[1166] _Ibid._, p. 73.
[1167] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1,
p. 442. See above, vol. iii., p. 165 f.
[1168] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349. “An den
christl. Adel,” 1520.
[1169] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.
[1170] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. See
above, vol. iii., p. 165.
[1171] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 4.
[1172] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.
[1173] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716.
[1174] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2. p. 309 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p.
491; “Briefe,” 2, p. 238 (“Briefewechsel,” 3, p. 438).
[1175] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 151.
[1176] _Ibid._, p. 193.
[1177] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.
[1178] _Ibid._, 30, 2, p. 109 f.=31, p. 34 f. “Vom Kriege widder die
Türcken,” 1529.
[1179] _Ibid._, 36, p. 447=18², p. 334. Sermon of 1532.
[1180] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 178, Table-Talk.
[1181] Cp. vol. iii., p. 131 f., and above, p. 102.
[1182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184.
[1183] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 422.
[1184] W. Walther, “Für Luther, wider Rom,” pp. 526-543.
[1185] Other Protestant writers are of a different opinion. Friedrich
Paulsen says in his “Gesch. des Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 178: “It is
certain that humility towards men, respect for human wisdom and human
laws, did not enter into Luther’s make. He is altogether deficient in
that humility towards the actual Church which is so characteristic of
St. Augustine, Luther’s great predecessor in theology. The more Luther,
during the course of his life, passes from the position of a mere
heretic to that of head of a new Church, the more does that formula [My
cause is God’s own] become tinged with bitterness, with obstinacy and
with pride.”
[1186] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. “An die
Radherrn,” etc., 1524.
[1187] _Ibid._, 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421. “Das man Kinder zur Schulen
halten solle,” 1530.
[1188] _Ibid._, p. 585 f.=420.
[1189] _Ibid._, 62, p. 443 f., Table-Talk.
[1190] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface to the edition of the Latin
works (1545).
[1191] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.
[1192] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 445 f., Table-Talk (in Latin).
[1193] _Ibid._, 31, p. 389 f. “Ein Brieff von seinem Buch der
Winckelmessen,” 1534.
[1194] _Ibid._, 63, pp. 271, 274, Table-Talk.
[1195] Preface to his Commentary on Galatians, Irmischer, 1, p. 9.
[1196] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.
[1197] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.
[1198] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 153.
[1199] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.
[1200] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403, Preface, 1539.
[1201] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 121.
[1202] _Ibid._, p. 41.
[1203] _Ibid._, from Veit Dietrich’s “Aufzeichnungen.”
[1204] _Ibid._, p. 9.
[1205] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.
[1206] To Ambros. Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder
Blaurer,” 1, p. 42 ff. R. Stintzing, “Ulr. Zasius,” 1857, p. 231, Cp.
p. 371.
[1207] Münzer and Ickelsamer in our vol. ii., p. 377.
[1208] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 310 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 57. “Grund
und Ursach aller Artickel,” 1521.
[1209] _Ibid._, p. 311=58.
[1210] _Ibid._
[1211] _Ibid._, p. 313=59.
[1212] _Ibid._
[1213] _Ibid._
[1214] _Ibid._
[1215] _Ibid._, p. 315=61.
[1216] _Ibid._, p. 317=61 f.
[1217] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 389 f.
[1218] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186.
[1219] “Briefe,” 6, p. 402.
[1220] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 94.
[1221] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 113.
[1222] “Briefe,” 5, p. 418 f.
[1223] _Ibid._, p. 743.
[1224] _Ibid._, p. 746.
[1225] _Ibid._, p. 750.
[1226] _Ibid._, p. 777.
[1227] To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51 f.,
during the Diet of Augsburg.
[1228] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.
[1229] “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, No. 10, col. 304. Harnack adds:
“Towards God he remained humble; this humility was, however, couched in
a language which must have affrighted the monkish devotees.”
[1230] “Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der
Bischoffen,” with the sub-title: “Martin Luther, by God’s grace
Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to the Popish Bishops my service and to
them knowledge in Christ.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl.
ed., 28, p. 142 ff. The book was partly written at the Wartburg (see
Introd. in the Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 93 f.), and was published in 1522,
probably in Aug.
[1231] Bossuet, “Hist. des variations,” Paris ed., 1702, 1, p. 26.
[1232] To Spalatin, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 232.
[1233] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 275.
[1234] Above, p. 58.
[1235] Above, p. 327.
[1236] P. 28. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (Khummer), p. 141; Cordatus,
“Tagebuch,” p. 118.
[1237] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 346 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 90
and 427.
[1238] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.,
in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1530.
[1239] Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus, Von des werthen Gottes Mannes
Doctor Martin Luther 21 Predigten” (preached after 1562), Ursel, s. a.
Bl. 12´.
[1240] Letter written after Oct. 24, 1545, “Briefe,” 6, p. 392.
[1241] “For we account a man to be justified by faith _alone_ without
the works of the law.” Cp. vol. v., xxxiv. 3.
[1242] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 635 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 107 (cp.
“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 249), in the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,”
which is in fact no “letter” but a polemical treatise in the form of a
letter, published by Wenceslaus Link in September, 1530, at Luther’s
instance.
[1243] “Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 817.
[1244] Letter of Jan. 16, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17 f.
[1245] On his theology cp. the numerous instances given in Denifle,
e.g., 1², pp. 467, 469, 657. P. 466: “He is always playing with
grotesque ideas.” Cp. also, _ibid._, p. 454 f.
[1246] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 162.
[1247] “Briefe,” 6, p. 185 f., in the so-called “first Will.”
[1248] Jonas, in his panegyric on Luther.
[1249] Cp. e.g. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 83 and 126.
[1250] For proofs see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 89, n. 3.
Cp. vol. ii., p. 162 f., vol. iii., p. 322 and above, p. 269.
[1251] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 650; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 512.
[1252] Schlaginhaufen, “Anfzeichnungen,” p. 31.
[1253] “Dicta memorabilia,” Coloniæ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus,
“Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.
[1254] “Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl.
D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der
Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the
disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).
[1255] “Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich
Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him
in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was
casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down
and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’”
Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem
Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534),
B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sächs. Gesch.,”
26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an
attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say,
viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain
from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He
thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this
legend.
[1256] Cp. above, p. 101.
[1257] Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in Döllinger,
“Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12,
from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “_vel a malo
dæmonio agitari_.”
[1258] In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534,
“Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “_a sinistro quopiam agitari genio_” (for the
whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to
select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “_Hyperaspistes_”
against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to
Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio”
(_c._ 1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “_Num
hæc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriæ?_” And before this: “_Sed
longe perniciosior est philautiæ et odii temulentia quam vini_” (_c._
1546). “_Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hæc deliramenta
inauspicatis illineret chartis_” (_c._ 1545). “_Ipsa febris non posset
loqui febrilius_” (_c._ 1546). “_Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse
saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla_” (_c._ 1547). “_Hic nihil
crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, Megæras, aliasque
voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur;
certe hæc esse solent venturæ insaniæ præsagia_” (_c._ 1542). “_Quæ
cum scribit, videtur sibi mire δεινός; verum hæc δείνωσις sobriis
videtur esse mera insania_” (_c._ 1543). Martin may wish to make him
out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him
himself as mad (“_citius lymphatum_,” etc., _c._ 1557, first passage
given above).--In the first book of his “_Hyperaspistes_” (_ib._) he
writes: “_Hæc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non
eras sobrius, quum scriberes_” (_c._ 1281). “_Totus enim hic sensus
sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hæc scripsisse_” (_c._ 1367).
“_Si qui hæc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem_” (_c._
1371). “_Quis non videt hæc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum,
quum hæc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiæ_” (_c._ 1394).
“_An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?_” (_c._ 1411; in connection
with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh).
“_Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia,
sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur,
quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit_” (_c._ 1477). “_Quam multa hic
delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba_” (_c._ 1472).--Luther’s
contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks
like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work
either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“_Replica_,” s. l. et.
a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtovæus
(“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same
way.--All these statements, with those already given, are worth the
consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their
number gives them importance.
[1259] Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement
twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a
young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on
the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later
more detailed explanation of the same incident.
[1260] “Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,”
Dresdæ, 1529 (dedication).
[1261] “Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt.,
1549), p. 1.
[1262] _Ibid._
[1263] “Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” end. In
Enders, “Luther und Emser,” 2, p. 25 f.
[1264] “Auss was Grund und Ursach Luthers Dolmetschung ... verbotten
worden sey,” 1523. In “Zu Luthers Vorred zum Römerbrief,” Bl. 65´.
[1265] “Historia sui temporis,” ed. Aretin (“Beitr. zur Gesch. und
Lit.,” 7, Munich, 1806, p. 535 ff.), p. 666: “_Quam elata cervice
tumidisque moribus expresserit prodideritque superbiam, ut sathanæ
veteris vel etiam præsentanei hospitis illius et præceptoris quædam in
eo imago spectaretur_.”
[1266] _Ibid._, p. 663.
[1267] “Dadelung,” p. 14.
[1268] Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” pp. 147, 143. Kalkoff, “Die
Depeschen Aleanders vom Wormser Reichstage”², 1897, p. 171.
[1269] “Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 1, p. 718 ff.
[1270] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 f.
[1271] Quoted by W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 213. _Ibid._, 214, from
Dietenberger’s work against Luther’s doctrine of auricular Confession:
To speak and teach as Luther did was to have “a compact and alliance
with the poison of the devil and with eternal death.” _Ibid._, similar
statements from Emser and others.
[1272] O. Kronseder, “Christophorus Hoffmann,” 1898, p. 57, with
reference to Cod. Monac. lat. 14626, p. 326.
[1273] Cod. Monac. germ., 4842, Bl. 2. Cp. above, p. 242.
[1274] Ed. Reithmeier, p. 2, 165.
[1275] N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 63.--What the
Catholics thought will be better understood when we remember that
even H. Bullinger, in his “History of the Reformation” (ed. Hottinger
and Vœgeli, 2, Frauenfeld, 1838, p. 239), says of Luther’s “Kurtz
Bekentnis” of 1544: “Although he had previously written much that was
illogical, insulting and even blasphemous, yet he outdoes himself in
the shameful, wanton and offensive words he uses in this booklet. He
bursts for very devils ... and acts _like a man possessed_.”
[1276] “KG.,” ed. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 105 f.
[1277] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188.
[1278] Ed. Friedensburg (“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,”
1533-1559, vol. i.), p. 541, report on Nov. 13, 1535.
[1279] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.
[1280] “Melanchthoniana,” ed. O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p.
324 ff.; see also above, vol. i., p. 279, n. 2.) According to Erasmus
Alber, a personal acquaintance, friend and admirer of Luther’s, the
latter had a “fine, open and brave countenance and hawk’s eyes.” Cp.
Alber, “Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter,” Bl. f. 3 ff.; see
Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.
[1281] “Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 2, p. 632: “en los ojos
no ben señalado.”
[1282] According to Myconius, “Historia Reformationis,” p. 30 _sq._
(written after 1541). Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 97: “_Cardinalis Augustæ
dixit de me: iste frater habet profundos oculos, ideo et mirabiles
phantasias in capite habet_.”
[1283] Pollich’s remark (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 154, from
Rebenstock) has been characterised quite wrongly by O. Waltz
(“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 2, 1878, p. 627) as spurious and a late
interpollation. As a matter of fact it had merely been excluded from
the Table-Talk by Aurifaber; see Seidemann in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3,
1879, p. 305. Cp. vol. i., p. 86, n. 5.
[1284] Above, vol. i., p. 86.
[1285] Letter of Aug. 8, 1523, in Hipler, “Nikolaus Kopernikus und
Luther,” 1868, p. 73. Höfler, “Adrian VI,” p. 320, n. 2, quotes a
remark of Dantiscus on Luther: “_affirmans eum esse dæmoniacum_.”
Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 194, n. 3.
[1286] “Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.
[1287] He refers simply to what he knew from some of Luther’s intimate
friends “concerning his birth and past life up to the time of his
becoming a monk.”
[1288] In his Exposition of the Ten Commandments, published in 1518
and frequently reprinted during his lifetime, “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
1, p. 407; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 18: “Among the devils there
are ‘_incubi_’ and ‘_succubi_,’ of which I shall speak more fully
immediately,” which he then proceeds to do. The children are, according
to him, abortions. According to a statement in the Table-Talk, however,
they were “devils with bodies like the mother’s,” or stolen children,
or changelings, like one he wished to have drowned because the devil
constituted the soul in its body (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6O, pp. 37-42). In
his exposition of Genesis (cap. vi.) Luther admits the existence and
activity of the said “_incubi_.” He declares he had heard from many
persons credible instances and had himself met with such (!), and even
appeals to St. Augustine (“_Hoc negare impudentiæ videtur_,” “_De civ.
Dei_,” 15, c. 23); he remarks, however, that it was altogether false to
believe that “anything could be born of a union of devil and man”; on
the contrary, those taken for the devil’s offspring, some of whom he
had seen, had either been distorted by the devil though not actually
begotten by him, or were real devils who had either assumed flesh
in appearance or borrowed it elsewhere with the devil’s help. “Opp.
lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 127. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess
vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” Freiburg, 1910, p. 35 f.
[1289] “Commentaria,” p. 2: “_sive ex occulto aliquo cum dæmone
commercio_.”
[1290] The writing in question, “Ein Maulstreich,” etc., is not by
Cochlæus but by Paul Bachmann. See above, p. 352, n. 3.
[1291] Paulus (p. 356, n. 3), p. 63 f., from Sylvius, “Zwei
neugedruckte Büchlein,” 1533, p. 3´, and “Die letzten zwei Büchlein,”
1534. Cp. also his work of 1531, “Ein besonder nützliches ... Büchlein.”
[1292] Friedensburg (above, p. 356, n. 6), p. 554.
[1293] Letter to Bartholomew Golsibius, in Weller, “Altes aus allen
Theilen der Gesch.,” 1, p. 178. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 133.
[1294] Letter to Nicholas Œcander; Weller, _ibid._, 2, p. 780 f.;
Döllinger, _ibid._, 135.
[1295] “Epistolæ,” ed. Riegger, Ulmæ, 1774, p. 72. Döllinger, _ibid._,
p. 178.
[1296] R. Stintzing, “Ulrich Zasius,” Basle, 1857, p. 230, from the
letter of Zasius to Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521. “Briefwechsel der
Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.
[1297] Stintzing, _ibid._
[1298] _Ibid._, p. 97. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 179.
[1299] On March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.
[1300] “Retectio,” Hb _seq._ Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 57 f.
[1301] _Ibid._, G 2b: “_cepit omnium animos mirus pavor_,” etc.
Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 61.
[1302] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p.
323.
[1303] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159.
[1304] _Ibid._, p. 161 f.
[1305] _Ibid._, p. 147.
[1306] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.
[1307] See A. Räss, “Die Convertiten seit der Reformation,” 1, 1866,
where the “Apologia” is reprinted, p. 184. Cp. Wicel’s remarks above,
p. 165 f.
[1308] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 117; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 420 f.
[1309] “Werke,” _ibid._
[1310] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.
[1311] On Feb. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.
[1312] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 342.
[1313] _Ibid._
[1314] “Præcipuæ constitutiones Caroli M.,” etc., Ingolst., 1545, præf.
f. A 3a, A 8a; Döllinger, _ibid._, 1, p. 160.
[1315] “Comment.,” p. 1.
[1316] _Ibid._, p. 56.
[1317] N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (3. “Vereinsschr. der Görres-Ges.,”
1893), p. 15.
[1318] _Ibid._
[1319] _Ibid._, p. 34.
[1320] _Ibid._, p. 35.
[1321] _Ibid._, p. 40.
[1322] _Ibid._, p. 13 f.
[1323] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 450-455; Janssen, “Hist. of the German
People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 152 f.
[1324] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 264 f.
[1325] _Ibid._, p. 264 f. Passages taken from Luther’s writing, “An die
Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 282
ff.
[1326] On May 29, 1545. Janssen, _ibid._, p. 286 f.
[1327] Hortleder, “Von Rechtmässigkeit usw. Karls V.,” 1645, p. 486 ff.
Janssen, _ibid._, p. 288.
[1328] M. J. Schmidt, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 1, 1785, p. 23 f.
Janssen, _ibid._
[1329] See above, _passim_.
[1330] See, for instance, above, pp. 96 ff., 102 ff.
[1331] Vol. ii., p. 48.
[1332] “_Transfiguratur coram te satanas ille in angelum lucis._” The
text in Raynaldus, “_Annales eccles._,” ann. 1522, n. 72.
[1333] At the end of the second series of Theses (“Luthers Werke,” Erl.
ed., “Opp. lat var.,” 1, p. 312) occur the words, “_bestia, quæ montem
tetigerit_,” the sole quotation from that sort of biblical language
mentioned above.
[1334] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.
[1335] Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 1, p. 484 ff.
[1336] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 380 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 10 ff.
[1337] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 345.
[1338] _Ibid._, p. 368.
[1339] _Ibid._, p. 370.
[1340] _Ibid._, p. 351.
[1341] _Ibid._, p. 365.
[1342] _Ibid._, 2, p. 1 _seq._
[1343] _Ibid._, p. 68 _seq._
[1344] _Ibid._, p. 81 _seq._
[1345] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 50; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 68.
[1346] _Ibid._, 6, pp. 328-348=2, pp. 79-108. See the actual words
in our vol. ii., p. 12 f. Cp. vol. i., p. 338 f., for the first
interchange of amenities between the two champions.
[1347] In W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 215.
[1348] G. Kawerau (“Hieronymus Emser,” 1898, p. 2) remarks that it must
be admitted of Emser, “that he was an honest curmudgeon, averse to all
subterfuge and pretence, amazingly frank in his admissions concerning
himself, and, in controversy, very rude. Only rarely do we see him
departing from this frankness.”
[1349] “KL.,” 4², col. 483.
[1350] “Lutheri Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 410.
[1351] _Ibid._, p. 408, in the editor’s Introduction to the “Asterisks”
and “Obelisks.”
[1352] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 281; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 411.
[1353] “_Enchiridion_,” Ingolst., 1556, f. 167, 167´. In the prefatory
letter of dedication to Cardinal Farnese, Eck expresses himself in
his usual manner against the ill-advised attempts of Catholics at
mediation: “_Hinc parum profecit conventus Ratisponensis_ (1541) _in
causa fidei et plurimorum fidelium exspectationem fefellit_.”--In
the matter of religious conferences and disputations Eck had ripe
experience on his side. Though once very ready to accept a challenge to
dispute, he nevertheless wrote later in the “_Enchiridion_” concerning
controversies with heretics: “_Hæretici non quærunt disputationem
nisi multis malitiis involutam.... Fraudulenter obtendunt disputare
non coram doctis et literatis ac in theologia exercitatis, sed coram
indoctis, vulgaribus laicis_”; the learned men at the Universities
would otherwise have already tackled Luther. After mentioning the other
disadvantages of the disputations he concludes: “_Catholici ergo debent
vitare disputationem cum huiusmodi_” (_ibid._, p. 163 _seq._).
[1354] The state of his Ingolstadt parish and Eck’s pastoral labours
have recently been placed in a clear and favourable light by J. Greving
in his “Johann Ecks Pfarrbuch,” 1908 (“RGl. Stud. und Texte,” Hft. 4-5).
[1355] See above, p. 258.
[1356] “Z. f. preuss. Gesch.,” 5, p. 481.
[1357] “Septiceps Lutherus, ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius, in
visitationem Saxonicam editus,” Dresdæ, 1529; in part repeated in the
“_Commentaria_,” 1549, F. 196 C.
[1358] Cp. _ibid._, F. III´ _seq._: “_Non ex Deo sed ex diabolo esse
tantam in doctrina dissensionem.... Cucullatus draco iste noster_,”
etc.--M. Spahn, “Joh. Cochläus,” Berlin, 1898.
[1359] N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1894, 2, p. 571 ff.
[1360] N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 78.
[1361] _Ibid._, p. 258.
[1362] _Ibid._, p. 315.
[1363] N. Paulus, “Schatzgeyer,” 1898; “Hoffmeister,” 1891; A. Postina,
“Billick,” 1901.
[1364] J. Negwer, “Conrad Wimpina,” Breslau, 1909 (in “KGl. Abh.”)
[1365] Karl Goedeke, Introd. to his edition of Murner’s
“Narrenbeschwörung,” Leipzig, 1879. Janssen, “Hist. of the German
People” (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 333.
[1366] Goedeke, _ibid._
[1367] “Memoriale B. Petri Faber,” ed. Marc. Bouix, Paris, 1873, pp.
378, 370.
[1368] Dan. Bartoli, “Opere,” 5, Torino, 1825, pp. 110, 116. Cp. B.
Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten,” etc., 1, 1907, 3 ff. Not all the members
of the Order to which Favre and Canisius belonged were faithful to
Favre’s principles in the controversy against Luther and his teaching,
particularly during the excited polemics of the 17th century. Many, at
their own costs, disregarded those laws of urbanity which Bellarmine,
for instance, ever respected in his controversial writings. Such was
the case, for instance, with Conrad Vetter, † 1622 (K. A. J. Andreæ).
[1369] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 404; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 247. He
refers to Panormitanus, “De elect.,” c. Significasti.
[1370] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 18 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 385
_seq._
[1371] _Ibid._, p. 288=p. 75.
[1372] _Ibid._, p. 303=p. 97 _seq._: “_Concilium aliquando errasse,
præsertim in iis quæ non sunt fidei_.” Cp. the following: “_conciliorum
statuta in iis quæ sunt fidei, sunt omnimodo amplectenda_.”
[1373] Letter of Aug. 18, 1519, “Briefe,” 1, p. 315; “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
53, p. 19 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12). At Worms in 1521 he had declared
in this same sense, that he would not submit, “_nisi convictus fuero
testimoniis scripturarum aut ratione evidente; nam neque papæ neque
conciliis solis credo, cum constet eos et errasse sæpius et sibi ipsis
contradixisse; victus sum scripturis a me adductis et capta conscientia
in verbis Dei_.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 883; cp. p. 853.--He writes
emphatically in reply to King Henry VIII (see p. 391): “_Ego vero
adversus dicta patrum, hominum, angelorum, dæmonum pono non antiquum
usum, non multitudinem hominum, sed unius maiestatis æternæ verbum,
evangelium.... Dei verbum est super omnia._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2,
p. 214 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 437.
[1374] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.
[1375] _Ibid._, p. 425=p. 278.
[1376] _Ibid._, p. 324=p. 131.
[1377] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 359; Erl. ed., 16², p. 446.
[1378] _Ibid._, 11, p. 409=22, p. 143.
[1379] _Ibid._, 8, p. 484 f.=28, p. 32.
[1380] _Ibid._, 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff.
[1381] In his “Com. in Ep. ad. Galatas,” 1, p. 104.
[1382] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 383 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 11.
[1383] _Ibid._, p. 385 = 13.
[1384] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 256 f.=28, p. 379 f.
[1385] _Ibid._, p. 90=340. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden,” 1522.
[1386] _Ibid._, p. 90=341. See below, Luther’s denial of the
Augustinian “_Non crederem evangelio_,” etc.
[1387] Otto Scheel, “Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift,” Tübingen,
1902 (“Sammlung gemeinverständl. Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet
der Theol. und RG.,” No. 29), p. 38 (on p. 37 the last quotation is
also given with an incorrect reference) and p. 41 f.
[1388] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 489; Erl. ed., 29, p. 334. “Sermon
von dem Sacrament,” 1526.
[1389] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 565: “_Quod est eius opus? Quod_
drive into the heart _prædicationem Christi, qui non_ fails. Christ
failed, _quia multis prædicaverit et nihil effecit; Spiritus sanctus_
presses the word _in cor.... Si etiam_ a hundred thousand _verbum
prædicatur, nihil facit; cum Spiritus sanctus hoc suum officium facit,
tum_ it makes its way.”
[1390] Cp. above, vol. iii., pp. 12 ff., 398.
[1391] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 181; Erl. ed., 29, p. 260.
[1392] _Ibid._, p. 137=209 (“Widder die hymelischen Propheten”): “Do
you see how the devil, the enemy of divine order, opens his mouth at
you with the words, ‘spirit, spirit, spirit’?” etc.
[1393] _Ibid._, p. 180=258.
[1394] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 85.
[1395] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 15, p. 42; Erl. ed., 22, p. 187. “An die
Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands, das sie christliche Schulen
auffrichten und halten sollen,” 1524.
[1396] _Ibid._, p. 39=184.
[1397] At the German Protestant Congress at Berlin in 1904, Dr. Max
Fischer of Berlin appealed to the above writing of Luther’s as a proof
that the latter had relinquished his idea of the Bible being in the
hands of each individual the sole source of doctrine. “That this, as a
foundation of all doctrine, is impossible in Protestantism,” he said,
speaking from his standpoint, “has long been admitted, and we have
simply to bear in mind how Protestant theology has come to examine
freely, not only the contents of the Bible, but the Bible itself.
Theology has no rights other than those enjoyed by any other branch of
worldly learning.” In the sequel the writer declared himself against
the Divinity of Christ and any set system of doctrine. According to
him particular doctrines, even those of the Apostles’ Creed, were of
no importance. “He has all the faith required who makes his faith for
himself.” (See the report of the discourse in the “Köln. Volksztng.,”
1904, No. 834.) We may compare this principle with Luther’s own on
freedom. The same principles were recently invoked in the case of the
Protestant Pastor Jatho of Cologne, when he was charged with being an
unbeliever. On his dismissal from office his friends declared that
“a chain had been riveted on free and unbiassed research in Prussian
Protestantism, and that the official representatives of Protestantism
had banned that spirit of personal Christianity which once had impelled
Luther to nail up his Theses to the door of the Castle-church at
Wittenberg.” (“Köln. Ztng.,” 1911, No. 712; cp. “Köln. Volksztng.,”
1911, No. 545.) During the trial Jatho, too, had appealed to his
“inward experience” and personal knowledge. (“Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911,
No. 592.)
[1398] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 236; Erl. ed., 39, p. 133.
[1399] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 18, p. 606=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 124. “De
servo arbitrio.”
[1400] _Ibid._, 7, p. 317=24, p. 58.
[1401] _Ibid._, 7, p. 97=“Opp. lat. var,” 5, p. 161.
[1402] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 57, p. 16, Table-Talk.
[1403] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 75; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.
[1404] _Ibid._
[1405] Sermon of Aug. 2, 1528. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 287.
[1406] On Dec. 23, 1526, he said in his afternoon sermon, speaking of
the sermon that morning: “_Hodie dixi, biblia esse hæresium librum_,”
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 624. And as a matter of fact the notes
contain the passage, _ibid._, 20, p. 588.
[1407] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 362.
[1408] _Ibid._, p. 360.
[1409] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 144.
[1410] “With reference to this Luther declares (‘_De servo arbitrio_’):
In the words of Scripture which lie open to us and all the world,
no one, owing to the darkening of the mind, is able to discern the
smallest iota so long as he has not the Spirit of God; no one possesses
the inner sense or the true knowledge requisite--‘_nihil horum sentiunt
aut vere cognoscunt_’--no one believes that God exists and that he is
His creature. For him the ‘_iudicium interius_,’ in the Christian who
has attained to the true light and his salvation through the Spirit
of God, consists in being able to test with certainty all doctrines
and beliefs (1 Cor. ii. 15). This individual judgment is essential for
every Christian and for his faith; it does not, however, profit others:
For them the ‘_exterius iudicium_’ is intended, which is exercised by
the preacher of the Word.” Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 380.
[1411] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 145; Erl. ed., 47, p. 353. From Notes
of the Sermon published in 1564.
[1412] _Ibid._, p. 161=367; cp. p. 165=371.
[1413] P. 148=356.
[1414] P. 152=360.
[1415] P. 150=358.
[1416] P. 152=359.
[1417] P. 146=354.
[1418] P. 148=356.
[1419] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 5², p. 251, Hauspostille. Sermon of 1533.
[1420] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 313, “Enarr. in Genes.”
[1421] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the second part
of the first complete edition of his works (compiled from his writings).
[1422] Köstlin, _ibid._, 2², p. 36.
[1423] Köstlin, _ibid._, and p. 15, 30.
[1424] _Ibid._, p. 35.
[1425] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 23 f., where Luther says, the
predictions of the prophets (or of the Apocalypse) concerning wars,
the Kings, etc., were “things pleasing to the inquisitive ... but were
unnecessary prophecies, for they neither taught nor furthered the
Christian faith”; in those prophecies “concerning Kings and worldly
events” the Prophets had “often been wrong.”
[1426] Thus O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 67 f.
[1427] “_Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ
commoveret auctoritas ... qua infirmata iam nec evangelio credere
potero._” “Contra epistolam fundamenti Manichæorum,” c. 5.
[1428] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 429-432; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp.
284-288. “Resol. super propos. Lipsienses.”
[1429] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 90; Erl. ed., 28, p. 341.
[1430] According to Köstlin (“Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 10 ff.), it was
only the orthodox Lutherans after his day who developed this into
the doctrine of the “_testimonium Spiritus Sancti_,” which assures
every reader of the canonicity of the books of the Bible. In reality,
however, Luther himself already stood for this “_testimonium_.” Thanks
to it he judged of the relative importance of the Sacred Books and only
“allowed himself to be determined by the spirit speaking to him out of
them.” Thus Köstlin himself, 1², p. 319.
[1431] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 325; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 131:
“_Non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libra,
quam per se ipsum habeat_.” The question, however, was who was to
attest this authority.
[1432] See our vol. v., xxxiv., 3.
[1433] O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 47, after having instanced
Luther’s adverse criticism of the Epistle of St. James and the
prophetical books, remarks: “He took exception to the Epistle of Jude,
to Hebrews and to the Apocalypse. The Book of Esther deserved no
place in the Canon any more than the second Book of Machabees, though
the first was worthy of canonisation. [It was, as Luther says in the
Preface to his German translation of it (Erl. ed., 63, p. 104), ‘not
unworthy of being included amongst the sacred writings of the Hebrews,’
because in the history of Antiochus it gives us a picture of the fall
of the real Antichrist, viz. Popery!] Luther makes a distinction even
between the books he does not impugn. Of the Pauline writings he gives
the first place to Romans, just as he places St. John’s first among
the Gospels. He esteems the synoptics less highly because they record
the works and deeds of Christ and not the message of righteousness by
grace.” Scheel notes (p. 49 f.), that Luther’s criticism was based,
not on learned historical arguments, but on the “religious stimulus”
these writings supplied, viz. on the extent to which they might prove
of service to his doctrine, i.e. on “inward considerations.” “The fact
that the Epistle of James says nothing of Christ and Justification
by grace was ground enough for Luther to reject it. Analogous is the
case of the Epistle to the Hebrews.... From all this it is evident
how much Luther placed religious criticism in the foreground and what
secondary importance he attached to historical criticism.” He cares
little whether a writing is apostolic or not; what he wants to know is
whether its contents agree with what he has perceived to be the kernel
of Scripture. “He did not even shrink from impugning the authority
of the Apostles in favour of a higher standard” (p. 52). Scheel then
deals with the statements more favourable to Luther made by J. Kunze
(“Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift und Taufbekenntnis,” Leipzig, 1899,
pp. 509, 521) and H. Preuss (“Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei
Luther bis zur Leipziger Disputation,” Leipzig, 1901, p. 99). “With
Luther’s independent criticism of Scripture,” he says (p. 64 f.), “the
assumption of the inspiration of Scripture hardly agrees.... Kunze
also denies that the effect of the mediæval doctrine of inspiration
appears at all in Luther; the belief that the Apostles spoke by the
Holy Ghost should not be identified with the doctrine of inspiration
in its concrete and historical shape.” True enough Kunze admits (p.
504, n. 1) “some after-effects” of that doctrine upon Luther, but the
question is “how such after-effects were compatible with the uniform
theory of Scripture,” which he finds in Luther. On the consistency of
Luther’s theory, see Scheel’s remarks below, p. 407.--Adolf Harnack
repeatedly declares, that Luther’s attitude towards the Bible was
characterised by “flagrant contradictions” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], pp.
868, 878; cp. pp. 771 f., 791 f.), because his criticism “demolished
the external authority of the written Word.”--Of Luther’s treatment of
the Apocalypse, G. Arnold, the spokesman and historian of the Pietists,
complains in his Church History (Frankfurt edition, vol. ii., 1699, p.
39); he said of it “very much what all the fanatics said, viz. that
each one might believe concerning it what his Spirit inspired him with;
his [Luther’s] Spirit could not agree with the book, and the fact that
Christ was neither taught nor recognised in it was sufficient for him
not to esteem it highly.” Arnold also complains that, in the Preface to
the Apocalypse (“now usually omitted”), Luther says, “that it was too
bad of John to command and threaten about this book,” etc.; the book,
according to Luther, was neither apostolic nor prophetical, indeed not
by the Holy Ghost at all, seeing that it did not treat of faith or
Christian doctrine but merely of history.
[1434] Köstlin, _ibid._, 2², p. 29.
[1435] F. Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 747) says that Luther
reintroduced the Catholic ideas he had “vanquished,” and made this
“burden in Protestantism heavier than it had ever been before.” Cp.
above, p. 398 f.
[1436] Jan. 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.
[1437] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 52.
[1438] In this remarkable passage of his exposition of 1 Cor. xv.
(1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, pp. 102-104), he exhorts all to “hold
fast to the doctrine and preaching for which we have both sure
Scripture and also inward experience. These should be the two witnesses
and the two test-stones of true doctrine.” He here inveighs against the
fanatics because they taught, “what not one of them had experienced,”
“an uncertain delusion of which not one of them had had any
experience.” “None of the fanatics are able to prove their contention
either by their own experience or by that of others.” Of himself,
however, he could say: “I have experienced it; for I too was once a
pious monk,” etc.; then follows the legend of his life in the monastery
and of how, before his discovery of the sense of the text on which his
new teaching rested, he had never known what it was to have a “gracious
God.” “Hence, whoever wishes not to err, let him look to these two
points, whether he is able to bear witness to his doctrine out of
Scripture and a sure inward experience, as we can to our doctrine and
preaching.”
[1439] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 250. “An Exposition of the Christian
Faith,” 1537. Before this: “This is to have the Holy Ghost, when we
experience in our hearts the Creation and Redemption.” “The Pope and
his people do not feel this in their hearts.”
[1440] “All the articles which he believed he had repeatedly drawn from
Scripture.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 500; Erl. ed., 30, p. 363. “Vom
Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.
[1441] “Lehrb. der DG.,” part 2, Erlangen, 1898, p. 289 f.
[1442] Seeberg refers to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 413 f., 346 f.; 9¹,
p. 29 ff.; 13¹, p. 221 f.; 20¹, p. 297 f.
[1443] Reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 249, 267; 20¹, p. 148.
[1444] Weim. ed., 6, p. 561; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. Köstlin,
“Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 302.
[1445] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 219=6, p. 444: “_Hic dicent: Si singulorum
est ius iudicandi et probandi, quis erit modus, si iudices dissenserint
et unusquisque secundum suum caput iudicarit?_” etc.
[1446] _Ibid._, 18, p. 649 f.=7, p. 171. “De servo arbitrio.” Köstlin,
_ibid._, 1², p. 381.
[1447] Hence his confession: “_Credo ecclesiam sanctam catholicam, ut
impossibile sit, illam errare etiam in minimo articulo_.” “Werke,”
_ibid._
[1448] Köstlin, _ibid._, 2², p. 39.
[1449] Above, vol. iii., p. 401.
[1450] Vol. iii., p. 400.
[1451] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.
[1452] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 389.
[1453] “To the Christians at Antwerp” early in April, 1525. “Werke,”
Erl. ed., 53, p. 342; “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.
[1454] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 53, p. 343.
[1455] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 20, p. 571; Erl. ed., 41, p. 210.
[1456] O. Scheel, _ibid._, pp. 38, 55. Cp. F. Loofs, above, p. 403, n.
1.
[1457] W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1902, No. 21, p. 576, review
of H. Preuss, “Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther.”
[1458] Above, _passim_.
[1459] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, pp. 85-88.
[1460] P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur
Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 69. The booklet was written by
Melanchthon but was certainly circulated with Luther’s approval.
[1461] Wappler, _ibid._
[1462] Letter of Feb. or beginning of March, 1532, “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
30, 3, p. 552; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 157).
[1463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 50, Table-Talk, in connection with
some words reported to have been uttered by Andreas Proles, which,
however, were certainly meant by him in a different sense.
[1464] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 632; Erl. ed., 27, p. 235.
[1465] _Ibid._, 23, p. 69=30, p. 19 f.
[1466] “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 441. Here he says in his “Contra regem
Angliæ”: “_De doctrina cognoscere et iudicare pertinet ad omnes et
singulos Christianos et ita pertinet, ut anathema sit, qui hoc ius uno
pilo læserit.... Nunc autem (Christus) non solum ius, sed præceptum,
iudicandi statuit, ut hæc sola auctoritas satis esse queat adversus
omnium pontificum, omnium patrum, omnium conciliorum, omnium scholarum
sententias.... Huic subscribunt ferme omnes omnium prophetarum
syllabæ.... Habet hic Henricus noster aut ullus impurus Thomista, quod
istis obganniat? Nonne obstruximus os loquentium iniqua?_”
[1467] Köstlin, “Luther’s Theol.,” 1², p. 379.
[1468] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.
[1469] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 2, p. 429 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.
[1470] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 298, 299.
Cp. above, p. 397, n. 1, also pp. 398 and 400, on the “_iudicium
interius_.”
[1471] The last words are from Scheel. See above, p. 392, n. 2, p. 76.
[1472] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 580 ff.; Erl. ed., 36, p. 234 f.;
52, p. 392.
[1473] Article 12. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24²,
p. 343. G. Kawerau adds, when quoting this passage (Möller’s “Lehrb.
der KG.,” 3³, p. 104), “It is here, therefore, that the ‘Communion of
Saints’ begins to become Luther’s confessional Church.”--The Articles
of Schwabach, which were sent by Luther to the Elector after the
Conference of Marburg (above, vol. iii., p. 381), probably on Oct.
7, 1529, were mainly intended to oppose the Zwinglians. It is when
repudiating them, as non-Christians, that Luther puts forward the above
conception of the Church.
[1474] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 252 ff., in the preface to his edition
of these Creeds, and the “_Te Deum_,” 1538.
[1475] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505.
[1476] Scheel, _ibid._, p. 75.
[1477] Above, vol. iii., p. 21.
[1478] Vol. i., p. 58.
[1479] P. 459.
[1480] P. 440.
[1481] W. Köhler in his review of Kropatscheck (“Theol.
Literaturztng.,” 1905, col. 453 ff.).
[1482] P. 459. For proofs that, in the Middle Ages, the Bible occupied
its due position in the faith and life of Christians, cp. K. Holzhey,
“Die Inspiration der hl. Schrift in den Anschauungen des MA.,” 1895.
[1483] Instructive indeed are the detailed proofs given in
Kropatscheck’s work of how the heretical Waldenses, and, after them,
Wiclif and Hus, used the “_sola scriptura_” against tradition and the
authority of the Church. The example of the Waldenses had already
shown that it was quite impossible to use the principle without
accepting at the same time certain of the doctrines of the Church (p.
17 ff.). With Hus “the formula ‘_sola scriptura_’ rings again and
again in his writings as a battle-cry” (p. 76). He wants the “_lex
Christi_” and no “_leges novæ_,” hence, no Decretals, indulgences,
Crusade-Bulls, priesthood or celibacy. The revolutionary force of the
formula is noticeable in Hus and still more in the later Hussites;
they declared the “Law of Grace” to be sufficient even for civil
life, and, as “avengers of Scripture,” proclaimed war on those lords
who thought differently, the Princes and the monasteries. Wiclif,
“a Bible theologian from head to foot,” who even finds in Scripture
all the wisdom and learning of the world, and describes it as a book
everyone can understand, registered a success which was “great” only
in the revolutionary sense. The Bible standpoint of Occam, to which
Kropatscheck also devotes attention, has something in common with that
of Luther (cp. Kropatscheck, “Occam und Luther,” in “Beiträge zur
Förderung christl. Theol.,” 1900, p. 49 ff.). Kropatscheck emphasises
the fact, that Occam, in his opposition to the Pope, had conceded to
“the whole Church” the right of interpretation, and, like Marsilius of
Padua, wished to set aside man-made laws for the Bible and the law of
nature. The history of the Middle Ages and the “apocalyptic, political
and social” trends connected with Holy Scripture show how dangerous and
subversive any arbitrary treatment of the Bible could be. The written
Word of God becomes a weapon wherewith to rouse the passions against
the highest powers, an excuse for gross millenarianism and libertinism,
and a veritable mine to be exploited by stupid, crazy fanatics.--Cp.,
on Kropatscheck, M. Buchberger, in “Theol. Revue,” 1906, p. 118 ff.;
his review concludes as follows: “that no solid foundation can be won,
but that everything totters without an authoritative, and, in the last
instance, infallible, exponent of Holy Scripture. The call for such an
exponent is the final conclusion powerfully borne in on the mind.”
[1484] _Ibid._, p. 433.
[1485] “W. Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” 1887, p. 117.
[1486] From Pirkheimer’s “Oratio apolog.,” for the Convent of St. Clare
at Nuremberg, in “Opp.,” ed. M. Goldast, 1610, p. 375 _seq._
[1487] Gütersloh, 1903, p. 84 ff.
[1488] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 408.
[1489] “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1905, col. 41.
[1490] “Grundriss der DG.,” etc.³, Leipzig, 1910, p. 130.
[1491] “Lehrbuch der DG.,” 2nd part, Erl., 1898, p. 289.
[1492] Pp. 288, 283, 290 f.
[1493] “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1901, col. 272. O. Ritschl (“DG.,” 1,
1908, p. 69 ff.) judges more favourably.
[1494] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 156.
[1495] Döllinger, _ibid._, pp. 156-173. Denifle, “Luther und
Luthertum,” 1², pp. 80 f., 668 ff., 675, 688, 716, and _passim_.
[1496] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 59; “KL.,” 8², p. 344.
[1497] “Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 3, Irmischer.
[1498] “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 119: “_Articulus iustificationis
est magister et princeps, dominus, rector et iudex super omnia genera
doctrinarum, qui conservat et gubernat omnem doctrinam ecclesiasticam
et erigit conscientiam nostrum coram Deo_.”
[1499] “Disputationes,” p. 11, n. 41.
[1500] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.
[1501] _Ibid._
[1502] “Briefe,” 6, p. 424, undated, and to a person unnamed: “_Ex his
duabus epistolis omnes, quæ incident, quæstiones, vel alioqui scripturæ
loca obscuriora interpretator_.”
[1503] _Ibid._, p. 434. Written in a Bible: “_Ad omnia dicta scripturæ,
quibus videtur iustitia operum statui, respondebis ex Ebre. 11, hac
voce: Fide_,” etc.
[1504] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 165 f.; Erl. ed., 47, p. 371. In the
Exposition of John vi.-viii. (1530-1532).
[1505] Cp. _ibid._, Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.
[1506] _Ibid._, 8², p. 23. Cp. p. 24: “But know that Pope, Councils
and the whole world in all their teaching are subject to the meanest
Christian, even to a child of seven who has the faith, and that they
must accept his opinion.”
[1507] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 357; Erl, ed., 14², p. 47; cp. p.
379=78.
[1508] _Ibid._, 13², p. 231; cp. Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28,
p. 298.
[1509] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 145 f.
[1510] “_Quod sine scripturis asseritur aut revelatione probata,
opinari licet, credi non est necesse._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508;
“Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 30. Cp., _ibid._, 2, pp. 297, 279, 309-15=3,
pp. 89, 62, 106-15.
[1511] _Ibid._, 8, p. 141 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 323 f.; cp. p. 143
f.=325 f.
[1512] _Ibid._, p. 235=39, p. 132.
[1513] _Ibid._, 10, 3, p. 22 f.=28, p. 223. Cp. R. Seeberg, “Lehrb. der
DG.,” p. 285 f.
[1514] Scheel gives Luther’s views on p. 45 as follows: “What is not
taught by Christ is not apostolic even should Peter and Paul teach it.
But all that preaches Christ is apostolic even should Judas, Annas,
Pilate or Herod teach it. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.)... Hence
Luther replies to his opponent, ‘You appeal to the slave, i.e. to
Scripture, and not even to the whole or the most excellent part of it.
This slave I leave for you; as for me, I appeal to the Lord, Who is
King of Scripture.’” (“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 387, Irmischer.) Scheel
quotes the “Comm. in Gen.,” 1, p. 539: “_Si adversarii scripturam
urserint contra Christum, urgemus Christum contra scripturas_.” He says
finally, p. 74: “Luther found himself in Scripture just as the simple
man finds in the outward world the answer to his own world of sense;
with the unerring instinct of genius he found the essence of Scripture
which was at the same time the essence of his own being.”
[1515] “Lehrb. d. DG.,” 3^[4], p. 867.
[1516] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.
[1517] _Ibid._, p. 160. For the liberty which Luther permitted himself
in his translation of the sacred text, see vol. v., xxxiv., 3.
[1518] Cp. Döllinger, _ibid._, pp. 151-156.
[1519] “Gesch.,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 199.
[1520] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 190 f.
[1521] On the strength of the biblical labours of Erasmus and of
Reuchlin, Zwingli did not scruple to call into question Luther’s
assertion that it was he who drew “the Bible out from under the bench.”
“Zwinglis Werke” (1828 ff.), 2, 2, p. 21.
[1522] See our vol. i., p. 224 f.
[1523] Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans, 1515-1516, ed. J. Ficker,
1908, Glosses, p. 4.
[1524] _Ibid._, Scholia, p. 240: “_Universa scriptura de solo Christo
est ubique_.”
[1525] _Ibid._, p. 253.
[1526] _Ibid._, Introduction, p. lxii.
[1527] _Ibid._, p. lv., and vol. i., p. 242 f.
[1528] Quoted by Ficker, p. lvii.
[1529] “Scheurls Briefbuch,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, p. 2; Ficker,
_ibid._, p. lxv.
[1530] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat[. missing?] var.,” 1,
p. 321.
[1531] _Ibid._, p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.
[1532] To Johann Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p.
174.
[1533] To Jodocus Trutvetter, May 9, 1518, _ibid._, p. 186.
[1534] “Werke,” Weim ed., 1, p. 384 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12 f.
[1535] Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 2, p. 80.
[1536] In the postscript to the “Acta Augustana,” “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
2, pp. 18, 21 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 385 _seq._, 391 _seq._
[1537] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, l, p. 54. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15²,
p. 542, and “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 640. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp.
672, 675, 727 ff.
[1538] Cp., in “Luthers Werke in Auswahl,” ed. Buchwald, 2 suppl.,
1905, p. 43, O. Scheel’s remarks on the writing “De votis monasticis”
(Weim. ed., 8, p. 583; “ Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252), where Luther says
that whoever denies the virginity of Mary plays havoc with the whole
faith.
[1539] Thus A. Berger, “M. Luther,” Tl. 2, pp. 98, 100. Cp. this
author’s view (on p. 100): “This means an obscuring and impoverishing
of the faith as discovered and laid down by himself.” The following
observation of Berger’s is remarkable: “Luther, as theologian, was
merely the restorer of primæval Christianity, such as he understood it;
Zwingli, however, understood it otherwise” (p. 102).
[1540] See vol. i., p. 193.
[1541] See vol. ii., p. 223 ff.
[1542] “Ph. Melanchthonis Annotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Rhomanos
et Corinthios,” Norimbergæ, 1522. The later editions are quoted in
“Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441. In this volume Bindseil has not reprinted
the writing owing to Melanchthon’s retractation of it (see next page).
It should, however, have been printed as an historical document.--The
introductory preface, in “Briefe,” 2, p. 239, dated July 29, 1522
(“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 438).
[1543] Letter of March 12, 1523. Cp. “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 2, p. 131.
[1544] Owing to the rarity of the work, to which even the editor of
the “Briefwechsel” had not access, we give in Latin the passages
referred to from the copy contained in the Munich State Library: H
1´: “_Necessario omnia eveniunt in omnibus creaturis.... Itaque sit
hæc certa sententia, a Deo fieri omnia tam bona quam mala._” H 2´:
“_Nos vero dicemus, non solum permittere Deum creaturis ut operentur,
sed ipsum omnia proprie agere, ut, sicut fatentur, proprium Dei opus
esse Pauli vocationem ita fateantur, opera Dei propria esse sive quæ
media vocantur, ut comedere, bibere, communia cum brutis, sive quæ
mala sunt, ut Davidis adulterium, Manlii severitatem animadvertentis
in filium.... Iam cum constet, Deum omnia facere, non permissive, sed
potenter, ut Augustini verbo utamur, ita ut sit eius proprium opus Iudæ
proditio sicut Pauli vocatio_,” etc.--For Melanchthon’s statement in
his “_Loci_” of the Lutheran denial of free-will, see above, vol. iii.,
p. 346.
[1545] “Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441.
[1546] Melanchthon in his letter to the Elector August of Saxony,
April, 1559. N. Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” Munich,
1905, p. 52 f. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 347.
[1547] See vol. ii., p. 265.
[1548] “Comm. in Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1535, vol. i., p. 255. Denifle-Weiss,
1², p. 514. Cp. Luther’s Sermon of 1523 on the Feast of the
Circumcision, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 508; Erl. ed., 15², p.
199: It had been shown long before by the institution of circumcision
“that no one could reach God and be saved by works, but only by faith.
This is insisted upon throughout the whole of Scripture by teaching
and example. Sin in us is not merely a work or deed, but our real
nature and essence; for this reason does God circumcise that member
which pertains to birth and by which human nature is perpetuated.”
On the same page we find the following: “Nature is depraved through
and through so that no will is left for what is good”; “our nature
is all poisoned and crammed with sin,” etc.--The sermon in which the
singularly outspoken statement concerning circumcision occurs is also
found in the postils. Some unbecoming language is also met at the
commencement of the passage in question where Luther says: “It is quite
true that God’s works and commandments are folly to nature and reason;
God’s way of acting is mad enough”; Luther, however, hastens to add,
“but if we keep our heads and look into it attentively, we shall soon
see that all is done in the wisest manner.”
[1549] Document of Oct. 14, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1 (p. 250 ff.), p.
256 ff.
[1550] Cp. our vol. i., p. 384.
[1551] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 175, on passages dating
from 1532 and 1539.
[1552] “Disputationes,” pp. 429, 431 (of 1538).
[1553] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 202.
[1554] _Ibid._, 2², p. 257.
[1555] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 43 _seq._: “_iustus et sanctus aliena
seu extrinseca sanctitate_.”
[1556] _Ibid._, 10, p. 110: “_non tantum per dona, sed quoad
substantiam_.”
[1557] Cp. the passages in Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 201 f.
[1558] “Werke,” Er. ed., 18², p. 312.
[1559] _Ibid._, 14², p. 287. In the light of this we can better
understand the words which occur quite early in a writing of Luther’s:
“_Non iusta agendo iusti efficimur_, as Aristotle taught, but _iusti
fiendo et essendo operamur iusta_.” To Spalatin, Oct. 19, 1516,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64. See below, xxviii., 4.
[1560] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 285 f.
[1561] _Ibid._, p. 282. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 226 f., also pp. 181
ff., 186 f., 194.
[1562] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 652. First published by G. Berbig,
“Der Veit-Dietrich-Codex in der Nürnb. Stadtbibliothek,” 1907.
[1563] Cp. Th. Kolde in the “Beitr. z. Bayerischen KG.,” 14, 1908, p.
139 ff. Kolde rightly refers Luther’s words to Melanchthon, viz. that
he would send him a writing, “_si volet Christus, de iustificationis
loco_” (Aug. 24, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8,
p. 204), to the above work, and disagrees with Enders’ remark on the
subject.
[1564] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23: “_De imputatione non clare omnia
explicat_.”
[1565] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 521.
[1566] J. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus,” 2, 1909, p. 98.
[1567] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, _ibid._, p. 742, n. 3.
[1568] Sess. VI. c. 9.
[1569] “In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 161.
[1570] _Ibid._, p. 164.
[1571] _Ibid._, p. 165.
[1572] _Ibid._, p. 166. Cp. above, p. 437, and vol. i., p. 385 ff. on
this certainty of faith.
[1573] “In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 166.
[1574] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.
[1575] “In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1, p. 101.
[1576] _Ibid._, 2, p. 164.
[1577] _Ibid._, p. 165.
[1578] _Ibid._
[1579] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 230.
[1580] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 163; Erl. ed., 47, p. 369.
[1581] Above, vol. iii., pp. 202 ff., 226.
[1582] Oct. 27, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 109.
[1583] Nov. 22, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 121.
[1584] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 264 _seq._, in the exposition of
Isaias, 1532, Denifle-Weiss, _ibid._, p. 738, n. 1.
[1585] _Ibid._, p. 143. Denifle-Weiss, _ibid._, n. 2.
[1586] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.
[1587] To Wenceslaus Link, Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 219.
[1588] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53.
[1589] _Ibid._, p. 57 _seq._
[1590] “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, Leipzig,
1885, p. 50.
[1591] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.
[1592] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 54.
[1593] K. Hase, “Hdbch. der prot. Polemik,”^[4] p. 264.
[1594] “Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 428 f.
[1595] _Ibid._, p. 269.
[1596] “Gesch. des Pietismus,” 1, Bonn, 1880, p. 38.
[1597] “Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt, die christl. Centrallehre, in
dogmengeschichtl. und religionsgeschichtl. Beleuchtung,” Leipzig, 1907,
p. 229.
[1598] P. 120 f.
[1599] On the Confession of Augsburg and Melanchthon’s alterations
in Luther’s teaching, and on Melanchthon’s own change of views, cp.
O. Ritschl, “Der doppelte Rechtfertigungsbegriff in der Apologie der
Augsburgischen Konfession” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche,” 1910, pp.
292-338).
[1600] On de Lagarde see “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 345. G. Esser, in
his review there of Genrich’s work, remarks of the alleged “religious
experiences”: “We hear the familiar rhapsodies concerning personal
experience, religion that has to be lived and cannot be reduced to any
formulas, and then again, experiences are discussed which have to be
differentiated from others, vital experiences which must be accurately
formulated, in short, a constant revolving in a circle, and a language
that is always vague.” Before this Esser had said: “What can the word
Justification mean to those who have lost all idea of the supernatural
and of grace, and have so changed the idea of ‘faith’ that nothing
remains but a vague religious sentiment, a venture of the will to
affirm the value of a higher world in the face of worldly wisdom.”
[1601] “Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des
Protestantismus,” 1906 (“Sammlung ... Vorträge und Schriften aus dem
Gebiet der Theol.,” No. 45), pp. 2, 3, 42, 10, 16.
[1602] “Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesungen über den
Römerbrief mit bes. Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewissheit”
(“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1910, p. 245 ff.), pp. 287, 289.
[1603] W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” pp. 54-58. Of this
description O. Clemen remarks in the “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 1909, p. 380:
“Those pages have attracted special attention where Köhler shows that,
in the Catholic criticism of Luther’s doctrine of salvation, as unfair
to ethical requirements, there lies a grain of truth.”
[1604] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; cp. Erl. ed., 14², pp. 191, 195,
198 f., 205, 211 f.
[1605] On the teaching of antiquity see Bellarmin, “De iustificatione,”
5, n. 10 _seq._
[1606] See vol. i., p. 118 ff.
[1607] Cp. e.g., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 683 f.; 10, 2, p. 126;
Erl. ed., 22, p. 54; 28, p. 164; 53, p. 288. Vol. 15², p. 282, he
speaks of the “lousy works,” and, pointing out that Christ had become
the fulfiller of the Law, says: “They [the Papists] boast of their
works.”--This is for him the real object of attack; he is determined to
inveigh against the “_unus furor, velle per opera coram Deo agere_,”
and says of the Catholics: “_opera quibus erga homines utendum est,
offerunt Deo_.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 187; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6,
p. 396.
[1608] “My struggle has been first of all against all trust in works,
on which the world insists and struts.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 382,
Table-Talk.
[1609] To George Spenlein, the Memmingen Augustinian, April 8, 1516,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29: against the “_tentatio præsumptionis in
multis et iis præcipue qui iusti et boni esse omnibus viribus student;
ignorantes iustitiam Dei, quæ in Christo est nobis effusissime et
gratis donata, quærunt in se ipsis tamdiu operari bene, donec habeant
fiduciam standi coram Deo, veluti virtutibus et meritis ornati; quod
est impossibile fieri_.” Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 347; “Opp. lat. var.,”
1, p. 236, where he speaks against the “_affectus propriæ iustitiæ_”
and declares that the sense of good works performed led men to fall. P.
347=237: the wish to have remained always pure was simply foolish, etc.
[1610] “Opera,” Pars II. Ingolstadtii, 1531, p. 95: “_Calumniatur
Ludderus. quod per opera sua Christum excludant mediatorem_,” etc.
[1611] W. Köhler, “Denifles Luther,” p. 42, referring to Luther’s
Works, Erl. ed., 32, p. 261.
[1612] From Kilian Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” fol. 170´.
Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 5, 33; 2nd ed., p. 587.
[1613] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 349; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 239.
[1614] _Ibid._, p. 348=238.
[1615] _Ibid._, p. 347=236.
[1616] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.
[1617] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 212 f.
[1618] _Ibid._, p. 213.
[1619] _Ibid._, p. 221.
[1620] _Ibid._, 6², p. 157, Hauspostille. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 9.
[1621] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432, in the notes taken of a sermon
of 1524.
[1622] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 349.
[1623] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 369, Thesis 16.
[1624] Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 360; 10, p. 159; 11, p. 121.
[1625] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 397; Erl. ed., 36, p. 6 f.
[1626] To Spalatin, Oct. 16, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64: “_qui
(Augustinus) apud me, antequam in libros eius incidissem, ne tantillum
quidem favoris habuit_.” Other Augustinians made more account of this
Saint, popularly regarded as their founder.
[1627] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 75, 109 f.
[1628] _Ibid._, p. 127.
[1629] “Stud. und Krit.,” 1878, p. 698; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 134.
[1630] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 100: “_Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus
prospere procedunt_,” etc.
[1631] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 137; here it is first stated: “Luther’s
theology was regarded by him and his friends as simply that of the
great Father Augustine.”
[1632] _Ibid._, p. 138.
[1633] Cp. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 364.
[1634] August., “_Contra Jul._,” 1, 2, c. 8, n. 23. Cp. Denifle-Weiss,
1², pp. 486 ff, 511, 512, 513.
[1635] Thus Denifle-Weiss, _ibid._, p. 508.
[1636] _Ibid._, pp. 460 f., 467.
[1637] _Ibid._, p. 469.
[1638] _Ibid._, p. 472.
[1639] _Ibid._
[1640] Melanchthon and Luther to Brenz, end of May, 1531, “Luthers
Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 18.
[1641] Thus Wrampelmeyer, editor of Cordatus’s “Tagebuch,” on the copy
of the letter in Cordatus, p. 383.
[1642] For the course pursued by Melanchthon when drawing up the
portion of the Confession in question, see vol. iii., p. 329 f.
[1643] “Tagebuch,” ed. Wrampelmeyer, p. 385: “_Hactenus Philippus ille
cum sua novitate_.” The differences between Cordatus and Melanchthon
related to the doctrine of Justification under another aspect. On these
dissensions, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 ff.; on the want of unity
on Justification generally amongst Luther’s pupils, see Döllinger, “Die
Ref.,” 3, pp. 372-591.
[1644] Döllinger, _loc. cit._, p. 367 f.
[1645] _Ibid._, p. 370.
[1646] “De catechizandis rudibus,” c. 5.
[1647] Lib. 83, quæst., q. 76; “Enarr. 2 in psalm. 31,” n. 3; “De fide
et operibus,” c. 14, n. 21.
[1648] “Contra II epist. Pelag.,” 1, c. 13, n. 26.
[1649] “De spiritu et littera,” c. 9.
[1650] _Ibid._
[1651] “De peccato et merito,” 1, 9.
[1652] “De Trinitate,” 15, 8, 14.
[1653] “De fide et symbolo,” c. 9.
[1654] “In Psalm. LXX,” serm. 2, n. 3.
[1655] “De civitate Dei,” 19, 27.
[1656] “Super Genesi ad litt.,” 8, 12.
[1657] Sermo 158, c. 2. Similarly “In Psalm.” LXXXIII and CIX.
[1658] “De fide et op.,” c. 10.
[1659] “Homil. 29 in Evang.”
[1660] See particularly above, pp. 195-218.
[1661] Cp. p. 212.
[1662] He says in a frequently misquoted paragraph (“Werke,” Erl. ed.,
18², p. 352 f.) in so many words: “The world ever remains the same;
either it exalts faith wrongly [as do the ‘secure pseudo-Christians’ on
his side whose ‘faith is not rooted aright,’ p. 351] or it wishes to
be over-holy but without faith [like the Papists]. If we discourse on
faith and grace, then no one will perform good works; if we insist on
works, then no one will have anything to do with faith; few indeed are
those who keep to the true middle course and even pious Christians find
it difficult.”--This was certainly quite true of the piety he taught.
[1663] Thus M. Staub, “Willensfreiheit ... bei Luther,” Zürich, 1894,
p. 39, 2 ff. Cp. the passage in Luther’s book “De servo arbitrio,”
Weim. ed., 18, p. 697; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 238: “_Quid potest
robustius contra liberum arbitrium dici, quam ipsum esse nihili, ut
non modo non velit bonum, sed nec sciat quidem, quantum faciat mali et
quid sit bonum_.” This he proves from the words of Christ on the cross:
“They know not what they do”! “_An est hic obscuritas in ullo verbo?...
Hoc clarissimum verbum Christi_,” etc.
[1664] Urban Rhegius, “Eine Summe christl. Lehre,” Augsburg, 1527, fol.
5. Döllinger, “Ref.,” 2, p. 58.
[1665] “U. Rhegii Deutsche Bücher und Schriften,” 2, Nürnberg, 1562, p.
234. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 59.
[1666] U. Rhegius, “Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley,
Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German edition (“Quellenschriften
zur Gesch. des Protest.” 6), in Uckeley’s summary, p. 7.
[1667] Uckeley, _ibid._
[1668] _Ibid._, p. 45.
[1669] _Ibid._, p. 9, reprinted by Uckeley.
[1670] “Die Reformation,” 2, p. vii. f.
[1671] “Hyperii Varia opuscula theol.,” tom. 2, Basil., 1580, p. 734.
Döllinger, _ibid._, 2, p. 216.
[1672] _Ibid._, tom. 1, Basil., 1570, p. 871; cp. p. 881. Döllinger,
_ibid._, 2, p. 215.
[1673] “Wahrhaftiger Bericht,” etc. (referring to the Altenburg
Colloquy), 1507, Fol. D 2, Döllinger, “Reformation,” 2, p. 261 f.
[1674] “Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen theol. Sachen,” 1750,
p. 676 ff. Döllinger, 2, p. 565.
[1675] “Wolfg. Franzii Disputationes in August. Confess. Artic.
posterior.,” Disput. 10, “De bonis operibus”; in Pfeiffer, “Consilia
theol.,” p. 943 _seq._ Döllinger, 2, p. 570.
[1676] Ioh. Rivius, “De stultitia mortalium,” p. 32. Döllinger, 2, p.
600.
[1677] _Ibid._, p. 50 _seq._, and “Opp.,” 1614, pp. 275, 305, 370, 672.
Döllinger, 2, p. 601 ff.
[1678] “Haneri Prophetia vetus ac nova,” Lips., 1534, Præf., Fol. B, a.
Döllinger, 1, p. 129 f.
[1679] “Epistolæ duæ J. Haneri et G. Wicelii,” 1534, Fol. A 2 b, 3 a.
Döllinger, 1, p. 127 f.
[1680] In C. G. Murr, “Journal zur Kunstgesch. und Literatur,” Tl. 10,
Nürnberg, 1781, p. 40 ff. Döllinger, 1, p. 169. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 40.
[1681] Luscinius (Nachtigall), “Evangel. Historie,” 1525, pp. 445, 449.
Döllinger, 1, p. 550.
[1682] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 321, n.
97.
[1683] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 24; Erl. ed., 27, p. 180.
[1684] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 1 p. 145 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 235
_seq._
[1685] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 179 f., 182.
[1686] _Ibid._, 21, p. 34 ff.
[1687] _Ibid._, p. 94.
[1688] _Ibid._, 15², p. 54.
[1689] _Ibid._, 16², p. 210 f.; cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 268 f.; 9, p. 293
f.
[1690] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 3 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 208.
[1691] _Ibid._, 30, 3, p. 214=63, p. 295, Preface to “Der Wiedertauffer
Lere” of Justus Menius.
[1692] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 419 _seq._, 434.
[1693] “Solida declaratio,” 4, n. 15. “Symbolische Bücher^[10],” p. 627.
[1694] _Ibid._, n. 14.
[1695] Art. 6. Cp. Art. 20. “Symbolische Bücher,”^[10] pp. 40, 44.
[1696] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 32; Erl. ed., 27, p. 191, “Von der
Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.”
[1697] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 11. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 7.
[1698] Cp. above 472 f., 210, 194 f., and _passim_. To supplement
what he there says on the scarcity and smallness of contributions
towards Divine worship and preaching we may add two other utterances of
Luther’s given by Möhler (“KG.,” 3. pp. 149 and 160): Nobles, burghers
and peasants were all intent on letting the clergy starve that the
Evangel might cease to be proclaimed.--“Unless something is done soon,
there will be an end in this land to Evangel, pastors and schools; they
will have to run away, for they have nothing, and go about looking like
haggard ghosts.”
[1699] Mayence, 1509, Bl. 7.
[1700] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25² (where the whole of the Duke’s
reply is printed), p. 144.
[1701] S. Riezler, “Gesch. Bayerns,” 3, 1889, p. 809.
[1702] R. Wackernagel (“Basler Zeitschr. f. Gesch.,” 2, 1903, p. 181).
[1703] Dietrich, “Über Gesch. der Krankenpflege” in
Liebe-Jacobsohn-Meyer, “Hdb. der Krankenversorgung und Krankenpflege,”
1, Berlin, 1899, p. 47 ff.
[1704] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 409 ff. (from notes).
[1705] _Ibid._ 24, p. 454 (from notes).
[1706] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 283; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58,
p. 425 f., Table-Talk.
[1707] A. Harnack, “Dogmengesch.,” 3³, p. 733 ff.; 3^[4], p. 819 ff.
[1708] See above, vol. iii., p. 5 ff.
[1709] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 811.
[1710] P. 684, n. 1.
[1711] P. 895.
[1712] P. 811. Carl Müller, “ Preuss. Jah..,” 63, Hft, 2, p. 147.
[1713] “DG.,” 3³, p. 616 (omitted in the 4th edition).
[1714] _Ibid._, p. 808, and 3^[4], p. 896 f.
[1715] 3^[4], p. 857 f.
[1716] Vol. 1², p. 213 ff.
[1717] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” 30. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 10 f.
[1718] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 237 f.
[1719] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 170, “Wider die xxxii. Artikel der
Teologisten von Löven.”
[1720] To Melanchthon from the Wartburg, Jan. 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,”
3, p. 273 f. Because reason is “diametrically opposed to faith” and
gleams only like “a smudge on a lantern” (p. 156), people, so he says,
“would believe better were they a little less reasonable” (p. 162). But
“even though it were true, which it is not,” and even were we to allow
that infants do not believe at all, are without reason and cannot grasp
the Word of God, would their baptism therefore “be wrong”? Even then it
would have its value.
[1721] P. 256.
[1722] Vol. 17, No. 2.
[1723] “Deutsch-Ev. Bl.,” 32, 1907, p. 651 ff. _Ibid._, p. 713 ff.
[1724] P. 651.
[1725] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 162. Cp. Rietschel, _ibid._, p. 274.
[1726] P. 653.
[1727] P. 717.
[1728] Vol. 18, 1908, p. 148.
[1729] The better to understand the strange (though by no means unique)
attitude of this professor of theology, see the “Zeitschr. für Theol.
und Kirche,” 18, pp. 228 ff., 389 ff., and more particularly 74 ff.,
where he defends his proposals for the remedy of the “lamentable state
of present-day Protestantism”; also 17, 1907, pp. 1 ff., 315 ff.--On
the above question see also Ernst Bunge, “Der Lehrstreit über die
Kindertaufe innerhalb der Lutherischen Kirche,” Cassel, 1900, with
Preface by Ad. Stöcker.
[1730] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 398 ff.
[1731] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371 in “Vom
Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.
[1732] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 173: “Widder die xxxii. Artikel der
Teologisten von Löven.” Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 247.
[1733] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 507; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371. Cp. p. 582
ff.
[1734] _Ibid._, p. 508=371. In the passage, Erl. ed., 21, p. 140,
immediately after the portion of the sentence cited by Köstlin: “The
third sacrament which has been called Penance,” there follows: “Which
is nothing else but baptism; for,” etc.
[1735] Dec. 15, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 394; Erl. ed.,
53, p. 274 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). On the pair, see Enders,
“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 412.
[1736] P. 393 f.=273 f.
[1737] Above, p. 410.
[1738] K. Jäger (“Luthers religiöses Interesse an seiner Lehre von
der Realpräsenz,” Giessen, 1900) examines the writings dating from
the period previous to the Sacramentarian controversy and rightly
comes to the conclusion, first, that Luther had above all an ethical
interest in regarding as he did the Sacrament of the Altar as a means
of strengthening faith by making known the redeeming death of Christ;
secondly, that he held fast to the Real Presence on the strength of
the traditional faith of the Church without going any deeper into its
grounds. Faith in the Real Presence was, however, no suitable means
of strengthening the certainty of salvation, because the Presence
there does not appeal to the senses nor does it serve as a sign of
the forgiveness of sins as Luther supposed. To postulate it primarily
on the authority of the Church was to contradict the principles of
Lutheranism.--P. 27: According to Luther, by partaking of it we are to
be convinced in a “peculiarly vivid and lively manner of God’s Grace.”
The partaking of these “signs” was, according to Luther, necessary for
us, “because we are still living in sin and our certainty of salvation
is ever exposed to attack, and it is useful or suitable because here
the Grace of God is offered to each man in a manner that appeals to the
senses. Thus the assurance arising from sensible perception is to serve
to strengthen and support religious certainty of salvation.” “This is
the sole religious importance that can be attributed to the sacramental
Body and Blood of Christ.” Nevertheless, “from that very point of view
of the religious interest involved in the Supper, which we have seen
above to be Luther’s main concern (p. 28), we are forced to deny the
Real Presence.” “What is to strengthen our faith in God’s grace must
not itself be the object of faith, but, as is evident, must force
itself upon our mind by a higher certainty, or to speak more correctly,
by a clearer certainty, such as attaches to sensible perception....
A fact which in the last instance itself calls for confirmation, and
which in every instance is perceptible only to faith, cannot reasonably
serve to support another fact which is of the utmost importance to our
life of faith.”
[1739] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 143; Erl. ed., 30, p. 65, in the
writing “Das diese Wort Christi ‘Das ist mein Leib etce.,’ noch fest
stehen.” 1527.
[1740] _Ibid._, p. 151=69.
[1741] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.
[1742] See the passages of Buchholzer and Trabe, two Protestants, in
Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 694.
[1743] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.
[1744] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.
[1745] Cp., the reprint in Köstlin-Kawerau.
[1746] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.
[1747] F. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4] p. 863.
[1748] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 9, p. 831 ff.; 10, p. 455 ff.
[1749] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 147 ff.: “I,
innocent man, am made the devil’s scavenger.... There was really no
need so to defame my beloved book behind my back.”
[1750] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 15.
[1751] Above, vol. iii., p. 346 ff.
[1752] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 696: Erl. ed., 21, p. 272. Köstlin,
“Luthers Theol.,” 1², pp. 253, 371.
[1753] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 71 f.
[1754] Cp. Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 372.
[1755] To the Provost, Canons and whole Wittenberg Chapter, Aug. 19,
1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 212: “_Quamvis privato affectui spiritualis
viri indulgendum sit, tamen manifestam et publicam religionem in his
tolerare non licet propter scandalum ignorantium et infirmorum, qui
relicta fide huc adfluunt_.”
[1756] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 119 ff.
Cp. “Conf. Aug.,” art. 21, and “Apol.,” ad art. 21. Below, p. 501.
[1757] Pars II. art. 2, “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 305.
[1758] _Ibid._, 7, pp. 575=45, p. 252. Exposition of the Magnificat.
[1759] _Ibid._, 10, 3, p. 313=15², p. 495. Church-postils, Sermon on
Mary’s Nativity.
[1760] _Ibid._, 1, p. 79=“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 118. Sermon on the
Assumption, Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 86.
[1761] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 107; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 150.
[1762] Above, p. 238, n. 1.
[1763] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 433.
[1764] _Ibid._, 19², p. 29 ff.; 37, p. 71. Köstlin, _ibid._, 2, p. 135.
[1765] Cp., _ibid._, Erl. ed., 7², p. 276.
[1766] _Ibid._, 20², 2, pp. 530-532.
[1767] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, pp. 568, 573 f.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 245,
250 f.
[1768] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 574 f.
[1769] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 59 f. On March 11, 1523.
[1770] Müller-Kolde, “Symb. Bücher,”^[10] p. 227.
[1771] “Hom. de temp.,” Aug. Vindel., 1533 (“Opp.,” tom. 5, pars 1),
fol. 55´.
[1772] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 113 ff; Erl. ed., 15², p. 495 f.
[1773] _Ibid._, p. 321 f. = 499.
[1774] _Ibid._, p. 325 = 501.
[1775] Müller-Kolde, _ibid._, p. 303.
[1776] K. Hase, “Hdb. der prot. Polemik,” Buch 2, Kapitel 6: “Most
mortals are too good for hell, but assuredly not good enough for
heaven. We may as well openly admit that there is something not quite
clear here in the Protestantism of the Reformation.”
[1777] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 555; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 177.
Resolutions on the Indulgence Theses. Thesis 15.
[1778] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.
[1779] Cp., _ibid._, Erl. ed., 13², p. 2 ff.; 15², p. 521; 17², p. 55.
[1780] In the “Bekentnis” also, _ibid._, Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; in Erl.
ed., 30, p. 370, prayer for the dead is left optional.
[1781] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 31, p. 184 ff.
[1782] That a sacrifice had been made of the Mass appeared to him
“Idolatry and a shameful abuse,” a “twofold impiety and abomination”;
its abomination no tongue could express. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp.
489, 493; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 38, 45 f.; 60, pp. 403 f., 396.
[1783] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 243. There were, however,
always some voices raised amongst Protestants to demand that the
“Sacrifice and Atonement” under some shape or form should be insisted
on more than the sermon. The Presence of Christ, as taught by Luther,
although this Presence did not involve a sacrifice, was made use of to
oppose any further denuding of worship. “No longer is the Sacrifice and
the Atonement which takes place at the Altar to be the centre of Divine
worship,” Pastor E. Strack wrote in 1904, in “Der alte Glaube,” 1903-4,
5, col. 1255, “but, according to modern views, God is merely present
in the listening congregation by virtue of the Word preached from
the pulpit. Hence the pulpit becomes the central point, the altar an
accessory. To this we cannot agree. Without atonement we have no God;
hence no altar either ... and no pulpit.”
[1784] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 24: “_Stante missa Lutherus est
damnatus, ruente missa totum fundamentum papæ corruit_.”
[1785] _Ibid._, p. 19: “_nam ego toto pectore illam adorabam_.” But cp.
below, p. 509, n. 2.
[1786] Above, vol. i., p. 275.
[1787] _Ibid._, p. 276.
[1788] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18.
[1789] Cp. vol. i., p. 15 f. and, besides the references given there,
a passage from George Rörer’s MS. of the Table-Talk, given by E.
Kroker, “Archiv für RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 354, where Luther, in a paroxysm
of terror at the words of the Canon “_offero tibi Deo vivo æterno_
[_sic_],” says: “_Sic perterrefiebam, ut ab altari discedere cogitabam,
et fecissem, nisi me retinuisset meus præceptor, quia cogitavi_: Who is
He with Whom you are speaking? From that time forward I said Mass with
terror, and I am thankful to God that He has released me from it.”
[1790] On a solemn occasion, at the conclusion of his “Vom Abendmal
Christi Bekentnis,” in 1528, he has it, that, though he had “spent his
youth damnably,” yet his having been a monk and his having said Mass
had been his greatest sins. See below, p. 524.
[1791] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 443 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, pp.
81, 83 _seq._
[1792] _Ibid._, 2, p. 738 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 25 ff.
[1793] _Ibid._, 6, p. 364 ff.=27, p. 155 ff.
[1794] Aug. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208.
[1795] Above, vol. iii., p. 194 ff.
[1796] Vol. ii., pp. 88 f., 327 ff.
[1797] To Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525. Cp. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p.
94.
[1798] See vol. ii., p. 320.
[1799] _Ibid._
[1800] _Ibid._, p. 328.
[1801] On Rörer’s work and its connection with the writing mentioned,
see Weim. ed., 18, p. 22 ff.
[1802] F. Probst, “Die Liturgie der drei ersten Jahrh.,” 1870, p. 349
ff. P. Drews, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons der röm. Messe,” 1902,
p. 39 ff. F. X. Funk, “Über den Kanon.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 24, 1903),
pp. 62 ff., 283 ff. (against Drews). A. Baumstark, “Liturgia romana e
liturgia dell’ esarcato, Origini del canon missæ romanæ,” 1904 (see
“Hist. Jahrb.,” 25, 1904, p. 859; cp., _ibid._, 31, 1910, p. 596).
P. Drews, “Untersuchungen über die sog. klementinische Liturgie,” 1
Tl., 1907 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 166). N. Gihr, “Das hl.
Messopfer”^[10], 1907.
[1803] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 119, in 1540.
[1804] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 36; Erl. ed., 29, p. 132 f.
[1805] Cp. vol. ii., p. 311.
[1806] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 338. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28,
pp. 216 ff., 258 ff.
[1807] Vol. ii., pp. 326 ff., 336 ff.
[1808] After Köstlin (_ibid._, p. 340), who quotes from “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 22, p. 49 (Weim. ed., 8, p. 687 f.), Luther’s passage against the
Princes, who allow everything to slide: they ought to draw the sword,
not indeed to “put the priests to death,” but to “forbid by word and
then put down by force whatever they do that is over or against the
Gospel.”
[1809] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 29; Erl. ed., 29, p. 124.
[1810] _Ibid._, p. 33=129.
[1811] “Auf Luthers Greuel wider die heilige Stillmess Antwort,” 1525.
[1812] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 31; Erl. ed., 29, p. 126.
[1813] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527.
[1814] Cp. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 12, 1891, p. 776, where N. Paulus quotes for
the first time a memorandum (1523) of Johann Staupitz against Stephen
Agricola, which corroborates his statement mentioned before (_ibid._,
p. 309 ff.), that Staupitz was quite Catholic in his views on matters
of faith.
[1815] “Antwort auf das ... Geschwetz M. Flaccii Illyrici,” 1558, p.
121 f. Quoted by Paulus, _ibid._, p. 776.
[1816] “Opp.,” 10, col. 1578 _seq._ Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p.
13 f.
[1817] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 236.
[1818] For this excellent work, which for the most part reproduces
the lectures of Magister Egeling Becker, see A. Franz, “Die Messe
im deutschen MA.,” Freiburg, 1902, pp. 542-554. The comprehensive
“_Expositio_,” comprising 51 “signatures,” consists of 89 Lectures
addressed to the clergy. Franz characterises it as “a work which, by
its theological thoroughness and its moderately ascetical views, was
calculated to promote learning amongst the clergy and render them more
worthy of exercising their greatest and finest privilege” (p. 554).
[1819] Lectio 85, F.
[1820] _Ibid._: “_Quamvis autem semel oblatus est Christus in aperta
carnis effigie, offertur nihilominus quotidie in altari velatus_,” etc.
Of the numerous witnesses to the ancient belief of the Church, Joh.
Ernest Grabe notes in his Oxford edition of Irenæus (1702) with regard
to a statement of his on this subject (4 c. 17, al. 33): “What Irenæus
here teaches of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ignatius
and Justin taught before him, and Tertullian and Cyprian after. It is
clearly vouched for in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians.”
“There is no doubt that Irenæus and the other Fathers, both those who
had seen the Apostles, as well as their immediate successors, regarded
the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law, and ... presented at the
altar the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine to God the Father in
order to figure the bloody Sacrifice which He Himself had offered on
the cross in His flesh and Blood, and in order to obtain the fruits of
His death for all for whom it was offered.” Gregory the Great taught
with antiquity (Hom. 37 in Evang. c. 7): “_Quoties ei (Deo) hostiam suæ
passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem
illius reparamus_,” and in his Dialogues, which contributed greatly
to the high esteem of Masses for the dead (we are here considering
the doctrine, not the legends), he says of the Sacrifice of the Mass:
“_Hæc singulariter victima ab æterno interitu animam salvat, quæ illam
nobis mortem Unigeniti per mysterium reparat.... Pro nobis iterum in
hoc mysterio sacræ oblationis immolatur_” (“Dial.,” 4, 58; cf. 59). The
well-known Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz wrote in his “Examen
concilii Tridentini” (1565-1573), that it could not be denied that
the Fathers, when speaking of the celebration of the Supper, make use
of expressions descriptive of Sacrifice, such as “_sacrificium_,”
“_immolatio_,” “_oblatio_,” “_hostia_,” “_victima_,” “_offerre_,”
“_sacrificare_,” “_immolare_” (t. 2, p. 782). Cp. J. Döllinger, “Die
Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrh.,” 1826. J. A.
Möhler, “Symbolik,” §§ 34 and 35.
[1821] Lectio 85, under L.: “_Si eos dispositos inveniat, eis gratiam
obtinet virtute illius unius sacrificii, a quo omnis gratia in nos
influxit, et per consequens peccata mortalia in eis delet ... in
quantum gratiam contritionis eis impetrat_.”
[1822] Lectio 26, under F.
[1823] Lectio 28.
[1824] _Ibid._, L. 17 (E.). Master Egeling discusses this even more
in detail. Franz says (_ibid._, p. 548), speaking of Egeling’s MS.,
of which he makes use: “The remarkable length at which he vindicates
the Church’s rule that the Canon be recited silently is not without
significance. It would appear that this gave offence to the people.”
Luther seized upon this popular prejudice as a weapon in his war on the
Mass.
[1825] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 308 ff. New edition by G. Kawerau in
“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 50, Halle, 1883.
[1826] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 308.
[1827] _Ibid._, p. 374 f.
[1828] P. 372.
[1829] Vol. v., xxxi., 4.
[1830] To Nic. Hausmann at Dessau, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9,
p. 363, where he calls the writing a “_novi generis libellus_,” which
challenged the Papists to see whether they had an answer ready to give
the devil when lying on their death-beds.
[1831] A. Freytag, in Koffmane, “Die handschriftl. Überlieferung
von Werken Luthers,” 1907, pp. 16 and 11, where in Luther’s rough
notes the words first occur: “_primum argumentum diaboli_.” Freytag,
however, is of opinion, that “Luther’s account of the disputation with
the devil certainly [?] had its origin in the Reformer’s tormenting
mental experiences, and that he had been actually assailed by accusing
thoughts concerning his former share in the abomination of private
Masses.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 308, speaking of the disputation, also
refers to the “anguish of soul” which overwhelmed him “owing to his own
former share in so great a crime as he now more fully recognised it to
be.” Cp. our vol. v., xxxii.
[1832] In the letter to Hausmann (above, n. 2): “_Lutherum hoc libello
tentare papatus sapientiam et potentiam_.”
[1833] To Spalatin; only an extract extant. See Jonas’s “Briefwechsel,”
1, p. 201: “_Lutherus scribit utilissimum, fortissimum arietem, quo
quatietur, ut ferreus murus, papatus_.”
[1834] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 378 ff.
[1835] _Ibid._, p. 379.
[1836] P. 383.
[1837] P. 384.
[1838] On “Bible, Babble, Bubble,” see above, vol. ii, pp. 365, 370; on
the “Heresy-book,” see above, p. 396.
[1839] Bl. A. 3.
[1840] In this sense G. Kawerau’s remark on the “Winckelmesse” is
much to the point: “It is of interest on account of the insight it
affords into the Reformer’s efforts to arrive at certainty concerning
the fundamentals of his religious views.” In the Introduction to the
edition quoted above, p. 519 n. 1.
[1841] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 132.
[1842] _Ibid._, p. 119.
[1843] See the letter written before his first Mass, “Briefwechsel,” 1,
p. 10.
[1844] See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372. Above,
p. 509 n. 3.
[1845] Above, vol. iii., p. 130.
[1846] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 122.
[1847] _Ibid._, p. 119.
[1848] _Ibid._, p. 120.
[1849] _Ibid._ On Gregory the Great, see above, p. 517 n. 2.
[1850] _Ibid._, p. 119.
[1851] _Ibid._, p. 122.
[1852] Symbol. Bücher^[10], p. 301 ff. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25²,
p. 174 ff.
[1853] “Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
31, p. 381 f.