sua Catharina: Creator formavit masculum lato pectore et non latis
femoribus, ut capax sedes sapientiae esset in viro; latrinam vero, qua
stercora eiciuntur, ei parvam fecit. Porro haec in femina sunt inversa.
Ideo multum habent stercorum mulieres, sapientiae autem parum._” Such
passages do not tend to the higher appreciation of the female sex with
which Luther has been credited.
[870] “_Ego quaero quare mulieres non optant fieri virgines? Et
tacuerunt omnes et omnes siluerunt ridentes._” _Ibid._, p. 177 f.
[871] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 166.
[872] _Ibid._, p. 184.
[873] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 74.
[874] Lauterbach, _ibid._, p. 185. Cp. Cordatus, p. 286; “_Eunuchi plus
omnibus ardent nam appetitus castratione non perit, sed potentia._” Ich
wolt mir lieber zwey paar ° [thus the Halle MS.=_testiculos_] ansetzen
lassen, denn eins ausschneiden.
[875] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Kroker), p. 82. Said in 1540.
[876] _Ibid._, p. 373. In 1536. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 361: “Wer
nicht Wunder, so er _venereus_ wer, das er sein Freulein todtgearbeitet
hette.”
[877] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 69.
[878] The reference to the Hessian is founded on a popular tale of
Marcolfus and King Solomon. See Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.
[879] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 f. Cp. in the Table-Talk of
the Mathesius Collection, ed. Kroker, p. 156 f., a similar account
of this conversation dating from 1540, 11-19 June. It begins: “_Ego
occallui sum rusticus et durus Saxo_ [a pun on the Latin word] _ad
eiusmodi_ X” (Luther probably made use of a word against which the
pen of the writer revolted. Kroker’s note). Later: “_Ipsi (papistae)
occidunt homines, nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores._”
The end of this discourse, as Loesche and Kroker have shown, contains
verbal reminiscences of Terence, with whom Luther must have been well
acquainted from the days of his youth.
[880] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” Kroker, p. 373.
[881] “_Saluta tuam conjugem suavissime, verum ut id tum facias cum
in thoro suavissimis amplexibus et osculis Catharinam tenueris,
ac sic cogitaveris: en hunc hominem, optimam creaturulam Dei mei,
donavit mihi Christus meus, sit illi laus et gloria. Ego quoque cum
divinavero diem qua has acceperis, ea nocte simili opere meam amabo in
tui memoriam et tibi par pari referam. Salutat et te et costam tuam
mea costa in Christo. Gratia vobiscum. Amen._” Letter of December 6,
1525. An esteemed Protestant historian of Luther declared recently in
the “Theol. Studien und Kritiken” that he was charmed with Luther’s
“wholesome and natural spirit, combined with such hearty piety.” The
explanation is that this historian disagrees with the “shy reticence”
now observed in these matters as at variance with the “higher moral
sense,” and looks on what “Thomas says of the _actus matrimonialis_”
as an “entire perversion of the sound ethics of matrimony.” Another
historian “thanks Luther warmly for this letter,” whilst a third
scholar extols “the depth of feeling with which Luther, as a married
man, comprehends the mystery of neighbourly love within marriage.”
[882] More on this, vol. v., xxxii. 4 f.
[883] Letter of May 23, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 48; “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 54, p. 55.
[884] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 340 f., 342 ff., 346 f.
[885] _Ibid._, 26, p. 6.
[886] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 23-26.
[887] _Ibid._, 63, p. 394 (“Tischreden”).
[888] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 82.
[889] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 87 (Khummer).
[890] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 73.
[891] _Ibid._, p. 1.
[892] _Ibid._, p. 2.
[893] _Ibid._, p. 74.
[894] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426.
[895] See above, p. 228, n. 6. It is strange to note that Mathesius
commences the paragraph in question thus: “As occasion arose all sorts
of wise sayings fell from his lips. The man was full of grace and
the Holy Ghost, for which reason all who sought counsel from him as
from God’s own prophet found what they needed. One of them once asked
whether it would be a real marriage were a young fellow,” etc.
[896] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 99.
[897] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 204.
[898] _Ibid._, p. 172.
[899] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426.
[900] “Cinquante raisons,” etc., Munick, 1736, consid. 25, p. 32 s.
I have access only to the French edition of this work, published
originally in German and Latin.
[901] “S.B. Böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 123. In
this volume Constantine Höfler has reprinted the lost “Apology” with a
preface, p. 79 ff. Cp. E. Michael, “Luther und Lemnius, Wittenbergische
Inquisition, 1538,” in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895, p. 450
ff., where the passage in question is given in Latin.
[902] _Ibid._, p. 136. Michael, _ibid._, p. 465.
[903] Vol. ii., pp. 129 f., 364, 368 f., 376.
[904] Ickelsamer, “Clag etlicher Brüder,” ed. Enders, p. 48. See our
vol. ii., p. 368 n.
[905] Enders, p. 52.
[906] Münzer, “Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort,” ed. Enders, p.
18 ff.
[907] See vol. ii., p. 130 f.
[908] Art. 17, p. 81.
[909] In answer to the screed, “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen”, 1531,
reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 145.
[910] _Ibid._, pp. 139, 141.
[911] _Ibid._, p. 148 f.
[912] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 140.
[913] Venetiis, 1547. In 1548 Johann Cochlæus collected Catharinus’s
strictures on Luther out of three of the former’s writings, and
entitled his work “De persona et doctrina M. Lutheri judicium fratris
A. Catharini,” etc., Moguntiae, 1548. The above quotation appears in
this collection, fol. C. 2a. For an account of the great services
rendered by Catharinus, who for all his piety was yet too prejudiced
and combative, see Joseph Schweizer, “Ambrosius Catharinus Politus,”
1910 (“Reformationsgeschichtl. Studien und Texte,” ed. J. Greving, Hft.
11 and 12). Cp. the remarks of others living at a distance given below,
p. 294 ff., and the Roman reports mentioned by Jacob Ziegler (vol. ii.,
p. 133).
[914] Luther to Spalatin on January 14, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p.
278. See our vol. ii., p. 133.
[915] See vol. ii., p. 132 f.
[916] Letter of June 16, 1525; “_Maligna fama effecit_,” etc. See vol.
ii., p. 175.
[917] See vol. ii., p. 176, n. 3.
[918] Letter to Camerarius, April 11, 1526. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.
[919] Page 205; “aus dem Thesaurus Baum in Strassburg.”
[920] Kolde, _ibid._, p. 229.
[921] Quoted by R. Stähelin, “Huldreich Zwingli,” 2, Basle, 1897, p.
311, and “Briefe aus der Reformationszeit,” Basle, 1887, p. 21: “_si
non stultitia Fabrum superat, impuritate Eccium, audacia Cocleum, et
quid multa, omnia omnium vitia_,” etc.
[922] Fol. 3, 9. Quoted by N. Paulus in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905,
p. 852.
[923] “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1907, p. 246 ff. (Excerpts given
by the Protestant scholar E. Thiele, from a Bible at Wernigerode.)
[924] We have only to recall the exaggerations concerning the power
of faith alone, even in the case of the filthiest sins, e.g. “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 8, p. 527 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 92. Cp. above, pp. 177, 180
ff., 185 ff., 196, etc.
[925] “The reading of heretical books was made difficult even for
the Jesuits.” B. Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher
Zunge,” 1, 1907, p. 657. The learned polemical writers of the Society
did, however, make use of the writings of heretics, Luther’s inclusive,
as is clear from their works.
[926] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, pp. 395, 506, 625, 753.
[927] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 141, n., and p. v. Andreas
matriculated at the University of Wittenberg in 1538.
[928] Cp. also Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 112; Cordatus,
“Tagebuch,” p. 430.
[929] On February 1, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 783.
[930] Sim. Lemnius, “Monachopornomachia,” a satire against Luther. Cp.
Strobel, “Neue Beiträge zur Literatur,” 3, 1, p. 137 ff.
[931] In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 334.
[932] “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, Francof., 1571, 2, fol. 95.
[933] They were received on September 29, 1525. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p.
248.
[934] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 486.
[935] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 170. It has been asserted by
controversialists that another version of the German translation of
these Theses had already been made in 1545 from which some of the most
“swinish expressions” were omitted through motives of modesty. Of any
such revision during Luther’s lifetime nothing is, however, known.
Probably the reference is to Caspar Cruciger’s translation which is
placed next to the older translation in Walch’s edition of Luther’s
works (19, p. 2258). But examination proves that Cruciger by no means
weakened the wording, indeed, his rendering is in some instances
even stronger, for instance, that of Theses 35, 42, 61, and 64. The
“Swine-theologians of Louvain,” alluded to in his title, do not appear
here in the original German edition.
[936] The latter statement was in great part withdrawn by one
controversial writer of standing, but not before it had been made their
own by the lesser fry.
[937] “Ein christenliche Predig von dem heyligen Ehestandt durch
Wolfgangum Agricolam Spalatinum,” Ingolstadt, 1580 (Münchener
Staatsbibliothek, Hom. 53, 8º). Cp. the “Eichstätter Pastoralblatt,”
1880, No. 27 ff., where accounts taken from a Spalt Chronicle of
Wolfgang Agricola’s, according to an Eichstätt MS. (n. 248), are given,
and where is printed the passage referring to Luther in the sermon to
be discussed later. In the Suttner index of Eichstätt books the sermon
is numbered 258, which explains certain mistaken references to the
“ancient deed.”
[938] In the sermon, quoted, p. 95.
[939] See the “Eichstätter Pastoralblatt,” _ibid._ “Spalatins
Muttergottesbild.”
[940] To Spalatin, August 21, 1544, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 679
ff. See above, p. 197, n. 1. In the last years of his life Spalatin
fell into incurable melancholy which finally brought him to the grave
(January 16, 1546). Cp. J. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830,
p. 105 f. Luther was unacquainted with the actual cause of his fears,
but says that some persons thought they were due to remorse for having
given his sanction to an illegal marriage.
[941] Agricola’s Sermon, p. 90.
[942] Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1903, p. 73, where Dungersheim is
quoted: “As I have heard more than once from the lips of the said Lord
Adolphus.”
[943] “Acta et scripta Lutheri,” p. 1.
[944] “Tischreden Luthers 1531-1532” (1888). Cp. the Introduction by
the editor, p. vi. Preger does not appear to have heard of Wolfgang
Agricola’s “Hans Schlahinhauffen.” Cp. the Erfurt register, in
Weissenborn, “Akten der Erfurter Universität,” 1-2; also the Index
published in 1899. The particulars concerning Johannes Schlaginhaufen
are contained in the second vol., pp. 301-316. Spalatin is there
entered (p. 207) in 1498 as: “_Georgius Burchardi de Sula superiori_.”
[945] Mutian to Johann Lang, December 6, 1516, Kolde, “Analecta
Lutherana,” p. 5 f.
[946] For all the proofs bearing on the matter see E. Schneidewind,
“Das Lutherhaus in Eisenach,” 1883.
[947] First ed., fol. 3.
[948] Vol. iv., xxii. 5.
[949] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261.
[950] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 260.
[951] “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders, 6, p. 186.
[952] January 3, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 180.
[953] Cp. W. Walther, “Deutsche Bibelübersetzungen,” 1889 ff., p. 403 f.
[954] “Diarium italicum,” 1708, p. 278.
[955] Tom. 2^[4], La Haye, 1702, p. 134.
[956] “Vita Lutheri, nummis illustrata,” Francof. et Lipsiae, 1699, pp.
225, 227. Joh. Fabricius, “Amoenitates theologicae,” Helmestadii, 1699,
p. 676, in the Notes to his “Oratio de utilitate itineris Italiae.”
Fabricius says the verses, though usually attributed to Luther, were
not in his handwriting, nor could Luther well have composed anything so
clumsy. Further, the sub-librarian at Rome had assured him that in the
Vatican there was only one quarto book written by Luther.
[957] Cp. Paul Haake, “Johann Fr. v. Wolfframsdorf” (“N. Archiv für
sächsische Gesch.,” 22, 1901, pp. 69 f., 76-the text not quoted).
[958] Vol. 1², p. 252.
[959] Noribergae, 1731, p. 124.
[960] Cp. “Anzeiger für Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit,” 1878, p. 16 (“Ein
schon Frawe on Kinder”).
[961] _Ibid._, 1879, p. 296 (“Ein schon Weib, viel Rinder
wentzig Kinder”). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 682. Walther,
“Bibelübersetzungen,” points out concerning the origin of the story,
that, owing to people being unaware of the mediæval translations of the
Bible, “a German Bible immediately suggested the name of Luther.”
[962] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 15.
[963] _Ibid._, p. 120.
[964] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, 1903, p. 681, n. 498. “Possibly he merely
translated the old Italian rhyming proverb:
‘Chi non ama il vino, la donna e il canto
Un pazzo egli sara e mai un santo,’
and, being himself an outspoken Voltairean, suppressed the ‘santo.’” H.
Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 84; 2nd ed., p.
117 f.
[965] “Luther Tischreden Mathesische Sammlung,” p. 376, with other
passages under the heading: Lauterbach and Weller.
[966] Under the heading “Der ‘gute Trunk’ in den Lutheranklagen” the
present writer published an article in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905,
p. 479 ff., which under a revised form is given anew in the following
pages. In view of the strong verdicts frequently pronounced upon
Luther’s love of drink, we may point out that P. Albert Weiss, O. P.,
in his “Lutherpsychologie” (Mainz, 1906, p. 185 f.; 2nd ed., p. 274),
goes so far as to declare he was inclined to “tone down this or that
opinion expressed by Grisar,” but that he was thankful that he had
“treated the subject with such moderation.”
[967] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 348, “Tischreden.”
[968] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 500; Erl. ed., 30, p. 363, in the “Vom
Abendmal Christi Bekentnis.” Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 189.
[969] Letter to Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
317. The reference is, of course, to the words of Peter, Acts ii. 13-15.
[970] See n. 1.
[971] Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 71, in the “Relatio Gregorii
Caselii” of November 29, 1525. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 234; Erl.
ed., 29, p. 20, where he says that God was not drunk when He spoke the
words; also _ibid._, 8, p. 507=28, p. 63: Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul
were not drunk when they wrote certain things.
[972] Letter of July 29, 1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 61
(“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 66).
[973] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 437 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Ratzebergers
Handschriftl. Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 131, and Jonas’s obituary
sermon on Luther in Walch’s ed. of Luther’s works, 21, Anhang, p. 373*.
[974] To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.
[975] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. O. Vogt, 1888, p. 64 ff.
[976] To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.
[977] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141. Cp. vol. ii., p. 133 f.
[978] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29,
1904), p. 303 ff., p. 306.
[979] _Ibid._, p. 311 f.
[980] _Ibid._, p. 306.
[981] The “Itinerarium,” in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 229. From
the Bern Archives.
[982] The dots are Kolde’s.
[983] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.
[984] Letter of February 27, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 155.
[985] A passage from a letter of Melanchthon’s to Veit Dietrich, dated
March 15, 1537 (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 327), deserves consideration:
“_Secuta est hos agones_ (his mental struggles or temptations), _ut
fit, magna debilitas; accessit etiam cruditas, quam vigiliae, vomitus
et caetera incommoda multa auxerunt_.”
[986] The context is unfortunately not given by Kolde, no more here
than in the case of Musculus. A copy of the letter is, he says, found
in the Baum Thesaurus of the Strasburg University Library.
[987] “Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher
Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.
[988] “Hochverursachte Schutzrede,” etc., ed. Enders, _ibid._, p. 18 ff.
[989] “De consideratione praesentium temporum,” Venetiis, 1547.
Cochlæus’s “De persona et doctrina M. Lutheri iudicium fratris A.
Catharini,” etc., Moguntiae, 1548, gives the words on fol. C. 2a.
[990] Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” p. 170; “alla quale (ebrietà) è
deditissimo.”
[991] “Helluone in crapula et ebrietate cervisiaria, ut audio, foedior.”
[992] Cp. “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” “Texte und Untersuchungen,”
3 Jahrg., Hft. 1, p. 79, article by P. Kalkoff, “Römische Urteilo über
Luther und Erasmus im Jahre 1521.” See our vol. ii., p. 133.
[993] “Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer,” 1,
1908, p. 43; “_Tui Wittenbergenses velut quotidie communicant et mox
cerevisia inebriantur, ut sese aliquando non cognoscant, ita enim
fertur._”
[994] _Ibid._, pp. 58-68.
[995] Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, p. 558.
[996] Henr. Sedulius, O.S.F., “Praescriptiones adv. haereses,” Antwerp,
1606, p. 210. It was he who published the false document concerning
Luther’s alleged suicide (see vol. vi., xxxix. 3).
[997] Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” 1898, p. 70.
[998] “De mensuris,” Basileae, 1550, pp. 4, 338.
[999] Luther to Katey, February 7, 1546, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p.
788.
[1000] Grimm, “Deutsches Wörterbuch,” 8, p. 700.
[1001] Cp. the letter addressed to Katey on February 1, 1546, p. 786:
“I drink Neunburgish beer.”
[1002] On July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” ed. Burkhardt, p. 357.
[1003] On July 16, 1540, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 298. De Wette’s
edition of this letter is not altogether trustworthy. Cp. Burkhardt,
“Briefe Luthers,” p. 358.
[1004] On February 6, 1546, _ibid._, p. 786.
[1005] From the written notes of Veit Dietrich (the “most reliable
authority on the Table-Talk”), see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 498. Cp. a
parallel passage in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 135.
[1006] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, p. 151.
[1007] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, p. 152.
[1008] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 451 (“Tischreden”).
[1009] Letter of 1530 (July?), “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 _seq._
[1010] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 516, from Veit Dietrich’s MS.
[1011] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.
[1012] _Ibid._, p. 95. Cp. Mathesius’s notes in Loesche, “Analecta
Lutherana et Melanthoniana,” p. 100: “Then I would permit you a good
drink; _nam ebrietudo est ferenda, non ebriositas_.” Forcellini’s
definition: “_ebriositas=propensio in ebrictatem_.” According to
Loesche, Luther himself invented the word “_ebrietudo_.” Luther says
of the Elector Johann Frederick in his work, “Wider Hans Worst”:
“Sometimes he takes a drink too much, which we are sorry to see,”
but it was untrue that he was “a drunkard and led a disorderly life”
(“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 74).
[1013] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.
[1014] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 294.
[1015] _Ibid._, pp. 294, 296.
[1016] _Ibid._, p. 297; cp. p. 292.
[1017] _Ibid._, p. 293.
[1018] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 295.
[1019] _Ibid._, 39, p. 353.
[1020] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.
[1021] “Vita Lutheri” (“_Vitæ quatuor reformatorum_,” ed. A. T.
Neander-n. 5, p. 5).
[1022] “Historien,” 1566, p. 151. Then follows the passage referred to
on p. 305 concerning Luther and the Elector.
[1023] See Loesche’s Introduction to the edition mentioned in the
following note.
[1024] G. Mathesius, “Hochzeitspredigten,” ed. Loesche, Prague, 1897
(“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” Bd. 6). The sermon
in question was delivered in a castle in 1553 (pp. 311-335). Loesche
says of the same: “It is not necessary to be a rabid teetotaller to
feel that Urbanus—from the title of the sermon—treads dangerous
ground, and would to-day be considered quite scandalously lax.” Cp. N.
P[aulus] in the Köln. Volksztng., 1904, No. 623: on Luther’s admission
“I also tipple.”
[1025] Letter of February 20, 1510, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431:
“_expositus et involutus ... crapulae_.” Cp. our vol. i., p. 368.
Luther uses the word “_crapulatus_” in the sense of “_ebrius_,”
“Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 559 and 596. In the larger Commentary on
Galatians, however, a distinction is made between “_ebrietas_” and
“_crapula_,” 3, pp. 47 and 53; cp. the smaller Commentary (1519), Weim.
ed., 2, p. 591: “_Commessatio, quae_ Lc. xxi. 34 [_crapula_] _dicitur;
sicut ebrietas nimium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat
corda_.”
[1026] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154. Cp. our
vol. ii., pp. 82, 87, 94.
[1027] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 497.
[1028] See above, p. 219.
[1029] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337 (“Tischreden”): “A glass with
three ridges ... down to the first the Ten Commandments, down to the
second the Creed, the third with the [Our Father of the] Catechism in
full.”
[1030] S. Keil, “Des seligen Zeugen Gottes Dr. M. Luthers merkwürdige
Lebensumstände,” 3, Leipzig, 1764, p. 156 f. He considers that the
latter statements in the text were “inventions”; at any rate “there
was no harm in the matter itself,” and the “conclusion of the Papists
that Luther was a drunkard” were therefore false. Köstlin-Kawerau,
2, p. 510. On the famous but almost legendary “Luther-beakers,” F,
Küchenmeister has an article with interesting sketches in the “Ill.
Zeitung,” 1879, November 1.
[1031] Letter of May 12, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 359: “_Fateor
culpam meam et conscius mihi sum, effudisse me verba_,” etc.
[1032] Cp. “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” ed. Lenz,
1, pp. 326, 336, 362 f., 389.
[1033] “Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” Berlin, 1904, p. 70 f.
[1034] “Farrago,” etc., cod. chart. Goth., 402, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p.
681, n. 498.
[1035] “Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” _ibid._
[1036] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.
[1037] Cod. Ottobon., n. 3029.
[1038] “Luther in rationalistischer und christl. Beleuchtung,” p. 77,
n. 3.
[1039] “Christl. Welt,” 1904, No. 6, p. 128.
[1040] “Martin Luther,” 1, Beilage. Cp. _ibid._, p. v. Evers was the
first to read “_Doctor plenus_.”
[1041] W. Walther (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1906, p. 473), on the
strength of a photograph, now declares “_Johannes_” to be “the most
likely” reading, and rightly excludes “_plenus_” on p. 586 of his
book, “Für Luther.” H. Böhmer (“Luther,”², p. 116) is also in favour
of “_Johannes_.” G. Kawerau for his part thought, judging from the
photograph, that “_plures_” might be read instead of “_plenus_,” in
which N. Müller agrees with him; he could not, however, understand
what “_plures_” meant here. “Studien und Kritiken,” 1908, p. 603.
On re-examination of the original I was forced to decide against
“_plures_.” K. Löffler (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 317) proposes
“_Doctor parvus_,” but this is excluded by the characters, though the
sense would be reasonable enough. “_Johannes_” may quite well be the
reading, since from 1527 Luther was in the habit of adding greetings
from Katey and Hans in his letters.
[1042] To Link at Nuremberg, January 15, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p.
345.
[1043] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 649, n. 195.
[1044] _Ibid._
[1045] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, October 2, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).
[1046] To Agricola. Letter published by Kawerau in the “Zeitschr.
für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1880, p. 50. Cp. F.
Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 67 ff.
[1047] Cp. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (see above, p. 299, n.
1), p. 308 ff.
[1048] To Gabriel Zwilling at Torgau, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8,
p. 11.
[1049] In the letter quoted above.
[1050] To Melanchthon, August 24, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204 f.
[1051] To Justus Jonas, August 28, 1530, _ibid._, p. 237.
[1052] Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 784.
[1053] _Ibid._, p. 470.
[1054] G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus,
Zwingli und Melanchthon” (reprinted from “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,”
1906, Hft. 1-3), p. 31.
[1055] “Loci Communes Phil. Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L.
Plitt,” ed. (with commentaries) Th. Kolde, 3rd ed., 1900.
[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, more particularly 343. Cp. F.
Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 186 f.
Further particulars of the work will be found amongst the statements
concerning Luther’s relations with the schools (vol. v., xxxv. 3).
[1057] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 322.
[1058] _Ibid._, 4, p. 230.
[1059] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 68; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 493.
[1060] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15, 18.
[1061] To Spalatin, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 417.
[1062] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 448 and 451, where he again calls Luther Elias
in letters written in 1521 to Spalatin.
[1063] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 763. To the Elector of Saxony.
[1064] _Ibid._
[1065] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 821, memorandum for the Landgrave of Hesse.
[1066] _Ibid._, p. 995. To Balth. During, about September, 1528.
[1067] _Ibid._, p. 981. To Fr. Myconius, June 5, 1528: “_Ego sic angor,
ut nihil supra vel cogitari possit, quum considero horum temporum
conditionem._” Similar statements of Melanchthon’s in Döllinger, “Die
Reformation,” 1, p. 366 ff.
[1068] _Ibid._, p. 938. Letter of September 13, 1528.
[1069] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1013. To Myconius, December 1, 1528: “_Meum
scriptum ostendas consulibus ut permittant nubere mulierculæ._”
[1070] Cp. _ibid._, p. 839. “_Iudicium_” of 1526.
[1071] “Apologia confess. August.,” art. 23. “Symbolische Bücher,”^[10]
ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 242.
[1072] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 979. Cp. “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274.
[1073] See below, xx. 4, his Preface to his new edition of Luther’s
“Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.”
[1074] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 113 f.
[1075] _Ibid._
[1076] “Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30,
2, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 1 ff.). The appended exposition of Psalm
vii. probably told greatly on many, more particularly on pious readers.
[1077] On January 9, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1023. Cp.
Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 115.
[1078] To his friend Camerarius from Spires, April 21, 1529, “Corp.
ref.,” 1, p. 1060, “_Habes rem horribilem_.”
[1079] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1070.
[1080] To Justus Jonas, June 14, 1529, p. 1076; “_Una res nocuit
nobis, quam diutius procrastinati sumus, cum postularetur a nobis, ut
damnaremus Zinglianos. Hinc ego in tantam incidi perturbationem, ut
mortem oppetere malim, quam has miserias ferre. Omnes dolores interni_
(read _inferni_) _oppresserunt me. Sed tamen spero Christum remedia his
rebus ostensurum esse._”
[1081] To Philip of Hesse, June 22, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1078. Cp.
p. 1075 _seq._
[1082] On November 14, 1529.
[1083] “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 262 f.
[1084] See Luther’s own doctrine, vol. ii., pp. 223 ff., 265 ff., 291
ff.
[1085] Cp. Kolde in J. J. Müller, “Symbolische Bücher”^[10],
Introduction, p. ix.: “There was no mention therein of the Papal power
and it was left to the ‘pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, should he
see any reason, to attack the Papacy’”—thus the Strasburg envoys in
1537 in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 297; for, as Melanchthon openly
admitted to Luther, the Articles must be accommodated to the needs of
the moment.
[1086] Kolde, _ibid._ (“Symbol. Bücher”), p. viii. f. Luther to
the Elector of Saxony, May 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 145
(“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 335): “I see nothing I can improve upon or
alter, nor would this be fitting seeing that I am unable to proceed so
softly and quietly.”
[1087] On the “Gospel-proviso,” our vol. ii., p. 385 ff.
[1088] Cp. Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxiv. ff. K. Müller, “Die Symbole des
Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889, p. 121 ff.), points out why
Luther looked askance at any Symbolic Books; the fact is he did not
recognise any Church having “a legal and ordered constitution and
laws such as would call for Symbolic Books.” G. Krüger says (“Philipp
Melanchthon,” 1906, p. 18 f.): “The Confession and its Apology were
wrongly interpreted by the narrow-minded orthodoxy of later years as
laws binding on faith. And yet why did Melanchthon go on improving and
polishing them if he did not regard them as his own personal books,
which he was free to alter just as every author may when he publishes
a new edition of his work?” Yet they were “the genuine charter of
evangelical belief as understood by our Reformers.”
[1089] Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,”
Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “_Confutatio_” is reprinted
in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der
Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the
‘_Augustana_’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on
the ‘_Confutatio_.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of
the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in
the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied
with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted
the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.”
Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the
end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”^[10], p. 47): “_Hæc fere summa
est doctrinæ apud nos_ [Harnack: _suos_] _in qua cerni potest nihil
inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab
ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est_.” On p. 684 Harnack
says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the
Reformation has found masterly expression in the _Augustana_ I cannot
admit. The _Augustana_ was the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to
it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and,
besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive
and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages;
its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the
way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and
deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated
not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds
“jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say
without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was
forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did
not fit him.”
As regards the position of the _Augustana_ in the history of
Protestantism, Harnack remarks on the same page, that the free teaching
of the Reformation then began to develop into a “Rule of Faith.” “When
to this was added the pressure from without, and when, under the
storms which were gathering (fanatics, Anabaptists), courage to say
anything _quod discrepet ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana,
quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est_, faded away, then the movement
terminated in the Confession of Augsburg, which while not actually
denying the principle of evangelical freedom, nevertheless begins to
pour the new wine into old vessels (cp. even the Articles of Marburg).
Did the Reformation (of the sixteenth century) do away with the old
dogma? It is safer to answer this question in the negative than in the
affirmative. But if we admit that it attacked its foundations, as our
Catholic opponents rightly accuse us of doing, and that it was a mighty
principle rather than a new system of doctrine, then it must also be
admitted that the altogether conservative attitude of the Reformation
towards ancient dogma, inclusive of its premisses, for instance,
Original Sin and the Fall, belongs, not to its principle, but simply to
its history.”
[1090] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 280 ff., with a more
detailed appreciation of the _Apologia_.
[1091] Reprinted in the “Symb. Bücher,” p. 73 ff. Cp. Kolde’s
Introduction, p. xl. f.
[1092] Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 281.
[1093] “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 9, p. 18 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 501.
[1094] Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxi., on the Latin edition which appeared at
the end of April or the beginning of May, being followed by the German
edition (probably) in the autumn.
[1095] “Symb. Bücher,” p. 45. The Latin text runs: “_Tota hæc
causa habet testimonia patrum. Nam Augustinus multis voluminibus
defendit gratiam et iustitiam fidei contra merita operum. Et similia
docet Ambrosius.... Quamquam autem haec doctrina (iustificationis)
contemnitur ab imperitis, tamen experiuntur piæ ac pavidæ conscientiæ
plurimam eam consolationis afferre._”
[1096] In the letter to Brenz mentioned above.
[1097] Cp. the passages, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 92, 104, 151, 218. On
p. 104 in the article _De iustificatione_ he quotes Augustine, _De
spir. et litt._, in support of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s
doctrine of Justification. On p. 218 he foists this assertion on the
Catholics, “_homines sine Spiritu Sancto posse ... mereri gratiam
et iustificationem operibus_,” and says, that this was refuted by
Augustine, “_cuius sententiam supra in articulo de iustificatione
recitavimus_.”
[1098] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 173; cp. p. 169.
[1099] G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche
zurückzuführen,” 1902, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xix. 3.
[1100] On January 28, 1538. Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 44. Cp. G. Ellinger,
“Philipp Melanchthon,” Berlin, 1902, pp. 362 ff., 598.
[1101] To Veit Dietrich, July 8, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 174.
[1102] To Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola at Augsburg, July
15, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 113.
[1103] To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45.
[1104] On August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233. “_Obsecro te,
ut Amsdorfice respondeas in aliquem angulum_: ‘Dass uns der Papst und
Legat wollten im Ars lecken.’”
[1105] From Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of June 27, 1530,
“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35; “_tuas miserrimas curas, quibus te scribis
consumi_.” This was really due to the “greatness of our want of faith.”
[1106] He writes to Melanchthon on June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p.
51: “_Si nos ruemus, ruet Christus una! Esto ruat, malo ego cum Christo
ruere quam cum Cæsare stare._” His cause was without “_temeritas_” and
quite pure, “_quod testatur mihi Spiritus ipse_.” _Ibid._: “_Ego pro te
oro, oravi et orabo nec dubito, quin sim exauditus; sentio illud Amen
in corde meo_.” The entire letter mirrors his frame of mind during his
stay at the Castle of Coburg.
[1107] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 280.
[1108] To Spengler, September 15, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 372.
[1109] In his “_spes transactionis_” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 261)
Melanchthon even described the previous tampering with the Church as
“_temerarii motus_” (_ibid._, p. 246 _seq._). Kawerau, in Möller,
“Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 112.
[1110] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 297.
[1111] Luther to Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p.
45: “_Sicuti semper scripsi, omnia sis concedere paratus, tantum solo
evangelio nobis libere permisso_.”
[1112] August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235: “_dolos ac lapsus
nostros facile emendabimus_,” etc. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386. For proof
that “_mendacia_” should be read after “_dolos_” see Grisar, “Stimmen
aus M.L.,” 1913, p. 286 ff.
[1113] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.
[1114] “_Ubique enim et semper excipimus libertatem et puritatem
doctrinæ, qua obtenta tune dominationem episcoporum detrectares?_”
[1115] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 362.
[1116] Cp. Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, August 26, 1530, and
previous ones to Melanchthon, July 13; to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon
and Agricola, July 15; to Melanchthon, July 27. “Briefwechsel,” 8, pp.
219, 100, 112, 136.
[1117] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.
[1118] “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 5, p. 282. Spoken
at the termination of the historic Diet of Augsburg the words of the
theologians gain added interest, though this was not the first time
similar language was heard. Cp. G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine
Charakterskizze,” p. 14 f. Even in 1527 the Visitations had been
“arranged by the Elector for the amendment of the conditions” which
Luther had exposed “to his sovereign with a heavy heart, viz. ‘how
the parsonages are in a state of misery, no one giving or paying
anything’; the common man heeds neither preacher nor parson, so that,
unless some strong measures are taken by Your Electoral Highness for
State maintenance of pastors and preachers, there will soon be neither
parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, and so God’s Word and service
will come to an end.”
[1119] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 282: “neither were they at all impressed by
the declaration of the Emperor that ‘the Word of God, the Gospel and
every law, civil and canonical, forbade a man to appropriate to himself
the property of another.’”
[1120] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 342.
[1121] Letter of August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233.
[1122] Luther to the Landgrave, September 11, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
56, p. xxvii. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 253): “I heartily thank H.R.H. for
his gracious and consoling offer to afford me shelter.”
[1123] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 319 ff.
[1124] “Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, pp. 283 f., 286, 287.
[1125] _Ibid._, p. 596.
[1126] “Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 251.
[1127] _Ibid._, p. 343.
[1128] “Ph. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531”
(“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xiv. 3), p. 90 f. Campeggio, in H.
Laemmer, “Monumenta Vaticana,” p. 51.
[1129] Third ed. Art. “Melanchthon,” by († Landerer, † Herrlinger and)
Kirn, pp. 518, 529.
[1130] “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358 ff. The page-heading reads:
“Melanchthons absichtliche und öffentliche Unwahrheit.”
[1131] Sell, _ibid._, p. 98.
[1132] To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51.
[1133] On August 26, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 219. Cp. his
letters of July 13 to Melanchthon, of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin and
Melanchthon.
[1134] On September 11, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 252: “_Utinam episcopi
eam (iurisdictionem) accepissent sub istis conditionibus! Sed ipsi
habent nares in suam rem._”
[1135] To Camerarius, November 2, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1126.
[1136] Cp. his “_Apologia_” of the Augsburg Confession, Art. iv.,
“Symb. Bücher,” p. 87, where, on the doctrine of Justification, the
old German translation runs: “Because the gainsayers know not nor
understand what the words of Scripture mean, what forgiveness of sins,
or grace, or faith, or justice is ... they have miserably robbed poor
souls, to whom it was a matter of life and death, of their eternal
consolation.” Page 90: “They do not know what the fear of death or the
assaults of the devil are ... when the heart feels the anger of God or
the conscience is troubled ... but the affrighted conscience knows well
that it is impossible to merit either _de condigno_ or _de congruo_,
and therefore soon sinks into distrust and despair,” etc. Page 95:
The new teaching alone was able “to raise up our hearts even amidst
the terrors of sin and death,” etc. Hence Melanchthon insists in his
“_Brevis discendæ theologiæ ratio_” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 458), that
Bible study served “_ad usum et ad tentationes superandas comparanda
cognitio_.”
[1137] See Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung,” etc. (above p. 319, n. 1), p.
32. Cp. Kawerau, “Studien und Kritiken,” 1897, p. 678 f.
[1138] Plitt-Kolde,³, 1900.
[1139] Melanchthon to Spalatin, September, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p.
674, after the publication of the “_Diatribe_”: “_Diu optavi Luthero
prudentem aliquem de hoc negotio antagonistam contingere_.” “His
own testimony (in 1536) is decisive as to the effect of Erasmus on
his opinion regarding free-will.” Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 199. On the
“_Diatribe_,” see our vol. ii., p. 261 ff.
[1140] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 202. In this he was of course
inconsequent, for, as Ellinger says, where it is a question of the
religious life, he traces everything back to the action of God. “It
is easy to see, that, here, as in Luther’s case (where the _Deus
absconditus_ plays a part), we have merely an expedient.” _Ibid._
[1141] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 175 f.
[1142] Above, p. 324. He was being attacked on account of the stress he
laid on good works, so he wrote to Camerarius in December, 1536, but
though so many preachers were now shouting in stentorian tones that it
was erroneous to demand works, “posterity will be astonished that an
age so mad could ever have been, when such folly met with applause.”
Cp. “_Pezelii Obiectiones et resp. Melanchthonis_,” 5, p. 289, in
Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.
[1143] To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383.
[1144] To the Landgrave of Hesse in 1524, under the title “_Epitome
renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ_” (“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 704): “_Iustitia
vere christiana est, cum confusa conscientia per fidem in Christum
erigitur et sentit, se accipere remissionem peccatorum propter
Christum_.” In the same “_Epitome_,” p. 706: “_Ipsissimam iustitiam
esse, credere quod per Christum remittantur peccata sine nostra
satisfactione, sine nostris meritis_.”
[1145] Cp. the passages in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 291.
[1146] Letter of August or September, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 158.
[1147] Even in his “_Discendæ theologiæ ratio_” of 1530 (“Corp. ref.,”
2, p. 457), Melanchthon had said: “_Multa sunt in illis (Locis) adhuc
rudiora, quæ decrevi mutare_.”
[1148] To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383:
“_Scio, re ipsa Lutherum sentire eadem_.”
[1149] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”^[4], 1906,
p. 857. He says, that Melanchthon “was deceiving himself” in asserting
that Luther’s teaching was the same.
[1150] “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 3.
[1151] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 837 f.
[1152] _Ibid._, p. 838. He had even ceased to be a true interpreter
since 1527, so we read on p. 842.
[1153] Loofs, p. 842.
[1154] _Ibid._, p. 844.
[1155] _Ibid._
[1156] _Ibid._, p. 845.
[1157] _Ibid._, p. 845 ff.
[1158] _Ibid._, p. 853 f.
[1159] J. Haussleiter, “Aus der Schule Melanchthons, Theologische
Disputationen usw., 1546 bis 1560,” Greifswald, 1897, p. 35.
[1160] _Ibid._, p. 39.
[1161] Cp. Loofs, _loc. cit._, p. 855.
[1162] Haussleiter, _loc. cit._, p. v. Also Loofs, _loc. cit._ Cp.
above, p. 332, n.
[1163] “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889), p.
121 ff.
[1164] Cp. above, p. 3 ff. It should be pointed out in order to
supplement the above statements of Haussleiter and Müller that Luther
nevertheless looks on faith as the acceptance of certain dogmas (cp.
above, p. 14, and vol. v., xxxiv. 1), and thus in some sense recognises
a “rule of faith,” and that not seldom in the most peremptory fashion
he demands obedience to the “injunctions of faith.”
[1165] Page vi.
[1166] Karl Müller (“Symbole,” p. 127 f.) points out very truly that
Melanchthon was in the habit of appealing to Luther’s authority, who,
for his part, “claimed immutability for his own view of the Gospel”;
and further that later followers of Luther, for instance, Flacius,
thanks to this very principle, reverted to the real Luther, and
furiously assailed Melanchthon for his deformation of the Reformer.
According to G. Krüger, “Melanchthon,” p. 12, Melanchthon “in his
revisions (of the ‘_Loci_’) cut himself more and more adrift from
Luther, not always happily, but rather to the detriment of the cause.”
Page 25: “Many are of opinion that the glorious seed of the German
Reformation would have borne much richer fruit had Melanchthon been
different from what he was.” Yet Krüger also says: “Should the Luther
for whom we long ever come, then let us hope that a Melanchthon will be
his right-hand man, that, with the advent of the Titan who overthrows
the old and founds the new, the spirit of peace and kindliness may
still prevail to the blessing to our Fatherland and Church.” What the
aims of the new Luther and new Melanchthon are to be, the author fails
to state.
[1167] Above, p. 8 ff.
[1168] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 69.
[1169] Krüger, “Ph. Melanchthon,” p. 12: “Although Melanchthon, the
academician, did not look upon himself as a born theologian, although
he likened himself to the donkey in the mystery-play, yet he became the
father of evangelical theology.”
[1170] To Camerarius, January 10, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 822: “_meam
sententiam noli nunc requirere fui enim nuncius alienæ causæ_.”
[1171] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 865.
[1172] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358. He gives no references.
[1173] Above, p. 150 ff.
[1174] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 378; Erl. ed., 29, p. 5.
[1175] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.
[1176] Vol. v., xxxi. 1 and 4.
[1177] “Anal. Lutherana et Melanchthoniana. Tischreden Luthers und
Aussprüche Melanchthons,” 1892 (usually quoted here as “Mathesius,
Aufzeichnungen”).
[1178] Page 178.
[1179] Page 158.
[1180] Page 143.
[1181] Page 178.
[1182] Page 186. On Melanchthon’a belief in devils and witches see
K. Hartfelder, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 1889, p. 252 ff. Cp. N. Paulus,
“Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, pp.
27, 41, 121.
[1183] Page 184.
[1184] Page 160.
[1185] Page 161.
[1186] “Vita Melanchthonis,” c. 22.
[1187] Page 177.
[1188] Page 19.
[1189] Page 159.
[1190] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400.
[1191] “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 133, in a work against Thamer.
Cp. N. Paulus, “Servets Hinrichtung im lutherischen Urteil,”
“Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 161 ff., and “Luther und die
Gewissensfreiheit,” 1905, pp. 40-53; likewise “Protestantismus und
Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911.
[1192] “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 362.
[1193] _Ibid._, p. 524.
[1194] _Ibid._, p. 852.
[1195] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 602.
[1196] Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” p. 47 ff. Paulus
quotes from a pamphlet of Melanchthon’s—which escaped the notice of
the editors of his works—entitled “Prozess, wie es soll gehalten
werden mit den Wiedertäufern,” and dated 1557. Here we read that even
the Anabaptist articles which did not concern the secular government
were to be punished as blasphemies, as for instance the rejection of
infant baptism and the denial of the Trinity. Such articles were not to
be regarded as of no account, “for the Jewish fallacy that Christ did
not exist previous to His Incarnation is plainly blasphemous, and so is
the denial of original sin,” etc. Then follows the list of penalties.
The memorandum is signed by the theologians Melanchthon, J. Brenz, J.
Marbach, J. Andreae, G. Karg, P. Eber, J. Pistorius and J. Rungius.
[1197] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 45: “No less than nine reasons are alleged
to prove that Christian rulers, like the Jewish kings, are bound by
Divine law to root out idolatry.”
[1198] Letter to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14,
1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 538.
[1199] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 154. Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 5.
[1200] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 615.
[1201] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 157.
[1202] “Von der Freyheit eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
7, p. 34 f., 29; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 195 f., 187.
[1203] Cp. above, p. 324 ff.
[1204] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, pp. 604, 608.
[1205] To Bishop Andreas Cricius, October 27, 1532, in Kawerau, “Die
Versuche, Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” p. 13, from T.
Wierzbowski, “Materialy,” etc., Warsaw, 1900.
[1206] To Camerarius, November 27, 1539, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 840:
“_dolores animi acerbissimi et continui_.”
[1207] To Bucer, August 28, 1544, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 474. In the
same letter: “_noster Pericles_ [Luther] _rursus tonare cœpit
vehementissime_”; Amsdorf was inciting him against the writer on
account of the question of the Sacrament.
[1208] To Camerarius, October 31, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 683.
[1209] To the same, March 23, 1525, _ibid._, p. 729: “_Reliqui vulgus
sunt_.”
[1210] To the same, July 4, 1526, _ibid._, p. 804. See his letter on
Luther’s marriage in our vol. ii., p. 176.
[1211] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 619, p. 188, n. Melanchthon reminds
Camerarius that they had “often censured” Luther’s [Greek:
bômoloch’ia]. Cp. vol. ii., p. 178. Camerarius altered not only this
letter in the printed edition, but also others; for instance, that
mentioned above, p. 364, note 4, about the “_vulgus_.”
[1212] Cruciger to Veit Dietrich, August 4, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p.
398: “_Cum alia multa, tum maxime obstat_ [Greek: ê gunaikoturann’is].”
K. Sell, “Phil. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation,” 1898, p. 57:
“The wives do not seem to have got on so well.”
[1213] “Many of the people,” he writes in 1524, “attach themselves
to Luther as the champion of freedom; they are weary of the good old
customs ... many of them think that Luther merely teaches contempt
of human traditions.” (In the _Epitome_ addressed to the Landgrave
of Hesse [above, p. 348, n. 1].) Cp. Döllinger, _loc. cit._, 3, p.
301. He laments in similar fashion the results of Luther’s behaviour
in 1527, complaining that the people had become “over-confident and
had lost the sense of fear” because they heard nothing about penance.
This one-sided preaching of the Gospel resulted “in greater errors
and sins than had ever existed before.” Döllinger, _ibid._, 3, p.
302. Melanchthon regarded the writings of his friend, particularly on
account of their exaggeration, with “ever-increasing distrust.” “The
great man’s boisterousness began to alarm him.... There is no doubt
that it was from this quarter that the misgivings first arose which
nipped and caused to wither the blossoms of their previous so intimate
relationship.” Thus Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 187.
[1214] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.
[1215] May 12, 1536. _Ibid._, 3, p. 68 _seq._
[1216] Caspar Aquila, as early as 1527, accused him of abandoning
Christianity and of being a Papist. Cp. Melanchthon to Aquila, November
17, 1527. “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 961. Cp. the letter to the same of the
middle of November, 1527, _ibid._, p. 959.
[1217] To the Saxon minister Carlowitz, April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,”
6, p. 879 _seq._
[1218] To Justus Jonas, November 25, 1527, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 913:
“_quam si vivus in eiusmodi miserias incideret_.”
[1219] See above, p. 321.
[1220] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 241.
[1221] On June 13, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.
[1222] On June 30, 1530, p. 50.
[1223] “Die Versuche,” p. 65.
[1224] _Ibid._, p. 10.
[1225] This proposition stands at the head of the 1535 edition of
the “_Loci_.” He had intended in this work, so he says, “_colligere
doctrinam catholicam ecclesiae Christi_,” as taught by those witnesses.
“Corp. ref.,” 21, p. 333. In 1540 he declared further that the Churches
accepting the Augsburg Confession held fast to the “_perpetuus
consensus veræ ecclesiæ omnium temporum_,” as to that of the Prophets
and Apostles; Ambrose, Augustine, etc., agreed with them—if only they
were rightly understood. “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 494.
[1226] Paolo Vergerio, January 13, 1541, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 22.
[1227] Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 66 f.
[1228] _Ibid._, p. 33. Cordatus to Cruciger, August 20, 1536, “Corp.
ref.,” 3, p. 159. In a letter to the latter of September 17, 1536, he
bases his blame of Melanchthon on his praise of Luther (“_Præceptor
noster, qui est doctor doctorum theologiæ. Amen._”), to whose doctrine
it was necessary to hold fast.
[1229] “_Vita Erasmi_,” ed. Lugd. Batav., 1615, p. 259. Kawerau,
_ibid._, p. 17.
[1230] Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 31.
[1231] “_In plerisque controversiis iudicandis meam opinionem ad tuam
sententiam libenter adiungo._” Letter of May 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3,
p. 68 _seq._
[1232] His theses on the Primacy and his other polemical statements
(see below, xx. 4) are scarcely “better-sounding.” A good resolution
here made runs as follows: “_Ad has materias tractandas afferam
aliquanto plus curæ ac studii quam antea._”
[1233] Kawerau’s opinion, p. 33.
[1234] To Camerarius, November 30, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 193. After
mentioning the report Melanchthon adds: “_Nihil mihi obicitur, nisi
quod dicor plusculum laudare bona opera_”; all the truth in this was
that “_quædam minus horride dico quam ipsi_,” i.e. than Luther and his
more enthusiastic followers.
[1235] With the expression “unhappy fate” we may compare his lament
over the “_rixæ religionum, in quas meo quodam fato incidi_” (To
the Imperial Secretary Obernburger, June 23, 1532, “Corp. ref.,”
2, p. 602). Kawerau remarks (p. 15): “It is indeed sad to find
Luther’s greatest friend speaking of his having been involved in the
ecclesiastical struggles of his time as a misfortune.”
[1236] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 313: “He probably made use here of an
intentionally ambiguous phrase in order to curry favour with the
Bishop, for it is clear that he never meant to promote a restoration
of the hierarchical order, though Cricius may well have supposed this
from his letter. Hence we see that in the execution of his plans,
Melanchthon was not above having recourse to craft.”
[1237] Letter of October 27, 1532. For its publication by T.
Wierzbowski see Kawerau, p. 78, n. 17. Kawerau rightly emphasises the
fact that, according to the text of the letter, Melanchthon refuses to
break with Luther merely “on the weak ground that he, as a right-minded
man (_vir bonus_), could not make up his mind to approve, let alone
admire, the cruel and bloodthirsty plans of the Romanists.... Should
the ‘_moderata consilia_’ prevail amongst the Catholic bishops, then
he would be quite willing to come to terms.... We cannot but see how
gladly he would have taken refuge in a haven where he would be safe
from the theological storm. This letter shows him as a moderate, and,
at the same time, as a true representative of Humanist interests.” For
the further efforts of Cricius, who wrote in 1535, that he was acting
on behalf of, or at least with the express sanction of, the Pope and
the Cardinals, see Kawerau, p. 18 ff. Melanchthon’s writing of August,
1532, to the Elector-Cardinal Albert of Mayence, in which, in the
most respectful terms, he begs the Primate of Germany, so hated by
Luther, “to procure a milder remedy (cp. ‘_moderata consilia_’) for the
dissensions in the Churches,” is also of importance; all right-minded
men in Europe (_boni omnes_) were looking to him. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p.
611 _seq._ In these letters we see his earnest efforts “to bring about
peace and avert civil war,” as he writes to Erasmus.
[1238] On January 31, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 567.
[1239] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 353.
[1240] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 _seq._
[1241] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 266.
[1242] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 349.
[1243] _Ibid._, p. 351 f.
[1244] Ellinger, p. 414. The exclamation was called forth by his sad
experience over the Naumburg bishopric (see below, p. 375, and vol. v.,
xxx. 4).
[1245] This tendency is also manifest in Melanchthon’s many labours
for the promotion of education. In place of the old, independent
Universities of the Middle Ages, enjoying ecclesiastical freedom and
partaking of a quasi-international character, there sprang up, wherever
Melanchthon’s influence prevailed, High Schools with a more limited
horizon destined to supply the sovereign of the land with servants
for the State, officials and preachers, but, above all, to safeguard
the true Evangel. “All the reformed Universities established at
Melanchthon’s instance,” remarks Carl Sell, a Protestant theologian,
“Marburg, Tübingen, Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Leipzig, Königsberg,
Greifswald, Heidelberg, Rostock, Jena, and finally Helmstädt, were
State Universities, and, like Wittenberg, intended as citadels of
the pure faith. Hence their professors were all bound by the new
Confession.... The old, unfettered liberty of the Church’s Universities
was now subordinated to the ends and needs of the State.” “Philip
Melanchthon als Lehrmeister des protest. Deutschland,” 1897, p. 19.
_Ibid._, p. 11, Sell thus characterises the State-Church promoted by
Melanchthon and by Luther likewise: “The German Reformation never
succeeded in producing a new ecclesiasticism. What grew up beneath its
sway was rather a confessional State, which declared itself at one
with that form of the Christian religion which the head of the State
regarded as right.”
[1246] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 281. “Symbol. Bücher,^[10]” p. 339 (in the
Articles of Schmalkalden, “_Tractatus de potestate papæ_”).
[1247] Thus Kolde in the Introduction to his edition of the “Symbol.
Bücher^[10]” just referred to, p. xxv., n. 2, adding: “A preliminary to
this is possibly to be found in ‘Corp. ref.,’ 3, p. 240 _seq._”
[1248] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, pp. 354, 364.
[1249] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 422.
[1250] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 377.
[1251] On this “miracle,” see above, p. 162.
[1252] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578 _seq._ “Zeitschr. für die hist. Theol.,”
28, 1858, 606 f. On Melanchthon’s insincerity cp. also O. Ritschl,
“Dogmengesch.,” 1, 1908, p. 232.
[1253] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 411.
[1254] _Ibid._, p. 26.
[1255] _Ibid._, p. 16.
[1256] To Julius Pflug, August 20, 1531, “_Erasmi Opp._,” ed. Lugd., 3,
col. 1412. Kawerau, “_Versuche_,” p. 31.
[1257] “_B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ_,” etc., ed. O. Braunsberger, 1, p.
359 _seq._
[1258] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “_Equidem studeo omni officio tueri
concordiam nostræ academiæ, et scis me etiam hoc genere artis aliquid
adhibere solere_,” etc. It is possible that the above reference to a
“_plaga_,” or some other similar passage, gave rise to the singular
misapprehension of certain polemics, viz. that Luther had been in the
habit of coercing Melanchthon by striking him and boxing his ears,
surely one of the most curious, and at the same time baseless, of all
the legends concerning Luther.
[1259] On November 4, 1543, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 218.
[1260] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 433. Cp. Melanchthon to Johann Sturm,
August 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917: The Court had prevailed on
him not to leave Wittenberg, chiefly because it regarded his presence
as indispensable owing to his power for mediating: “_me putant
aliquanto minus vehementem aut pertinacem esse quam sunt alii_.” He
regrets, with a hint at the Luther-enthusiasts, the “_democratia aut
tyrannis indoctorum_” prevalent in both Catholic and Lutheran camps....
“_Non dissimulo evectos etiam esse nostros interdum [Greek: hyper ta
eskammena], et multa mitigavi._”
[1261] “_Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili_,” he says in the letter
to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879.
[1262] See n. 3 of last page.
[1263] Hipler, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Humanismus,” p. 45. Kawerau,
“_Versuche_,” p. 31.
[1264] Explanation of Article xviii., “Werke,” 2, 1908, p. 147.
[1265] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 34 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 11. Cp.
“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 310. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 63.
[1266] See below, p. 409.
[1267] “Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce) noch fest
stehen widder die Schwermgeister,” 1527, “Werke,” _ibid._, 38 ff.=14 ff.
[1268] Fragment in Migne’s “P.L.,” 5, col. 348 _seq._
[1269] “_De Trinitate_,” 18, c. 14. “P.L.,” 10, col. 247.
[1270] “_Ep. ad Smyrnæos_,” 7. Migne, “P.G.,” 5, col. 714. Instead
of the passages here quoted, certain others were preferred in that
controversy.
[1271] We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the
strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic
sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u.
K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact
the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of
Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar,
not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the
withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of
the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ
without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by
the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who
compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana
and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation.
Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation
as any obstacle to joining his party (“_nihil morati si quis eam alibi
credat vel non_”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543,
“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.
[1272] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.
[1273] _Ibid._, p. 130.
[1274] _Ibid._, p. 108.
[1275] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.
[1276] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.
[1277] “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.
[1278] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.
[1279] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.
[1280] See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.
[1281] To Prior Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p.
326. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907 (with a discussion
of G. Barge’s “Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt”), and “Kirche, Gemeinde
und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.
[1282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 340; Erl. ed., 64, p. 394 f., from
the “Report” on their meeting.
[1283] “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p.
89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 165.
[1284] _Ibid._, p. 86=162: He points out why Andrew Carlstadt, “so far
as my prayers may avail, shall not be permitted to come in again, but
shall again depart should he secure admittance, unless he becomes a
new Andrew, to which may God help him.” He had not interpreted the law
of Moses aright nor applied it to the authorities, but to the common
people. The authorities ought to forbid the country to such preachers
as did not teach quietly but drew the mob to them, pulled down images
and destroyed churches at their pleasure behind the backs of the
authorities. Carlstadt’s spirit and that of his followers was a “spirit
of murder and revolt.” Here he does not refer to the difference on the
doctrine of the Sacrament. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” pp.
175-178. For the circumstances attending his banishment, see below, p.
391 f.
[1285] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 676.
[1286] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 125; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205. The first
part was in print at the end of 1524, the second part about the end of
January, 1525. Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 685.
[1287] Luther to the Elector of Saxony, September 12, 1525, “Werke,”
Erl. ed., 53, p. 327 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 240).
[1288] Carlstadt to Luther, previous to September 12, 1525,
“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 239: “_Fui olim frater (tuus) fortasse
non nimium commodus sed posthac mancipium ero et obsequibile et
suspiciens._” He describes to Luther the poverty to which he, with his
wife and child, were reduced.
[1289] See passage from Alberus, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p.
240, n. 1.
[1290] K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 194.
[1291] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.
[1292] _Ibid._, p. 161.
[1293] _Ibid._, p. 144.
[1294] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 88.
[1295] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 124.
[1296] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 37.
[1297] On September 13, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 23.
[1298] To Jacob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p.
452.
[1299] To Amsdorf, April 13, 1542, _ibid._, p. 463.
[1300] To Probst, as above.
[1301] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 213; Erl. ed., 29, 296.
[1302] _Ibid._, p. 134=206.
[1303] In “Thomas Zweifels Rothenburg im Bauernkrieg,” ed. Baumann
(“Bibl. des Litt. Vereins in Stuttgart,” 139), p. 20.
[1304] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, pp. 271, 273.
[1305] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 112 ff.; Erl. ed., p. 29, p. 190 ff.
[1306] _Ibid._, p. 114=193.
[1307] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 116; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.
[1308] Ickelsamer, “Clag,” etc. (ed. Enders, “Neudrucke,” No. 118,
1893). Cp. for instance “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 209; 53, p. 274.
[1309] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 687.
[1310] “Summa theol.,” 1-2, q. C. a. 3.
[1311] In a letter to Spalatin as early as May 29, 1522,
“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377.
[1312] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 164; Erl. ed., 29, p. 241.
[1313] _Ibid._, p. 182 f.=261.
[1314] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 115; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.
[1315] Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” p. 53. For the Prophecy see above, p.
165 f.
[1316] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 134; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205.
[1317] _Ibid._, 15, p. 394=53, p. 274.
[1318] Sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 80.
[1319] _Ibid._, p. 287.
[1320] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 391; Erl. ed., 53, p. 271 f. (“An die
Christen zu Straspurg”).
[1321] _Ibid._, 18, p. 214=29, p. 297.
[1322] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 390 f.=53, p. 276 f. (“An die
Christen zu Straspurg”).
[1323] Sermon of March 25, 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 76 _seq._
[1324] Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” pp. 43, 44, 45.
[1325] Glatz to Luther, January 18, 1525, in Enders, “Luthers
Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 107.
[1326] To Link at Altenburg on February 7, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p.
122.
[1327] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 376. Cp. _ibid._, p. 372 ff.
[1328] Förstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” 1,
p. 322.
[1329] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.
[1330] _Ibid._, p. 138.
[1331] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.
[1332] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.
[1333] O. Clemen, “Johann Sylvius Egranus” (“Mitt. des Altertumsvereins
für Zwickau und Umgegend,” 1899, Hft. 6 and 7; Sonderabd., 1 and 2), 1,
p. 28.
[1334] “Historien,” p. 222.
[1335] _Ibid._, p. 79.
[1336] M. J. Weller, “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” Chemnitz,
1760 ff., 2, p. 783. Weller, 1, p. 177, gives one of Egranus’s letters
of 1523, in which he says: “_propter Lutherum neque evangelium neque
Christum ... nominare tutum est_.”
[1337] Clemen, _ibid._, 2, p. 11 f.
[1338] Bl. A. 3a. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 135.
[1339] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 488.
[1340] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343 (in 1544).
[1341] _Ibid._, p. 90.
[1342] _Ibid._, p. 207.
[1343] To Wolfgang Wiebel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 208
(“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 367).
[1344] Clemen, _ibid._, p. 16, with a reference to Loesche’s “Leben des
Mathesius,” 1, 1895, p. 88.
[1345] Plentiful proofs in N. Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” p. 1 ff.
[1346] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.
[1347] For these passages and some others, see Döllinger, _ibid._, p,
136 f. Cp. Clemen, _ibid._, 2, p. 14.
[1348] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 267.
[1349] _Ibid._, p. 266 _seq._
[1350] _Ibid._, p. 267.
[1351] L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where
Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is
made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s
opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s
Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a
picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more
prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.
[1352] Reprint of Luther’s _Praefatio_ in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8;
“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502 _seq._
[1353] First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener
Staatsbibl.).
[1354] p. 2.
[1355] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter,
which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538
(_illo die_).
[1356] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.
[1357] _Ibid._, p. 412.
[1358] “Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”
[1359] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).
[1360] _Ibid._, p. 381.
[1361] H. Kawerau, “RE. für prot. Theol.,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”
[1362] See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 528, where the “contravention of
the rights of the Chapter” is admitted.
[1363] To Bugenhagen, November 24, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 127.
[1364] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 147 f. See above, p. 204.
[1365] Mathesius, _ibid._, p. 274.
[1366] In the work called “_Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis
et sanguinis Iesu Christi_” (end of August, 1525). See “Luthers
Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 447. Zwingli replied to Bugenhagen in a
writing of October, 1525. In the “Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmal
Christi,” which Zwingli published in February, 1526, in vindication
of his denial of the Real Presence, he, as in his previous writings,
avoided naming Luther. Since at Basle in September, 1525, [Œcolampadius
also advocated the figurative sense of the words of institution in
his writing, “_De genuina verborum Domini expositione_,” and Caspar
Schwenckfeld and Valentine Krautwald sought to propagate the same in
Silesia, while Carlstadt was winning adherents by his attacks upon the
Sacrament, Bugenhagen’s work was all the more timely. Johann Brenz
espoused his cause, in opposition to the figurative interpretation,
in his “Syngramma” of October, 1525, and so did Jacob Strauss. The
“Sacramentarian” movement had grown before Luther followed up his
vigorous refutation of Carlstadt’s denial of the Sacrament (in his book
“Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” and in his sermon of 1526 on the
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the fanatics) by his
polemical Tractate against Zwingli and [Œcolampadius on the words of
Christ, “This is My Body” (1527). See above, p. 379 f.]
[1367] Spengler to Veit Dietrich, in Mayer’s “Spengleriana,”
p. 153. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 141.
[1368] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 25.
[1369] _Ibid._, p. 89.
[1370] E. Hörigk, “Joh. Bugenhagen und die Protestantisierung
Pommerns,” Mainz, 1895, p. 19 f.
[1371] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. Cp. p. 220. Cp.
Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 10, where Luther relates how
Bugenhagen calmed him when the devil almost choked him with the passage
1 Timothy v. 11, and drove him “from _gratia in disputationem legis_.”
[1372] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.
[1373] Bugenhagen to Luther, Jonas and Melanchthon (beginning
of November, 1530), “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 304 ff.: “The words
[of the devil] Acts xxix.[15] came to my mind: ‘Jesus I know and Paul I
know,’ etc. He has often troubled me ... I have not yet forgotten what
he sought to do through the Sacramentarians of Silesia (see p. 409, n.
3). In the matter of other sins he may have seemed to triumph over me,
but, thanks be to Christ, he may indeed have come to me, but has not
been able to remain. I again exhort you herewith that you pray for me,”
etc.
[1374] In the letter, p. 307.
[1375] “Zwo wunderbarliche Hystorien zu Bestettigung der Lere des
Evangelii, Johann Pomer, Philipp Melanchthon.” According to Enders, 8,
p. 304, probably published at Nuremberg (by Luther’s friend, W. Link)
in 1530 or the beginning of 1531.
[1376] Cp. B. Heyne, “Uber Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen
Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 52 ff.
[1377] To Wenceslaus Link, December, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.
[1378] Wolfgang Musculus (“Itinerar.,” May 25, 1536), in Kolde,
“Analecta Lutherana,” p. 220.
[1379] On July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” p. 245.
[1380] July 26, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 183 (“Briefwechsel,”
11, p. 250).
[1381] Saxo to Bugenhagen, July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,”
ed. Vogt, p. 151: “_actum esse de Pauli collo_,” etc.
[1382] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 181.
[1383] _Ibid._, p. 380. See above, p. 230.
[1384] _Ibid._, p. 385.
[1385] Voigt, “Herzog Albrecht,” in Raumer, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 2, p.
314. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 142.
[1386] Bugenhagen, “Wahrhaftige Historie,” Wittenberg, 1547,
Conclusion. P. Knittel in “KL.”², Art. “Bugenhagen.”
[1387] Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 142.
[1388] On February 4, 1538, from Copenhagen, “Luthers Briefwechsel,”
11, p. 329.
[1389] The Superintendent of Zealand, Peter Palladius, who had betaken
himself to Denmark with Bugenhagen from Wittenberg, writes: “The
thieves [monks] have now been driven out of the land, and some of them
hanged.” L. Schmitt, “Der Karmeliter Paulus Heliä, Vorkämpfer der
kathol. Kirche gegen die sog. Reformation in Dänemark,” Freiburg, 1893,
p. 160 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 19.
[1390] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 300 f.
[1391] On November 21, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” p. 162 ff.
Hörigk, _loc. cit._, p. 35 f.
[1392] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219.
[1393] _Ibid._, p. 114.
[1394] _Ibid._, p. 178.
[1395] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 83, in 1540.
[1396] _Ibid._, p. 84.
[1397] _Ibid._, p. 106.
[1398] H. Weller to the Councillors at Halle, April 18, 1567,
“Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 343.
[1399] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 26, where he states that Luther also
found fault with Katey’s many words, “_quibus ipsa perpetuo optima
verba eius interturbabat. Et D. Ionas eadem erat virtute._”
[1400] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 317 _seq._
[1401] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219. See above, p. 110 f.
[1402] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313, in 1543.
[1403] _Ibid._, p. 79.
[1404] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175: “_tantum unum habere
rusticum ex tot pagis_,” etc.
[1405] See vol. iv., xxiv. 4.
[1406] Cp. G. Kawerau, “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. lv. f., and also in
“RE. für prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Jonas.”
[1407] Kawerau, in “RE.,” _ibid._ Concerning his polemics with Wicel,
Kawerau admits (in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. xxxviii.) that “Georg
Witzels historia” by Jonas is no “reliable source,” and of the attack
on the Emperor he declares (p. xlix.) that, during the Schmalkalden
War, Jonas caused him to be prayed against as “Antichrist.”
[1408] On February 9, 1534, Kolde, “_Anal. Lutherana_,” p. 204. For
other similar passages see above, p. 277 f.
[1409] To Bullinger, April 9, 1534, _ibid._, p. 205: “_furit et
debacchatur in quoslibet ... sicque devovet viros sanctissimos_,” etc.
[1410] Letter of December 8, 1543. Cp. Hess, “Leben Bullingers,” 1, p.
404 _seq._
[1411] See vol. ii., p. 363 ff.
[1412] F. X. Funk in “KL.,”² Art. “Wiedertäufer,” col. 1491, 1483.
[1413] G. Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 92.
[1414] “Comment. in Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 8.
[1415] So at least says Luther in the Preface to a work of Urban Regius
against the Anabaptists of Münster, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 332:
“They write: That there are,” etc. Luther strongly urges the contrary.
[1416] In the Preface to the “Neue Zeitung von Münster,” _ibid._,
p. 336. Cp. Luther’s letter to Frederick Myconius on July 5, 1534,
“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 62: “_De anabaptistis Monasteriensibus parum
curo. Satan furit, sed stat Scriptura._”
[1417] To Jacob Probst at Bremen, August 23, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10,
p. 197 f.
[1418] Cp. Bucer to Luther, August 25, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,”
8, p. 209 ff. Nicholas Gerbel to Luther, from Strasburg, October 21,
1530, ibid., p. 292; Luther to Joh. Brismann at Riga, November 7, 1530,
ibid., p. 312: “_Sacramentarios, saltem Strassburgenses, nobiscum in
gratiam redire spes est_”; he adds, however, a doubt as to Bucer’s
sincerity: “_Si non fallit quod dicit; admonui enim, ne simularet_.”
[1419] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 75 _seq._
[1420] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 348, with account of the acceptance of
the Concord.
[1421] Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 125.
[1422] Luther to Jacob Meyer, Burgomaster of Basle, February 17, 1537,
“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 172 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 201). To this
letter Luther frequently refers as best expressive of his standpoint.
[1423] _Ibid._
[1424] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 348.
[1425] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 46.
[1426] On May 6, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 200 (“Briefwechsel,”
11, p. 357).
[1427] On June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 567 f.
[1428] June 20, 1543, _ibid._, p. 571.
[1429] To the printer, Christoph Froschauer, at Zürich, August 31,
1543, _ibid._, p. 587.
[1430] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 396 _seq._
[1431] See “_Concilii Tridentini Actorum Pars 1_,” ed. S. Ehses, 1904.
Introduction by Ehses, chap. 10. Cp. Pastor, “Gesch. der Päpste,” 4, 2,
1907, pp. 471 ff., 582 ff.; 5, 1909, p. 31 ff.
[1432] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 395 _seq._ In the writing “Etliche
Sprüche wider das Concilium Obstantiense” (Constantiense).
[1433] _Ibid._, p. 393. Cp. _ibid_., p. 411; cp. his mocking
“Ausschreibung eines heiligen freien, christlichen Conciliums.”
[1434] Vergerio to Ricalcati, November 13, 1535 (“Nuntiaturber.” 1,
ed. W. Friedensburg, p. 539 ff.). “Corp. Ref.,” 2, p. 987 (Spalatin’s
note). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 58 (Table-Talk), Pallavicini,
“Storia del Conc. di Trento,” 3, 18. Sarpi, _idem_, 1, n. 74. Cp.
Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 371 ff. Pastor, _op. cit._, 5, p. 49 f.
[1435] On November 10, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 267: “_Egi Lutherum
ipsum tota mensa_.”
[1436] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 375.
[1437] “Senza nervo, sensa iudicio et una bestia.” “Nuntiaturberichte,”
p. 543. “Bestia” in such a connection even now does not signify a
“beast,” but rather a foolish man of whom no use can be made.
[1438] “Ha li occhi sguerzi, li quali quanto più io mirava, tanto più
mi pareva di vederli appunto simili a quelli, che qualche volta io ho
veduto, di qualche uno iudicato inspiritato, così affogati, inconstanti
et con certo come furor et rabie, che vi si vede dentro” (p. 541).
[1439] “Che egli habbia qualche demonio adosso.”
[1440] In Friedensburg, “Nuntiaturberichte,” p. 554.
[1441] On Vergerio, particularly on his trial, see G. Buschbell,
“Reformation und Inquisition in Italien um die Mitte des 16. Jahrh.,”
Paderborn, 1910, p. 103 ff.
[1442] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 181 ff.
[1443] _Ibid._, p. 184.
[1444] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 168; also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5,
p. 51 ff. “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 202. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 385.
[1445] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 126 _seq._ “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 137.
[1446] Seckendorf (“Comment de Lutheranismo,” 3, p. 145) says of the
words “with the fist”: “_id est calamo_.” This is confirmed by a
statement of Luther’s, according to which he was determined to write
against the “Romish beast” with an even stronger fist (below, p. 437).
[1447] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 384.
[1448] See below, p. 439.
[1449] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 413 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed.
Bindseil, 3, p. 169.
[1450] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 436.
[1451] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 389.
[1452] _Ibid._, p. 390 f.
[1453] _Ibid._
[1454] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 130´.
[1455] N. Ericeus in the Sylvula MS., p. 202´; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette,
6, p. 186, n.
[1456] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 58.
[1457] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 185.
[1458] _Ibid._, 5, p. 59.
[1459] “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 200.
[1460] Cp. above, p. 208 f.
[1461] “Tagebuch,” p. 111.
[1462] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 61; cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p.
294.
[1463] _Ibid._, 25², p. 254, 128.
[1464] To Caspar Müller, January 10, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p.
120 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 291).
[1465] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 128.
[1466] _Ibid._, 23, p. 57.
[1467] See vol. vi., xxxvi.
[1468] “Symbolische Bücher,” p. 328 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 272 _seq._
[1469] See above, p. 434.
[1470] “Symbolische Bücher,” p. 336; in n. 39 and 40, the thesis that
the Pope is Antichrist is proved syllogistically from 2 Thessalonians
ii. 3 f.: “_Plane notæ antichristi competunt in regnum papæ et sua
membra_.”
[1471] Page 337 f.
[1472] “_Abolent veros cultus, videlicet exercitia fidei luctantis
cum desperatione._” See above, p. 345, how Melanchthon frequently
emphasises the terrors which precede the working of the evangelical
faith.
[1473] Page 340 ff.
[1474] Kolde, in the Introduction to the 10th edition of the
“Symbolische Bücher,” p. 1. “This was the only official Confession
agreed to at the Schmalkalden Convention.” When Luther caused his
bitter “Artickel”—which had not been accepted at Schmalkalden at all
(above, p. 431)—to be printed in 1538 (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 163
ff.), he nevertheless spoke of them as an official deed agreed to at
the Schmalkalden Convention, declaring: “They have also been agreed
upon unanimously by our followers and accepted, so that—were the Pope
and his adherents ever so bold as to hold a Council, without lying
and deceit but in all sincerity and truth, as he ought to do—these
Articles ought to be publicly put forward as the confession of our
faith.” Was he really ignorant of the actual facts of the case? It was
surely to his interest, after the Conference of Schmalkalden, to inform
himself exactly of the fate of his Articles. Kolde, _ibid._, p. 61, is
of opinion that he evidently made the above assertion “in ignorance
of the negotiations which had taken place at Schmalkalden during his
illness.” Kolde, moreover, shows that Luther’s publication did not even
agree with the original as “presented at Schmalkalden”; but contained
various additions, some of them of considerable length, though “without
any alteration of meaning.”
[1475] “Symbolische Bücher,” _ibid._, p. xlix. f.
[1476] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 346.
[1477] “_De ecclesiæ autoritate et de veterum scriptis._” Kawerau,
“Versuche,” p. 50.
[1478] One of the terms there used by Luther; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30,
3, p. 282; Erl. ed., 25², p. 12.
[1479] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 527, on the preface of 1546, reprinted in
“Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 190 _seq._
[1480] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 528.
[1481] _Ibid._, p. 416, in 1541.
[1482] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, pp. 201, 203, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p.
454 f. Cp. above, p. 321.
[1483] “Die Reformation,” p. 280.
[1484] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 251 ff.: “Ratschlag von der
Kirche.... Mit einer Vorrede und Glosse M. Luthers,” 1538. The writing
begins: “The Pope with his wretched Council is like a cat with her
kittens,” and concludes (p. 277): Unchastity “is no sin at Rome.” Yet
unchastity was one of the abuses assailed in the very writing which
he here reprints, which urges that “Rome ought to be the model and
example of all other cities.” Of the ambition prevalent at Rome he
writes in his usual way (p. 253): “If all such filth were to be stirred
up in a free Council, what a stench there would be.” On the title-page
he depicts three cardinals: “Desperate knaves, bent on cleansing the
Churches with foxes’ brushes” (p. 254).
[1485] Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 38.
[1486] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 272.
[1487] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 507, to Camerarius, March 31, 1538:
“_ridicula deliberatio_,” in which Erasmus’s work was prohibited.
_Ibid._, p. 525, to Spalatin, May 16, 1538, where the whole of the
proposals for reform are called “_illæ cardinalium ineptiæ_.”
[1488] W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 605 f.; he quotes at length
some indecent passages.
[1489] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 346.
[1490] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 212.
[1491] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 96.
[1492] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 371.
[1493] _Ibid._, p. 372.
[1494] Cp. the passage in the reprint of the “_Variata_,” “Corp.
ref.,” 26, p. 357, with the same in the original Confession
(“Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 41). Our quotations are from Loofs,
“Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 864 f.: “In view of the new idea of the
Eucharist which he gradually adopted, we cannot doubt that Melanchthon
was anxious to leave an open door for future agreement with the Swiss.”
Thus Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher”^[10], Introd., p. xxvi.
[1495] Selnecker, “_Hist. narratio de Luthero, postremæ ætatis Elia_,”
Lipsiæ, 1575, Fol. H2: “_Landgravium concepisse optimam spem de
voluntate ipsorum et accessione ad unanimem Augustanam Confessionem
amplectendam, si modo improbatio et damnatio sententiæ ipsorum,
quam hactenus habuissent, eximeretur, atque hoc ipsum clementer
perscripsisse ad D. Philippum et petiisse, exemplaria alia, omissis
illis particulis, imprimi_.” Cp. Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxv. n. 3.
Selnecker took Melanchthon’s part in the theological controversies of
his day.
[1496] “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 367 _seq._
[1497] Kolde (“Symbol. Bücher”^[10], Einleitung, p. xxv.) characterises
the enlarging of Articles v. and xx., the stress laid on the necessity
of Penance and good works, and also Article xviii. (_De libero
arbitrio_) as “real alterations, or at any rate a watering down
of their dogmatic character.” “The chief stumbling-block proved,
not indeed then, but later, to be the wording of Article x. on the
Supper.... That it was here a question of a real change (in the
doctrine of the Eucharist) should never have been denied.”
[1498] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 865 _seq._
[1499] _Ibid._, p. 905.
[1500] See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 6, p.
147).
[1501] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 424 f.
[1502] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 582.
[1503] The writing is entitled “Kurtz Bekentnis,” etc. “Werke,” Erl.
ed., 32, p. 396 ff.
[1504] Kawerau, “Stellung” (above, p. 319, n. 1), p. 30.
[1505] “_Ultima admonitio ad Westphalum._” Cp. “RE. für prot. Theol.
und Kirche”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 526.
[1506] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 578 _seq._ Cp. “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De
Wette, 6, p. 370. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 599.
[1507] Köstlin-Kawerau, _ibid._
[1508] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 440.
[1509] On the book “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” see vol. v.,
xxxiii. 2.
End of Project Gutenberg's Luther, Volume 3 (of 6), by Hartmann Grisar