. Aretin, “Beiträge zur Gesch. und Literatur,” 9,
1807), p. 1018: “_Ubi Erasmus quippiam optat aut fieri velle innuit,
ibi Lutherus totis viribus irruit_.” Leib’s “Briefwechsel und Diarien,”
an important source for that period, J. Schlecht has edited in J.
Greving’s “Reformationsgesch. Studien,” Hft. 7.
[720] The preface has been reprinted in O. Braunsberger, “_B. Petri
Canisii Epistulæ et Acta_,” 3, 1901, p. 280 _seq._ The passage is on p.
283. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 15,
where the work of Canisius, “_De incomparabili virgine Maria_,” is also
quoted.
[721] In the letter of Erasmus to the Lutheran Johann Cäsarius,
December 16, 1523: “_Ego peperi ovum, Lutherus exclusit, mirum dictum
minoritarum istorum magnaque et bona pulte dignum_.” “Opp.,” 3, col.
840.
[722] To Sinapius, July 31, 1534, in R. Stähelin, “Briefe aus der
Reformationszeit,” “Programm,” Basle, 1887, p. 24: The “proverbia
_ἀδελφικά_,” to use the term of Erasmus, runs: “_Erasmus est pater
Lutheri; Œcolampadius et Erasmus sunt milites Pilati, qui crucifixerunt
Iesum_.” Similar accusations, he adds, were heard also in other
quarters. The Spanish theologian, L. Carvajal, remarks (1528) in his
“_Apologia diluens nugas Erasmi in sacras religiones_,” that the
Germans said of Erasmus: “_Erasmus peperit ova, Lutherus exclusit
pullos_.” Ed. Cracow, 1540, Fol. C 1 a. The author was very angry
with Erasmus on account of his calumnies against religious: “_Utinam
Lutherus mentiatur, qui te [Erasmum] atheon dicit_.” Fol. E 3a.
[723] In Preface referred to above, p. 253, n. 2.
[724] “Origines de la réforme,” 2, Paris, 1909, p. 439, whence what
precedes is also taken. The author’s opinion here quoted is the more
remarkable owing to the fact, that in this chapter on “Christian
Humanism,” he unduly magnifies both it and its followers, for
instance, Erasmus. He writes on p. 441: “Presque partout l’humanisme
se montrera l’adversaire du mouvement (de Luther) dont il sera la
première victime. C’est qu’entre le principe fondamental de la réforme
et celui de l’humanisme il y a un abîme. Ce dernier n’entendait pas
seulement rester catholique, il l’était, et par sa soumission à
l’unité extérieure et par sa doctrine de la liberté, et par un esprit
d’équilibre et de mesure si conforme aux habitudes de pensée et de vie
du catholicisme.” The first sentence, to dwell only upon this, makes
out the opposition of Humanism to the Reformation to have been far more
general than was the case, and speaks inaccurately of Humanism as its
_first_ victim. The first victim was the Catholic faith and practice
throughout a large part of Europe, for the preservation of which the
Humanists failed to show sufficient zeal. It is true that they met
with a bitter retribution for their share in paving the way for the
catastrophe, in the destruction of much they had done which perished
in the storm which submerged scholarship. Erasmus twice asserts his
conviction: “_Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est
interitus_” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 1139; 10, col. 1618), and often repeats
the same in other words. See present work, vol. v., xxxv. 3.
[725] K. Gillert, “Briefwechsel des Konrad Mutianus,” Halle, 1890, p.
300.
[726] Cp. G. Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³,
1907, p. 63.
[727] From Aleander’s account in Balan, “_Monumenta ref. Luth._,” p.
100 (cp. pp. 55, 79, 81); cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People”
(Engl. trans.), 3, p. 16. Erasmus, in the above letter, dated August
26, 1528, and addressed to Christoph v. Stadion, describes Aleander
and his intimate friend the Prince of Carpi as the originators of
the charge, that, by his denial of dogma, he had been the cause of
Lutheranism: “_Cuius vanissimi rumoris præcipuus auctor fuit Hieronymus
Aleander, homo, ut nihil aliud dicam, non superstitiose verax. Eiusdem
sententiæ videtur Albertus Carporum princeps, Aleandro iunctissimus
magisque simillimus._”
[728] Hermelink, “Die religiösen Reformbestrebungen des deutschen
Humanismus,” Tübingen, 1908. We may also mention here that Joh. v.
Walter, in his edition of the “_Diatribe_” p. xxiii., criticises
Zickendraht (“Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther,” etc., see
below), “who lays too much stress on the sceptical utterances of
Erasmus [in the ‘_Diatribe_’].”
[729] On March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 88. See present work,
vol. i., p. 43.
[730] “_Neque est ut timeam casurum me, nisi mutem sententiam._”
[731] On May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.
[732] “Opp.,” 3, col. 809.
[733] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 656 f. In the note on p. 790 it is pointed
out that the passage in question does not refer to any work by Erasmus.
A. Freitag, in the introduction to his reprint of the book, “_De servo
arbitrio_,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 577, says: “The words of Erasmus, in
his letter to L. Vives on Ascension Day, 1527: ‘_perdidimus liberum
arbitrium_,’ do not refer to the work, ‘_De libero arbitrio_.’” The
jesting words used by Erasmus in a letter to Auerbach, dated December
10, 1524, which have also been quoted in support of the legend
(“_Profecto nunc habere desii liberum arbitrium, posteaquam emisi
in vulgus_”), only mean that, even had he so desired, it was now
impossible to withdraw a book already published. He wrote in exactly
the same sense to King Henry VIII on September 6, 1524: “_iacta est
alea, exiit in lucem libellus de libero arbitrio_.”
[734] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 319, “about April 15,” 1524.
[735] “_Ceterum clementia et mansuetudo mea erga peccatores et
impios, quantumvis insanos et iniquos, arbitror, non modo teste mea
conscientia, sed et multorum experientia, satis testata sit. Sic
hactenus stilum cohibui, utcunque pungeres me, cohibiturum etiam
scripsi in literis ad amicos, quæ tibi quoque lectæ sunt, donec palam
prodires. Nam utcunque non nobiscum sapias et pleraque pietatis capita
vel impie vel simulanter damnes aut suspendas, pertinaciam tamen
tibi tribuere non possum neque volo_” (p. 320 f.). Cp. Erasmus to
Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 672.
[736] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 404, said in 1537, March
21-28.
[737] In the Leyden edition (Lugd. Batav.), 9, col. 1215-48. In German
in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 18, p. 1962 _seq._ New critical
edition with introduction by Joh. v. Walter in the “Quellenschriften
zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 8, Leipzig, 1910.
[738] “Epp.,” ed. Riegger, cp. 45. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,”
5, p. 47.
[739] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 7.
[740] On September 30, 1524. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 675. Cp. Enders, 5, p.
46.
[741] Enders, 5, p. 47.
[742] In the Introduction to the work, “_De servo arbitrio_,” Weim.
ed., 18, p. 614; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 131 _seq._, we read: “_An
voluntas aliquid vel nihil agat in iis quæ pertinent ad salutem ...
hic est cardo nostræ disputationis, hic versatur status causæ huius.
Nam hoc agimus_,” etc. “_Hoc problema esse partem alteram totius
summæ christianarum rerum_,” etc. “_Altera pars summæ christianæ est
nosse, an Deus contingentur aliquid præsciat, et an omnia faciamus
necessitate._”
[743] At the close of the work mentioned in the previous note, p. 786
= 367: “_Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum
petisti_.”
[744] A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre
1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 46. It is true that the author declares on
the same page: “Because and in so far as Luther was moved to his denial
by his refusal to admit of merit and by his doctrine of the assurance
of salvation, every evangelical theologian will agree with him; the
admission of a system of salary between God and man is the death of
evangelical piety; but belief in free-will does not necessarily lead to
this.” Free-will, he declares, is, on the contrary, quite compatible
with the “_sola fides_.” On p. 45 he had said: “Luther’s theology ends
in contradictions which can only be obviated by the assumption of
free-will and by a positive recognition of the powers of the natural
man.”
[745] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 46.
[746] E. Kroker, “Katherina Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 280 f. “_Ipsa
supplicante scripsi._” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 146.
[747] See present work, vol. i., p. 204.
[748] The Latin text in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 113-368, and (with
only unimportant differences) in the Weim. ed., 18, p. 600-787. A new
German translation with introduction and explanations by O. Scheel, in
“Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., sup. vol. ii., Berlin, 1905, p.
203 ff.
[749] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 663 f. This work of Luther’s “was a
stumbling-block to his followers, and attempts were made to explain it
away by all the arts of violent exegesis; cp. Walch (in his edition of
Luther’s works), 18, Introduction, p. 140 ff.” Kawerau in W. Möller,
“Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.
[750] F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen und von der
Prädestination,” Göttingen, 1875 (Anastatischer Neudruck, Göttingen,
1905). Many Protestant theologians have recently defended, with
renewed enthusiasm, Luther’s standpoint in the book “_De servo
arbitrio_,” under the impression that it places man in the true state
of subserviency to God and thus forms the basis of true religion. See
below.
[751] “_De servo arbitrio_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 781; “Opp. Lat.
var.,” 7, p. 359. Cp. _ibid._, p. 638=160: at most “_in inferioribus
sciat [homo], sese in suis facultatibus et possessionibus habere ius
utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbitrio, licet et idipsum
regatur solius Dei libero arbitrio, quocunque illi placuerit_.”
Taube (see p. 228, n. 2), p. 21, remarks, like Kattenbusch (above
p. 264, n. 5), p. 48, that such degradation of free-will, even “_in
inferioribus_,” is to be found in Luther’s earlier writings.
[752] Kattenbusch, p. 7 f.
[753] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 615 = 134: “_Ex quo sequitur
irrefragabiliter: Omnia quæ facimus, omnia quæ fiunt, etsi nobis
videntur mutabiliter et contingenter fieri, revera tamen fiunt
necessario, si Dei voluntatem species. Voluntas enim Dei efficax
est_,” etc. In the Jena Latin edition of Luther, 3 (1567), this
passage has been watered down. Cp. also p. 615 = 133: “_Deus nihil
præscit contingenter, sed omnia incommutabili et æterna infallibilique
voluntate et prævidet et proponit et facit_,” p. 670 = 200: “_Omnia quæ
fiunt (sunt) meræ necessitatis_.”
[754] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 753 = 317: “_Deus omnia, quæ condidit
solus, solus quoque movet, agit et rapit, omnipotentiæ suæ motu,
quem illa non possunt vitare nec mutare, sed necessario sequuntur
et parent_.” Cp. p. 747 = 308: God works upon the will with His
“_actuosissima operatio, quam vitare vel mutare non possumus, sed qua
(homo) tale velle habet necessario, quale illi Deus dedit, et quale
rapit suo motu.... Rapitur omnium voluntas, ut velit et faciat, sive
sit bona sive mala._”
[755] _Ibid._, p. 754 = 317, 318. Luther here shows a quite enigmatical
want of comprehension for Erasmus’s exposition of the ancient Catholic
doctrine concerning the co-operation of the will with grace.
[756] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 615 = 133.
[757] _Ibid._, p. 619 = 138.
[758] Taube, p. 19 f.
[759] “_De servo arbitrio_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 636; “Opp. Lat.
var.,” 7, p. 158.
[760] “_De servo arbitrio_,” 7, p. 724 _seq._ = 276.
[761] _Ibid._, p. 730 = 284.
[762] _Ibid._, p. 712 _seq._ = 259 _seq._: cp. p. 627-629 _seq._ = 147,
150 _seq._: Kattenbusch, _ibid._, p. 12.
[763] Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 758: “God’s universal action and
His sovereign will determines [according to Luther’s theory] man’s
destiny.” That passages of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy ii. 4, as urged
in the “_Diatribe_” of Erasmus, contradict this, Luther will not admit.
“_Illudit sese Diatribe ignorantia sua, dum nihil distinguit inter Deum
prædicatum et absconditum, hoc est inter verbum Dei et Deum ipsum.
Multa ... Deus ... vult, quæ verbo suo non ostendit se velle; sic non
vult mortem peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate
illa imperscrutabili._” In connection with such thoughts Luther does
not shrink from saying (p. 731 = 284): “_Si placet tibi Deus indignos
coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans_,” and (p. 633
= 154): “_Sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit_.” The passage
here quoted on the “_Deus absconditus_” is to be found in Luther’s “_De
servo arbitrio_,” p. 685 = 222, and has many parallels, for instance,
p. 684, 689 = 221, 227. Of such passages Kattenbusch says (p. 17,
_ibid._): “Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two
contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything,
and another which He causes to be proclaimed.” Luther assumes that God
makes use of His “exemption from the moral law which binds us” by “not
being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His
intention [the salvation of all men]--in other words, that He is free
to lie.” According to Luther there is a great difference “between God
not considering Himself bound by His word, and man acting in the same
way” (_ibid._).
[764] Taube, p. 35.
[765] See above p. 235 f.
[766] Taube, p. 35. See what has already been said (vol. i., p. 155
ff.) of Luther’s connection with the Nominalism of Occam. It should
also be compared with what follows.
[767] P. 729 _seq._ = 283.
[768] Taube, p. 35 f.
[769] _Ibid._, p. 33.
[770] P. 719 = 268: “_Hoc offendit quam maxime sensum illum communem
seu rationem naturalem_,” etc. Cp. p. 707 _seq._ = 252 _seq._: “_Ratio
humana offenditur.... Absurdum enim manet, ratione iudice, ut Deus ille
justus et bonus exigat a libero arbitrio impossibilia.... Sed fides et
spiritus aliter iudicant, qui Deum bonum credunt, etiamsi omnes homines
perderet._” P. 720 = 260: “_Cuius (Dei) voluntatis nulla est causa, nec
ratio, quæ illi ceu regula et mensura præscribatur, quum nihil sit illi
æquale aut superius, sed ipse est regula omnium_.”
[771] P. 784 = 363: “_Si enim talis esset eius iustitia, quæ humano
captu posset iudicari esse iusta, plane non esset divina_.”
[772] P. 686 = 223.
[773] P. 695 = 236.
[774] Cp. p. 709, 711, 747 = 255, 257, 308.
[775] Cp. M. Scheibe, “Calvins Prädestinationslehre, ein Beitrag zur
Würdigung der Eigenart seiner Theologie und Religiosität,” Halle, 1897,
p. 12.
[776] Taube, p. 39.
[777] Kattenbusch, p. 11 f.: “Adam’s sin, from which springs the
depravity of the human race, was [according to Luther] called forth by
God Himself ... Adam could not avoid acting contrary to the command.”
[778] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 633 = 154: In order that faith may
reign, everything must be hidden “_sub contrario obiectu, sensu,
experientia.... Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse
clementem qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, qui sua voluntate
nos necessario damnabiles facit._” Against this Taube remarks (p. 41):
“Theological criticism cannot fail to assert that the Christian faith,
viz. belief in a God of almighty and holy love, becomes impossible,
if He arbitrarily predestines so many, indeed, the greater part of
mankind, to damnation, and is the creator of sin.... In this case faith
in the Christian God, and also morality generally, could only remain
despite such theological theories.”
[779] P. 632, 633 = 153, 154. Cp. Luther’s Commentary on Romans,
1515-1516, on the humility and despair of self which brings about
justification (vol. i., p. 217 ff.).
[780] Taube, dealing with certain Protestants, who, after having duly
watered down some of Luther’s theological peculiarities, assert that
“the feeling of responsibility is satisfactorily explained in his
theology.”
[781] P. 783 = 362 _seq._
[782] P. 784 = 363: “_Si movet, quod difficile sit, clementiam et
æquitatem Dei tueri, ut qui damnet immeritos_,” etc.
[783] _Ibid._, and p. 785 = 365.
[784] Taube, p. 41 ff.
[785] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 786 = 366.
[786] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 670 = 199.
[787] _Ibid._, p. 635 = 157.
[788] “_Sic humana voluntas in medio posita est, ceu iumentum. Si
insederit Deus, vult et vadit quo vult Deus, ut psalmus_ (lxxiii.
[lxxii.], 22) _dicit: Factus sum sicut iumentum, et ego semper tecum.
Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit quo vult Satan. Nec est in eius
arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere aut eum quærere, sed ipsi sessores
certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum_” (p. 635 = 157). And yet
it has recently been asserted by some Protestants, that, according to
Luther, grace was “psychologically active,” whereas by the Schoolmen
it was regarded as a “dead quality”; Luther’s “delicate psychological
comprehension of God’s educational way” is at the same time extolled.
N. Paulus rightly remarks (“Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 344), “that
the Schoolmen advocated a vital co-operation with grace is known to
everyone who is at all acquainted with Scholasticism.” He quotes W.
Köhler’s opinion of Luther’s system: Where man is impelled by God
“every psychological factor must disappear.” “All actions become in
the last instance something foreign to man” (“Theol. Literaturztng.,”
1903, col. 526). Paulus also refers to the following criticism by
Köhler concerning the total depravity of man’s nature by the Fall, to
which Luther ascribes our unfreedom: “Involuntarily we feel ourselves
urged to ask, in view of this mass of sinfulness, how, given the total
depravity of man, can redemption be possible unless by some gigantic,
supernatural, mechanical means?” (“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” 1904,
p. 39).
F. Kattenbusch points out in his criticism of Luther’s doctrine of
the enslaved will (“Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 32 ff.)
that Luther’s aim was certainly to humble and abase himself before the
greatness of God’s grace, but that he went much too far; he wished
to feel his salvation as the “result of God’s arbitrary act”; this
sentiment was, however, not normal, nor “religiously healthy” (p. 35
f.). He also remarks (p. 10): “If according to this [the comparison
with the saddle-horse] the process of regeneration is made to appear
merely as a struggle between God and Satan in which God remains the
victor, it is clear that the doctrine which Luther cherishes of
the ethico-religious life is altogether mechanical and outward.”
Kattenbusch was quite aware of the influence of the mediæval schools
on Luther. The after-effects of Nominalism, he says, are not, indeed,
so very prominent in the Reformer, “yet it seems to me we must admit,
that alongside the principal religious current in Luther, runs a
side-stream of religious feeling which can only spring from Nominalism
and Mysticism.... In so far as they influence Luther’s doctrines, the
latter may be said to spring from a polluted source. And, as regards
the doctrine of the ‘_servum arbitrium_’ and of Predestination, the
Church which takes its name from Luther has assuredly done well in
improving upon the paths traced out for her by the great Reformer” (p.
94 f.). Cp. Albert Ritschl’s criticism of Luther’s denial of free-will,
“Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 3^[4], pp. 280, 296 ff.
[789] P. 779 = 356: “_Dum liberum arbitrium statuis, Christum evacuas_.”
[790] _Ibid._: “_De libero arbitrio nihil dicere poteris, nisi quæ
contraria sunt Christo, scilicet quod error, mors, Satan et omnia mala
in ipso regnent_.”
[791] _Ibid._, p. 625 = 143.
[792] _Ibid._
[793] _Ibid._, p. 625 = 144.
[794] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 719 = 268: “_Ego ipse non semel
offensus sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut optarem,
nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam salutaris illa
esset desperatio et quam gratiæ propinqua_.”
[795] _Ibid._, p. 633 = 154. To the reader of the present work it will
also be familiar. Compare the passages previously quoted, vol. i., 218
f., 235, 238 ff., 259, 317 f., 379, 381.
[796] _Ibid._, p. 783 = 362 _seq._
[797] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 783 = 262 f.: “_Ego sane me confiteor,
si qua fieri posset, nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium, aut quippiam
in manu mea relinqui, quo ad salutem conari possem_,” etc.
[798] _Ibid._, p. 787 = 368: “_Ego vero hoc libro non contuli, sed
asserui et assero, ac penes nullum volo esse iudicium, sed omnibus
suadeo, ut præstent obsequium_.” The extraordinary self-confidence
of these words is more easily explained if we consider them as aimed
against the literary device of Erasmus. After the manner of the
Humanists, at the beginning of his “_Diatribe_,” he had declared that
he intended merely to enter upon an examination, a _collatio_ (cp.
_διατριβή_), and that he hated logical demonstrations, an exaggeration
for which Luther soundly rated him in the very first pages, urging
that he must be either a “frivolous orator” or a “godless writer,”
if he could not take so important a question seriously (p. 120). The
termination of Erasmus’s work, where he says: “_Contuli, penes alios
stet ultimum iudicium_” (ed. J. v. Walter, p. 92), is played upon word
for word in the conclusion of the “_De servo arbitrio_.”
[799] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 641 = 162 _seq._
[800] “_Quod probat eius indignatio. Hoc non fieret, si esset libera
vel haberet liberum arbitrium._” The effect of egotism in man depraved
by original sin is here classed by him with the enslavement of the
will; he was ever given to exaggerating the strength of concupiscence.
Cp. vol. i., pp. 70 f., 110 ff.
[801] P. 634 = 156.
[802] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 720 = 269.
[803] _Ibid._, p. 730 = 283. Here he is seeking to prove, “_(Deum non)
talem esse oportere, qui merita respiciat in damnandis_.”
[804] _Ibid._, p. 633 = 154.
[805] _Ibid._, p. 673 = 204.
[806] _Ibid._, p. 633 = 154.
[807] “_Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem,
qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat.... Si possem ulla ratione
comprehendere, quomodo is sit Deus misericors et iustus, qui tantam
iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id
comprehendi non potest, fit locus exercendæ fidei._”
[808] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 602 = 119.
[809] _Ibid._, p. 636 = 158.
[810] _Ibid._, p. 638 = 160.
[811] P. 605 = 123.
[812] _Ibid._, p. 601 = 117.
[813] P. 664 = 192. The Weimar editor remarks of a similar assertion
of Luther’s on p. 664: “There is no doubt that Luther in this passage
draws conclusions from the definition of Erasmus (viz. of free-will)
which do not directly follow from it.” In confirmation of this
Kattenbusch (p. 28) is quoted where he speaks of “Luther’s tactics in
his controversy with Erasmus, the object of which was ... to convict
Erasmus in one way or another, usually by distorting his words, of
rendering grace, the Holy Ghost, or Christ, superfluous for the
attainment of salvation.” Kattenbusch instances in support of this pp.
191 _seq._, 193, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354,
etc., in the Erlangen ed.
[814] P. 770 = 342. “And yet Erasmus, as against the Pelagians, always
upheld the necessity of the _gratia peculiaris_.” Thus the Weim. ed.,
18, p. 770, n. 2.
[815] _Ibid._, p. 756 = 320.
[816] Luther says in the passage quoted: “_Exstant themata et
problemata, in quibus perpetuo asserui usque in hanc horam, liberum
arbitrium esse nihil et rem (eo verbo tum utebar) de solo titulo_.”
The last words refer to the 13th Thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation
(see vol. i., p. 317). The Weimar editor quotes against the “_perpetuo
asserui_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 32, and 4, p. 295, with the
remark: “These are exceptions of which Erasmus could not be aware.” It
is not, however, a question of Erasmus, but whether Luther was telling
the truth when he said: “It is false that I ever admitted free-will”
(“_antea non nihil illi tribuerim_”).
[817] P. 778 = 354.
[818] Cp. vol. v., xxxii. 4.
[819] Luther’s Works ed. by Buchwald, etc., 2. Supplementary volume,
1905, p. 530.
[820] Cp. Melanchthon’s “_Loci theologici_” (1521), in the third
edition by Plitt-Kolde, 1900, p. 87. In this work, in which “the
fundamental ideas of Luther found a classical expression,” the
theology is “strongly predestinarian in character, and even answers
affirmatively the question: ‘_utrum Deus mala faciat_.’” Kawerau, in
Möller, “Lehrb. der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, pp. 41, 43. The “_Loci_”
Luther speaks of in “_De servo arbitrio_” (Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp.
Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117) as an “_invictus libellus, meo iudicio non solum
immortalitate, sed canone quoque ecclesiastico dignus_.”
[821] Scheel, _ibid._ (above, p. 264, n. 3), p. 400.
[822] “_Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum
volet. Si præscivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas
fiebat proditor, nec erat in manu Judæ aut ullius creaturæ, aliter
facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus,
sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et
omnia alia._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p.
263.
[823] “_Cur permisit (Deus) Adam ruere?... Deus est, cuius voluntatis
nulla est causa nec ratio_,” etc. _Ibid._, p. 712 = 260.
[824] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 712 = 260.
[825] Thus Kattenbusch, _ibid._, p. 22, who points out that, according
to Luther, “Nothing takes place in the world without God.” He concludes
(_ibid._) that “On the whole nothing is gained” by Luther’s supposed
attempts to relieve God of the responsibility for Adam’s Fall.
[826] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 709; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 255.
[827] _Ibid._
[828] _Ibid._, p. 730 = 284: “_Quia incommodum sibi est, hoc
iniquum, hoc intolerabile est, hic expostulatur, hic murmuratur, hic
blasphematur_.”
[829] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 711, n. 1.
[830] Kattenbusch, _ibid._, p. 15 f.
[831] _Ibid._, p. 20. Cp. on the proposition “_omnia necessario
fiunt_,” above, p. 265, n. 3.
[832] P. 20 ff.
[833] Scheel, _ibid._ (see above, p. 264, n. 3), pp. 211, 529 f., 532,
545. Kattenbusch, _ibid._
[834] Scheel, _ibid._, p. 540.
[835] P. 211 f.
[836] Of the more modern works we shall mention only the Catholic one
by H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther,” 1910, and the Protestant one
by K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die
Willensfreiheit,” 1909. The latter, though on the whole supporting
Luther, cannot help perceiving “the contradictions of the whole work
‘_De servo arbitrio_’” (p. 130), which led Ritschl, whom Kattenbusch
follows, to call it an “unhappy piece of patchwork.” Although he
characterises Luther’s ideas as “wholly the outcome of the Pauline
spirit” (p. 134), yet he speaks of “Luther’s pantheistic determinism”
(p. 197), and avers the “incompatibility” of the monistic pantheism
which he finds here with the ethical dualism of his general train of
thought (p. 168); the presence of “two contradictory theories” is,
according to him, an undoubted “fact” (p. 141).
[837] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 640; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 162:
“_Ex mea parte unus Vuicleff, et alter Laurentius Valla, quanquam et
Augustinus quem præteris, meus totus est_.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61,
pp. 101, 103, 107.
[838] “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 66.
[839] Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 619, n.
[840] Zickendraht, _ibid._, p. 180 f.
[841] “Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545,” edited for the first time
by Paul Drews, Göttingen, 1895, p. 279 f.
[842] _Ibid._, p. 75.
[843] _Ibid._, p. 92, n. 29 ff. Drews points out (p. 90) that in the
1538 edition the whole of the theses _De homine_ “are, strange to
say, omitted.” Cp. also “Disputationen,” p. 11, n. 29: “_Iustificati
autem sic gratis tum facimus opera, imo Christus ipse in nobis facit
omnia_.” Also pp. 92, 94, 95, 266, 318, 481. On p. 160 we meet with the
drastic expression: The depravation of human nature by original sin is
so great, “_ut suspirare ad Deum non possimus, nedum nos explicare aut
bonum facere_.” Hence there is an end to our “_liberum arbitrium; sed
restituetur nobis in resurrectione mortuorum, ubi rursum collocabimur
in paradisum_.”
[844] Cp. Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector August of Saxony, which
will be given in detail later, where he characterises as “_stoica_” and
“_manichæa deliria_,” on the part of Luther, the view that “all works,
good and bad, in all men, whether good or bad, happened by necessity.”
Such mad fancies he had rejected “during Luther’s lifetime and
afterwards,” “Corp. Ref.,” 9, p. 766. Likewise, in his “_Responsiones
ad articulos bavaricæ inquisitionis_,” Melanchthon calls such doctrines
“_stoici et manichæi furores_,” and adds: “_Oro iuniores, ut fugiant
has monstruosas opiniones, quæ sunt contumeliosæ contra Deum et
perniciosæ moribus. Nam si omnia necessaria sunt, nihil opus est
deliberatione et diligentia.... Saepe homines applaudunt monstruosis
opinionibus tantum quia monstruosæ sunt et mirantur non intellectas....
Firmissima veritas est, Deum nec velle peccata nec impellere voluntates
ad peccandum._” Melanchthon wrote this after Luther had already passed
away; he was terrified by the moral results of these “monstrous”
doctrines. “Opp.,” Witebergæ, 1562, 1, p. 369.
[845] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 163, in the first and second set of
notes on the sermon.
[846] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 177 f., said between August 7 and 24,
from notes taken by Mathesius himself.
[847] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.
[848] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.
[849] _Ibid._, p. 224.
[850] _Ibid._, p. 225.
[851] _Ibid._, p. 222.
[852] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 512 ff.
[853] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 290-300. Cp. on this passage, from a
lecture published from notes, Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 6
f., where he very aptly draws attention to the points which Luther here
(as elsewhere) evades: (1) “Whether faith is rendered inwardly possible
to every man by the will and action of God?” (2) “Why does God fail to
instil faith into so many?” (3) “How is final perseverance assured in
the elect?”
[854] “The enigmas of predestination were in his case in the last
instance inextricably bound up with deterministic ideas--a fact not
unimportant for the fate of his predestinarian ideas, for instance,
in the hands of Melanchthon.” F. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,” p. 763.
_Ibid._, p. 757. “He was convinced that he was merely advocating
Paul’s doctrine of grace. Yet what he expounds is a deterministic
doctrine of predestination which shrinks from no consequences, not even
from attributing the Fall directly to God.” Loofs points out, that,
according to Luther, Adam fell because “the Spirit [of God] did not
render him obedient,” and quotes the “_De servo arbitrio_,” “Opp. Lat.
var.,” 7, p. 207: “_Non potuit velle bonum ... id est obedientiam, quia
spiritus illam non addebat_.” The same author shows (p. 766 f.) how the
above ideas remain with Luther even at a later date, and cause him to
represent the faith which, in man, is coincident with justification,
as “effected by God simply in accordance with His Eternal Providence.”
“We can, however, understand how Luther, in his sermons to the people,
prefers to state the case as though faith were the condition demanded
of man for the forgiveness of his sins and the receiving of the
Spirit”; the fact is he “frequently leaves his predestinarian ideas on
one side.”
[855] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 427, no date.
[856] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 80 f., where he states:
“This contradicts all that we otherwise know of him.”
[857] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664.
[858] To Capito at Strasburg, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 47:
“_Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco
meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum._” In
the “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 418, Luther says, that Erasmus
had “not refuted” his work “_De servo arbitrio_,” and would “never be
able to do so for all eternity.”
[859] To Aquila, October 21, 1528 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 6. In the
Schmalkalden Articles, 1537 (3, 1), Luther asserts that it is utterly
erroneous to say “_hominem habere liberum arbitrium faciendi bonum
et omittendi malum, et contra omittendi bonum et faciendi malum_.”
After enumerating other errors on sin he concludes: “_Talia et similia
portenta orta sunt ex inscitia et ignorantia peccati et Christi
Servatoris nostri, suntque vere et mere ethnica dogmata, quæ tolerare
non possumus. Si enim ista approbantur, frustra Christus mortuus est_,”
etc. “Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” ed.
Müller-Kolde^[10], p. 311.
[860] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 124 and 82. In the last
passage Köstlin attempts to base “Luther’s reticence” on a certain
“conviction” which he does not describe more particularly and which
it is difficult to recognise; he attributes to Luther “a purer, more
resigned readiness to listen to the other side.” Yet he had remarked
previously: “From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is
plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and
Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve
the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction; he simply
discourages reflection on the subject.” M. Staube (“Das Verhältnis
der menschlichen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und
Zwingli,” Zürich, 1894) writes with less indulgence than Köstlin
on Luther’s doctrine. This theologian, an admirer of Zwingli, says
bluntly: Luther’s doctrine of predestination and the lack of free-will
“leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the
personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which
itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter
of man’s salvation” (p. 36). “What then is left of Luther’s Deity?”
“A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His
mood” (p. 37). “God appears and acts as a blind, naked force, _fortuna,
fatum_,” because what He does is “beyond good and evil” (p. 38). “Why
invent the fable of God’s justice and holiness?... We do nothing, God
works all in all.... This religion, which is the logical outcome of
Luther’s work ‘_De servo arbitrio_,’ is surely not Christianity but
Materialism”; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become
“foolish fancies” (p. 39). Diametrically opposed to this are the
explanations of certain of Luther’s modern theological admirers, who
not only pay homage to the author of “_De servo arbitrio_” on account
of his true piety, but see in Erasmus’s vindication of free-will mere
frivolous Pelagianism. Adolf Harnack, in the fourth edition of his
“Dogmengeschichte,” 3, p. 841, says: “Rightly the ‘_Diatribe_’ is
looked upon as the masterpiece of Erasmus, yet it is an altogether
secular, and, at bottom, irreligious work. Luther, on the other hand,
insists on the fundamental fact of Christian experience. On this rests
his doctrine of predestination, which is simply the expression of the
Omnipotence of the grace of God.” With his doctrine of predestination
and the enslaved will, and his treatment of the _Deus absconditus_,
he “gave back religion to religion.” In the Weimar ed. of Luther’s
works (18, p. 593), Harnack’s opinion is accepted and (p. 595) we
are told that Luther “refuted in a masterly fashion the obscure and
unintelligible definition given by Erasmus [of free-will].” Luther’s
work appears to the author of the Preface to the “_De servo arbitrio_,”
in this edition, as “a real achievement” (p. 596), and he quotes
with satisfaction A. Ritschl’s opinion, that Luther, its writer, in
his sovereign certainty, did not shrink from the _contradictio in
adiecto_. In the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter” (p. 528, n. 1 [reprint, p.
14]), G. Kawerau states that Luther asserted “with relentless logic
man’s inability to turn to God, and did not shrink from the harshest
predestinarian expressions, phrases, indeed, which gave great trouble
to Lutherans at a later date, and which they would gladly have seen
expunged from his writings that Calvin’s followers might not appeal to
them. And yet we agree with Harnack,” etc. (then follow Harnack’s words
as given above). Köstlin concludes: “The death of all religion, as K.
Müller (‘Kirchengesch.,’ 2, p. 307) rightly remarks, is to take our own
works and doings into account.”
[861] Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 28, where
in proof of such perversions he refers to “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, pp. 191
_seq._, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, adding at the
end an “_etc._” which is full of meaning.
[862] Luther, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533, “Werke,”
Erl. ed., 31, p. 236.
[863] _Ibid._
[864] The theories of some theologians on the direct authority of
the Church to interfere in secular matters do not here come into
consideration.
[865] Fr. v. Bezold says: “Luther claimed the merit of having exalted
the true understanding of the secular power in a way that no one else
had done since the time of the Apostles.... The indefensibility of
this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated” (“Kultur der
Gegenwart,” 2, 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 66).
[866] Some of his reservations were, however, of doubtful practical
value. K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911
(p. 1 ff.), shows how Luther urges the secular power to make an end of
the “thievery” of the clerics, and how he ascribes to this power the
right of summoning Councils, though only “when needful.”
[867] This will be done in the present work as occasion arises. See
more particularly vol. iii., xv. 2 and 3, and vol. v., xxxv. 1 and 2.
[868] See vol. iv., xxviii.
[869] For a Protestant criticism of them see Erich Brandenburg,
“Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,” 1901 (“Schriften des
Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” Hft. 70), and Karl Müller, “Kirche
Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.
[870] “To the Christian nobility,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409;
Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.
[871] _Ibid._
[872] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 410 = 285.
[873] “On the secular power,” 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268;
Erl. ed., 22, p. 89.
[874] Cp. _ibid._, Erl. ed., pp. 83-6, 88, 89, 91-3.
[875] _Ibid._, p. 69.
[876] Cp. _ibid._, Erl. ed., p. 94.
[877] _Ibid._, p. 93. Whereas Luther’s other ideas to be described
changed considerably in later years, this one of an “abrogated
spiritual government” always remained, though with some modifications.
According to the Preface to his “Instruction for Visitations” (1528)
and the “Instruction” itself, “the visitors have of themselves no
official public authority for holding the Visitation, but must be
conversant with the Bible, find therein their qualification and be
appointed by the Elector, in the name of the preachers, to hold the
Visitation. In this quality they are unable to exercise any sort
of force or compulsion, this being reserved to the Elector, but,
as representing him, they also share in his secular power.” “It is
part of the duty of the authorities” to “establish and regulate the
Matrimonial Courts”; the secular authorities are bound where the work
of the pastors has been of no avail, to take their “own means for the
spiritual and temporal protection of the Christianity of the country,
against scandal and false doctrine,” and to make God’s Word the only
public and authorised code and authority. For the spiritual government
consists exclusively “in the Word and the preaching-office, and can
only penetrate into the heart by means of the Word and the work of the
pastor.” Karl Müller thus sums up the teaching of the documents in
question in “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 74 f.
[878] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 69.
[879] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 72 f.
[880] _Ibid._, p. 73.
[881] A Utopian idealism, certainly unknown in the earlier ages, is
apparent in the following, taken from Luther’s writing referred to
above: “A Christian must be ready to suffer all kinds of evil and
injustice ... and not to defend himself before the law.... But in
the case of others he may and ought to seek for revenge, justice,
protection, and assistance, and do his best to this end according as
he is able. The authorities, therefore, ought, either of their own
initiative or at the instigation of others, to help and protect him
without any complaining, appealing, or effort on his part. But where
this is not done he must allow himself to be fleeced and oppressed and
not offer any resistance, according to the words of Christ” (p. 78).
[882] Cp. _ibid._, p. 87 ff.
[883] _Ibid._, p. 89.
[884] _Ibid._
[885] _Ibid._, p. 82.
[886] Cp. _ibid._, p. 83.
[887] _Ibid._, p.84 ff.
[888] _Ibid._, p. 85.
[889] _Ibid._, p.90 f.
[890] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.
[891] _Ibid._, p. 94 ff.
[892] “The main work which Luther required of the Princes has always
been regarded by Lutheran rulers as their first duty, viz. to be the
guardians and protectors of the Evangel and the true faith in their
lands, to repress all public evil and falsehood and to provide for
the regular ministry of the Word.” Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und
Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81 f.
[893] “Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 85.
[894] P. Drews, as above, p. 193, n. 2, p. 74. Drews adds: “But it
would be premature to conclude from the above that this thought,
because not expressed here, is altogether excluded.” Yet it would
appear to be excluded by the reference to the bishops, who alone were
to trouble themselves concerning any danger to the Church through
heresy (p. 301). How Luther, nevertheless, makes the duty of the
Lutheran rulers to protect religion the foundation first of his
practice, and then of his theory, is shown in the next section, also in
vol. iii., xv. 2, and vol. v., xxxv. 2.
[895] See above, p. 104 ff.
[896] “Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1904, p.
36.
[897] “Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit”
(“Theolog. Arbeiten aus dem rhein. wiss. Predigerverein,” N. F., Hft.
12, Tübingen, 1910, pp. 44-79, 54).
[898] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 86 _seq._
[899] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 92.
[900] _Ibid._, p. 97.
[901] _Ibid._, p. 90.
[902] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293; Erl. ed., 24², p. 273.
[903] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[904] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 359.
[905] _Ibid._, p. 361.
[906] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 357.
[907] _Ibid._, p. 358.
[908] _Ibid._, 17, 1, p. 478.
[909] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, pp. 89, 90.
[910] “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526),
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 278.
[911] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 93.
[912] With regard to the peasants, compare the passages quoted above,
p. 217.
[913] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 140.
[914] Cp. particularly vol. vi., xxxviii.
[915] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 100 f.
[916] In the “Sermon on Good Works,” to Duke Johann of Saxony, “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 6, p. 259; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198.
[917] In a sermon of 1532 in the “Hauspostille,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3²,
p. 182.
[918] “Kultur der Gegenwart,” p. 85, see above, p. 295, n. 1.
[919] To the Elector Frederick, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53,
p. 108 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).
[920] See above, pp. 1-4, 20 f., 24, 101.
[921] Cp. p. 190, n. 3.
[922] N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p.
4. Cp. p. 327.
[923] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 209.
[924] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, May 8, 1522, “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356).
[925] To Spalatin, 1520, soon after February 18 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p.
328).
[926] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 206; Weim. ed., 6, p. 265.
[927] J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 274.
[928] “Gutachten und Streitschriften über das ius reformandi des
Rates vor und während der Einführung der offiziellen Kirchenreform in
Augsburg, 1534-1537” (Augsburg, 1901, p. 73 f.).
[929] “Luther, eine Skizze,” reprinted in Wetzer and Welte,
“Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 319 f.
[930] On May 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 357.
[931] On April 28, 1522, _ibid._, p. 347.
[932] Above, p. 311. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.
[933] Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 334, n. 2.
[934] For text, see “Mitteilungen der Geschichts-und
Altertumsgesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1886, p. 119 ff.
[935] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 324 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 221).
[936] See Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72.
[937] For text, see “Mitteilungen ... des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 513 ff.
[938] On February 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367
(“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).
[939] C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächs. Kirchenvisitationen,
1524-1545,” Leipzig, 1879, p. 44.
[940] See above, p. 116 f.
[941] On December 12, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 154
(“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 36).
[942] On May 5, 1522, “ex arce Eylenburgensi,” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
351.
[943] “Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p.
220; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 445.
[944] _Ibid._, p. 215 = 437.
[945] _Ibid._, p. 214 = 437.
[946] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 245. According to the above
new doctrine the Sacrament was not to be reserved in the tabernacle.
For further particulars it may suffice to refer to the Memoranda which
Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon addressed to the Council
of the Margrave of Ansbach and to that of Nuremberg, August 1, 1532,
“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 319 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312).
[947] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 228. A Mass in
German was, however, also introduced by him because, as he said, many
had requested it and “the secular authorities urged him to it.” See
vol. v., xxix. 9.
[948] “On the twofold species of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim.
ed., 10, 2, p. 29; Erl. ed., 28, p. 304.
[949] _Ibid._, p. 29 = 305; cp. Erl. ed., 28, p. 215.
[950] _Ibid._, p. 29 = 305.
[951] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 31 = 307.
[952] _Ibid._, p. 31 = 306. To Gregor Brück, Chancellor to the Elector
of Saxony, beginning of April, 1541.
[953] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.
[954] _Ibid._
[955] “Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 842; cp. p. 845. In reply to Luther’s
grievances against the celebration of Mass in earlier times, W. Köhler
remarks (“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 46) that one might form
a better opinion of the Mass from A. Franz’s book, “Die Messe im
Mittelalter” (1902), than from Luther’s writings.
[956] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 265, and _ibid._, n. 83.
[957] To Albert, Elector of Mayence, June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
35, p. 309 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).
[958] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80. In parallel passages in other
collections the words read “the priests at Zeitz and Meissen”;
obviously the proper names are misprints for “Zeit” and “schmeissen.”
[959] On April 14, 1512, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 335.
[960] About the middle of March, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 119
ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).
[961] Luther to Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149:
“_Hartmannus Cronenbergius renuntiavit Cæsari stipendium 200 aureorum
nummorum, nolens servire ei, qui impios istos (Luther’s princely foes)
audiat ... Deus vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculorum. Amen._”
[962] H. Ulmann, “Franz von Sickingen,” Leipzig, 1872, p. 186.
[963] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 251
f.
[964] The passages quoted, _ibid._, p. 252.
[965] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 525.
[966] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 90. Cp. the contradiction between this and
his statement given above, p. 295 (cp. p. 328, n. 3), on the right and
duty of the authorities in regard to Divine worship.
[967] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 176).
[968] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649.
[969] Very different are his words in the “Exhortation to abstain from
revolt” of the end of 1521 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680): “Pay heed
to the authorities. So long as they do not take up the matter and give
orders, remain quiet. If they are against action, you must be so also.
For if you do anything, you are unjust and much worse than the opposite
party.”
[970] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649 f.
[971] The Elector’s Instructions to Hier. Schurf, Joh. Schwertfeger and
Melanchthon re Luther, August 7, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 203.
[972] Hier. Schurf, etc., to the Elector, August 13, 1523, _ibid._, p.
207.
[973] The Elector pointed out that “he himself preached that the Word
of God must be allowed to settle the question, and that this would in
its own good time have the desired effect, so God willed” (November
24). See Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 55, n.
[974] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 269 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 54).
[975] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.
[976] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.
[977] Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” p. 34.
[978] C. A. Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1866, p. 76.
[979] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 550.
[980] Cp. Spalatin to V. Warbeck, September 30, 1525, in Schlegel,
“Vita Spalatini,” p. 222.
[981] Kolde, _ibid._, p. 72.
[982] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271 _seq._
[983] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 524.
[984] Reprinted in the “Mitteil. der Gesch. und Altertumsges. des
Osterl.,” 6, 1886, p. 513. Cp. N. Paulus, “War Luther im Prinzip
tolerant?” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 12, 13,
p. 96).
[985] Letters, ed. De Wette, 3, p. 88 _seq._, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.
367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318). It is therefore incorrect to assert
that Luther was thinking only of the peace which would be a result of
uniform preaching, and not of the damnable nature of the worship to be
prohibited. See the passages quoted here and above, p. 315 ff.
[986] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 321.
[987] E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” 1, 1902,
p. 142 ff.
[988] Luther to Levin Metzsch, August 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54,
p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149); to Thomas Löscher of same date,
“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 150; to the Margrave George of Brandenburg,
September 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9,
p. 103).
[989] W. Friedensburg, “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,”
No. 100, 1910, p. 50.
[990] “Charitas Pirkheimers Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem
Reformationszeitalter,” ed. C. Höfler, 1852, p. 130. Cp. Franz Binder,
“Charitas Pirkheimer”², 1878.
[991] On September 8, 1541, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 398 f. The
nature of the complaints made by Link are inferred from this letter.
[992] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 378 f.
[993] _Ibid._
[994] Cp. Kolde, “Das religiöse Leben in Erfurt beim Ausgang des
Mittelalters,” 1898, p. 3, and the work of the Erfurt expert, Georg
Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” 1899, p. 42.
[995] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 808 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 251.
[996] _Ibid._, p. 810 = 254.
[997] Cp. G. Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in
“Mitt. des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” Hft. 15,
Erfurt, 1892, p. 85 ff., who points out certain errors of Kampschulte
in his “Gesch. der Erfurter Universität.”
[998] On May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 153.
[999] About the middle of May, 1521, _ibid._, p. 158.
[1000] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” 3, p. 246 ff.
[1001] Janssen, “Hist. of German People,” 3, p. 248.
[1002] To Lang, December 18, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256).
[1003] On March 28, 1522, _ibid._, p. 323.
[1004] Cp. above, p. 123 ff., and Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des d.
Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 565, where reference is made to the letters of
Eobanus Hessus: “He speaks of the increase of crime and the executions
which took place almost daily; for instance, that of a father who had
dishonoured his own daughter; the prisons did not suffice for the
number of criminals.” Nossenus remained with Lang.
[1005] In letter last referred to, p. 323 f.
[1006] N. Paulus, “Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 92, n. 2-4.
[1007] _Ibid._, pp. 90, 91, n. 1.
[1008] _Ibid._
[1009] _Ibid._, p. 90, n. 2.
[1010] “Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 16, 54 f. Cp. Oergel, “Vom jungen
Luther,” p. 132.
[1011] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 100, n. 1.
[1012] _Ibid._, p. 93 f.
[1013] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 403.
[1014] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 164 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 139 ff.
(“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 431).
[1015] _Ibid._, p. 167 = 143.
[1016] _Ibid._, p. 168 = 144.
[1017] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 358-61, 362 ff.; Erl. ed., 16²,
pp. 445, 446, 447, 451, 454, 460, 461.
[1018] p. 354 = 439.
[1019] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 359 = 445 f.
[1020] _Ibid._, p. 359 f. = 446.
[1021] _Ibid._, p. 354 = 440.
[1022] _Ibid._, p. 364 f. = 453.
[1023] On March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323.
[1024] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 167; Erl. ed., 53, p. 143.
[1025] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 361 = 16², p. 452.
[1026] _Ibid._, p. 365 f. = 452-4.
[1027] _Ibid._, p. 370 = 461.
[1028] _Ibid._
[1029] _Ibid._, p. 356 = 442.
[1030] _Ibid._, p. 357 = 443.
[1031] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, pp. 363, 366 f. = 455 f.
[1032] _Ibid._, p. 368 = 458.
[1033] Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 94, n. 2.
[1034] Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 100, n. 2.
[1035] _Ibid._, p. 91, n. 4.
[1036] In the first half of November, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 27:
“_Unsingen insanire lubens audio_,” etc.
[1037] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 102, n. 2.
[1038] _Ibid._, p. 102, n. 4.
[1039] _Ibid._, p. 101, n. 2.
[1040] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 35.
[1041] See Th. Eitner, “Erfurt und die Bauernaufstände im 16.
Jahrhundert,” Halle, 1903, p. 58 f. This writing, which is also
printed in the “Mitteilungen des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde
von Erfurt,” 24, 1903, p. 3-108, is founded on detailed studies of
the archives and local history, and has been made the basis of the
following account.
[1042] Present work, vol. v., xxx. 6.
[1043] Eitner, _ibid._, p. 57-60.
[1044] Cp. also Janssen. _Ibid._, 4, p. 301 f.: “The Erfurt preachers
had for years long been among the most violent agitators in town and
country.... On the news of the insurrection in Swabia and Franconia
several gatherings of peasants were held in the Erfurt district in the
spring, 1525,” etc.
[1045] Eitner, p. 33 f., pp. 43, 48.
[1046] Eitner, p. 68. According to Eitner we learn from local sources,
“that, in view of the state of affairs, the council thought it the
most prudent course to do as in 1521, and to set the peasants and
the citizens against the common foe, the clergy of Mayence, in order
thus to satisfy the coarser instincts of the mob and to divert their
thoughts from dangerous projects.”
[1047] _Ibid._, p. 98.
[1048] _Ibid._, p. 70, n. 1.
[1049] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 304.
[1050] Eitner, p. 85 f.
[1051] “The peasant rising in the neighbourhood of Erfurt did nothing
but harm [from the material point of view]. A phase in the business
decay of the once flourishing community, a desperate attempt to mend
what was wrong by what was worse, it merely sapped the strength of the
town and so prepared the way for the event which some hundred and forty
years later robbed her for ever of her political independence” (Eitner,
_ibid._, p. 108).
[1052] It is thus that Melanchthon describes the object of the
invitation in a letter to Camerarius of May 19, 1525, “Corp. reform.,”
1, p. 744.
[1053] It is true that the council declared on this occasion “that it
was by no means its mind, desire or intention to oppress the people
without necessity, contrary to evangelical equity and right, or to
refuse them anything which it was its duty to permit or tolerate.”
Eitner, _ibid._, 2, p. 93, where he remarks: “It will probably be best
not to attribute any duplicity to the councillors.”
[1054] Eitner, _ibid._, p. 94.
[1055] On September 19 (according to Enders), 1525, in “Briefe,” ed.
De Wette, 6, p. 59, and Erl. ed., 56, p. xii. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p.
243). The first sentences quoted are contained in the letter itself,
the others in the marginal notes to the various articles, which in De
Wette’s collection are printed together with the articles themselves
after the letter.
[1056] This is Luther’s disdainful note to Art. 7, in itself a quite
reasonable one, viz. “That the present councillors shall give an
account of all expenditure and receipts.” His dislike for the “rabble”
here made Luther unjust, and not here alone. His question concerning
Art. 6 (on the protection of the “wards and trades”) is not to the
point: “If councillors are not trusted, why appoint them?”
[1057] Eitner, _ibid._, pp. 102, 104.
[1058] _Ibid._, p. 107.
[1059] Eitner, _ibid._, p. 107.
[1060] Matthias Flacius, “_Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ
religionis_,” 1549 (Vienna Court Library), in showing “Holiness” as a
mark sufficiently discernible in Luther’s church and person. According
to O. Clemen, the Erfurt monastery dragged on a miserable existence
until 1525. On July 31 of that year, Adam Horn, the Prior, received
from the Vicar-General of the Congregation, Johann von Spangenberg,
permission to leave the monastery since he was no longer safe in it.
“Aus den letzten Tagen des Erfurter Augustinerklosters,” in “Theol.
Studien und Kritiken,” 1899, p. 278 ff. It may be that Usingen quitted
Erfurt at that time for the same reason (above, p. 337). The last trace
of Nathin is found at the Chapter of the Order at Leipzig in 1523, at
which he represented the Erfurt priory.
[1061] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 353; Erl. ed., 16², p. 438.
[1062] We may here mention what K. A. Meissinger, of Strasburg, says:
“The period previous to 1517 has been looked upon as Luther’s age of
immaturity and shyness, and his own numerous statements on the subject
have contributed not a little to this fiction. The legend of Martin,
the zealous young Papist, seeking to get to heaven by his monkish
practices and wasting away in utter despair, gives (a fact which has
become apparent only of recent years) quite a false picture of that
decisive and truly momentous period in the inward growth of the great
Reformer” (“Der junge Luther,” Frankfurter Ztng., 1910, No. 300).
[1063] Ed. E. L. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Halle,
1893, No. 118, p. 3 ff.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 ff. Erl. ed.,
53, p. 256 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).
[1064] “Neudrucke,” p. 7; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 214.
[1065] “Neudrucke,” p. 9 = 215.
[1066] In “Neudrucke,” this work also is edited by Enders (p. 19 ff.).
The passage will be found on p. 37 f.
[1067] In vol. vi., xxxviii. l, it will be shown that the ground of
his demand for the execution of the Anabaptists was not merely the
revolutionary character of the sect, but also the crime of religion
involved in their error.
[1068] Matthew xxviii. 19, Luke x. 16, Acts i. 8, Matthew xxviii. 20.
[1069] Passages quoted by Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 373, n.
3.
[1070] “Neudrucke,” p. 35.
[1071] Letter of August 3, 1524, to the Elector of Saxony, in
Förstemann’s “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” p. 248.
Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.
[1072] In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375, n. 8.
[1073] Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.
[1074] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 265 f.
[1075] The proofs for this wonderful enlightenment of children will be
quoted below in another connection. To the opposition between faith
and reason, Luther appeals in the question of infant baptism, in
“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 53, where he says (in the “Table Talk”) that
“reason is of no avail in the matter of faith. And for this very reason
children should be baptised when they are without reason.... Because
reason is the greatest hindrance to faith.” _Ibid._, he proves from
the fact that the Christian Church still existed in early ages that
infant baptism is lawful, for it would have ceased to exist had infant
baptism, which was universally upheld by tradition, been invalid.
[1076] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. See
above, p. 206 f., where some quotations from this writing have already
been given.
[1077] _Ibid._, p. 373 = 20.
[1078] _Ibid._, 23, p. 280-3 = 30, p. 150.
[1079] Erl. ed., 19¹, p. 237.
[1080] _Ibid._, 63, p. 272. In 1528.
[1081] See vol. iv., xxv. 4.
[1082] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55.
[1083] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 684; Erl. ed., 61, p. 91.
[1084] _Ibid._
[1085] _Ibid._, p. 1.
[1086] _Ibid._, p. 19.
[1087] To Justus Menius, January 10, 1542, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p.
426.
[1088] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.
[1089] To Schwenckfeld’s messengers, 1543, De Wette, 5, p. 614.
[1090] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 295.
[1091] See vol. iii., xix. 1.
[1092] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.
[1093] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 372.
[1094] P. 364, cp. 130.
[1095] Enders’ ed. in “Neudrucke” (see above, p. 126, n. 5), No. 118,
p. 19.
[1096] _Ibid._, pp. 29-39.
[1097] “Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., in Enders’ “Neudrucke,” pp. 44, 54.
[1098] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 38, p. 177.
[1099] _Ibid._, 53, p. 276 f.
[1100] Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.
[1101] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.
[1102] _Ibid._, 63, p. 405.
[1103] Erl. ed., 39, p. 109.
[1104] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.
[1105] “Comm. in. Epist. ad Gal.” (ed. Irmischer), 1, p. 279.
[1106] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 335.
[1107] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 220 ff.
[1108] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p.
40.
[1109] _Ibid._, p. 44 f.
[1110] W. Friedensburg, “Der Reichstag zu Speyer, 1526,” Berlin, 1887,
p. 482, and in the “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 93 ff.
Th. Brieger (“Der Speierer Reichstag und die religiöse Frage,” Leipzig,
1909) disagrees.
[1111] The text of the Edict of 1529 taken from the Frankfurt
Reichstagsakten, 43, Fol. 61´ ff. Janssen, _ibid._, 5, 209 ff.; also in
Luther’s Works, ed. Walch, 16, p. 328 ff.
[1112] December, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 63 (“Briefwechsel,” 7,
p. 209).
[1113] “Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 1059, “_Articuli ibi facti non gravant
nos, imo plus tuentur nos quam superioris conventus (1526) decretum_.”
[1114] Wilh. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 330 f. The author
characterises the resolution against which the protest was raised as a
“horrible demand,” even when the Edict simply enacts, “that no one be
prohibited, hindered, or prevented from hearing Mass in those places
where the other [Lutheran] teaching had sprung up.” He sees in the
Edict an outrage on conscience, a “deadly blow,” and the forcing of the
Lutheran Princes and Estates to “comply with the frightful Edict of
Worms.”
[1115] See vol. iii., xviii. 1, where more details are given of the
Augsburg Confession and Diet.
[1116] Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 434.
[1117] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 193 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 237).
[1118] On the interpretation of “_dolos, mendacia ac lapsus_,” see
Enders on this passage, p. 235, n. 3, and further on, vol. iv., xxii.,
and vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.
[1119] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 236.
[1120] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 270.
[1121] October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.
[1122] F. W. Hassenkamp, 1, 1852, p. 297.
[1123] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 277; Erl. ed., 25², p. 4.
[1124] Fr. W. Schirrmacher, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des
Religionsgesprächs zu Marburg und des Reichstags zu Augsburg,” 1876;
“These reports were communicated to H.I.M.” etc. Enders, “Luthers
Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 186, n. 9.
[1125] To Luther, August 8, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 185:
“_plane significat horribilem tumultum_.”
[1126] See vol. iii., xix. 1.
[1127] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 202.
[1128] _Ibid._
[1129] _Ibid._, p. 219.
[1130] On September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.
[1131] Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 270 ff.; Erl. ed.,
25, p. 1 ff.
[1132] Reprinted, _ibid._, p. 331 ff., 49 ff.
[1133] Reprinted, _ibid._, p. 424=88.
[1134] _Ibid._, p. 424 ff. = 89.
[1135] _Ibid._, p. 425 = 91.
[1136] Compare Luther’s quotations and statements, p. 84, with the text
of the Decretals given by Friedberg, “_Corpus iuris canonici_,” 2, pp.
172, 196. In the latter passage we have the words, “_in spiritualibus
antecellit (pontifex)_,” with which every canonist is acquainted.
[1137] See vol. iii., xv. 3.
[1138] On October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.
[1139] To the Elector, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223
(“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).
[1140] _Ibid._, 54, p. 225.
[1141] Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 416 ff.; Erl. ed.,
26², p. 9 ff.
[1142] Reprinted, _ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 446 ff.; Erl. ed., 25²,
p. 108 ff. He calls the Duke an assassin because he had attacked him
anonymously, as from an ambush, p. 447 = 111.
[1143] In the pamphlet entitled, “Auf das Schmähbuchlein ‘Wider den
Meuchler,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.), written by Duke
George, but published under Arnoldi’s name (p. 129).
[1144] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 457 = 118.
[1145] _Ibid._, p. 460 = 120.
[1146] _Ibid._, p. 470 = 127.
[1147] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 148 f.
[1148] In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “_Contra
Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum_,” which he then reedited for
the people as “Göttlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One
of his propositions was: “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a
devilish liar” (Köstlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323).
[1149] To George Wicel (then on Luther’s side) and Anton Hermann, April
1, 1530, (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 238).
[1150] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 323.
[1151] The preface in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp.
Lat. var.,” 7, p. 523; in the form of a letter to Bugenhagen in 1532
(“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).