dedicating a polemical tract of 1526, defends the Catholics’ sense of
patriotism, speaking of Luther as the “destroyer of our fair German
land” (see “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 478). Another Dominican,
Thomas Rhadinus Todischus, in 1520, in the title of a work published at
Rome, describes him as “violating the glory of the nation” (“_nationis
gloriam violans_”). The latter work was attributed by Luther and
Melanchthon to Emser, who, however, repudiated the authorship. Cp.
_ibid._, 7, p. 259.
[259] See vol. i., p. 403.
[260] _Ibid._
[261] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 289; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91. Cp. our vol.
ii., p. 9 f.
[262] “Luthers Stellung zu Concil und Kirche,” 1876, p. 69.
[263] H. Meltzer, “Luther als deutscher Mann,” Tübingen, 1905, p. 56.
[264] Cp. above, p. 45 f. “Let things take their course and do their
worst, whether it be war or rebellion, as God’s anger may decree.”
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8, “Warnunge an
seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.
[265] On November 10, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 407:
“_Ego pæne de Germania desperavi_,” etc. Of this passage we read in
Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 572): “The exaltation which had been experienced
by every grade of the nation during the first period of the Reformation
had, as a matter of fact, largely died out, and now the lowest motives
held sway.”
[266] On March 7, 1543, _ibid._, p. 548: “_Neque bene habebit Germania,
sive regnet Turca sive nostrates_,” etc.
[267] See vol. v., xxxv., 6.
[268] _Ibid._, xxxv., 3.
[269] _Ibid._
[270] “Deutsche Literaturztg.,” 1905, No. 10, Scheel’s Review of H.
Meltzer’s “Luther als deutscher Mann” (see above, p. 98, n. 1).
[271] Meltzer, _ibid._, 56.
[272] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57.
[273] “Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat,” p. 10, 386 f.
[274] “Vorträge über die Wiedervereinigung der chr. Kirchen,” authentic
edition, 1888, p. 53 f. Cp. E. Michael, “Döllinger,³” p. 230 ff.
Michael rightly quotes the following striking passage of the earlier
Döllinger as descriptive of the attitude of the Church towards Luther:
“May not the time come, nay, be already at hand, when [Protestant]
preachers and theologians will take a calmer view of things and realise
that the Catholic Church in Germany only did what she could not avoid
doing? All the reproaches and charges made against this Church amount
in fine to this, that she rejected the demand made of her in the name
of the Reformation to break with her past, that she remained faithful
to her traditions, that she persisted in developing along the lines
originally laid down, and resolved to fulfil her task while holding
fast to the uninterrupted continuity of her ecclesiastical life and
her connection with the other portions of the Church” (“Kirche und
Kirchen,” p. 490).
[275] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 14, p. 408 f.
[276] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 77, in “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den
Türcken.”
[277] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222. “Zwey
keyserliche ... Gepott,” 1524.
[278] In the same way that he here abuses the Emperor, so he also
knows how to bestow praise upon him; for instance, in the official
writing referred to above (p. 89) to the Electoral Prince Joachim of
Brandenburg and in his “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” where he
declares, strangely enough, that “our beloved Emperor Carol” has shown
himself hitherto, and last of all at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530,
such, that he has won the respect and love of the whole world and
deserves that no trouble should befall him, and that our people should
only speak in praise of his Imperial virtue (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3,
p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23), and yet, even there, in consequence of
his edict against the new faith at the Diet of Augsburg, he puts the
Emperor with the Pope, as the originators of a resolution which “must
prove an eternal blot upon all the Princes and the whole Empire, and
make us Germans blush for shame before God and the whole world,” so
that “even the Turk, the ‘Tattars’ and ‘Moscobites’ despise us.” “Who
under the whole expanse of heaven will for the future fear us or think
well of us when they hear that we allow ourselves to be hoaxed, mocked,
treated as children, as fools, nay, even as clods and blocks by the
cursed Pope and his tools [who hold the Emperor in leading strings]?...
Every German may well regret that he was born a German and is called
a German” (_ibid._, p. 285=15). On the strength of the words quoted
above in praise of the Emperor we find Luther credited in Protestant
works of history with “the old, loyal sentiments of a good, simple
German for his Emperor,” nay, even with “the language of charity which
according to Holy Scripture believes all things, hopes all things.” And
yet Luther in his letters to his confidential friends spoke after this
of Charles V. in the following terms: “The Emperor was, is, and shall
ever remain a servant of the servants of the devil,” and the worst of
it is, that he “lends the devil his services knowingly” (to Jonas,
etc., March or April, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 275). “God’s
wrath has come upon him and his friends.... We have prayed enough for
him, if he does not want a blessing, then let him take our curse.”
He accuses him of hypocrisy (“_purus hypocrita_”) and of breach of
faith with the Turks after his stay at Vienna; he had swallowed up the
Bishopric of Liège and intended to do the same with all the bishoprics
along the Rhine (to Melanchthon, June 17, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 370).
“I suspect the Emperor is a miscreant (‘_quod sit nequam_’) and his
brother Ferdinand is an abominable bounder” (to Amsdorf, October 21,
1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 764).
[279] Commencement of the work: “Zwey keyserliche Gepott,” 1524,
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 221.
[280] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22 in the
“Warnunge” referred to above.
[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den
Türcken.”
[282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 463 f; Erl. ed., 21, p. 352 f. “An den
christl. Adel.”
[283] It will not be possible to enter one by one into the somewhat
remarkable reasons assigned in the popular Protestant biographies of
Luther as to why Luther should be regarded as the type of the German
character. We there read, that the stamp of the German character is
to be found in the fact that he “always acted upon impulse”—which
seems to be based on the correct view of Luther as a child of impulse,
who allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. The following
reason is less clear, viz. that he was “A German through and through
because he sought for the roots of all life, of the family, the race,
the State and civilisation, in personality as directly determined by
feeling.” Reference is frequently made to Luther’s frank and upright
character and to his undaunted love of truth. The facts bearing upon
this point, already adduced, or to be dealt with in chapter xxii. of
the present work (vol. iv.), dispense us from treating of this matter
here. To base Luther’s claim to being a typical German on his manner
of speech is to run the risk of bringing Germans into disrepute, if
we recall the rude invective in which he often indulges and which he
employs when, as he says, he is speaking plain German to his opponents.
“This is the German way of speaking,” he constantly repeats after
explosions of anger and vulgar abuse. This, for instance, is the way
in which he gives the “Romans a German answer.” On one occasion he
describes in a repulsive manner how the “strumpet church of the Pope”
behaves: “She plays the whore with everyone,” is an “apostate, runaway,
wedded whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore”; compared with her “light
women are holy, for she is the devil’s own whore,” who makes of many of
the faithful virgins of Christ, born in baptism, arch-whores. “This is
what I call plain German speaking, and you and everyone can understand
what I mean.” On the same page he continues: “It has happened to
them [the Papists] according to the proverb: the dog has returned to
his vomit and the sow that was washed to wallow in the mire. That is
what you are, and what I once was. There you have your new, apostate,
runaway churches described for you in plain German.” “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
26² p. 46. “Wider Hans Worst,” 1541.
[284] Cp. vol. i., p. 396 f., his statements concerning the incident in
the Tower. See also vol. i., p. 166 ff., and p. 280 ff.
[285] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. “_Hanc doctrinam mihi (Deus)
revelavit per gratiam suam._” In 1527.
[286] Cochlæus in his account (June 12, 1521) of his conversation with
Luther at Worms: “_Est mihi revelatum_,” etc. In Enders’ reprint,
“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 176; in the new edition by Greving
(“Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit,” 4, 3, 1910), p. 19.
[287] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23 (a. 1523).
[288] “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 81, n.
[289] Khummer in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 62, n.: “_Doctor Martinus
Lutherus indignus sum, sed dignus fui creari ... redimi ... doceri
a filio Dei et Spiritu sancto, fui (dignus) cui ministerium verbi
crederetur, fui qui pro eo tanta paterer, fui qui in tot malis
servarer, fui cui præciperetur ista credere, fui cui sub æternæ iræ
maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem_.” Cp.
“Briefe,” 5, p. 324, and 6, p. 520, n. 6.
[290] On March 5, 1522, at Borna, on the journey from the Wartburg to
Wittenberg. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).
[291] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379, in the
work: “Antwort auff König Henrichs Buch,” 1522.
[292] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 276. “Table-Talk.”
[293] See vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.
[294] See vol. v., xxxii.
[295] See, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641: “Opp. lat.
var.,” 7, p. 162 _seq._ “_De servo arbitrio_,” 1525.
[296] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p.
314. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 208.
[297] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315.
[298] See, for instance, iv., xxvi., 2.
[299] Cp. for instance, his letter to Nicholas Amsdorf, about March 11,
1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 23.
[300] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261, in the work “Widder den Radschlag
der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.”
[301] To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344: “_Data
est mihi notio futuræ alicuius insignis turbulæ.... Vidi cogitationes
eius (Satanæ) artificiosissimas_,” etc.
[302] To Spalatin, July 9, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 429 f.
[303] In 1519, after February 24, _ibid._, 2, p. 6.
[304] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6.
[305] To Wenceslaus Link on June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201.
[306] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 185.
[307] To Christoph Scheurl, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p.
433: “_Dei consilium_.”
[308] To Staupitz, February 20, 1519, _ibid._, 1, p. 431.
[309] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 53, p. 109 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[310] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 280; Erl. ed., 27, p. 217. In 1521.
[311] _Ibid._, p. 281=219.
[312] _Ibid._, p. 281=218.
[313] To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.
[314] To the Archbishop of Mayence, December 1, 1521, “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 53, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 251).
[315] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.
[316] See below, p. 153 ff.
[317] _Ibid._
[318] To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, in July,
1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 f. He
admits that he has not “the _fulness_ of the Spirit.”
[319] Mathesius, “Historien,” pp. 195´, 196.
[320] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 156.
[321] P. 150.
[322] See especially vol. v., xxxi. Many other proofs will be found
scattered throughout our volumes.
[323] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 348; 60, p. 31, 70; 53, p. 342 (Letter
of the beginning of April, 1525, to the Christians at Antwerp,
“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151, and “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547).
[324] His intention was to collect the “_portenta Satanæ_” in order to
make the “_salutaria miracula Evangelii quotidie inundantia_” known
everywhere. Thus to Justus Jonas on January 23, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De
Wette, 5, p. 429.
[325] Regarding his psychic troubles and hallucinations, see vol. vi.,
xxxvi.
[326] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 99.
[327] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315.
Link, as Staupitz’s successor in the Vicariate of the Order, had
proclaimed at the commencement of the year in the Augustinian chapter
at Wittenberg the freedom of religious to forsake their convents and
the abolition of the so-called “Corner-Masses,” which Luther refers to
in the letter in question as being a singular “deed of the Holy Ghost.”
[328] To Staupitz at Salzburg, Wittenberg, June 27, 1522,
“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.
[329] Beginning of April, “Letters,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 339. Cp. a
similar statement made to the Elector on June 24, 1541, _ibid._, p.
373: “God, Who has begun it without our strength or reason, will carry
it out as He sees best” (of the Ratisbon Interim).
[330] _Ibid._, pp. 339, 340.
[331] On April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” _ibid._, p. 341 f.
[332] On March 26, 1542, to Jacob Probst, “Briefe,” 5, p. 451.
Similarly on December 3, 1544, to Cordatus, _ibid._, p. 702.
[333] From the letter to Justus Jonas of September 20, 1530,
“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.
[334] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 26², p. 8, in the
“Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.
[335] “Considerations on the proposed Conditions of Peace,” of August,
1531(?), “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. See above, p. 45, n. 5.
[336] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the
Exposition of St. John’s Gospel, 1530-1532.
[337] _Ibid._, p. 605 _seq._=342.
[338] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 253; Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.
[339] _Ibid._, 6, p. 621=24², p. 46.
[340] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121.
[341] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 298, 304).
[342] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 691; Erl. ed., 24², p. 168.
[343] _Ibid._, p. 709=189.
[344] _Ibid._
[345] Thus it is that he excuses the blustering character of his
writings against those who defended the Church.
[346] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 176, 229, 242, in the work “Das
Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”
[347] _Ibid._, p. 242.
[348] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.
[349] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 147.
[350] _Ibid._, p. 163 f.
[351] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 195 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 119.
[352] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 25², p. 283.
[353] _Ibid._, 60, p. 180.
[354] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 404 _seq._
[355] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 288; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91.
[356] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 27, p. 77.
[357] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 77.
[358] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 263.
[359] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 106.
[360] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 260.
[361] _Ibid._, p. 263.
[362] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 155.
[363] _Ibid._, 20², p. 233.
[364] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 83.
[365] _Ibid._, p. 404.
[366] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432.
[367] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 269.
[368] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5, p. 346 f.
[369] _Ibid._, 46, p. 10.
[370] The passages quoted stand in the following order: pp. 77, 81, 82,
77, 78, 82. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 18 f.
[371] P. 81.
[372] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 8.
[373] Letter in 1521 to “the poor little flock of Christ at
Wittenberg,” before August 12, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 213; Erl. ed.,
39, p. 128 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 217).
[374] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14, p. 158.
[375] _Ibid._, 26², p. 145.
[376] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 307.
[377] Cp. vol. iv., xxiii., 1, where Luther’s attitude to Erasmus
subsequent to the publication of “_De servo arbitrio_” (1525) is
treated of more fully.
[378] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p.
301.
[379] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489 f.
[380] Luther to Amsdorf about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 8
ff. The letter was published by Luther.
[381] “_Quodsi Martinus illud sibi proposuit, persuadere mundo
Erasmum hoc agere callidis artibus et insidiosis cuniculis, ut omnes
Christianos adducat in odium veræ religionis, frustra nititur. Citius
enim persuaserit omnibus se aut odio lymphatum esse aut mentis morbo
teneri, aut a sinistro quopiam agitari genio._” “_Purgatio adversus
Epistolam non sobriam Martini Lutheri._” “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., t. 10,
col. 1557.
[382] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff.
[383] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 264.
[384] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162.
[385] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406 f.
[386] To Spalatin, May 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 193.
[387] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 527: “_Christus viderit, suane sint an
mea_.”
[388] Vol. ii., p. 41 f.
[389] “Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, Frankfurt, 1699,
p. 42 (with the epitaph quoted above), and p. 75.
[390] “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in vol. xxiv. of his
edition of Luther, pp. 379, 376.
[391] How little this view of Luther fits in with his own estimate
of himself may be seen from the following statements which occur in
his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1531, vol. i., in
Irmischer’s ed.): Heretics, owing to a delusion of Satan, consider
their doctrines as absolutely certain; founders of sects, more
particularly, will never allow themselves to be converted by our proofs
from Scripture, as we see in the case of the fanatics; so well does the
devil know how to assume the shape of Christ. “I, however, am persuaded
by the Spirit of Christ, that my doctrine of Christian righteousness
is true and certain (_sum certus et persuasus per spiritum Christi_,
p. 288); therefore I cannot listen to anything to the contrary.” Hence
“the Pope, the Cardinals, bishops, and monks and the whole synagogue
of Satan, and in particular the founders of the Religious Orders (some
of whom, nevertheless, God was able to save by a miracle), confuse
men’s consciences and are worse than false apostles” (p. 83). Like
St. Paul he pronounces anathema on all angels and men who rise up to
destroy the Gospel preached by Paul; of such subverters the world is
now, alas, full (p. 89). By the fanatics, he says (p. 90), he too was
accounted such a one, though he only paid homage to pure Scripture as
to his “Queen” (p. 93). “Like Paul I declare with the utmost certainty
every doctrine to be anathema which differs from my own.... Its
founder is the messenger of Satan, and is anathema.” “_Sic nos cum
Paulo securissime et certissime pronuntiamus, omnem doctrinam esse
maledictam, quæ cum nostra dissonat.... Qui igitur aliud evangelium vel
contrarium nostro docet, missum a diabolo et anathema esse confidenter
dicimus_” (p. 94).
Just as in Paul’s day the Galatians had become inconstant, so “some,
who at the outset had accepted the Word with joy and among whom were
many excellent men, had now suddenly fallen away,” because the Lord had
withdrawn His Grace (p. 99). They bring forward as objections against
us the belief of the Church and of antiquity. But “should Peter and
Paul themselves, or an angel from heaven, teach differently, yet I know
for a certainty that my teaching is not human but Divine, i.e. that I
ascribe all to God and nothing to man” (p. 102). “It is true that this
very argument prejudices our cause to-day more than anything else. If
we are to believe only him who teaches the pure Word of God, not the
Pope, or the Fathers, or Luther, whom then are we to believe? Who is to
reassure man’s conscience as to where the true Word of God is preached,
whether amongst us or amongst our opponents? For the latter also boast
of having and teaching the true Word of God. We do not believe the
Papists because they do not and cannot teach the Word of God. They, on
the other hand, declare us to be the greatest heretics. What then is
to be done? Is every fanatic to be permitted to teach whatever comes
into his head, while the world refuses to hear us or to endure our
teaching?” In spite of our assurances of the certainty of our teaching,
he complains, they call our boasting devilish; if we yield, then they,
the Papists and the fanatics, grow proud and become still more settled
in their error. “Therefore let each one see that he is convinced of
the truth of his own calling and doctrine, so that, like Paul, he may
venture to say with absolute certainty and conviction: ‘If an angel
from heaven,’ etc.” The revelation of the Gospel is made to each one
individually, and is “effected by God Himself, yet the outward Word
must precede and then the inward Spirit will follow.... The Holy Ghost
is given for the revealing of the Word, but the outward Word must first
have been heard” (p. 114).
In opposition to the fanatics Luther is fond of tracing back his own
great illumination, which had brought salvation to the world, to the
preliminary action, of the outward Word of Holy Scripture on his mind.
Towards the end of his life he wrote (on May 7, 1545) to Amsdorf: “I
glory in the certainty that the Son of God is seated at the right
hand of the Father and most sweetly speaks to us here below by His
Spirit even as He spoke to the Apostles, and that therefore we are
His disciples, and hear the Word from His lips.... We hear the Divine
Majesty speaking through the word of the Gospel. The angels and the
whole creation of God congratulate us on this, while the Pope, that
monster of the devil, wobbles in sadness and fear and all the gates
of hell tremble with him” (“Briefe,” 5, p. 737). At an earlier date,
in 1522, he had declared: “This is what you must say: Whether Luther
is a saint or a scamp does not matter to me; his doctrine is not his,
but Christ’s ... leave the man out of the question, but acknowledge
the doctrine” (“Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” “Werke,” Weim.
ed., 10, 2, p. 40). “I don’t care in the very least whether a thousand
Augustines or a thousand Harry-Churches are against me, but I am
convinced that the true Church clings to the Word of God as I do”
(“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379. “Against King
Henry VIII.”) “I was he to whom God first revealed it” (“Werke,” Weim.
ed., 10, 3, p. 8).
J. A. Möhler rightly remarks: “Seeing that it was Luther’s design to
break with the existing, visible Church, it was essential that he
should give the first place to the invisible Church and look on himself
as directly sent by God.” He points out that Calvin also appealed to a
direct mission, and quotes from his answer to Sadolet’s letter to the
inhabitants of Geneva: “_ministerium meum, quod Dei vocatione fundatum
ac sanctum fuisse non dubito_”; “_ministerium meum, quod quidem a
Christo esse novi_.” “Opusc.,” pp. 106, 107 (“Symbolik,” 49, n 1).
[392] To Nicholas Amsdorf, November 7, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5,
p. 600, Jer. li. 9.
[393] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 477; Erl. ed., 24², p. 16 (in 1520).
Here again we find the “she-ass that rebuked the prophet.” This enables
us to understand his asseveration in the same year (“Werke,” Weim. ed.,
7, p. 277; Erl. ed., 27, p. 213), that he was ready to die for his
doctrine. Döllinger says of such assurances as the above: “Such a tone
of unshaken firmness was in Luther’s case largely due to the excitement
caused by his polemics ... and to the sense of his natural superiority”
(“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53; also “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 340). He
points out that Luther had formed his peculiar views “during a period
of painful confusion of mind and trouble of conscience,” and that at
times when Holy Scripture did not entirely satisfy him he would even
seemingly set Christ against Scripture, as in the following passage:
“You Papist, you insist much on Scripture, but it is no more than a
servant of Christ, and to it I will not listen. But I am strong in
Christ, Who is the true Lord and Emperor over Scripture. I care nothing
for any texts of Scripture, even though you should bring forward many
more against me; for I have the Lord and Master of Scripture on my
side,” etc. (_ibid._, p. 59=col. 344).
[394] Daniel viii. 17 ff.
[395] 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ff.; 2 Peter ii. 1 ff.
[396] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 392
_seq._, at the end of the “_Responsio ad librum Ambrosii Catharini_.”
[397] “_Id quod hac Danielis explanatione arbitror me præstitisse
egregie._” _Ibid._ Hence what he wrote was intended in all seriousness
and in no sense as a joke.
[398] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p, 392. Cp.
Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 399, and our vol. ii., p. 56 f.
[399] Cp. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren
Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik,” Leipzig,
1906. See our vol. ii., p. 56, n. 1.
[400] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.
[401] “_Epitome_” against Prierias, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328;
“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 79.
[402] To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 345.
[403] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 262; cp. _ibid._, n. 3.
[404] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332.
[405] “_Ne quid monstrosissimi monstri desit_,” etc.
[406] To Spalatin (previous to June 8), 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 414.
[407] “_Epitome_” against Prierias, _loc. cit._
[408] To Spalatin, August 3, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 456.
[409] To the same, August 5, 1520, _ibid._, p. 457.
[410] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 498, 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 17,
70.
[411] See vol. ii., p. 49. The Latin text appeared a little before the
German.
[412] “Symbolische Bücher,^[10]” pp. 308, 324, 337, and in particular
p. 336, No. 39.
[413] In the so-called “Lufft Bible,” Luther applies Daniel xii. to the
Papal Antichrist. Kawerau, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 269.
[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, at the
beginning of the work “_Bulla Cœnæ Domini_” of 1522. See other
references in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 646, 696; _ibid._, 2, pp. 156,
283, 529, 586.
[415] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278.
[416] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1265 f.
[417] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 397.
[418] January 12, 1523, _ibid._, 4, p. 62.
[419] Cp. “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 242, and the notes
of Enders (in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 18) on the letter
of the Frankfurt preacher Andreas Ebert to Luther, dealing with
these phenomena. See also N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage” to the “Köln.
Volksztng.,” 1908, No. 30.
[420] “Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren Bapstesels czu Rom und
Munchkalbs zu Freyberg funden. Philippus Melanchthon. Doctor Martinus
Luther.” Wittenberg, 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl.
ed., 29, p. 2 ff.
[421] To Camerarius, April 16, 1525. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 738.
[422] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.
[423] _Ibid._, 10², p. 65.
[424] “Oh, dear little Pope-Ass, don’t try to lick ... for you might
fall and break a leg or do something else, and then all the world
would laugh at you and say: For shame, look what a mess the Pope-Ass
has got itself into.” “You are a rude ass, you Pope-Ass, and that you
will ever remain.” “When I [the Pope-Ass] bray, hee-haw, hee-haw,
or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as
articles of faith ... but all is sealed with devil’s ordure—in the
Decretals—and written in the Pope-Ass’s dung” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26²,
pp. 148 _seq._, 169). One word, used in this connection, and spelt
by Luther “Fartz,” he employs in endless variations. Pope Paul III.
he calls “Eselfartz-Bapst,” “Bapst Fartzesel,” “Fartzesel-Bapst” and
“Eselbapstfartz.” “We see,” remarks Conrad Lange, “how the apparition
of the Roman monstrosity continued to act upon his imagination, and
how, even at the close of his life, it still appeared to him suited
to excite the masses in the religious struggle.” “Der Papstesel, ein
Beitrag zur Kultur-und Kunstgesch. des Reformationszeitalters.” With
four illustrations, Göttingen, 1891, p. 88.
[425] “Abbildung des Bapstum,” by Martin Luther, 1545. The verses run
as follows:
“Was Gott selbs von dem Bapstum helt,
Zeigt dis schrecklich Bild hie gestellt.
Dafur jederman grawen solt,
Wenn ers zu Hertzen nemen wolt.”
[426] Cp. Lange, _ibid._, p. 92 ff.
[427] “Annali Veneti” (“Archivio storico italiano,” 7, p. 422). Lange,
_ibid._, p. 18.
[428] Picture in Lange, _ibid._, plate 2.
[429] _Ibid._, plate 1.
[430] P. 84 _seq._
[431] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724: “_In malam rem abeat._” Cp. in
general the Wittenberg sermons against Carlstadt and the fanatics which
appeared under the title “Acht Sermone,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p.
1 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 202 ff.
[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724.
[433] To the Council and congregation of Mühlhausen, August 21, 1524,
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 240; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,”
4, p. 377).
[434] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 5.
[435] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 205 ff.
[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 248; Erl ed., 50, p. 292, in the
exposition of John xviii.
[437] Cp., for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed.,
25², p. 87. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict.”
[438] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.
[439] I. Andreæ, “_Oratio de studio sacr. litt. in acad. Lipsiensi
recitata_,” Tübing., 1577, c. 2.
[440] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 12, p. 218-221. Cp. Erl. ed., 12², p. 235-238;
Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145.
[441] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184: “All the
world is astonished and is obliged to confess that we have the Gospel
almost as pure and unchanged as in the time of the Apostles, in fact,
in its primitive purity.”
[442] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 141 ff.
Cp. _ibid._, 15, p. 39 ff.=22, pp. 184, 186; 8, p. 117=27, p. 331; 15,
p. 584 ff.=19, p. 186 ff. “Hence it is plain that the Councils are
uncertain and not to be counted on. For not one was so pure that it did
not add to or take away from the faith.... The Council of the Apostles,
though the first and purest, left something to be desired, though it
did no harm.”
[443] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 36; Erl. ed., 35, p. 61.
[444] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 386=25², p. 87.
[445] Cp. _ibid._, 10, 2, p. 105 _seq._=28, p. 143. Cp. _ibid._, 28,
p. 248=50, p. 292: “Because I am a doctor of Holy Scripture I have a
right to do so [even to interfere in the office of the bishops]; for
I have sworn to teach the truth.” Continuation of the passage quoted
above, p. 154, n. 3. Thomas Münzer he reproaches with having no call.
Of the necessity of a call he says: “If things went ill in my house and
my next-door neighbour were to break in and claim a right to settle
matters, surely I should have something to say.”
[446] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 139 f.
[447] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144, at
the commencement of the work “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen
Standt.”
[448] _Ibid._, 15, p. 86 _seq._=29, p. 103 ff.: “Eyn Geschicht wie Got
eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawê ausgelffen hat.”
[449] _Ibid._, p. 93=112.
[450] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 87=104.
[451] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 205 ff.
[452] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 25, p. 120.
[453] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145 f.; Erl. ed., 12², p. 201, in
the Church-postils.
[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724. See above, p. 153.
[455] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 12; Erl. ed., 28, p. 288. “Von
beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” 1522.
[456] See vol. iv., xxi. 2, towards the end.
[457] “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in his edition of
Luther, 24, p. 357.
[458] _Ibid._, p. 359 f.
[459] To Myconius, January 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.
[460] P. 361, where he quotes Mathesius’s Sermons on Luther, 13, p. 148
(Nuremberg edition, 1566, p. 157). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 11, and
what Weller says (vol. vi., xxxviii. 2) of the two dead people raised
to life by Luther. In the German “Table-Talk” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59,
p. 3) Luther says of prayer: “The prayer of the Church performs great
miracles. In our own time it has restored three dead men to life; first
me, for often I was sick unto death, then my housekeeper Katey, who was
also sick unto death, finally Philip Melanchthon, who, anno 1540, lay
sick unto death at Weimar. Though _Liberatio a morbis et corporalibus
periculis_ is not the best of miracles, yet it must not be allowed
to pass unheeded _propter infirmitatem in fide_. To me it is a much
greater miracle that God Almighty should every day bestow the grace
of baptism, give Himself in the Sacrament of the altar and absolve
_et liberat a peccato, a morte et damnatione æterna_. These are great
miracles.” Cp. Förstemann’s notes, “Tischreden,” 2, p. 230.
[461] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 169.
[462] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 324, and _ibid._, quotation from
Rebenstock’s Latin Colloquies. Seidemann in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch”
also quotes Khummer’s MS., p. 397.
[463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 362.
[464] _Ibid._, 14², p. 399.
[465] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “_Vaticinium Lutheri de seditione
nobilium in Germania._”
[466] “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1718, p. 316, with quotation from
“Church Agenda, p. 52.”
[467] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 217.
[468] Walch, 23, p. 1132.
[469] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 186.
[470] Walch, 23, p. 688 f.
[471] _Ibid._, 14, p. 1360: “_Vaticinium mense Augusto_, _a._ 1532.”
Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 391 f.
[472] _Ibid._, 7, p. 1353; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23, in the sermon of
1531 on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Walch’s edition under the
heading: “Luther’s Prophecy concerning Germany,” “Luther’s Prophecy on
Wittenberg and its magistrates.”
[473] _Ibid._, 12, p. 1865, Sermon on the Gospel for the 8th Sunday
after Trinity, Luke xix. 41. In his “Ausführliche Nachricht von M.
Luthero,” Walch, however, expressly admits that Luther “had not the
gift of predicting; if he has been spoken of as a prophet, this
depended on the sense in which the word was used; he had rightly
foreseen much of what would happen to the German Church,” etc. “Neither
did God bestow on him the gift of working miracles,” but he did not
need it, since he preached no new doctrine and what he taught he
proved sufficiently from Holy Scripture; indeed, the Reformation as a
whole was not miraculous, since God had not intervened in it in any
extraordinary manner.
[474] “Postilla,” pars. iii., Dom. 3, post Adv. “Corp. ref.,” 25, p.
916.
[475] “Of the horrible monstrosities and many other similar signs of
the wrath of God at this time, a veracious account by a minister of the
Holy Evangel,” 1562, Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,”
6^[16], p. 470.
[476] In addition to the passage quoted, p. 155, n. 1, cp. “Werke,”
Erl. ed., 65, p. 83, at the end of Luther’s edition of “Etliche Briefe
Johann Hussens,” 1537. See also Luther on the swan, xix. 2, and vol.
iv., xxvi. 4.
[477] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 438. “Tischreden,” Cp. Khummer in
Lauterbach’s “Tischreden,” p. 36, n., and Mathesius, “Historien,³” p.
199. Cp. p. 211´.
[478] “Symbolische Bücher,”^[10], p. 270 f.
[479] “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 171.
[480] Reply of Myconius, December 2, 1529, _ibid._, p. 194.
[481] Cp. the account of an apostate friar, who had been a comrade
of Hilten’s and who was with him during his last days, in Enders,
“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 198; cp. also the literature quoted by
Enders. Hilten’s prophecy, and likewise that of the Roman Franciscan,
was nevertheless, in 1872, quoted in Luther’s favour by C. F. Kahnis,
Professor of Theology at the University of Leipzig, in his “Gesch. der
deutschen Reformation,” 1, p. 178. He says: “What the Spirit of God
in him bore witness to in condemnation of the fallen Church of the
Middle Ages, was attested by prophetic utterances.” “While Luther was
at school at Eisenach, a monk named Hilten languished in the prison of
the Franciscan convent,” etc. He appeals to Mathesius, “Historien,”
Predigt, 15, p. 319; V. E. Löscher, “Vollständige Reformationsacta,”
1, 1720, p. 148, and K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum
Ablassstreite,” 1, 1846, p. 295.
[482] Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 250 ff.
Lichtenberger’s book was re-translated in this edition by Stephen Roth.
[483] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 145.
[484] Preface, p. 253.
[485] _Ibid._, p. 258.
[486] _Ibid._, 2, p. 641, n. 1, to p. 145.
[487] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139 f. “Vom
Missbrauch der Messen.” The passage commences: “When a child I
frequently heard a prophecy current in the country, viz. that an
Emperor Frederick would rescue the Holy Sepulchre.” This had been
misunderstood and applied to the tomb at Jerusalem; but it is “of
the nature of prophecies to be fulfilled before being understood.”
The passage on Frederick also occurs in the Latin text of this work,
published previously under the title “_De abroganda missa_.” In
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 475, we there read: “_Videtur mihi ista
(prophetia) in hoc Fridrico nostro impleta._” Luther then proceeds to
recount in a pleasant vein certain doubtful interpretations.
[488] Bonaventura, “Expos. in cap. ix. Lucæ.”
[489] To the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony, January 4, 1538,
“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 195; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 95
(“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323).
[490] Reprinted in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 38 _seq._ That the
author was J. Findling has been proved by N. Paulus in his work “Kaspar
Schatzgeyer,” 1898, p. 137 f. Cp. “Katholik,” 1900, ii., p. 90 ff.
Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 65, n. 1, should be corrected
from this.
[491] See Enders, _ibid._
[492] _Ibid._, p. 56.
[493] See Enders, p. 52 f.
[494] _Ibid._, p. 60.
[495] _Ibid._, p. 49.
[496] Cp. Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53 (“KL.,” 8², col. 340).
[497] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 57.
[498] _Ibid._, p. 55.
[499] _Ibid._, p. 48.
[500] “Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Ludg., 10, col. 1327.
[501] _Ibid._, col. 1335.
[502] Cp. col. 1334.
[503] To Duke George of Saxony, June 30, 1530, “Opp.,” col. 1293.
[504] “Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 374 ff., communicated by Joh.
Fijalek.
[505] “Gesch. des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 2, p. 135.
[506] In July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, 159-161. In the older
reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date.
[507] “_Utinam possem aliquid insigne peccati designare modo ad
eludendum diabolum!_” “_Designare_” may mean “to paint.” According to
Forcelli it also sometimes means “to perform,” “to do.” Cp. Horace,
“Ep.,” 1, 5, 16: “_Quid non ebrietas designat_,” and Terence “Ad.,” 1,
2, 7: “_Quid designavit? Fores effregit._”
[508] Those, i.e., who are unwilling to feel that they are sinners.
Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 9.
[509] _Ibid._, p. 20.
[510] _Ibid._, p. 88. In May, 1532. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 308.
[511] Schlaginhaufen, p. 88.
[512] _Ibid._, p. 9. Here and in what follows, according to Preger, the
MS. notes of Veit Dietrich agree with Schlaginhaufen’s account.
[513] _Ibid._, p. 11.
[514] _Ibid._
[515] _Ibid._, p. 88 f. “Papst und Bischof haben mir die Hände gesalbt,
und ich habe sie beschissen im Dreck, do ich den Ars wuschet.”
[516] _Ibid._, p. 89
[517] “Tagebuch über M. Luther,” by C. Cordatus, ed. by H.
Wrampelmeyer, 1883, p. 450: “_Etiam in complexus veni coniugis, ut
saltem ille pruritus auferret illas cogitationes satanæ.... Laborandum
est omnibus modis, ut vehementiore aliquo affectu pellantur._”
[518] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. The Halle MS. on which
Bindseil bases his work really depends on the statements of Luther’s
pupil Lauterbach. Here Luther’s words run: “_Quoties meam uxorem
complexus sum, nudam contrectavi, ut tantum sathanæ cogitationes illo
pruritu pellerem._ But all to no purpose, _nolebat cedere_,” etc.
[519] “Colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, etc. M. Lutheri,”
Francof., 1571, 2, p. 225´ (=125´).
[520] As to this, Wrampelmeyer, a Protestant, remarks (p. 451) in his
edition of Cordatus’s Diary, mentioned above: “The German ‘Table-Talk,’
which agrees almost entirely with the Latin version, does not, in
Erl. ed., 60, p. 110, and Förstemann, 3, p. 122, contain these words,
but replaces them by the following: ‘I have frequently made use of
various means in order to drive away Satan, but it was of no use.’ It
is clear that words so compromising gave offence and that others were
substituted instead of those given in the Latin text, which formed the
basis of the German ‘Table-Talk.’ According to the Notes of Cordatus,
however, Luther’s words appear in quite a different light.” “The
words of the Latin ‘Table-Talk’: ‘_ut de puella pulchra, avaritia,
ebrietate_,’ have also been replaced in the German version by more
harmless expressions.”
[521] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 11.
[522] “Opp.,” Antwerpiæ, 1706, 3, p. 242 _seq._; p. 589 _seq._ Aug.
Hardeland (“Gesch. der speziellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen
Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation,” Berlin, 1898, p. 261) remarks:
“The idea that we must always do the exact opposite of what the devil
suggests, is the leading one in Gerson’s Tractate ‘_De remediis contra
pusillanimitatem_.’” He is of opinion that, in advising Weller to sin,
Luther was “using this maxim of Gerson’s, and probably only meant: ‘Do
not be afraid to do what, from the standpoint of your scrupulosity,
appears to be sinful.’” Luther’s advice, however, was not intended
for a scrupulous person predisposed to exaggeration or to narrowness
of heart, but for all those who despaired of their salvation and were
unable to believe in Luther’s doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and
in his assurance of salvation. “_Cogitationes immanissimæ_,” Luther
calls Weller’s ideas, “_quando diabolus reos (nos) egerit mortis et
inferni.... In æternum condemnaberis?_” Weller, the disciple, has first
to learn: “_novi quendam, qui passus est pro me ac satisfecit_,” etc.
[523] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 254.
[524] _Ibid._, 50, p. 248.
[525] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 360.
[526] _Ibid._, 51, p. 284.
[527] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 367; Erl. ed., 33, p. 5.
[528] Cp. vol. iv., xxviii. 3 and 4. Luther’s famous “_pecca fortiter_”
is discussed at length below (p. 199 ff.), and all that might tend to
explain the words is passed in review.
[529] See J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², 1901, p. 215.
[530] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.
[531] Cp. passages quoted by Köstlin, _ibid._
[532] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.
[533] _Ibid._, p. 59.
[534] See above, p. 26.
[535] H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 73.
[536] _Ibid._, 2, p. 156.
[537] _Ibid._, p. 292.
[538] _Ibid._, p. 430.
[539] _Ibid._, 1, p. 213.
[540] “Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck,” Freiburg, 1892, p. 24 f.
[541] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 188. Luther does not admit
the “_timor servilis_” of Catholic theology, and in his arbitrary
fashion he represents it as equivalent to mere “fear of the gallows,”
“_timor serviliter servilis_.”
[542] _Ibid._, p. 190.
[543] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 506; Erl. ed., 31, p. 181.
[544] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 189.
[545] Council of Trent, Sess. VI., “_decretum de iustificatione_,” c. 6.
[546] _Ibid._, c. 15.
[547] _Ibid._, c. 14.
[548] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 529; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 59, in the
work “_De captivitate babylonica_.”
[549] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 157, in the “Hauspostille.”
[550] _Ibid._, 4, p. 131, “Hauspostille.” Cp. Weim. ed., 36, p. 187.
[551] _Ibid._, p. 132, “Hauspostille.”
[552] _Ibid._, 62, p. 267, “Tischreden.”
[553] Cp. vol. i., p. 289 ff.
[554] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 248.
[555] _Ibid._
[556] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1²,
p. 370.
[557] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 369.
[558] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 691 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 231
_seq._, “_De servo arbitrio_.”
[559] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 359.
[560] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 263, “_De
servo arbitrio_.”
[561] _Ibid._, p. 711=p. 258.
[562] Cp. Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 355.
[563] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 359. Köstlin admits the “questionable
character” of the doctrine, though in rather mild language, e.g. p. 370.
[564] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.
[565] “_Prussia est plena dæmonibus_,” etc. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p.
65.
[566] “The devil is in the world, _vel potius ipse mundus concretive
vel abstractive_.” Letter of January 3, 1534, to Amsdorf,
“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 376.
[567] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.
[568] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.
[569] To Justus Jonas, December 29, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 163:
“_Christus infirmus per vestras orationes adhuc superat vel saltem
pugnat fortiter_.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 173.
[570] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 165, “Table-Talk.”
[571] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 133. The passage will be given
in detail later.
[572] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; Erl. ed., 33, p. 374.
[573] _Ibid._, p. 341=359.
[574] _Ibid._, p. 342=360.
[575] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 356 f.
[576] Cp., _ibid._, p. 279 ff.
[577] Letter to Reissenbusch, March 27, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18,
p. 277; Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).
[578] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.
[579] _Ibid._
[580] See below, p. 196.
[581] “Der rechte Weg. Welche Weg oder Strass der Glaubig wandeln
soll,” etc. Dillingen, 1553. The passages are quoted by N. Paulus, “Die
deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 252.
[582] “Christl. Predigt. an S. Matthei Tag,” Mainz, 1557, in Paulus,
_ibid._, p. 168.
[583] “Predigten über die erste Canon. Epistel Johannis,” Cologne,
1571. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 173.
[584] “Vormeldunge der Unwahrheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt a.d.
Oder, 1532, Paulus, _ibid._, p. 33. The three writers above quoted
were all Dominicans. Luther’s Catholic contemporaries cannot have been
acquainted with his “_Pecca fortiter_,” otherwise their language would
have been even stronger.
[585] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. The letter no longer exists in its
entirety. One portion, however, became known and was published by
Joh. Aurifaber in 1556 in the first vol. of Luther’s letters (p. 343)
and described as “_Fragmentum epistolæ D.M. Lutheri ad Philippum
Melanchthonem ex Pathmo scriptæ, a. MDXXI., repertum in bibliotheca
Georgii Spalatini_.” Melanchthon had possibly sent the extract to
Spalatin when the latter was troubled regarding his own salvation.
[586] (See below.) “_Vides quantis urgear æstibus_,” etc. To
Melanchthon, August 3, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 213.
[587] See vol. ii., p. 82 f.
[588] Passages tallying with the “_Esto peccator_” are to be found
elsewhere in Luther’s writings. Cp. for instance his letter of 1516
(vol. i., p. 88 f.) to Spenlein, where he says: “_Cave, ne aliquando
ad tantam puritatem aspires, ut peccator tibi videri nolis, imo esse.
Christus enim nonnisi in peccatoribus habitat.... Igitur nonnisi in
illo pacem invenies._” In “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236 _seq._, it is
likewise explained why one must be a great sinner; he insists that
“_credenti omnia sunt auctore Christo possibilia_” and condemns
strongly “_affectus propriæ iustitiæ_,” until he arrives at the
paradox, “_Ideo est peccatum, ut in peccatis apti ad spem simus_” (p.
239). In perfect harmony with such early statements is the letter he
wrote towards the end of his life to Spalatin when the latter was sunk
in melancholy; here he says: “_Nimis tener hactenus fuisti peccator....
Iunge te nobis veris magnis et duris peccatoribus_”; he must, so Christ
speaking through Luther tells him, hold alone to faith in the Divine
mercy. August 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.
[589] “Symbolik,” § 16, p. 161.
[590] 1, p. 301. Other Protestant writers, such as Carové
“Alleinseligmachende Kirche,” 2, p. 434 (see K. A. Hase, “Polemik,”^[4]
p. 267), declared it to be “a downright calumny to say that so shocking
a doctrine occurred in a work of Luther’s.”
[591] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 58.
[592] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” Tübingen, 1904, pp. 38-45.
[593] Köhler here quotes Denifle (“Luther,” p. 442; ed. 2, p. 465), who
gives these words in their full context from Luther’s MS. Commentary on
Romans. We may point out that Denifle quotes an abundance of similar
passages from Luther’s works, amongst which those taken from his early
Commentary on Romans are particularly interesting.
[594] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 27; Erl. ed., 27, p. 185; Köhler,
_ibid._, p. 43 f.
[595] _Ibid._, p. 25=181=44.
[596] On June 29, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8,
p. 44. Melanchthon had told Luther his fears and anxieties on account
of the impending discussion of the point of faith before the Diet of
Augsburg. Luther is encouraging him.
[597] To Melanchthon, June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.
[598] In the letter quoted above, n. 1 (p. 43): “_carnificem illum
spiritus_.”
[599] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 98.
[600] _Ibid._, p. 79.
[601] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19, p. 325.
[602] _Ibid._, 58, p. 363 f.
[603] _Ibid._, p. 374.
[604] _Ibid._, p. 380.
[605] _Ibid._, p. 26.
[606] _Ibid._, p. 385.
[607] _Ibid._, p. 402.
[608] “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 146.
[609] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.
[610] “Comment. in Gal.” (1531), ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 102. Cp. above,
p. 139, n. 1.
[611] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 79.
[612] _Ibid._, p. 147 f. We shall treat more fully of Luther’s
“Temptations” against faith and his inner wavering in vol. v., xxxii.
[613] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 153. Exposition of John xvi.
[614] _Ibid._, p. 154.
[615] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 407, in a Sermon on Genesis xxviii.
Joh. Poliander’s Collection.
[616] _Ibid._, 11, p. 197, Sermon in 1523 from Rörer’s notes. Though in
the passages just quoted he lays great stress on the fact, that nothing
is needed on our part for the obtaining of forgiveness (not even as
Catholics taught any co-operation on our part with God’s helping
grace), yet he speaks here again of the “emptying of the heart of all
affection” for creatures, and of the “works” which proceed from a heart
that is purified by faith. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 409. “If you have
now the wedding garment, then serve your neighbour, give yourself up to
him entirely, take compassion on him. [For] the Christian life consists
in faith in God and charity towards our neighbour.” _Ibid._, 12, p.
670, in another set of notes of the sermon just quoted. “First we
become brides [of Christ] by faith, and, then, through charity, Christs
to every man.” _Ibid._, 11, p. 197.
[617] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 42.
[618] Veit Dietrich, in Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.
[619] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 179.
[620] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209.
[621] _Ibid._, p. 238.
[622] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.
[623] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.
[624] _Ibid._, p. 95.
[625] “Comment. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, p. 351.
[626] “Briefe.,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 515, 566.
[627] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 428 f.
[628] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 178.
[629] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 631; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 321, “_De
votis monasticis_,” 1521.
[630] _Ibid._
[631] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 254 f. “Rathschlag von der Kirche,”
1538.
[632] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128, at
the close of “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531. Cp. Mathesius,
“Tischreden,” p. 423.
[633] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 22, “Tischreden.”
[634] Letter of July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157.
[635] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 49.
[636] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 294. Noted in the winter of 1542-3 by
Heydenreich.
[637] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 21. Certain prayers spoken by
Luther at critical moments, which appear in Protestant biographies,
more particularly the older ones, are purely legendary. So, for
instance, his solemn prayer at Worms: “O God, my God, stand by me
against all the wit and wisdom of the world,” etc. (Uckert, “Luthers
Leben,” 2, Gotha, 1817, p. 6, and also in Walch’s edition of Luther’s
Works, 10, p. 1720). From Melanchthon’s time (_ibid._, 21, Nachl.
354) and that of such enthusiastic pupils of Luther as Spangenberg,
it became the custom to extol Luther as a man of prayer. Spangenberg
even declares that “no one can deny” that Luther during his lifetime
“checked and prevented God’s chastisements, wars and desolation” by
means of his “Christian prayers, so full of faith.” See Preface to
his “Lutherus Theander,” No. 18. A certain Protestant theological
periodical assured its readers quite recently, that “Luther spent three
hours of his working day in prayer”; it is true that people pray even
in the Roman Church, but amid much “superficiality and desecration.”
[638] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. (Khummer).
[639] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245, in the Sermon for Easter Monday,
1525.
[640] _Ibid._, p. 243 f.
[641] _Ibid._, p. 244.
[642] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.
[643] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 207.
[644] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 630 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 378
_seq._ in Concl., 3 _seq._ (of 1518). Passages in which he advocates
contrition will, however, be quoted below. Cp. vol. i., p. 293.
[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 33, 51.
[646] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 435 (“Tischreden”).
[647] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Cp. p. 210, n. 1.
[648] Above, p. 24 ff. and vol. v., xxix. 8.
[649] Cp. G. Kawerau, “Warum fehlte der deutschen evang. Kirche des
16. u. 17. Jahrh. das volle Verständnis für d. Missionsgedanken der H.
Schrift? Vortrag,” Breslau, 1896. The author says that “none of the
reformers” found in Holy Scripture the duty of missionary effort on the
part of Christendom; an exception must, however, be made in the case of
Bucer. See N. P(aulus) in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 18, 1897, p. 199.
[650] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 33; Erl. ed., 30, p. 9. “Against the
King of England,” 1527.
[651] Letter of February 23, 1542, in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 378.
[652] “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 f. Art. by E. Thiele
on some Notes of Joh. Agricola’s in a Hebrew Bible at Wernigerode.
[653] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313 _seq._ The passage will be given later.
[654] G. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 282.
[655] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 484.
[656] See Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 2.
[657] Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 286. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2,
p. 485 _seq._ Rebenstock, 2, p. 20.
[658] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 141.
[659] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 569.
[660] On this girl, see below, p. 280 f.
[661] E.g. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.
[662] For biographical data concerning these, see Kroker, “Luthers
Tischreden in der Mathesischen Sammlung,” Einl., p. 8 ff. For Rörer’s
Collections of the Table-talk, etc., cp. G. Koffmane, “Die hds.
Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, p. xviii. ff., and Kroker,
“Rörers Handschriftenbände und Luthers Tischreden” (“Archiv. f.
Reformationsgesch,” 5, 1908, p. 337 ff., and 7, 1910, p. 57 ff.).
Among the occasional guests was Ch. Gross, Magistrate at Wittenberg,
who is mentioned in Luther’s letters (De Wette, 5, p. 410) in 1541
as “_praefectus noster_.” In his Catholic days the last had served
for three years as one of the bearers of the Pope’s sedan; a great
traveller, he was noted as an excellent conversationalist and a
thorough man of the world. There can be no doubt that he reported to
Luther many of the malicious and unveracious tales current of Roman
morals, which the latter made use of in his attacks on Popery. Cp.
with regard to him “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 424, and 1, p. 372
(where accounts, probably by him, follow), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p.
431 (“Tischreden”). He makes unseemly jests on the Latin word for
“art,” and it appears highly probable that he was the “M. Christo,”
whom we meet with in Kroker, p. 175, n. 287, in Luther’s Table-Talk of
1540, whose “_calida natura_” is mentioned in excuse of a love affair.
This gives an answer to Kroker’s question: “Who is this Magister
Christophorus?” We learn from Bindseil’s “Colloquia” that Christopher
Gross was anxious to become a widower because his wife was a “_vetula_.”
[663] “Historien,” Nuremberg, 1566, p. 139.
[664] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18; Erl. ed., 28, p. 260. The
passage was omitted in the later Luther editions; cp. _ibid._, p.
18=219 f.
[665] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337.
[666] For the full titles of the publications referred to here and
elsewhere under an abbreviated form as “Tagebuch,” “Aufzeichnungen,”
etc., see the Bibliography at the commencement of vol. i. of the
present work. Besides these collections heed must be paid to the old
German Table-Talk in the Erlangen edition (“Werke,” 57-62) and the
Latin Table-Talk in Bindseil. Only exceptionally do we quote the
other editions, such as the Latin one by Rebenstock, and the older
and more recent German editions of Förstemann and Bindseil. Moreover,
the Table-Talk in most cases merely serves to prove that this or that
idea was expressed more or less in the language recorded, not that
Luther actually uttered every word of it. The historical circumstances
under which the words were uttered are in most cases unknown. Kroker’s
publication has been of great service in determining the dates of
the various collections. As regards the present position of the
investigation of the sources whence the Table-Talk is derived, see
Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 479-481, and P. Smith, “Luther’s Table-Talk,”
New York, 1907, which sums up the results arrived at in Germany.
[667] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xxxxviii. _seq._, and Kroker,
p. 9.
[668] See the title of Rebenstock’s Collection. Rebenstock’s assurance
that, in his Collection he sought nothing but the honour of God and had
not introduced any extraneous matter, is reprinted in Bindseil, 1, p.
lii.
[669] Page 64.
[670] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 107.
[671] Walch, in the edition of the Table-Talk, Luther’s Works, in Jena
ed., 22, quotes various passages from Protestant scholars who thought
as he did. Preface, p. 25 f.
[672] He points out incidentally (p. 36) that the authority for the
Table-Talk was not absolutely unquestioned. He was not acquainted with
the original documents, most of which have now been published.
[673] Bindseil also remarked of the “_Colloquia_”: “We cannot deny
that it would have been better had much of this not been written.”
“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann and Bindseil, 4, p. xi. Cp. similar
passages, _ibid._, p. xxiv., n., and contrast with them Aurifaber’s
eulogy of the Table-Talk which came “from the saintly lips of Luther,”
p. xxii.
[674] Kroker, p. 2.
[675] _Ibid._, p. 192.
[676] _Ibid._, p. 3. Moreover, the rough notes drafted at the table
were afterwards re-copied and amended, and this amended form alone is
all we have. Cp. Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1909,
p. 84. In the Weimar ed. a first volume, edited by E. Kroker, of the
Table-Talk is at present appearing. In it are found the accounts given
by Veit Dietrich, and another important collection dating from the
earlier portion of the third decade of the sixteenth century. Vol. ii.,
commencing with Schlaginhaufen, is already in the hands of the printers.
[677] Vol. i., Preface, p. vii. In the Latin edition of the Table-Talk
Bindseil, in spite of the scruples alluded to above (n. 1), speaks
in praise of the Table-Talk, and makes his own the words of J.
Müllensiefen (1857). The Table-Talk showed Luther as “the noblest
offshoot of his nation”; it is true the coarseness and plainness of
speech are inexcusable, but it all contributes towards the “perfect
characterisation of the great man,” for “the wrinkles and furrows are
part of his portrait” (“Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. xiii.). Luther’s
opponents were, however, of a different opinion even in the early days.
G. Steinhausen, in his “Deutsche Kulturgesch.,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 513,
quotes Johann Fickler of Salzburg, who describes the Table-Talk as
“full of obscene and stinking jests,” and compares it to the erotic
products of the Epicureans. Steinhausen himself is loath to go so far.
[678] “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 23, p. 488.
[679] Wetzer and Welte, “KL.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” H. Böhmer likewise
admits that: “Although their [the principal witnesses’: Dietrich,
Lauterbach, and Mathesius] statements must always be critically
examined, yet it is established, that they have preserved for us
an exceptional number of data concerning Luther’s life, acts, and
opinions. They supply us with what on the whole is an accurate account,
arranged in chronological order, which brings the real Luther almost as
closely before us as his own letters and writings.” In his objections
against the “principal witnesses” he does not pay sufficient attention
to the existence of the original notes (“Luther im Lichte der neueren
Forschung,”² 1910, p. 105). Protestant theologians and historians of
Luther are now in the habit of laying stress on the Table-Talk, no less
than on Luther’s other works, and that even in the case of weighty and
controverted questions. Examples might be quoted from Loofs, Drews, G.
Kawerau, J. Köstlin, G. Ward, etc.
[680] “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ art. “Aurifaber.” In the “Abh. der Kgl.
Ges. d. Wissensch. Götting., Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F.,” 1, Wilhelm Meyer
deals with the Collections of Lauterbach and Aurifaber. In the same
way Kawerau points out in his “Studien und Kritiken,” 81, 1908, p.
338, “the importance of these notes for Luther’s biography and for a
knowledge of his home life.” Cp. Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 354, on the old
re-arrangement according to the subject-matter. The “authenticity”
of the sayings which occur in these revised editions can be proved
in many instances from the original writings and from the light
thrown on them by parallel passages now in print, but the “dates”
are another matter. Where, in the present work, any date is taken
from the revised editions, it rests solely on the authority of the
latter. Cp. Kroker’s remarks on the Table-Talk of 1540 in the “Archiv
f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, above, p. 218, n. 2. On Aurifaber’s
re-arrangement of the Table-Talk, see Cristiani, “Revue de questions
historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.
[681] Lauterbach, Luther’s pupil, who was also the author of the Diary,
revised his Collection and sought to improve upon the arrangement; a
similar, later revision of this formed the basis of the “_Colloquia_”
of Rebenstock. Kawerau, _ibid._
[682] Cp. below, p. 231, n. 2.
[683] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 23.
[684] _Ibid._, p. 11.
[685] _Ibid._, p. 48.
[686] _Ibid._, p. 108.
[687] _Ibid._, p. 115.
[688] _Ibid._, p. 26.
[689] _Ibid._, p. 79.
[690] _Ibid._, p. 88 (Khummer).
[691] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.
[692] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115.
[693] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.
[694] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 773 f. Sermon in 1524.
[695] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7, p. 213. Church-Postils.
[696] _Ibid._, 13², p. 108, Church-Postils.
[697] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 35.
[698] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 304, “Tischreden.”
[699] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 136, 135.
[700] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 465. Church-Postils.
[701] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 1: “_Qui me invito hec describit, tantum
tali animo describat, quali ego, simplici et candido, et laudet verba
Lutheri magis quam Apollinis miracula [oracula]._”
[702] “Historien von des ehrwürdigen in Gott seligen thewren Manns
Gottes Doctoris Martini Lutheri Leben,” etc., Nuremberg, 1566, p. 146.
[703] _Ibid._, p. 147: “_Arvinam quaerunt multi in podice porci_”
(Philo), applied by Luther to the marriage of a “young fellow with an
old hag (_vetula_).”
[704] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.
[705] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.
[706] _Ibid._, p. 89.
[707] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78. In the first edition of the German
Table-Talk, 1566, p. 307. Cp. against O. Waltz, on the authenticity of
the account, N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16.
Jahrhundert,” 1910, p. 39.
[708] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, said between October 28 and
December 12, 1536. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121: “The village
pastor and the schoolmaster had their own way of dealing [with the
witches] and plagued them greatly. But D. Pommer’s way is the best of
all, viz. to plague them with filth and stir it well up and so make all
their things to stink.”
[709] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.
[710] _Ibid._, p. 74 (Khummer).
[711] _Ibid._, p. 111.
[712] Cp. N. Paulus in his art. on Kroker’s edition of the “Tischreden
in der Mathesischen Sammlung” (“Hist, polit. Blätter,” 133, 1904, pp.
199 ff., 208 f.).
[713] W. Preger, “Tischreden ... nach den Aufzeichnungen von J.
Schlaginhaufen,” p. iv.
[714] Cp. N. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 40; Kroker, pp. 156, 158, 262.
Kroker says (p. 158), “Luther probably made use of a colloquial word
for phallus, or something similar.” Luther is complaining of the
excesses to which the Catholics gave themselves up on pilgrimages,
and which the Pope constantly indulged in. One MS. there cited omits
the passage altogether. The Table-Talk of Mathesius (p. 141) contains
the following speech of Luther’s in 1540 under the title “_Exemplum
verecundiae Lutheri_”: “_Rochlicensis princeps. Is interrogabat ‘Qui
vocatur verum_ [sic] _de domina vestra natante cum equite per aquas?
Non volo autem obscoenum audire sed verum._’ Ich mein, das heisst:
die × ausgeschwembt”. For the liberty which Aurifaber permits himself
in the matter of toning down and weakening the original text of the
Table-Talk, cp., for instance, the remarks in the Preface to the
Cordatus Collection. What the latter gives in all its crudity (see
the twenty-four passages there quoted by Wrampelmeyer) Aurifaber
either does not reproduce at all or does so in an inoffensive form, or
accompanied with such expressions as “to speak decently,” etc. Cordatus
knew and acknowledged that it was an “_audax facinus_” to write down
all he heard, but his opinion was that “_pudorem vincebat utilitas_”;
Luther, who was watching his work, never gave him to understand by so
much as one word that it did not meet with his approval.
[715] “Beil. zur Münchener Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.
[716] G. Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701), for instance, says that
“In his Table-Talk we find not merely plain-spoken, but really cynical
discourses, and much which to us sounds obscene. Still, his admirers
may possibly be right when they absolve him of indecency or of any
intention to arouse sensual passion.”
[717] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche), p. 218.
[718] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 83.
[719] _Ibid._, p. 61, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 296.
[720] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.
[721] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 7.
[722] _Ibid._, p. 65.
[723] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 106.
[724] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 154.
[725] _Ibid._, p. 203.
[726] _Ibid._, p. 88.
[727] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 417.
[728] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 428.
[729] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.
[730] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 219.
[731] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 188. For the equivalent passages in
Latin see “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 306, and “Colloq.,” ed.
Rebenstock (Francof., 1571), 1, p. 149´, where the famous “_adorabunt
nostra stercora_” occurs. Cp. the passages in the old German
Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 397, which agrees substantially
with the above: “They will oppress us until we forget ourselves, and
then they will worship our filth and regard it as balsam,” and in
Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303: “I am ripe dung,” etc.
[732] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 81.
[733] _Ibid._, p. 340. A revolting collection of low abuse of the
lawyers might be made from the Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp.
229, 233, 235, 244, 246 f.
[734] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139, with the disgusting verses:
“_Ventre urges merdam vellesque cacare libenter | ingentem. Facis at,
merdipoeta, nihil._” Within ten lines the word “_merda_” occurs twelve
times. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 673, N. 422.
[735] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 48.
[736] See the detailed examples given in vol. iv., xxv. 3.
[737] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 149.
[738] _Ibid._, p. 148. Cp. above, p. 151, n. 3.
[739] _Ibid._, p. 169 f.
[740] _Ibid._, p. 173 f. Jonas, in his Latin edition of the work
“Wider das Bapstum,” rendered the passage: “_Ne sine ullo laxativo vel
pillulis ventris onere honores papam_,” etc.
[741] _Ibid._, p. 201. Cp. Luther’s insolent language towards the Pope
in his other writings and letters; for instance, when he declares
that the Princes who were not on his own side were “dem Papst in den
Arsch gebacken” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 398); or: “I s—— on the
dispensation of the legate and his master” (Briefwechsel, 8, p. 53;
cp. p. 113); or “that Pope and Legate ‘im Arsch wollten lecken’”
(“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233). As early as 1518, in a Lenten sermon, he
shows his predisposition to crudity: “If we drag our good works into
the light, ‘so soll der Teufel den Arsch daran wischen,’ as indeed he
does” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 276). Cp. also his discourse in 1515
against the “Little Saints” (vol. i., p. 69 f.). In the saying just
referred to he is playing on a coarse proverb. In his collection of
proverbs (not intended for publication, but edited by Thiele) he has
accumulated quite a number of filthy sayings, those containing the word
“Dreck” being unpleasantly numerous. Many of the obscenities occurring
in his sermons and writings were suggested by proverbs which themselves
reek too much of the stable, but which he sometimes still further
embellishes. The manner in which he uses the gross word “Farzen” with
reference to the Pope or the monks can be seen in “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
8, p. 715, and Erl. ed., 25², p. 74. In one of his attacks on the Jews
he says: “Kiss the pig on its ‘Pacem’ and ‘Pirzl,’” etc. (“Werke,”
Erl. ed., 32, p. 211); and again: “Here, here for a kiss! The devil
has ‘in die Hosen geschmissen und den Bauch abermal geleeret.’ This is
indeed a holy thing for the Jews, and all would-be Jews to kiss, eat,
drink, and worship, while the devil in his turn must eat and drink
what his disciples ‘speien, oben und unten auswerfen können.’ Host and
guest have indeed met, have cooked and served the meat.... The devil
is feasting with his English [angelic?] snout and gobbles up greedily
whatever ‘der Juden unteres und oberes Maul speiet und spritzet.’ Yes,
that is the dainty he enjoys” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 282).
[742] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 203.
[743] Such was the writer’s indignation that his words are scarcely
worthy of a Humanist. The following comes from the “_Responsio ad
convitia Lutheri_” (1523, “Opera,” Lovanii, 1566, p. 116´), not
published under More’s own name: “_Nihil habet in ore (Lutherus)
praeter latrinas, merdas, stercora, quibus foedius et spurcius quam
ullus unquam scurra scurratur.... Si pergat scurrilitate ludere
nec aliud in ore gestare quam sentinas, cloacas, latrinas, merdas,
stercora, faciant quod volent alii, nos ex tempore capiemus consilium,
velimusne sic bacchantem ... cum suis merdis et stercoribus cacantem
cacatumque relinquere._”
[744] In “_Replica contra periculosa scripta_,” etc., 1522, O, 4´. Also
in “Opp. omnia,” Ingolstadii, 1543.
[745] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 315.
[746] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 57.
[747] Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 72; 2 ed.,
p. 106.
[748] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 153; cp. 44. p. 321.
[749] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 296. In a sermon.
[750] Lutherophilus (Wilh. Walther), “Das sechste Gebot und Luthers
Leben,” 1893, p. 33 f.; and “Für Luther,” p. 593 ff.
[751] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. Sermon
on the Married Life, 1522, i.e. long before his own marriage.
[752] Letter of June 2, 1525, _ibid._, 53, p. 311; Letters, ed. De
Wette, 2, 676 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).
[753] To Reissenbusch, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276 f.; Erl. ed., 53,
p. 286 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).
[754] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 191.
[755] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 53 ff.
[756] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 156=28, p. 199.
[757] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 196.
[758] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 94; Erl. ed., 51, p. 6.
[759] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 276=53; p. 288; “Briefe,” ed. De
Wette, 2, p. 639 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).
[760] _Ibid._, p. 410=311=676 (to Archbishop Albert of Mayence).
[761] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 515, in sermon quoted above, p.
242, n. 1; Luther here speaks of “three kinds of men” whom God has
exempted from matrimony.
[762] In the letter to the Archbishop of Mayence. “I speak of the
natural man. With those to whom God gives the grace of chastity I do
not interfere.”
[763] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 291 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 527 f.
“Vom Eelichen Leben,” 1522.
[764] Letter of July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. Cp. our vol.
ii., pp. 82 f., 94 f.
[765] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 511; cp. p. 512.
[766] For other passages in which Luther inculcates either chastity
or faithfulness in the married state, see, for instance, “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 298, 302; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 132 f., 137, and
“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 95; “_Deus omnipotens ... castus_,
etc., _castitatem diligit, pudicitiam et verecundiam ornat_,” etc.
[767] To Nicholas Gerbel, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241, from
the Wartburg. _Ibid._: “_De votis religiosorum et sacerdotum Philippo
et mihi est robusta conspiratio, tollendis et evacuandis videlicet. O
sceleratum illum Antichristum cum squamis suis!_”
[768] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 139.
[769] Erl. ed., 61, p. 167.
[770] See vol. ii., p. 115 ff., and vol. iv., xxii. 5.
[771] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 114; Erl. ed., 51, p. 30. “1 Cor.
vii.,” 1523.
[772] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 212. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 3; “_Maior
enim pars conjugatorum vivit in adulteriis_,” etc.
[773] _Ibid._, p. 302 _seq._, in c. 4.
[774] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.
[775] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 115; Erl. ed., 51, p. 32. “1 Cor.
vii.,” etc.
[776] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 279=16², p. 113. Sermon on Married Life.
[777] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 302=137.
[778] _Ibid._, 12, p. 137=51, p. 63 f.
[779] _Ibid._, p. 99=10.
[780] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 151 f. Sermon on Matthew xviii. ff.
[781] _Ibid._, p. 153, where he tells a tale of how St. Bernard and
St. Francis made snow-women, “to lie beside them and thus subdue their
passion.”
[782] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 126 _seq._
[783] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55; Erl. ed., 33, p. 59. Sermons on
Genesis, 1527.
[784] _Ibid._, 12, p. 104=51, p. 16 f. “1 Corinthians, vii.,” etc.
[785] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 22. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c. 24.
[786] _Ibid._, 7, p. 286, in c. 30.
[787] _Ibid._, 20, p. 131. “Enarr. in Ps. 128.”
[788] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 488 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 160
_seqq._ “_Decem praecepta praedicata populo_,” 1518.
[789] _Ibid._, 2, p, 168; Erl. ed., 16², p. 62. Sermon on the conjugal
state, 1519, “altered and corrected.” Cp. also present work, vol. iv.,
xxii. 5.
[790] “Die Stellung des Christentums zum Geschlechtsleben,” Tübingen,
1910, p. 40.
[791] _Ibid._, p. 53.
[792] _Ibid._, p. 49.
[793] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 137; Erl. ed., 51, p. 64.
[794] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 104 f.=16 ff.
[795] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 291. For proofs that the Western
law of continence goes back to the early ages of the Church, and was
spoken of even at the Synod of Elvira in 305 or 306, see my “History of
Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Eng. Trans.), iii., p. 271 ff.
[796] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 298.
[797] _Ibid._, p. 297; “Colloq.,” 2, p. 366 _seq._
[798] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 553 _seq._; Erl ed., 28, p. 128.
[799] _Ibid._, 24, p. 517=34, p. 139 f., in the Sermons on Genesis,
1527.
[800] _Ibid._, 518=140. We may add some further statements
characteristic of Luther’s unseemly language on the necessity of
marriage and the alleged abuses on the Catholic side. Of these passages
the first two are for obvious reasons given in Latin.
“_Major pars puellarum in monasteriis positarum non potest voluntarie
statum suum observare.... Puella non potest esse sine viro, sicut non
sine esu, potu et somno. Ideo Deus dedit homini membra, venas, fluxus
et omnia, quae ad generandum inserviunt. Qui his rebus obsistit, quid
aliud facit, quam velle ut ignis non urat?... Ubi castitas involuntaria
est, natura non desistit ab opere suo; caro semen concipit sicut
creata est a Deo; venae secundum genus suum operantur. Tunc incipiunt
fluxus et peccata clandestina, quae s. Paulus mollitiem vocat_ (1 Cor.
vi. 10). _Et, ut crude dicam, propter miseram necessitatem, quod non
fluit in carnem, fluit in vestimenta. Id deinde accusare et confiteri
verentur.... Vide, hoc ipsum voluit diabolus, docens te coercere et
domare naturam, quae non vult esse coacta_” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2,
p. 156 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 199).
He had spoken in much the same way in the Tract against celibacy which
preceded in 1521 his book on Monastic Vows, and which appeared again
in the Church Sermons and also several times separately (“Werke,”
Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694 ff.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448 ff.; Sermon on
the Feast of the Three Kings, 1522): “_Ubi magna et coelestis gratia
non assistit, oportet naturam secundum ordinem suum fluxus pati. Si
non conveniunt vir et femina, natura tamen propriam viam sequitur et
indignatur; ita ut melius sit masculum et feminam esse simul, sicut
Deus (eos) creavit et natura vult.... Interrogo igitur, quid consilii
dabis ei, qui se continere non potest? Si dicis, inhibitione utendum,
respondeo, unum ex tribus secuturum esse: aut masculus et femina sese
conjungent, ut placuerit sicuti nunc fit sub sacerdotibus papistarum,
aut natura sponte sese solvet, aut, deficiente primo et secundo, sine
cessatione homo uretur et clam patietur. Hoc modo creasti martyrium
diabolicum, et fiet, ut vir mulieri deformissimae sese sociaret et
mulier viro taediosissimo prae malo impetu carnis. Ignoscant mihi aures
pudicae, debeo tractare animi morbos, sicut medicus tractat stercus
et latrinam.... Tu facis, ut ille pauper homo continuo corde peccet
contra votum suum, et melius fortasse sit, quod masculus nonnunquam
secum habeat femellam et femina juvenem.... At papa sinit eos fluxus
pati, uri et torqueri sicut possunt, ita ut eos habeam pro infantibus
immolatis a populo Israel idolo igneo Moloch ad concremandum....
Non vis impedire tandem aliquando, quominus fornicentur, fluxibus
maculentur et urantur?_” _Ibid._, p. 108= “_Si in singulis civitatibus
forent vel quinque juvenes et quinque puellae viginti annorum, integri,
sine fluxibus naturae, tunc dicerem, primitiva tempora apostolorum
et martyrum rediisse. Nunc autem qualem Sodomam et Gomorrham fecit
diabolus ubicunque plane per istam singularem castitatem votorum!_”
In the sermon on conjugal life, in 1522, he says: “It is true that the
man who does not marry is obliged to sin. How can it be otherwise,
seeing that God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply? But
why do we not forestall sin by marriage?” (“ Werke,” Weim. ed., 10,
2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537). In his latter years he penned the
following attack upon the older Church of which the obscenity vies with
its untruth: “The chaste Pope does not take a wife, yet all women are
his. The lily-white, chaste, shamefaced, modest, Holy Father wears the
semblance of chastity and refuses to take a wife honourably and in the
sight of God; but how many other women he keeps, not only prostitutes,
but married women and virgins, look at his Court of Cardinals, his
Bishoprics, Foundations, Courtesans, Convents, Clergy, Chaplains,
Schoolmasters and his whole curia, not to speak of countless unnamable
sins. Well, may God give us His grace and punish both the Pope and
Mohammed with all their devils!” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 204, in the
Preface to the writing: “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi,” 1542).
It is simply an example of Luther’s habitual misrepresentation when we
read in one of his sermons dating from 1524 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p.
667): “Up to this time marriage has been a despised state, being termed
a state of easy virtue; but Scripture says: ‘Male and female He created
them’ (Gen. i. 27): that is enough for us. In practice we all extol
this state. Oh, that all men lived in it! Whoever has not been exempted
by God, let him see that he finds his like [a spouse].” Upon himself
he looked as one “exempted by God,” at least he declared in several
passages of this sermon, delivered in the very year of his marriage,
that “by the Grace of God he did not desire a wife; I have no need of a
wife, but must assist you in your necessity.” He himself could not yet
make up his mind to carry out what he urged so strongly upon others.
[801] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526, in the
Sermon on conjugal life, 1522.
[802] _Ibid._, 10, 3, p. 222=23, p. 116 f., in the work “On marriage
matters,” to the pastors and preachers, 1530. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
12, p. 119.
[803] As regards the authorities, Luther’s wish was that they should
interfere in the matter from the outset, and that strongly, although
he can scarcely have hoped to see this carried out in practice. “The
authorities must either coerce the woman or put her to death. Should
they not do this, the husband must imagine that his wife has been
carried off by brigands and look about him for another” (_ibid._).
[804] How the expression was at once taken up among Luther’s opponents
is plain from a letter of Duke George of Saxony to his representative
at the Diet, Dietrich von Werthern, in F. Gess, “Akten und Briefe
Georgs,” etc., 1, p. 415. Cp. Weim ed., 10, 2, p. 290 n., and vol. iv.,
xxii. 5.
[805] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 323 f.
[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525 f.
Sermon on conjugal life.
[807] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 123; Erl. ed., 51, p. 44 n., in the
work “Das siebẽdt Capitel S. Pauli zu den Corinthern aussgelegt,” 1523.
[808] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 515. She was
to say: “Permit me to enter into a secret marriage with your brother,
or your best friend,” etc. Luther is speaking of the case “where a
healthy woman had an impotent husband,” etc. He here refers to the
similar answer he had already given in his work: “On the Babylonish
Captivity” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98
_seq._)
[809] To Joachim von Weissbach, August 23, 1527, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53,
p. 406 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80). In 1540 he says: “_Ego concessi
privatim aliquot coniugibus, qui leprosum vel leprosam haberent, ut
alium ducerent._” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141. In a sermon of 1524
he says coarsely of an impotent wife: “I would not have such a one
beside me” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560). The marriage bond was also
dissolved where husband or wife had become impotent “owing to an evil
spell”; his convictions forced him to teach this (_ibid._, p. 562).
[810] Letter of February 16, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 436; cp. _ibid._, p.
584. The question was thoroughly gone into by Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe
Philipps von Hessen,” 1904, p. 202 ff., who says: “About 1536 a change
took place in the attitude of the Wittenbergers towards marriage with
relatives-in-law” (p. 216). “Thus it is evident that Luther’s views
underwent a change” (p. 217). For the answer to the question how far
this change was due to the hope of winning over Henry VIII. to the New
Evangel, see vol. iv., xxi. 1.
[811] To Chancellor Brück, January 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 283.
[812] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 380 _seq._
[813] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 131; Erl. ed., 51, p. 55. “Das siebẽdt
Capitel.”
[814] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 124 f.; Erl. ed., 51, p. 45 f. “Das
siebẽdt Capitel.”
[815] _Ibid._, p. 124=44 f.
[816] _Ibid._, p. 124=45.
[817] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 519.
[818] Op. cit., above, p. 249, n. 6.
[819] _Ibid._, p. 51.
[820] “Die Frau und der Sozialismus,”^[19] Stuttgart, 1893, p. 61.
[821] _Ibid._, p. 64.
[822] _Ibid._, p. 61. On Philip of Hesse, see vol. iv., xxi. 2.
[823] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 559; “Op. lat. var.,” 6, p. 100, “De
captivitate babylonica,” 1520, “_an liceat, non audeo definire_.”
[824] _Ibid._, 24, p. 304; Erl. ed., 33, p. 323. Sermons on Genesis.
[825] _Ibid._, p. 305=324; on the date see Weim. ed., 14, p. 250 ff.
[826] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 283: “_Viro qui secundam uxorem consilio
Carlstadii petit._”
[827] The Elector forwarded it together with a letter to Philip of
Hesse on July 3, 1540. See Enders, “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, No. 5.
[828] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 523; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 368, in
the “_Propositiones de digamia episcoporum_.”
[829] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92 ff.
[830] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.
[831] Thus Landgrave Philip, on May 16, 1542, to his theologian Bucer
(Lenz, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 82).
[832] “De bono coniugali,” c. 15; “P.L.,” 40, col. 385: “_nunc certe
non licet_.” “Contra Faustum,” 1. 22, c. 47; “P.L.,” 42, col. 428:
“_nunc crimen est_.”
[833] “In IV. Sent.,” Dist. 33, q. 1, a. 1.
[834] “Commentarii in Pentateuchum,” Romae, 1531, f. 38´; “Commentarii
in Evangelia,” Venet., 1530, f. 77; “Epistolae s. Pauli enarr.,” etc.,
Venet. 1531, f. 142.
[835] Ambr. Catharinus, “Annotationes in Comment. Cajetani,” Lugd.,
1542, p. 469, “_In hoc prorsus omnes theologi, neminem excipio,
consenserunt_.” Cp. Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (“Lit. Beilage
der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 18), and in “Cajetan und Luther über
Polygamie” (Hist.-pol. Blätter, 135, 1905, p. 81 ff.). On the opinions
in vogue regarding the Old Testament exceptions, see Hurter, “Theol.
spec.,”^[11] P. ii., 1903, p. 567, n. 605. Cp. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe
Philipps von Hessen,” p. 236 ff.
[836] Letter to the Elector of Saxony, 1540, reprinted by Seidemann in
Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 198.
[837] _Ibid._
[838] Letter of December, 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 237 f.; Erl.
ed., 29, p. 16 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266). For the letters, to the
Teutonic Order and concerning the Abbots, cp. our vol. ii., p. 120.
[839] To the Elector Johann of Saxony, May 25, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
54, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 102).
[840] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 559.
[841] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 219.
[842] _Ibid._
[843] To Spalatin, December 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 278 f.
[844] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 96 f.
[845] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 550 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 88
_seq._
[846] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 307 f., 311.
[847] See vol. iv., xxii. 5.
[848] In the first Erl. ed., vol. 20 (in the 2nd edition, vol. 16, p.
508 ff.); The Exposition in vol. 51, p. 1 ff.
[849] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 118 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 158 ff.
[850] _Ibid._, p. 127=165.
[851] The passage was given above, p. 251, n. 3. Cp. “Werke,” Weim.
ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 694; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448.
[852] Appeal to the Old Testament: “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p.
694; Erl. ed., 10², p. 448, with the addition: “We are ashamed where
there is no need for shame.” _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 118=28, p. 158; St.
Peter’s words (2 Peter ii. 1 ff.) obliged him to paint as it deserved
the virtue of our clerical squires.
[853] “_Tractatus de modo dicendi et docendi ad populum_,” printed at
Landshut, 1514, pars 2, cap. 1.
[854] His Catholic pupil Oldecop says in his “Chronicle” (p. 191), that
he would not repeat Luther’s “shameful words” on the Sixth Commandment.
[855] R. Seeberg, “Luther und Lutherthum in der neuesten kath.
Beleuchtung,”² 1904, p. 19.
[856] W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 616.
[857] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 90.
[858] _Ibid._, p. 49.
[859] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 177 f.
[860] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 426.
[861] _Ibid._, p. 430.
[862] _Ibid._, p. 431.
[863] _Ibid._, p. 432.
[864] _Ibid._
[865] _Ibid._, 436.
[866] _Ibid._, 432 _seq._
[867] _Ibid._, p. 432.
[868] _Ibid._, 430. In Rebenstock’s Latin version: “_Cocus jocundus ...
cum carnem ... non poterat, etc., anu illam conspurcaviscat_.”