[434] Luther, on the other hand, declares: “The work of begetting

children was not distinguished from other sins, such as fornication and

adultery. But now we have learnt and are assured by the Grace of God

that marriage is honourable.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 116.

[435] On Barletta and Holkot, cp. N. Paulus in “Lit. Beil. der

Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, Nos. 19 and 20; and his art., “Die Ehe in

den deutschen Postillen des ausgehenden MA.,” and “Gedruckte und

Ungedruckte deutsche Ehebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,” _ibid._, 1903,

Nos. 18 and 20. See also F(alk) in “Der Katholik,” 1906, 2, p. 317 ff.:

“Ehe und Ehestand im MA.,” and in the work about to be quoted. Denifle,

“Luther,” 1, has much to say of the Catholic and the Lutheran views of

marriage.

[436] “Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist.

Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz. zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,”

6, Hft. 4).

[437] “Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist.

Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz, zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,”

6, Hft. 4), p. 67.

[438] _Ibid._, p. 66.

[439] “Die Stellung der Frau im MA.,” Oct. 1 and 8, 1910, p. 1253.

[440] _Ibid._, p. 1299.

[441] _Ibid._, p. 1248.

[442] Cp. F. Schaub, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 117 ff., on H.

Crohns, who, in order to accuse St. Antoninus and others of “hatred of

women,” appeals to the “Witches’ Hammer”: “It is unjust to make these

authors responsible for the consequences drawn from their utterances by

such petty fry as the producers of the ‘Witches’ Hammer.’” Cp. Paulus,

“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 134, 1904, particularly p. 812 ff.

[443] Finke, _ibid._, p. 1249.

[444] _Ibid._, p. 1256.

[445] _Ibid._, p. 1258.--Finke’s statements may be completed by the

assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians

and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest

proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the

aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s

“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a

writer, so deeply versed in mediæval Scholasticism, is worthy of note:

“There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point

[esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo

of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally.

Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed

concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage”

(p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,”

he says (_ibid._) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther

should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were

united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat.

exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning

the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace

in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16,

“Symb. Bücher^[10],” ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely

it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.”

Jos. Löhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit

des Klerus, bes. der Erzdiözese Köln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911,

“Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has

dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.

[446] Prov. xxxi. 10 f.: “_Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?_” etc. The

Lesson of the Mass _De communi nec virginum nec martyrum_.

[447] The Gradual of the same Mass, taken from Psalm xliv.

[448] Falk, _op. cit._, p. 71.

[449] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 207 (Table-Talk). In his

translation of the Bible Luther quotes the German verse: “Nought so

dear on earth as the love of woman to the man who shares it” (“Werke,”

Erl. ed., 64, p. 113), in connection with Proverbs xxxi. 10 ff.

(“_Mulierem fortem_,” etc.). In the Table-Talk he quotes the same when

speaking of those who are unfaithful to their marriage vow in not

praying: “People do not pray. Therefore my hostess at Eisenach [Ursula,

Cunz Cotta’s wife, see vol. i., p. 5 f., and vol. iii., p. 288 f.]

was right in saying to me when I went to school there: ‘There is no

dearer thing on earth than the love of woman to the man on whom it is

bestowed’” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 212). Luther’s introduction of

the phrase in connection with the passage on the “_Mulier fortis_” was

an injustice, and an attempt to prove again the alleged contempt of

Catholicism for the love of woman.

[450] N. Paulus, “Zur angeblichen Geringschätzung der Frau und der Ehe

im MA.,” in the “Wissensch. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 10 and 12.

[451] Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 119.

[452] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 246 f.

[453] _Ibid._, 16², p. 536 ff.

[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 51 ff.

[455] _Ibid._, p. 58.

[456] _Ibid._, pp. 66, 68.

[457] _Ibid._, 30, 3, p. 278; Erl. ed., 25², p. 6. “Warnunge an seine

lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[458] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 420.

[459] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 16², p. 538.

[460] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 519. Cp.

present work, vol. iii., p. 263 and p. 241 ff.

[461] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 205 (Table-Talk).

[462] Cp. the passages in the Table-Talk on marriage and on women,

“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 182-213, and 57, pp. 270-273.

[463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 205.

[464] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,”

p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp.

Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.

[465] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “_reicio ... ubi possum_.” There are,

however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.

[466] See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.

[467] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second

edition of the Sermon.

[468] _Ibid._, p. 168 f.=63 f.

[469] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.

[470] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353

_seq._ “Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.

[471] “Apol. Conf. Augustanæ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften,

^[10], p. 242: “_Ita virginitas donum est præstantius coniugio._”

[472] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.

[473] Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L.

v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,”

Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde

says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther

in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature

of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the

sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced

him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between

two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than

two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde,

however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediæval

views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the

translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl,

usw., Ergänzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of

marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).

[474] “Die kath. Moral,” 1902, p. 118.

[475] On Dec. 6, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 279. See vol. iii., p.

269. The passage was omitted by Aurifaber and De Wette probably because

not judged quite proper.

[476] Aug., “De bono coniug.,” c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 6. According to

Denifle, 1¹, p. 277, n. 2, the Schoolmen knew the passages through the

Lombard “Sent.,” 4, dist. 31, c. 5. He also quotes S. Thom., “Summa

theol.,” Supplem., q. 41, a. 4; q. 49, a. 5; q. 64, a. 4: “_ut sibi

invicem debitum reddant_.”

[477] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 654; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 355. On

the text, see Denifle, 1², p. 263, n. 3.

[478] _Ibid._, 20, 2, p. 304; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541. “On Married Life,”

1522.

[479] _Ibid._, 12, p. 114. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 10.

[480] N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 495, art. “Zu Luthers

Schrift über die Mönchsgelübde”: “Luther’s false view of the sinfulness

of the ‘_actus matrimonialis_’ was strongly repudiated by Catholics,

particularly by Clichtoveus and Cochlæus.”

[481] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. “Sermon

on the Married Life,” 1522.

[482] _Ibid._, 12, p. 66; Erl. ed., 53, p. 188.

[483] _Ibid._, p. 113.

[484] Cp. vol. iii., p. 264 ff.

[485] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101. Then follows a highly

questionable statement concerning a rule of the Wittenberg Augustinian

monastery, in which Luther fails to distinguish between “_pollutiones

voluntariæ_” and “_involuntariæ_,” but which draws from him the

exclamation: “All the monasteries and foundations ought to be

destroyed, if only on account of these shocking ‘_pollutiones_’!”

[486] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 73, where some improper remarks may

be found on the temptation of St. Paul (according to the notes, on

account of St. Thecla) and that of St. Benedict, who, we are told,

rolled himself in the thorns to overcome it.

[487] See vol. iii., p. 267, n. 10.

[488] _Ibid._, p. 122: “_Scribis, mea iactari ab iis qui lupanaria

colunt_.”

[489] “Briefe,” ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 419, undated.

[490] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 373. To a bridegroom in 1536.

[491] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 364 f.; Erl. ed., 41, p. 135.

Brandenburg, “Luther über die Obrigkeit,” p. 7.

[492] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 437.

[493] _Ibid._, p. 219.

[494] See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.

[495] To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders

(p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but

G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better

case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least

are obviously referred to: “_Quod illi vero prætexunt, certos sese

fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus

potentissimus est_,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the

persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public

marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.

[496] On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,”

5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.

[497] On May 26, 1525, “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p.

179).

[498] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).

[499] Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and

Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who

married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second

letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in

1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all

likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed

that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to

curtail our freedom!”

[500] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.

[501] In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol.

Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.

[502] Mathesius, _ibid._ For further explanation of this statement, cp.

Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff.

He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “_Est

nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur,

quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem

confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra

papam._” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the

secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic

ordinances. “_Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad

magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen

si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis

aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a

magistratu peteret dispensationem._”

[503] Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.

[504] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Jan., 1537.

[505] Luther’s memorandum, Aug. 18, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 326

(“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 228). Cp. Enders’ Notes to this letter.

[506] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98 _seq._

“_De captivitate babylonica_.”

[507] _Ibid._, 10. 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 513 f.

[508] Dec. 28, 1525, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 289.

[509] Dec. 19, 1522, “Akten und Briefe des Herzogs Georg von Sachsen,”

ed. F. Gess, I, 1905, p. 402.

[510] Jan. 1, 1523, _ibid._, p. 415. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,”

137, 1906, p. 56 f.

[511] “Postille,” Mainz, 1542, 4b. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p.

52.

[512] “_Professio catholica_,” Coloniæ, 1580 (reprint), p. 219 _seq._

Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 8^[14], p. 456.

Several replies were called forth by this over-zealous and extremely

anti-Lutheran polemic.

[513] “Vormeldung der Unwahrheit Luterscher Clage,” Frankfurt/Oder,

1532. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 33.

[514] Cp. above, p. 152 f.

[515] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 340. Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 252.

[516] Cp., for instance, present work, vol. iii., p. 268, and vol. ii.,

p. 378.

[517] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 281.

[518] This was Elisabeth Kaufmann, a niece of Luther’s, yet unmarried,

who lived with her widowed sister Magdalene at the Black Monastery.

The “pastoress” was the wife of the apostate priest Bugenhagen, Pastor

of Wittenberg, who, during Bugenhagen’s absence in Brunswick, seems to

have enjoyed the hospitality of the same great house. The “many girls”

are Luther’s servants and those of the other inhabitants.

[519] Aurifaber suppressed the end of this conversation. Cp. “Werke,”

Erl. ed., 61, p. 201.

[520] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 221.

[521] Cp. vol. iii., p. 175 f. Cp. p. 179.

[522] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.

[523] Cp. vol. v., xxxi., 5.

[524] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 396.

[525] _Ibid._, p. 415.

[526] _Ibid._, p. 405 f.

[527] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426. See vol. iii., p. 273. Akin to

this is his self-congratulation (above, p. 46), that he works for the

increase of mankind, whereas the Papists put men to death.

[528] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 430.

[529] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.

[530] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 388.

[531] _Ibid._, 61, p. 193. The last words are omitted in the two old

editions of the Table-Talk by Selnecker and Stangwald.

[532] _Ibid._, 20², p. 365. At the marriage of the apostate Dean of

Merseburg.

[533] _Ibid._, 25², p. 373; cp. p. 369 and above, vol. iii., p. 251, n.

3.

[534] _Ibid._, 61, p. 204 (Table-Talk).

[535] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 205 (Table-Talk).

[536] _Ibid._, p. 211.

[537] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262.

[538] For similar instances of the use of such signs see vol. iii., p.

231. The Nuremberg MS. of the Mathesius collection substitutes here,

according to Kroker, a meaningless phrase. The MS. in the Ducal Library

at Gotha, entitled “Farrago” (1551), omits it altogether.

[539] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525. On the

“strangling,” cp. vol. iii., p. 253, n. 3.

[540] “Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig,

1908, according to the 1536 German ed. (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch.

des Protest.,” Hft. 6).

[541] “_De stultitia mortalium_,” Basil., 1557, 1, 1, p. 50 _seq._

Denifle, 1², p. 287.

[542] “Von werlicher Visitation,” Eisleben, 1555, Bl. K. 3. Denifle,

1², p. 280.

[543] “Annotationen zu den Propheten,” 2, Eisleben, 1536, fol. 88.

Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 48.

[544] “Ein unüberwindlicher gründlicher Bericht was die Rechtfertigung

in Paulo sei,” Leipzig, 1533. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 40.

[545] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[546] Dan. xi., 37. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 155.

[547] “Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, fol. 198´. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 106.

[548] The passages referred to are, according to the text of the

Vulgate: 1 Cor. vii. 32: “_Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quæ

Domini sunt_,” etc. _Ibid._, 38: “_Qui non iungit (virginem suam)

melius facit._” _Ibid._, 40: “_Beatior erit, si sic permanserit_,”

etc. Mat. xix. 12: “_Sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castraverunt propter

regnum Dei. Qui potest capere capiat._” Apoc. xiv. 3 f., of those who

sing “the new song before the throne” of the Lamb: “_Hi sunt, qui cum

mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum

quocunque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex hominibus primitiæ Deo et Agno._”

1 Tim. v. 12, of those widows dedicated to God who marry: “_Habentes

damnationem, qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt_.”--Against Jovinian St.

Jerome wrote, in 392: “Adv. Iovinianum” (“P.L.,” 23, col. 211 _seq._),

where, in the first part, he defends virginity, which the former had

attacked, and demonstrates its superiority and its merit.

[549] “Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, 1536, fol. 198´, on Daniel xi., 37.

Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 105 f.

[550] “Homiliæ XXII,” Vitebergæ, 1532. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,”

1², p. 278.

[551] “_De corruptis moribus utriusque partis_,” Bl. F. III. In the

title page the author’s name is given as Czecanovius; this is identical

with Staphylus, as N. Paulus has shown in the “Katholik,” 1895, 1, p.

574 f.

[552] F. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten

Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, fol. 202´.

[553] Cp. the quotations in Denifle (1², Preface, p. 15 ff.),

commencing with one from Billicanus: “By the eternal God, what

fornication and adultery are we not forced to witness”; also those on

pp. 282 ff., 805 f.

[554] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 8^[14], pp.

378 f., 384 ff., 392.

[555] See above, p. 167, n. 3.

[556] J. Löhr, “Methodisch-kritische Beiträge zur Gesch. der

Sittlichkeit des Klerus, besonders der Erzdiözese Köln, am Ausgange des

MA.” (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, 1910).

[557] Page 44.

[558] Page 59.

[559] Page 65. That all offenders without exception were punished is of

course not likely.

[560] _Ibid._, pp. 1-24.--For the 16th and 17th centuries we refer the

reader to J. Schmidlin, “Die kirchl. Zustände in Deutschland vor dem

Dreissigjährigen Kriege nach den bischöflichen Diözesanberichten an den

Heiligen Stuhl,” Freiburg, 1908-1911 (“Erläuterungen usw. zu Janssens

Gesch.,” 7, Hft. 1-10). In the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 31, 1910, p. 163, we

read of the reports contained in the first part of the work: “They

commence by revealing the sad depths to which Catholic life had sunk,

but go on to show an ever-increasing vigour on the part of the bishops,

in many cases crowned with complete success.”

[561] “_De vita et miraculis Iohannis Gerson_,” s.l.e.a. (1506), B

4b; Janssen-Pastor, 1^[18], p. 681. Wimpfeling is, however, answering

the Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who had attacked the secular clergy;

elsewhere he witnesses to the grave blots on the life of the secular

clergy.

[562] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400 (“Tischreden”). Cp. Lauterbach,

“Tagebuch,” p. 186: “_Cum summo fletu spectatorum_.”

[563] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 239; Erl. ed., 16², p. 234.

[564] We may here remark concerning Luther’s stay at Cologne (passed

over in vol. i., p. 38 f., for the sake of brevity), that at the

Chapter then held by Staupitz--to whose party Luther had now gone

over--the former probably refrained, in his official capacity, from

putting in force his plans for an amalgamation of the Observantines and

the Conventuals of the Saxon Province. There is no doubt that Luther

came to Cologne from Wittenberg, whither he had betaken himself on his

return from Rome. After the Chapter at Cologne he made preparations

for his promotion. Possibly the project of securing the Doctorate was

matured at Cologne. He speaks of the relics of the Three Kings in

a sermon of January 5th, of which two accounts have been preserved

(“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 22: “I have seen them.” “I too have seen

them”). In the so-called “Bibelprotokollen,” of 1539, he says (_ibid._,

p. 585): “At Cologne I drank a wine _quod penetrabat in mensa manum_”

(which probably means, was so fiery that soon after drinking it he felt

a tingling down to his finger-tips). “Never in all my life have I drunk

so rich a wine.” Cp., for the Cologne Chapter, Kolde, “Die deutsche

Augustinerkongregation,” p. 242 f., and for the same and Luther’s

Cologne visit, Walter Köhler, “Christl. Welt,” 1908, No. 30; N. Paulus,

“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 142, 1908, p. 749; and G. Kawerau, “Theol. Stud, und

Krit.,” 81, 1908, p. 348. Buchwald refers to a statement of Luther’s on

a monument at Cologne (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 371=“Tischreden,” ed.

Förstemann, 4, p. 625) in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 609.

[565] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 86.

[566] _Ibid._, p. 308.

[567] Jan. 25, 1526, _ibid._, p. 312.

[568] Cp. Enders on the letter last quoted.

[569] “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 322 f. Hasenberg’s Latin letter,

Aug. 10, 1528, p. 334 ff.; v. der Heyden’s German one of same date.

[570] Cp. Duke George’s fierce letter to Luther of Dec. 28, 1525

(“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.), which was also printed forthwith. He

will speak freely and openly to him, he says: “Seek the hypocrites

amongst those who call you a prophet, a Daniel, the Apostle of the

Germans and an Evangelist.” “At Wittenberg you have set up an asylum

where all the monks and nuns who, by their robbing and stealing,

deprive us of our churches and convents find refuge.” “When have more

acts of sacrilege been committed by people dedicated to God than

since your Evangel has been preached?” Did not Christ say: “By their

fruits you shall know them”? All the great preachers of the faith have

been “pious, respectable and truthful men, not proud, avaricious or

unchaste.” “Your marriage is the work, not of God, but of the enemy....

Since both of you once took an oath not to commit unchastity lest

God should forsake you, is it not high time that you considered your

position?”--The greater part of the letter was incorporated by Cochlæus

in his _Acta_ (p. 119).

[571] On p. 336 von der Heyden says: Luther is “beginning to draw in

his horns and is in great fear lest his nun should be unyoked.”

[572] Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana, may be the author of this anonymous

work, printed in “P.L.,” 16, col. 367-384.

[573] For the full text of this anonymous hymn (incorporated in the

Office for Virgins in the Breviary), see “P.L.,” 16, col. 1221.

[574] “_Literarii sodalitii apud Marpurgam aliquot cachinni super

quodam duorum Lypsiensium poetarum in Lutherum scripto libello effusi_”

(Marburgæ), 1528.

[575] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 539 ff. (with the editor’s opinion on

the authorship); Erl. ed., 64, pp. 324-337.

[576] _Ibid._, p. 540=339. The writing aptly concludes: “_... tuo,

vates, carmine tergo nates_.”

[577] _Ibid._, p. 548=330.

[578] _Ibid._, p. 547=327 f.

[579] _Ibid._, p. 544=344.

[580] _Ibid._, p. 553 f.=335 f.

[581] “Sermones dominicales des gnadenreichen Predigers Andree Prolis”

(with notes), Leipzig, 1530, fol. K. 4´.

[582] “_Apologeticus adv. Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro Libro

Conformitatum_,” Antverpiæ, 1607, p. 101.

[583] “Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 9, col. 1249 _seq._

[584] See vol. ii., p. 242 ff.

[585] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 29.

[586] _Ibid._, p. 96 f.

[587] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 311.

[588] See vol. ii., p. 249 ff.

[589] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 368 f.

[590] _Ibid._, p. 382.

[591] _Ibid._, 10, p. 8 ff., about March 11, 1534.

[592] On March 31, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 36.

[593] At the conclusion Luther says of the young people: “_Hac levitate

et vanitate paulatim desuescit a religione, donec abhorreat et penitus

profanescat_.” And: “_Dominus noster Iesus, quem mihi Petrus non

tacet Deum, sed in cuius virtute scio et certus sum me sæpius a morte

liberatum, in cuius fide hæc omnia incepi et hactenus effeci, quæ ipsi

hostes mirantur, ipse custodiat et liberet nos in finem. Ipse est

Dominus Deus noster verus._”

[594] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 709: _γεροντικὰ πάθη_.

[595] _Ibid._, 3, p. 69.

[596] On April 15, 1534, Burckhardt-Biedermann, “Bonif. Amerbach,”

1894, p. 297. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 24.

[597] Enders, _ibid._, p. 23.

[598] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 312.

[599] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 526, _seq._

[600] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.

[601] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1494 _seq._

[602] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, admits that Luther’s charge was

“groundless.”

[603] Most of the above passages from Erasmus’s reply are quoted by

Enders, p. 25 ff. The outspoken passage last quoted is given in Latin

in vol. iii., p. 136. n. 2.

[604] Quoted by Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, p. 313, n. 1.

[605] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 275: “_Vixit et decessit

ut Epicureus sine aliquo ministro et consolatione.... Multa

quidem præclara scripsit, habuit ingenium præstantissimum, otium

tranquillum.... In agone non expetivit ministrum verbi neque

sacramenta, et fortasse ilia verba suæ confessionis in agone ‘Fili

Dei miserere mei’ illi affinguntur._” Cp. Luther’s words in 1544

in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343: “He died ‘_sine crux et sine

lux_’”; here again Luther says he had been the cause of many losing

body and soul and had been the originator of the Sacramentarians.

See our vol. ii., p. 252, n. 1, for further details of Erasmus’s

end. We read in Mathesius, p. 90 (May, 1540): “The Doctor said: He

arrogated to himself the Divinity of which he deprived Christ. In his

‘_Colloquia_’ he compared Christ with Priapus [Kroker remarks: ‘Erasmus

did _not_ compare Christ with Priapus’], he mocked at Him in his

‘Catechism’ [’_Symbolum_’], and particularly in his execrable book the

‘_Farragines_.’”

[606] See the whole passage in “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 272 _seq._

[607] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89. See above, p. 101.

[608] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 92.

[609] _Ibid._

[610] Luther to Duke George, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 338 ff.

(“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281, with amended date and colophon). George to

Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.

[611] More in the same strain above, p. 173, n. 4.

[612] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 134.

[613] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 411, Table-Talk.

[614] _Ibid._, 31, p. 250 ff.

[615] _Ibid._, 61, p. 343, Table-Talk.

[616] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl.

ed., 53, p. 107 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[617] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 343 f., Table-Talk.

[618] _Ibid._, 58, p. 412 (Table-Talk), where Luther bases his tale on

a remark of the Protestant Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony.

[619] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 413 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff.

See our vol. ii., p. 295 f.

[620] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.

[621] P. 135.

[622] P. 130.

[623] P. 144.

[624] “Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen,” p. 53.

[625] Above, p. 38, and vol. iii., p. 262.

[626] Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 271.

[627] To Johannes Cellarius, minister at Dresden, Nov. 26, 1540,

Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 229.

[628] _Ibid._, cp. the letter to Wenceslaus Link of Oct. 26, 1539,

“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 270: “_Proceres veteri odio despiciunt

Wittembergam_.”

[629] Letter of Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 313.

[630] To Provost George Buchholzer at Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539, _ibid._,

p. 316. At the Wittenberg Schlosskirche the elevation had gone before

1539, and soon after was discontinued throughout the Saxon Electorate.

It was retained, however, in the parish church of Wittenberg until

Bugenhagen did away with it on June 25, 1542. Luther reserved to

himself the liberty of re-introducing it should heresy or other reasons

call for it. He had retained the elevation at Wittenberg for a while as

a protest against Carlstadt’s attacks on the Sacrament, at least such

was the reason he gave in May, 1542, to Landgrave Philip, who wanted

its abrogation. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 578.

[631] Dec., 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p.

16 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266).

[632] Cp. Enders, _ibid._, 10, p. 98, n. 7.

[633] Letter to Coler, April 30, 1535. Enders, _ibid._, p. 151, n. 5.

[634] To Justus Jonas, Dec. 17, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 98.

[635] To Erhard Schnepf at Stuttgart, May 15, 1535, _ibid._, p. 150.

[636] Letter to the Chancellor Leonard v. Eck, Jan. 21, 1535, in Wille,

“Anal. zur Gesch. Oberdeutschlands, 1534-1540” (“Zeitschr. für die

Gesch. des Oberrheins,” 37, p. 263 ff.), p. 293 f.

[637] G. Bossert in “Württemberg. KG.,” ed. Calwer Verlagsverein, Calw.

1893, p. 335.

[638] Cp. _ibid._, p. 336.

[639] _Ibid._, p. 347.

[640] _Ibid._, p. 348.

[641] Hans Werner to Chancellor Eck, Jan. 14, 1536, Wille, _ibid._, p.

298.

[642] Bossert, _ibid._, remarks, p. 333: “_Many_ mediæval works of art

were preserved.”

[643] _Ibid._, p. 356.

[644] In Heyd, “Ulrich Herzog von Würtenberg,” 3, p. 89.

[645] The passages are given in greater detail in “Erinnerung nach dem

Lauf der Planeten gestellt,” Tübingen, 1568, and “Dreizehn Predigten

vom Türken,” Tübingen, 1569, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, pp.

376-378.

[646] Bossert, _ibid._, p. 357.

[647] Thus, e.g. Bossert, _loc. cit._, and in other studies on

Würtemberg Church-History in the 16th century, called forth by

Janssen’s work.

[648] Cp. above, _passim_.

[649] See above, p. 65.

[650] “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 334 f.

[651] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 315 f. On his marriage, see above, p. 157.

[652] A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16.

Jahrhunderts,” 1, p. 290.

[653] “Leben,” etc. (“Zeitschr. des Vereins für hess. Gesch.,” Suppl.

2, Bd. 1 und 2), 1, p. 379 ff.

[654] Neudecker, “Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit,” p. 684 ff.

Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, pp. 88-91.

[655] Hassencamp, “Hess. KG. im Zeitalter der Reformation,” 2, p. 613

f. Janssen, _ibid._

[656] “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 121 f. Janssen, _ibid._

[657] Cp. above, _passim_, and vol. iii., p. 324; vol. ii., pp. 123

ff., 218 ff. 344, 349 f.

[658] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173.

[659] _Ibid._, p. 100.

[660] _Ibid._, p. 373.

[661] Hausrath, 2, p. 391.

[662] Letter of Feb. 9, 1541. See G. Mentz, “Johann Friedrich

der Grossmütige,” 3, Jena, 1908, p. 344, according to certain

“archives.”--Steinhausen (“Kulturgesch. der Deutschen,” p. 508), calls

the Elector Johann Frederick quite simply a “drunkard.” He points out

that Anna of Saxony died of drink and that the Saxons, even in the 15th

century, were noted for their drinking habits.

[663] Letter of Jan. 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” ed. Lenz, 1, p.

302.

[664] “Luthers Leben,” 2, Berlin, 1904, p. 391.

[665] 3 Teil, Jena, 1909, p. 343 f.

[666] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, p. 213.

[667] Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Karls V. wider

die Schmalkaldische,” 1, Gotha, 1645, p. 1837.

[668] _Ibid._, p. 1869 f.

[669] N. Paulus, who examined the matter more closely in the “Hist.

Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 154, comes to the conclusion that Mentz in

his Life of Johann Frederick has not laid sufficient weight on the

testimony of the witnesses.

[670] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 391 f.

[671] Cp. above, _passim_.

[672] Vol. i., p. 601.

[673] Frankfurt, 1699, 2, p. 44.

[674] _Ibid._

[675] “Allg. deutsche Biographie,” 7, p. 781 (Flathe).

[676] Hausrath, _loc. cit._, 2, p. 67.

[677] _Ibid._, p. 68.

[678] “Martin Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, p. xiii.

[679] Hausrath, _ibid._, 2, p. 390.

[680] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 209, from the original at Weimar,

written by Bugenhagen: “_Utcunque sint in quibusdam peccatores et

non in omnibus puri, calumniantibus hoc etiam vel forte accusantibus

adversariis, tamen confidant de Domini bonitate_,” etc. And before

this, concerning the “_adversariorum clamores ‘Rapiunt bona

ecclesiastica,’_” etc., they were to comfort themselves, “_quia non

sic rapiunt, quemadmodum quidam alii; video enim eos per hæc bona

curare quæ sunt religionis. Si quid præterea ipsis ex talibus bonis

accedit, quis potius ea susciperet? Principum sunt talia, non nebulonum

papistarum._” The general spoliation of church property disturbed his

mind, as we can see, but he overcomes his scruples, and persuades

himself that their action, like his own, was really directed against

Antichrist: “_Iube meis verbis, ut faciant in Deo confidenter pro causa

evangelii quicquid Spiritus sanctus suggesserit; non præscribo eis

modum. Misericors Deus confortet eos, ut maneant in ista sana doctrina

et gratias agant, quod sunt liberati ab Antichristo._”

[681] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 588.

[682] This ex-priest, Michael Kramer, first took a wife at Cunitz, and

when she began to lead a bad life, married a second at Dommitzsch “on

the strength of an advice secured.” On account of matrimonial squabbles

he married a third time, after obtaining advice from Luther through the

magistrates. C. A. Burkhardt, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” p. 87; cp. his

“Gesch. d. sächs. Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen,” p. 48.

[683] “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 888, 913, 982. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1,

pp. 362 f., 369. Above, vol. iii., p. 324.

[684] Quoted in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5,

p. 100 f.

[685] From Burkhardt, _ibid._ Janssen, _ibid._

[686] Janssen, _ibid._, 6, p. 521, given as Melanchthon’s words.

[687] A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,”

2, pp. 181, 192 f. Janssen, _ibid._, p. 523. W. Schmidt (“Kirchen-

und Schulvisitationen im sächs. Kurkreis von 1555,” 1907, Hft. 1-2,

“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 90) fancies he can discern a

certain improvement in ecclesiastical life and in the school system

about the year 1555.

[688] For the way Metzsch was dealt with, see Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,”

pp. 163, 167. “Briefe,” 6, p. 213 f. Below, vol. v., xxx., 3.

[689] “Briefe,” 5, p. 223 f.

[690] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”

[691] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411, conclusion

of the “Auslegung über etliche Kapitel des fünften Buches Mosis,” 1529.

[692] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 9², p. 330 f., “Kirchenpostille.”

[693] _Ibid._, 4², p. 4, “Hauspostille.”

[694] _Ibid._

[695] _Ibid._, p. 6.

[696] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443.

[697] “Comment, in ep. ad Galatas,” 2, p. 351.

[698] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443, according to another set of notes

of the sermon quoted in n. 1.

[699] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.

[700] _Ibid._, 59, p. 6. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.

[701] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 455.

[702] _Ibid._, 30, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 86, “Auff das vermeint

Edict,” 1531.

[703] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 385 ff.=86 f.

[704] March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 722, letter called

forth by the death of George Held Forchheim, to whom the Prince was

much attached.

[705] To Catherine Bora, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753.

[706] To Justus Jonas, June 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 570.

[707] On Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 615.

[708] “Vermahnung,” Feb. or Nov., 1542, “Briefe,” 6, p. 302.

[709] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 80 ff.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23 ff.

[710] _Ibid._, 27, p. 408 f., in the newly published sermons of 1528.

[711] _Ibid._, p. 418 f.

[712] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.

[713] _Ibid._, p. 153.

[714] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” 179.

[715] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 402.

[716] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.

[717] _Ibid._, p. 138.

[718] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185.

[719] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 323 (Table-Talk).

[720] “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 19.

[721] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. (Table-Talk).

[722] “Historien,” p. 136´. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 126 and

_ibid._, Introduction, p. 72; Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 13. See above,

p. 210.

[723] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 70, Khummer.

[724] _Ibid._, p. 80.

[725] Above, vol. iii., p. 410.

[726] G. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Cp.

Luther’s letter to Spalatin, quoted in vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1, where

he tells him: “_Tristitia occidet te_”; by his (Luther’s) mouth

Christ had raised up Melanchthon from a similar state induced by the

“_spiritus tristitiæ_”; such continuous sorrow over sin was an even

greater sin; he was still inexperienced “in the battle against sin or

conscience and the law”; now, however, he must look upon Luther as St.

Peter, who speaks to him as he did to the lame man: “In the name of

Christ, arise and walk”; Christ did not wish him to be “crucified with

sorrow”; this came from the devil.--We do not learn that these words

had any effect.

[727] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 416.

[728] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 193.

[729] “Fortgesetzte Sammlung,” Leipzig, 1740, p. 519.

[730] M. Hempel, “Libellus H. Welleri,” Lipsiæ, 1581, p. 60.

[731] H. Weller, Preface to Beltzius, “On Man’s Conversion,” Leipzig,

1575.

[732] He wrote “Against the grievous plague of Melancholy,” Erfurt,

1557, and “A useful instruction against the demon of melancholy,” 1569

(s.l.). In the latter work he says in the Preface that he considered

himself all the more called to comfort “sad and sorrowful hearts”

because he himself “not seldom lay sick in that same hospital.”

[733] “We experience in our own selves, that our hearts become

increasingly stupid, weak and timid, and often know not whence it comes

or what it is.” “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nürnberg, 1565, p. 94.--On

his edition of the Table-Talk, cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p.

xvi.

[734] Cp. Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 231, where Capito’s letter to Luther of

June 13, 1536, is given. The letter is also in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,”

10, p. 353. Capito there laments, “_me deiectiorem apud me factum, adeo

ut in morbum melancholicum prope inciderim. Hilaritatem, si potero,

revocabo._” The internal dissensions, which pained and distressed him

to the last degree, were the immediate cause of his sadness, so he

declares.

[735] C. Gerbert, “Gesch. der Strassburger Sektenbewegung zur Zeit der

Reformation,” Strasburg, 1889, p. 183 f.

[736] Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 462 _seq._

[737] Contemporary account in J. C. Siebenkees, “Materialien zur

Nürnberg. Gesch.,” 2, Nuremberg, 1792, p. 754.

[738] Fischlin, “_Memoria theologorum Wirtembergensium_,” 1, Ulmæ,

1720, pp. 144, 171.

[739] Cp. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer und Elend menschlichen Lebens und

Wesens,” Leipzig, 1574, Bl. 3´.

[740] “Handbuch,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1613, p. 725 f. (1 ed., 1603).

[741] “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nuremberg, 1565, p. 94.

[742] Sarcerius, “Etliche Predigten,” etc., Leipzig, 1551, Bl. C 2´.

[743] Strigel, “Ypomnemata 1,” Lipsiæ, 1565, p. 219.

[744] Sachse, “Acht Trostpredigten,” Leipzig, 1602, Bl. A 5´.

[745] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. On the Disputation held at

Leipzig by Beyer, the ex-Augustinian, see vol. i, p. 316.

[746] G. Loesche, “Joh. Mathesius,” 1, Gotha, 1895, p. 223.

[747] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.

[748] “Fest-Chronika,” 2 Tl., Leipzig, 1602, Bl. 2´ (1 ed., 1591).

[749] G. Th. Strobel, “Neue Beyträge zur Literatur,” 1, Nuremberg,

1790, p. 97.

[750] Hondorf-Sturm, “Calendarium Sanctorum,” Leipzig, 1599, p. 338.

[751] L. Osiander, “Bauren-Postilla,” 4 Tl., Tübingen, 1599, p. 188.

[752] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 365.

[753] Hocker-Hamelmann, “Der Teufel selbs,” 3 Tl., Ursel, 1568, p. 130.

[754] Celichius in a work on suicide: “Nützlicher und nothwendiger

Bericht von den Leuten, so sich selbst aus Angst, Verzweiffelung oder

andern Ursachen entleiben und hinrichten,” Magdeburg, 1578, Bl. A 2, S

5, R 5´.

[755] Helding, “Von der hailigisten Messe,” Ingolstadt, 1548, p. 7.

[756] “Postilla oder Auslegung der Sonntagsevangelien,” Nuremberg,

1565, p. 14.

[757] Selnecker, “Tröstliche schöne Spruch für die engstigen Gewissen,”

Leipzig, 1561, Preface.

[758] Georg Major (a Wittenberg Professor), “_Homiliæ in Evangelia

dominicalia_,” 1, Wittenbergæ, 1562, p. 38.--Johann Pomarius, preacher

at Magdeburg: “People are growing so distressed and afflicted that they

droop and languish,” etc., the Last Day is, however, “at the door.”

“Postilla,” Bd. 1, Magdeburg, 1587, p. 6 f.

[759] Nikol. Kramer, “Würtzgärtlein der Seelen,” Frankfurt a. M., 1573,

Bl. V., 3´. Still more emphatically the preacher Sigismund Suevus

(“Trewe Warnung für der leidigen Verzweiffelung,” Görlitz, 1572, p. A

3´): The devil raves and rages in these latter days like a mad dog and

tries above all to make people despair.

[760] Christoph Irenæus, preacher at Eisleben, “Prognosticon,” 1578,

(s.l.), Bl. D d 3.

[761] Joh. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer,” etc., Bl. B 3´.

[762] Ruprecht Erythropilus, preacher at Hanover, “Weckglock,” etc.,

Frankfurt a. M., 1595, p. 181 f.

[763] Valerius Herberger, preacher at Fraustädt, “Herzpostilla,” Bl. 1,

Leipzig, 1614, p. 16 ff.

[764] Andreas Celichius, “Notwendige Erinnerung,” etc., Wittenberg,

1595, Bl. A 3 ff. He enumerates with terror thirty possessed persons

in Mecklenburg alone, among whom, however, he probably includes many

who were simply mad. “Here, in the immediate vicinity,” he says,

“three preachers have lost their minds, and would even appear to be

bodily possessed.” J. Moehsen (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in der Mark

Brandenburg,” Berlin, 1781, p. 500) rightly remarked: “The plentiful

writings and sermons on the devil’s power, ... on the portents of the

Last Judgment, such as comets, meteors, bloody rain, etc., cost many

their reason during the latter half of the 16th century.”

[765] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452: “‘_Articulus fidei_’ won’t go home,

‘_ideo tot accidunt tristitiæ_’”

[766] “Extract oder Ausszug aus der Postill,” Magdeburg, 1584, p. 16 f.

[767] See N. Paulus, “Die Melancholie im 16 Jahrh.” (“Wiss. Beilage

zur Germania,” 1897, No. 18), p. 137 ff.; on p. 140 he refers to G.

Draudius, “Bibl. libr. germ.,” for the titles of many such works of

consolation. For the above description we have made use of this rich

article by Paulus and of his other one: “Der Selbstmord im 16. Jahrh.,”

_ibid._, 1896, No. 1.

[768] “Eyne schöne Artzney, dadurch der leidenden Christen Sorge und

Betrübnus gelindert werden,” Lübeck, 1555, p. 145.

[769] _Op. cit._, Bl. A 3´, R 5.

[770] “Fünff fürnemliche Zeichen ... vor dem jüngsten Tag,” Jena, 1554,

Bl. B 4´.

[771] _Op. cit._, Magdeburg, 1584, p. 733.

[772] “Verthädigung deren, so sich diser Zeit ... in den Frid der

römischen Kirchen begeben,” Dillingen, 1574, p. 72 f.

[773] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 9, 76, 88.

[774] Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p.

514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.

[775] Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p.

514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.

[776] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 21.

[777] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418 f., in the sermons of 1528,

recently published.

[778] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 154´; Kroker, “Mathesius’ Tischreden,”

Einleitung, p. 70.

[779] Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. Euling, p. 40.

[780] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 572, n.

[781] May 13, 1543, “Briefe,” 5 (De Wette and Seidemann), p. 560.

[782] 1542, possibly Feb. or Nov. “Briefe,” 6, p. 302. Cp. the Rector’s

exhortation to the students on Feb. 18, 1542, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 780

_seq._

[783] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178.

[784] Published from notes taken at the time.

[785] “Historien,” p. 216.

[786] He says this to Pastor Bernard of Dölen, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59,

p. 272 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 140.

[787] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 273.

[788] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 389.

[789] See above, vol. iii., p. 309.

[790] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 184: “_Prædicator ascendat

suggestum, aperiat os et desinat_,” etc. See, _ibid._, No. 316a, also

pp. 139 and 196.

[791] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 214.

[792] “Luthers Sprichwörtersammlung,” ed. E. Thiele, Weimar, 1900, No.

483.

[793] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 113 _seq._

[794] “Historien,” pp. 144, 148, 151, etc.

[795] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 31.

[796] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 265.

[797] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 82.

[798] The lack of religious instruction in the schools is confirmed by

Falk, “Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu Mainz

(1491-1518),” 1904, p. 17.

[799] “Historien,” 12 Predigt.

[800] To Margrave George of Brandenburg, Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl.

ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[801] See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.

[802] Cp. O. Clemen, “Zeitschrift für KG.,” 1909, p. 382.

[803] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352. Agricola had excused himself

by saying he had not attacked Luther but Cruciger and Rörer. Luther

replied: “_Catechismus, tabulæ, confessio Augustana, etc., mea, non

Crucigeri nec Rœreri sunt_.”

[804] See vol. vi., xxxv., 6, on his attitude to the taking of interest.

[805] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², pp. 89 ff., 105 ff.; 19², p. 243 ff. Cp.

above, p. 142.

[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 437.

[807] _Ibid._, p. 641 ff., “Collections” is our amendment for

“Lections.”

[808] Luther must have known that in Catholic worship the Divine Son

is more honoured by the veneration of Mary than she herself. That

adoration was paid to God alone and not to Mary he could see from

the text of the prayers of the ancient Church. Luther, for instance,

was acquainted with the Invitatories of the Office for the Feasts of

Mary’s Nativity and Assumption, the first of which commences with the

words: “Let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary,” and then at

once adds: “Let us adore her Son Christ our Lord”; while the second

sets Our Lord in the first place and says: “Come, let us adore the King

of Kings Whose Virgin Mother was to-day assumed into Heaven.” Thus

in the Liturgy which he himself had celebrated, the leading thought,

that Christ was honoured in Mary, ran through the celebration of all

her Feasts, from that of her entrance into this life to that of her

exit. The Hymns to the Mother of God in Luther’s day concluded as they

do now: “Jesu, to Thee be glory, Who wast born of a virgin,” etc. Any

adoration of the Blessed Virgin as of a “goddess” was so alien to the

people that it would have been rejected with indignation.

In the same way that the Invitatories just quoted expressly reserve

adoration for the Divine Son, so the veneration of the Mother of God

in the Church’s Offices is justified on exactly the same grounds as

those which, according to Luther, result from the mystery of the

Visitation and from the Magnificat. The Church has always extolled Mary

simply in the spirit of the Magnificat.--Luther himself had published

a printed exposition of the Magnificat in 1521. There he still speaks

of the Blessed Virgin in the usual way (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p.

545 f.; Erl. ed., 45, p. 214 f.). At the commencement of the work he

invokes her assistance with the words: “May the same tender Mother

of God obtain for me the spirit to interpret her song usefully and

practically ... that we may sing and chant this Magnificat eternally

in the life to come. So help us God. Amen” (p. 546 = 214). In the same

way, at the close, he expresses his hope that a right understanding

of the Magnificat “may not only illumine and teach, but burn and live

in body and soul; may Christ grant us this by the intercession and

assistance of His dear Mother Mary. Amen” (p. 601 = 287). Thus he was

then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy

Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint,

and declared it to be one of “the abuses of Antichrist.” (See Köstlin,

“Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370 ff.)--Luther wrote his exposition of

the Magnificat in the spirit which must inspire every theologian who

studies the canticle, and which had been even stronger in him during

his Catholic period. At the same time he obviously wished to work upon

the wavering and cautious Court of the Elector, and for this reason

dedicated this work, which, though peaceful in tone, contained hidden

errors, to Prince Johann Frederick in a submissive letter. It should

be noted that Luther wrote this dedication soon after receiving his

summons to Worms. It is dated March 10, 1521 (_ibid._, p. 545=212. Cp.

“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 109).

[809] He admitted this belief handed down in the Catholic Schools,

though not proclaimed a dogma till much later, in the sermon he

preached in 1527 “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of

God”: “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul

was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her

soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s

gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment

she began to live she was free from all sin” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15²,

p. 58). The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s

approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception

still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later

editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear. (Cp.

N. Paulus, “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 41.) In a work

of 1521 he says: Mary not only kept God’s commandments perfectly but

also “received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we

believe” (“_Rationis Latomianæ confutatio_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8. p.

56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 416). As Luther’s intellectual and ethical

development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture

of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of

sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and

as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with

in his later works.

[810] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 64-302; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.

[811] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.

[812] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.

[813] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505

_seq._

[814] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 145 f.

[815] _Ibid._, p. 192 ff.

[816] _Ibid._, pp. 148-200.

[817] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 1 f.; 12², p. 408.

[818] Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 58; “KL.,” 8², col. 343.

[819] “Cod. germ. Monacensis,” 4842, Bl. 1, 2´.

[820] “Gesch. Luthers,” German edition, Mayence, 1836, p. 463 f.

[821] E. Gutjahr, “Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache”;

“Studien zur deutschen Rechts- und Sprachgesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1906.

[822] “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 3, p. 238.

[823] “Leichenrede” of Feb. 19, 1546, commencement; “Luthers Werke,”

ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.

[824] “Wellers Deutsche Schriften,” Tl. 3, p. 215. Before this Weller

remarks: “For he was equal to the greatest prophets and Apostles in

spirit, strength, wisdom, ability and experience.” He attributes to

him “a prophetical spirit, notable strength, generosity and a power

of faith such as we read existed in the prophet Elias....” Great

persecutions and temptations had been his masters and teachers; they it

was who had taught him the art of speaking.

[825] Above, p. 210.

[826] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 27, 37.

[827] On the inner connection between his own teaching and

Antinomianism and on his controversy with Agricola, see vol. v., xxix.,

2 and 3.

[828] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 504.

[829] See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.

[830] E. Thiele, “Luthers Sprichwörtersamml.,” Weimar, 1900.

[831] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 346.

[832] “Briefe an Stephan Roth,” ed. Buchwald (“Archiv des deutschen

Buchhandels,” 16, 1893), p. 37; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.

[833] L. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volkes,” Bonn, 1903,

p. 125.

[834] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10.

[835] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 176; Erl. ed., 27, p. 367.

[836] Cp. vol. i., pp. 290 ff., 379 ff., 384 f.; vol. ii., p. 59 ff.

[837] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 251; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9,

p. 23; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; 46, p.

123.

[838] “An den Rat zu Nürnberg, Gutachten Luthers und Melanchthons”

(April 18, 1533); “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 8 (“Briefwechsel” 9, p.

292).

[839] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 252 f.

[840] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 17 f.

[841] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 249.

[842] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 107 ff.; 46, p. 292; “Opp. lat. exeg.,”

11, p. 136. See also Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 250. Absolution may also be

sent by one far away, as Luther wrote to Spalatin: “_Audi et crede

iis quæ Christus per me tibi loquitur. Neque enim erro, quod scio,

aut satanica loquor. Christus loquitur per me et iubet, ut fratri tuo

in communi fide in eum credas. Ipse absolvit te ab hoc peccato et

omnibus._” Aug. 24, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.

[843] _Ibid._, 44, p. 109.

[844] At Nuremberg Osiander had opposed the general absolution, and

then, in spite of a memorandum from Wittenberg to the contrary (above,

p. 349, n. 3), persisted in his opposition so that the magistrates

made another application to Wittenberg on Sep. 27 (“Briefwechsel,” 9,

p. 337) and again got a similar reply (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 27;

“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 343). In the new “memorandum” it was also stated

that the public and the private absolution were real absolutions; but

Osiander was not to be compelled to give the general absolution.

[845] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 398. Form of Absolution dated Feb. 15,

1540, for the Nurembergers. The editor remarks: “The questionable point

in this form, viz. that the Absolution was attached to an eventuality

(‘should God to-day or to-morrow call one of you from this vale of

tears’), and might thus be regarded as valid only in this event, can

merely be hinted at here.”

[846] These words were added by Luther in 1538 to his “Unterricht der

Visitatorn” (1528); “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40

f.; Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 251.

[847] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.

[848] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372

(“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 251).

[849] P. 565 ff.=381 ff.

[850] P. 567 f.=383, 385.

[851] P. 569=386.

[852] P. 569=385.

[853] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 133 f.

[854] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 23, p. 87 ff.

[855] “Drei Beichtbüchlein nach den Zehngeboten aus der Frühzeit der

Buchdruckerkunst,” Münster, 1907 (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und

Texte,” Hft. 2).

[856] F. W. Battenberg, “Beichtbüchlein des Mag. Wolff,” Giessen, 1907,

pp. 189, 205.

[857] Falk, _ibid._, p. 13. Falk also quotes (p. 14) a noteworthy

observation of Luthmer’s (“Zeitschr. für christl. Kunst,” 9, p. 5):

“The close of the 15th century was the time when the Decalogue, as

the starting-point for Confession, was most frequently commentated,

described and depicted pictorially. For those unable to read, tables

with the Commandments luridly pictured hung in the churches, schools

and religious institutions, and the books on this subject were

abundantly illustrated with woodcuts.”

[858] “Die Reue in den deutschen Beichtschriften des ausgehenden MA.,”

in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 28, 1904, pp. 1-36. “In den deutschen

Erbauungsschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” _ibid._, pp. 440-485. “In

den deutschen Sterbebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,” _ibid._, pp.

682-698.--Cp. also, Luzian Pfleger, “Die Reue in der deutschen Dichtung

des MA.” (“Wiss. Beil. zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 45-47).

[859] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 566, 568 f.; Erl. ed., 26², pp.

382, 385.

[860] Cp. on the abuses of the Penitentiary and for an elucidation of

certain misunderstandings, E. Göller, “Die päpstl. Pönitentiarie von

ihrem Ursprung bis ... Pius V.,” 2 vols., Rome, 1907-1911.

[861] More on Luther and Hymnology in vol. v., xxxiv., 4.

[862] See Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 111, 150, 389: “_egregias

cantilenas post cœnam cecinerunt_.” He himself on one occasion sung

“_octavo tono_,” _ibid._, p. 332; cp. p. 391.

[863] Cp., e.g., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 307; “Colloq.,” ed.

Bindseil, 3, p. 148 _seq._

[864] See vol. ii., p. 171 f.

[865] The whole in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 503.

[866] Grauert, “Heinrich Denifle,”² 1906, p. 7.

[867] “He possessed all the gifts which go to make an emotional man,

as is apparent everywhere; depth, however, and true inwardness were

not his.” A. M. Weiss, “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 223. What he says of

Luther’s “depth” must be read in the light of what is said in the text

above.

[868] See vol. v., xxxi., 5.

[869] Above, p. 244.

[870] Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701. Further details on Luther’s

prayers below, p. 274 ff.

[871] The account by Cochlæus, taken from a special print of 1540

“of which sufficient account has hardly been made,” in Enders,

“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 174 ff. New edition of the “_Colloqium

Cochlæi_,” by J. Greving, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der

Reformation,” 4, Hft. 3, Leipzig, 1910.

[872] So Jonas declares in his funeral address on Luther. “Luthers

Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.

[873] _Ibid._

[874] In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.

[875] “Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here

we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo,

perchè portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”

[876] 6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24)

calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.”

_Ibid._, p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,”

which he is ready to prize.

[877] “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.

[878] Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung”

(a reply to Denifle), 1904.

[879] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.

[880] Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.

[881] Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.

[882] There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier

Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better

side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual

method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was

objectionable--the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no

exception to the rule--without sufficiently discriminating between

what was true and what was false (B. Duhr, S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten

in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself

was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of

unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle

was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish

priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always

been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in

Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general

encyclopædias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some

examples, H. Brück (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling

imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of

his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.”

J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not

lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J.

A. Möhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the

great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law

than his own will.” J. v. Döllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of

him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice

and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed

undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of

carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we

read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak

thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer

side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons

and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly

callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works

he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for

thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity

and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture

and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using

his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language.

His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to

him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole

Protestant world.”

[883] For the collections of the Table-Talk see vol. iii., p. 218 ff.

[884] See vol. iii., p. 223.

[885] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311.

[886] Cp. the emotion which accompanied another fine utterance spoken

“_ex pleno et accenso corde_” (Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 23). There

Luther was speaking of the profundity of the Word of God and of

reliance on His Promises. See also below, p. 265.

[887] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 309.

[888] _Ibid._, p. 311, with the heading “_Papæ tyrannis_.”

[889] _Ibid._, p. 310.

[890] _Ibid._, pp. 310-322.

[891] In his “Sabbata,” ed. Götzinger in the St. Gallen “Mitteilungen

zur vaterländ. Gesch.,” 1869; new edition, St. Gallen, 1902, p. 76 ff.

[892] Burrer’s letter, in Baum, “Capito,” 1860, p. 83.

[893] “Historien,” p. 147.

[894] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 142, 143.

[895] _Ibid._, p. 153´.

[896] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.

[897] In F. S. Keil, “Luthers Lebensumstände,” 1, 1764, p. 2. Cp.

Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 243 f.

[898] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 442. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 322.

[899] “_Vita Lutheri_,” in “_Vitæ quattuor reformatorum_,” p. 14.

[900] See our remarks above, p. 112 ff., on the way he came to believe

in the truth of the falsehoods he so often repeated and even to

convince his pupils of it too.

[901] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.

[902] Jos. Hundhausen, “Kirche oder Protestantismus,” a Catholic work,

Mayence, 1883, p. 225.

[903] In a sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 408 f.

[904] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.

[905] See vol. ii., p. 133.

[906] To Amsdorf, Feb. 6 and 12, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, pp. 432, 434.

[907] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.,” 8², col. 339.

[908] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.

[909] To Anton Unruhe, Judge at Torgau, June 13, 1538, “Werke,” Erl.

ed., 55, p. 205 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 371).

[910] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 323 ff.; Erl. ed., 317 ff. N. Paulus

(“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 133, 1904, p. 201) also points out the “Courage

which Luther showed in the time of the plague,” also his “liberality,

his cheerful, sociable ways, how easily he was contented and how

tirelessly he laboured.” George Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 6)

recognises, amongst many other good qualities, the courage he showed

during the plague.

[911] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 285.

[912] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.

[913] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 31.

[914] To Justus Jonas, April 19, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 87.

[915] To Nicholas Hausmann, Aug. 20, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 77.

[916] Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 254.

[917] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 26. It may be remarked incidentally

that possibly Luther was not aware, that, not long before, the people

of Wittenberg, though no longer Catholic, had been shocked at his

eating meat on fast days. In 1523 the people, who still kept the

old custom of the Church, as a traveller remarks, were disposed to

regard the overflow of the Elbe as Heaven’s judgment on Luther’s

and his preachers’ laxity in the matter. See the account of Bishop

Dantiscus, of Ermeland, who visited Wittenberg in that year, in Hipler,

“Kopernikus und Luther,” Braunsberg, 1868, p. 72: “I heard from the

country people on my way much abuse and many execrations of Luther and

his co-religionists,” etc.

[918] Letter of Dec. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” p. 702.

[919] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 94.

[920] “Einfeltige Weise zu beten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 215 ff.

[921] Pp. 217, 221 f. The booklet was dedicated to Master Peter

Balbier. This master, after having stabbed in anger a foot-soldier, was

sentenced to death. Luther’s intercession procured the commutation of

the sentence into one of banishment.

[922] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 6, “Tischreden.” The whole section in

question, “Tischreden vom Gebete,” really belongs here.

[923] _Ibid._, p. 28.

[924] Cp. _ibid._, p. 24, and above, vol. iii., p. 437.

[925] Dietrich to Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 159.

Cp. vol. iii., p. 162, his prayer for F. Myconius who was sick, which

concludes: “My will be done. Amen.”

[926] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 315.

[927] _Ibid._

[928] For more on this subject see vol. v., xxxii., 5. We see this even

in his prayers at the Wartburg.

[929] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 130 f. In the

second edition the closing chapter containing these passages is

omitted. The comparison with Calvin made by Böhmer in this same chapter

on Luther’s talent for organisation, is also worthy of notice. “At that

time Luther hardly had his equal as pastor, preacher and writer, but,

unlike Calvin, he was no born organiser or church-founder. Hence, as

soon as he was confronted with the great problem how to organise the

evangelical movement now becoming more and more powerful, he ceased

to be the one leader and commander of the Reformation. It is true he

always remained the supreme authority to his own followers; he reigned

indeed, but did not govern; he no longer inspired, instructed or guided

his fellow-workers individually. In this respect, also, Calvin was his

exact opposite. His position at the outset was incomparably more humble

than that of Luther. Yet his reputation grew constantly, till Church

and State in Geneva unhesitatingly obeyed him, whilst his sphere of

action went on extending till his very death, till finally it embraced

the greater part of Western Europe” (p. 131 f.). “Down to the year

1689, nay, down to the 19th century, the nations of the West were still

engaged in the solution of the political problems with which Luther’s

reform had confronted them. For these Luther himself had but slight

comprehension. If anything, he rendered their solution more difficult.

He, however, took more interest in the legal reforms which had become

necessary in consequence of his undertaking” (p. 136).

[930] “Luther’s domestic life displays, as a whole, a not unpleasant

picture, and its description would form the kindliest portion of a life

which really does not offer much that is pleasing.” Thus Georg Evers,

“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 1.

[931] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2 f.

[932] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 487.

[933] Letters of Jan. 25 to Feb. 14, 1546, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, pp.

149, 151-154.

[934] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 314: “_Fax domestica_.” The cause of Caspar

Beier, the clandestinely married student, with regard to which she

fanned the flames of Luther’s anger, was, according to Cruciger, “none

of the best,” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 571, n. 1, and p. 569 f.

[935] To Bernard v. Dölen, Aug. 31, 1538, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 398.

[936] “Opp.,” Lovanii, 1566, f. 116´.

[937] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 316.

[938] Cp. Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Jüden” (“N. Stud.

zur Gesch. der Theol. und Kirche,” 10), 1911.

[939] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 135.

[940] _Ibid._, p. 177 f.

[941] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298.

[942] _Ibid._

[943] _Ibid._, p. 242.

[944] _Ibid._, p. 244 f.

[945] _Ibid._, p. 244 f.

[946] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261. Cp. vol., iii., p. 289 f.

[947] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 271; Erl. ed., 27, p. 206.

[948] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 65, p. 79.

[949] See vol. ii., p. 280.

[950] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 196.

[951] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 137.

[952] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 306; Erl. ed., 40, p. 250 f.

[953] To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535; “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[954] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. See above,

vol. iii., 93 f.

[955] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 56 f.

[956] _Ibid._, p. 86.

[957] _Ibid._, 25¹, p. 192.

[958] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 676; Erl. ed., 27, p. 292.

[959] _Ibid._, 6, p. 302=27, p. 110.

[960] _Ibid._, 26, p. 351=30, p. 224.

[961] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 32, p. 404.

[962] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469.

[963] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 289 _seq._ The date, Dec. 4, 1538,

must be taken for what it is worth.

[964] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 14.

[965] _Ibid._, p. 8 f.

[966] On Invocavit Sunday, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 471.

[967] See vol. ii., pp. 297, 305 ff.

[968] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.

[969] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 265 = 86.

[970] _Ibid._, p. 267 f. = 89.

[971] _Ibid._, p. 268 = 90.

[972] _Ibid._, p. 270 = 92 f.

[973] E. Brandenburg (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 70, Halle,

1901), p. 21.

[974] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 265.

[975] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139 f.

[976] _Ibid._

[977] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 504 f.; 6, p. 319 ff.;

“Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 84. The “printed

Mandate” was affixed to the church door. Cp. E. Michael (“Zeitschr. f.

kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895), p. 455 ff.

[978] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette & Seidemann, 6, p. 320 ff.

[979] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179, Aug., 1540.

[980] _Ibid._, p. 180.

[981] _Ibid._, p. 171. Still more strongly against the Franciscans on

p. 180.

[982] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 222.

[983] _Ibid._, p. 226 f.

[984] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 301.

[985] _Ibid._, p. 292 f. Letter of Oct. 10, 1540. De Wette, 5, p. 308,

also has 80,000 ducats. In the passage that follows Luther speaks of

18,000 crowns.

[986] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 213.

[987] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 762; Erl. ed., 36, p. 410. See below,

p. 304.

[988] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 171.

[989] P. 64.

[990] P. 25.

[991] P. 149.

[992] P. 64.

[993] P. 30.

[994] P. 163.

[995] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 439, “Tischreden.”

[996] _Ibid._

[997] _Ibid._, p. 441, and Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 100.

[998] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, p. 5.

[999] P. 2.

[1000] P. 3.

[1001] P. 7.

[1002] P. 9.

[1003] P. 9.

[1004] P. 10.

[1005] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391, “Tischreden.”

[1006] _Ibid._, 60, p. 227 f., in chapter xxvii. of the Table-Talk.

[1007] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 68.

[1008] _Ibid._, 57, p. 80.

[1009] _Ibid._, 60, p. 206.

[1010] _Ibid._, p. 183.

[1011] _Ibid._, p. 214.

[1012] _Ibid._, 62, p. 222.

[1013] _Ibid._, 60, p. 180.

[1014] _Ibid._, p. 195.

[1015] P. 305.

[1016] _Ibid._, p. 200.

[1017] _Ibid._, 61, p. 149.

[1018] _Ibid._, 57, p. 206.

[1019] _Ibid._, 60, p. 255.

[1020] _Ibid._

[1021] _Ibid._, p. 185.

[1022] _Ibid._, p. 291.

[1023] _Ibid._, 57, p. 367 f.

[1024] _Ibid._, 60, p. 379, chapter xxvii.

[1025] _Ibid._, p. 184.

[1026] “Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers, 1535-1545,” ed. P. Drews, pp.

532-584. Cp. the Theses already published in Luther’s “Opp. lat. var.,”

4, p. 442 _seq._

[1027] They are thus summed up by Drews (p. 533).

[1028] Thesis 56: “_Papa est illud monstrum, de quo Daniel dicit, quod

adversatur omni Deo, etiam Deo deorum_.”--Thesis 58: “_Nostri Germani

vocant Beerwolf, quod Græci, si forte notum illis fuisset, dixissent_

ἀρκτόλυκον” (i.e. “Bearwolf”).--Thesis 59: “_Hoc animal lupus est

quidem, sed a dæmone arreptus, lacerat omnia et elabitur omnibus

venabulis et armis_.”--Thesis 60: “_Ad quod opprimendum necessarius est

concursus omnium pagorum_,” etc.--Thesis 61: “_Nec est hic expectanda

iudicis sententia aut consilii auctoritas_,” etc.--Thesis 66: “_Ita

si papa bellum moverit, resistendum est ei sicut monstro furioso et

obsesso seu vere ἀρκτολύκῳ._”--Thesis 68: “_Nec curandum, si habeat

militantes sibi principes, reges vel ipsos cæsares, titulo ecclesiæ

incantatos_.”

[1029] Drews, p. 544.

[1030] _Ibid._, p. 549. Given in Luther’s German Works, Jena ed., 7, p.

285, and Halle ed. (Walch), 19, p. 2438 f.

[1031] _Ibid._, p. 552.

[1032] _Ibid._, p. 559, Jena ed., 285´, Walch, p. 2440.

[1033] _Ibid._, p. 566.

[1034] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127.

[1035] _Ibid._

[1036] _Ibid._ See above, p. 208. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 111:

“_Quando frigeo in corde ... oppono contra me impietatem papæ_,” etc.;

“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 107 f.; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.

[1037] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 74.

[1038] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 180.

[1039] _Ibid._, p. 177 f.

[1040] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.

[1041] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.

[1042] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 286; Erl. ed., 25², p. 16.

[1043] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.

[1044] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 269.

[1045] _Ibid._, p. 307.

[1046] _Ibid._, p. 249; cp. p. 115.

[1047] See vol. ii., p. 153.

[1048] Letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14, 1518, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 4

(“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 249).

[1049] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 206. Cp. what he says of Duke George,

above, p. 190.

[1050] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 295.

[1051] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 274. On Brand of Berne cp. N. Paulus,

“Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, pp. 16-45; on

p. 29 f. there is a remark of Luther’s on the “poor smoking ‘brand’

which escaped the fire of Berne,” rightly taken by Paulus to apply to

Mensing (Seckendorf, Walch, De Wette and Enders were of a different

opinion).--J. Koss, the Leipzig preacher, is again described by Luther

in a letter to N. Hausmann (Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260) as

a “preacher of blasphemy.”

[1052] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 158. Under the heading “_Mortes

persecutorum_,” the list commences with the words: “_Pauci præsentia

Dei miracula observant_.” It contains the names of Richard von

Greifenklau, Archbishop of Troves, Ernest Count of Mansfeld, Count

Wartenberg, Dr. Matthias Henning, son of Henning the lawyer, Cæsar

Pflug, Chancellor of Treves, and, besides, a Catholic preacher at

Leipzig, a minister who had fallen away from Lutheranism at Kunewalde,

a monk who was alleged to have spoken against the Apostle Paul, and

a Silesian Doctor of Divinity. Then followed various additions. Cp.

N. Paulus, “Luther über das schlimme Ende seiner Gegner” (“Katholik,”

1899, 2, pp. 490-505).

[1053] Letter to Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p.

260.

[1054] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 289.

[1055] All of the above expressions are taken from the first pages of

“Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526).

[1056] _Ibid._, 28, p. 868=36, p. 410.--For the tone of Luther’s

polemics against his theological opponents among both the Catholics

and the Protestants, cp. vol. ii., p. 153 f., where the opinions of

contemporaries, and friends of Luther’s immediate circle are given.

For further criticisms of Catholic contemporaries see below, p. 251

ff., also vol. v., xxxiii., on the extreme tension of Luther’s polemics

against Popery towards the end of his life.

[1057] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 83 ff.

[1058] Cp. below, p. 320, n. 15, and p. 323, n. 2.

[1059] Letter written soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p.

329 f.

[1060] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 277 ff., on the Epistle James i.

16-21, on the 4th Sunday after Easter.

[1061] _Ibid._, p. 286.

[1062] P. 282.

[1063] P. 288.

[1064] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115 f.

[1065] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 166, “Widder die

hymelischen Propheten.”

[1066] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 167.

[1067] _Ibid._, p. 169.

[1068] See vol. iii., p. 379 f.

[1069] Letter of Nov. 5, 1525, to Gregory Casel, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p.

263 ff.

[1070] “_Summa, utros oportet esse Sathanæ ministros, vel ipsos, vel

nos._”

[1071] To the Strasburg preachers, Nov. 5, 1525: “_Christum a nobis

primo vulgatum audemus gloriari, at huius negationis iam traducit nos

Zwinglius_.” _Ibid._, p. 262.

[1072] “Hist. des variations des églises protestantes,” Paris, 1702, 1,

p. 69.

[1073] “Iudicium de controversiis theol. inter Luther. et Ref.,” 1650,

c. 53.

[1074] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411.

[1075] To Caspar Müller, Chancellor at Mansfeld, Jan. 19, 1536,

“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 119 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 290).

[1076] To the preacher, Balthasar Rhaide, Jan. 17, 1536,

“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288. Cp. p. 293: “_Vides, quantas illi nobis

faciant turbas, qui a nobis exierunt_,” and before this: “_Spero, quod

non discedes a forma doctrinæ quam hic hausisti_.”

[1077] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 129; “Tischreden,” Döllinger. “Die

Reformation,” 3, p. 251, erroneously quotes the passage as being in

Walch: it does, however, occur in Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 136

f. The commencement is remarkable: “At times I consider the Pope and

say: What after all is the Pope that I should honour him, even though

you [the devil] magnify him? See what an abomination he has wrought

and works even to-day! Before myself I set Christ and the forgiveness

of sins, but under Satan’s nose I put the abominations of the Pope.

The abomination and the horror is so great that I am encouraged and am

quite ready to allow that,” etc.

[1078] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251.

[1079] To Spalatin, soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329

f.

[1080] July 31, 1530, _ibid._, 8, p. 157.

[1081] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261; Erl. ed., 65, p. 25; “Widder den

Radschlag,” etc., 1526.

[1082] Aug. 19, 1520, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 463.

[1083] April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 342: “_Miror, quid

mihi acciderit, ut tam moderatus fuerim_.”

[1084] _Ibid._, p. 341: “_Certum est ipsum [Christum] pedetentim

descendere de throno ad iudicium illud exspectatissimum; multa sunt

nimis signa, quæ id mihi persuadent_.”

[1085] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 266, from the notes of one

of his table-companions: Cod. Manh., 355. Coll. Camerar. v. (Ms. Bibl.

Monac.), fol. 148 a.

[1086] Cp. vol. iii., 148 f. See also “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ed. C. A.

H. Burkhardt, 1866, p. 357.

[1087] Cp. our vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.

[1088] To Spalatin, July 26, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 435.

[1089] Aug. 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 349 (“Briefwechsel,” 3,

p. 447). Cp. the letter to Spalatin of Nov. 11, 1521, “Briefwechsel,”

3, p. 246 f.

[1090] Cp. letters of Nov. 11, 1517, and Feb., 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 1,

p. 126, and 2, p. 345.

[1091] April 13, 1531, in Seidemann, “Beitr. zur RG.,” 1. p. 207;

Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 389, n. 1.

[1092] April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 225 (“Briefwechsel,”

8, p. 388).

[1093] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87, at the

end of “Auff das vermeint Edict.”

[1094] Cp. _ibid._, p. 386=86 f.

[1095] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 188; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 397,

in “_Contra Henricum regem Anqliæ_,” 1522.

[1096] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 27 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 3 ff. in

“Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift,” 1527.

[1097] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 311; Erl. ed., 25[9], p. 38,

“Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[1098] _Ibid._

[1099] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.

[1100] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 486; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.

[1101] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 41, p. 17.

[1102] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 16, p. 469; Erl. ed., 36, p. 81.

[1103] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 38, p. 176.

[1104] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 7; Erl. ed., 53, p. 46.

[1105] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 31, p. 404.

[1106] _Ibid._, p. 393.

[1107] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 674; Erl. ed., 27, p. 290.

[1108] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 29.

[1109] Cp. _ibid._, 64, p. 324.

[1110] “Briefe,” 6, p. 373.

[1111] _Ibid._, 5, p. 622.

[1112] “Werke,” Weim. ed, 30, 2, p. 485; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.

[1113] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 148.

[1114] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[1115] _Ibid._, 33, p. 673=48, p. 407.

[1116] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 42, p. 67.

[1117] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 400; Erl. ed., 41, p. 30.

[1118] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 296.

[1119] _Ibid._, 45, p. 153.

[1120] _Ibid._, 44, p. 257.

[1121] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 495; Erl. ed., 31, p. 167.

[1122] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 321.

[1123] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, pp. 3, 335; Erl. ed., 25², p. 52.

[1124] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 562.

[1125] _Ibid._, 20², 1, p. 19.

[1126] _Ibid._, 25², p. 253.

[1127] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 26, p. 429; Erl. ed., 30, p. 282.

[1128] “Briefe,” 6, p. 296.

[1129] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 43; Erl. ed., 29, p. 378.

[1130] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 318.

[1131] _Ibid._, p. 316.

[1132] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 33, p. 458; Erl. ed., 48, p. 222.

[1133] On June 30, 1530, to Johann Agricola, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 57.

[1134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 207.

[1135] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 468; Erl. ed., 25², p. 125.

[1136] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 216.

[1137] _Ibid._, p. 216 f.

[1138] _Ibid._, p. 205.

[1139] Calvin also suffered, though in a less degree, from this mania

for invective; of him and of the excuse some have sought in the tone

and habits of the age a recent French historian says: Even though such

abuse was not entirely unparalleled, “yet it cannot but surprise and

grieve us in the case of a religious reformer.” H. Lemonnier, “Histoire

de France,” ed. E. Lavisse, 5, 2, 1904, p. 230, dealing with French

Calvinism.

[1140] See our vol. ii., p. 153 ff.

[1141] In the reply “Auf das chmähbüchlein,” usw., “Werke,” Erl. ed.,

25², p. 143, published under Arnold’s name.

[1142] Thus F. Polygranus, O.S.F., in his “_Assertiones quorundam

ecclesiæ dogmatum_,” printed at Cologne in 1571, Bl. 10: “_insatiabilis

maledicendi libido ... a seculis inauditæ conviciorum voces_.”

[1143] To Ulrich Zasius, Oct. 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel der Brüder

Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 66.

[1144] Cp. “KL.,” 5², col. 1958 f.

[1145] “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” p. 514.

[1146] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57 f.; “KL.,” 8², p. 343.

[1147] “Wider das unchristenliche Buch M. Luthers,” ed. Enders in

“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” vol. i., 1889, p. 132.

[1148] “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557.

[1149] _Ibid._, col. 1155: “_ista tam effrenis in omnes maledicentia_,”

etc.

[1150] “Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss der Dieneren an der Kilchen zu Zürych,”

Zürych, 1545, Bl. 130 f.

[1151] _Ibid._, Bl. 10.

[1152] To Bucer, 1543, Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 2, p. 224.

Another remark of Bullinger’s is given above, vol. iii., p. 417.

[1153] To Bullinger, 1543, Lenz, _ibid._, p. 226. Cp. what Bucer said,

in our vol. ii., p. 155.

[1154] On May 19, 1545, Lenz, _ibid._, p. 343.

[1155] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 279, Table-Talk.

[1156] On Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 255, printed in the

2nd edition of the Psalter of Hessus of 1538.--The following remark

of Luther’s on those who wanted to call themselves after him has also

been quoted: “Fool that you are, just listen: First of all I beg

people to leave my name out and to call themselves, not Lutherans,

but Christians. What has Luther to do with it? The doctrine is not

mine, nor was I ever crucified for anyone. St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. [4,

5], would not hear of Christians being called Pauline or Petrine, but

simply Christians. How then should I, poor smelly sack of maggots that

I am, suffer the children of Christ to be called by my unholy name?

Hence, dear friend, let us do away with party names and be called after

Christ, Whose teaching we follow. It is only right that the Papists

should have a party name, because they are not content with Christ’s

teaching and name, but insist on being Popish; let them then be the

Pope’s, since he is their master. As for me, I neither am nor wish

to be anyone’s master. I share with the congregation the teaching of

Christ Who alone is our Master. Mt. xxiii.[8].” “Werke,” Weim. ed.,

8, p. 685; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55 f., “Vormanung sich zu vorhuten fur

Auffruhr,” 1522. He blames those who, by their stupid zeal, “cause

calumny and a falling away from the holy Evangel,” and “affright” the

people and prevent their accepting it. Just then it was to his interest

to represent his teaching as peaceable and his action as moderate. Cp.

pp. 677, 682 f.=46, 51, 53.

[1157] We have chosen this somewhat unusual setting for the following

collection of Luther’s sayings in order to prevent monotony. The texts,

indeed, belong to various times, but there are periods in Luther’s

history, for instance, about the time of the Diet of Augsburg, and in

1540 and 1541, when, within a short chronological space, he contrived

to make a vast number of statements regarding his greatness; for this

reason the above arrangement is not altogether untrue to the reality.

[1158] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2, and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p.

422. Words taken from his Will of Jan. 6, 1542, by which he intended

to show the lawyers (who questioned his power to make a valid Will on

account of his marriage) that he was not bound by the formalities on

which they insisted.

[1159] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 366; Erl. ed., 25², p. 75.

[1160] _Ibid._, p. 290=22.

[1161] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 105=28, p. 143.

[1162] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.

[1163] “Briefe,” 5, p. 754.

[1164] _Ibid._, 1, p. 101.