[152] Cp. Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” etc. (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888), p.
475. The Altenburg regulations are no longer extant.
[153] Feuchtwanger, “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., I., p. 173. He quotes
the enthusiastic words written on this occasion by the Wittenberg student
Ulscenius: “_O factum apostolicum, fervet hodie in Wittenbergensium
cordibus Dei et proximi dilectio ardentissima_,” etc., and remarks:
We may take in conjunction with this statement the libertinism which
actually prevailed in the town at the end of 1521.
[154] Cp. below.
[155] Weim. ed., 19, p. 74 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231.
[156] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 584 f.=17², p. 419 f.
[157] See Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 303 ff.
[158] Erl. ed., 14², p. 391. Church Postils.
[159] _Ib._, p. 389.
[160] Weim. ed., 32, p. 409; Erl. ed., 43, p. 164. Expos. of Matt. vi.
[161] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 356. Sermons on Matt. xviii.-xxiii.—For
similar statements see the passage in the last Note and Erl. ed., 23,
p. 317; also above, vol. iv., _passim_. Cp. also Luther’s statements in
Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 465 ff.; Döllinger, “Die
Ref.,” 2, p. 215, 306, 349.
[162] Erl. ed., 23, 313 f. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher.” 1539.
[163] Feuchtwanger, II. (see above, p. 44, n. 2), p. 192.
[164] _Ib._, pp. 197, 180, 177 f., 176.
[165] The quotations here and in what follows are from Feuchtwanger.
[166] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 197. He quotes from the compilation of A.
L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” and Sehling
(above, p. 49, n. 3) Bugenhagen’s “Ordnungen” subsequent to those set up
for Wittenberg in 1527. Cp. in K. A. Vogt, “Bugenhagen,” 1867, p. 101
ff., on the latter’s “Von den Christen-loven,” etc., 1526.
[167] Cp. Janssen, xv., p. 456 f.
[168] Feuchtwanger, _ib._, II., p. 206.
[169] Cp. _ib._, p. 214.
[170] _Ib._, p. 212.
[171] In his instruction against the Anabaptist doctrines (Wittenberg,
1528, D 3b) Melanchthon says: “Never have the people shown themselves
more unfriendly and malicious towards the parsons and ministers of the
Church than now. Some who wish to be thought very Evangelical seize upon
the property given to the parsons, pulpits, schools and churches, and
without which we should end by becoming heathen. The common people and
the mob refuse to pay the parson his dues,” etc.
[172] See Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 480, n. 1, where the touching complaint
of Eber’s is quoted, viz. that the ministers of the Church were stripped
and left to starve. He prophesies that future times will show how “little
blessing spoliation brought those who warmed and fed themselves on Church
property.” It was everywhere worst in the villages and small towns.
[173] _Ib._, xv., p. 477.
[174] _Ib._, p. 469 ff.
[175] _Ib._, p. 481 ff.
[176] For proofs see Janssen, _ib._
[177] G. Kawerau, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, ed. W. Möller, 3rd ed., 1907, p.
434, with a reference to the works of Bossert.
[178] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541 (in 1522).
[179] Cp. Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 501.
[180] O. Jolles, “Die Ansichten der deutschen nationalökonomischen
Schriftsteller des 16. und 17. Jahrh. über Bevölkerungswesen” (“Jahrb. f.
Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” N.F. 13, 1886, p. 196). Janssen, _ib._
[181] Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 505. Feuchtwanger must have been familiar
with all this though he never quotes Janssen. He says (p. 214): “Only one
who was unfavourable to the reformation would judge Protestantism by the
fruits of its first two centuries.”
[182] “Reden und Aufsätze,” 2, 1904, p. 52, in the lecture “Die
evangelischsoziale Aufgabe im Lichte der Gesch. der Kirche.”
[183] F. Schaub, “Die kath. Caritas und ihre Gegner,” 1909, p. 45.
[184] See the excellent work by Schaub, p. 14 ff., quoted in the previous
Note, where it is stated, that, under present conditions, private
charity certainly does not suffice and that, therefore, State relief is
necessary; yet the latter is always merely subsidiary, because what is
assumed by real Christian charity, i.e. self-sacrifice, and individual
care, can only be realised in private relief of the poor; the State,
on the other hand, has its efficient compulsory taxation (“_caritas
coacta_”) and its own bureaucratic means of carrying out its work; in any
case the State must not monopolise any branch of poor relief, and public
and private charity ought to be in close touch. These remarks may serve
to assist in the right appreciation of the historical movement described
above.
[185] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 194.
[186] _Ib._, pp. 212, 214.
[187] Cp. _ib._, p. 214.
[188] Vol. iv., p. 127 ff.
[189] Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,”
1533. Above, vol. v., p. 59.
[190] _Ib._, p. 239 f.
[191] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, pp. 202-204.
[192] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.,” (“Hist.
Jahrb.,” 1911, pp. 725-755). “Similar testimony,” Paulus says, p. 740,
“dating from the close of the Middle Ages is to be found in abundance.”
He lays particular stress on the witness of monks and friars.
[193] Sermon on Marriage in his “Sermones dominicales,” Leipzig, 1530,
Bl. J. 4a, L1. Q 2b. Paulus, _ib._, p. 741.
[194] Of pilgrimages in particular, Luther is fond of saying, that the
monks enjoined them at the expense of the duties of a man’s calling. Cp.,
for instance, the passage cited above, p. 67, n. 1 (p. 203): “_Mater
familias … non faciat, quæ in papatu solent, ut discurrat ad templa_,”
etc. For the passages from Hollen see Paulus, _ib._, p. 740, and Fl.
Landmann, “Das Predigtwesen in Westfalen in der letzten Zeit des MA.,”
1900, p. 179 f.
[195] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 9 f.
Paulus, _ib._, p. 749.
[196] Janssen, _ib._ Paulus, _ib._, p. 748.
[197] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 750 ff., and H. Pesch, “Lehrb. der
Nationalökonomie,” 2, 1909, p. 726.
[198] Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch
ynn seligen Stande seyn künden?” 1526.
[199] _Ib._, 18, p. 394=24², p. 324. “Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin
widder die Bauren,” 1525.
[200] _Ib._, 19, p. 659=22, p. 287.
[201] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 157=28, p. 200.
[202] _Ib._, p. 631=255. He speaks before this of nobles, who, after the
peasant risings, had gone too far in their revenge.—Luther inveighs in
the strongest language against the way in which the nobles oppressed the
poor “burghers, unhappy pastors and preachers,” and says: “Here the lion
has caught a mouse and fancies he has overcome the dragon. Germany is now
full of such nobles and Junkers, who stink out the beer-houses and draw
their steel only on the poor, wretched, defenceless people; such are the
nobles. Out on such abandoned people! We Germans are indeed swine and
savage beasts, and have no noble thoughts or courage in us, as the world
too thinks!” This in the Commentary on the Four Psalms of Consolation,
1526. Weim. ed., 19, p. 604 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 439 f.
[203] Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f. “Von welltlicher
Uberkeytt,” 1523, Preface.—Cp. what was said, above, vol. ii., p. 205 f.,
etc.
[204] Weim. ed., 19, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 43. “Widder den
Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey,” 1526 (not published by him on
account of his sovereign’s prohibition).
[205] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175.
[206] Weim. ed., 28, p. 520; Erl. ed., 36, p. 175.
[207] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 137 ff.
[208] K. J. Fuchs, “Die Epochen der deutschen Agrargesch.” (“Allg.
Ztng.,” 1898, Suppl. 70).
[209] Weim. ed., 16, p. 244; Erl. ed., 35, p. 233 (1524-26).
[210] _Ib._, 33, p. 659=48, p. 385 (1530-32).
[211] _Ib._, 24, p. 367 f.=33, p. 389 f.
[212] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Erl. ed., 55, p. 239;
“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.
[213] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 388.
[214] _Ib._
[215] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 245.
[216] Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 529 f.
[217] _Ib._, p. 518 ff., Sermon of June 11, 1531.
[218] _Ib._, p. 109.
[219] _Ib._, p. 334 f.
[220] Weim. ed., 28, p. 329; Erl. ed., 50, p. 350. “We are ministers in
a hostel where the devil is the landlord and the world the landlady, and
the barmaids all kinds of wicked lusts, and all these, landlord, landlady
and barmaids, are enemies and opponents of the Evangel.”
[221] Erl. ed., 32, p. 77.
[222] Above, vol. v., p. 403 ff.
[223] Erl. ed., 62, p. 375 f., “Tischreden.”
[224] _Ib._, p. 366.
[225] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 49 ff. Lucas
Osiander the Elder sent Luther’s Schem Hamphoras to Duke Frederick of
Würtemberg in 1598 in support of his petition for the expulsion of all
Jews. For the same purpose, in 1612, the theological faculty of Giessen
had some of Luther’s strongest sayings against the Jews reprinted. _Ib._,
p. 51, n.
[226] C. Krause, “Eoban Hessus, sein Leben und seine Werke,” 2, 1879, p.
107. Janssen, _ib._, xiii., p. 101.
[227] 1, p. 279.
[228] To Johann Lang, Dec. 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 281:
“_facturus, ut multo plures offendat Christi pura doctrina_.”
[229] Weim. ed., 6, p. 38; Erl. ed., 16², p. 82. Sermon on Usury, 1519.
[230] _Ib._, p. 37 f.=81, on the words of Christ, Matt. v. 40 f., that,
to him who takes our coat we should leave our cloak also: “Many fancy
this is not commanded or to be observed by every Christian, but is merely
a voluntary counsel of perfection, and, like virginity and chastity,
counselled not commanded.” But “these are the artifices whereby the
teaching and example of our dear Lord Jesus Christ as given in the holy
Gospel, together with that of all His Martyrs and Saints, is reversed,
neglected and altogether suppressed.… God will blind and disgrace
those who turn His clear and holy Word into darkness.… No excuse is of
any avail, it is simply a command which we are bound to observe.” He
continues: As true Christians we have to observe it, but, as members of
a commonwealth we enjoy a divine institution whereby “the secular sword”
protects us from any injury to our possessions.
[231] _Ib._, p. 50 f.=98.
[232] _Ib._, p. 6=117; cp. p. 50=98.
[233] Weim. ed., 15, p. 294 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 201.
[234] _Ib._, p. 312 ff.= 223 ff.
[235] _Ib._, 6, p. 466=21, p. 357.
[236] Cp. _ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 214 f.
[237] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und
seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 83.
[238] Quoted by Luther in 1540, see Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 78.
[239] _Ib._
[240] Weim. ed., 6, p. 466; Erl. ed., 21, p. 357.
[241] _Ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 213 f. Von Kauffshandlung, etc.
[242] _Ib._, p. 36=181. “An die Radherrn.”
[243] _Ib._, 6, p. 465 f.=21, p. 356.
[244] _Ib._, p. 466=356.
[245] _Ib._, 24, p. 351 f.=33, p. 370 f.
[246] _Ib._, 18, p. 391=24², p. 320 (1525).
[247] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 73.
[248] Kampschulte, “Johannes Calvin,” 1, 1869, p. 430. Ward, _ib._
[249] Ward, _ib._, p. 74.
[250] Weim. ed., 15, p. 296; Erl. ed., 22, p. 204. Ward, _ib._, p. 75.
[251] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 295=202.
[252] Ward, p. 101.
[253] Ward, _ib._, p. 94
[254] Weim. ed., 24, p. 368; Erl. ed., 33, p. 390.
[255] On June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 244 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 354).
[256] Cp. Enders in n. 3 to the above letter.
[257] See above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.
[258] Weim. ed., 24, p. 8; Erl. ed., 33, p. 11 (1527).
[259] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 279. Cp. J. Schneid, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 108,
1891, pp. 241 ff., 473 ff., and B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. Kath. Theol.,” 24,
1900, p. 210.
[260] Cp. the Sermons on Usury of 1519, also certain passages in his “An
den christl. Adel,” the booklet “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher,” 1524,
and the Sermon against Usury of April 13, 1539, which he followed up by
a written appeal to the Wittenberg magistrates. M. Neumann, “Gesch. des
Wuchers in Deutschland,” Halle, 1868, pp. 481, 618 ff.
[261] Erl. ed., 23, p. 283 f.
[262] _Ib._, p. 285.
[263] The Anabaptist Jorg Schnabel said in 1538, that on 20 gulden two or
three were now taken as interest. For the text, see Janssen, _ib._, xv.,
p. 38.
[264] Erl. ed., 23, p. 285.
[265] _Ib._, p. 304 f.
[266] _Ib._, p. 285.
[267] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259; according to Heydenreich’s Notes.
Erl. ed., 57, p. 360.
[268] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.
[269] _Ib._, p. 319.
[270] _Ib._, cp. above, p. 80, n. 4.
[271] _Ib._, p. 311 f.
[272] P. Schanz, “Commentar über das Lukasevang.,” 1883, p. 226.
[273] Printed in H. Grisar, “Iacobi Lainez Disputationes Tridentinæ tom.
2: Disaput. variæ; accedunt Commentarii morales,” Oeniponte, 1886, pp.
227-321, with Introduction, pp. 60*-64*.
[274] P. 240; cp. p. 63*.
[275] P. 244 _sqq._
[276] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 432.
[277] P. 287.
[278] P. 294.
[279] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259.
[280] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.
[281] _Ib._, p. 338.
[282] Sep. 19, 1525, Erl. ed., 65, p. 239 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243).
[283] To Dorothy Jörger, March 7, 1532, Erl. ed., 54, p. 277
(“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 160).
[284] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 94.
[285] _Ib._, p. 95.
[286] Weim. ed., 6, p. 53; Erl. ed., 16², p. 102 (1519).
[287] _Ib._, p. 51=99.
[288] _Ib._, p. 466=21, p. 356 f.
[289] _Ib._
[290] _Ib._, 6, p. 58=16², p. 108 (1519).
[291] June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 245 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 354).
[292] To Sebastian Weller at Mansfeld, July 26, 1543, Erl. ed., 56, p.
lviii.
[293] To Count Wolfgang von Gleichen, March 9, 1543, _ib._, p. 57.
[294] _Ib._, 45, p. 7.
[295] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. “The properties have risen. Where
formerly an estate was worth one hundred florins it is now worth quite
three; _qui ante potuit dare 5, potest nunc dare 6 vel septem_.”
[296] Erl. ed., 23, pp. 286, 338. In the above letter to Sebastian Weller
he declares (p. lviii) that, in his epistle to the parsons, he had only
spoken “of _mutuum_ and _datum_.”
[297] _Ib._, p. 289.
[298] _Ib._, p. 298.
[299] _Ib._, p. 289.
[300] _Ib._, p. 296. Very mild indeed are the directions he gives in his
letter to the town-council of Dantzig on the charging of interest (May
5 (?), 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 296, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 165):
“The Gospel is a spiritual rule by which no government can act.… The
spiritual rule of the Gospel must be carefully distinguished from the
outward, secular rule and on no account be confused with it. The Gospel
rule the preacher must urge only by word of mouth and each one be left
free in this matter; whoever wishes to take it, let him do so, whoever
does not, let him leave it alone. I will give an example: the charging of
interest is altogether at variance with the Gospel since Christ teaches
‘lend hoping for nothing.’ But we must not rush in here and suddenly
put an end to all dissensions in accordance with the Gospel. No one has
the right or the power to do this, for it has arisen out of human laws
which St. Peter does not wish abrogated; but it is to be preached and
the interest paid to those to whom it is due, whether they are willing
to accept this Gospel and to surrender the interest or not. We cannot
take them any further than this, for the Gospel demands willing hearts,
moved by the Spirit of God.” The letter seems also to be aimed at the
fanatics, whose violent action in opposing the charging of interest as
un-Evangelical, Luther frowned on.
[301] “Luthers Theol. in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung,” 2², 1901, p. 328.
[302] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 331, quotes G. Schmoller (“Zur Gesch. der
nationalökonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland während der Reformperiode,”
in the “Zeitschr. f. die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,” 16).
[303] From the Munich Kreisarchiv, in B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. kath.
Theol.,” 1905, 29, p. 180.
[304] Duhr, _ib._, 1908, 32, p. 609. Cp. 1900, 24, pp. 208 f., 210, on
Eck.
[305] G. Scherer, “Drey unterschiedliche Predigten vom Geitz,” etc.,
Ingolstadt, 1605, p. 57 f.
[306] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158. “Vitæ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5.
See above, vol. i., p. 17.
[307] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p.
158: “_Totus stupebam et cohorrescebam.… Tanta maiestas (Dei)_,” etc.;
Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 89: “I thought of fleeing from the altar
… so terrified was I,” etc. (1532); Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186:
“_fere mortuus essem_”; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 119; 3, p. 169;
“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400. See above, vol. i., p. 15 f.
[308] Erl. ed., 58, p. 140; cp. 60, p. 129. Of his “_territus_” we hear
also from Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95, and “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2,
p. 292.
[309] See above, vol. i., p. 16 f.
[310] Mainz, 1549, Bl. B. 8a. The book was written in Latin in 1533.
[311] “Acta Lutheri,” p. 1.
[312] What Denifle urges to the contrary (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p.
726, n. 2) is not convincing.
[313] Cp. Kawerau, “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, p. 447: “What anguish of
soul he went through in the monastery is related by himself as early as
1518 in the touching account contained in the ‘Resolutiones’ to his 95
Theses.”
[314] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 30.
[315] See above, vol. i., p. 381 f.
[316] Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 180 _sq._
[317] See above, vol. ii., p. 170.
[318] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 29, 1904, p. 303
ff.), p. 305.
[319] To Spalatin, Jan. 13, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 12: “_me subito
sanguinis coagulo circum præcordia angustiatum pœneque exanimatum
fuisse_.”
[320] Cp. vol. v., p. 333, above, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.
[321] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 1, p. 104 ff.; also
“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 _sqq._ Cp. Bugenhagen’s account in his
“Briefe,” ed. Vogt, p. 64 ff.
[322] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 109: “_in illis undis
tentationum_.” Cp. above, vol. v., pp. 334, 339.
[323] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 200, where we read (under Dec.
19, 1536): “_Eo die Lutherus magno paroxysmo angustia circa pectus
decubuit_.” The dates given in the Table-Talk are not as a rule
altogether reliable, but here they may be trusted because they happen to
coincide with a portent in the sky looked upon as a bad omen.
[324] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 622 f.
[325] We may here call attention to what will be said in the next chapter
concerning similar phenomena in Luther’s early days. This chapter, no
less than the present one, is important for forming a just opinion on
Luther’s pathological dispositions.
[326] To Johann Hess at Breslau, Jan. 31, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 50.
[327] To Johann Agricola, Feb. 1, 1529, _ib._, p. 51.
[328] Enders, _ib._, p. 54, n. 3.
[329] To Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, Feb. 13, 1529, _ib._, p. 53.
[330] To the same, March 3, 1529, _ib._, p. 61: “_fere assidue cogor
sanus ægrotare_.”
[331] To Melanchthon, Aug. 1, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 162: “_ut neque
tuto legere litteras possim neque lucem ferre_”—common symptoms of
neurasthenia.
[332] _Ib._
[333] Aug. 3, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 166. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 346.
[334] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, Oct. 2, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 196
(“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).
[335] Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 313.
[336] Dietrich’s Latin account, ed. Seidemann, “Sachs. Kirchen- und
Schulblatt,” 1876, p. 355. Cp. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p.
71; Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 264; Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p.
314.
[337] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 125.
[338] To Melanchthon, April 12, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 300.
[339] _Ib._
[340] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, pp. 189, 223, 226.
[341] Cp. above vol. v., pp. 107-16, and vol. iv., p. 284 ff.
[342] See vol. ii., p. 163, n. 3.
[343] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.
[344] On uric acid and gout as the explanation of all his bodily
troubles, see below, xxxvi. 5.
[345] Cp. above, vol. v., 333 ff.
[346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.
[347] For the different passages quoted cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil,
2, p. 315: Other temptations were nothing compared with this interior
“_angelus Sathanæ colaphizans_, σκόλοψ,” where a man is nailed to the
gibbet. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 53: “_Ego vertigine seu capite hactenus
laboravi, præter ea quæ angelus Sathanæ operatur. Tu ora pro me Deum,
ut confortet me in fide et verbo suo_” (to N. Hausmann, Feb. 13, 1529).
The “sting of the flesh” was not in his case, as has been asserted, the
result of nervousness, but an intellectual temptation to waver in the
“faith” he preached, and to doubt of the “Word.”
[348] Cp. the numerous statements of contemporaries who were unable to
explain Luther’s uncanny behaviour, his “infernal outbreaks of fury” and
morbid hatred of the Pope (above, vol. v., p. 232 f.), otherwise than by
supposing him to be possessed or mad (vol. iv., p. 351 ff.).
[349] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.
[350] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Staupitz: “_dicebat, se
nunquam sensisse_.”
[351] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.
[352] See vol. i., pp. 120 ff., 223 ff., 269 ff.
[353] Weim. ed., 18, p. 633; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 154.
[354] Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.
[355] July 16, 1517, _ib._, p. 102.
[356] Oct. 26, 1516, _ib._, p. 67: “_præter proprias tentationes cum
carne, mundo et diabolo_.” Cp. above, vol. i., p. 275.
[357] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.
[358] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.
[359] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 166 ff., and, in particular, pp. 230-40.
[360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 50: “_illos horrores contra Deum_,”
etc., March 29, 1538.
[361] June 4, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 207.
[362] (In Sep.?) 1516, _ib._, p. 55.
[363] May 18, 1517, _ib._, p. 100.
[364] March 1, 1517, _ib._, p. 88.
[365] Nov. 11, 1517, _ib._, p. 124.
[366] Luther wrote this about the time of the “Tower incident” (above,
vol. i., p. 377 ff.), when engaged in wrestling after “certainty.”
[367] Weim. ed., 5, p. 165. Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die KG.,” I, 1
(1900), p. 260.
[368] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 203; Köhler, _ib._, p. 259.
[369] Erl. ed., 10², p. 67.
[370] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 70.
[371] Weim. ed., 9, p. 215; Erl. ed., 16², p. 52, in the first
non-expurgated form of the sermon (cp. above, vol. ii., p. 148).
[372] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.
[373] Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431. For “_titillatio_” see
vol. ii., p. 94.
[374] To Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. An
attempt has been made to deprive the word _libido_ of the sense it
always has with Luther (cp. 1st Comm. on Galatians, 1519, and the later
Commentary of 1531). It was alleged to mean “nothing more than an unusual
desire for food and drink”; in the same way the word “flesh” was taken
merely as the antithesis of “spirit,” i.e. the Holy Ghost!
[375] _Ib._, p. 193: “_peccatis immergor in hac solitudine_.”
[376] Aug. 3, 1521, _ib._, p. 213.
[377] To Nicholas Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, _ib._, p. 240.
[378] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1521, _ib._, p. 247 f.
[379] _Ib._
[380] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9.
[381] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55. Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 81.
[382] “Myconii Historia reformationis,” ed. E. S. Cyprianus, p. 42.
[383] “Ratzebergers Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 54.
[384] “Hist.,” Bl., 196.
[385] _Ib._
[386] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 440.
[387] Erl. ed., 59, p. 340 f.
[388] “Tagebuch,” p. 293.
[389] Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.
[390] _Ib._
[391] Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.
[392] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 85, where Lœsche remarks that the Gotha
Codex 263, 122 proved this by an instance taken from Luther’s life. Cp.
also Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.
[393] Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.
[394] _Ib._, 57, p. 65.
[395] _Ib._, 60, p. 108.
[396] _Ib._, 58, p. 128 f. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 286 f.
[397] In Aurifaber’s edition, 1568, Bl. 91, 92. Stangwald, who as a rule
eliminates, as he assures us, all that was not Luther’s very own, has
retained it in his edition of the Table-Talk (1571); likewise Selnecker
(1577). For this reason we also find it in Förstemann’s 1st ed., 1844, p.
400. It is not given in the Latin Table-Talk, but, as a comparison with
Bindseil’s “Tabellen,” 3, p. 471, shows, we miss in the Latin a whole
number of unquestionably authentic Luther conversations occurring in the
German editions. It is to be found in “Werke,” Erl.
[398] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 517.
[399] Erl. ed., 58, p. 128.
[400] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 72.
[401] _Ib._, p. 71.
[402] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532. The
passage commences: “_Tanta spectra vidi_,” seemingly referring to the
ghosts at the Wartburg.
[403] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.
[404] Erl. ed., 58, p. 4.
[405] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface dating from 1545.
[406] See below, p. 142 ff.
[407] “_Fui (dignus), cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur,
ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem._” Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81, n. From
Khummer’s “Tagebuch.” Reference to some external apparition is not
excluded.
[408] See above, p. 125.
[409] Cp. above, p. 117, etc.
[410] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 42. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p.
95.
[411] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.
[412] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 95. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 305.
[413] From the MS. quoted by Kawerau, “Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissenschaft
und kirchl. Leben,” 1, 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers
Krankengesch.,” p. 67 f.
[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., on the German Bible, 3, p. xlii. Risch, “N.
kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 80.
[415] Above, p. 123.
[416] “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 310.
[417] Alber Erasm., Dialogus vom Interim, 1548, Bl. B. III. Cp.
Seidemann, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1876, p. 564 f.
[418] Above, p. 123 f.
[419] C. F. Kahnis, “Die deutsche Reformation,” 1, 1872, p. 142.
[420] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed. 21, Suppl., p. 325.*
[421] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 133.
[422] Ratzeberger, _ib._
[423] To Cath. Bora, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 786. Cp. the letter of
Feb. 7 to the same, _ib._, 5, p. 787: “I think that hell and the whole
world must be empty of devils who have all forgathered here at Eisleben
on my account; so great are the difficulties.”
[424] “Fünf Briefen aus den letzten Tagen Luthers,” ed. Kawerau (”Stud.
und Krit.,“ 54, 1881, p. 160 ff.), p. 162: “_Ut video, Sathan nates
videndas porrigit mihi et ultro derisum adest (addit?)_”; after this,
adds Friedrich, the way was paved for some sort of reconciliation.
[425] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 773:
“_Satanica sunt hæc, sed Deus, quem rident, ridebit eos suo tempore_.”
Cp. also vol. v., _passim_.
[426] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 113. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73.
[427] p. 193 ff.
[428] _Ib._, p. 200.
[429] Erl. ed., 31, p. 311.
[430] To Nich. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363.
[431] Cp. G. Koffmane, “Handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,”
1907. See above, vol. iv., p. 520 f.
[432] This was the view taken, e.g. by Fr. Balduinus, who published a
work at Eisleben in 1605 against the unfortunate attempt of the learned
Jesuit, Nicholas Serarius, to uphold the reality of the dialogue with the
devil. According to Balduinus it was really a “_gravissima tentatio beati
Lutheri_,” by which the devil sought to reduce him to despair.
[433] Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Dec. 14, 1531.
[434] _Ib._, p. 89, in May, 1532, thus only a few months after the above
statement.
[435] Seb. Fröschel, “Von den heiligen Engeln, vom Teuffel und des
Menschen Seele. Drey Sermon,” Wittenberg, 1563, Bl. L2 to Bl. 4a.—Friedr.
Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten waren
Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, p. 154´.
[436] “Whereupon Luther became even more anxious and alarmed.… It was
wonderful to see how he ran about the sacristy meanwhile, wringing his
hands for very fear.”
[437] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. xxiv., where the exorcism is
transposed to Jan. 18(19).—_Ib._, p. 772, Luther relates how he had cured
the madness (“_mania_”) of a “melancholy” person who had been subjected
by the devil to this “temptation,” and also explains how blessings were
to be given.
[438] See above, vol. v., p. 240 f.
[439] To Bora, July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 107.
[440] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 138-40.
[441] Luther to Ebert, Aug. 5, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 21.
[442] Kirchhoff is alluding to the case of the “changelings” mentioned
above, vol. v., p. 292. It is true Luther did not regard them as human
beings.
[443] “Allg. Zeitschr. für Psychiatrie,” 44, 1888, p. 329 ff.—For
Luther’s view of the insane as possessed, see above, vol. v., p. 281.
[444] See above, p. 128, n. 7.
[445] Vol. i., p. 391.
[446] Above, vol. v., p. 322.
[447] Above, vol. v., p. 226 ff.
[448] Erl. ed., 9², p. 358 f.
[449] See above, vol. i., p. 391 ff.
[450] Above, vol. i., p. 398.
[451] Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296, end of Feb.,
1522). Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 111.
[452] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 106 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 143 f.
[453] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81; above, p. 128, n. 7.
[454] Above, vol. iv., p. 258.
[455] 1 Cor. xiv. 30. The passage, however, refers to the “charismata” of
the early Church and sets up no sort of standard for judging of doctrine
in later times.
[456] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 175 f. Greving, p. 18 f. Cp. Steph. Ehses,
“Röm. Quartalschrift,” 12, 1898, p. 456, on M. Spahn, “Cochlæus,” p.
81, who criticises Cochlæus unfavourably because he demanded signs and
wonders from Luther.
[457] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211, from notes taken at
the time.
[458] Jonas, i., 2: “_Surrexit Ionas, ut fugeret a facie Domini_.”
[459] “Werke,” _ib._, pp. 11=214.
[460] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40; Erl. ed., 28, p. 316 in the revision
of the above Wittenberg sermon entitled: “Von beider Gestallt des
Sacramentes zu nehmen.”
[461] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391: “_Certus
sum, dogmata mea habere me de cœlo_” (against Henry VIII).
[462] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 496; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23: “_revelatione
divina ad hoc vocatus_.”
[463] Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. The passage is from the Wolfenbüttel MS.,
which reproduces Rörer’s Notes (revised, possibly, by Flacius). In
another set of Notes Luther speaks here of his doctrine as “_evangelium
veritatis_.”—Cp. vol. iv., p. 408: “_not without a revelation_ of the
Holy Ghost.”
[464] Weim. ed., 32, p. 477; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.
[465] Note in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81.
[466] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 169: “_Deus revelavit in
hoc schola verbum suum. Quicumque nos fugiunt et sugillant nos clanculum,
ii defecerunt a fide_,” etc. In 1540.
[467] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 _sq._; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.
Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211.
[468] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 363* f. Seckendorf,
“Commentaria de Lutheranismo,” gives the passage as follows: “_Ionas sæpe
eum dixisse memorat, se nemini mortalium aperturum esse_, etc., _fore
autem ut in die novissimo innotescant, sicut et revelationes egregiæ,
quæ sub initium doctrinæ habuerit et nemini detexerit_” (Lips., 1694,
lib. 3, sect. 36, p. 647). Bugenhagen says in his funeral oration (Walch,
21, p. 329*), that God the Father had revealed His Son through Luther,
whilst Melanchthon goes so far as to boast that the latter had received
his doctrine, not from “human sagacity,” but that God had revealed it to
him (see “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 _sq._, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 625).
The expression that Luther’s gospel had been “revealed” became quite
usual, as we see from the heading of a chapter in the Latin “Colloquia,”
entitled: “_Occasio et cursus evangelii revelati_” (ed. Bindseil, 3,
p. 178).—Just as Luther asserted he was reforming the Church, “_divina
auctoritate_” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 16), so Calvin, too,
claimed to derive his ministry of the Word (which differed from that of
Luther in so many points) from Christ. Zwingli did the same, and his
followers cared but little for Luther’s claim to the contrary.
[469] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.
[470] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 23=28, p. 298.
[471] P. 40=316.
[472] _Ib._
[473] P. 23=298; op. Gal. i. 28.
[474] Paul forbade his disciples to say: “_Ego sum Pauli_,” and asked:
“_Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis?_” (1 Cor. i. 12 _sq._).
[475] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 363 ff.
[476] In Casel’s account, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.
[477] Weim. ed.; 25, p. 120; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, p. 93 _sq._
[478] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49; cp. above, vol. v., p. 352. Above,
vol. v., pp. 339 f., 319, 328. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176.
[479] Above, vol. v., p. 327 f.
[480] Weim. ed., 5, p. 385. “Operationes in Psalmos,” 1519-21.
[481] Erl. ed., 38, p. 225.
[482] _Ib._, p. 221.
[483] See vol. iv., p. 222.
[484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53; cp. Erl. ed., 49, p. 91, on John
xiv.-xv.
[485] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 181 _sq._ Enarr. ps. cxxx.; cp. Weim.
ed., 1, p. 206 ff.; Erl. ed., 37, p. 420 ff.
[486] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27 f.
[487] On Marcus, cp. Weim. ed., 61, pp. 1, 73.
[488] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 377 f., 371 f., and, with regard to Campanus, p.
378.
[489] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 28.
[490] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362. “De servo
arbitrio.” See vol. ii., p. 276.
[491] To the Elector Augustus of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766:
“_Stoica et manichæa deliria_.” Cp. vol. v., p. 258.
[492] _Ib._, 24, p. 375; cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im
16. Jahrb.,” p. 81.
[493] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 45, 75 f., 125 f.
[494] On his discovery of Antichrist see above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff. He
reached it amidst strange fears: “_Ego sic angor_,” etc. To Spalatin,
Feb. 24, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332. On the thoughts of Satan see
the letter to Egranus of March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173:
“_Nisi cogitationes Satanæ scirem, mirarer quo furore ille [Eccius]
amicitias solveret_,” etc.
[495] Vol. iii., p. 149 ff.
[496] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 301.
[497] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 176-311.
[498] Cp. his statement in Schlaginhaufen’s Table-Talk, p. 56:
“_Adversariorum verbi natura non est humana, sed plane diabolica_” (1532).
[499] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 404 f. (Jan., 1537), with reference to
Dan. xi. 36; xii. 1. The “_Sic volo_,” etc., from Juvenal, “Sat.,” 6,
223, he applies to himself, above, vol. v., p. 517.
[500] Mathesius, _ib._, p. 293. In 1542-3. The picture given at the
beginning of this portion of the Table-Talk of how Luther the “monk”
and Catherine the “nun” seated at table after dinner raise the cross
hand-in-hand against Antichrist and say: “_Post scripturam non habemus
firmius argumentum quam crucem!_” speaks volumes for their infatuation.
[501] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410, in a sermon of Nov. 1, 1531.
[502] Erl. ed., 63, p. 276. On his abnormal hatred see vol. iv., p. 300 f.
[503] _Ib._
[504] To Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461.
[505] Cp. vol. iv., p. 95 f. My belief that in the passage in question
in Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of Aug. 28, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8,
p. 235), the word “_mendacia_” should be read after “_dolos_” as in the
oldest Protestant editions, has since received confirmation from P.
Sinthern in the “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1912, p. 180 ff., where the
quotations from Johann Lorenz Doller, “Luthers katholisches Monument,”
Frankfurt-am-Main, 1817, p. 309 ff., are set forth in their true light.
[506] Erl. ed., 25², p. 425.
[507] Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.
[508] Vol. iv., p. 304.
[509] See vol. iv., p. 327 ff., and the remark of Harnack, _ib._, p. 340
f.: “Either he suffered from the mania of greatness or his self-reliance
really corresponded with his task and achievements.”
[510] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 210.
[511] _Ib._, p. 308 (1540). Cp. above, vol. v., p. 241 ff.
[512] To Lang: “_Sitne libellus meus [De captivitate babylonica] tam
atrox et ferox tu videris et alii omnes. Libertate et impetu fateor
plenus est, multis tamen placet, nec aulæ nostræ penitus displicet.
Ego de me in his rebus nihil statuere possum. Forte ego præcursor sum
Philippi [Melanchthonis], cui exemplo Heliæ viam parem in spiritu et
virtute, conturbaturus Israel et Achabitas ~[cp. 1 Kings xviii. 17]~
oratione itaque opus erit, si quid peccatum est._” A little later he
says of Antichrist: “_Odi ego ex corde hominem illum peccati et filium
perditionis ~[2 Thes. ii. 3]~ cum universo suo imperio._”
[513] In Casel’s report (Nov. 29, 1525), Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.
[514] To Lang, Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.
[515] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 6.
[516] Erl. ed., 57, p. 73. “Tischreden,” ed. Aurifaber, Eisleben, 1566,
pp. 18 and 18´.
[517] Above, vol. iii., p. 121.
[518] Erl. ed., 65, p. 62, preface to his translation of Jeremias.
[519] See below, xxxviii, 1.
[520] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 169.
[521] Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.
[522] _Ib._, p. 473=265.
[523] Cp. Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” pp. 45 and 51.
[524] See above, vol. iii., p. 159 ff. On the nun Florentina.
[525] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 92: “_Articulus remissionis
peccatorum est in omnibus creaturis_” (a. 1532). Cp. p. 139: “_Deus in
omnibus officiis, statibus intromisit remissionem peccatorum_,” etc.
[526] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201 (Khummer): “_Melanthon retulit,
Lutherum sæpe dixisse, articulum de remissione peccatorum esse
fundamentum, unde exstruatur articulus de creatione_.”
[527] Erl. ed., 58, p. 390.
[528] See vol. iii., p. 195 ff.
[529] See above, vol. v., p. 517.
[530] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 585; vol. iv., pp. 331, 343; vol. ii., p.
294.
[531] Weim. ed., 26, p. 531; Erl. ed., 63, p. 273 (1528).
[532] _Ib._, p. 530=272.
[533] See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.
[534] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129 f.: “Break out at once into abuse,
particularly if the devil attacks you with justification! He frequently
assails me with an argument that is not worth a snap, but in the turmoil
and temptation I do not notice this; but when I have recovered I see it
plainly.”
[535] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.
[536] To Chancellor Brück, Jan. 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282.
[537] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129.
[538] To Melanchthon, Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 166: “My head
is indeed obstinate as you fellows say.”
[539] Paul Pietsch, in the preface (p. xxi. f.) to vol. 32 of the Weim.
ed.: “His annoyance and his tendency to see only the darker side of
things show plainly enough … that Luther was suffering from that deep
depression to which great men are sometimes liable. In later life, for
instance in 1544, this depression again overtook Luther, and he even
resolved to quit Wittenberg, and it was only with difficulty that he was
dissuaded from doing so. In 1545 again something similar occurred. Yet in
1544 and 1545 his discouragement had again no real cause.”
[540] Cp. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.” (Lit. Beil.), 1906, p. 355, on vol.
32 of the Weimar edition.
[541] To Link, Dec. 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.
[542] “_Si quid hic iocis aut conviciis excedit._”
[543] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 67 ff.
[544] We remember having recently read in a review, that many, at the
present day, consider “mental aberration an indispensable condition of
mental greatness.”
[545] “_Si hæc a febricitante dicerentur, quid dici possit insanius!_”
“_Opp._,” 10, col. 1282, in 1526.
[546] The passages are given in Latin above, vol. iv., p. 353, n. 3.
[547] Cp. above, vol. ii., pp. 267 and 274; cp. also below, what Hausrath
and Möbius say. The expression “abnormal state of temper” is used by
W. Köhler in the “Theol. Literaturbericht,” vol. 23 (1903), p. 499.
Elsewhere he calls Luther “the most paradoxical figure imaginable, who
speaks differently to every hearer” (_ib._, vol. 24, 1904, p. 517).—See
also Döllinger (“Kirchenlexikon,”[2] art. “Luther,” col. 344), and
Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 48, 1873 ed., p. 423. U. Berlière, O.S.B., recently
remarked: “Une étude psychologique de Luther ne peut être séparée de
son histoire ni de l’évolution de sa vie intérieure, encore moins de
son état pathologique.… Cette étude n’est pas encore achevée” (“Revue
bénédictine,” 1906, p. 630 f.).
[548] See Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 27.
[549] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 383. Cp. also the remarks on the next page,
n. 2.
[550] In the art. “Luthers Bekehrung” (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,” 6, 1896), p.
193.
[551] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1905, p. 109 f. The author speaks of the
“secret sufferings of soul” which did not, however, interfere with the
thoroughness of his work (p. 110); incidentally, in exoneration of the
violence of Luther’s writings against Zwingli, he urges that Luther wrote
it “at a time of great depression, which he even wished his opponents
might endure for but a quarter of an hour to see if it would not convert
them” (2, p. 213). At the Wartburg “his mental suffering returned, as
it always did when he remained for any length of time without outward
stimulus or active intercourse with the outside world” (1, p. 475). In
the supplement to his unaltered 2nd edition Hausrath deals with the
objections raised against his “pathological” view though he considerably
modifies his wordings (1, p. 573 ff.).
[552] On Ebstein see below, p. 176 f. Ebstein’s is an improvement on
Küchenmeister, “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankengesch.,” Leipzig, 1881.
Küchenmeister did not do justice to the historical material and always
quotes at second hand. Th. Kolde rightly speaks of his work as a “book
that had better not have been written” (“Anal. Lutherana,” p. 50). He
also thinks Berkhan’s treatment of the subject (_ib._, p. 51) “of small
value.”
[553] “Deutsch-evangelische Bl.,” 29, Halle, 1904, p. 303 ff.
[554] See above, p. 109 ff.
[555] P. 316.
[556] “Archiv f. Psychiatrie,” 11, Berlin, 1880-1, p. 798 ff.
[557] P. 799. Cp. above, p. 100 ff.
[558] Möbius proceeds on the principle that “in each of us what is
healthy is mixed with what is morbid and the more anyone rises above
the average, the further he departs from the normal.” “The pathological
element is part of every eminent man.” This, according to Möbius, is
particularly the case with the genius. Hence, in his studies, it is
his aim to show how psychiatry “may be used for appreciating great
men.” Möbius intended to deal in detail with the pathology of Luther
but was prevented by death from carrying out his plan. In his study
on Schopenhauer (“Ausgewählte Werke,” Bd. 4)—who according to him
was certainly not insane in the ordinary sense—he says: “I consider
Schopenhauer one of the best instances to prove that it is only pathology
which teaches us rightly to understand great writers and their works.…
Schopenhauer became the philosopher of pessimism because, from the
beginning, he was a sickly man. It was not the recognition of the evils
in the world that made him take this line, but he deliberately sought out
and described the evils because he needed to vindicate his own pessimism.
He had displayed the latter even as a boy, having inherited it from his
father, and his morbid disposition influenced his whole mode of thought.”
[559] In “Schmidts Jahrb. der in- und ausländischen gesamten Medizin,”
ed. P. J. Möbius and H. Doppe, 288, Leipzig, 1905, Hft. 12, Dec., p. 264
in the notice of my articles “Ein Grundproblem aus Luthers Seelenleben,”
in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” Lit. Beilage, 1905, Nos. 40 and 41.
[560] [Above, p. 173.]
[561] [Emil Kraepelin, “Psychiatrie, Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und
Ärzte,”⁶ Leipzig, 1899, Cap. ix.: “Das manisch-depressive Irresein,” pp.
359-425.]
[562] “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankheiten und deren Einfluss auf seinen
körperlichen und geistigen Zustand,” Stuttgart, 1908.
[563] Pp. 7, 64.
[564] Pp. 45 ff., 56 ff.
[565] Pp. 62, 10, 63 f., 60, 55, 54, 64.
[566] This Ebstein admits (p. 44), though he argues that the “seizures in
the joints” of which Luther complains must have had a gouty origin.
[567] _Ib._, p. 40. But cp. above, p. 110 f.
[568] Cp. in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 191, for the proofs in support
of this letter quoted by Enders from Kawerau.
[569] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.
[570] Ebstein, _ib._, p. 44.
[571] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 691 f.
[572] Pp. 49, 53.
[573] P. 55 f.
[574] P. 56.
[575] P. 12.
[576] P. 62.
[577] P. 10.
[578] P. 44 f.
[579] “Luther auf dem Standpunkt der Psychiatrie beurteilt,” Wien, 1874.
Bruno Schön declares that Luther was “in part excused by the fact that
he was deranged” (p. 3); this derangement Luther contrived to explain
away by laying it all down to the devil, whom he had seen in actual
hallucinations (p. 9); he had regarded all his opponents as fools,
just as the inmates of an asylum look upon all others as fools and on
themselves as perfectly sane (p. 28), etc.
[580] “Grundriss einer Gesch. der deutschen Irrenpflege,” 1890, p. 76.
[581] “Antwort auf das Sendschreiben,”³ Sulzbach, 1817, p. 70 ff.
[582] See the 2nd ed. of this writing, bearing the same title as the
1st, “Seitenstück zur Weisheit Luthers.” The 1st ed. is weaker in its
animadversions than the 2nd.
[583] P. 188.
[584] See above, vol. i., p. 16.
[585] “Zeitschr. des Harzvereins,” 39, 1906, p. 191 ff. It cannot be
proved from the records that the second Hans Luther had been guilty of
actual manslaughter. Hence in vol. i., it was not necessary to point out
that the manslaughter of which Wicel accuses Martin Luther’s father,
repeating his accusation most emphatically in public writings without its
being called into question by Luther, cannot be placed to the account
of the second Hans with any semblance of likelihood (though it has been
done, cp. “Luther-Kalender,” 1910, p. 76 f). Wicel came to Eisleben in
1533, thus only a few years after the father’s death, and was able to
assure himself of the facts, concerning which there was not likely to be
any mistake owing to Martin Luther’s celebrity at that time.
[586] Aug. Cramer, “Die Nervosität,” Jena, 1906.
[587] “Grundriss der Psychiatrie,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 104.
[588] _Ib._, p. 141 f.
[589] “Monatsschr. für Psychiatrie,” Berlin, 1907, p. 230.
[590] _Ib._, p. 236.
[591] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.
[592] _Ib._, p. 432 f.
[593] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169.
[594] _Ib._, (from Rebenstock).
[595] _Ib._, p. 175.
[596] _Ib._, p. 170.
[597] _Ib._
[598] Erl. ed., 31, p. 257.
[599] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.
[600] _Ib._, p. 188: “… _et D. Staupitius me incitabat contra papam_.”
[601] _Ib._, p. 176.
[602] See above, vol. i., pp. 104 ff., 184 ff., 303 ff., where his
theological attitude previous to the indulgence theses is discussed. It
is taken for granted that the account of his development given in vol. i.
is already known to the reader. The fictions have already been discounted
in vol. i., p. 20 f. and p. 110 f.
[603] “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung” (“Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen-
und dogmengesch. Quellenschriften,” 2, Reihe 9. Hft.), 1911, p. 11 ff.
[604] Luther’s untrustworthiness here, where it is a question of his
polemics, does not render untrue certain other data of a non-polemical
character and otherwise supported. This is the case, e.g. with the date
given above when the meaning of Rom. i. 17 first dawned upon him; this
happens to agree with the facts. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.
[605] Erl. ed., 63, p. 405, in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.
[606] See vol. iii., p. 153 ff. Cp. “Werke,” _ib._, p. 370, in a preface
of 1531, where, referring to the “many and great miracles,” he makes no
distinction between Evangel and Gospel.
[607] _Ib._, p. 373 (1542).
[608] _Ib._, p. 400 in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.
[609] _Ib._, p. 328.
[610] _Ib._, p. 295 (1530).
[611] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.
[612] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” p. 219.
[613] “Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft. 100, 1910, p. 14.—Cp. K. A.
Meissinger, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 362, n. 2.
[614] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.
[615] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.
[616] Weim. ed., 33, p. 431 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 201.
[617] _Ib._, 49, p. 118.
[618] _Ib._, 20², 2, p. 420.
[619] “Comment. in Galat.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 138; Irmischer, 1, p.
109 _sq._
[620] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.
[621] _Ib._, 7, p. 74.
[622] Weim. ed., 33, p. 560; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306.
[623] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27. Cp. 20, 2, p. 420.
[624] Weim. ed., 33, p. 575; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.
[625] Erl. ed., 46, p. 73.
[626] At the time the present writer’s series of articles on Luther’s
intellectual development was appearing in the “Köln. Volkszeitung” (1903,
1904), Denifle’s work which also insists on the unreliable nature of the
legend (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹ 1904, pp. 389 ff., 725 f., 739 f.) was
already in print.
[627] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183.
[628] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 123 (1545).
[629] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300. Comm. on John xiv.-xvi., of 1537.
[630] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 72. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c.a. 1541.
[631] _Ib._, 5, p. 267, a. 1539.
[632] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27 (1537).
[633] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. Comm. on John
vi.-viii., 1531.
[634] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273. “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes
Buch,” 1533.
[635] Comment. in Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 107.
Cp. p. 138=p. 109. The passage was only introduced by Luther in the 1538
ed., a fact remarkable for the history of the legend.
[636] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.
[637] Comment. in Galat. ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 20, 1535.
[638] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enar. in ps. 45, a. 1532.
[639] See above, p. 126.
[640] See above, p. 150.
[641] Erl. ed. 58, p. 377.
[642] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 401. Enarr. in Is. (1543).
[643] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137; Irmischer, 1, p. 109, of
1535.
[644] Erl. ed. 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.
[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36. From Khummer, no date, but a late
utterance.
[646] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23, preface to the Latin works (1545).
[647] N. Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 ff.
[648] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100 (1532).
[649] To Bugenhagen (1532), preface to the latter’s edition of
Athanasius, “De trinitate,” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 (“Briefwechsel,”
9, p. 252).
[650] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410 (1531). In the text, for “_deinde
quando_,” read “_deinde quanto_.” A second hasty report, _ib._, gives the
passage in this form: “_Multos scio, et ego unus fui, quando confessus_
and clean _et dixi orationes meas_, I came to the altar it was all not
worth a straw; _vocabam presbyterum, et quando absolutio_ had been
pronounced _et missa perfecta [erat], tum certus ut antea [eram]_ and as
much at peace with God _ut antea_, …” Of the Last Day: “_Ego non libenter
audiebam istum diem_.”
[651] Above, vol. i., p. 290 f.
[652] Ericeus, “Sylvula,” l. c.
[653] G. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers 1537-1540,” 1905, p. 61
f. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. x., n.
[654] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 122 (1532).
[655] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.
[656] _Ib._, p. 154, from the same sermon.
[657] _Ib._, 31, p. 279. “Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.”
[658] Dr. Kirchhoff, “Zeitschr. f. Psychiatrie,” vol. 44, 1888, p. 376.
[659] Cp. previous volumes, _passim_, particularly vol. iv., pp. 120-31.
[660] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182. See above, p. 192.
[661] Erl. ed., 14², p. 342.
[662] Comment. in ep. ad Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137. Irmischer, 1,
p. 109.
[663] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.
[664] _Ib._, 49, p. 27.
[665] _Ib._, 45, p. 156 f.
[666] _Ib._
[667] _Ib._, 14², p. 185.
[668] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 10, p. 232.
[669] _Ib._, 19, p. 100.
[670] See above, vol. i., p. 278.
[671] Cp. apart from the “Dicta Melanchthoniana” (ed. Waltz, “Zeitschr.
f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.), p. 330:—“_diebus Sabbati, cum esset vacuus
a concionibus_,” etc., “_initio evangelii—_” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil,
where the same thing is related no less than three times: 1, p. 67; 1, p.
198; 3, p. 279, the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 59, pp. 10 and 21, and
Ericeus, “Sylvula Sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 _sq._
[672] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.
[673] _Ib._, 49, p. 315.
[674] Aquinas, “Summa theol.,” 3, q. 40, a. 2 ad 1. In ep. ad Tim. c. 4,
lect. 2. “Summa theol.,” 2, 2, q. 88, a, 2 ad 3. Denifle, _ib._, 1², p.
365 f., where other quotations are given from Thomas and the mediæval
theologians.—Cp. the wholesome teaching of the “Imitation”—already widely
read in Luther’s day—on the value of outward works compared with interior
virtue and charity (Bk. II., cap. 1): “_Regnum Dei intra vos est, dicit
Dominus_,” are the words with which it begins. Bk. I., c. 19: “_Multo
plus debet esse intus quam quod cernitur foris_,” and, again: “_Iustorum
propositum in gratia Dei potius quam in propria sapientia pendet_,” etc.
On the need of discretion see _ib._, 3, c. 7.
[675] “De non esu carnium ap. Carthus.,” “Opp.,” 2, pp. 723, 729.
Denifle, _ib._, p. 370.
[676] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 49.
[677] See above, vol. i., p. 80 ff.
[678] Weim. ed., 4, p. 626. Denifle, 1², p. 376 f.
[679] _Ib._, 6, p. 246; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180. Denifle, 1², p. 377 f.
[680] Weim. ed., 37, p. 661. Sermon of Feb. 1, 1534.
[681] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enarr. in ps. 45. Jan., 1532.
[682] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. In the Comment. on
John vi.-viii., 27 Oct., 1531.
[683] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300 (1537): “I myself must testify from my own
experience: After having been a pious monk _for over twenty years_.” This
reading of the sermons reported and edited by Cruciger is embodied in the
text, whereas, in the notes, it is corrected to “fifteen.”
[684] Erl. ed., 46, p. 78, Sermon of 1537.
[685] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 490: “_Fraterculus in
Christo … in angulo sepultus_,” etc.
[686] To Joh. Braun, April 22, 1507, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 1 f; “_sola et
liberalissima sua misericordia … tanta divinæ bonitatis magnificentia_.”
[687] March 17, 1509, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6.
[688] From a MS. sermon of Luther’s of 1544 at Gotha. Scheel,
“Dokumente,” p. 20.
[689] To N. Paulus is due the credit of having drawn attention in 1893
to the description given by Luther to Usingen. Hausrath in his article
“Luthers Bekehrung” in 1896 (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,”) also noted how happy
Luther had at first been in the convent. Cp. his “Leben Luthers,” 1, p.
22.
[690] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 197 (Khummer): The good old man
had taught him to commit perplexing matters of conscience “_divinæ
bonitati_.”—Preface to Bugenhagen’s edition of St. Athanasius “De
Trinitate”: “_Vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo verus
christianus_.”—Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100, on the preceptor’s
words (above, vol. i., p. 10): “_Fili quid facis, an nescis, quod
ipse Dominus iussit nos sperare?_”—Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p.
84 (Khummer): Luther’s reminiscence of the wise exhortation of his
preceptor on conversations with women (“_pauca et brevia loquatur_”).—Cp.
“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 1.
[691] See above, vol. i., p. 11.
[692] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.
[693] Flacius Illyr., “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,”
Magdeburgi (1549), pages not numbered, end of cap. xv.: “_Affirmabat
is Martinum Lutherum apud ipsos sancte vixisse, exactissime regulam
servasse et diligenter studuisse_.” Copy of this rare work in the Vienna
Hofbibliothek.
[694] On the passages in the Comm. on Rom. of 1515-16 in which he speaks
well of the religious life, see above, vol. i., p. 270.
[695] Weim. ed., 2, p. 736; Erl. ed., 21, p. 242. Denifle, 1², p. 39.
[696] _Ib._, 2, p. 644; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 500, and in his “Letter
to the Minorites of Jüterbogk,” May 15, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 40:
“_Media quibus facilius implentur præcepta_.” Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 36.
[697] Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 226.
[698] Above, vol. ii., p. 181 ff.
[699] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183: “_in gloriam Dei et confusionem
sathanæ_.”
[700] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “_etiam in complexus veni coniugis_,”
etc. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See above, vol. v., p. 354;
vol. iii., p. 175.
[701] To Nich. Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3,
p. 241: “_ut nihil iam auribus meis sonet odiosius monialis, monachi,
sacerdotis nomine et paradisum arbitrer coniugium vel summa inopia
laborans_.” Thus the monk and priest, four years before his marriage.
[702] To George Mascov, Provost of the Premonstratensian house at
Leitzkau, end of 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 76. At the close of the
letter, of which only fragments have been preserved, we read: “_Quam
maxime rogo ut pro me Dominum ores; confiteor enim tibi, quod vita mea in
dies appropinquet inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et miserior_,” which
must, of course, be understood of his moral, not his physical, condition.
The “drawing nigh to hell” is an echo of Ps. lxxxvii., which was such a
favourite of his, where we read: “_repleta est malis anima mea et vita
mea inferno appropinquavit_” (v. 3), and: “_In me transierunt iræ tuæ, et
terrores tui conturbaverunt me_” (v. 17).
[703] Above, vol. i., p. 88.
[704] To Spalatin, Dec. 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73 f., where he
begins by humbly confessing his unworthiness to receive any attention
from the Elector (“_talis tantusque princeps_”), at whose Court Spalatin
held a post.
[705] To Joh. Lang, Feb. 8, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 86. “_Quid
enim non credant, qui Aristoteli crediderunt, vera esse, quæ ipse
calumniosissimus calumniator aliis affiingit et imponit tam absurda, ut
asinus et lapis non possint tacere ad illa?_” (_ib._, p. 85).
[706] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 44, from Dietrich’s MSS.
[707] To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.
[708] “_Videbis_,” Staupitz had said, according to him, “_quod ad res
magnas gerendas te ministro (Deus) utetur. Atque ita accidit_,” Luther
goes on. “_Nam ego magnus (licet enim hoc mihi de me iure prædicare)
factus sum doctor_.” Such utterances, he continues, have in them
something of the “_oraculum et divinatio_.” Then follows the statement
quoted above concerning the other prophecy of his future greatness:
“_huius dicti sæpissime memini_,” and again he declares such words
contain “_aliquid divinationis et oraculi_.”
[709] Above, p. 102.
[710] Reprinted in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 79: “_De tua
præstantia, bonitate, eruditione creber sermo incidit_.” After having
spoken of Luther’s “_celebris fama_,” Scheurl expresses the wish “to
become his friend.” The words are simply those in common use among the
humanists.
[711] Jan. 27, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 82 ff.
[712] Weim. ed., 1, p. 30; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 57: “_Nolunt audire,
quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint.… Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam
iactant_.”
[713] “_Incurrunt inobedientiam et rebellionem._” See vol. i., p. 69.
[714] “_Hæc est lux angeli Sathanæ_” (_ib._).
[715] _Ib._, p. 53.
[716] Weim. ed., 1, p, 12; “Opp. lat. var.,” I, p. 33.
[717] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 41: “_præsulari id
est pergræcari sodomitari, romanari_.”
[718] To Spalatin, in the spring, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 91:
“_eruditio sæculi nostri ferrea, immo terrea, sive sit Græcitatis sive
Latinitatis sive Hebræitatis_.”
[719] To Lang, March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.
[720] See above, vol. i., p. 228.
[721] _Ib._, p. 70.
[722] To Nich. Hausmann at Zwickau, “Briefwechsel,” p. 144: “_Corpore
satis bene valeo, sed tot distrahor externis actibus, ut spiritus prope
extinguatur raroque sui curam habeat. Ora pro me, ne carne consummer._”
Cp. Gal. iii. 3: “_Sic stulti estis, ut quum spiritu cœperitis, nunc
carne consummemini_.”
[723] To Lang, Oct. 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67: “_raro mihi
integrum tempus est_,” etc.; above, vol. i., p. 275.
[724] To Lang, Sep. 4, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 106. Cp. vol. i., p.
313.
[725] To Chr. Scheurl, May 6, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 97: “_Sunt
paradoxa modestis et qui non ea cognoverint, sed eudoxa et calodoxa
scientibus, mihi vero aristodoxa. Benedictus Deus, qui rursum iubet de
tenebris splendescere lumen._”
[726] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31: “_sola prudentia sensus nostri causa et radix
universæ inquietudinis nostræ_.”
[727] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88: “_si nulli placerent, mihi optime
placerent_.”
[728] March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489.
[729] Vol. i., p. 391: “_furebam ita sæva et perturbata conscientia_,”
etc.
[730] Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.
[731] To Sylvius Egranus (Joh. Wildenauer), March 24, 1518,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “_Ego quo magis illi furunt, eo amplius
procedo; relinquo priora, ut in illis latrent, sequor posteriora, ut et
illa latrent_.”
[732] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 512.
[733] To Staupitz, Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 430: “_Deus
rapit, pellit, nedum ducit me; non sum compos mei, volo esse quietus et
rapior in medios tumultus_.”
[734] Above, vol. ii., p. 17.
[735] Lectures on Romans, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Scholia, p. 221.
[736] _Ib._, p. 220.
[737] _Ib._
[738] Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366. “Vom Abendmal
Bekentnis,” 1528.
[739] Melanchthon in his “Elogium” on Luther, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158:
“Vitæ Reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, p. 100.
[740] To supplement what we said in vol. i., p. 4, we may give a
passage from Rörer’s notes of the Table-Talk (ed. Kroker, in “Archiv f.
RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 346): “_Cum in monasterium intrabam et relinquebam
omnia desperans de me ipso, postulavi iterum biblia_.” _Ib._, p. 369
f. “_Causa ingrediendi monasterii fuit, quia perterrefactus tonitru,
cum despatiaretur ante civitatem Erphordiæ, votum vovit Hannæ et
fracto propemodum pede_ [? through being thrown down by the stroke of
lightning?] he entered the cloister and bound himself by vows.”
[741] Vol. i., p. 16.
[742] Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” etc., Bl. 14.
[743] “Chronik.” etc., ed. Euling, 1891, p. 30.
[744] Account published by Tschakert in “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1897,
p. 578. The passage may possibly have been influenced by Luther’s
statement above concerning his father’s words “_illusio et præstigium_.”
Cp. below, p. 224, n. 6.
[745] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 408 (in 1537).
[746] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187, related by Luther to his
friends on the feast-day of St. Anne, July 16 [? 26], 1539.
[747] _Ib._, under date, July 16 (1539), the anniversary of his entering
the convent.
[748] See above, vol. i., p. 4.
[749] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.
[750] _Ib._, 3, p. 185.
[751] Weim. ed., 8, p. 573 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 239, in the
dedication to his father of “De Votis monasticis” (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
249).
[752] _Ib._, he refers to the same remark of his father’s in a letter
to Melanchthon of Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225: “_Utinam non
esset sathanæ præstigium.… Videtur mihi per os eius Deus velut a longe me
allocutus, sed tarde, tamen satis._”
[753] To Joh. Braun at Eisenach, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6: “_Quod si
statum meum nosse desideras, bene habeo Dei gratia, nisi quod violentum
est studium_.”
[754] B. Heyne, “Über Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen
Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 126.
[755] Erl. ed., 44, p. 127.
[756] _Ib._, 45, p. 156. See above, p. 197.
[757] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 36, p. 553 f.; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146, Comment. on
1 Cor. xv.
[758] See above, p. 99 ff.
[759] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156.
[760] Note, _ib._
[761] _Ib._, 44, p. 127.
[762] G. Buchwald, “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten 1528-1546,” vol. iii.,
1885, p. 50: In Popery “horrible fears” had been caused by the doctrine
of Christ as Judge. “_Iuventus non intelligit; videat ne amittat hanc
lucem ~[of his Evangel]~. Si scivissemus non ivissemus in cœnobia. Quando
Christum inspexi, vidi diabolum._”
[763] W. Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 28. The mental
struggle had not been denied, either by Denifle, or in my article in the
Beilage of the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 44.
[764] Köhler, _ib._, pp. 27-29. Cp. Köhler, “Katholizismus und
Reformation,” p. 69.
[765] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 330; Erl. ed., 24², p. 391.
[766] _Ib._, p. 280=365.
[767] _Ib._, p. 279 f.=364.
[768] _Ib._, p. 290=370.
[769] Late in June, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.
[770] See above, vol. i., p. 269 f.
[771] Above, p. 101 f.
[772] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362.
[773] _Ib._
[774] Weim. ed., 28, p. 48, June 10.
[775] Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372.
[776] _Ib._, p. 504=366.
[777] _Ib._
[778] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.
[779] Weim. ed., 32, p. 241. Cp. the similar passage quoted above, p.
197, from Schlaginhaufen.
[780] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273 in “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes
Buch.” Given more in detail above, p. 195.
[781] Weim. ed., 36, p. 554; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.
[782] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.
[783] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 109.
[784] Cp. Erl. ed. 31, p. 273.
[785] “Opp. lat. exeg.” 11, p. 123.
[786] Erl. ed., 14², p. 343.
[787] See above, vol. iii., p. 206; vol. iv., p. 213 f.
[788] Denifle, 1², p. 392.
[789] Erl. ed., 19², p. 151 f.
[790] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317 f.
[791] _Ib._, 14², p. 342 ff.
[792] Erl. ed., 63, p. 369 f., 1542.
[793] _Ib._, p. 372.
[794] _Ib._, 63, p. 374. Preface to his “Barfuser Eulenspiegel und
Alcoran,” 1542.
[795] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.
[796] Weim. ed. 42, p. 504; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 119.
[797] _Ib._, p. 505=200.
[798] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 368 and above, p. 202.
[799] _Ib._
[800] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156 f.
[801] _Ib._, 31, p. 279.
[802] Cp. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 408-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 141-151.
[803] Above, vol. v., p. 432 ff., and vol. iii., p. 9 ff.
[804] Cp. vol. ii., p. 346.
[805] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 265, 1524.
[806] Above, vol. iii., p. 392 f.
[807] _Ib._, p. 10.
[808] Weim. ed., 1, p. 624; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 288. In the
Resolutions, 1518.—Weim. ed., 7, pp. 139, 439; Erl. ed., 24², p. 139.
“Opp. lat. var.,” 5, 221. In the “Assertio omnium articulorum.” Cp.
proposition 33 condemned by Leo X, 1520, in the Bull “Exsurge Domine.” N.
Paulus, in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 140, 1907, p. 357 ff., and “Protestantismus
und Toleranz im 16 Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 26 f.
[809] Weim. ed., 7, p. 139; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 221.
[810] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 424: “Hence there is no alternative, you
must either believe everything or nothing,” and vol. v., p. 398, n. 3.
[811] Weim. ed., 11, p. 267; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.
[812] Weim. ed., 18, p. 298 f. Erl. ed., 24², p. 276.
[813] Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356). He adds that he
had notified the Altenburgers that “the rights, authority, revenues and
power of the Canons were at an end because they were publicly opposed to
the Evangel.”
[814] To the Wittenberg Canons, July 11, 1523, Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 f.
(“Briefe,” 4, p. 176).
[815] In a sermon of Aug. 2, 1523, Weim. ed., 12, p. 649; Erl. ed., 17²,
p. 57. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 5.
[816] Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 76. According to Burkhardt,
Hier. Schurf and the licentiate Pauli were entrusted with the mission
to Luther; but “Luther continued to storm, and the council took steps
to forbid the Mass and even intercourse with others. So far had Luther
carried matters!”—Bezold, “Gesch. der deutschen Ref.,” Berlin, 1890, p.
563, observes of Luther’s attitude at that time: “It is of interest to
note his transition from the principles of freedom of conscience and the
independence of the Church to religious coercion and State assistance.”
[817] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 327 ff.; vol. iv., p. 510.
[818] Cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 10.
[819] Reprinted in Kolde’s, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 68 ff.
[820] _Ib._, p. 72.
[821] The Memo. of the three preachers in “Mitteil. der geschichtsforsch.
Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1866, p. 513 ff.; cp. Enders, “Luthers
Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318, n. 1. On Altenburg, see above, vol. ii., p. 314
ff.
[822] Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).
[823] In Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 102, and Enders,
“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 320.
[824] Text in Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” Abt.
1, 1. Hälfte, 1902, p. 142 ff. See above, vol. v., p. 592 f.
[825] _Ib._ These stern measures were aimed at the followers of Carlstadt
and Zwingli, but were also applied to the Catholics.
[826] The writing, most probably by Link (spring, 1524), is in the
“Mitteilungen der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, p.
119 ff.
[827] In the Mem. referred to above, p. 241, n. 3.
[828] Paulus, _ib._, p. 12.
[829] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.
[830] Cp. their petition to George drafted by Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 9,
p. 285.
[831] Letter of the first half of July, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p.
243 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 318).
[832] Sep. 19, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.
[833] Beginning of July, 1539, in the Memorandum on the need of
abolishing the Mass at Meissen. _Ib._, p. 189. Paulus, _ib._, p. 15.
[834] Paulus, _ib._
[835] To Jos. Levin Metzsch of Mila, Aug. 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).
[836] On Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 9,
p. 103).
[837] Sehling, “Kirchenordnungen,” 1, 1, pp. 175, 176, 187, 195. Cp.
Luther to Beier of Zwickau, 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.
[838] Above, vol. ii., p. 311, and present vol., p. 240, n. 1.
[839] _Ib._, vol. ii., p. 318.
[840] _Ib._, p. 381.
[841] _Ib._, p. 319.
[842] _Ib._, p. 318.
[843] Above, vol. iv., p. 298.
[844] Above, vol. iii., p. 45.
[845] _Ib._, p. 359.
[846] _Ib._, p. 79 f.
[847] Above, vol. v., p. 367.
[848] _Ib._, p. 578.
[849] _Ib._, p. 580.
[850] _Ib._, p. 579.
[851] Paulus, _ib._, p. 32.
[852] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 35.
[853] Above, vol. iii., p. 431.
[854] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,”¹ p. 801. Cp. above, vol. v., p.
384, and elsewhere.
[855] Above, vol. ii., p. 324.
[856] Above, vol. v., p. 110.
[857] Vol. ii., p. 13.
[858] Above, vol. v., p. 383.
[859] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 156 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 136).
[860] Liborius Magdeburger (Dec. 2, 1536) to the Town Clerk of Zwickau
Johann Roth. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” _ib._, p. 136, n. 3.
[861] Enders, _ib._
[862] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 171.
[863] _Ib._, p. 180.
[864] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 44 ff.
[865] Vol. ii., p. 101.
[866] _Ib._
[867] Vol. iii., p. 46.
[868] _Ib._
[869] _Ib._
[870] _Ib._, p. 126.
[871] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 f.
[872] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 117.
[873] Weim. ed., 18, p. 299; Erl. ed., 24², p. 276. Paulus, _ib._, p. 28
f.
[874] Erl. ed., 4², p. 290 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 30 f.
[875] Letter of July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299: “_In hac causa
terret me exempli sequela, quam in papistis et ante Christum in Iudœis
videmus.… Idem sequuturum esse timeo et apud nostros._” If on the other
hand they erred on the side of severity in the matter of banishment, the
evil was not so great. Paulus, p. 31.
[876] Paulus, _ib._, p. 29.
[877] _Ib._, p. 31.
[878] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 17 _sq._ Paulus, _ib._, p. 32.
[879] Erl. ed., 39, p. 224 ff.
[880] _Ib._, pp. 250, 252, 254. The Commentary was printed in the spring
of 1530.
[881] U. Haussdorff, “Leben Spenglers,” Nuremberg, 1741, p. 190 ff.
Paulus, _ib._, p. 34.
[882] Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 163.
[883] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740. Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 41 f.
[884] Printed at Wittenberg in 1536 and signed by Luther, Bugenhagen,
Cruciger and Melanchthon on June 5. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 347;
“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 195 _sqq._
[885] Vol. 32, 1911, p. 155, in a review of Wappler’s work. For further
details from Wappler and from the valuable studies of W. Köhler see
below, p. 266 ff.
[886] Weim. ed., 32, p. 507; Erl. ed., 43, p. 313.
[887] _Ib._, p. 475=264 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 45.
[888] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552 f.; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 f., Letter of
Feb. or the beginning of March, 1532 (“Briefwechsel.” 9, p. 157).
[889] Erl. ed., 1², p. 196 f. (_c._ 1533).
[890] _Ib._, 39, pp. 318-320.
[891] Weim. ed., 18, p. 148; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.
[892] _Ib._, p. 148 ff.=68 f.
[893] See Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp
von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” 1910 (“RGI. Studien und Texte,” ed. J.
Greving), p. 156.
[894] Wappler, _ib._, p. 4.
[895] _Ib._, pp. 12, 36, 85.
[896] P. 204 f.
[897] P. 37 ff., 83 ff.
[898] Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur
Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 28 ff., 70 ff. Paulus, _ib._, p. 316.
[899] Wappler, _ib._, p. 96 ff.
[900] Hasche, “Diplomatische Gesch. Dresdens,” vol. ii., 1817, p. 221.
Paulus, _ib._, p. 317.
[901] Wappler, “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 242. Paulus, _ib._, p. 319.
[902] Wappler, _ib._, p. 164. Paulus, _ib._, p. 314.
[903] Wappler, _ib._, pp. 155, 234. Paulus, _ib._, p. 311.
[904] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525. This is one of the answers he gave to
opponents who say, “_neminem debere cogi ad fidem et evangelion_,” and
“_principes in externis solum ius habere_.” To the latter he replies:
“_principes cohibent externas abominationes_,” and goes on to add:
“_Cum igitur ipsimet [adversarii] fateantur, in externis rebus esse
ius principum, ipsi sese damnant_.” If they wanted an example let them
remember Christ Who drove the sellers out of the Temple. This he wrote,
relying on the favour which the new Elector had extended to his cause:
“_Nosti quantum princeps iste noster est evangelii studiosus_,” so he
remarks with satisfaction. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271.
[905] In the Visitation Rules of 1527, Sehling, _ib._
[906] Brandenburg, “Moritz von Sachsen,” 1, p. 22 f.
[907] Erl. ed., 57, p. 6.
[908] Commentary on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 257 f.
[909] Memorandum of 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 179 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p.
105).
[910] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., p. 251 f.
[911] _Ib._
[912] _Ib._, p. 252 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 39.
[913] Above, p. 252, n. 1.
[914] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 346.
[915] Comment. on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.
[916] _Ib._, p. 251 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 36.
[917] To Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg. “Ein Sendbrief und Vorred der
Dieneren zu Zürich,” Zürich, 1532, A 4b. Paulus, _ib._, p. 48.
[918] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., _ib._
[919] _Ib._
[920] Above, vol. ii., p. 347.
[921] Vol. iii., p. 390.
[922] _Ib._, p. 392.
[923] Above, vol. v., p. 399.
[924] _Ib._, p. 448.
[925] Above, p. 144.
[926] Erl. ed., 20², p. 555 ff. Aurifaber assures us that he “took
down the sermon from Luther’s lips” and revised it “with diligence” at
Wittenberg. Paulus, _ib._, p. 57 f.—Cp. the intolerant sermon preached at
Halle shortly before, below, p. 274.
[927] Above, vol. iii., p. 39.
[928] Erl. ed., 54, p. 98 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151).
[929] “Briefwechsel,” _ib._
[930] Weim. ed., 26, p. 223; Erl. ed., 23, p. 45 f.
[931] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 349; Erl. ed., 21, p. 7.
[932] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 104, n. 11.
[933] In 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.
[934] Sehling, 1, p. 195.
[935] “Ordnungen,” etc., Dresden, 1573, Bl. 132, 146. Paulus, _ib._, p.
318.
[936] Cp. the Rescript of Sep. 1, 1623. Paulus, _ib._
[937] Hannoviæ, 1652, p. 861. Cp. _ib._, p. 858 _sqq._ Paulus, _ib._, n.
4.
[938] “Practica nova,” I, q. 44, n. 45: “_Usu ac consuetudine saxonica
obtinuit, eiusmodi hæreticos seditiosos aut blasphemantes igne comburi_.”
Paulus, _ib._, p. 323, n. 7.
[939] Paulus, _ib._, p. 49 against O. Ritschl.
[940] C. E. Förstemann, “Liber Decanorum facultatis theol. acad.
Vitebergensis,” 1838, p. 152 _sqq._
[941] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², p. 212.
[942] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57.
[943] _Ib._, p. 35, April 18, 1540.
[944] Luther to Myconius at Gotha, Oct. 24, 1535, _ib._, 10, p. 248.
[945] “Corp. ref.,” 23, p. cvii. _sq._
[946] P. 25 f.
[947] P. 29.
[948] P. 38.
[949] Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1906, p. 211.
[950] “Ref. und Ketzerprozess,” p. 23.
[951] Cp. above, p. 252.
[952] “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 123 f.
[953] _Ib._, p. 125.
[954] _Ib._, p. 126 f.
[955] “Die Inquisition,” p. 70 f.
[956] _Ib._, p. 69 ff.
[957] “Inquisition,” etc., p. 6 f.
[958] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der RZ.,” 1874, p. 20.
[959] “Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien,” 1885, p. 446.
Paulus, _ib._, p. 314.
[960] “Die rechtliche Stellung der evangel. Kirche in Deutschland,” 1893,
p. 90.
[961] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3⁴, p. 816.
[962] “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, 1905, pp. 138, 187.
[963] “Literarisches Zentralblatt,” 1905, No. 36.
[964] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1896, No. 2, on Paulus, “Über die
Reformatoren und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1895.
[965] “Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.,” 1896, p. 138.
[966] Neander, “Das Eine und Mannigfaltige des christl. Lebens,” 1840, p.
224.
[967] “Ursachen, warumb die altgleubige catholische Christen bei dem
alten waren Christenthumb verharren sollen,” Cologne, 1589, p. 354.
[968] “Kirche und Kirchen,” 1861, p. 68.
[969] _Ib._, p. 50 f.
[970] Above, vol. iii., pp. 358 ff., 438 ff.
[971] _Ib._, p. 358.
[972] _Ib._, Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 74 f.
[973] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 851 _sqq._: “Quæstio, an politica potestas
debeat tollere hæreticos.”
[974] “Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch.,” 8, 1869, p. 264.
[975] “Die Theol. der Gegenwart,” 3, 3, 1909, p. 49.
[976] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.
[977] M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 70 ff. Paulus, _ib._, p. 33.
Luther’s “booklet” to which his opponents appealed is the letter of July,
1524, to the Saxon Princes, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 365.
[978] Paulus, _ib._, p. 143.
[979] _Ib._, p. 144.
[980] P. 156 ff.
[981] P. 166.
[982] Paulus, pp. 223, 226.
[983] Cp. Kawerau in Möller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 471 ff.
[984] _Ib._, p. 474.
[985] To Martin Frecht at Ulm, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 955. Cp. his letter to
Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558, against Schwenckfeld, _ib._, 9, p. 579. Paulus,
_ib._, p. 78.
[986] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 983. Cp. on Franck’s objections to compulsion,
A. Hegler, “Geist und Schrift bei S. Franck,” 1892, p. 260 ff.—See also
below, p. 289.
[987] Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” pp. 155, 223, 234. Paulus
_ib._, p. 311.
[988] Paulus, _ib._, p. 75. Cp. vol. iii., p. 358.
[989] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 274, 1542. Cp. vol. iii., p. 409.
[990] Feb. 4, 1538, to Luther and “_Domini in Christo et venerandi et
amandi_,” i.e. the other theologians at Wittenberg, “Briefwechsel,” 11,
p. 328: “_Parata est paulo post satis feliciter per Christum ordinatio
ecclesiarum totius regni Daniæ a sereniss. rege_,” etc. “_Per totum
regnum Daniæ regnat Christus in omnibus ecclesiis_,” etc.
[991] See vol. iii., p. 413.
[992] See J. C. v. Dreyhaupt, “Ausführliche Beschreibung des
Saal-Kreyses,” 1, 1749, p. 982 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau,
2, p. 1. Paulus, _ib._, p. 80 ff.
[993] On this sermon of Jan. 26, 1546, see below, xxxix., 3.
[994] Dreyhaupt, _ib._, p. 210 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 191.
[995] To Lang the Erfurt preacher, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p.
224: Halle, with the whole of its Church, had submitted to the Elector
“_beneficio altissimi Dei … a cultu Baal, a fanis idololatricis et omni
idololatria tandem expurgata_.”
[996] Above, p. 240 f.
[997] _Ib._ Cp. his letter to the Elector, Oct. 1, 1525, Kolde,
“Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72. Paulus, _ib._, p. 11.
[998] To Philip of Hesse, Jan. 15, 1532. Wappler. “Die Stellung
Kursachsens,” p. 156.
[999] His letter of 1533, above, p. 255 f.
[1000] “Verlegung,” etc. (Wittenberg, 1536), Bl. A 4a, E 3a. Paulus,
_ib._, p. 71 f.
[1001] “Prozess,” etc., Worms (1557). Paulus, _ib._, p. 72 f.
[1002] “Ob eine weltliche Obrigkeit … möge die Wiedertäufer … richten
lassen,” Marburg, 1528. Paulus, _ib._, p. 115, correcting Enders,
“Briefwechsel Luthers.”
[1003] Melanchthon, Feb., 1530, to a friend, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 18.
[1004] F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog zu Würtemberg,” 3, 1844, p. 172.
Paulus, _ib._, p. 123.
[1005] Chr. Besold, “Virginum sacrarum monimenta,” etc., 1636, p. 237
_sqq._ Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 7,
pp. 80-90.
[1006] “Von den Worten Christi, Matt. xiii. (v. 30),” no place, 1541, Bl.
C 1 to D 3, Paulus, p. 92 f.
[1007] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 86-91.
[1008] Cp. _ib._, pp. 100-115, with extracts from A. Wrede, “Die
Einführung der Reformation im Lüneburgischen durch Herzog Ernst den
Bekenner,” 1887. Cp. Wrede, “Ernst der Bekenner,” 1888.
[1009] “Responsio de missa, matrimonio et iure magistratus in
religionem,” Argentorati, 1537. 2nd ed. 1540. Extracts from the latter in
Paulus, p. 129 ff.
[1010] C. Hagan, _ib._, quoted p. 153.
[1011] Paulus, _ib._, p. 155.
[1012] P. v. Stetten, “Gesch. der Stadt Augsburg,” 1, 1743, p. 445.
[1013] Paulus, _ib._, p. 160.
[1014] On Bucer, cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 142-175.
[1015] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 7, p. 91.
[1016] _Ib._
[1017] To Anton Lauterbach, May 7, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p.
468. The persons in question had already frequently communicated under
both kinds as a sign of their entry into Lutheranism, but had passed
unfavourable criticisms on certain measures of Luther’s. He commissions
Lauterbach: “_Ubi etiam pœnituerint, hoc exigendum est, ut hactenus a
nobis gesta et in posterum gerenda probent. Alioqui quæ erit pœnitentia,
si nostra facta damnaverint hoc est sua omnia per fictam pœnitentiam
stabilierint?_”
[1018] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 322.
[1019] Deut. xiii. 5 ff., above, p. 273.
[1020] Erl. ed., 61, p. 7, “Tischreden.”
[1021] _Ib._, p. 26.
[1022] P. 8 f.
[1023] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 377.
[1024] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 26.
[1025] P. 30.
[1026] P. 11.
[1027] P. 27 ff.
[1028] P. 31.
[1029] P. 14.
[1030] See e.g. the next quotation.
[1031] Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f., “Vier
trostliche Psalmen … an die Königyn zu Hungern.”
[1032] _Ib._, p. 585=414.
[1033] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 394; Erl. ed., 24², p. 112.
[1034] _Ib._, 19², p. 273.
[1035] _Ib._, 38, p. 177 f.
[1036] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 235; Erl. ed., 39, p. 114.
[1037] _Ib._, 10², p. 193 f.
[1038] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83.
[1039] Erl. ed., 61, p. 17.
[1040] Cp. Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 56.
[1041] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.
[1042] Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.
[1043] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.
[1044] _Ib._, 11², p. 267.
[1045] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.
[1046] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295.
[1047] _Ib._, p. 317.
[1048] _Ib._, p. 295.
[1049] Erl. ed., 61, p. 21.
[1050] _Ib._, p. 1.
[1051] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 153 ff.
[1052] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 162.
[1053] Letter of Aug. 21, 1524, Weim. ed., 15, p. 240 (“Briefwechsel,” 4,
p. 377 f.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 538).
[1054] Above, vol. iii., p. 154.
[1055] “Briefe,” 6, p. 199 f. See above, vol. iv., p. 292.
[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 549.
[1057] Erl. ed., 60, p. 318 f. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 156 _sq._
[1058] See above, vol. iii., p. 234, n. 1.
[1059] Ed. Const. v. Höfler, “SB. der böhm. Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 79 f.
[1060] P. 123 Lemnius says the following of Luther’s private life:
“_Dum se episcopum iactitat evangelicum, qui fit, ut ille parum sobrie
vivat? Vino enim ciboque sese ingurgitare solet suosque adulatores et
assentatores secum habet, habet suam Venerem ac fere nihil prorsus illi
deesse potest, quod ad voluptatem ac libidinem pertinet._” Cp. above,
vol. iii., p. 274.
[1061] “Apologia,” p. 136.
[1062] See above, vol. v., pp. 169 ff., 250 ff.
[1063] Erl. ed., 61, p. 16
[1064] _Ib._, p. 7 f.
[1065] P. 8 f.
[1066] P. 17.
[1067] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 249.
[1068] _Ib._, p. 239.
[1069] P. 167.
[1070] P. 90.
[1071] P. 154.
[1072] P. 253.
[1073] P. 109.
[1074] P. 166.
[1075] P. 403.
[1076] Erl. ed., 61, p. 19 f.
[1077] _Ib._, p. 22.
[1078] P. 24.
[1079] P. 25.
[1080] Above, vol. ii., p. 377.
[1081] Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the 2nd part of his German
Works (compiled from his writings). Cp. vol. 28, pp. 64, 89.
[1082] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 529 (1534).
[1083] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 407; Erl. ed., 63, p. 303 (1531).
[1084] Erl. ed., 49, p. 163 f.
[1085] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17.
[1086] “_Ecclesiæ ratio diligenter habenda est._” _Ib._
[1087] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 128: a bishop
has no ecclesiastical authority, no “_potestas statuendi quidquam … quia
ecclesia est libera et domina_.”
[1088] Weim. ed., 6, p. 300 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 107. Cp. _ib._, p. 296
f.=102; the Church is chiefly “inward, spiritual Christianity,” though
she, like the soul in the body, has also an external existence of a kind;
P. 297 f.=103: She is governed only by Christ. “Who can tell who really
believes or not?”
[1089] Weim. ed., 7, p. 719: “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 309 (1521): “_Dicet
autem, si ecclesia tota est in spiritu et res omnino spiritualis, nemo
ergo nosse poterit, ubi sit ulla eius pars in toto orbe_.”
[1090] Erl. ed., 25², p. 440 (1539).
[1091] Weim. ed., 8, p. 419; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 127 (1522): “_Quis
ecclesiam nobis monstrabit, quum sit occulta in Spiritu et solum
credatur? Sicut dicimus: Credo ecclesiam sanctam._”
[1092] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20.
[1093] Köstlin, Art. Kirche, in “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901.
[1094] Weim. ed., 6, p. 301; Erl. ed., 27, p. 108.
[1095] Cp. the passage quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 49, p. 427, from
“De servo arbitrio.”
[1096] Erl. ed., 25², p. 416.
[1097] Cp. the theological doctrine of the distinction between the body
and soul of the Church. H. Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” 1¹¹, 1903, p.
259. Tract iii., art. 2.
[1098] Erl. ed., 25², p. 418.
[1099] _Ib._, p. 419.
[1100] P. 420.
[1101] P. 421 ff.
[1102] For Bellarmine, see “Controversiæ,” Colon., 2, 1615, 1. 3. “De
ecclesia militante,” p. 65 _sq._
[1103] Cp. above, p. 150 ff.
[1104] Bellarmine, l. c., p. 65.
[1105] Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” p. 227.
[1106] Erl. ed., 25², p. 434.
[1107] “Symbolik,” §49, p. 424 f.
[1108] Cp. “Apol. conf. August.,” art. 7. Müller-Kolde,¹⁰ p. 153.
[1109] The Church, according to his explanation of the article of the
Creed in question, is “the assembly of the Saints, i.e. an assembly
composed only of saints,” not an assembly of all those who have been
baptised. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², pp. 257, 278.
[1110] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 21.
[1111] Erl. ed., 66, p. 440 f.
[1112] Art. “Kirche,” in “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, pp. 337, 349.
[1113] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 262, with the quotation from
Erl. ed., 9², p. 285 f.: “In her each one must be found, in her each
one must be enrolled, whoso wishes to be saved and to come to God, and,
outside of her, no one will be saved.”
[1114] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 269.
[1115] _Ib._, p. 169.
[1116] See above, vol. ii., pp. 267 f., 287 f.
[1117] Prop. 23.
[1118] Prop. 24.
[1119] See above vol. i., p. 371.
[1120] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 224.
[1121] See above, vol. iii., p. 143 ff.
[1122] And yet he declares later (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 15) that
he would gladly have acknowledged the Pope (i.e. sacrificed his doctrine
of the Church) “_modo evangelium docuisset_,” i.e. if the Pope had agreed
to his doctrine of Justification. Indeed at the end of Feb., 1519, he
says, in the “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell” (see below, p. 307) “for
no kind of sin or abuse” is it lawful to begin a schism. Weim. ed., 2, p.
72; Erl. ed., 24², p. 10. Cp. W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 20.
[1123] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.
[1124] To Spalatin, Jan. 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 352; he adds:
“_Non ligat nec nocet ira Decretalium, quando tuetur misericordia
Christi_.”
[1125] Weim. ed., 2, p. 183 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 296 _sqq._
[1126] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 250.—Other statements made by Luther at
this time must be read in the light of the above theory, e.g. his words
in the “Comm. on Gal.”: “As widely, broadly, and deeply as possible do
I distinguish between the Roman Church and the Roman Curia.” “They must
know that they are mistaken when they cry out that I do not hold with the
Roman Church; I who love so truly not only the Roman Church but the whole
Church of Christ.” “Comm. on Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 134 _sq._ Cp. W.
Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 24.
[1127] Weim. ed., 2, pp. 399, 404 ff., 427, 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp.
240, 244 _sqq._, 281, 284. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 255 ff.
[1128] For his earlier days cp. the passage in “Freiheyt dess Sermons
Bepstlichen Ablass belangend” (1518), Weim. ed., 1, p. 384; Erl. ed.,
27, p. 12: “If already so many and thousands more, and all of them holy
Doctors had held this or that, yet they are of no account as compared
with a single verse of Holy Writ, as St. Paul says, Gal. (i. 8): ‘Even
though an angel from heaven,’ etc.”
[1129] Weim. ed., 2, p. 431; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.
[1130] _Ib._, p. 183 ff.=296 _sqq._ (Thesis 13).
[1131] Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion,” p. 259.
[1132] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §44, p. 399.
[1133] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 387 ff. and vol. ii., p. 368.
[1134] Above, p. 237.
[1135] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 256, from Weim. ed., 2, p. 430; “Opp. lat.
var.,” 2, p. 285.
[1136] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349. Augustine, however, is speaking of
truth in general.
[1137] See above, vol. iv., p. 403 ff.
[1138] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §46, p. 409, with the following quotation
from Luther’s “De captiv. Babylon.”: “_Christianis nihil nullo iure posse
imponi legum, sive ab hominibus, sive ab angelis, nisi quantum volunt;
liberi enim sumus ab omnibus_.”
[1139] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398. The work is printed in Weim. ed.,
7, p. 704 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 286 _sqq._
[1140] Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 _sqq._
[1141] Cp. the passages quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” §45, p. 405, n.
2: “_Christianus ita certus est, quid credere et non credere debeat, ut
etiam pro ipso moriatur, aut saltem mori paratus sit_.” Thus to teach as
a priest involved nothing very dreadful, “_cum verbum Dei hic luceat et
iubeat, simul necessitas animarum cogat_.”
[1142] “Symbolik,” §45, p. 409.
[1143] _Ib._, §45, p. 406.
[1144] _Ib._, §44, p. 399.
[1145] Art. Kirche, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, p. 337.
[1146] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 427.
[1147] Erl. ed., 26², p. 188.
[1148] Köstlin in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 7², p. 716. Omitted in the 3rd
ed.
[1149] “Christl. Welt,” ed. Rade, 1, 1902, No. 38.
[1150] Weim. ed., 2, p. 69 ff; Erl. ed., 24², p. 5 ff.
[1151] _Ib._,6, p. 477 ff.; 9, p. 302 ff.=12 ff.
[1152] _Ib._, 2, p. 72 f.=24², p. 10 f.
[1153] _Ib._, 6, p. 480=24², p. 13. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 303 f.; 9, p.
476 f.
[1154] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 232=28, p. 350.
[1155] _Ib._, p. 232=351.
[1156] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 86 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 337 ff. “Corp.
ref.,” 26, p. 151 _sqq._ Kolde, “Die Augsburgische Konfession,” p. 123 ff.
[1157] Vol. ii., p. 179.
[1158] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 428 n.
[1159] “Confessio August.,” art. 7. “Symbolische Bücher,” ed. Müller
Kolde, p. 40.
[1160] “Apol. confess.,” art. 7, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 152.
[1161] Art. 14, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 42.
[1162] “De potestate et iurisdict. episcoporum” (by Melanchthon).
“Symbol. Bücher,” p. 341 f.
[1163] Erl. ed., 31, p. 348 f. (1533).
[1164] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 230.
[1165] In “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 435 ff.; Erl.
ed., 31, p. 126 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 222 f.
[1166] See above, vol. ii., p. 112.
[1167] “Symbolik,” §47, p. 416.
[1168] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398.
[1169] “Christlicher Gegenbericht,” 1561, Bl. Y III´. (The copy in the
Munich State Library contains the autograph dedication of Staphylus to
Joh. Jacob Fugger.) Also in the “Apologia,” by Laur. Surius, Colon, 1562,
p. 353. Cp. Bellarminus, “Controversiæ,” t. 2 (Colon, 1615), p. 58.
[1170] “Centur.,” 1, lib. 1, c. 4, col. 170, in Bellarmin, _ib._ In
recent times Protestant theologians have divided on the subject, some
favouring more the visible, others the invisible Church. The latter are
the more logical. Cp. G. Kawerau’s statement: “We may dispute as to
whether the term invisible ‘Church’ is well chosen or not, but what it
means is clear; for what else is it but a decided protest against every
attempt to attribute within the domain of the Evangel, to a visible,
ecclesiastical, legally constituted society the attributes of the Church
in which we believe? Protestantism by its very nature cannot make of its
outward edifice an ‘_ecclesia proprie dicta_.’” “Über Berechtigung und
Bedeutung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” 1887, p. 12.
[1171] See above, p. 265.
[1172] Testimonial of May 17, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57 f.
[1173] Testimonial of April 18, 1540, _ib._ p. 35 f.
[1174] Above, vol. iii., p. 41.
[1175] See above, vol. v., p. 250.
[1176] Erl. ed., 43, p. 281. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 102.
[1177] Above, vol. v., p. 191, n. 4.
[1178] _Ib._
[1179] Above, vol. v., p. 170.
[1180] _Ib._
[1181] _Ib._, p. 171.
[1182] _Ib._
[1183] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 138 f.
[1184] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 26.
[1185] Above, vol. v., p. 180.
[1186] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47.
[1187] Aug. 26, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151.
[1188] Köstlin, Art. “Kirche” in the “RE. f. prot. Th. und Kirche,” vol.
10³.
[1189] Above, vol. v., p. 180.
[1190] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20: “_Lutherus dicebat de usu
et necessitate consistorii, quod lapsam et pendentem ecclesiam iterum
fulciret_,” etc.
[1191] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 520; Erl. ed., 31, p. 217, in the writing
“Von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern” (1532), Luther directs
“officials, judges and whoever has to rule” to ask the teachers who
were under suspicion: “Who has sent you?” “Why are you after setting up
something new?” “If this work was done with zeal it would be of great
profit.… Otherwise, unless they insisted on the call or command, there
would come to be no Church left.”—Concerning the provision for the
Church’s needs Luther speaks of the “duty” of the Elector to see in some
way that the parsonages were adequately supported “in order that the
Universities and divine worship be not hindered from want, from the needs
of the poor belly.” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331.
[1192] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552.
[1193] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 50; Art. “Luther,” “KL.,” 8², p. 338.
[1194] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 625 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358.
[1195] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 50, p. 8.
[1196] _Ib._, 46, p. 226.
[1197] Luther says, for instance, that, in earlier days, “Emperors
and Kings had commanded and instituted public worship in their lands”
(Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42).
[1198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42.
[1199] To Albert Count of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 147
(“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90).
[1200] We may quote the remarkable letter to the Town Council of Zwickau,
dated Sep. 27, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 146 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 88):
“My feeling is always that the two rules, the spiritual and the secular,
or Church and Town-Hall, are not to intermingle, otherwise the one
devours the other and both perish as happened in Popery.” Cp. on the
other hand, above, vol. v., p. 580: “everything must be equal and made to
intermingle whether it be termed spiritual or secular.”
[1201] To Daniel Cresser, parson at Dresden, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5,
p. 596.
[1202] Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.
[1203] Mejer (†) und Sehling, “Kirchengewalt,” in the “RE. f. prot.
Th.,”³. Cp. the art. “Kirchenregiment”: “The Church, as a body separate
from the State, is something modern (?) and quite unknown to Luther.”
[1204] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 22.
[1205] See Emil Richter, “Gesch. der evangel. Kirchenverfassung in
Deutschland,” 1851, p. 64.
[1206] Erl. ed., 25², p. 424 f.
[1207] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 424 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 122 f.
[1208] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 129 f.
[1209] H. Hermelink, “Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter”
(“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft., 98, pp. 37-70), 1908, p. 49.
[1210] _Ib._, p. 66, n.
[1211] Above, vol. v., p. 565.
[1212] See Paulsen, above, vol. v., p. 57.
[1213] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. vi., p.
148.
[1214] Köstlin refers to the same thing when he says: “The fact that
there was originally in Christianity a well defined office of overseers
was either not recognised by him at all, or at least not adequately.”
Art. “Kirche,” “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³.
[1215] Scholia to Romans, p. 248 f. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 323.
[1216] Above, p. 297.
[1217] Memo. of Aug. 22(?), 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 40 ff.
[1218] “An die Christen zu Erfurt,” Jan.-Feb., 1527, Erl. ed., 53, p. 411
(“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15).
[1219] Above, vol. ii., p. 360.
[1220] Sep. 30, 1533, Erl. ed., 55, p. 25 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 341).
[1221] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff.
[1222] In the Notes to the memorandum of 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 342.
[1223] To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596. See the
text, above, vol. v., p. 182.
[1224] Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.
[1225] Cp. above, p. 320 n. 1.
[1226] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 130 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 58 f.
[1227] Erl. ed., 65, p. 177.
[1228] See above, vol. ii., p. 297 ff.
[1229] To the Elector Johann, Aug. 26, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 188
(“Briefwechsel,” 8, 215).
[1230] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 272.
[1231] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, pp. 554, 563. In the 2nd ed. the
chapter has been altered and not always for the better.
[1232] _Ib._, p. 563.
[1233] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 339 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 396 ff.
[1234] _Ib._, p. 338-396.
[1235] Joh. Mensing, “Gründtliche Unterrichte, was eyn frommer Christen
von der heyligen Kirche … halten sol,” 1528, in Paulus, “Die deutschen
Dominikaner,” 1903, p. 25.
[1236] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.
[1237] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, p. 546.
[1238] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.
[1239] “Digamy” as a canonical hindrance to ordination is founded on the
prescription of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. For the history of this
impediment see Phillips, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, p. 519 ff.
[1240] Erl. ed., 25², p. 427.
[1241] _Ib._, p. 428.
[1242] Erl. ed., 26², p. 45 f.
[1243] _Ib._, p. 46.
[1244] _Ib._, p. 43. This, some years later, was to form the frontispiece
of his book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”
[1245] Cp. what he says elsewhere: “The Church is an assembly of the
people which is founded on the invisible. It is the ungodly who see in
the Church nothing but misery, weakness, scandal and sin. The wise of
this world take offence at her look because she is subject to scandals
and divisions; they dream of a holy, pure and undefiled Church, the
Divine Dove. It is true that, in God’s sight, the Church does so appear,
but to the eyes of men she resembles her bridegroom Christ Who according
to Isaias liii., seemed torn, bruised, spit upon, crucified, mocked at”
(“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 14).—Luther was perfectly aware of the
works of holiness by which the Catholic Church is distinguished, her
penitential practices and life of prayer. Speaking of this he is fond of
depreciating it as something external and declaring: “Hence we must speak
differently of the matter and learn to know that the Christian Church is
holy, not in herself nor in this life, but in Christ; a holiness by grace
is indeed received here, but it is completed in the next world.” Weim.
ed., 30, 3, p. 408 f.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 304 f. Preface to Crossner’s
“Sermon von der Kirche,” 1531.
[1246] Erl. ed., 26², p. 55.
[1247] P. 66.
[1248] P. 55.
[1249] These errors constituted, according to Luther, a “flood of all
kinds of human doctrine, lies, errors, idolatry and abominations,”
“countless devilish dens of murderers in which the welfare of souls
suffers gruesomely” (Erl. ed., 31, p. 336 f.).
[1250] _Ib._, 26², p. 53. Cp. _ib._, 31, p. 337: “The Church, or
Christendom, has remained and will stand, this is undoubtedly true.”
[1251] Above, p. 330 n. 3. Paulus, _ib._, p. 24.
[1252] Köstlin’s summary, “Luther’s Theol.,” 2¹, p. 552.
[1253] Erl. ed., 31, p. 333.
[1254] _Ib._, p. 332.
[1255] _Ib._, p. 334.
[1256] _Ib._, p. 332.
[1257] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 552: “While he … repeatedly declared,
that, in spite of the Divine promises, Christendom had fallen into error
on certain points, he could never be induced to admit this of the article
of the Presence of the Body [of Christ in the Sacrament].”
[1258] Erl. ed., 31, p. 339. Elsewhere he likewise admits, that, in the
olden Church and particularly in the convents “there lived many great
saints”; it was true that they, “the elect of God,” had been led astray,
“yet they were at last delivered and made their escape through faith in
Jesus Christ.” Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366 (1528).
[1259] Erl. ed., 26², p. 46 f.
[1260] _Ib._, p. 43.
[1261] “_Augustinus voluit scribere iudicanda non credenda, sicut alius
locus eiusdem scriptoris testatur: Nolo meis scriptis plus credi_,” etc.
(“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17). Cp. vol. iv., p. 400.
[1262] “_Ecclesia verbo Dei generatur, alitur, nutritur, roboratur_”
(Erl. ed., 25², p. 420).
[1263] Mensing, in Paulus, _ib._, p. 25.
[1264] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 13-25: “_Ecclesia, quæ regnum
Christi dicitur_.”
[1265] Erl. ed., 26², p. 172 ff., “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel
gestifft,” 1545.
[1266] As early as the Leipzig Disputation Luther had been obliged to
have recourse to the explanation, that by the rock was meant either the
faith Peter had confessed, or else Christ Himself. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1,
245, remarks on this: “We cannot honestly deny its weakness.”
[1267] “Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Parallelen,” Halle, 1876, p. 393.
[1268] “Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.,” ed. Hilgenfeld, 1878, p.
115.—H. A. Meyer, “Kritisch-exegetisches Handb. über das Evangelium des
Matthäus,”⁶ Göttingen, 1876, says of Matt. xvi. 18 f.: “There is no doubt
that the primacy among the Apostles is here bestowed on Peter.”—Schelling
wrote (“Philosophie der Offenbarung,” 2, Stuttgart. 1858, p. 301):
“These words of Christ (Matt. xvi. 18 f.) are conclusive to all eternity
as to the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles; it requires all the
blindness of party spirit to fail to see this or to give them any other
meaning.”
[1269] P. 185.
[1270] Above, p. 305.
[1271] P. 188.
[1272] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 638.
[1273] See vol. iv., p. 329. Cp. vol. iii., p. 436 f.
[1274] Jan. 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.
[1275] Dec. 2, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 701.
[1276] To Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 17, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 714.
[1277] May 7, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 737.
[1278] _Ib._, p. 735.
[1279] P. 733.
[1280] P. 737.
[1281] P. 738.
[1282] P. 739.
[1283] See below, p. 355 ff.
[1284] “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.
[1285] _Ib._, p. 742.
[1286] P. 743.
[1287] _Ib._, 6, p. 379.
[1288] _Ib._, 5, p. 380.
[1289] P. 739.