At first Luther was content to modify merely the doctrine of Purgatory

which is so deeply implanted in the consciousness of the Christian, by

denying that it was capable of making satisfaction while nevertheless

asserting his belief in the existence of a place of purgation (“_mihi

certissimum est, purgatorium esse_”);[1777] then he devoted himself

to countering the many legends and popular tales of the appearance

of ghosts, a comparatively easy task.[1778] The Pope, he went on to

say, had merely made Purgatory an article of faith in order to enrich

himself and his followers by Masses for the Dead, though in fact “it

may be that only very few souls go there.”

Later he preferred to think, that God had in reality told us

practically nothing about the existence or non-existence of Purgatory,

or of the condition of the Saints in heaven; the preachers would do

well, he says, gradually to wean the people from their practices in

this regard; they had merely to decline to discuss the question of the

dead and of the Saints in heaven. He was indeed unwilling to sever

the close ties, so dear to the Catholic, binding the faithful to the

deceased members of his family and to the beloved patterns and heroes

of former days, yet his writings do tend in that direction.

From 1522 onward he inclined strongly to the idea that those who passed

away fell into a deep sleep, from which they would awaken only on the

day of Judgment; those who had breathed their last in the faith of

Christ would all, so he fancies, sleep as in Abraham’s bosom; but since

this depended on the “good pleasure of God,” it was not forbidden “to

pray for the dead”; the petition must, however, be cautiously worded,

for instance, as follows: “I beseech Thee for this soul which may be

sleeping or suffering; if it be suffering, I implore Thee, if it be Thy

Divine Will, to deliver it.” After praying thus once or twice, then

“let it be.”[1779] In 1528 we still meet, in his writings, with similar

concessions to the olden teaching and practice.[1780]

In 1530, however, his writing “Widderruff vom Fegefeur,”[1781] made an

end of all concessions; here he is compelled to combat the “shouting

and boasting of the Papists,” for the “lies and abominations of the

sophists with regard to Purgatory” had passed all endurance. He now

wants the sleep of the soul to be understood as a state of happy peace,

and when it becomes a question of answering the Bible passage alleged

by the Catholics, viz. 2 Machabees xii. 45 f., where it is said of the

offering made for the fallen, that it is “a holy and wholesome thought

to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins,” Luther simply

strikes out this book from the Canon of Scripture, as indeed he had

done even previously; the Church, so his curious argument ran, could

not bestow more authority and force on a book than it possessed of

itself, because the sacred books must themselves bear witness to their

inspiration.

* * * * *

It would be superfluous to enumerate in detail the other points of

theology on which he set himself to oppose the Catholic teaching he had

himself in earlier days advocated, sometimes on excellent grounds. We

know his exclamation: Were I to teach to-day everything that I formerly

taught, particularly in the beginning, then “I should be obliged to

worship the Pope.” Moreover, not only were there contradictions due to

his falling away from doctrines of the Church which he had formerly

vindicated, but also many others resulting from his modification of his

own views, or implied in his new opinions.

His views on indulgences, satisfaction, penance and contrition,

original sin and predestination, on marriage, priestly ordination,

spiritual jurisdiction and secular authority, on Councils and the Roman

Primacy, have already been dealt with historically in what has gone

before. Other points of doctrine will have to be discussed elsewhere

in a different connection; for instance, the far-reaching question of

the Church and her visibility and invisibility, and--what is of no less

importance for a due appreciation of the man--the end of all and the

devil.

One only point, on which indeed Luther opposed the doctrine and

practice of the Church with all his heart and soul, must here be

considered more closely.

6. Luther’s Attack on the Sacrifice of the Mass

All Luther’s new doctrines referred to above might be regarded in the

light of attacks on the Church’s teaching and practice. None of his

theological views were put forward by him merely to be discussed in the

calm domain of thought. They are always quickened by his hatred of the

Church and the antichristian Papacy. This holds good in particular of

his antagonism to the sacrificial character of the Mass.

By his violent assault on the Mass he robbed the churches and public

worship of the Holy Sacrifice,[1782] and removed the very focus of

Divine service in the Church.

Whereas to the Catholic Church the celebration of the Sacrament of

the Altar was always a true sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving and

atonement, which Christ, as the High Priest, offers to the Eternal

Father through the instrumentality of a priest, according to Luther it

is merely a memorial on the part of the congregation, which stimulates

faith and gives a public testimony to God’s glory.[1783] In 1538 he

characterised the struggle against the Mass as one vital to the new

faith;[1784] he was very well aware how closely allied it was with the

worship to which he himself had once been devoted: “Had any man twenty

years ago tried to rob me of the Mass, I should have come to blows with

him.”[1785]

Sacrifice is the supreme and at the same time the most popular

expression of the worship of God. “From the rising of the sun even to

the going down,” the Prophet Malachias had prophesied (i. 11), “my name

is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and

there is offered to my name a clean oblation,” viz. the Eucharist. The

common oblation throughout Christendom formed a sublime bond uniting

all the Christian nations of the earth in one holy family. The words of

Christ concerning the “Body that is given for you,” and “Blood that is

shed for you” were rightly regarded as proving both the institution of

the common sacrifice and its atoning power.

Luther not only burst asunder the bond of unity, but also overthrew the

altar of sacrifice. It is against the correct idea of Divine worship to

deprive it of all sacrifice, and to make its principal object consist

in the edification and instruction of the congregation, as Luther

decreed. Here again we see Luther’s individualism and the stress he

laid on the subjective side, even to the extent of robbing religion of

the sacrifice of the Lamb, which had the misfortune to be independent

of fortuitous piety. The very walls of his temples seemed to utter a

chill protest against being given over to a worship so entirely at the

mercy of the feelings of the visitor. Luther was against the abuses

connected with the Mass, and so were all well-instructed Catholics.

But the latter argued, that, in spite of the abuses, the Mass must be

honoured as the sacrifice on which the spiritual life rests. To the

many contradictions of which he was guilty Luther added a further one,

viz. of advocating as a purer and higher worship, one that does not

even come up to the true standard of worship. (See vol. v., xxix., 9).

Luther’s deep-seated and almost instinctive antipathy to the Sacrifice

of the Mass affords us, in its various phases, a good insight into

his plan of campaign. On no other point does his hate flame forth

so luridly, nowhere else is he so defiant, so contemptuous and so

noisy--save perhaps when attacking Popery--as when assailing the

Sacrifice of the Mass, that main bulwark of the Papacy. One thing

is certain; of all the religious practices sacred to Catholics none

was branded by him with such hideous and common abuse as this, the

sublimest mystery of faith and of Divine Love.

_First Attacks. “On the Abomination of the Silent Mass.”_

In spite of Luther’s assurance given above of his former high regard

for the Mass, he must quite early have grown averse to it, probably at

the time when his zeal in the religious life first began to flag.

Even in 1516 we learn from his correspondence that he rarely found

time for its celebration or for the recitation of the Canonical

Hours.[1786] At a much later date he lets fall the remark, that he had

never liked saying Mass.[1787] In view of his disturbed state of soul

we can readily credit what he says, viz. that, in the monastery Gabriel

Biel’s book on the Mass, in which the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice

is extolled with the voices of antiquity, had often made his heart

bleed.[1788] It is rather curious, that, according to his own account,

it was on the occasion of his first Mass after ordination that his

morbid state of fear showed itself strongly for the first time.[1789]

No less remarkable is it that his most extravagant self-reproaches

for his past life had reference to his saying Mass. He tells us how,

even long after his apostasy, he had often been brought to the verge

of despair by the recollection of the terrible sin of saying Mass

whereby he had at one time openly defied and offended God. He morbidly

persuades himself that he had been guilty of the most frightful

idolatry; that, as a priest and monk, he had performed the most

criminal of actions, one subversive of all religion, in spite of his

having done so in ignorance and in perfect good faith.[1790]

In his sermons on the Commandments, published in 1518, we still find a

tribute to the Sacrifice of the Mass as Catholics understood it.[1791]

But in his “Sermon von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament des heyligen waren

Leychnams Christi” of 1519 he is curiously reticent concerning the

nature of the Mass, whilst expressly recommending and praising the

communion of the congregation--under both kinds--as the work of that

faith “wherein strength lies.”[1792]

The first open attack on the Holy Sacrifice was made in his “Sermon

von dem newen Testament das ist von der heyligen Messe” (1520). The

latter appeared almost simultaneously with his “An den christlichen

Adel” and prepared the way for his subversive treatment of the Mass

in his “_De captivitate babylonica_.” In the Sermon he declared

that it was “almost the worst abuse,” that in the older Church the

Eucharistic celebration had been turned into a sacrifice to be offered

to God.[1793] Statements such as these predominate in the virulent

chapter devoted to the Mass in the “_De captivitate babylonica_”:

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross had been made out to be insufficient

and the Sacrifice of the Mass set up in its place; the Supper was the

Lord’s work for us, but, by ascribing a sacrificial value to the Mass,

it becomes a work of man for God, whereby man hopes to please God.

The close ties connecting the Sacrifice of the Mass with both the

Church’s ancient traditions and the institution of Christ are here

ruthlessly torn asunder. A lurid and grossly exaggerated account of

the abuses which had arisen in connection with the money-offerings for

Masses served to stimulate the struggle, essentials faring as badly as

what was merely accidental.

At the Wartburg the “Spirit” of the place further excited Luther’s

hatred of the Mass. He poked fun at the “Mass-priest” who served the

stronghold and wrote to Melanchthon: “Never to all eternity shall I

say another Low Mass.”[1794] This he says in the same letter which

witnesses to his inner contest with the monastic vows, and in which we

find the sentence: “Be a sinner and sin boldly but believe more boldly

still.”[1795] At the time of his spiritual baptism in the Wartburg

he also wrote both his “_De abroganda missa_” and his “_De votis

monasticis_.” The former he published in 1522, also in a German version

entitled “Vom Missbrauch der Messen.”

This was the bugle-call to the struggle he immediately commenced at

Wittenberg against the continued celebration of Mass by the Catholic

clergy in the Castle and Collegiate churches of the town. We have

already treated of the phases of that campaign in which his impetuosity

and intolerance manifested itself in all its nakedness.[1796] From the

inglorious combat, thanks to the help of the mob, he was to come forth

victorious. On Christmas Day, 1524, for the first time, there was no

Mass, and in the following year Justus Jonas wrote of the completion

of the work: “On the Saturday after the Feast of St. Matthew the

Apostle and Evangelist, the whole Pope ... was flung out of All

Saints’ church at Wittenberg, together with the stoles, albs, etc.;

the olden ceremonies were replaced by pious ones such as accord with

Scripture.”[1797]

Luther was convinced that the “whole Pope” could not be destroyed

throughout the world save by the abolition everywhere of the Mass.

“When once the Mass has been put away,” he declares in 1522, in his

screed against Henry VIII., “then I shall think I have overthrown the

Pope completely.”[1798]

In this writing his consciousness of his mission and his defiant

insistence on the new teaching were largely directed against that

palladium of the old Church: “Through me Christ has begun to reveal the

abomination standing in the Holy Place” (Dn. ix. 27). It is in denying

the sacrificial character of the Mass that he uses those odd words of

bravado: “Here I stand, here I sit, here I remain, here I defy with

contempt the whole assembly of the Papists,” etc.[1799]

The last act in his warfare on the Mass at the Collegiate church of

Wittenberg had been anticipated by Luther’s stormy sermon against the

Canon of the Mass (Nov. 27, 1524).[1800] This identical sermon, taken

down by his pupil George Rörer, formed the groundwork of the writing

he published in 1525, “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon

nennet.”[1801]

Here he proceeds on the curious assumption, only to be explained by

his perverted enthusiasm, that the mere bringing to light of the

Canon (i.e. of the principal part of the Mass, which includes the

Consecration and which the priest reads in silence) will suffice to

bring about the fall of the whole Eucharistic ritual. The passionate,

cynical commentary which he appended to the translation, was, however,

far more effective.

The author seems not in the least to realise that the Canon of the

Mass is one of the most ancient and most authentic echoes of the early

Western Church. It contains sublime religious ideas couched in the

simple yet impressive language of the remotest ages of the Church when

she was still in touch with classical culture.[1802] Yet Luther’s

opinion is that: “It must have been composed by some unlettered

monk.”[1803]

He concludes the booklet with a specimen of his usual language: “See,

there you have heard the holy, silent Mass and now know what it is,

that you may stand aghast at it and cross yourself as though you saw

the devil as large as life.” He exhorts the reader to thank God, that

“such an abomination has been brought to light,” and “that the great

whore of Babylon has been exposed.”

At the same time he tells the secular authorities that it is

their bounden duty to interfere “by means of the law” against

such defamation of the name of God; “for when an impudent rascal

openly blasphemes God in the street, or curses and swears, and the

authorities permit it, they become in the sight of God partners in his

wickedness. And if in some regions it is forbidden to curse or swear,

much more just were it that the secular lords should here do something

to prevent and to punish, because such blaspheming and defaming in the

Mass is quite as public and as open as when a knave blasphemes in the

street. If one is punishable, the other is surely no less so.”[1804]

Thus Luther’s attacks on the Mass in a fatal way became one of the

quicksands on which the theory of freedom of conscience and worship

which he had put forth at the commencement suffered shipwreck.[1805]

Even in the question of the Mass at Wittenberg he had formerly

insisted, in opposition to Carlstadt’s violent proceedings, that no

religious compulsion should be exercised; this he did, for instance,

in the sermons he preached against Carlstadt’s undertaking and

particularly in that on Low Masses,[1806] where he declared that

faith cannot he held captive or bound, that each one must see for

himself what is right or wrong and is not simply to fall in with

the “general opinion or to yield to compulsion.” His words were an

honourable declaration in favour of freedom of conscience. And now,

in his warfare against his fantastic caricature of the Mass, not

theoretically only but in practice too (for besides Wittenberg, there

was also Altenburg and Erfurt)[1807] he placed the Mass, the most

sacred centre of the Church’s worship, on a level with criminal deeds

and invited the magistrates to treat it as a sacrilege, since it was

the duty of authority “to check all outbreaks of wickedness.”[1808]

When Johann Eck took up his pen to refute Luther’s “Von dem Grewel

der Stillmesse” he felt it almost superfluous to prove how unfounded

the latter’s assertions were, that, by the sacrifice of the Mass,

Catholics “denied in deed and in their heart that Christ had blotted

out sin”[1809] by His Sacrifice on Golgotha, or that they maintained,

that, not the merits of Christ, but rather “our works, must effect

this.”[1810] He enters at greater length into the theological proofs

of the truly sacrificial character of the consecration and of the

correctness and value of the Canon, supplementing the biblical passages

on the Sacrifice of the New Covenant by the clear and definite witness

of tradition.[1811]

He and his Catholic readers were, however, quite prepared to find

Luther refusing even to listen to such proofs taken from tradition.

“Ah, bah, tradition this way, tradition that!” he had already cried,

with regard to this very question, when striving to shake himself free

of the fetters of the Church’s doctrine.

Eck, however, also attacked Luther from another point. Luther had

placed in the very forefront of his writing the assertion, that he had

never advised the people to have recourse to violent measures, whether

with regard to the Mass or the Catholic worship generally, or invited

them to revolt; in the preface Eck accordingly promises to take him

to task both concerning the Canon and for his responsibility in the

rising. “I shall, please God, prove Luther a liar on both counts.” He

convicts him of inciting to revolt on the strength of “five proofs”

taken from various works of his.

The pecuniary aspect of the Mass supplied Luther and the preachers with

an effective means of exciting the people which they were not slow to

seize. The abuses, real or apparent, of the system of Mass-stipends,

were worked to their utmost by the demagogues.

In Luther’s extravagant language the Sacrifice of the Mass is simply

made to appear a rich field for vulgar greed of gain, discovered

and exploited by the Papists because it filled their pockets. The

amount brought in by Masses for the Dead was chiefly to blame for the

spread of the Mass. “This invention [Masses for the Dead] has been

worth money to them,” he cries, “so that they need not say Mass for

nothing.”[1812] “At All Saints’, here at Wittenberg, the money is

godlessly thrown away [by foundation-Masses, annual commemorations,

etc.]; the three Mass-priests there, ‘three pigs or paunches,’”

celebrate it “in the house of infamy simply because they worship

money.”[1813]

Many of the apostles of the new faith preached in the same strain

as Luther. Others, as Stephen Agricola for instance states he did,

were content to scourge “the great superstition and hindrance to the

true honour of God,” i.e. the abuses. Agricola, if we may trust him,

“was loath to see Masses for the dead said for money, as this should

be done out of pure charity.”[1814] When, later, Flacius Illyricus

made similar charges against the Catholics on the pretext of the alms

given for Masses, the Dominican, Johann Fabri, replied: “What do you

sectarians do gratis? People can never give enough for your preaching,

your psalm-singing, your Supper, etc., so that yearly a very large sum

has to be spent on your support.... Why then do you abuse the poor

priests who take payment for their work and unkindly twit them for

saying Mass solely for money? What answer would you make were I to

say: You too, Illyricus, preach for the sake of money?”[1815]

The charges of self-seeking and avarice had, however, in some

places so strong an effect as to lead to popular risings against

the celebration of Mass. This recalls the account given by Erasmus

of the ready success he had noticed attended the addresses of the

preachers: “The Mass has been abolished,” he writes, “but what more

holy thing has been set in its place?... Their churches I have

never entered. I have occasionally seen those who listened to their

sermons come out like men possessed, with anger and fury writ large

upon their faces.... They walked like warriors who have just been

harangued by their general. When have their sermons ever produced

penance and contrition? Do they not devote most of their time to abuse

of the clergy and their lives?... Are risings rare amongst these

evangelicals? And do they not resort to violence on the slightest

provocation?”[1816]

The peaceable union of Christians before the Altar of Sacrifice in

the “Mystery of Faith” had made way for warfare. The absence of

the sacrifice avenged itself, however, in the Churches given over

to the new religion by the dreariness and utter desolation of the

sacred buildings once so full of life; not to mention the dreadful

controversies, the bare “ministry of the Word” and the one-sided effort

to make of the Supper simply a source of edification and increase of

faith, could not suffice to attract the multitude to the Eucharistic

celebration. The great sacrifice, which by its own infinite worth and

quite independently of its power to edify, glorifies God in His Temple,

and so powerfully stimulates the faithful to unite their offering

with the sacramental oblation, had been torn from the midst of the

congregation.

* * * * *

If we seek here for the connecting link between Luther’s bitter

hostility to the Mass and his system as a whole, we shall find, that,

granted the doctrine of the imputation of the merits of Christ by faith

alone, the Eucharistic Sacrifice had no real place left. Luther said in

1540: “Where the ‘_locus_’ [’_iustificationis_’] is rightly taught and

stands, there can be nothing evil; for the _antecedens_, ‘faith alone

justifies,’ spells the fall of the Mass,” etc.[1817]

In the new faith everything turned on the saving and the pacification

of the sinner by virtue of a sort of amnesty furnished by the merits

of Christ’s death on the cross. Faith alone secures all the fulness of

the Redeemer’s work of satisfaction; no ordinance of Christ, sacrament,

sacrifice or priesthood can assist in the work of clothing the soul

with the mantle of these Divine merits; anything of the sort would only

diminish the dignity and the efficacy of the confidence of faith. Only

what promotes the personal faith which saves--that master-key to the

forgiveness, or better, to the cloaking of sin--is here admitted, but

no work, no “_opus operatum_” of Christ’s institution, which, through

sacrament and sacrifice, imparts grace to the faithful Christian who is

duly prepared to seek salvation; on the contrary, according to Luther,

such institutions, which the ancient Church looked upon as sacred, only

detract from the merits of Christ.

And since, in his view, every Christian by his faith is a priest, the

hierarchy falls, and thus sacrifice too, at least as the prerogative of

a special sacerdotal class, also ceases to exist.

Hence the warfare on behalf of the Evangel of faith alone and against

sacerdotalism, naturally, and of necessity, led to the warfare against

the Mass. This particular combat, in which (as in the attack on the

Church’s visible head, viz. the Pope) Luther’s animosity against the

Catholics reached its culminating point, necessarily occupied a place

in the forefront, because the Mass, which united the congregation

before the altar, was the most public and most tangible expression of

Catholic life and the one most frequently seen.

Luther’s theological perversions of the Church’s doctrine of the

sacrifice of the Mass, in the above works and elsewhere, are all

the more astonishing, seeing that Gabriel Biel, the theologian,

with whom he was so well acquainted and whose “_Sacri canonis

missæ expositio_” he had studied with keen interest, had, in his

exposition of the ancient doctrine of the Mass, forestalled these

very misrepresentations, almost as though he had actually foreseen

them.[1818] The respected Tübingen University-Professor, in this

explanation of the Mass, which appeared in 1488, was frequently

reprinted, and was much used by both parish clergy and preachers,

insists, in close unison with the past, that there was but one great

and atoning sacrifice of the cross, and that the sacrifice of the Mass

did not in the least detract from it but rather applied it to the

individual believer. He points out with great emphasis the uniquely

sublime character of the sacrifice on Calvary (“_unica oblatio et

perfectissimum sacrificium_”), in its fourfold aspect as a sacrifice

of praise, thanksgiving, petition and atonement. In support of this he

quotes a number of passages from the Bible: “By it [the sacrifice on

the cross] our sins are blotted out (Romans iv.). Through it we have

found grace whereby we are saved (Hebrews v.): for, being consummated

by suffering, He (Christ) became to all who obey Him the cause of

eternal life. By the one oblation of the cross He hath for ever

perfected them that are sanctified (Hebrews x.),” etc. “If you seek

the blotting out of sins, behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the

sins of the world; if you seek thanksgiving, Christ gives thanks to the

Father; if you seek for deliverance from evil, He heals and sets us

free.”[1819] In several passages he dwells in detail on the idea of the

saving Lamb of God, once in connection with the thrice-repeated _Agnus

Dei_ of the Mass.

But, a comparatively short time after, another was to come, who would

assert that the world had long ago lost the Lamb of God, and who

presumed to take upon himself the task of pointing Him out anew to all

men and of making Him profitable to souls.

In unison with Fathers and theologians, Biel sums up the mutual

relations between the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice on the

Cross in the words: “Although Christ was once only offered visibly in

the flesh, yet He is daily offered concealed under the appearances of

bread and wine, though painlessly, for the Sacrifice of the Mass is the

representation and memorial of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross

and produces the same effects.”[1820]

When describing more minutely its efficacy for the obtaining of grace

and forgiveness of sins he dwells on the thought, that it has no

quasi-magical effect, but acts “according to man’s preparation and

capacity,” so that the Holy Sacrifice does not by any means blot out

sin if man’s heart is still turned away from God: to souls that show

themselves well-disposed it brings contrition and sorrow for sin

and finally forgiveness.[1821] Unlike Baptism and Penance, it does

not reconcile the soul with God directly, but only indirectly, by

arousing the spirit of penance which leads to the wholesome use of

the sacraments and appeases the anger of the Heavenly Father by the

offering of His Son, and prevents Him withdrawing the help of His

grace. Biel elucidates the idea of sacrifice, deals with the figurative

sacrifices of the Old Testament, which found their fulfilment in the

clean oblation (Mal. i. 10 f.) to be offered from the rising of the sun

even to the going down, with the twofold efficacy of the Mass (“_ex

opere operato_” and “_ex opere operante_”)[1822] and many other points

which Luther unjustly attacks; with the lawfulness of private Masses,

with or without any Communion of the faithful, with the advantage of

Masses for the souls of the faithful departed, with Mass-stipends[1823]

which he defends against the charge of simony, and with the practice of

repeating silently certain portions of the Mass, an ancient usage for

which he gives the reasons.[1824]

_“On the Corner-Mass.” Continuation of the Conflict._

In his war against the Mass Luther was never to yield an inch. His “Von

dem Grewel der Stillmesse” was followed by fresh pronouncements and

writings which bear witness to the intensity of his hatred.

The occasion for another lengthy writing against the Mass and the

hierarchy seems to have been furnished in 1533 by the religious

conditions in the province of Anhalt, where the Princes, under pressure

from their Catholic neighbours, had begun to tolerate the former

worship and the saying of Mass. In Dec. of that year Luther published

his booklet “Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffen Weihe.”[1825]

It was designed primarily as a protest against “the ecclesiastical

jurisdiction and Ordination,” i.e. against the hierarchy and

priesthood, and broadly hinted to the “bishops and priests” that their

Order was doomed to destruction. At the Diet of Augsburg he declared

his followers had “very humbly informed the Pope and the bishops, that

we had no wish forcibly to infringe on their rights and authority in

ecclesiastical matters, but that, so long as they did not compel us

to any unchristian doctrines, we were quite ready to be ordained and

governed by them, and even to assist them in their administration,”

but his overtures having been rejected, nothing remained for him but

to await the end of the priesthood when God should “in good time” so

dispose. “God is wonderful”; He had “overthrown by His word” so much

“papistical Mammon-service and idolatry”; “He would also be able to

wipe away the rancid Chresam,” i.e. to make an end of the bishops and

priests in whose ordination Chrism was used.[1826] Towards the end

of the tract he returns to the attack on priestly ordination. He is

determined “again to adjudge and commit to the Churches the call, or

true ordination and consecration to the office of pastor.” The members

of the Church must have the “right and authority to appoint people to

the office,” and to entrust it to simple believers of blameless lives,

even “without Chrism or butter, grease or lard.”[1827]

The greater portion of the writing is, however, devoted to the

“Corner-Mass,” i.e. the Mass generally, which according to the Catholic

doctrine is equally valid whether celebrated by the priest alone in a

lonely chapel or amid a concourse of faithful who unite their prayers

with his and communicate. For reasons readily understood, Luther

prefers to use the contemptuous term “Corner-Mass.”

Towards the end he himself sums up the thoughts on the Mass which he

has just submitted:[1828]

He had the best grounds for “being affrighted,” that he and others

“had once said the Corner-Mass so devoutly.” After the reasons he had

advanced, everyone, particularly the Papists to-day, must be driven

to despair at the frightful idolatry of the Mass; yet they “wantonly

persist in their abomination.” “They pervert Christ’s ordinance, say

their Mass not merely in disobedience to God, but also blasphemously

and without any command, give the sacrament to no one but keep it for

themselves alone, and, to make matters worse, are not even certain

whether they are receiving merely bread and wine or the Body and Blood

of Christ, because they do not follow Christ’s ordinance.”

Here he plainly enough questions the presence of Christ under the

consecrated elements in the “Corner-Mass” and has thus made a notable

stride forward in his hostility.

“Nor can anyone be certain,” so he continues his summing up, “whether

they [the priests, in the Canon of the Mass] pronounce the Words [of

institution] or not; hence no one is bound to believe their secret

antics. Neither do they preach to anyone, though Christ commanded it.”

In his opinion it was essential both that the words of institution

should be spoken aloud, in order to stimulate faith, and that the

service should include the preaching of the Word--minor matters,

which, however, became of the greatest importance to him when once he

had reduced it all to the status of a mere ceremonial of edification.

He boldly concludes. “It is also impossible that they [the Popish

sayers of Masses] can be right in their faith.” For, as already

demonstrated, “one and the same man could not believe aright and

yet knowingly rage against the Word of God. Hence they can neither

pray, nor offer thanks in such a way as to be acceptable to God. And,

finally, over and above these abominations and crimes, they actually

dare to offer to God this sacrament (if what is disgraced by so much

blasphemy and abomination can be called a sacrament) and to barter and

sell it to other Christians for money.”

The book on the “Winckelmesse” is celebrated for the disputation

between Luther and the devil which it describes. The devil sets

forth the proofs against the Mass with marvellous skill, and, by his

reproaches, drives the quondam monk into desperate straits. Here Luther

is describing the deep remorse of conscience which he will have it he

had to endure on account of his Masses. He is, however, merely using a

literary artifice when he introduces the devil as the speaker; of this

there will be more to say later.[1829] Here, in addition to a letter,

which so far has received but little attention, in which he himself

furnishes the key to the form in which he casts his argument,[1830]

we may mention the fact that Luther’s first draft of his writing on

the “Winckelmesse,” which has recently been examined, gives a portion

of the devil’s arguments against the Mass and without any reference

to the devil, as the author’s own; only later on was the devil made

the spokesman for Luther’s ideas.[1831] We can see that it was only

as the work proceeded that there occurred to Luther the happy thought

of making the devil himself speak, not so much to reveal to the world

the worthlessness of the Mass, as to cast if possible poor Luther into

despair, because of his former Mass-sayings, and to reveal the utter

perversity of the Papists, who, far from being in despair, actually

boasted of the Mass.

Luther expected great things from his ruthless attack and from

the scene in which the devil appears. It would be, so he fancied,

a “test of the wisdom and power of the Papacy.”[1832] His friend

Jonas, in a letter of Oct. 26, 1533, speaking of the yet unpublished

“Winckelmesse,” calls it a real “battering-ram” to be used against the

Papacy; it was long since the Professor had been heard speaking in

such a way of the Mass, the Pope and the priests.[1833] Those of the

preachers who were fallen priests rejoiced at the advice they found

in the book for the quieting of their consciences when tempted by the

devil, and at its hint that they should rub their anointed hands with

soap and lye the better to obliterate the mark of the Beast.

The writing was translated by Jonas into Latin, but his rendering was a

very free and rhetorical one.

The interest it aroused was increased by the negative attitude which

Luther seemed to assume towards the Real Presence. To many of his

followers Luther seemed to come to an opinion not far removed from the

Zwinglian denial of the Presence. Luther learned that Prince Johann of

Anhalt and others had expressed their anxiety lest the booklet “should

be understood as though I agreed with the fanatics and enemies of

the Sacrament.” Hence he at once issued a fresh writing entitled: “A

Letter of D. Mart. Luther to a good friend concerning his book on the

Corner-Masses” (1534).[1834]

To attack the Sacrament and the Real Presence was, he there declared,

far from his thoughts. I shall prove “that I do not hold, nor ever

shall hold to all eternity, with the wrong doctrine of the foes of the

Sacrament--or to speak quite plainly--with that of Carlstadt, Zwingli

and their followers.”[1835] But by this he stood: “Whoever, like the

Papists, did not celebrate the Sacrament according to the ordinance of

Christ, had no right to say Christ was there”; “a counterfeit florin,

struck contrary to the King’s order, can never be a good one.”[1836]

“May God bestow on all pious Christians such a mind, that, when they

hear the Mass spoken of, they quake with fear and cross themselves as

they would at the sight of some abomination of the devil.”[1837]

* * * * *

Johann Cochlæus at once replied to the “Winckelmesse” with an appeal

to the correctness of ecclesiastical tradition. In the same year he

published Innocent the Third’s “_De sacro altaris mysterio_” and

Isidore of Sevilla’s “_De ecclesiasticis officiis_.” These venerable

witnesses of Christian antiquity had, he declared, “a better claim

to be believed than Luther’s furies.” In addition to this he also

wrote a popular theological defence in the vernacular “On the Holy

Mass and Priestly ordination” (Leipzig, 1534). In this writing he

begins by emphasising the claims of ecclesiastical tradition and the

teaching office of the Church: “The Church understands Scripture far

better and more surely, thanks to the Holy Spirit promised by Christ

and duly sent her, than Luther does by his evil spirit.” He laid down

the principle which he urged was the only true and reliable guide in

the controversies of the age: Hold fast to the teaching of the Church

rather than to the subjective interpretations of the Bible, which

are often so divergent. He was not, however, altogether happy in his

choice of expressions, for instance, when he exclaims: “Bible hither,

Bible thither!” for this might well have given the impression, that,

on his side, small account was made of the Bible. In reality this was

merely his way of retorting on Luther’s: “Tradition hither, Tradition

thither.” The theologian, who elsewhere is careful to set its true

value on the Bible, seeks in this way to brand the tricks played with

the Bible; similar phrases then in use were the one we already know,

“Bible, Babble, Bubble,” and Luther’s own sarcastic saying: “The Bible

is a heresy-book.”[1838]

Cochlæus not only brought forward, in support of the Mass, besides Holy

Scripture, that tradition which Luther had treated so scornfully, but

also replied to his opponent’s perversions and charges on all the other

counts. Of the grievous disorders which Luther said had come under

his notice during his stay in Rome, what Cochlæus says is much to the

point: “It is quite possible, that, among so many thousands from all

lands, there may have been some such desperate villains. But it is not

seemly that Luther on that score should seek to calumniate pious and

devout monks and priests and make the people distrustful of them.”[1839]

* * * * *

In his familiar conversations Luther repeatedly reveals the

psychological side of his attack on the Mass.

He said in 1540: “From the earliest years [of the revolt against

the Church] I was grievously tempted by the thought: ‘If the Mass

is really the highest form of Divine worship, then, Good God, how

wickedly have I behaved, towards God!’” He sought to stifle the voice

of conscience, which he called a temptation, by insisting still more

strongly on the worthlessness of the Mass.[1840] “But this is quite

certain,” he says, “the Mass is Moasim.”[1841] Moasim, according to

Dan. xi. 38, was the idol to be set up by Antichrist, in the letters

of whose name, according to Luther, we find the word “Mass”; this

idol, he says, was honoured with “silver, gold and precious stones,”

because the Mass helps to bring in such great wealth.

“From the Mass,” he said in the same conversation, “came every sort of

ungodliness, it was an ‘_abominanda abominatio_,’ and yet it was held

in such honour.”--In another conversation in the same year we hear him

say: “the Canon was looked upon as so sacred that to attack it was

like attacking both heaven and earth. When first I wrote against the

Mass and against the Canon I could hardly hope that people would agree

with me.... But when my writing [the ‘Sermon on the New Testament,

i.e. the Mass,’ 1520] was published, I found that many had shared my

temptation; they thanked me for deliverance from their terror.”[1842]

In Luther’s efforts to deliver himself and others “from their terror”

and to convince himself that “this is quite certain,” lies the

sole explanation of his wild statements that his former saying of

Mass--though undoubtedly done in good faith, and, at first, even with

pleasure and devotion[1843]--was his worst sin,[1844] and that he

would rather have “kept a bawdy house or been a robber than to have

blasphemed and traduced Christ for fifteen years by the saying of

Masses,”[1845] and, again, that “no tongue can tell the abomination of

the Mass, nor can any heart believe its wickedness. It would not have

been astonishing had God destroyed the world on account of the Mass,

as He will without a doubt soon do by fire.”[1846] The Mass embodies

a “pestilential mistake of the self-righteousness of the _opus

operatum_.” In the Popish Mass an ignorant priest, who does not even

know Latin, takes it on himself to blot out the sins of others.[1847]

Equally evident, according to the Table-Talk, was the pestilent side

of the Mass as a pecuniary concern. It is on this account that Luther

is fond of calling it the foundation of Popery, as though the Papacy

were erected on wealth.[1848] His historical knowledge of the actual

facts is as great here as it is when, in his Table-Talk, he makes

private Masses originate in the time of Pope Gregory I († 604).[1849]

Incidentally he describes quite frankly one way in which he had

endeavoured to overthrow the Mass: At first it had seemed to him

impossible to achieve its fall because its roots were so deeply

imbedded in the human heart. “But when once the Sacrament is received

under both kinds, the Mass will not stand much longer.”[1850]--We have

already had occasion to describe the underhand measures he recommended

in the warfare against the Mass (Vol. ii., p. 321 f.).

In part at least, he could congratulate himself on the success of his

unholy efforts. “If our Lord God allows me to die a natural death, He

will be playing a nasty trick on the Papists, because they will have

failed to burn the man who has thus brought the Mass to nought.”[1851]

Denunciation of the Mass naturally occupies a place in Luther’s

Articles of Schmalkalden.[1852] Since the latter were incorporated in

the “Symbolic Books” of the Lutheran Evangelical Church and figure

in the Book of Concord with the three oldest Œcumenical Creeds, the

Confession of Augsburg, etc., as writings “recognised and accepted as

godly truths by our blessed forefathers and by us,” condemnation of the

Mass became as much a traditional canon within the Protestant fold as

Luther himself could have desired.

In the Schmalkalden Articles we find, after the first article on

Justification by Faith alone, a second article on the office and work

of Jesus Christ which declares: “That the Mass among the Papists must

be the greatest and most frightful abomination” because it is “in

direct and violent opposition” to the first article, according to

which the Lamb of God alone delivers man from sin, not “a wicked or

pious minister of the Mass by his work.” The Mass is a “work of men,

yea, of wicked knaves,” a source “of unspeakable abuses by the buying

and selling of Masses,” defended by the Papists only because they

“know very well, that if the Mass falls, the Papacy too must perish.”

Over and above all this, that dragon’s tail, which is the Mass, has

produced much filth and vermin and many forms of idolatry: First of all

Purgatory; for the execrable market of Masses for the dead produced

that “devilish spectre” of Purgatory. Secondly, “on account of it

evil spirits have performed much trickery by appearing as the souls

of men”; the devils “with unspeakable roguery” demanded Masses, etc.

“Thirdly, pilgrimages, whereby people ran after Masses, forgiveness of

sins, and the Grace of God, for the Mass ruled everything” and caused

men to run after “hurtful, devilish will-o’-the-wisps.” “Fourthly, the

brotherhoods” with their Masses, etc., are also “contrary to the first

article of the Atonement.” “Fifthly, the holy things” (relics) were

also “supposed to effect forgiveness of sin as being a good work and

worship of God like the Mass.” “Sixthly, here belong also the beloved

Indulgence” in which “Judas incarnate, i.e. the Pope, sells the merits

of Christ.”--Hence even Indulgences are made out to be one of the

unhappy consequences of the Mass!

* * * * *

It is a relief, after such lamentable utterances which could only have

been accepted by people whom prejudice in Luther’s favour had rendered

blind, to recall the clear statements--so full of conviction--on the

Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which occur in the very

writings in which Luther attacks the Mass. Our second volume concluded

with a cheering confession on the part of the Wittenberg Professor of

his faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, a confession which both did

him honour and expressed those consoling and incontrovertible truths

which constitute the common treasure of the Christian creeds. The

present volume also, after the sad pictures of dissent of which it is

only too full, may charitably end with the words in which Luther voices

his belief in the Sacrament of the Altar, the lasting memorial of

Divine Love, in which our Lord never ceases to pray for unity amongst

those bidden as guests to His table.

“I hereby confess before God and the whole world that I believe and do

not doubt, and with the help and grace of my dear Lord Jesus Christ

will maintain even to that Day, that where Mass is celebrated according

to Christ’s ordinance whether amongst us Lutherans or in the Papacy,

or in Greece or in India (even though under one kind only--though that

is wrong and an abuse), there is present under the species of the

Bread, the true Body of Christ given for us on the cross, and, under

the species of wine, the true Blood of Christ shed for us; nor is it

a spiritual or fictitious Body and Blood, but the true natural Body

and Blood taken of the holy, virginal, and really human body of Mary,

without the intervention of any man but conceived of the Holy Ghost

alone; which Body and Blood of Christ now sitteth at the right hand of

the Majesty of God in the Divine Person, which is Christ Jesus, true,

real, and eternal God, with the Father of Whom He is begotten from all

eternity, etc. And that same Body and Blood of the Son of God, Jesus

Christ, not only the Saints and those who are worthy, but also sinners

and the unworthy truly handle and receive, bodily though invisibly,

with hands, mouth, chalice, paten, corporal, or whatever else be used

when it is given and received in the Mass.”

“This is my faith, this I know, and no one shall take it from me.”

He had always, so he insists, by his testimony upheld the “clear, plain

text of the Gospel” against heresies old and new, and withstood the

“devil’s malice and work in the service and for the betterment of my

dear brothers and sisters, in accordance with Christian charity.”[1853]

END OF VOL. IV

FOOTNOTES:

[1] On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision,

see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der Görresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and

the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie”

(on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage

der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 135,

1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp.

238-287. See below, p. 6 f.

[2] To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the

commencement we read: “_Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi

iuris, non divini_.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3,

_ibid._, pp. 92-8.

[3] “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 88. In the revision the passage still

reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would

permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of

the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or

Queens” (p. 93).

[4] See vol. iii., p. 259.

[5] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87 _seq._

[6] Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die

Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n.

1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.

[7] Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520 _seq._; see

particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “_propter

magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis....

Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere._” Cp. G.

Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell, _ibid._,

p. 208 ff.

[8] Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he

refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced

in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the

material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the

Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851 _seq._).

[9] “Wie in Ehesachen und den Fällen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach

göttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D.

2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.

[10] The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.

[11] Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.

[12] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “_Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem

ei esse concubinatum quam_” to distract his whole country and nation,

“_sed tandem eam repudiavit_.”

[13] Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.

[14] [Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St.

Augustine (“_De bono conjugali_,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be

lost sight of. _Note to English Edition._]

[15] Cp. Paulus, _ibid._, 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet

mediæval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’

in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided

by the mediæval theory and practice, he would never have given his

consent to the Hessian bigamy.”

[16] “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, Köhler

writes (_ibid._): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against

Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a

dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not

convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”

[17] “Theol. JB. für 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to

“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.

[18] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1

ff.

[19] Letter published by Th. Kolde in the “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14,

1894, p. 605.

[20] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 106, in 1540. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p.

995.

[21] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 928. Melanchthon’s language, and Luther’s too,

changed when, later, Henry VIII caused those holding Lutheran opinions

to be executed. See below, p. 12 f.

[22] Beginning of Dec., 1535. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “_Utinam

haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent!_”

[23] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1032, n. 1383. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 369.

[24] Thus G. Mentz, the editor of the “Wittenberger Artickel,” drawn up

for the envoys from England (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,”

Hft. 2, 1905), pp. 3 and 4. He points out, p. 7, that King Henry, in a

reply to Wittenberg (March 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 48), requested

“support in the question of the divorce” and desired certain things to

be modified in the “_Confessio_” and the “_Apologia_.’”

[25] For full particulars concerning the change, see Rockwell, _loc.

cit._, 216 ff. The latter says, p. 217: “Luther’s opinion obviously

changed [before March 12, 1536].... Yet he expressed himself even in

1536 against the divorce [Henry the Eighth’s]; the prohibition [of

marriage with a sister in-law] from which the Mosaic Law admitted

exceptions, might be dispensed, whereas the prohibition of divorce

could not be dispensed,” and, p. 220: “In the change of 1536 the

influence of Osiander is unmistakable.... Cranmer, when at Ratisbon

in 1532, had visited Osiander several times at Nuremberg, and finally

won him over to the side of the King of England.” At the end Rockwell

sums up as follows (p. 222): “The expedient of bigamy ... was approved

by Luther, Melanchthon, Grynæus, Bucer and Capito, but repudiated by

Œcolampadius and Zwingli. Hence we cannot be surprised that Luther,

Melanchthon and Bucer should regard favourably the Hessian proposal

of bigamy, whereas Zwingli’s successors at Zürich, viz. Bullinger and

Gualther, opposed it more or less openly.”

[26] On Feb. 16, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 436. Cp. _ibid._,

p. 584, Letter of Jan. 18, 1545.

[27] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 152, in 1540.

[28] Mentz, _loc. cit._, p. 11.

[29] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 327).

[30] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174, in 1540.

[31] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 324.

[32] _Ibid._, p. 326.

[33] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400, with reference to “Corp. ref.,” 3, p.

1076.

[34] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 537, where the words have been

transferred to July 10, 1539.

[35] Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1029.

[36] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 178.

[37] _Ibid._, p. 145.

[38] _Ibid._, p. 198.

[39] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 145. On account of his cruelty he says

of Henry VIII, in Aug., 1540: “I look upon him not as a man but as a

devil incarnate. He has added to his other crimes the execution of the

Chancellor Cromwell, whom, a few days previously, he had made Lord

Chief Justice of the Kingdom” (_ibid._, p. 174).

[40] For Luther’s previous statements in favour of polygamy, see vol.

iii., p. 259 ff.; and above, p. 4.

[41] To Philip of Hesse, Nov. 28, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 411 f.

[42] “Briefwechsel des A. Corvinus,” ed. Tschackert, 1900, p. 81.

[43] “Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmütigen von Hessen mit

Bucer, hg. und erläutert von Max Lenz” (“Publikationen aus den Kgl.

preuss. Staatsarchiven,” Bd. 5, 28 und 47 = 1, 2, 3), 1, 1880, p.

345. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest.

Zeitgenossen,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911 (p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) p. 504.

[44] We quote the instructions throughout from the most reliable

edition, viz. that in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12 (1910, p. 301 ff.),

which G. Kawerau continued and published after the death of Enders.

[45] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 352.

[46] Best given in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319 ff. Cp. “Luthers

Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 258 ff.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 237,

which gives only the Latin version; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851 _seq._;

“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 18, 1846, p. 236 ff.

[47] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.

[48] W. Köhler, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen”

(“Histor. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.), p. 399, 400.

[49] Luther’s letter, June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony (below,

p. 37) ed. Seidemann from a Kiel MS. in his edition of “Lauterbachs

Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff.

[50] Thus Philip to his friend, Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, Oct., 1540,

when seeking to obtain his agreement to the bigamy. Ulrich, however,

advised him to give up the project, which would be a great blow to the

Evangel. F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog von Württemberg,” 3, p. 226 ff.

[51] Cp. above, p. 3 ff.; also Enders’ “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p.

308, where it is pointed out that in the copy of the letter to Henry

VIII sent to Hesse (_ibid._, 9, p. 81 ff.) the passage in question

concerning bigamy was omitted; the Landgrave Philip, however, learnt

the contents of the passage, doubtless from Bucer.

[52] Letter of Luther to the Elector of Saxony. See above, p. 16, n. 3,

and below, p. 37 f.

[53] Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von

Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 30 ff.

[54] This error has been confuted by Th. Brieger on good grounds in the

“Untersuchungen über Luther und die Nebenehe des Landgrafen Philipp,”

in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, p. 174 ff.; _ibid._, p. 403 ff. “Hist.

Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 405 (N. Paulus).

[55] Dec. 10, 1539, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 326.

[56] [Unless the reference be to certain reputed _consulta_ of Gregory

II or of Alexander III. Cp. “P.L.,” lxxxix., 525, and Decr. IV, 15,

iii. _Note to English Ed._]

[57] See above, p. 14.

[58] Cp. Luther’s “Consideration,” dated Aug. 23, 1527, concerning

the husband of a leprous wife, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406

(“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80), where he says: “I can in no wise prevent

him or forbid his taking another wedded wife.” He here takes for

granted the consent of the leprous party.

[59] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.

[60] Cp. the remarks in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 327 f., and

Brieger, _loc. cit._, p. 192.

[61] Seckendorf, “Commentarius de Lutheranismo,” 3, 1694, p. 278.

[62] E. Brandenburg, “Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs Moritz von

Sachsen,” 2, 1903, p. 101.

[63] Sailer to Philip of Hesse, Nov. 6, 1539, “Briefwechsel Philipps,”

1, p. 345; above, p. 15. Other similar statements by contemporaries are

to be found in the article of N. Paulus (above, p. 15, n. 1).

[64] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.

[65] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 356 ff., and Burkhardt, “Luthers

Briefwechsel,” p. 388.

[66] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 308. Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 30.

[67] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 31.

[68] _Ibid._, p. 37.

[69] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 326 and 328.

[70] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 43.

[71] _Ibid._, p. 41 f.

[72] Melanchthon to Camerarius, Sep. 1, 1540, first fully published by

Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 194.

[73] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p.

426. To Chancellor Brück, soon after Jan. 10, 1542, _ibid._, 4, p. 296.

Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich on Dec. 11, 1541, concerning Lening:

“_Monstroso corpore et animo est_.”

[74] Thus Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 48 f.

[75] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 362 f. Rockwell’s statement, p.

45, that Luther had been offered 200 Gulden by the Landgrave as a

present, but had refused the gift, is, in both instances, founded on a

misunderstanding. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1905, p. 405.

[76] Luther to the Landgrave, Aug. 22, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,”

1, p. 389.

[77] “Briefwechsel des Corvinus,” (see p. 14, n. 2), p. 79. Paulus,

_ibid._, p. 563.

[78] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 1, p. 394.

[79] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, p. 397.

[80] Account of the Marshal in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 335.

[81] To Anthony von Schönberg, in Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 51, according

to information taken from the archives.

[82] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 53.

[83] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 60.

[84] “_Carolina_,” ed. Köhler, 1900, p. 63. Cp. the Imperial Law

“_Neminem_” in “_Corp. iur. civ., Cod. Iustin._,” ed. Krüger, 1877,

p. 198. Bucer pointed out to the Landgrave, that “according to the

common law of the Empire such things were punished by death.” “Philipps

Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 177; cp. pp. 178, 180.

[85] He declared on Jan. 3, 1541: “This much and not more the law may

take from us.”

[86] On July 8, 1540, _ibid._, p. 178 ff. Before this, on June 15, he

had exhorted the Landgrave to hush up the matter as far as possible

so that the whole Church may not be “defiled” by it. _Ibid._, p. 174,

Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 507.

[87] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 185 f.

[88] _Ibid._, p. 183.

[89] _Ibid._, p. 341.

[90] “_Analecta Lutherana_,” ed. Kolde, p. 353 _seq._ Cp. Rockwell,

_loc. cit._, p. 71, n. 1.

[91] E. Friedberg remarks in the “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 36, 1904,

p. 441, that the Wittenbergers “did not even possess any power of

dispensing.”

[92] Cp. N. Paulus, “Das Beichtgeheimnis und die Doppelehe Philipps

usw.,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 317 ff.

[93] Cp. Rockwell, _loc. cit._, pp. 154, 156.

[94] Yet in a later missive to Philip of Hesse (Sep. 17, 1540) he too

speaks of the “counsel given in Confession in case of necessity.” Here,

however, he bases his injunction of silence on other considerations.

[95] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 208.

[96] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 394.

[97] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 79.

[98] Ed. by Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff., with the

notice, “Written in April or June, 1540.” Rockwell gives the date more

correctly, as, probably, June 10 (pp. 138, 364).

[99] Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 82, n. 4, the remark of G. Kawerau.

“The regret felt by Luther was caused by the knowledge that the

Landgrave had already a ‘concubine of his own’ and had not been

satisfying his lusts merely on ‘common prostitutes’; had he known this

at the time he gave his advice he would certainly have counselled

the Landgrave to contract a sort of spiritual marriage with this

concubine.” Köstlin had seen a difficulty in Luther’s later statement,

that he would not have given his counsel (the advice tendered did not

specify the lady) had he known that the Landgrave had “long satisfied,

and could still satisfy, his craving on others,” etc. That there is

really a difficulty involved, at least in Luther’s use of the plural

“others,” seems clear unless, indeed, Kawerau would make Luther counsel

the Landgrave to contract “spiritual marriage” with all these several

ladies. Elsewhere Luther describes as a “harlot” a certain Catharine

whom Kawerau (_ibid._) surmises to have been this same Essweg. By her

Philip had a daughter named Ursula whom, in 1556, he gave in marriage

to Claus Ferber.

[100] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 160. The Landgrave to Bucer. He

was to tell his sister “that she must surely recollect having told him

that he should keep a concubine instead of having recourse to numerous

prostitutes; if she was willing to allow what was contrary to God’s

law, why not allow this, which is a dispensation of God?”

[101] “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 267 f., and, better, in

Rockwell, p. 165, after the original.

[102] “Briefe,” 6, p. 263 _seq._ For the address see Rockwell, _ibid._,

p. 166, where the date is fixed between July 7 and 15, 1540.

[103] Cp. vol. iii., p. 30 ff.

[104] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 397 f.

[105] Thus Gualther from Frankfort, Sep. 15, 1540, to Bullinger, in

Fueslin, “_Epistolæ_,” p. 205. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 176.

[106] The chief passage will be found in Kroker (Mathesius,

“Tischreden,” p. 156 f.) more correctly than in Loesche (Mathesius,

“Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 ff.). It is headed “_De Macedonico negotio_,”

because in Luther’s circle Philip of Hesse was known as the

“Macedonian.” Where no other reference is given our quotations are

taken from this passage.

[107] On the sign, see present work, vol. iii., p. 231.

[108] Philip’s father and his uncle William I (the elder brother) died

insane. (See below, p. 61.)

[109] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.

[110] On the Marcolfus legend (again to be mentioned on the next page),

cp. vol. iii., p. 268, n. 4; F. H. von der Hagen, “Narrenbuch,” Halle,

1811, p. 256 ff., and Rockwell, pp. 160 and 163, where other instances

are given of Luther’s use of the same figure.

[111] “‘_Ipsi tamen occidunt homines_ [heretics], _nos laboramus pro

vita et ducimus plures uxores.’ Hæc lætissimo vultu dixit, non sine

magno risu._”

[112] Cp. _ibid._, p. 139.

[113] _Ibid._, p. 133. He speaks in the same way of the Emperor on p.

160.

[114] _Ibid._, p. 139. May 21 to June 11, 1540.

[115] For the quotations from Terence, see Rockwell, p. 164. Cp.

Kroker, _ibid._, p. 158.

[116] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 153.

[117] _Ibid._, p. 138.

[118] To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” 4, p. 298: “_miraculo Dei

manifesto vivit_.”

[119] Ratzeberger, p. 102 f. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 162.

[120] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.

[121] _Ibid._, p. 478.

[122] Thus Hassencamp, vol. i., p. 507, though he was using the earlier

editions of the Table-Talk, which are somewhat more circumspect.

[123] Vol. xviii., p. 461.

[124] “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 403 f.

[125] Gualther, in Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 186, n. 1.

[126] _Ibid._

[127] _Ibid._

[128] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 369 f.

[129] _Ibid._, p. 373. Concerning the notes which the editor calls the

“Protokoll,” see N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. B1.,” 135, 1905, p. 323 f.

[130] _Ibid._, p. 375.

[131] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 179. The Protestant theologian Th. Brieger

says (“Luther und die Nebenehe,” etc., “Preuss. Jahrb.,” 135, 1909, p.

46): “As is known, in the summer of 1540, when the matter had already

been notorious for months, Luther gave the Landgrave the advice,

that he should give a flat denial of the step he had taken.... ‘A

lie of necessity was not against God; He was ready to take that upon

Himself.’--Just as in our own day men of the highest moral character

hold similar views concerning certain forms of the lie of necessity.”

[132] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373.

[133] P. 182.--Rockwell (p. 181, n. 4) also reminds us that Luther

had written to the Elector: “In matters of Confession it is seemly

that both the circumstances and the advice given in Confession” should

be kept secret. Luther, in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196, see p.

37, n. 2. The Elector wrote to the Landgrave in a letter dated June

27, 1540 (quoted by Rockwell, _ibid._, from the archives), that the

marriage could not be openly discussed, because, otherwise, “the Seal

of Confession would be broken in regard to those who had given the

dispensation.” In this he re-echoes Luther.--Rockwell, p. 182 (cp.

p. 185, n. 3), thinks, that Luther was following the “more rigorous”

theologians of earlier days, who had taught that it was “a mortal sin

for the penitent to reveal what the priest had told him.” This is not

the place to rectify such misunderstandings.

[134] Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 175, with a reference to Luther’s

statement of July 17: If the Landgrave would not be content with a

dispensation, “and claimed it as a right, then they were quit of their

advice” (“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 375). It is difficult to follow

Luther through all his attempts to evade the issue.

[135] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373 f. “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde,

p. 356 _seq._

[136] “Bichte,” not “Bitte,” is clearly the true reading here.

[137] “Briefe,” 6, p. 272 f., dated July 20, 1540.

[138] Kolde, _loc. cit._, p. 357-360.

[139] Kolde, _loc. cit._, p. 362 _seq._

[140] Dated July 18, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 380 ff.

[141] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 273 ff.

[142] On July 27, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 385 ff.

[143] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 190. Cp. p. 61.

[144] _Ibid._, p. 192, from Philip’s letter to Luther, on July 18.

[145] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 193.

[146] _Ibid._, p. 194.

[147] “_Alcibiadea natura non Achillea._” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp.

4, p. 116. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 194.

[148] “_Hæc sunt principia furoris._” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.

Above, p. 45.

[149] _Ibid._, on the same day (June 11, 1540), Luther’s statement.

Above, p. 44.

[150] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 159, n. 2; p. 4, n. 1.

[151] _Ibid._, p. 102.

[152] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 175, 7-24 Aug., 1540.

[153] To the Elector Johann Frederick, March, 1543, see Rockwell p.

199 f., from archives. Rockwell quotes the following from a passage in

which several words have been struck out: “I have always preferred that

he [...?] should deal with the matter, than that he should altogether

[...?].” Was the meaning: He preferred that Luther should be involved

in such an affair rather than that he [the Landgrave] should desert

their party altogether? Other utterances of Melanchthon’s and Luther’s,

given above, would favour this sense.

[154] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 194. Text of Camerarius in “Corp. ref.,” 3,

p. 1077 _seq._

[155] _Ibid._, p. 103.

[156] “Ergründete ... Duplicä ... wider des Churfürsten von Sachsen

Abdruck,” etc. The work is directed primarily against the Elector

Johann Frederick, the “drunken Nabal of Saxony,” as the author terms

him.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 58.

[158] _Ibid._, p. 77: “Concerning the Landgrave, whom he abuses as

bigamous, an Anabaptist and even as having submitted to re-baptism,

though in such ambiguous terms as to suit a cardinal or a weather-cock,

so that were his proofs asked for he could twist his tongue round

and say, that he was not sure it was so, but merely suspected it ...

of this I will not now say much. The Landgrave is man enough and has

learned men about him. I know of one Landgravine in Hesse [one only

bore the title], who is and is to be styled wife and mother in Hesse,

and, in any case, no other will be able to bear young Princes and

suckle them; I refer to the Duchess, daughter of Duke George of Saxony.

And if her Prince has strayed, that was owing to your bad example,

which has brought things to such a pass, that the very peasants do not

look upon it as sin, and have made it difficult for us to maintain

matrimony in honour and esteem, nay, to re-establish it. From the very

beginning none has abused matrimony more grievously than Harry of

Wolffenbüttel, the holy, sober man.” That is all Luther says of the

Hessian bigamy.

[159] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager”

against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.

[160] Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 108.

[161] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.

[162] On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 117, n. 1.

[163] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p.

426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the

first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other

points in the text, see Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks

of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made

him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und

Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)

[164] The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps

Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.

[165] See above, note 163.

[166] In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says,

that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain

to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from,

than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or

so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously

sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”

[167] Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.

[168] Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, Brück, “shortly after Jan.

10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius

had not written “‘_contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem

individuæ personæ_,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only

“inveighed ‘_contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiæ_,’ which we

also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too

feebly.”

[169] Cp. his outburst against “those who teach polygamy” in his “In

evangelium s. Mt. Commentaria,” Tiguri, 1543, p. 179.

[170] To Oswald Myconius, Sep. 13, 1540, in Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 325:

“_pudet imprimis inter theologos talium authores, tutores et patronos

posse reperiri_.”

[171] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (_Engl. Trans._), 6, p.

149 f.; and Rockwell, _ibid._, pp. 130, 132.

[172] Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 497.

[173] Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 499.

[174] “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 368 f.

[175] Feige to the Landgrave, July 19, 1541, published by Rockwell,

_ibid._, p. 331; cp. p. 100 f.

[176] No. 35, August 30, 1906.

[177] “Das politische Archiv des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen;

Repertorium des landgräfl. polit. Archivs,” Bd. 1. (Publikationen aus

den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven, Bd. 78). Year 1556, No. 27.

[178] Köln. Volksztng., 1906, No. 758.

[179] K. v. Weber, “Anna Churfürstin zu Sachsen,” Leipzig, 1865, p. 401

f. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 132 f.

[180] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 133. William IV wrote a curious letter

to Cœlestin on this “great book of discord and on the ‘_dilaceratio

ecclesiarum_’”; see G. Th. Strobel, “Beiträge zur Literatur, besonders

des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1786, p. 162.

[181] “_Theologos Witenbergenses et in specie Megalandrum nostrum

Lutherum consilio suo id factum suasisse vel approbasse, manifeste

falsum est._” Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 134.

[182] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 131.

[183] Altenburg ed., 8, p. 977; Leipzig ed., 22, p. 496; Walch’s ed.,

10, p. 886. (Cp. Walch, 10², p. 748.) See De Wette in his edition of

Luther’s Letters, 5, p. 236, and Enders-Kawerau, in “Briefwechsel,” 12,

p. 319.

[184] Page 221.

[185] “Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, Introd., p. xvi.

[186] Bd. 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.

[187] “Studien über Katholizismus, Protestantismus und

Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” Schaffhausen, 1857 (anonymous), p.

104.

[188] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.

[189] “Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre,”

Göttingen, 1910, p. 271.

[190] That the death penalty for bigamy also dated from the Middle Ages

need hardly be pointed out.

[191] For the proofs which follow we may refer to the selection made

by N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) in the

article “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen.”

[192] Amsdorf’s “Bedenken,” probably from the latter end of June, 1540,

published by Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 324.

[193] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, pp. 394, 396. Above, p. 27, n. 1.

Further details in Paulus, _ibid._, p. 562.

[194] Jonas, _ibid._, p. 397.

[195] P. Tschackert, “Briefwechsel des Anton Corvinus,” 1900, p. 79.

Paulus, _ibid._, p. 563.

[196] G. T. Schmidt, “Justus Menius über die Bigamie.” (“Zeitschr. f.

d. hist. Theol.,” 38, 1868, p. 445 ff. More from it in Paulus, p. 565.

Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 126.)

[197] Th. Pressel, “_Anecdota Brentiana_,” 1868, p. 210: “_Commaculavit

ecclesiam temeritate sua fœdissime_.”

[198] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 569 f.

[199] _Ibid._, p. 570 ff.

[200] Fr. Roth, “Augsburgs Reformationsgesch.,” 3, 1907, p. 56.

[201] _Ibid._, p. 95.

[202] _Ibid._, p. 154.

[203] See above, p. 18, 21 f., 46, 62 n. 2.

[204] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 475. Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 489, and

“RE. für prot. Theol.,” 15³, p. 310.

[205] “_Defectionem etiam minitabatur, si nos consulere ei nollemus._”

To Camerarius, Aug. 24, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. p. 863.

Above, p. 62.

[206] “_Hoc fere tantumdem est ac si minatus esset, se ab Evangelio

defecturum._” Pressel, p. 211.

[207] Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 146 f.

[208] The scandal lay rather elsewhere. According to Kawerau Luther’s

“principal motive was his desire to save the Landgrave’s soul by means

of an expedient, which, though it did not correspond with the perfect

idea of marriage, was not directly forbidden by God, and in certain

circumstances had even been permitted. The questionable nature of this

advice is, however, evident,” etc.

[209] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.

[210] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 393 ff.

[211] O. Clemen, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 30, 1909, p. 389 f. Cp. the views

of the Protestant historians, K. Wenck, H. Virck and W. Köhler, adduced

by Paulus (_loc. cit._, p. 515), who all admit the working of political

pressure.

[212] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 382, 383.

[213] Bd., 2, p. 488 f.

[214] Page 736.

[215] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 403.

[216] The larger portion of the present chapter appeared as an article

in the “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 29, 1905, p. 417 ff.

[217] See above, p. 51.

[218] W. Walther, “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1904, No. 35. Cp. Walther,

“Für Luther,” p. 425 ff.

[219] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.

[220] _Ibid._, 39, p. 356.

[221] Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier

volumes.

[222] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.

[223] _Ibid._, p. 316.

[224] To Christoph Scheurl, _ibid._, p. 348.

[225] To Johann Lang, _ibid._, p. 410.

[226] To Willibald Pirkheimer, _ibid._, p. 436.

[227] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping

back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204

f.

[228] Strange to say, this document has not been taken into

consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die Lüge, eine

Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing

light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That

his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is

perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may

see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the

“Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s

behalf in his art. “Luther und die Lüge,” and in his “Für Luther.” See

above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Doppelzüngigkeit”

(“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26,

1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl.

Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.

[229] On May 22, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 149.

[230] On Feb. 15, 1518, _ibid._, p. 155.

[231] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 469.

[232] July 10, 1520, _ibid._, p. 432.

[233] _Ibid._, Schauenburg’s letter, _ibid._, p. 415.

[234] _Ibid._, p. 433.

[235] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.

[236] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 72.

[237] _Ibid._, p. 70, 68 f.

[238] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 284; Erl. ed., 24², p. 367. On

indulgences for the departed, see our vol. i., p. 344.

[239] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 432.

[240] Historien (1566), p. 11.

[241] Ed. Cyprian., p. 20.

[242] “Reformationsgesch. von H. Bullinger,” ed. Hottinger u. Vögeli,

1, 1838, p. 19.

[243] One such tale put in circulation by the Lutherans in the 16th

century has been dealt with by N. Paulus in “Gibt es Ablässe für

zukünftige Sünden?” (“Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1905, No.

43.) Here, in view of some modern misapprehensions of the so-called

Confession and Indulgence letters, he says: “They referred to future

sins, only inasmuch as they authorised those who obtained them to

select a confessor at their own discretion for their subsequent sins,

and promised an Indulgence later, provided the sins committed had been

humbly confessed. In this sense even our modern Indulgences promised

for the future may be said to refer to future sins.”

[244] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.

[245] To Count Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6,

p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).

[246] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, from Eisenach, May 9, 1521, “Werke,”

Erl. ed., 53, p. 74 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 144).

[247] To Spalatin, (11) October, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 491:

“_credo veram et propriam esse bullam_.”

[248] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29 ff.

[249] _Ibid._, p. 138=27, p. 80, in February, 1520.

[250] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 214, 759.

[251] The letter was written after Oct. 13, 1520, but is dated Sep.

6, the Excommunication having been published on Sep. 21. Cp. Miltitz

to the Elector of Saxony, Oct. 14, 1520, in Enders, “Briefwechsel

Luthers,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.

[252] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 441 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 323 f.

[253] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 279: “It was much better and safer to

declare them damned than saved.”

[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, 1906, p. 133, sermons here printed for

the first time.

[255] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 240.

[256] Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, p. 223.

[257] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 37 f.

[258] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 658; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 360

[259] _Ibid._, p. 601=p. 278.

[260] _Ibid._, 1, p. 323=1, p. 338; 1, p. 534=2, p. 142.

[261] Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 44. Denifle has shown that the passage

in question occurs in the form of a prayer in St. Bernard’s “Sermo

XX in Cantica” “P.L.,” 183, col. 867: “_De mea misera vita suscipe

(Deus), obsecro, residuum annorum meorum; pro his vero (annis) quos

vivendo perdidi, quia perdite vixi, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus

non despicias. Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt et præterierunt sine

fructu. Impossibile est, ut revocem; placeat, ut recogitem tibi eos in

amaritudine animæ meæ._” Denifle points out that the sermon in question

was preached about 1136 or 1137, about sixteen years before Bernard’s

death, thus certainly not in his last illness.

[262] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 249.

[263] _Ibid._, p. 145; cp. p. 204.

[264] “Luther als Kirchenhistoriker,” Gütersloh, 1897, p. 391,

referring to Sabellicus, “Rhapsod. hist. Ennead.,” 9, 8.

[265] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 766, p. 350, n. 1. For the literature

dealing with the Ulrich fable, see N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im

Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 253; and particularly J. Haussleiter,

“Beiträge zur bayerischen KG.,” 6, p. 121 f.

[266] Cp. Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 40, and Flacius Illyricus in his

two separate editions of the letter. Flacius also incorporated the

Ulrich letter in his “Catalogus testium veritatis” and repeatedly

referred to it in his controversial writings. See J. Niemöller’s

article on the mendacity of a certain class of historical literature

in the 16th century, “Flacius und Flacianismus” (“Zeitschr. f. kath.

Theol.,” 12, 1888, pp. 75-115, particularly p. 107 f.).

[267] Cp. Knaake, “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362.

[268] Cp. Kolde on Luther’s “private print,” in Müller,

“Bekenntnisschriften”^[10], p. xxvi., n. 1.

[269] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.

[270] For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the

article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p.

226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.

[271] “Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.

[272] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.

[273] Joh. Karl Seidemann, “Beiträge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.

[274] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.

[275] Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.

[276] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.

[277] K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die

Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of

Luther’s assertions in the “_De servo arbitrio_,” that “he was led away

by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for

instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading

much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him

which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant

the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p.

79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own

ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take

for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla,

‘_De libero arbitrio_’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the

struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p.

2).--H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polémique sur le libre

arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done

to Erasmus by Luther.

[278] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523.

Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii.,

p. 398 f.

[279] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. our vol. i., p. 400 f.

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

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391 (“Tischreden”).

[282] Cp. e.g. the summarised teaching of an eminent theologian, Denis

the Carthusian, in Krogh-Tonning, “Der letzte Scholastiker,” 1904.

[283] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391.

[284] From Kleindienst, “Ein recht catholisch Ermanung an seine lieben

Teutschen,” Dillingen, 1560, Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc.,

1903, p. 276.

[285] To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461: “_Nos

hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi

sedem, in cuius deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis

omnia licere arbitramur._” This must not be translated “to their

deceiving and destruction,” but, “against their trickery and malice.”

The passage strictly refers to his passionate work “An den christlichen

Adel,” but seems also to be intended generally.

[286] To Melanchthon, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235. Cp.

vol. ii., p. 386. Luther says: “_dolos et lapsus nostros facile

emendabimus_”; thus assuming his part of the responsibility. The

explanation that he is speaking merely of the mistakes which

Melanchthon might make, and simply wished “to console and sympathise

with him,” is too far-fetched to be true. In his edition of the

“Briefwechsel” Enders has struck out the word “_mendacia_” after

“_dolos_,” though wrongly, as we shall see in vol. vi., xxxvi., 4.

According to Enders the handwriting is too faint for it to be accepted

as genuine. As there is no original of the letter the question remains

how it came into the old copies which were in Lutheran hands. In any

case, such an interpolation would be more difficult to understand than

its removal. Cp. also Luther’s own justification of such _mendacia_ in

1524 and 1528, given below on p. 109 ff.

[287] To the apostate Franciscan Johann Briesmann, July 4, 1524,

“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 360. These instructions to the preacher who

was to work for the apostasy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are

characteristic of Luther’s diplomacy. Cp. the directions to Martin

Weier (above, vol. ii., p. 323).

[288] “Briefe,” 6, p. 386 ff.

[289] Cp. v. Druffel in the “SB. der bayer. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl.,” 2,

1888, and “Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.,” 25, p. 71.

[290] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 693, p. 612, n. 1.

[291] _Ibid._, p. 612.

[292] “Briefe,” 6, p. 401.

[293] _Ibid._, p. 386.

[294] _Ibid._

[295] _Ibid._, p. 387.

[296] _Ibid._, p. 391.

[297] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29.

[298] _Ibid._, 26, p. 532 f. = 63, p. 276.

[299] G. Buchwald, “Simon Wilde” (“Mitt. der deutschen Gesellschaft zur

Erforschung vaterländ. Sprache und Altertums in Leipzig,” 9, 1894, p.

61 ff.), p. 95: “_libellum calumniis refertissimum_.”

[300] “Zwinglii Opp.,” 8, p. 165: “_calumniandi magister et sophistarum

princeps_.”

[301] Letter to J. Vadian, April 14, 1528, “Die Vadianische

Briefsammlung,” 4, p. 101. “Mitt. zur vaterl. Gesch. von St. Gallen,”

28, 1902.

[302] “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Hft. 118, 1893, pp. 19, 29,

etc.

[303] Cp. Münzer in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 374, n. 6.

_Ibid._, p. 373, n. 1, “the mendacious Luther.”

[304] “Vergleichung D. Luthers und seines Gegenteiles vom Abendmahl

Christi,” 1528, p. 23.

[305] “Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 6, p. 16 (“Mitt. z. v. G. v. S.G.”,

30, 1, 1906): Pappus calls the book: “_librum famosissimum, plaustra

et carros convitiorum. Misereor huius tam felicissimi ingenii, quod

tantis se immiscet sordibus; et profecto, ut est Lutherus vertendo et

docendo inimitabilis, ita mihi iam quoque videtur calumniando non parem

habere._” Letter of April 13, 1541. Pappus was Burgomaster of Lindau.

[306] E. Thiele, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1907, p. 265 f.

[307] “Ep.,” 1, 18; “Opp.,” 3, col. 1056.

[308] “_Hyperaspistes_,” 1, 9, col. 1043.

[309] Letter to George Agricola, in Buchwald, “Zeitschr. für kirchl.

Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 5, Leipzig, 1884, p. 56.

[310] “Antwort auf das Büchlein,” 1531. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89.

[311] “_De votis monasticis_,” 1, 2, Colon., 1524, Bl. S 5´: “_Omnium

mendacissimus, qui sub cœlo vivunt, hominum_.”

[312] “Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. E

2´. The author was Abbot of Altzelle.

[313] “Ein Maulstreich dem lutherischen lügenhaften, weit aufgesperrten

Rachen,” Dresden, 1534.

[314] See above, vol. ii., p. 147.

[315] See vol. ii., p. 40: “_Quum ita frontem perfricuerit, ut a nullo

abstineat mendacio_,” etc.

[316] Letter of George, in Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen

Krieges Karls V,” pp. 604, 606. Denifle, 1², p. 126, n. 3.

[317] Vol. ii., p. 395 f.

[318] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.

[319] _Ibid._, p. 86.

[320] _Ibid._, p. 210. The last three passages are from sermons

preached by Luther at Wittenberg in 1528 when doing duty for Bugenhagen.

[321] “Luther,” 1², p. 400 ff. We may discount the objection of

Protestant controversialists who plead that Luther at least described

correctly the popular notions of Catholics. The popular works then

in use, handbooks and sermons for the instruction of the people,

prayer-books, booklets for use in trials and at the hour of death,

etc., give a picture of the then popular piety, and the best refutation

of Luther’s statements.

[322] “Werke,” Erl. ed.. 5², p. 378.

[323] Cp. “Comment. in Gal.,” 2, p. 175. “Opp. lat, exeg.,” 16, p. 197

_seq._ Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 218.

[324] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 255.

[325] _Ibid._

[326] _Ibid._, p. 256. “The Pope’s teaching and all the books and

writings of his theologians and decretalists did nothing but revile

Christ and His Baptism, so that no one was able to rejoice or comfort

himself therewith”; this he knew, having been himself fifteen years a

monk. _Ibid._, 19², p. 151, in a sermon of 1535, “On Holy Baptism.”

Even in the learned disputations of his Wittenberg pupils similar

assertions are found: The Papists have ever taught that the powers of

man after the Fall still remained unimpaired (“_adhuc integras_”), and

that therefore he could fulfil the whole law; doctrines no better than

those of the Turks and Jews had been set up (“_non secus apud Turcas et

Iudæos_,” etc.). “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 340.

And so Luther goes on down to the last sermon he preached at Eisleben

just before his death: The Pope destroyed Baptism and only left works,

tonsures, etc., in the Church (_ibid._, 20², 2, p. 534); the “purest

monks” had usually been the “worst lewdsters” (p. 542); the monks had

done nothing for souls, but “merely hidden themselves in their cells”

(p. 543); “the monks think if they keep their Rule they are veritable

saints” (p. 532).

In his accusations against the religious life we find him making

statements which, from his own former experience, he must have known

to be false. For instance, when he says, that, in their hypocritical

holiness, they had regarded it as a mortal sin to leave their cell

without the scapular (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 347; 38, p. 203; 60,

p. 270). Denifle proves convincingly (1², p. 54), that all monks were

well aware that such customs, prescribed by the Constitutions, were

not binding under sin, but merely exposed transgressors to punishment

by their superiors.--Luther also frequently declared, that in the Mass

every mistake in the ceremonies was looked upon as a mortal sin, even

the omission of an “_enim_” or an “_æterni_” in the Canon (_ibid._, 28,

p. 65), and that the incorrect use of the frequently repeated sign of

the cross had caused such apprehension, that they were “plagued beyond

measure with the Mass” (_ibid._, 59, p. 98). And yet his own words

(“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 164) show he was aware that such involuntary

mistakes were no sin: “_cum casus quispiam nullum peccatum fuerit_.”

[327] “Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 221.

[328] “Cinquante raisons,” Munich, 1736, 29, p. 37. Above, vol. iii.,

p. 273, n. 2.

[329] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 395 ff.

[330] Cp. _ibid._, 31, p. 279.

[331] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 227.

[332] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 430 f.: “Yet how few can ever have

had such a thought, much less expressed it?” Denifle-Weiss, 17²,

p. 774. Speaking of this passage, Denifle rightly remarks: “I have

frequently pointed out that it was Luther’s tactics to represent wicked

Catholics as typical of all the rest.” Here again Denifle might have

quoted Luther against Luther, as indeed he often does. In one passage

(“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 412) Luther points out quite correctly,

that to make all or even a class responsible for the faults of a few is

to be guilty of injustice.

[333] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.

[334] “There are passionate natures gifted with a strong imagination,

who gradually, and sometimes even rapidly, come to take in good faith

that for true, which their own spirit of contradiction, or the desire

to vindicate themselves and to gain the day, suggests. Such a one was

Luther.... It was possible for him to persuade himself of things which

he had once regarded in quite a different light.” Thus Alb. M. Weiss,

“Luther,” 1², p. 424. Ad. Hausrath rightly characterises much of what

Luther says that he had learnt of Rome on his trip thither, as the

“product of a self-deception which is readily understood” (“Luthers

Leben,” 1, p. 79). “During a quarrel,” aptly remarks Fénelon, “the

imagination becomes heated and a man deceives himself.”

[335] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 510 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 200

_seq._

[336] In his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis” (“Werke,” Weim. ed.,

26, p. 241 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 152 ff.), he frequently asserts this

principle.

[337] “_Si mentiris, etiam quod verum dicis mentiris._” “Werke,” Erl.

ed., 25², p. 214 in “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen

Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.”

[338] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 15; Erl. ed., 35, p. 18. The passage

in vindication of the Egyptian midwives was not merely added later.

[339] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 18.

[340] _Ibid._, 3, p. 139 _seq._

[341] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,”

p. 85: “_Mentiri et fallere differunt, nam mendacium est falsitas cum

studio nocendi, fallacia vero est simplex_.”

[342] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 12, Sermon of Jan. 5, 1528.

[343] “Summa theol.,” 2-2, Q. 111, a. 3.

[344] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 288.

[345] “Corp. iur. can.,” ed. Friedberg, 2, p. 812. Yet a champion

of Luther’s “truthfulness” has attempted to prove of Alexander III,

that “the objectivity of good was foreign to him,” and that he taught

that the end justifies the means. As K. Hampe has pointed out in the

“Hist. Zeitschr.,” 93, 1904, p. 415, the letter from the Pope to Thomas

Becket (“P.L.,” 200, col. 290), here referred to, has been “quite

misunderstood.” The same is the case with a letter of Gregory VII to

Alphonsus of Castile, which has also been alleged to show that a Pope

“had not unconditionally rejected lying, nay, had even made use of it.”

Gregory on the contrary declares that even “a lie told for a pious

object and for the sake of peace” was a sin (“_illud peccatum esse non

dubitaveris, in sacerdotibus quasi sacrilegium coniicias_.” “P.L.,”

148, col. 604). Cp. Hampe, _ibid._, p. 385 ff.; N. Paulus, “Lit.

Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 51.

[346] “N. Lehrb. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1825, p. 354. Sodeur (“Luther

und die Lüge”) says that in his teaching on lies Luther led the way

to “a more profound understanding of the problem” (p. 2), he taught

us “to act according to simple and fundamental principles”; “under

certain conditions” it became “a duty to tell untruths, not merely on

casuistic grounds as formerly [!], but on principle; Luther harked back

to the all embracing duty of charity which constitutes the moral life

of the Christian” (p. 30); he desired “falsehood to be used only to the

advantage of our neighbour,” “referring our conduct in every instance

to the underlying principle of charity” (p. 32 f.). Chr. Rogge, another

Protestant, says of all this (“Türmer,” Jan., 1906, p. 491): “I wish

Sodeur had adopted a more decided and less apologetic attitude.”

W. Walther, in the article quoted above (p. 81, n. 1), admits that

Luther taught “in the clearest possible manner that cases might occur

where a departure from truth became the Christian’s duty.... It is

probable that many Evangelicals will strongly repudiate this thesis,

but, in our opinion, almost everybody follows it in practice”; if

charity led to untruth then the latter was no evil act, and it could

not be said that Luther accepted the principle that the end justifies

the means. It was not necessary for Walther, having made Luther’s

views on lying his own, to assure us, “that they were not shared by

every Christian, not even by every Evangelical.” As regards the end

justifying the means, Walther should prove that the principle does not

really underlie much of what Luther says (cp. also above, p. 94 f.).

Cp. what A. Baur says, with praiseworthy frankness, in a work entitled

“Johann Calvin” (“Religionsgeschichtl. Volksb.,” Reihe 4, Hft. 9), p.

29, concerning the reformer of Geneva whom he extols: “Consciously,

or unconsciously, the principle that the end justifies the means

became necessarily more and more deeply rooted in Calvin’s mind, viz.

the principle that the holy purpose willed by God justifies the use

of means--the employment of which would otherwise appear altogether

repugnant and reprehensible to a refined moral sense--at least when no

other way presents itself for the attainment of the end. To renounce

the end on account of the means appeared to Calvin a betrayal of

God’s honour and cause.” And yet it is clear that only a theory which

“transcends good and evil” can approve the principle that the end

justifies the means.

We may add that, according to Walther (“Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,”

1909, p. 11 f.), Luther, in view of the exalted end towards which

the means he used were directed, “gradually resolved” to set the law

of charity above that of truth; he did not, however, do this in his

practical writings, fearing its abuse; yet Luther still contends that

Abraham was permitted to tell an untruth in order “to prevent the

frustration of God’s Will,” i.e. from love of God (_ibid._, p. 13).

[347] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289.

[348] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 139-144.

[349] To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, above, p. 95, n. 3.

[350] See vol. ii., p. 384 ff.

[351] “Corp. ref.,” 20, p. 573.

[352] The document in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578.

[353] “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen

zur Täuferbewegung,” Münster, 1910, p. 75.

[354] Cp. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 320.

[355] _Loc. cit._, p. 74 f.

[356] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 156 _seq._ N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,”

147, 1911, p. 509.

[357] “_Quod defendam ipsum facinus, equidem nullum [scriptum] scripsi

aut subscripsi._” Paulus, _ibid._, p. 511.

[358] F. W. Hassenkamp, “Hessische KG.,” 1, p. 510. Paulus, _ibid._, p.

512.

[359] H. Rocholl, in N. Paulus’s art. on the Catholic lawyer and

writer, Conrad Braun († 1563), in “Hist. Jahrb.” (14, 1893, p. 517

ff.), p. 525.

[360] Paulus, “Johann Hoffmeister,” 1891, p. 206, and in “Hist.

Jahrb.,” _loc. cit._

[361] “Theol. Rev.,” 1908, p. 215.

[362] Bd. 1, 1908, p. 66: “_Nullis conviciis parcemus quantumvis

turpibus et ignominiosis_,” etc.

[363] Luther’s friend Jonas also distinguished himself in controversy

by the character of the charges he brings forward against his opponents

as true “historia.” (See above, vol. iii., p. 416, n. 3.)

[364] W. Köhler, “Luthers Werden” (“Prot. Monatshefte,” 1907, Hft. 8-9,

p. 292 ff., p. 345 ff., p. 294).

[365] W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform.,”

pp. 221, 220.

[366] “Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der RG.” (“Schriften

des Vereins für RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,

12, 16 f.). The author’s standpoint is expressed on p. 13: “It is

self-evident that this does not in any way detract from Luther’s

importance.... Luther merely stands out all the more as the last link

of the previous evolution,” etc. On p. 17 he declares that the author

of “Luther und Luthertum” lacked entirely the “sense of truth.” See

the passage from Böhmer in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”²,

1901, p. 144.

[367] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 581.

[368] “Luther und die KG.,” 1, 1900, p. 363.

[369] “Sermo 60 in Dom. 6 post. Trin.” (“_Sermones de tempore_,”

Tubingæ, 1500).

[370] “Sibend und Acht ader letzte Sermon,” Lipsie, 1533. On this work

cp. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 66, n. 2.

[371] “_Reportata in quatuor S. Bonaventuræ sententiarum libros, Scoti

subtilis secundi_,” Basileæ, 1501. L. 2 d. 5 q. 6.

[372] Bl. 2. On the work, see Hasak, “Der christl. Glaube des deutschen

Volkes beim Schluss des MA.,” 1868, p. 67 ff.

[373] “_Sermones super epistolas dominicales_,” s. l. e. a. Bl. 51.

N. Paulus quotes more of Herolt’s sayings in “Johann Herolt und

seine Lehre, Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiösen Volksunterrichts am

Ausgang des MA.” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 417 ff.,

particularly p. 429).

[374] Paulus, _ibid._, pp. 429, 430.

[375] “Evangelibuch,” Augsburg, 1560, Bl. 15. Cp. the Basle

“_Plenarium_,” 1514, Bl. 25.

[376] “Errettunge des christl. Bescheydts,” usw., 1528, 32, Bl. 4º, h.

2.

[377] “_De imitatione Christi_,” 1, 15; and 3, 4.

[378] _Ibid._, 1, 17, 19.

[379] Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 143.

[380] See the figures in Grisar, “_Analecta Romana_,” 1, tab. 10-12.

[381] On the origin of the waxen “_Agnus Dei_” and its connection with

the oldest baptismal rite, see my art. in the “Civiltà Cattolica,” June

2, 1907. From the beginning it was a memorial of the baptismal covenant

and served as a constant stimulus to personal union with Christ.

[382] “_De imit. Christi_,” 4, 1, 2.

[383] Freiburg, i/B., 1902, p. 730 f.

[384] _Ibid._, p. 737 f.

[385] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 407.

[386] N. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 961. Cp. Paulus “Der

Katholik,” 1898, 2, p. 25: “Had Luther’s intention been merely to

impress this fundamentally Catholic message on Christendom [the

trustful relations between the individual and God] there would never

have been a schism.”

[387] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740.

[388] Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297.

[389] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418.

[390] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 184.

[391] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 186.

[392] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 230.

[393] _Ibid._, p. 193.

[394] _Ibid._, p. 323.

[395] “Sermo 25 de tempore.”

[396] “Sermo 55 de tempore.”

[397] “Sermones super epistolas dominicales.” Sermo 15.

[398] “Eine nutzliche Lere,” usw., Leipzig, 1502, c. 1.

[399] In a “Novelle,” published by Ph. Strauch in the “Zeitschr. für

deutsches Luthertum,” 29, 1885, p. 389.--For further particulars of

the respect for worldly callings before Luther’s day, see N. Paulus,

“Luther und der Beruf” (“Der Katholik,” 1902, 1, p. 327 ff.), and in

the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 20, p. 148; likewise

Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 138 ff.

[400] “Sermo 25 de tempore.”

[401] “Cp. Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 496 ff. (N. Paulus on O. Scheel).

[402] Basle, 1522, B. 1´.

[403] “Von dem waren christl. Leben,” Bl. C. 3´.

[404] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178.

[405] _Ibid._

[406] What follows has, it is true, no close relation to “Luther

and Lying”; the author has, however, thought it right to deal

with the matter here because of the connection between Luther’s

misrepresentations of the Middle Ages and his calumny against Catholic

times, both of which were founded, not on the facts of the case, but on

personal grounds. Cp. below, p. 147.

[407] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 71 ff., pp. 155, 238, 242.

[408] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55.

[409] Cp. Denifle, _ibid._, p. 239 f.

[410] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 152; Erl. ed., 28, p. 194. “Wyder

den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”

[411] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 14, p. 157.

[412] _Ibid._, 24, p. 123 f.

[413] _Ibid._, 27, p. 26.

[414] “Werke.” Erl. ed., 18², p. 92.

[415] _Ibid._, 31, p. 297.

[416] Sermo 343, n. 7; Denifle, 1², p. 243, refers also to “De bono

coniugali,” n. 9, 27, 28.

[417] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 138 f.: “A married man cannot give

himself up entirely to reading and prayer, but is, as St. Paul says,

‘divided’ and must devote a great part of his life to pleasing his

spouse.” The Apostle says that though the “troubles and cares of the

married state are good, yet it is far better to be free to pray and

attend to the Word of God.”--Luther is more silent concerning our

Lord’s own recommendation of virginity (“_Non omnes capiunt verbum

istud, sed quibus datum est_,” etc., Mat. xix. 11 f.). Of his attitude

towards voluntary virginity we have already spoken in vol. iii., 246 ff.

[418] “Werke.,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178 (Table-Talk).

[419] _Ibid._, 64, p. 155. From his glosses on the Bible.

[420] _Ibid._, 31, p. 390. From the “Winckelmesse,” 1534.

[421] _Ibid._, 44, p. 376.

[422] _Ibid._, p. 25², p. 432; cp. p. 428.

[423] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 283: “_Ipse ego, cum essem adhuc

monachus, idem sapiebam, coniugium esse damnatum genus vitæ_.”

[424] And yet a Protestant has said quite recently: “The Church

persistently taught that love had nothing to do with marriage.” As

though the restraining of sexual love within just limits was equivalent

to the exclusion of conjugal love.

[425] Ed. Ph. Strauch, “Zeitschr. für deutsches Altertum,” 29, 1885,

pp. 373-427.

[426] P. 385.

[427] Munich State Library, cod. germ., 757.

[428] _Ibid._, cod. 756.

[429] Heinemann, “Die Handschriften der Herzogl. Bibliothek zu

Wolfenbüttel,” 2, 4, p. 332 f.

[430] “Überlieferungen zur Gesch.,” etc., 1, 2, p. 204 f.

[431] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1892, p. 487.

[432] “Sermones Fratris Barlete,” Brixie, 1497 and 1498, several times

republished in the 16th century. See sermon for the Friday of the

fourth week of Lent.

[433] “_Opus super Sapientiam Salomonis_,” ed. Hagenau, 1494 (and

elsewhere), “_Lectio_” 43 and 44, on Marriage. Cp. _ibid._, 181, the

“_Lectio_” on the Valiant Woman, and in his work, “_In Proverbia

Salomonis explanationes_,” Paris, 1510, “_Lectio_” 91, with the

explanation of Prov. xii. 4: “A diligent woman is a crown to her

husband.”