[1401] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f.,
“Vier trostliche Psalmen” (1526).
[1402] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295. In 1542-43.
[1403] _Ib._, p. 317, Spring, 1543. His statement runs, that “no
heresiarch can be converted.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 262; cp. 23,
p. 73; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.
[1404] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.
[1405] _Ib._
[1406] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Eyn trew
Vormanung,” etc. Cp. his outbursts against the “obstinacy of the
heretics,” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 37 _sqq._: “_Temeritas
Schwermeriorum pestilentissima est_,” etc. P. 40, under the heading:
“_Quomodo sit cum fanaticis agendum_.”
[1407] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 24 f. According to his sermons.
[1408] Cp. below, p. 355 f.
[1409] “There is only one article and rule in theology, viz. true faith
or trust in Christ.... The devil has opposed this article from the
beginning of the world.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 398.—“A Christian
must be quite convinced that a thing is so and not otherwise ... so
that he may be able to withstand every temptation and stand up to the
devil and all his angels, nay, even to God Himself, without wavering.”
_Ib._, p. 394.—“Whoever is not sure of his teaching and faith, and yet
wishes to dispute, is done for.” _Ib._—“Satan comes to accuse what is
best; hence a man must have certainty.” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p.
221.—“For it is absolutely necessary that consciences should reach
certainty and confidence in all matters; if ever a doubt remains, then
everything wobbles.” To N. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9,
p. 363.
[1410] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.
[1411] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 38.
[1412] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 406, March 21-28, 1537. Cp. above,
p. 319, n. 1.
[1413] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 144.
[1414] _Ib._, p. 128, Sep. 10.
[1415] _Ib._, p. 4, Jan. 5.
[1416] _Ib._, p. 106.
[1417] See below, p. 369 ff. Cp. the previous passage.
[1418] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315. The passage 2 Cor.
xii. 7: “_Datus est mihi stimulus carnis meæ, angelus satanæ, qui
me colaphizet_,” is generally taken with St. Thomas to refer to
temptations of the flesh.
[1419] Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. In 1539.
[1420] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 197.
[1421] _Ib._, 58, p. 286.
[1422] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49.
[1423] _Ib._, p. 97.
[1424] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532.
[1425] _Ib._, p. 214. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60. Mathesius,
“Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. Leonard Beyer had defended Luther’s Theses as a
young Augustinian at the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518.
[1426] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.
[1427] To Jonas, Dec. 30, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 167.
[1428] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “_aliquis vehementior affectus_.”
Vol. iii., p. 174, n. 1.
[1429] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 69, p. 129; above, vol. iv., p. 311.
[1430] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.
[1431] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p.
299. To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.
Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11. See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.
[1432] From Veit Dietrich’s MS. Notes, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 516.
[1433] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.
[1434] To Wenceslaus Link, July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 301.
[1435] To Hier. Weller, July (?) 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 160.
[1436] _Ib._
[1437] To Wenceslaus Link, in the passage quoted under n. 7; above, p.
339.
[1438] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176, from Veit Dietrich.
[1439] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11, Nov. to Dec., 1531. Same in
Veit Dietrich. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 47.
[1440] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._
[1441] To Hier. Weller, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 5.
[1442] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, pp. 9, 88. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p.
316. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 24 f.
[1443] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 99.
[1444] See vol. iii., p. 13 ff.; vol. iv., pp. 413 ff., 440 ff., 444,
448.
[1445] Above, vol. iv., p. 398 ff.
[1446] Above, vol. iv., p. 403 ff.
[1447] _Ib._, pp. 404 f., 410 ff., 414 f.
[1448] Above, vol. iii., pp. 8 ff., 18 ff., and below, xxxiv., 1.
[1449] The “Süddeutsche Blätter f. Kirche u. freies Christentum” (1911,
No. 24) appealed, as against the deposition of Pastor Jatho by the
Spruchkollegium of Berlin, to Luther’s words in the above writing: “In
this matter, i.e. in judging of doctrine, deposing teachers or those
holding a cure of souls, we must pay no heed to human regulations and
laws, to ancient custom and usage, etc. ... the soul must be ruled and
gripped only by the Eternal Word.” “It is high time,” adds the Editor,
“for us again to call to mind that view of faith which gives to the
soul and the conscience that sacred and inalienable right to which
every man has a claim”; he also points out, again appealing to Luther,
the “impossible state of things” to which any compulsion exercised
under plea of the Creed must lead, of which each of the twelve judges
of the Spruchkollegium has a different opinion. “It is admittedly
allowable to deviate to a certain extent from the Confession of the
Church. In this case, however, the judges suddenly turn on a man and
say: But not so far as this. The question is: How far then may one go?”
[1450] “Süddeutsche Bl.,” _ib._
[1451] See above, vol. iv., p. 441.
[1452] Vol. i., pp. 92, 203 f., 213, 231 f.; vol. ii., pp. 232 ff., 286
ff.; vol. iv., p. 434 f.
[1453] Vol. i., p. 187 ff.; vol. ii., pp. 268 ff., 291.
[1454] Vol. ii., p. 397 ff.; vol. iv., p. 526 f., etc.
[1455] Khummer, in Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73. For Khummer’s Notes
(which end in 1554) see Kroker, Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. xxii., and
Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” Introduction, p. ix. f.—Cp. “Colloq.,” ed.
Bindseil, 3, p. 219.
[1456] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 128, in 1538.—Cp. “Colloq.,” ed.
Bindseil, 2, p. 229 _sq._
[1457] Lauterbach, _ib._, p. 81 (1538). Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p.
374.
[1458] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313. Cp. “Historien,” p. 147´.
[1459] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 79. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58,
p. 103: “That I eat and drink and am at times merry and a good boon
companion,” etc
[1460] “_Ego non intelligo nec possum credere, et omnes apostoli
crediderunt_” (even before the descent of the Holy Ghost).
[1461] See above, p. 241 ff.
[1462] Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514 f.
[1463] May 5, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 328.
[1464] To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703. Above, p.
226 ff.
[1465] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 360.
[1466] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 513.
[1467] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.
[1468] Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 680. See above, vol. iii., p.
197, n. 1.
[1469] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, pp. 380, 393. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil,
1, p. 59 _sq._ Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209. From Schlaginhaufen’s
“Aufzeichn.,” p. 132 f., June to Sept., 1532.
[1470] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 113.
[1471] _Ib._, 58, p. 26.
[1472] _Ib._, p. 308.
[1473] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 223, Expos. of Psalm xlv.
[1474] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 159.
[1475] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 1, in 1531.
[1476] _Ib._, p. 84, May, 1532.
[1477] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 45.
[1478] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 110
f.
[1479] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.
[1480] _Ib._, p. 147.
[1481] See above, vol. iv., p. 218 ff.
[1482] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 209, and similarly, 58, p. 385.
[1483] _Ib._, 58, p. 397.
[1484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 52 _sq._
[1485] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 155; Erl. ed., 26², p. 296. “Von der
Widdertauffe.” In this passage he tries to prove that the text: “He
who believes and is baptised shall be saved” (Mk. xvi. 16), could not
be quoted in favour of re-baptism; the person baptising could not be
certain that the adults brought faith with them to baptism, nor could
the adult catechumen always be certain he had the faith.
[1486] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 40, p. 325 f., in 1530.
[1487] According to the MS. in the Vatican Library (Palat. 1825,
fol. 117): “_Dum (conscientia mala) præteritum peccatum non potest
mutare et iram futuram nullo modo vitare, necesse est, ut, quocunque
vertatur, angustetur et tribuletur; nec ab his angustiis liberatur,
nisi per sanguinem Christi, quem si per fidem intuita fuerit, credit
et intelligit, peccata sua in eo abluta et ablata esse. Sic per fidem
purificatur simul et quietatur, ut iam nec pœnas formidet præ gaudio
remissionis peccatorum. Ad hanc igitur munditiam nulla lex, nulla opera
et prorsus nihil nisi unicus sanguis Christi facere potest; ne ipse
quidem, nisi cor hominis crediderit eum esse effusum in remissionem
peccatorum._”—Fol. 117´: “_Quæ (fides remissionis peccatorum) haberi
non potest nisi in verbum Dei, quod prædicat nobis, sanguinem Christi
effusum esse in remissionem peccatorum._”—Fol. 118: “_Unde sequitur,
quod hi qui meditantur Christi passionem, tantum ut compatiantur
aut aliud quam fidem consequantur, prope infructuose et gentiliter
meditantur.... Quo frequentius meditetur, eo plenius credatur,
sanguinem Christi pro suis peccatis effusum. Hoc est enim bibere et
manducare spiritualiter, scilicet hac fide in Christum impinguari et
incorporari._”
[1488] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 502 ff.
[1489] _Ib._, p. 548 f.
[1490] _Ib._, p. 547
[1491] _Ib._, p. 573.
[1492] _Ib._, p. 554. It is obvious that words such as: I do not
believe as I ought, and: We cannot rise as high as we ought, may, in
themselves, be taken in the best sense seeing they are to be met with
even on the lips of saints. The prayer “_Credo Domine, sed adiuva
incredulitatem meam_” was a usual one with the faithful, even the
most devout. Nor was Luther alone in envying the children their pious
faith (below, p. 369). These passages are, however, not the most
characteristic of Luther’s faith and doubts, rather all those other
sayings, for which he was first and solely responsible and which are
placed in their true light by his theological doctrines, must be
taken together. The plausible-sounding words given above may well be
accepted as proofs of deep feeling, seeing they stand side by side with
other strong expressions of his belief in certain central truths of
Christianity. The longing for improvement may quite well have remained
alive even though the spirit of faith frequently felt itself slighted.
[1493] _Ib._, p. 549.
[1494] _Ib._, p. 523.
[1495] _Ib._, pp. 568 f., 571.
[1496] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, pp. 92,
373.
[1497] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 362.
[1498] _Ib._, 59, p. 245.
[1499] _Ib._, 57, p. 32.
[1500] _Ib._, 58, p. 429.
[1501] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 242.
[1502] See above, p. 133 ff.
[1503] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, 1 ff. Cp. “Briefe,” 5, pp. 147 ff., 183.
[1504] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 9, in the same work.
[1505] German Trans., Augsburg, 1843, p. 212.
[1506] “_Norma vitæ ad instituendas recte actiones_,” Pragæ, 1685, p.
276. This very rare book has only been found in the Gymnasialbibliothek
at Mariaschein in Bohemia.
[1507] _Op. cit._, Pragæ, 1709, pars II., p. 39. “_Erigebat illos
[oculos] interdum hæresiarcha Lutherus ad cœlum, cum illud sub mortem
scintillantibus stellis pulcherrime rutilaret; sed quia turpissimo
voluptaum cœno animum gerebat immersum, simul ita dicebat: Quam
pulchrum est, Martine, cœlum, sed non est pro te._” The passage occurs
in connection with the Feast of the Ascension. The dialogue with
Catherine was a later addition to the story.
[1508] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 266; Erl. ed., 19², p. 76.
[1509] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 411.
[1510] Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 259.
[1511] _Ib._, p. 246.
[1512] Louis de Ponte (de la Puente), “Meditaciones,” 1605; Latin ed.
of 1857, t. 2, p. 216.
[1513] Cp. what Suarez says of habit: “_Habitus quidem per se ac
formaliter, seu facta suppositione, minuit libertatem, quia inclinando
magis voluntatem ad alteram partem minuit indifferentiam eius; tamen
moraliter et in ordine ad effectus morales non censetur minuere,
quamdiu illa consuetudo libera ac voluntaria est, propter eandem
rationem, quia dispositio libera, ut sic, non minuit liberum._” “Opp.”
4, Paris., 1856, p. 209, n. 16.
[1514] See vol. iii., p. 430 ff.
[1515] To Amsdorf, July 9, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 746.
[1516] See vol. iii., p. 59 ff., particularly p. 70.
[1517] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.
[1518] P. 281.
[1519] P. 282 f.
[1520] P. 408.
[1521] P. 409 f.
[1522] P. 448.
[1523] March 14, 1539: “_mire me piget eius scripti, quod tam
tenue et verbosum sit ... tempus et labor fuit ultra vires meas_.”
“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 115 f.
[1524] Jan. 17, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 714.
[1525] Jan. 26, 1545, _ib._, p. 720.
[1526] May 7, 1544, _ib._, p. 736.
[1527] Below, p. 383.
[1528] May 7, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 737.
[1529] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 131 ff.
[1530] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 655, n. 3118.
[1531] Druffel, “Kaiser Karl V und die Römische Kurie 1544-46,” in
the “Abh. Bayr. Akad. der Wiss., hist. Kl.,” vol. 13, Abt. 2, p. 215.
“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 129 ff.
[1532] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 176.
[1533] _Ib._, p. 229.
[1534] P. 230.
[1535] P. 231.
[1536] P. 233.
[1537] P. 235 f.
[1538] P. 242.
[1539] P. 91, n. 6.
[1540] See vol. iii., p. 234 f.
[1541] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 662 _sq._, n. 3123.
[1542] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 661. In the same letter.
[1543] For text see “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 461 _sq._; also in “Luthers
Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1422 ff.
[1544] To Amsdorf, July 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 746.
[1545] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 48.
[1546] _Ib._, p. 68.
[1547] _Ib._, p. 191.
[1548] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 530 f.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 271. Preface
to Klingebeyls’ writing. Cp. an equally grotesque enumeration, above,
vol. iv., p. 343.
[1549] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403. Preface to his German writings
(1539).
[1550] _Ib._
[1551] _Ib._, p. 408. German Preface (1548, compiled from Luther’s own
words).
[1552] _Ib._, p. 412.
[1553] _Ib._, p. 297 (1531).
[1554] _Ib._, p. 369.
[1555] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 157.
[1556] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 10.
[1557] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 48.
[1558] Vol. iv., p. 329 ff.
[1559] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49.
[1560] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 74.
[1561] To Spalatin, Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 680.
[1562] To the same, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 110
(“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[1563] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 452; Erl. ed., 18², p. 339, Sermon on
Charity, 1532.
[1564] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 59, p. 141 f.
[1565] To Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 338.
[1566] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 127.
[1567] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 363.
[1568] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 173.
[1569] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 139.
[1570] _Ib._, from Veit Dietrich’s collection.
[1571] “Enarratio in Ps. xlv.,” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 223 _sq._
[1572] July 10, 1518, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.
[1573] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 229 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 347.
[1574] _Ib._, p. 107=144.
[1575] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 560.
[1576] Cp. Janssen, “History of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi.,
p. 218.
[1577] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 386. After Oct. 24, 1545.
[1578] P. 402.
[1579] P. 391.
[1580] P. 401.
[1581] See vol. iv., p. 68 f.
[1582] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 417.
[1583] Above, p. 83.
[1584] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 396 ff. See above, p. 260 f., on the
difference between Luther’s doctrine on the Sacrament and that of
Melanchthon.
[1585] P. 415.
[1586] We may compare this with some other true remarks of Luther’s:
“It is the way with all heretics to tamper first with only one article
and then gradually to deny all.” After a comparison with the ring which
on the slightest break ceases to be a ring, and the bell which ever
so small a crack makes to lose its sound, he proceeds: “You may say:
‘Dear Luther, it is to be hoped ... that God will not be so severe
and cruel as to damn men on account of one article if they faithfully
keep all the rest.’ For this is the way not only that the heretics
console themselves, but also other sinners.... In reply to this we must
say that it cannot be hoped that God will overlook His poor, blind,
wretched creatures’ behaving so madly and proudly towards their Creator
and Lord.” He insists that “it is impossible to deny or blaspheme
a single word without thereby accusing the Divine revelation of
falsehood” (p. 419). The heretics are, according to him, godless fools
whom God “will some day judge much more severely,” because they have
His Word on their lips.
[1587] P. 397.
[1588] P. 404.
[1589] P. 402.
[1590] To Martin Bucer, Oct. 14, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 260:
“_salutabis Dn. Ioannem Sturmium et Iohannem Calvinum reverenter,
quorum libellos cum singulari voluptate legi_.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p.
577. See below, p. 401.
[1591] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4] p. 881.
[1592] Feb. 26, 1540, “Calvini opp.,” 11 (“Corp. ref.,” p. 24:
“_Si inter se comparantur, scis ipse, quanto intervallo Lutherus
excellat_.”) Calvin finds fault namely with Zwingli’s “profane
doctrine” of the sacraments. “Calvini opp.,” 11, p. 438. Loofs,
“DG.,”^[4] p. 881.
[1593] Loofs, _ib._, p. 887.
[1594] He writes of the treatment of the Catholics in England: that all
the Catholics who had risen in rebellion against Edward VI and refused
to give up their superstition “méritent bien d’être réprimés par le
glaive qui vous est commis, vu qu’ils s’attaquent, non seulement au
roi, mais à Dieu.” “Opp.,” 13 (“Corp. ref.,” 41), p. 68. W. Möller,
“Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, ed. G. Kawerau, 1907, p. 188, and still better,
N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 250.
[1595] “DG.,”^[4] p. 889.
[1596] It is known only from Calvin’s letter, Nov. 20, 1539, “Opp.,” 10
(“Corp. ref.,” 38), p. 432. Cp. Enders-Kawerau, “Luthers Briefwechsel,”
12, p. 261.
[1597] To Bucer, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 260. Above, p. 399, n. 4.
[1598] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 603 f., which also contains an account of
Luther’s remarks.
[1599] “Jesus Christ nous donne en la cene la propre substance de son
corps et son sang.” “Opp.” 5 (“Corp. ref.” 33), p. 440.
[1600] Loofs, _ib._, p. 890 f., from the “_Institutio_,” l. 4, c. 17,
n. 32, “Opp.,” 2 (“Corp. ref.,” 30), p. 1033: “_quamvis in nos non
ingrediatur ipsa Christi caro_.”
[1601] “Opp. Calvini,” 7 (“Corp. ref.,” 35), p. 689 _sq._ Cp.
Möller-Kawerau,³ p. 185.
[1602] For Josel and the efforts referred to, see Reinhold Lewin,
“Luthers Stellung zu den Juden,” Berlin, 1910 (“Neue Studien zur Gesch.
der Theol. und der Kirche,” ed. N. Bonwetsch and R. Seeberg, 10), p. 62
f.—Luther to Josel, June 11, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 186, also
in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 419 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 240).
[1603] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 227; cp. 4, p. 46. Lewin, _ib._, p. 73.
[1604] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 417 ff.
[1605] Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” 1, p. 322.
[1606] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 276. “Die drei Symbola,” printed 1538,
written early in 1537.
[1607] Lewin, _ib._, p. 66. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 419.
[1608] Lewin, _ib._, p. 74.
[1609] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 99 ff. and 275 ff.
[1610] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 252, in “Von den Jüden.”
[1611] _Ib._
[1612] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 177 f., “Von den Jüden.” The rest of
the passage (“that Bible only should you explore,” etc.) is given in
vol. iv., p. 285 f., where we had to quote some of the above writings
against the Jews in describing Luther’s mode of controversy and the
violence of his angry language. Cp. also vol. iii., p. 270. Since in
the selection of these passages the object was to show to what depths
Luther could descend, it is hardly necessary to point out that the
passages quoted are about the strongest to be met with in these two
works, the remainder being written in a somewhat calmer and more seemly
vein.
[1613] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 141. “Von den Jüden.”
[1614] _Ib._, p. 342 f. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”
[1615] _Ib._, p. 282. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”
[1616] Cp. vol. iv., p. 285 f.
[1617] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”
[1618] _Ib._, p. 224. “Von den Jüden.”
[1619] _Ib._, p. 226. “Von den Jüden.”
[1620] _Ib._, p. 285 f. “Vom Scham Hamphoras.”
[1621] Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Juden,” p. 103.
[1622] _Ib._, p. 104.
[1623] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 120. “Von den Jüden.” Cp. pp. 182 and
230, and Lewin, p. 92.
[1624] P. 182. “Von den Jüden.”
[1625] Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 242.
[1626] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 325 f. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von
Hessen mit Bucer,” 2, p. 224, and Lewin, _ib._, p. 98. The latter,
though a Rabbi, does not mind letting his opponents, Luther included,
speak for themselves.—Bullinger in the letter in question says of
Luther’s third writing against the Jews, viz. his “On the Last Words
of David”: “Everyone must be astonished at the harsh and presumptuous
spirit of the man so haughtily displayed in the ‘Last Words of David.’
That such a theologian, after having arrived at his years, should be
guilty of such extravagant acts and writings is a matter that can only
be left to the just Judgment of God. The opinion of posterity will be
that Luther was not only a man, but a man ruled by criminal passions.”
[1627] Cp. above, p. 115, and vol. iv., p. 325. Döllinger,
“Reformation,” 3, p. 262 f.
[1628] Lewin, _ib._, p. 99 f.
[1629] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291 ff., 296, 305.
[1630] _Ib._, p. 308. On the indecent meaning of ‘Scham Hamperes,’ see
above, p. 406.
[1631] P. 309.
[1632] For further particulars, see Lewin, _op. cit._, p. 86.
[1633] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 314 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 45 ff.
[1634] Sermon of Feb. 14, 1524, _ib._, 15, p. 447=65, p. 125 f.: He
would “tell them that He [Christ] was a man like any other man, sent by
God”; after this he would lead the would-be converts further. Lewin,
_ib._, p. 36.
[1635] Lewin, _ib._, p. 31.
[1636] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 309 f.; Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des
Jonas,” 1, p. 92 f.
[1637] P. 36.
[1638] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 196. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p.
131. In both the passage begins: “Should I again baptise a Jew,” thus
pointing to an unfortunate experience of Luther’s own, which is related
more in detail in Schlaginhaufen’s report. In the corresponding passage
in “Colloq.,” ed., Bindseil, 1, p. 460, we read further: “_sicut fecit
ille, qui hic Wittebergæ baptizabatur_.”
[1639] Passages in Lewin, _ib._, p. 91.
[1640] _Ib._, p. 57.
[1641] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 296.
[1642] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 100. “Von den Jüden.” Cp. the
quotations given by Lewin, p. 89, n. 3.
[1643] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 363 ff. Sermon of Sept. 25, 1539.
[1644] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 442. But cp. p. 445.
[1645] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 259. “Von den Jüden.” Cp. above, vol.
iv., p. 265.
[1646] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 303. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”
[1647] “To the venerable brothers at Venice, Vicenza, and Treviso,”
June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 569: “_Mundus, Turca,
Iudaeus, Papa furunt blasphemando nomen Domini, vastando regnum eius_,”
etc.
[1648] Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Juden,” p. 45, ns. 2, 3, 4. Cp.
the “murderers’ den” in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 40.
[1649] Lewin, _ib._, p. 77.
[1650] _Ib._, p. 72. In “Vom Schem Hamphoras.” See above, p. 406.
[1651] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 1 ff.
[1652] _Ib._, p. 3.
[1653] P. 6 f.
[1654] P. 11.
[1655] P. 104.
[1656] “Corp, ref.,” 5, p. 164 _sq._ Lewin, _op. cit._, p. 106.
[1657] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 89.
[1658] _Ib._, p. 87.
[1659] _Ib._, p. 80.
[1660] _Ib._, p. 92.
[1661] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 301 f. Winter of 1542-43.
[1662] _Ib._, p. 149. June, 1540.
[1663] “_Versor iam in transferendo libro qui vocatur Confutatio
Alcorani Mahumetis. Deus bone, quanta est ira tua super ecclesiam,
sed maxime contra Turcam et Mahumetem! Superat fidem bestialitas
Mahumetis._” To Jakob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 452.
[1664] Preface and Warnung in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 189 ff.
[1665] _Ib._, p. 200. Warnung.
[1666] _Ib._
[1667] _Ib._, p. 192.
[1668] P. 199.
[1669] P. 202 ff.
[1670] Cp. our vol. iii., pp. 78 ff., 91 f.
[1671] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 196 f.
[1672] This he said, according to Wanckel’s Notes in the Wittenberg
copy of the caricatures; cp. C. Wendeler, “Archiv f. Literaturgesch.,”
14, 1, 1886, p. 18: “_Et sint meum testamentum_.” From “Unschuldige
Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 951.
[1673] May 8, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 740: “_De tribus furiis nihil
habebam in animo, cum eas papæ appingerem, nisi ut atrocitatem
abominationis papalis atrocissimis verbis in lingua latina
exprimerem_.” The word “_appingere_,” of course, merely means that he
suggested the scene. See below, p. 427 f.
[1674] Cp. P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern,”
Berlin, 1892. This writer says, p. 71: “Unfortunately our knowledge of
Cranach compels us to say that the pictures, as they have come down to
us, cannot be regarded as Cranach’s work,” etc. See allusion below to
“Master Lucas,” p. 429.
[1675] Copies of the set of pictures with nine, or ten, woodcuts are
to be found in the Marienbibliothek at Halle, in the Lutherhalle at
Wittenberg and in the Lutherbibliothek at Worms. No. 562* f. 28 in the
British Museum with _fourteen_ pictures is a made-up copy, four cuts of
which are not uniform with the rest of the set. [Note of the English
Editor.]
[1676] Cp. Köstlin, “M. Luther”², p. 614. In the 5th edition the
passage is worded otherwise.
[1677] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.
[1678] The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 840.
[1679] “Martin Luther”², p. 614, without the verse. The 5th ed., 2, p.
602, again runs differently.
[1680] See vol. iii., pp. 151 f., 355 f. The picture in Denifle-Weiss,
p. 837.
[1681] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 177. Above, p. 383 f.—According
to the Table-Talk (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239) Luther was once
shown a picture of the Pope being hanged on his keys. Possibly this
is the same caricature of the Pope, which, according to Lauterbach’s
“Tagebuch,” p. 64, he altered and amended with “_technæ veraces et
odiosæ_” on Good Friday, 1538. It has no connection with the present
picture on which the keys do not appear.
[1682] Luther wrote a special work in 1545 on the supposed deed of
Alexander III. Others with less reason take the picture to represent
Gregory VII and Henry IV; the verses are of quite a general character.
[Was it not rather suggested by an incident in the pontificate of
Alexander’s English predecessor, viz. Adrian IV? Note to English
Edition.]
[1683] Bl. 177´ and 178.
[1684] Wendeler (above, p. 422, n. 1), p. 33. Lehfeldt (above, p. 422,
n. 3), p. 71.
[1685] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 170; Erl. ed., 26², p. 316, in “Von
der Widdertauffe,” 1528.
[1686] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 701 ff. _Ib._, the pictures. This
ridicule of the Papacy greatly appealed to him (“_mire placet_”), as he
writes to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 162).
[1687] “Werke,” _ib._, 19, p. 7 ff., with the woodcuts in which the pig
plays a part.
[1688] Pp. 67, 69.
[1689] April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 727.
[1690] Wendeler, p. 30. From Sermon 12 in “Lutherus Theander,” 1569.
[1691] “Erklerung der schendlichen Sünde derjenigen,” etc. Eight pages,
1548.
[1692] Bl. A2. Denifle-Weiss, p. 841.
[1693] He spoke in much the same way to Wanckel according to the
passage cited on p. 422, n. 1.
[1694] The letter cited on p. 422, n. 2. On the strength of this
letter, Lehfeldt (_ib._, p. 71) comes to the conclusion that Luther
gave the draughtsman detailed instructions for his work.
[1695] June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.
[1696] Wanckel’s statement, see p. 422, n. 1.
[1697] July 1, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743. “Unschuldige Nachrichten,”
1712, p. 952.
[1698] “_Imaginationes diræ_,” for which reason Jonas had decided to
give up wine. _Ib._
[1699] June 15, 1545, “Briefe,” _ib._: He had just started on the
continuation of the “Wider das Bapstum” when, “_ecce irruit calculus
meus, utinam non meus sed etiam papæ et Gomorrhæorum cardinalium_!”
[1700] To Lauterbach, July 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 745.
[1701] June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 742. When he here speaks of
“Master Lucas” and, in the following letter, of “_Lucas pictor_,” he is
certainly alluding to the celebrated Lucas Cranach. On his part in the
matter see above. Luther’s words mean no more than that the Master had
something to do with the particular woodcut under consideration.
[1702] June 15, 1545, _ib._, p. 743.
[1703] Above, vol. ii., p. 152 f.; iii., p. 233 ff., and in particular,
iv., p. 322 ff.
[1704] To Prior Leib of Rebdorf, 1529, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1²,
p. 588, and J. Schlecht, “Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien,” 1909,
p. 12.
[1705] A. Harnack, “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], 1910, p. 861.
[1706] Cp. the Protestants already quoted, vol. iii., pp. 8, 15-19;
vol. iv., p. 483 ff.; see also above, p. 9 ff.
[1707] _Ib._, p. 861.
[1708] The words still occur in the 3rd ed. of the “Lehrb. der
Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 810. In the 4th the ending is different.
[1709] _Ib._, 3^[4], p. 682 ff.
[1710] _Ib._, p. 684.
[1711] P. 685.
[1712] “Evang. Kirchenztng.,” 1830, p. 20.
[1713] “Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, pp. 88 f., 60 f. Cp. 1, pp. 80 f., 93
f.
[1714] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3^[4], p. 814. Harnack’s statement concerning
the “life” of the old formulas of the faith in Protestantism is
significant: “We have to thank Luther, that the formulas of the faith
possess a living force in Protestantism to-day, and, indeed, in the
West, nowhere else. Here men live in them, vindicate them or oppose
them.” _Ib._
[1715] See above, p. 356 ff. Cp. vol. iv., p. 398 ff.
[1716] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3^[4], p. 683, n. 1.
[1717] _Ib._, p. 858.
[1718] “Leitfaden der DG.”^[4], 1906, p. 743.
[1719] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 230, Kirchenpostille.
[1720] _Ib._, p. 745 f.
[1721] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3^[4], p. 827 f.
[1722] _Ib._, p. 868.
[1723] P. 879.
[1724] P. 879.
[1725] P. 858.
[1726] For the reason why, see J. Mausbach, “Die kathol. Moral und ihre
Gegner,” 1911, pp. 215 ff., 229 f.
[1727] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 852.
[1728] Cp. Mausbach, _ib._, p. 137 ff.
[1729] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 868.
[1730] P. 851.
[1731] P. 855.
[1732] P. 856.
[1733] Cp. Mausbach, _ib._, p. 243 ff.
[1734] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 834.
[1735] P. 869.
[1736] P. 870 f. Harnack congratulates Luther on his opposition to the
fanatics, and concludes: “The German Reformation banished the fanatics,
but, in their stead, it had to face the rationalists, the atheists and
modern positive theology,” p. 871.
[1737] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 747.
[1738] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 134 f. Preface to the Epistle to the
Romans.
[1739] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 849.
[1740] _Ib._, p. 835.
[1741] P. 836.
[1742] P. 859 f. Harnack refers here to the passage in Luther’s Works,
Weim. ed., 16, p. 217; Erl. ed., 35, p. 207 f. (Exposition of certain
chapters of Exodus): “The sophists [Schoolmen] depicted Christ as God
and as Man.... But Christ is not called Christ because He has two
natures. What does this matter to me? But He bears this grand and
consoling name on account of the office and work He undertook. That He
is by nature God and Man concerns Himself, but that He is my Saviour
and Redeemer is for my comfort and salvation.”
[1743] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 860.
[1744] “Luthers Lehre über Freiheit und Ausrüstung des natürlichen
Menschen bis 1525. Eine dogmatische Kritik,” Göttingen, 1901, pp. 19
f., 49.
[1745] Cp. A. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung
in neuester Zeit,” 1900, Introd., p. 1 ff., where the quotations in
question occur.
[1746] _Ib._
[1747] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 124 f.
[1748] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 684 f.
[1749] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 463.
[1750] _Ib._, p. 698 f.
[1751] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 112. Preface to the New Testament.
[1752] “Luthers Stellung zu Erasmus, Zwingli,” etc. (reprint from the
“Deutsch-evang. Blätter,” 1906, Heft 1-3), p. 28.
[1753] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343.
[1754] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 136.
[1755] “Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., Suppl. vol. ii., p. 44, N.
54 to Luther’s “De votis monasticis,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 583,
“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252: “_Si quis Mariam neget virginem, aut alium
quemvis singularem articulum fidei non crediderit, damnatur, etiam si
alioqui ipsius Virginis et virginitatem et sanctitatem haberet_.”
[1756] _Ib._, p. 44 f.
[1757] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 414 f. Kurtz Bekenntnis. A similar
passage occurs in “Comm. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, pp. 334, _seq._,
336.
[1758] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 399.
[1759] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 189.
[1760] “Formerly it had not been the way with Martinus Eleutherius
to make eternal salvation depend on agreement with a single dogma,
and even in the Preface to Romans he had meant by justifying faith
something very different.”
[1761] _Ib._, p. 189.
[1762] P. 222.
[1763] P. 197.
[1764] P. 189.
[1765] “Luthers Stellung” (see p. 445, n. 4), p. 28.
[1766] _Ib._, p. 27 f.
[1767] P. 28.
[1768] From p. 808.
[1769] From p. 871.
[1770] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 864, n.
[1771] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 740 f. Quoted by Harnack, p. 864.
[1772] “Luthers Lehre über Freiheit,” etc. (p. 443, n. 1), p. 47.
[1773] _Ib._, p. 48.
[1774] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 877 f.
[1775] See above, p. 7 ff.
[1776] P. 843 n.
[1777] P. 884.
[1778] Above, p. 443, n. 2, p. 6.
[1779] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 719 ff.
[1780] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 883 f.
[1781] _Ib._, p. 884 f.
[1782] P. 887. Harnack here quotes a passage to the point from “Corp.
ref.,” 26, p. 51 _seq._, where the “Instruction” seeks to pacify those
who fancied that, by the above statement, “our previous teaching was
being repudiated.” Melanchthon says that, “the rude, common man” must
learn to accept “commandment, law, fear,” etc., as “articles of faith”
which precede penance.
[1783] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 884.
[1784] Above vol. iii., p. 323 ff.
[1785] P. 885 f.
[1786] P. 886.
[1787] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 886.
[1788] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 775 ff.
[1789] Cp. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral,” pp. 214 ff., 226 ff.
[1790] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 237 ff.
[1791] _Ib._, p. 774. Cp. pp. 702, 706, 721, 769.
[1792] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 239. Cp. _ib._, 63, p. 112, where
Luther points out that the Gospel condemns works in so far as they are
intended to make us pious and to save us.
[1793] P. 233.
[1794] P. 228.
[1795] P. 237.
[1796] _Ib._
[1797] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 769 f. Cp. “Comm. in Gal.” “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 415 f. Irmischer, 1, p. 382 _seq._
[1798] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, p. 367 f.: “Whoever works more and
suffers more will also have a more glorious reward.” _Ib._, 58, p. 354
f.: “Opera ... accidentaliter glorificabunt personam.”
[1799] _Ib._, p. 771, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, pp.
361, 366.
[1800] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 259.
[1801] _Ib._, p. 237.
[1802] And yet Luther, on June 1, 1537, boldly denounced the Thesis
“_Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem_.” “Disputationen,” ed. Drews,
_ib._, p. 159. Loofs, _ib._, pp. 770, 857.
[1803] _Ib._, p. 770.
[1804] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 178 ff.
[1805] _Ib._, p. 179.
[1806] He also defends the Law in the same way against the Antinomians,
speaking very much in Melanchthon’s style. Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 861.
[1807] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 181.
[1808] _Ib._, p. 183. Cp. above, p. 26 f.
[1809] Cp. _ib._, 63, pp. 113 ff., 125, 134. Preface to the translation
of Romans.
[1810] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 566, on this Preface. See also above,
pp. 39 f., 47 ff.
[1811] _Ib._, p. 771.
[1812] _Ib._, p. 778.
[1813] P. 781 f.
[1814] P. 771.
[1815] Sermo 158, c. 2.
[1816] “Leitfaden,”^[4], p. 773 f.
[1817] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 870.
[1818] _Ib._, p. 900.
[1819] P. 770.
[1820] P. 856 f. Cp. G. Kruger’s opinion, vol. iii., p. 352, n. 2.
[1821] P. 857.
[1822] P. 868.
[1823] Harnack (p. 880) refers to Müller, _ib._, p. 321 f., i.e.
to Luther’s Schmalkalden Articles of 1537, where we read (“Symbol.
Bücher,” par. 3, Art. 8, ed. Müller-Kolde^[10]): “_Ita præmuniamus nos
adversum enthusiastas ... quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere
nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta_.” But similar passages occur
in the book Harnack also quotes, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten”
(1525), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 62 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 134 ff.,
particularly 136 ff.=208 ff.
[1824] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 879 f.
[1825] _Ib._, p. 881.
[1826] P. 881 f.
[1827] “Where faith is not present [baptism] remains nothing but a
barren sign.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 221; Erl. ed., 21, p. 140.
Larger Catechism, Part IV: on Baptism.
[1828] “We bring the child for this [Baptism], thinking and hoping that
it believes, and praying God to give it the faith.”
[1829] _Ib._, p. 882. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487 ff., the works of
the Protestant theologians: J. Gottschick, O. Scheel, E. Rietschel, E.
Haupt, W. Herrmann and E. Bunge, on how Baptism suffered in Luther’s
system.
[1830] _Ib._, p. 894.
[1831] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 224; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143.
[1832] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 223. Cp. on Zwingli, vol. iii.,
p. 379 ff., and below, p. 465, n. 1.
[1833] Of the doctrine of Impanation, Loofs (“Leitfaden,” p. 905) says,
that the famous formulary on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of
Christ: _sub pane, in pane, cum pane_, cannot be traced to Luther, but
was only gathered after his day from the Larger and Smaller Catechism
(Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 223, 315; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143, 19).
[1834] “Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 894.
[1835] _Ib._, p. 875. Loofs speaks (p. 920) of the “christological
enormities inseparable from Luther’s doctrine of the sacrament.”
[1836] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 811.
[1837] Cp. Luther’s letter to Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 26, 1539,
“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 295, where he expresses himself opposed to
such private communions, though tolerating them for the time being.
Communion in the church three or four times a year would suffice in
order to be able to die “fortified by the Word.” In a time of public
sickness, such as the plague, the communion of the sick would become
an insupportable burden, and further the Church must not be enslaved
(“_facere servilem_”) to the sacraments, particularly in the case of
those who had previously despised them.
[1838] In the work “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts” (1523) Luther says
that “each one should be left free to adore or not, and that those
who do not adore the sacrament are not to be termed heretics, for it
is not commanded, Christ not being there in His glory as He is in
heaven.” Those do best who forget “their duty towards the sacrament”
and therefore do not adore, because there is “danger” in adoration.
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 448 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 410 f.—Still, in
1544, writing to the Princes Johann, George and Joachim of Anhalt, he
says: “_Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia
tractaretur et adoraretur etiam?_” Prince Joachim declared that he
“had seen Luther kneel down and reverently adore the sacrament at the
elevation.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 (Notes by Besold, 1544).
[1839] He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the
elevation. “_Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari._” The dignity of
the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking
of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p.
146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.
[1840] “If I am right,” says G. Kawerau, “the peculiar Melanchthonian
form of the doctrine of the sacrament is pretty widely spread at the
present time among Evangelicals, whether theologians or laity, as the
form under which Luther’s religious views on the sacrament are to be
accepted,” etc. “Luthers Stellung” (above, p. 445, n. 4), p. 41. On
this point Melanchthon, as is notorious, really agreed with Zwingli. Of
Zwingli, owing to his denial of the Real Presence, Luther wrote: “I,
for my part, regard Zwingli as an unbeliever” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26,
p. 342; Erl. ed., 30, p. 225), and for the same cause he “would show
him only that charity which we are bound to display even to our foes.”
To J. Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 354 f.
[1841] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 f.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 f.
[1842] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 872.
[1843] P. 830 f. Cp. above, p. 44 ff.
[1844] P. 855, n. 1.
[1845] Freiburg, 1887, p. 3.
[1846] _Ib._
[1847] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 866.
[1848] _Ib._, cp. p. 865: “Luther believed he was fighting merely
against the errors and abuses of the mediæval Church. It is true
he frequently declared that he was not pleased with the ‘dear
Fathers,’ and that all of them had gone astray; he was not, however,
clear-sighted enough to say to himself, that, if the Fathers of the
Church had erred, then their definitions at the Councils could not
possibly embody the truth.... Unconsciously he himself still laboured
under the after-effects of the theory that the outward Church is the
real authority.”
[1849] _Ib._, p. 834.
[1850] P. 819.
[1851] P. 834.
[1852] P. 820.
[1853] P. 861.
[1854] P. 871.
[1855] P. 875.
[1856] P. 896. Harnack takes great care to prevent his criticism of
Luther giving rise to any impression that he himself is favourably
disposed or indifferent towards Catholic dogma and Catholic life. He
is shocked at the attitude of Erasmus, the defender of the Catholic
view of man’s free will even under Divine Grace, and declares his
Diatribe against the “_servum arbitrium_” a “profoundly irreligious
work,” whereas Luther “had restored religion to religion” (see above,
vol. ii., p. 292, n. 4).—He asks: “What does original sin represent
to Catholics?” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 749), as though Catholic dogma
discarded it. He mocks at the “whole, half and quarter dogmas” of
Catholics (_ib._, p. 764) and at their handbooks of theology (p. 763).
The Catholic “system of religion,” so Harnack teaches, gave rise to “a
perversion of the moral principles” (p. 749); “this system still works
disaster both in theology and in ethics.... Since the 17th century the
imparting of forgiveness of sins has been made a regular art.” “But
conscience is able to discover God even in its idol” (_ib._). In other
passages he places “devotion to the Sacred Heart” and “Mariolatry” on
a par with the veneration of idols, though he admits that in Catholics
“the Christian sense is not actually stifled by their idols” (p. 748).
Only in these devotions and in the anxiety-breeding confessional does
piety still live (_ib._).
Of the Pope he exclaims: “The Church has an infallible master, she
has no need to trouble about her history, the living voice alone is
right.” He asks whether “the mediæval doctrine, now condemned to
insignificance, would not gradually disappear,” whether in time the
Pope would not be credited “with a peculiar miraculous power,” and
whether ultimately he would not be regarded as a “sort of incarnation
of the Godhead,” etc. (p. 759).
“The saintly and so holy Liguori is the very opposite of Luther....
All his mortifications only entangled him more and more in the
conviction that no conscience can find rest save in the authority of
a confessor.... Thanks to Liguori, absolute ethical scepticism now
prevailed, not only in morals but even in theology.... In a number of
questions, adultery, perjury and murder inclusive, he had known how
to make light of what was really most serious” (p. 755). The doctrine
of Probabilism was to blame for this, according to Harnack. Cp. J.
Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, p. 163 ff., and the
“Kölnische Volksztng.,” 1910, Nos. 485 and 571. The latter passage
contains further proofs from Harnack’s “Dogmengesch.” of his insulting
language and his lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrines, practices
and institutions.
[1857] Of the Church-Postils the first half of the winter part up to
the Epiphany had been published by Luther as early as 1522, and then
continued down to Easter. The second part (summer portion) had been
brought out in 1527 by his friend Stephen Roth. The sermons on the
Epistles were only included in the collection in 1543, when the new
edition appeared. W. Köhler begins his critical edition of the book of
Church-Postils in Weim. ed., 10 (1911).
[1858] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 401 ff.
[1859] Cp. his words to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,”
11, p. 247: “_Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum
enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et
catechismum._” Cp. above, p. 370 f.
[1860] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.
[1861] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 18 ff.
[1862] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 23, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 148. “Das
diese Wort ... noch fest stehen.”
[1863] To Nicholas Gerbel at Strasburg, Nov. 24, 1535 (1536?),
“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 127.
[1864] Vol. i., p. 175 ff.
[1865] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 548; Erl. ed., 45, p. 217.
[1866] _Ib._, p. 573=250.
[1867] _Ib._, 2, pp. 128-130=45, pp. 204-207.
[1868] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 28 ff.
[1869] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189.
[1870] _Ib._, p. 34 f.=195 f.
[1871] _Ib._, p. 37=199.
[1872] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 2, p. 80 ff., 9, p. 122 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p.
159 ff.
[1873] _Ib._, 15², p. 318 ff.
[1874] _Ib._, 23, p. 215 ff.
[1875] _Ib._, p. 221.
[1876] _Ib._, 32, p. 75 ff.
[1877] _Ib._, p. 89 f. Cp. above, p. 418 ff.
[1878] _Ib._
[1879] P. 77.
[1880] P. 84.
[1881] P. 97.
[1882] “Briefe,” 5, p. 169, Feb., 1539.
[1883] “Werke,” Erl, ed., 7², p. 21.
[1884] _Ib._, p. 22.
[1885] _Ib._, 15², p. 319.
[1886] _Ib._, 23, p. 217.
[1887] _Ib._, p. 222.
[1888] P. 223.
[1889] P. 215.
[1890] Cp. _ib._, p. 215 f.
[1891] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 126; Erl. ed., 21, p. 28.
[1892] _Ib._, 7, pp. 551 ff., 558, 565 f., 568, 580, 596, 599, 602=45,
pp. 222 ff., 231, 240 f., 244, 259, 280, 285, 289.
[1893] _Ib._, p. 584=265; cp. p. 586=267.
[1894] _Ib._, 2, p. 80=21, p. 160.
[1895] Cp. _ib._, 30, 1, p. 160 ff.=21, p. 69 ff.
[1896] Above, p. 84 ff.
[1897] Great Catechism. Preface of 1530. See below, n. 6.
[1898] _Ib._
[1899] To Martin Görlitz, Jan. 15, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 43:
“_pro rudibus paganis_.”
[1900] See above, vol. iv., p. 234.
[1901] The passage first given by G. Buchwald, now in the Weim. Luther
ed., 30, 1, p. 428 f.
[1902] Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 239 ff. Formerly Erl. ed.,
21, p. 5 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 349 ff., etc.
[1903] Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. Formerly Erl. ed.,
21, p. 26 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 375 ff.
[1904] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).
[1905] Preface to the Smaller Catechism.
[1906] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 2, quoted by the editor in the
Introduction to the Catechisms.
[1907] Cp. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 442 f. On the new
Confession see above, vol. iv., p. 248 ff.
[1908] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 134 f., 188, 190; Erl. ed., 21,
pp. 36 f., 101, 103.
[1909] Cp. vol. i., p. 187 ff., etc.
[1910] Cp. the “Bibliographie zum Grossen Katechismus,” by O. Albrecht
and J. Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 499 ff.; cp. _ib._, p. 666
ff.
[1911] For proofs, see Th. Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. lxiii.
[1912] “Historien,” Bl. 63´.
[1913] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 655.
[1914] “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 518.
[1915] We may recall his statement that he would like to see all his
books destroyed except two: “_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum
nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum_.” To Capito, July 9, 1537,
“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247. See above, p. 471, n. 2.
[1916] New edition by Buchwald, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 1 ff.
[1917] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 444.
[1918] Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 61: “Just as at Wittenberg and in
many other churches the useful custom still prevails of preaching
on this Catechism four times a year for a fortnight, and of daily
assembling for that purpose the children, servants and artisans. Many
ministers also teach the Catechism on Sundays in addition to the
Gospel, and assemble the children in summer for the recitation and
explaining of the Catechism, as is, thanks be to God, the custom with
us to-day.”
[1919] _Ib._, Bl. 62´.
[1920] O. Albrecht, “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers vom Jahre 1536,”
1905, p. 94.
[1921] Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 441.
[1922] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl. ed., 22, p. 232 (cp. p.
75=231, and Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 434).
[1923] Thus Albrecht in his introduction to his new edition of the two
Catechisms of Luther, Weim. ed., p. 435; he refers also to Falk’s and
Battenberg’s editions of Wolff’s “Beichtbüchlein” (see vol. iv., p.
254) and to J. Greving’s “Zum vorreformatorischen Beichtunterricht”
(“Veröffentl. aus dem K.-h. Seminar zu München,” 3, 1, 1907, pp. 46-81).
[1924] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 436.
[1925] _Ib._
[1926] Cp. Weim. ed., 26, p. 237.
[1927] “Historien,” Bl. 63. Mathesius, however, will only admit that,
on the whole, “some fragments of the Catechism” had been retained in
Popery. Luther’s admirer cannot even recall that in Popery he “had ever
heard ... the Ten Commandments, Creed, Our Father or Baptism spoken
of from the pulpit.... Of the absolution and consolation arising from
a believing reception of the Body and Blood of Christ I had to my
knowledge never heard a word all my days before I came to Wittenberg,
either in the churches or the schools, just as I cannot recall having
seen any written or printed explanation of the Catechism in Popery”
(Bl. 63 and 63´).—The ignorance of the facts of the case revealed
in the latter statement is met with elsewhere in the rest of the
passage of Mathesius’s writing; he may have been unfortunate in his
own personal experience, but he certainly exaggerates. That, before
Luther’s day, preaching was not everywhere sufficiently supplemented by
catechetical instruction was undoubtedly to be regretted.
[1928] Albrecht, _ib._, referring to P. Bahlmann, “Deutschlands
Katechismen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrh.,” 1894, p. 38, and F. Cohrs,
“Evangel. Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion,” (“Mon. Germ.
Pædag.,” vol. 20 ff.; vol. 23, 1902, pp. 233, 271). For popular
religious instruction before Luther’s day, see Janssen, “Hist. of the
German People,” Engl. Trans., 1, p. 25 ff.; F. Cohrs, “RE. f. prot.
Th.,” 10³, 1901, p. 135 ff., and F. J. Knecht, “KL.,” 7², 1891, p. 288
ff.; cp. 249 ff.
[1929] See above, p. 134 f., and vol. iv., p. 251.
[1930] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 444.
[1931] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 212; Erl. ed., 21, p. 128.
[1932] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 445, referring to Geffcken’s “Der
Bilderkatechismus des ausgehenden MA.,” 1855, pp. 86, 98 f., 108, 177,
etc., and particularly to Thalhofer, “Die katechetischen Lehrstücke
im MA.,” (“Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. deutsche Erziehungs- und
Schulgesch.,” 15, 1905, p. 188 ff.)
[1933] Cp. Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 454.
[1934] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 643 (1523).
[1935] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 454 f.
[1936] F. J. Knecht, _loc. cit._, p. 292 f. The “Discipulus” was
compiled as early as 1416. Cp. “Zeitschr. f. kath. Th.,” 1902, p. 419
ff.
[1937] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 561.
[1938] Facsimile, _ib._, p. 241, and better still in Otto Albrecht’s
“Der kleine Katechismus Luthers,” 1905.
[1939] “Katechismusversuche” (see above, p. 491, n. 1), p. 241.
[1940] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 435-437.
[1941] _Ib._, 30, 3, p. 567; Erl. ed., 26², p. 383 f.
[1942] _Ib._, 30, 1, p. 130=21, p. 31. Cp. above, p. 147 f., the
passage taken from Luther’s “Deudsche Messe.”
[1943] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “_Bibliam
græcam et hebræam lego_.” To the same, June 10, 1521, _ib._, p. 171:
“_Hebraica et Græca disco et sine intermissione scribo_.”
[1944] To Johann Lang, _ib._, p. 256.
[1945] _Ib._, p. 271.
[1946] _Ib._, p. 325.
[1947] Cp. _ib._, n. 4 in Enders.
[1948] Dec. 12 (?), 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 37: “_Bestias istas
describas et nomines per species suas_.” There follows the list.
[1949] See the list of Luther’s writings at the end of our vol. vi.
[1950] Feb. 23, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 300.
[1951] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” 1530, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2,
p. 636; Erl. ed., 65, p. 109.
[1952] “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 277, n. 4.
[1953] June 14, 1528, _ib._, p. 291.
[1954] Paul Pietsch, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., “Deutsche Bibel,” 2.
[1955] _Ib._, p. xxiv, in the preface by K. Drescher, the present chief
editor of the Weimar edition.
[1956] Pastor Risch, “Welche Aufgabe stellt die Lutherbibel der
wissenschaftl. Forschung?” (“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, pp. 59 ff.,
116 ff.), p. 129 f. “Die deutsche Bibel in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung,”
1907, by the same author.
[1957] Cp. Risch, _ib._, p. 121 f. O. Reichert, “Luthers deutsche
Bibel” (“RGl. Volksbücher,” iv., 13, 1910), pp. 8, 14, 24, 31, 44.
[1958] Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 32.
[1959] “Historien,” Bl. 160´ ff. G. Lœsche, “Joh. Mathesius’
Ausgewählte Werke,” 3 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus
Böhmen,” 9), p. 315 ff.
[1960] Discovered at Jena by Buchwald, but only known so far in
extracts. See p. 501, n. 3, and “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 353, n. 12.
[1961] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 139 _sqq._
[1962] _Ib._, p. 142. See vol. iv., p. 109.
[1963] Cp. what O. Reichert says in “Die Wittenberger
Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1521 bis 1541,” in Koffmane, “Die hds.
Ueberlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1, 1907, p. 97 ff., and Risch’s
Articles (above, p. 499, n. 1), p. 78 ff.
[1964] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 41, where examples are given from
the notes and emendations to be published later.
[1965] Weim. ed., 1 and 2.
[1966] Reichert says, _ib._, p. 26: “There is hardly a more interesting
document to be found in the domain of research concerned with Luther’s
German Bible.” He gives a facsimile of Ps. xlv. (xliv.), xlvi. (xlv.).
Four facsimiles in Thiele, vol. 2.
[1967] _Ib._, 65, p. 110, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” Sep. 8, 1530.
Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 14, p. 401 ff.
[1968] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 313. Table-Talk.
[1969] _Ib._, p. 421. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 378.
[1970] K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer, “Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und
Prosa, 8-12 Jahrh.,” 1864, p. xxix.
[1971] Cp. Risch, p. 138, in the article mentioned above, p. 499, n. 1.
[1972] H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” 1907, p.
30, remarks: The orthodox period of Lutheranism venerated “Luther’s
translation of the Bible with an admiration as boundless and naive as
had it been a palladium.”
[1973] Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906,
p. 143, who there (in the first edition, though not in the second)
points out that even Grimm’s colleagues and successors did not share
his own warm appreciation of the language of the German Bible.
According to Müllenhoff the foundation of New High German had been laid
a century and a half before Luther, who represents, not its beginning
but its zenith period (see pp. 504, note 3). “If in spite of this,”
says Böhmer, “it cannot be denied that the German of Luther played an
important part in reducing the German language to unity, still this was
not Luther’s doing.” “The stress laid by Protestants on the language of
Luther undoubtedly did more to hamper than to further the victory of
the common language” (p. 144). “Luther himself was the first to protest
against being considered the founder of a new German tongue” (p. 145).
[1974] _Ib._, p. 132 f.
[1975] Preface to the first volume of the Bible, p. x.
[1976] Müllenhoff, etc., _ib._, p. xxvii ff.
[1977] P. 223 f.
[1978] P. 224.
[1979] P. 222.
[1980] Cp. Zerener Holm, “Studien über das beginnende Eindringen
der Lutherischen Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Literatur,” 1911
(“Archiv. f. RG.,” Ergänzungsband, 4).
[1981] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.
[1982] _Ib._
[1983] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 150.
[1984] Jakob Grimm, “Deutsche Grammatik,” 1, 1², 1870, Preface, p. x.
[1985] In the articles referred to above, p. 499, n. 1 (p. 137 f.).
[1986] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.
“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.” Before this he had said: “Of what an
art and labour translating is I have full experience, and therefore I
will allow no Pope-ass or Mule-ass, who has never attempted it, to set
himself up as judge or critic.... If there is to be any faultfinding, I
will attend to it myself.” And later: “Their abuse is my highest praise
and glory. I am resolved to be a Doctor ... and they shall not rob me
of this title till the Judgment Day; this much I know for certain.”
[1987] “Historien,” p. 82.
[1988] _Ib._
[1989] F. W. Nippold, “Christian Josias Freiherr von Bunsen,” Leipzig,
1868-1871, 3, p. 483.
[1990] “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen,” p. 72.
[1991] “Mitteilungen,” vol. 3, Göttingen, p. 1899, p. 335 ff. (reprint
of the art. in the “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1885, 2).
[1992] P. 359 ff.
[1993] P. 365.
[1994] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” p. 642=117.
[1995] Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 142 f. Theodore Zahn the
Protestant exegete says: “Luther by adding the words ‘The righteousness
which is acceptable to God’ (here and iii. 21, x. 3; cp. iii. 22)
exceeded the task of a translator by implying that the recognition of
this righteousness by God is merely the consequence of its origin in
God. ‘A righteousness that comes from God,’ as in Phil. iii. 9, would
be less open to objection, though here again Luther goes beyond his
text.” “Brief des Paulus an die Römer,” Leipzig, 1910, p. 82.
[1996] De Lagarde (p. 358) rightly refers to Döllinger, _ib._, pp.
140-144, where the latter quotes another passage which calls for
revision: “The commandments are given _only_ in order that man may
be made aware of his inability to do what is good and thus learn to
despair of himself.”
[1997] Döllinger, _ib._, p. 144.
[1998] Many other passages could be given where the sense is weakened
owing to Luther’s want of accuracy. For instance, John vi. 56: “My
flesh is the true meat and my blood is the true drink,” whereas Christ
says: “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς) and my blood is drink indeed.”
[1999] Riehm, “Luther als Bibelübersetzer,” “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,”
57, 1884, p. 306; cp. p. 312 f. On the whole subject see Janssen,
“Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 401 ff.
[2000] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p.
103 ff.; the accompanying letter to Link dated Sept. 12, 1530, in
“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 257.
[2001] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 637; Erl. ed., 65, p. 110.
[2002] P. 640 ff.=115-117.
[2003] P. 643=118 f.
[2004] P. 638=112.
[2005] P. 634=106.
[2006] P. 633=104 f.
[2007] Pp. 636, 639=108, 109, 113 f.
[2008] P. 635=107. The passage was given verbally above, vol. iv., p.
345 f. The words of St. Paul which he plays upon occur in 2 Cor. xi. 18
ff.: “They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are
the seed of Abraham, so am I.”
[2009] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 197.
[2010] _Ib._, p. 194.
[2011] “Auss was Grund uund Ursach Luthers Dolmatschung über das Newe
Testament dem gemeinen Man billich verbotten worden sey,” Leipzig,
1523, Bl. 3.—In Bl. 2´ Emser, having instanced the formal theological
decision, goes on to remark, that Luther declared the secular
authorities had no right to forbid books concerning the faith, although
he and his preachers were in the habit of teaching that all were
subject to the secular power. “Thus the man can never handle a matter
with moderation, but either goes too far or else not far enough”; the
authorities had a perfect right to punish, in life and property, “those
whom the Church publicly proclaimed to be heretics.” He vainly urged
the German bishops at the end of the book, “to summon one, or ten,
learned, experienced and God-fearing men and to see that a trustworthy,
reliable and uniform German Bible was made from the old and new
[Lutheran] translation.”
[2012] Soffner, “Ein Lutherspiel aus alter Zeit,” 1889, p. 16.
Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783. On Hasenberg see vol. iv., p. 173 f.
[2013] G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No.
61), 1898, p. 65.
[2014] In the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30,
2, p. 634; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f. Luther’s charge against Emser,
the “Dresen Scribbler,” in which he says: He “wrote his _name_, a
preface and glosses to it and thus sold my New Testament under his own
name,” is not grounded on fact. Still more unjust and insulting to the
deceased was the statement he made later to some of his friends: The
miscreant “knew the truth better than he wrote it”; “he altered a word
here and there against his conscience” in order to retain the favour of
the Duke. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 79. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p.
149.
[2015] _Ib._, p. 72.
[2016] L. Lemmens, O.F.M., “Aus ungedruckten Franziskanerbriefen des
16. Jahrh.” (“RGl. Studien,” ed. H. Greving, Hft. 20), 1911, p. 38.
[2017] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 429
f.
[2018] Janssen, _ib._
[2019] _Ib._
[2020] Dec. 28, 1534, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,”
2, p. 224: “_Fatetur se parum syncere biblia vertisse et eam
interpretationem tantum non revocat_.”
[2021] A. Räss, “Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation,” 7, p. 99 f.,
with the list.
[2022] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 145 f.
[2023] In the Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 153.
[2024] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” _ib._, p. 169.
[2025] Preface of 1545, _ib._, p. 159. This preface replaced the former
one, but, in it, he still leaves it “doubtful” whether the Apocalypse
was to be taken as one of the books of the Bible or not.
[2026] Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² Leipzig, 1900, p. 84.
[2027] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 158.
[2028] Preface of 1522, _ib._, p. 156.
[2029] _Ib._
[2030] “Truly an Epistle of straw as compared with them” (the Gospel
and 1st Epistle of John, the epistles of Paul, particularly to the
Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter). These
were the “best” books of the New Testament because in them “faith
in Christ” is “painted in a masterly manner.” _Ib._, 114 f.—The
conclusion of the preface in question was omitted in Luther’s own later
editions but was often reintroduced later.
[2031] M. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Zeugnis
seiner Anhänger” (“Bibl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1905), p. 273 ff. Cp. the
same author, “Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und
Überlieferung” (“Bibl. Studien”), 10, Hft. 1-3, 1905.
[2032] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 227, on Gen. xxii. Meinertz, “Luthers
Kritik,” etc., _ib._
[2033] “Werke,” Walchs ed., 9, p. 2774 ff. Cp. Walther, “Theol. Stud.
u. Krit.,” 66, 1, 1893, p. 595 ff. Meinertz, _ib._
[2034] Meinertz, _ib._, p. 278.
[2035] H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 1, p. 197 f.
Carlstadt himself was doubtful as to who was the author.
[2036] Meinertz, _ib._, p. 276.
[2037] Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² p. 84.
[2038] Barge, _ib._, p. 197 f.
[2039] His mediæval predecessors, however, usually had behind them
tradition and the authority of the Church.
[2040] W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, No. 16.
[2041] Nestle, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche” in “RE. f. prot.
Theol.,”³ p. 73.
[2042] In the article on the “revised” Luther Bible of 1883, in
“Göttinger Gel. Anziegen,” 1885, Hft. 2, reprinted in De Lagarde’s
“Mitteilungen,” 3, 1889, 335 ff. Cp. above, p. 512.
[2043] Oettli, “Die revidierte Lutherbibel,” 1908.
[2044] P. lix.
[2045] _Ib._
[2046] De Lagarde, art. quoted, p. 524, n. 2.
[2047] _Ib._
[2048] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 3.
[2049] _Ib._, p. 5.
[2050] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 633; Erl. ed., 65, p. 104.
[2051] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 108.
[2052] _Ib._, p. 112 f.
[2053] _Ib._, p. 9.
[2054] Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 141.
[2055] In the preface to the work “Auss was Grund,” etc. Above, p. 519,
n. 1. G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser,” p. 60.
[2056] Kawerau, _ib._, p. 66.
[2057] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 95 f.
[2058] _Ib._, p. 137.
[2059] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349.
[2060] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 123.
[2061] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 6.
[2062] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 136.
[2063] “Comment. de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 55. Cochlæus laments
in this passage the disputations which the common people entered upon
with the clergy, and describes the universal Bible reading of the
unlearned as one of the causes of the spread of the apostasy. Nor does
he conceal the fact that some of the laity were able in controversy
to quote Scripture with greater fluency than the Catholic priests and
monks.
[2064] “Christenliche Underrichtung Dr. Johann Fabri,” etc., Dresden,
1528. Bl. Biij., Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783.
[2065] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256.
[2066] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.
[2067] _Ib._, p. 640=115.
[2068] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 63, p. 24 f. Preface to the Old Testament.
[2069] _Ib._, p. 25.
[2070] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 265.
[2071] _Ib._, p. 265 f.
[2072] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634
f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f.
[2073] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 213.
[2074] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 4, Table-Talk.
[2075] To Nic. Hausmann, Jan. 21, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 349:
“_Recudimus iam psalterium germanicum pro calumniatoribus irritandis_.”
Cp. to the same, Feb. 25, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 232, on the fresh edition
of the New Testament then undertaken with Melanchthon: “_Novam furiam
concitaturi contra nos apud papistas_,” and to Wenceslaus Link, Jan.
15, 1531, _ib._, 8, p. 345: “_Dabimus operam ... ut (David) purius
Germanum sonet, multam occasionem calumniatoribus dantes, ut habeant,
quo in translationem nostram suam rabidam invidiam exerceant et acuant,
nec tamen exsaturent_.”
[2076] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 121.
[2077] _Ib._, p. 121 f.
[2078] _Ib._, p. 175.
[2079] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.
[2080] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 115.
[2081] Cp. Preface of 1539, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 405.
[2082] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 384.
[2083] Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 291.
[2084] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 240. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.
[2085] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 273.
[2086] Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.
[2087] _Ib._, p. 281.
[2088] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 145, 1540.
[2089] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 4.
[2090] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 569.
[2091] _Ib._
[2092] _Ib._
[2093] “_Dignissimum opus gratitudine, qua me hactenus excepit barbara
hæc et vere bestialis natio._”
[2094] See the next section.
[2095] See below, p. 541, his statement against Emser.
[2096] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122,
“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.”
[2097] The saying appears in this shape in Reisch’s “Margarita
philosophica,” Argentorati, 1508. See Nestle, “Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.,”
1877, p. 668. In fact it is there described as a common “_proverbium
inter theologos_.” Another later form ran: “_Si Lyra non lyrasset,
totus mundus delyrasset_.”
[2098] Kropatscheck, “Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,” 1,
1904, p. 163.—On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.
[2099] F. Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre
Verbreitung,” Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.
[2100] Falk, _ib._, p. 27 ff.
[2101] Cp. Moureck, “SB. der kgl. Böhm. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch.,
Phil. Kl.,” 1892, p. 176 ff.
[2102] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 141.
[2103] E. v. Dobschütz, “Deutsche Rundschau,” 101, 1900, p. 61 ff.
Falk, _ib._, p. 86.
[2104] E. Schröder, “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, p. 253.
[2105] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 606; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N.
Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,” p. 61.
[2106] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.
[2107] _Ib._, 63, pp. 401, 402.
[2108] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270; “_Annis 30 ante biblia
erant incognita, prophetæ innominati_,” etc.
[2109] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar
predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous “bench” cp. also Weim.
ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv.,
p. 159.
[2110] “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 32.
[2111] Walther, p. 742. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl.
Trans.), 2, p. 303. Walther also observes: “Thus it was not from the
Church that the translations emanated; it was not the Church that
recommended the study of the Bible to the laity. This would indeed
have been contrary to her principles. But neither did the Church show
herself hostile at the outset to every translation. So long as it
contained nothing to promote ‘divisions’ or to undermine reverence for
the Church and her doctrines she permitted this movement, as she did
every other that did not infringe her authority.” _Ib._
[2112] Cp. Franz Falk, _ib._, pp. 33-66.
[2113] Janssen, _ib._, 1, p. 60.
[2114] Paues, “A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version,” Cambridge,
1902. Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” 1900, and in the
“Dublin Review,” 1894. Cp. “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 66, 1904, p.
349 ff.—Mandonnet, “Dict. de la Bible,” 2, Art. Dominicains. Cp.
“Katholik,” 1902, 2, p. 289 ff.
[2115] W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 13.
[2116] “Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,” etc., 1521, “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
7, p. 641; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.
[2117] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p. 376 ff.
[2118] Cochlæus wrote (“Commentarius de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p.
54): “_Quis satis enarrare queat, quantus dissidiorum turbationumque et
ruinarum fomes et occasio fuerit ea novi Testamenti translatio. In qua
vir iurgiorum data opera contra veterem et probatam ccclesiæ lectionem
multa immutavit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit et in alium sensum
detorsit, multas adiecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque
cavillosas, et in præfationibus nihil malignitatis omisit, ut in partes
suas traheret lectorem._” He concludes by saying that many persons had
collected more than a thousand errors in the translation.
[2119] Second ed., 1875, p. 529.
[2120] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 659 (N. 3, p. 282).
[2121] Franz Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 90. Earlier than
this we find five Latin Bibles printed at Mayence, Strasburg, and,
perhaps, Bamberg.
[2122] Falk, “Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche,” 1879, pp. 29 and
80. Do., “Die Bibel,” etc., pp. 32, 61.
[2123] _Ib._, p. 33.
[2124] “Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des MA.,” 1889-92.
[2125] “Die Waldenserbibeln und Meister Johannes Rellach” (“Hist.
Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 771 ff.), p. 792. On the other side see W. Walther in
the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1896, Hft. 3, p. 194 ff. Cp. also Nestle in
the “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche,” and
the work of R. Schellhorn there mentioned.
[2126] G. Grupp gave a critical account of the results of Walther’s
researches in the “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 115, 1895, p. 931, which
amongst other things considerably raises Walther’s estimate of the
number of manuscript and printed copies.
[2127] See above, p. 495.
[2128] P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,”
p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the
“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in
“Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.
[2129] “Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther, _ib._,
p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.
[2130] _Ib._, p. 1.
[2131] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.
[2132] “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.
[2133] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “_Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut
tale, quid possem quale vellem_.”
[2134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.
[2135] _Ib._, 62, p. 311.
[2136] Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite
conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott,
Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical
character of his chronology.
[2137] Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a
true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258),
and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows
himself a true poet.”
[2138] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 311. Table-Talk.
[2139] Above, p. 342 ff.
[2140] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, pp. 155, 158.
[2141] Ph. Wackernagel, “Das deutsche Kirchenleid von der ältesten Zeit
bis zum 17. Jahr.,” 3, 1870, p. 20. Cp. ‘“Form und Ordnung gaystlicher
Gesang,” etc., Augsburg, 1529. Cp. Wackernagel, _ib._, p. 20, the text
of the first High German reproduction of the Wittenberg Hymnbook, and
the less accurate reprint, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., and Nelle,
“Gesch. des deut. ev. Kirchenliedes,”¹ 1904, p. 24 (2nd ed., 1909).
[2142] In an advertisement of Will Vesper, “Luthers Dichtungen,”
Munich, 1905.
[2143] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 26. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 56,
p. 354.
[2144] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.
[2145] At the beginning of the “Geistliche Gesangbüchlein” of Johann
Walther. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 538.
[2146] Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 167.
[2147] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541.
[2148] G. Gervinus, “Gesch. der deutschen Dichtung,” 3^5, 1871, p. 20.
[2149] Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg,” p. 372. W. Bäumker, “Das kathol.
Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen,” 1, 1886, p. 32, makes a similar
distinction. Cp. p. 16 ff.
[2150] On the above see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 536 ff.
[2151] In Luther’s hymns for public worship modelled on the Psalms “no
poetic enthusiasm is apparent.” Spitta, _ib._, p. 355. He also assigns
the lowest place to the translations of the Latin hymns.
[2152] In the Preface to the new edition of his hymnbook (1529).
Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.
[2153] Migne, “P.L.,” 185, p. 391. E. Michael (“Gesch. des deutschen
Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des MA.”, 4³, 1906, p. 327 ff.)
shows not only that German psalmody existed in the 13th century, but
also that it can be traced back with certainty to the 11th and 12th
centuries. Cp. also Bäumker, “KL.,” art. “Kirchenlied,” 7², p. 602.
[2154] Bäumker, _ib._, p. 604.
[2155] _Ib._, p. 605.
[2156] “Confess. Aug.,” art. 24 de missa.—Cp. for the foregoing,
Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 264 ff.
[2157] According to Heinr. v. Stephan, “Luther als Musiker,” Bielefeld
(1899), p. 16, he was even “the reformer of German music.”
[2158] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541 f. Cp. Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.),
11, p. 242 ff.
[2159]
“Vil falscher Meister itzt Lieder dichten Siehe dich für und lern sie
recht richten. Wo Gott hinbawet sein Kirch und sein Wort, Da wil der
Teuffel sein mit Trug und Mord.”
[2160] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 30.
[2161] Loesch, “Mathesius,” 2, p. 214 ff. “Historien,” Bl. 179: “I
brought him the song with which the children (in the Joachimsthal)
drive out the Pope in Mid-Lent.... This song he published and
himself wrote the title: ‘_Ex montibus et vallibus, ex sylvis et
campestribus_.’” The broadsheet of 1541 mentioned by Schamelius in
his “Lieder-Commentarius,” 1757, p. 57, if it ever existed, must have
preceded Luther’s publication, and be by some unknown author.
[2162] Cp., for instance, the May-song in the Baden Collection, by A.
Barner, Hft. 2, No. 14, p. 15.
[2163] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 31.
[2164] Wackernagel, _ib._, p. 30. Cp. Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.),
11, p. 286.
[2165] Cp., for instance, L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen
Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in “Jahrb.
f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff.
and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff., more particularly p. 179 f. (The 2nd art.
is quoted below as II.) With regard to the Protestant theologians (G.
Uhlhorn and others) Feuchtwanger says, p. 180: “In their hands the
question of the care for the poor since 1500 has degenerated into a
sectarian controversy on priority, and thus the way to the solution of
the problem has been blocked by a falsification of the true question.”
He regards Uhlhorn’s work as written from an “extreme sectarian”
standpoint. To Feuchtwanger, as it had been to Strindberg, it is a
marvel, how, “as soon as you begin to speak of God and charity, your
voice grows hard and your eyes become filled with hate.”
[2166] “Gesch. der sozialen Politik,” etc., II., p. 207.
[2167] _Ib._, p. 221.
[2168] (Munich and Berlin, 1906), pp. 13, 41, 49, reprinted from “Hist.
Zeitschr.,” 97, 1906, p. 1 ff., republished in 1911 in an enlarged form.
[2169] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 644; Erl. ed., 22, p. 169. “Ob
Kriegsleutte,” etc., 1526.
[2170] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 138=31, p. 67 f.
[2171] _Ib._, 19, p. 634=22, p. 258. Those who emigrate become
“faithless and break their oath to their rulers”; “they do not bear in
mind the divine command, that they are bound to remain obedient until
they are prevented by force or are put to death”; they are “robbing
their sovereign of his rights and authority” over them. On such general
grounds Luther concludes that it was not lawful to desert and join the
Turks.
[2172] Pages 17, 26.
[2173] “Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 1. Cp. “M.
Luthers Werke,” “revised and edited for the German people,” by Julius
Boehmer, Stuttgart, 1907, Introd., p. ix, where the theological editor
says: “With Luther a new era begins. He has been and is considered the
author of a new civilisation, different from that of the Middle Ages
and of antiquity.... The emancipation of the human intellect began in
the domain of religion and has gradually extended thence into other
spheres in spite of obstacles and difficulties.”
[2174] See, for instance, above, pp. 45 f., 476 f., and vol. iv., p.
472 ff.
[2175] See above, vol. i., p. 49 f.
[2176] H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p.
133, however, calls it a “great exaggeration” when Eberlin of Günzburg,
the former Franciscan who afterwards became a follower of Luther,
asserts that in Germany only one man in fifteen did any work. He has
also the best of reasons for disbelieving Agricola’s statement, that
the monks and nuns in Germany then numbered over 1,400,000 souls.
[2177] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.”
(“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff), particularly p. 746 ff.
[2178] Cp. above, pp. 49-60.
[2179] E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers,”² 1875, where the above and
other texts are quoted.
[2180] _Ib._, pp. 81, 88.
[2181] For the passages see Luthardt, _ib._
[2182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 94.
[2183] F. M. Schiele, “Christliche Welt,” 1908, No. 37.
[2184] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.
[2185] Above, vol. iii., p. 22 ff.
[2186] Second ed., p. 124.
[2187] Luthardt refers here to Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250
f., where the latter says in his exposition of Psalm lxxxii. (lxxxi.)
1530: “Because the rulers, besides their other duties, must promote
God’s Word and its preachers,” “they must punish public blasphemers”;
among these were the false teachers and those who teach that each one
must himself make satisfaction for his sins (he means the Catholics).
“Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the
borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else they must go,” i.e. the
rulers must compel those Catholics who were living amongst Protestants
to emigrate. “The offender was acting contrary to the Gospel and
the common article of the creed which we recite: ‘I believe in the
forgiveness of sins.’ Such articles held by the whole of Christendom
have already been sufficiently examined, proved and decided by
Scripture and the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by
many miracles and sealed with the blood of the martyrs.”
[2188] In the continuation of the above passage Luther says of
such controversies: “Let the rulers step in and examine the case
and whichever party is not in agreement with Scripture, let him be
commanded to be silent.... For it is not good for the people to hear
contradictory preaching in the parish or district,” etc. Luther,
however, not only demands, as Luthardt says, that these “heretics”
should be banished, but also that they should be punished as public
blasphemers. Cp. below, p. 578.
[2189] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 97.
[2190] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 538; Erl. ed., 17², p. 392.
Luther, however, emphasises the true preaching office so much that he
represents his pure Gospel teaching as alone capable of preserving
peace, a fact which is usually passed over. “No University, institution
or monastery” had been able to accomplish what the preaching office was
now able to do; the “blind bloodhounds abandoned the preaching office
and gave themselves up to lies.”
[2191] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 555=402.
[2192] _Ib._, p. 537 f.=392.
[2193] Reference is made here to the passage in the Home-Postils,
“Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 450. Here we read, p. 449, that the “rulers
must promote matrimony and the management of the home, and see that the
young are properly educated”; for this reason theirs was “a divine and
holy state.”
[2194] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 388, in the Home-Postils.
[2195] Cp. the passages in Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 321.
[2196] Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 153; Erl. ed., 21, p. 60.
[2197] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 294.
[2198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10. See below, p. 577, n. 1.
[2199] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 240.
[2200] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat
und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” Jena, 1898, No. 22 (“Sammlung
nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen,” 21.)
[2201] See above, vol. ii., pp. 297 ff., 307 f.
[2202] _Ib._, p. 302 f.
[2203] Above, p. 58 f.
[2204] P. 15.
[2205] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73.
[2206] _Ib._, p. 262 f. = 82 ff. Cp. p. 269 ff. = 92 ff.
[2207] _Ib._, p. 271 = p. 94.
[2208] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 281. Cp. Weim. ed., 18, p. 307; Erl.
ed., 24², p. 282.
[2209] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 259; Erl. ed., 22, p. 78 f. In order
to understand the phrase “let himself be fleeced” it should be noted
that those Lutherans who lived under the rule of Catholic princes were
unable to escape the action of the Edict of Worms.
[2210] He here says: “God hangs, breaks on the wheel, strangles and
makes war; all this is His work.” _Ib._, 19, p. 626 = 22, p. 250.
[2211] Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg, “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin
in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,” 1909
(“Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft,” 24), p. 168.
[2212] _Ib._, p. 57.
[2213] _Ib._, 166.
[2214] E. Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauungen vom Staate,” 1901, p. 13
f. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 258; Erl. ed., 22, p. 77 f.: “His
kingdom [Christ’s] is not made up of ploughmen, princes, hangmen or
jailers, nor does it include the sword or secular law, but only the
Word of God and His Spirit; by it His subjects are governed in their
hearts inwardly.” All the successors of the Apostles and “spiritual
rulers” were to be satisfied with the Word.—Erl. ed., 39, p. 330:
“The secular government has only to rule over bodily and temporal
possessions.”—P. 331: “Whoever wishes to become learned and wise in
secular government let him study the heathen books and writings, these
have indeed described and painted it most beautifully and fully.”
[2215] K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911,
p. 20.
[2216] See above, vol. ii., p. 301: The bishops must “restrain
heretics.”
[2217] Holl, _ib._, p. 20 f. Luther’s words are from “De capt, babyl.,”
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 533; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 64. Cp “_Nisi
hæc adsit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus imo obest, non
solum tum cum suscipitur, sed toto post tempore vitæ_.” _Ib._, p. 527
f.=57. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487.
[2218] “He protests against the war with the Turks being carried
on under the pretext of Christianity, ‘as though our people could
be termed an army of Christians fighting the Turks,’ when in ‘the
whole army there are perhaps barely five Christians [real Lutheran
believers].’ ... Thus he deliberately calls into question the
Christianity of the German people and hence demands that the war should
be undertaken as a merely secular thing.” Holl, _ib._, p. 22, with a
reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 37, and to a letter to Spalatin,
Dec. 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333. Cp. above, p. 402, and vol.
iii., p. 77 ff.
[2219] Above, vol. ii., p. 108.
[2220] See our examination of the “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” in vol.
ii., pp. 297-306.
[2221] The passages are cited below, p. 577, n. 2.
[2222] Luther’s answer to the question he raises, “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 62, p. 207, in the Table-Talk: “Whether it be lawful to kill a
tyrant, who at his own pleasure acts contrary to right and justice”
is aimed at absolutism. He replies confidently: Yes, where the latter
really oppresses his subjects by crying deeds of wrong and where the
“citizens and subjects unite together” to make an end of him as they
would of any “other murderer or highwayman.” In his “Ob Kriegsleutte
auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526, Luther does not sanction
private revenge nor any disorderly or violent action on the part of
the mob, “whereby the people rise and depose their lord or strangle
him.” He emphasises in this passage as the reason the absence of legal
proceedings: “It does not do to pipe too much to the mob, or it will
only too readily lose its head.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl.
ed., 22, p. 259.
[2223] To the Elector Johann, Feb. 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.
368 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318), on the introduction of Lutheranism
into Altenburg. Cp. vol. ii., p. 315 f.; the principal reason why the
ruler was to intervene was, that he might not deliberately tolerate
“idolatry.”
[2224] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Luther’s
preface to the Instructions of the Visitors, 1528.
[2225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48. “Eyn trew
Vormanung ... sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung,” 1522.
In connection with this the author says: It is not lawful for the
individual to rebel against “Endchrist,” i.e. the Papacy, and to make
use of force, but the secular authorities and the nobles “ought from
a sense of duty to use their regular authority for this purpose, each
prince and ruler in his own land,” etc. This he wrote on the eve of
composing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” according to which the
prince was not to trouble at all about the religion of his country.
[2226] Above, vol. ii., p. 88 f.; vol. iv., p. 510 f. N. Paulus,
“Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 7 ff.
[2227] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.
[2228] _Ib._, p. 252.
[2229] Paul Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?”
(“Zeitschr. für Theol. and Kirche,” 1908, Ergänzungsheft), p. 99. Cp.
p. 90.
[2230] Cp. Luther’s statements, in Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 25 ff.
[2231] Drews, _ib._, p. 100.
[2232] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 313 ff.
[2233] _Ib._, p. 320.
[2234] P. 323.
[2235] P. 324 f.
[2236] P. 327 f.
[2237] P. 358 f.
[2238] The expression is H. Boehmer’s (“Luther im Lichte der neueren
Forschung,”¹) 1906, p. 135.
[2239] To the Elector Johann, Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53,
p.387 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).
[2240] P. 17.
[2241] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 164.
[2242] _Ib._, p. 166; 1st ed., p. 135.
[2243] 1st ed., p. 135.
[2244] Frank Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” p.
15. On p. 17, he says that according to Luther “all ecclesiastical
functions and relations, in so far as they concern external things, are
subject to the State.”
[2245] “Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” in
“Theol. Arbeiten aus dem rhein.—wissensch. Predigerverein, N.F.,” Hft.
12, Tübingen, 1910, p. 47 f.
[2246] “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 504.
[2247] “Joh. Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen
Staatstheorie,”² Breslau, 1902, p. 64 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 349.
[2248] _Ib._
[2249] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f.
[2250] See vol. ii., p. 297 f., from the writing, “Von welltlicher
Uberkeytt.”
[2251] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. Cp. letter
to the Elector Frederick, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111
(“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[2252] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315.
“_Ipsos principes vincemus et contemnemus._”
[2253] Words of P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale
Luthers?” p. 28.
[2254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 35.
[2255] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 31, p. 236, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten
Auffrur.” See vol. ii., p. 294. Cp. _ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 625; Erl.
ed., 22, p. 248, where he says, already in 1526, in the writing “Ob
Kriegsleutte,” etc.: “So that I should like to boast that, since the
time of the Apostles, the secular sword and authority has never been so
clearly and grandly described and extolled as by me, as even my foes
must admit.”
[2256] See vol. ii., p. 295, n. 1.
[2257] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 284 f.
[2258] “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910, p.
63.
[2259] Above, p. 140 ff.; vol. ii., p. 332 f.
[2260] To Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 10, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10:
“_constitutis ecclesiis ... laceris autem ita rebus_,” etc. Only after
the Churches had been constituted could the ban be introduced as his
friend wished.—For earlier Visitations see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p.
176 ff.
[2261] See above, p. 140 ff., and vol. iii., p. 28 ff.
[2262] Printed in E. Sehling, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16.
Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff., and, before this, by A. E. Richter, “Die
evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 77 ff.
[2263] Both in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 26, p. 195 ff., and Erl. ed.,
23, p. 1 ff.
[2264] Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,”
5, p. 406). Enders says of this work: “Almost all the proposals Luther
makes here with the object of stimulating the project of a Visitation
which had come to a standstill are again found in the Instructions to
the Visitors.” From Luther’s previous letters Müller proves that he
approved the Instructions, _ib._, p. 69 ff.
[2265] Thus the Weimar editors in their Introduction to the
“Instructions of the Visitors,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 179.
[2266] _Ib._, p. 177.
[2267] In the Preface to the reader: “_Visitator nova mitra infulatur,
novum ambiens papatum_,” etc.
[2268] Aug. 10, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 337.
[2269] Words of K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach
Luther,” p. 71 f. He also gives a survey of the Instructions.
[2270] For the text see Sehling, _ib._, p. 143.
[2271] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 197; Erl. ed., 23, p. 5.
[2272] Müller, _ib._, p. 67. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,”
p. 14.
[2273] _Ib._
[2274] See Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 69 f.
[2275] _Ib._, p. 38.
[2276] Carl Holl, “Luther und das Landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“1
Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche”), Tübingen, 1911,
p. 54, against C. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther.”
Holl says: “The two documents cannot be reconciled, for each attempts
not merely to describe or emphasise one side of the matter, but to
set forth the whole, and this they do from totally different points
of view. One seeks to represent the Visitation as the outcome of the
paternal care of the Elector, the other as an act of self-help on the
part of the Church. It is impossible to harmonise these two points of
view.”
[2277] Reference to the title of his writing, “Deuttung ... des
Munchkalbs zu Freyberg,” 1523. See above, vol. iii., p. 149 f.
[2278] The latter saying occurs in the “Unterricht,” Weim. ed., 26, p.
212; Erl. ed., 23, p. 28.
[2279] There is no call to lay so much stress on the Preface as to
be obliged to say with Holl, _ib._, 54: It “necessarily assumes the
significance of a silent protest.... Luther is defending the Church’s
independence of the State by painting the Visitation in its true
light.” Holl also says, p. 59, that Luther, here, entered upon “a
struggle for the integrity of his whole work.” “To him it was of vital
importance whether the ruler of the land was obeyed as the highest
member of the congregation, or as a Christian Prince.” P. 60: “All the
efforts directed to-day towards greater independence of the Church and
larger liberty within the Church have a good right to appeal to Luther
on this question.”
[2280] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). See
above, p. 581. The other passages mentioned here are quoted by P.
Drews, _ib._, pp. 95 ff., 98.
[2281] See above, vol. iv., pp. 413 and 418 f., for the corroborative
statements of Scheel and Seeberg.
[2282] Vol. iii., pp. 48 ff. and 58 ff.
[2283] See Holl, _ib._, p. 9, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
21, p. 289 (Weim. ed., 6, p. 413), on the Christian who, according
to Mt. xviii., summons the culprit before the congregation: “If I
am to accuse him before the congregation, I must first assemble the
congregation.”
[2284] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413; Erl. ed., 21, p. 290.
[2285] _Ib._, p. 440 = 322. Holl, _ib._, p. 16. It is to Holl’s credit
that he so strongly emphasises this tendency of Luther’s in favour of
the independent rights of the congregation.
[2286] Cp. his letter to Spalatin, May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3,
p. 378 f.: “_Faciat princeps et aula hac in re quod voluerint, ego
Spiritui sancto non resistam ipsi viderint_.” See also “Briefwechsel,”
3, pp. 381 and 561.
[2287] C. Muller, _ib._, p. 54, who emphasises Luther’s bias towards
the State government of the Church with as much reason as Holl (see
above, p. 596, n. 3) does his ideas on the independence of the Church.
[2288] Müller, _ib._, p. 61.
[2289] P. 79.
[2290] Vol. ii., p. 358.
[2291] Cp. above, pp. 135 f., 139 f.
[2292] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68. “De
capt. babylonica.”
[2293] Cp. Holl, _ib._, p. 19 f. Müller, _ib._, p. 74 ff. See above, 55
f.
[2294] See below, p. 602 f.
[2295] P. 77.
[2296] See above, vol. ii., p. 329.
[2297] Cp. above, p. 181 ff.
[2298] See above, p. 191.
[2299] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 184.
[2300] To Tileman Schnabel, etc., June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p.
317.
[2301] P. Drews, _ib._, p. 101 f.
[2302] P. 580.
[2303] Wilhelm Hans, quoted in full, vol. ii., p. 312. What he says is
corroborated by Emil Friedberg, the authority of law, who, speaking
of the work of Carl Müller so often quoted above, says, that it is a
“difficult business to determine Luther’s views,” since they are not
always the same in his various writings, and since, under stress of
circumstances, Luther sometimes said things that went directly against
the principles elsewhere advocated by him. “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,”
20, 1911, p. 414.
[2304] The vacillation which characterised Luther’s attitude towards
the State-Church system and which came from his early ideas concerning
the true Christians who had no need of any authority over them, has
recently been set forth as follows by the Protestant lawyer and
historian Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg: “Luther’s true Christians were
Utopian persons and hence his Church was the same. In his idealistic
confidence in God he had expected too much from them. And thus there
came for his Reformation an era of hesitancy and groping, which refused
for a while to make way for more stable conditions. The Church which
Luther had characterised as a necessary expedient for furthering the
kingdom of God on earth now itself needed to be assisted and supported
from without, if it was to suffice for its task. To achieve this we
find Luther leaving no means untried. But his schemes were not very
satisfactory. He put a patch here and another one there, appealed to
the princes and then to the peasants, seeking to curry favour of one
and the other simply for the sake of some small concession and in order
to interest them in his Church.... At last Luther thought he had found
a remedy: this was that the Church should seek support in the secular
power. When quite at the end of his resources he had begun to remind
the princes of their duties as rulers. From mere occasional allusions
he soon passed on to energetic admonitions addressed to the ‘great
ones,’ accompanied by his customary threats and abuse. It had indeed
gone against the grain to summon the authorities to carry out his
wishes, hence, at every opportunity, he insists on his independence of
them.... Luther had in the event to submit to reproaches which he could
not always honestly shift on to the shoulders of the ‘false priestlings
and factious spirits.’”
Of Luther’s later years Schulthess-Rechberg says: “An era dawns when
Luther can no longer see an ounce of good in the State; when he
even tells the unworthy servant of God [the prince] to mind his own
business. It is then that we find Luther declaring that the secular
authorities have no power to watch over souls or to exercise the
teaching office, that they have no authority over the clergy, etc. Here
we see plainly how he, more than any other reformer, was driven by
force of circumstances, and this again is a proof that Luther’s work
was really more than he had bargained for. Luther ... never succeeded
in viewing the relations between Church and State objectively. This and
his constant efforts to disengage himself from Rome frequently gave an
unexpected turn to his views. For instance, when he insists at times
that heresy and unbelief do not concern the authorities (Erl. ed., 22,
pp. 90, 93). Hardly has he said this than he finds himself compelled to
hedge and practically to eat his words.” “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin,”
etc (above, p. 573, n. 4), pp. 170-172.
[2305] In an article against P. Drews (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, 1908, p.
478 ff.), p. 488. Hermelink adds: (p. 489) “It is true that the system
of an established Church did not correspond with Luther’s ideal, but
it was a political necessity and therefore seemed to him willed by
God.” Hermelink’s reference to the false ideals and eschatology which
influenced Luther’s theory of Church and State may be admitted as in
part correct. He is also right when he says: Luther, according to his
frequent statement, wished to assemble the Christians from the kingdom
of Antichrist before the end of the world. _Ib._, p. 313.
[2306] “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81.