CHAPTER XL

AT THE GRAVE

1. Luther’s fame among the friends he left behind

The first panegyrics on Luther, the funeral orations and encomiums which were immediately printed and scattered broadcast through Germany constitute an historical phenomenon in themselves. They show orators and writers alike fascinated as it were by Luther’s overpowering personality, and they, in turn, fascinated many thousands who read them. Jonas was the first to deliver at Eisleben an address in his honour, viz. in the afternoon of Feb. 19; this was followed by another by Cœlius previous to the departure of the funeral procession on Feb. 20; whilst Bugenhagen, too, delivered one of his own on the 22nd, after the arrival of the body at the Schlosskirche. The rhetorical effusions of Jonas and Cœlius, who had been present with Luther at the end, likewise Bugenhagen’s address, and the account of Luther’s death which they published in conjunction with Aurifaber, are all crammed with incredible praises. Melanchthon, too, forgetful of all the pain he had suffered at Luther’s hand and shutting his eyes to all his weaknesses, paid his tribute of honour to Luther’s memory, first in a notice affixed at the University, then in a Latin funeral-oration which he delivered in the Schlosskirche as soon as Bugenhagen had had his say, and, again, in a short writing on his friend and master which he prefixed to the second volume of the Latin edition of Luther’s works (1546).

“Alas, gone is the chariot and horseman of Israel” (2 Kings ii. 12), so Melanchthon said in the notice of Luther’s death, which he addressed to the students,[1446] “who ruled the Church in this the old age of the world. For it was not human sagacity that discovered the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and trust in the Son of God, but God revealed it through this man whom He raised up before our eyes.” In his funeral oration he extols the departed as one of the long line of Divine tools starting in Old Testament times, a man taught by God and exercised in severe spiritual combats, of a friendly nature, not at all passionate or quarrelsome and only inclining to be violent when such medicine was needed by the ailments of the age. “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, lovely and of good fame” according to the Apostle (Philip. iv. 8) had been exemplified in him. Now, however, he had gone to join the company of the Prophets in heaven, etc.

According to the similar address delivered by Jonas[1447] only at the end of the world would people clearly see what “splendid revelations he had had when first he began to preach the Evangel.” Luther had the “Spirit of God in rich and exalted measure,” he was “a past master in spiritual combats.” “In the hour of death he had cast all his cares on Christ.” In the spirit of Luther, who was equal to Noe in his words and preaching, Jonas prophesied, that what he had once said would be fulfilled, viz. that, after his death, “all Papists and monks would be scattered and brought low”; Luther’s death, like that of all the prophets, would have in it “a special power and efficacy to overcome the godless, stiff-necked and blinded Papists,” nay, before two years were over, they would all be overtaken by a “gruesome chastisement.”—To such an extent had Luther’s pseudo-mysticism and fanatical expectations infected his pupils. Nevertheless Luther’s admissions concerning the imperfection of his work were also taken over by his pupils. “In spite of the great and bright light of the Evangel,” so Jonas confesses in his funeral oration, “the world has reached such a pass that now among many are found not only the common sins and shortcomings but, to boot, blasphemy, disorders, defiance, or deliberate persistence in the grossest vices; yet no one is ready to acknowledge that he is a sinner.” The sermon in question was again preached by Jonas at Halle later on.

Cœlius, in his funeral oration, declared that no one before Luther had known how to call upon God, how to look up to Him in trouble, or what a man ought to do, or how he was to serve God. But “by him God has unlocked Holy Writ which formerly was a book closed and sealed.” The dear man had been a “real Elias and Jeremias; he was a new John the Baptist, preaching the great day of the Lord, or else an Apostle.”

According to Bugenhagen’s sermon,[1448] the deceased was “undoubtedly the Angel of whom it is written in the Apocalypse (xiv.): ‘And I saw an angel flying through the midst of heaven having the eternal Gospel to preach.’” Through him, “the God-sent reformer of the Church,” God the Father has “revealed” the great mystery of His Beloved Son Jesus Christ.

These eulogies, which owe their fulsomeness partly to the bad taste of the humanistic period, were strong in their effects on men’s minds; the preachers, moreover, who had been trained or appointed by Luther, were anxious thereby to strengthen their own position and to show their scorn for Popery. Even in the above addresses Luther and what he stood for is contrasted with “the oppression and tyranny of the hateful Popedom” from which the world had been delivered. (Bugenhagen.)

In many of the churches Luther’s picture was hung up with the inscription: “The Holy Dr. Martin Luther (‘_Divus et sanctus_,’ etc.).” Writings were published bearing such titles as “Luther, the Prophet,” “Luther, the Wonder-Worker.” All sorts of medals were struck in his honour, one with the inscription: “_Propheta Germaniæ, Sanctus Domini_,” others with Luther’s motto: “_Pestis eram vivus_,” etc.[1449] Even in his lifetime pictures appeared in reprints of his works where he was represented with a halo and with the Dove, as the symbol of the Holy Ghost, descending on him from heaven.[1450]

The most popular biography of Luther was that of Johann Mathesius, who died as pastor of Joachimsthal in Bohemia. He met with a success such as can be accounted for only by the passion in favour of Wittenberg then prevalent in Protestant Germany. The appellations so common in later years, Luther the “Wonder-Worker,” “Chosen Instrument,” “True German Prophet,” “Man full of Grace and the Holy Spirit,” are to be met with already in the “Historien” of Mathesius, delivered originally as sermons and first published in 1566. In these “stories” he has interwoven in Luther’s laurel wreath much that is untrue or doubtful, for instance, the saying attributed to Erasmus and since frequently quoted on his authority, is spurious, viz. “that, when Dr. Luther explains Scripture, on one of his pages there is more reason and common sense than in all the tomes and scrolls of Scotists, Thomists, Albertists, Nominalists and Sophists.”[1451] Mathesius wishes people “not to be forgetful of so worthy a man’s life and testimony,” yet even he gives us a glimpse into the bitter controversies now already raging among the Lutherans; he points out how “God loves the peacemakers and calls them His own dear children while He sends adrift all who delight in war and strife.” He himself had some experience of the antagonism between the progressive party and the more old-fashioned Lutherans. Indeed one of the principal reasons why he wrote the “Historien” was because “many an ungrateful fellow actually forgets this great man and his faithful industry and toil.” He already sees the “Wittenberg cisterns” defiled by “all kinds of brackish, foul, baneful, muddy and uncleanly waters.”[1452]

Though historically the tales of “the pious panegyrist,” as Maurenbrecher a Protestant calls him,[1453] cannot be said to rank very high, yet the energy with which he claims a thoroughly German character for Luther and for his own biographical work was pleasing to many. He uses the term “Prophet of the Germans” _ad nauseam_, even in the Preface addressed to the Wittenberg authorities; God had bestowed Luther “as a gift on us, the descendants of Japhet, and the Holy German Empire in these last days”; he, Mathesius, had a living “under the Bohemian Crown,” but as a German by birth he had “preached officially in his mother tongue” and “of set purpose, had these _German_ sermons, to the honour of Our God and the blessed _German_ Theology, published in German in order that some at least in Germany might be reminded what this blessed _German_ Church in the Kingdom of Bohemia thought of the doctrines of this great _German_ Prophet.”

By his exertions for the preservation of the Table-Talk Mathesius also sought to glorify Luther’s memory.

An influential group of panegyrists, who, like Mathesius, noted down, collected, or published Luther’s utterances, comprises Cordatus, Dietrich, Rörer, Schlaginhaufen, Lauterbach and, to pass over others, Aurifaber, Stangwald and Selnecker. Cordatus, who went as Superintendent to Stendal in 1540, compared Luther’s sayings to the oracles of Apollo.[1454] Aurifaber, one of those present at Luther’s death at Eisleben, became in 1551 Court Chaplain at Weimar and in 1566 pastor at Erfurt. In the “Colloquia,” or Table-Talk, which he caused to be printed at Eisleben in 1566, he says, in the Preface addressed to the Imperial towns of Strasburg, Augsburg, Ulm, Nuremberg, etc., that Luther was the “Venerable and highly enlightened Moses of the Germans.”

Like Aurifaber and Stangwald (1571), Selnecker (1577) took for the motto of his edition of the Table-Talk the words of Christ, “Gather up the fragments that remain,” etc. (John vi. 12); he further embellished his collection with the words:

“What, full of God’s spirit, Luther once taught That doth his godly flock now hold fast.”[1455]

Of the Lutheran die-hards who were never weary of fighting for the true olden spirit of Luther in opposition to the Protestant critics who very soon sprang up, the most eminent were Flacius Illyricus, Justus Menius, Nicholas Amsdorf and Cyriacus Spangenberg.

Concerning the father of the latter, Johann Spangenberg, Luther, in the last days of his life, had advised and “faithfully exhorted, that he should be called as Superintendent [to Eisleben].”[1456] Full of boundless admiration for Luther his son Cyriacus wrote his “Theander Lutherus,” where he says that the latter was the “greatest prophet since the days of the Apostles” and a “real martyr,” particularly because the devil had persecuted him so greatly. In consideration of this he canonises him and speaks of him as “St. Luther.”[1457] In the preface he assures us that it was only Luther’s holy and persistent prayers that had hitherto spared Germany the perils of war which would otherwise have overtaken her. The significant and lengthy title of this remarkable work runs as follows: “Theander Lutherus; of the worthy man of God, Dr. M. Luther’s spiritual Household and Knighthood, of his office as Prophet, Apostle and Evangelist; How he was the third Elias, a new Paul, the true John, the best Theologian, the Angel of Apocalypse xiv., a faithful witness, wise pilgrim and true priest, also a good labourer in our Lord God’s vineyard, all summed up in one-and-twenty sermons.”

Flacius Illyricus, the Wittenberg Professor famous for his connection with the “Magdeburg Centuries,” made Luther’s exemplary life play its part among the “Marks of the true Religion.” He proves in the book bearing this title the advantages of Protestantism over Popery by the mark of holiness, and by the pious life of some of the New Believers so different from that of the Catholics, and, in so doing, he appeals boldly to the founder of Protestantism. Whatever was alleged against Luther was false; “the Papists have never ceased from spreading these untruths, particularly in distant lands where the true state of the case is not so well known.”[1458]

Luther’s most ardent admirer after Flacius was perhaps Nicholas Amsdorf. In the Jena edition of Luther’s works for which he was responsible Amsdorf extols him in the Introduction as a man of God, “the like of whom has not been seen on earth since St. Paul’s day,” a man whom God “had raised up by His special Grace as a chosen instrument and bestowed on the German nation”; “by the Spirit and Word of God he had been led to attack the Pope, and his services in revealing him as Antichrist must be esteemed as highly as his vigorous advocacy of the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation and Justification through Christ.” Nay “he had been specially raised up” “in order to unmask the Roman Antichrist.” But, on account of all his other doctrines too, “pious Christians ought to acknowledge with grateful hearts this great miracle which God has shown to the world and used against the Pope in these last sad times through the precious man of God Martin Luther.” Amsdorf, however, as he hints in the same Preface, found to his dismay that Protestant “cavillers” were now even more numerous than in Luther’s lifetime, who “picked from Luther’s writings only antologies and contradictions.” Some had even dared to distort his writings. He complains that the Wittenberg complete edition of Luther’s works was so unreliable that he was now compelled to undertake the present new Jena edition: “Many things in those tomes were deleted, expurgated and altered for the sake of currying favour.”[1459] The real Luther, particularly as he is seen in his denial of the need of good works, is numbered by Amsdorf among the Saints; this is clear from the title of one of Amsdorf’s works, where he places Luther on a par with the Apostle of the Gentiles.[1460]

## Particularly around Luther’s tomb did veneration centre. Thus the verses

of August Buchner invite his readers to visit Luther’s tomb, and proclaim it a greater thing to have seen this little resting place than even the proud Temple of Capitoline Jove.[1461]

Immediately after his death a lengthy “poem” was published at Wittenberg entitled “Epitaphium,” celebrating both the deceased and his grave:

“In mine own sweet Fatherland I did die a death so grand. At Wittenberg in peace I lie; To God be praise and thanks on high.”

In it Luther tells how he had been sent by God that he might—

“Before the trump of doom unmask that devil’s child The Antichrist, with fiendish sin defiled.”

For ever and for ever it would remain true that

“Pope and Antichrist have sprung From the wicked devil’s dung.”[1462]

His grave was marked only by a stone let into the ground bearing on it a metal plate with his name, the date and place of his death, and his age.[1463]

On a bronze memorial tablet in the wall was described in Latin verse the dark night in which the world was plunged under the Papacy, until at last Luther “once more made known the Grace of Christ, and, moved by the Divine inspiration (‘_Dei adflatu monitus_’) and called by the Word of God, had caused the new light of the Evangel to illuminate the world.” Like Paul his tongue had sent forth lightnings, like John the Baptist he had shown to the world in its darkness the Saving Lamb of God, and also brought to light the Tables of Moses, the Prophet of God, in their counter-distinction from the Gospel. The altars had been purged of the Roman idols. In reward for all this he had been exalted by Christ to the stars in order that he might share in His eternal joy.[1464] Beside the monument there was placed in the following century a framed painting representing Luther in the pulpit, pointing with his finger to the Crucified, while a dragon with wide-open jaws was swallowing the Pope and his helpers. On this painting the verses given above were repeated.[1465]

The Elector Johann Frederick had another memorial tablet cast, but, owing to his defeat in the Schmalkalden War, this was taken by his sons to Weimar and later, in 1571, to Jena, where it was put up in the church of St. Michael. On it, above the life-size figure of the deceased, stands the verse: “_Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua papa_.” Other Latin verses at his feet state that, through him, the great fraud had been exposed whereby godless Rome had ensnared Christ’s flock. Would that Christ would help the orthodox school of Jena to vanquish the swarm of false doctrines (of the New Believers) that was springing up now, when the end of the world was so close.[1466]

2. Luther’s Memory among the Catholics. The Question of His Greatness

A faithful Catholic visiting the Schlosskirche at Wittenberg must necessarily have been assailed by thoughts much at variance with the eulogistic language of the epitaph and other expressions of Lutheran feeling. Let us suppose that one of those zealous and cultured Catholics who had been drawn by the attack on the olden religion into yet closer sympathy with it had crossed the threshold of the church—for instance a preacher such as Dr. Conrad Kling of Halle, who in the midst of trials and slanders was seeking to save the remnants of Catholicism,[1467] or a man like the historian Wolfgang Mayer,[1468] or the learned and sharp-witted Kilian Leib, Prior of Rebdorf,[1469] or one of the highly gifted women of that day, for instance, Charity Pirkheimer, the sister of the humanist and Superior of the struggling Poor Clares of Nuremberg[1470]—what would have been the impressions called forth by the building and the monument?

The building itself recalled the oneness of the divine edifice of the Church whose work it was to build up all the regenerate into one body, without dissensions or divisions, that oneness to which the Church in olden days, when barely out of the hands of the persecutor, had borne witness at the baptismal font of St. Peter’s in Rome in the impressive inscription: “One chair of Peter and one font of Baptism!”[1471] The pulpit of the Schlosskirche called to mind the commission given by the Divine Saviour to His Apostles and their successors to baptise all nations and preach that doctrine which He Himself was to preserve infallible by His Presence “all days even to the end of the world.” The altar reminded the Catholic visitor of the eucharistic Sacrament and of the unbloody sacrifice formerly offered there. The bare walls spoke of the iconoclastic storm against both the images of the Saints and any living union of the faithful on earth with the elect in heaven, while the elaborate monuments to the dead seemed to proclaim in these times of excitement the peace in which those departed men had passed away happy in the possession of the one olden faith.

This ecclesiastical unity—such would have been the thought of the Catholic—has been shattered in our unhappy age by the man whose remains are here honoured by his followers, and not in order to reform, or improve, but rather to replace the thousand-year-old heirloom of the Church by a new faith and worship.

Even Luther’s very monument re-echoed the menaces pronounced by Luther upon Catholicism when he desecrated what was most sacred for so many thousands, and laid rough hands on the one consolation of their sorrowful lives.

The fierce announcement to Popery: “My death will be your plague” fell from his lips not once but often. “Only after my death will they feel the real Luther.” “My life shall be their hangman, my death shall be their devil!”[1472] “When I die I shall become a spirit to plague the bishops, the priestlings and the godless monks so greatly that a dead Luther will spell to them more trouble than a thousand living ones.”[1473]

With the oft-repeated words: “_Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua Papa_,”[1474] which are also engraved on his death mask in the Luther-Halle at Wittenberg, he proclaimed that his death would do more harm to the Papacy than his life; as long as he lived the Papists would benefit to some extent from his labours, but, when he died, they would be deprived even of this. The threat, though grotesque, is quite in keeping with his belief in himself. He says that it is he alone who is still holding back the storm that is threatening to engulf all the Papists. He asks the Catholics of Germany: “How if Luther’s life were of so much value in God’s sight that, did he not live, not one of you would be sure of your life or existence here below, so that his death would be a misfortune to you all?”[1475] He even goes so far as to prophesy: “One day they will cry: Oh, that Luther were still living!”[1476] He parades before the Catholics the services he had rendered by resisting the fanatics and those who denied the Sacrament; the Catholics, so he says, would never have been able to do so much. “They are ungrateful, of this will I speak to them when I am dead. I have inveighed against them enough in the ‘Vermanũg,’ but it is all of no use.”[1477] “After my death the Papists will see all the good I have done them, and in me the saying will be fulfilled: ‘He died justified of his sin.’”[1478]

Thus in his half jesting, half serious fashion he proclaimed himself a sort of defender and pillar of the Papacy. The idea did not seem too strange to his friend Jonas to prevent him introducing it into his funeral oration on Luther: “The Papists,” he says, “Canons, priestlings, monks and nuns would in years to come wish that Dr. Luther still lived; they would gladly obey him, and, if they could, call him from the grave; but their chance is now gone.”[1479]

These great expectations and bold prophecies were as little realised as that of the impending fall of the Papacy.

On the contrary the Papacy gathered strength, renewed its youth from one decade to another and, though the apostasy also grew, yet a gradual revival of the ancient faith set in throughout the Catholic world. On the minds of the faithful Catholics there remained, however, indelibly stamped the gloomy recollection of the towering defiance with which the Wittenberg professor and his secular allies had sought to introduce an alien teaching and reform.

The inflexible will on which Luther so prided himself is the sign manual of his personality. Nothing is so characteristic of Luther as his obstinate determination which yielded to nothing, and the appalling pertinacity that ever drove him on and never allowed him to retreat.

“No one, please God, shall awe me so long as I live!”[1480] To no other principle was he more faithful throughout his life. Thus we hear him declaring:

“Good, then let us bid defiance in God’s name; whoever feels compunction let him draw back; whoever is afraid let him flee!… I have brought Holy Scripture and the Word of God to light as no other has done for a thousand years. I have done my part. Your blood be upon your own heads and not on mine.”[1481]

“When we see and feel the world’s wantonness, anger and hate, let us learn to defy it,” “to the disgust and annoyance of the world.” “This is an exalted defiance and an excellent consolation.” “Defiantly we boast: The Gospel that we preach is not ours but our Lord Christ’s.”[1482]

Luther defied not only “the world,” i.e. his ecclesiastical opponents and Catholicism generally, but also what he calls the devil, i.e. the inner voice that reproached him; he defied life and death, Emperor and princes, and, to boot, his own followers. Yet it was to him not so easy a task to defy the olden Church: “Rather than anger the Christian Church, or say one word against her, I would prefer to lose ten heads and to die ten times over. And yet do it I must.” “They tell us ‘the Christian Church is where Popery is.’ But no, Christ says, ‘My word shall prevail and you shall obey me and listen to me alone, even should you go cracked, mad and crazy over it.’”[1483]

He was highly elated at the thought that the powerful protectors of the Church had “not been able to put him down.”[1484] All their success he regards as mere “devil’s dung”;[1485] the princes, “the tyrants and men of great learning” might be incensed at the blow he had dealt them, but, so he declares, for the defence of his teaching he would have to give them “thirty blows more to induce remorse and repentance.”[1486] For “in this may God give me no patience or meekness. Here I say No, No, No, so long as I can move a finger, let it vex King, Kaiser, princes, devils and whom it may.” “In the matter of doctrine no one is great in my sight, I look upon him as a mere soap-bubble, and even less; this there is no gainsaying.” The same was to hold good of his crass writing on the “Captive Will”: “I defy not only the King [of England] and Erasmus, but also their God and all the devils, fairly and rightly to dispose of that same booklet!”[1487]

“His enemies’ anger and fury,” so he declares when in this mood, is to him “real joy and fun.” He will force himself to be of “good and cheerful heart” about their “baneful books.”[1488]

With frightful earnestness he warns the Catholic princes: “It is the truth that you will go headlong to destruction; I know that on the word will follow the deed and that you will perish.… We have this consolation that we are not affrighted, even should emperors, kings, princes, Pope and bishops fall in a heap and kingdoms lie one on the top of the other.”[1489] “What is a prince or emperor, nay the whole world compared with the Word? They are but dung.” “Papacy, Empire and Grand Turk” mean nothing to us. “Such is our defiance.”[1490]

In his scorn for those who vex him and write against him he is determined to “put out his horns”,[1491] He will be a “huntsman and be after his quarry”; “I hunt the Pope, the cardinals, bishops, canons and monks.”[1492]

Of the defiance of the “hard Saxon”[1493] not only the Papists but the Court-lawyers and the theologians in his own camp had to taste when they annoyed him. Not only did he oppose the Papists, “cheerfully and confidently” condemning them to hell and to “eat the devil’s droppings,” and rejoicing with a “good conscience” at the impending destruction of these “slaves of Satan”;[1494] but he had similar, nay even stronger words of defiance ready for the “false teachers” amongst the New Believers, to wit for the Swiss and for such as Agricola. When the latter defended himself and said, “I too have a head,” Luther retorted: “And, please God, have I not one too.” But with such “stiff-necked” heretics “God was determined to torment him so as the better to defy the Papists.”[1495]

A defiance so utterly overwhelming as Luther’s the world had never before seen. The Catholics were quite dumbfounded. Can we take it ill if they failed to admire this form of Titanic greatness. A frightful greatness (perhaps it were more accurate to say a great frightfulness) indeed lurked behind Luther. Yet a Catholic would have had to throw over all religious and moral standards before he could extol a man as great simply on account of his strength of will, determination, power of resistance, inflexibility and defiance. Men felt that, after all, what was important was the aim and the means used in pursuing it. If all that mattered was merely the inflexibility of the will, this would have spelt an “upsetting of all values” and the strong man, he who towered above his fellows owing to his physical strength and his power of bidding defiance to the world would become the ideal of the human race.

Nor would a thoughtful Catholic contemporary have been much impressed by the modern eulogies of Luther’s defiance.

“Because he feared neither hell nor the devil, he stands out for all time as the embodiment of human greatness”; “in his brave spirit there does not seem to have existed the faintest shadow of the pallid fear of man.” “In word and writing he is the greatest demagogue of all the ages”; “the sledgehammer blows of his berserker fury and wild humour rained down on every side.”

“Since his road led to the goal, it must have been the right road, hence let critics hold their tongues.”

“Such a master knew best what tone to adopt in order to sway the nation.”

“His is the wrath and fury of a hero.… Heroes and hero-fury are inseparable.”

Those who speak in this way admit that there were darker sides to his picture; they, however, insist that, in Luther we see, with “the mighty will of the hero,” “traits of the dæmonic greatness of a leader of history” “casting both light and shadows.” Luther “shook the world to its foundations.” He was a man “of mighty powers and dimensions. In the case of almost all the really great men of history, not only their virtues, but also their defects bear an heroic stamp.” These defects are simply the “reverse side of such a man’s greatness.”

It is to cherish too low an idea of greatness, not merely according to the Christian but also according to the merely natural standard, if strength of will or eventual success are alone taken into account and the aim and whole moral character of the work completely disregarded. In one sense of the word Catholics have never been unwilling to grant Luther a certain greatness, particularly as regards his astounding mental gifts and his powers of work. Döllinger was quite ready in his Catholic days to include “the son of the peasant of Möhra amongst the great, nay, among the greatest of men,” though Döllinger qualifies the admission by the words which immediately follow: “His disciples and admirers were wont to console themselves with the ‘heroic spirit’ of the man, who was so intolerant of any limitations or restrictions and who, dispensed by a kind of inspiration from the observance of the moral law, could do things, which, done by others, would have been immoral and criminal.”[1496]

There was no neutral vantage-ground from which to judge of Luther’s labours and his influence. Every thinking man did so from the ethical standpoint, and the Catholic likewise from the standpoint of his Church. It is clear that Luther must not be tested by the standard of profane greatness, but by a religious one. It would be to do him rank injustice, and he would have been the first to protest were we to consider merely the force of his character and the extent of his success, rather than his objects and his influence from the moral and religious standpoint.

He represented himself to his Catholic contemporaries as a divinely commissioned preacher; in the name of the Lord he called on them to forsake the Church of all the ages, because he had come to proclaim afresh a forgotten Gospel. Hence they were bound to examine the actual state of the case and to probe for the moral signs which the words of Christ and the Apostles had taught them to look for, and, when they found the necessary religious qualities and moral greatness wanting, who can blame them for not having gone over to him? With them it was not a question whether they might admire in him a strong man, a Hercules or “superman,” but whether they were, at his bidding, to sever the tie that had hitherto bound them to the Church, follow him blindly, and commit their eternal salvation to his guidance. Luther had never tired of urging: “No man shall quench or thwart my teaching, it must have its way as it has hitherto for it is not mine” (but God’s).[1497] “I call myself Ecclesiastes [the preacher] by the Grace of God.… I am certain that Christ Himself calls and regards me as such, that He is my master, and that He will bear me witness on the Last Day that it is not mine but His own Gospel undefiled.”[1498] It was this rôle of Evangelist that the better class of opponents felt disposed to examine.

“Because you call yourself an evangelist and proclaimer of the Gospel,” so Duke George of Saxony wrote in his reply to Luther, “it would have better beseemed you to punish with mildness whatever abuses existed therein, and to instruct the people kindly.”[1499] On the contrary, so the Duke urges, his behaviour is anything but that of an “evangelist,” what with his passionate abuse and vituperation, and his criminal breach of the public peace and religious unity: “Where peace and unity are not, there there is neither the true faith, which indeed is not to be found in you.”

* * * * *

It is worth while to consider what response would have been awakened in the minds of serious Catholic visitors to Luther’s grave by his startling success.

Those who to-day claim unqualified “greatness” for Luther are usually thinking of the astonishing success of his undertaking, and of his influence and that of his labours on posterity. They boast: “He tore his age from its moorings,” “he reduced to ruins what for a thousand years had been held in honour”; “he gave a new trend to civilisation.”

A man of insight could, however, explain otherwise many of these effects.

The result of Luther’s preaching was undoubtedly very great. But, in the first place, this result was not solely due to the efforts of one man but was rather the outcome of the circumstances in which that man lived, the product of divers factors in the history of the times.

His contemporaries saw full well that Luther, with his fiery temperament, had merely assumed the direction of a spirit that had long began to pervade the clergy, regular and the secular, leading them to cast aside the duties of their calling and to seek merely honours and emoluments. They were also aware of the oppressive burden of abuses the Church had to carry and of the far-reaching disorders in public life. Society was now anxious to liberate itself from the Church’s tutelage which had grown irksome. Everyone was conscious of the trend of the day towards freedom, individuality and new outlooks. Both the Empire and the olden idea of the Christian nations united as in one family were in process of dissolution owing to political and social trends quite independent of Luther’s work. His contemporaries saw with deep misgiving how Luther’s new doctrine and his innovations generally were strengthening all these elements, and setting free others of a similar nature which could not fail to help on his work. Nevertheless the elements of unrest, without which he would have been unable to achieve anything, were not of his making.[1500]

We can still judge to-day, from the writings of those who lived at that time, of the feelings, in some cases enthusiastic in others full of fear, with which they listened to the Wittenberger as he proclaimed war on all that was obsolete, or demanded in fiery language the reform of the Church, for which all were anxious.[1501] The more alluring and seductive the very word “reformation,” the more effective was the help proffered for the overthrow of the Church under the cloak of this watchword. In the field of learning there were the humanists who had fallen foul of Catholic authority and the spirit of the past; in the lower strata of society there were the peasants who aimed at bettering their position; among the burghers and in official circles hopes were entertained of an increase of authority at the expense of the bishops, now regarded with ever-increasing jealousy; finally the nobles and knights were allured by the prospect of the success of a revolt under the banner of the Evangel which would redound to the advantage of their caste. What chiefly brought Luther’s star into the ascendant was, however, the protection he obtained from the princes. Without his Elector, without the Landgrave of Hesse, without the allies of Schmalkalden, in a word, without political authority on his side, all the force of his words would have availed nothing, or at least would never have sufficed to enable him to found a new Church. The Princes who helped to spread his teaching and reformation saw the lands and privileges of the Church falling into their lap, and what was even more, the extension of their sphere of influence to the spiritual domain where, so far, the Pope and the bishops had reigned supreme.

Thus in his success those well versed in the conditions of the times recognised for the most part only the working of natural causes.

Luther, as all were aware, shortly after having been put under the Ban was wont to say that the movement he had begun was something so great and wonderful that it could not but owe its success to the manifest intervention of God. “It cannot be,” he exclaimed in 1521, “that a man should of himself be able to start such a work and carry it through.”[1502] He was fond of saying he wished no earthly means to be used for arriving at the goal. Yet, in this very statement of 1521, for instance, he refers “to the sermons and writings” by which he had “begun” to disclose the Papists’ “knavery and trickery.” His burning words indeed acted as a spark flung on the inflammable material accumulating for so long. Anyone aware of the condition of Germany and of the artifices by which the author of the gigantic apostasy sought to consolidate his position at Wittenberg by means of the Court, and at the same time to excite the fanaticism of the masses, would feel but little impressed by Luther’s appeal to the apparent simplicity of his writings and sermons, as being out of all proportion to the unexampled success he attained.

He was indeed heard to say that he attributed everything to the words and the divine power of Christ: “Look what it has done in the few years that we have taught and written such truths. How has the Papists’ cloak shrunk and become so short!… What will it be when these words of Christ have threshed with His Spirit for another two years?”[1503] These words were, however, spoken the year after the publication of those fearfully violent writings: “On the Popedom at Rome” (against Alveld), “To the German Nobility,” “On the Babylonish Captivity,” “On the Freedom of a Christian Man” and “Against the Bulls of End-Christ.” When uttered, his seductive writing “On the Monastic Vows” was already there to unbar the gates through which crowds of doubtful helpers would flock to join him.

Catholic polemics of that day, in order to demolish the objection arising from the marvellous spread of Lutheranism, set themselves to examine the relation between the new dogmas and their dissemination. Luther’s doctrine, as they frequently pointed out, was bound to secure him a large following.

In this particular it was easy enough to prove that it was not merely the “greatness” of the man which drew such crowds to him. The persistent vaunting of the universal priesthood, the right bestowed on all of judging of Scripture, the abandoning of the outward and inward Word to the feelings of the individual, the sweet preaching of a faith which “no sin could harm,” the denial of the merit of good works, the assertion that, not they, but only faith was required for salvation, and, not to speak of many other points, his contemptuous and unjust strictures on the Church and her doings, all this—human nature being what it is—could not fail for a time to help the cause of the New Evangel of freedom, and, under the conditions then prevailing, to assure it a real triumph.

This Evangel came upon Germany at a time when the Church’s life was in a state of decay, when the adequate religious instruction of the young was neglected by the Church, and when the dioceses were for the most part governed by younger sons of princely or noble houses, who were quite unfitted for their spiritual work. It is noteworthy that the defenders of the Church had very little good to say of the bishops.[1504]

Of the new preachers and promoters of Luther’s Reformation a large number was composed of apostate clergy and escaped monks and nuns whom Luther had won over. It was plain enough that it was no such “great and immortal” work as he claimed, to have attracted such people to his party thanks to theories which, while seeming to calm the conscience, really flattered the senses, for instance, by what he said on celibacy, vows and priestly ordination. “Do not seek to deny that you are a man, with flesh and blood; hence leave God to judge between the valiant angel-like heroes [those religious who were faithful to the Church] and the sickly, despised sinners [whom they upbraided as apostates].[1505]… Chastity is beyond healthy nature, let alone sinful nature.… There is no enticement so bad as these commands [of celibacy] and vows, forged by the devil himself.” Youthful religious were to be dragged out of their monasteries as quickly as possible, and priests were to learn that theirs was but a “Carnival ordination.” “Holy Orders are all jugglery and in God’s sight they have no value.”[1506]

Hence contemporaries, considering events from the standpoint just described, must needs have told themselves that Luther’s success, unexpected and astounding as it was, could not after all be laid down to the “greatness” of any one single man.[1507]

What, moreover, must have been the thoughts of the observer regarding the permanence of Luther’s work who lived to see the master’s own Lutheranism falling to pieces, according to the statements of his most zealous admirers,[1508] as soon as he was dead? Luther himself almost seemed ready to ring down the curtain on the premature termination of the great tragedy of which he could not but despair.[1509]

* * * * *

In the very year of Luther’s death Cochlæus passed in review the havoc wrought in the Church, embodying his observations in the work he had just finished and was to publish three years later, viz. his “_De Actis et Scriptis Lutheri_.”

These pages seem still to tremble with the excitement of the terrible period they describe. It is impressive to hear this voice of the Catholic spokesman coming as it were from Luther’s tomb and telling of the devastation of the storm raised by the Wittenberg professor. As Kawerau says, Cochlæus himself could point to a life “which, year after year, ever since 1521 had been devoted feverishly to the ecclesiastical debates of the day in which he was so keenly concerned and consumed in ceaseless controversy [with Lutheranism].”[1510] The grey-headed scholar, “illuminated and inspired as he was by the truest spirit of Christianity,”[1511] had once in 1533 declared: “Whatever I write now or at any time against Luther, I write for the glory of God, the service of the truth and the good of my neighbour. For I believe firmly that Luther is a malicious liar, heretic and rebel and I can find nothing but this in his books and in my own conscience.… I am not, however, bitter or hostile to Luther personally, but merely to his wickedness and vices. Were he to desist I would gladly go and fetch back so learned a man from Rome or Compostella and give him my love and my service.”[1512]

Cochlæus calls to mind first of all the course of public events in Germany. At Ratisbon, where he was staying, the Diet of 1546 was opened with great pomp by Charles V at the very time Cochlæus was penning the Preface to his work. He relates how the same Kaiser had declared at the Diet of Worms in 1521 in the edict against Luther that “his writings contain hardly anything but food for dissensions, schism, war, murder, robbery, conflagrations, and a great apostasy of the Christians.”[1513] “The times are grave and perilous,” so his warning had run: “Oh, that they may not mean the disgrace of our country!”[1514] Now, however, Cochlæus sees with grief that “Luther has brought nearly all Germany into shame and confusion.” “Our fatherland has lost all its former beauty,” he exclaims, “and its Imperial power is shattered.” He trembles at the sight of the dangers within and without.[1515]

“The mischief caused by Luther’s revolt is so great that it is out of comparison worse than the effects of even the most unhappy war. Never indeed in the whole of history have the miseries of war caused such injury to Christendom as the blows dealt us by this heresy.” In its consequences it was worse than the triumphal progress of Arianism in early Christian times. He instances the Peasant Rebellion and the frightful destruction that followed in its wake; also the machinations of political alliances, hostile alike to the Church and the State, the loosening of the common bonds that unite the Christian peoples, and the decline of the authority of the rulers, which was “attacked and dragged in the mire by Luther and thus rendered contemptible in the eyes of the masses.”[1516]

Even more loudly does he bewail the ruin of so many immortal souls; owing to Luther, countless numbers have been torn from the bosom of the Mother Church, founded by Christ, and set on the road to eternal damnation. No tears could suffice to bewail this the greatest of all misfortunes. Piety has declined everywhere and the new preaching of faith alone has lamed the practice of good works. “From every class and calling the former zeal for good works has fled.” He also ruthlessly describes the effect of Luther’s doctrines and example on Catholics. “The clergy no longer do their duty in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass and reciting the Church’s office and Hours; to the monks and nuns their Rule is no longer as sacred as it used to be. The charity of the rich, the rulers, and the great has dried up, the people no longer flock to divine worship, their respect for the priesthood, their benevolence and pity for the poor are coming to an end. Discipline and decorum are tottering everywhere and have fared worst of all in our family life. We see about us a dissolute younger generation, which, owing to Luther’s suggestions and his constant attacks on all authority ecclesiastical and secular, has cast off all shame and restraint. On anyone admonishing them they retort with a falsely interpreted Bible text, an invention of pure wantonness, such as ‘increase and multiply,’ etc. So far have things already gone that virginity and continence have become a matter of disgrace and suspicion.” In even darker colours does he paint the sad picture of the moral decline among the Protestants: Morals are trampled under foot, reverence and fear of God have been extinguished, obedience has become a byword, boldness in sinning gains the upper hand and “freedom” of the worst kind reigns supreme.[1517]

Full of grief he comes at last to speak of the man who was responsible for all this misery. Bugenhagen had boasted of Luther’s prophecy that, if in life he had been the Papacy’s plague, in death he would be its death. But the Papacy still lives and will continue to live because Christ’s promise stands. “Luther, however, was the plague of our Germany during his lifetime … and, alive or dead, he was his own plague and destruction.”[1518]

“Woe,” so he concludes, “to his godless panegyrists who call evil good and good evil, and confuse darkness with light, and light with darkness!”[1519]

3. Luther’s Fate in the First Struggles for his Spiritual Heritage

Luther’s reputation was to suffer a sudden and tragic blow owing to the success of the Imperial arms in the War of Schmalkalden.

Hardly had the grave closed over him than, in the following year, after the battle of Mühlheim on April 24, 1547, won with the assistance of Duke Maurice of Saxony, the Kaiser’s troops entered Wittenberg. A notable change took place in the public position of Lutheranism when the vanquished Elector, Johann Frederick, was forced to resign his electoral dignity in favour of Maurice and to follow the Emperor as a captive. His abdication and the surrender of his fortresses to the Emperor was signed by him on May 19 in Luther’s own city of Wittenberg. The Landgrave of Hesse too found himself forced at Halle to submit unconditionally to the overlords of the Empire and to see Duke Henry of Brunswick released from captivity and honoured by the Emperor in the same city.

The dreaded Schmalkalden League, Luther’s shield and protection for so many years, was, so to speak, annihilated over night.

Luther’s theological friends were also made to feel the consequences. Flacius, after the taking of Wittenberg, fled for a time to Brunswick. George Major, Luther’s intimate friend and associate, also escaped, but returned later. Amsdorf was obliged to give up the bishopric of Naumburg of which he had assumed possession, hand it over to the lawful Bishop Julius von Pflug, and hasten to Magdeburg, the new stronghold of the Lutheran spirit.

It is true that Luther’s cause soon recovered, at least politically speaking, from the defeat it had suffered in the War of Schmalkalden; the wounds inflicted on it in the theological quarrels among themselves of its own representatives were, however, more deep and lasting. Here Luther’s prediction was indeed fulfilled to the letter, viz. that his pupils would be the ruin of his doctrines.

_The Osiandric, Majorite, Adiaphoristic and Synergistic Controversies_

The theological warfare which followed on Luther’s decease opened with the Osiandric controversy which arose from the modifications of Luther’s idea of justification introduced subsequent to 1549 by Andreas Osiander, pastor and professor of theology at Königsberg. After Osiander’s death in 1552 the struggle was carried on by the Court preacher Johann Funk who held like views. Johann Brenz also defended Osiander’s opinion, whereas Melanchthon, Flacius Illyricus, Johann Æpinus, Joachim Westphal, Joachim Mörlin and others were opposed to it. Duke Albert of Prussia was for a long time a patron of Osiander’s doctrine, but was persuaded later to alter his views, and his Court preacher Funk did likewise. The old Lutherans, however, continued the struggle against Funk and, in 1566, owing to the charges brought against him by the Estates of abusing his position and of having violently championed “heretical doctrines,” he was beheaded.[1520] Osiander, however, the author of this new “heresy,” had himself been by no means wanting in Lutheran zeal where Catholics were concerned. Already in 1549 he wrote a tract against the Interim entitled: “On the new Idol and Antichrist at Babel,” in which he lashed those who “were sneaking back to Antichrist under cover of the Interim.”

The second, or Majorite controversy broke out at Wittenberg itself, and like the ones which followed was called forth by the opposition of the Lutheran zealots to any Melanchthonian modifications of Luther’s doctrines. George Major, professor at Wittenberg, and subsequently Superintendent at Eisleben, backed by Justus Menius, Superintendent at Gotha, had the courage to declare that works were necessary for salvation, and that, without works, no one could be saved. For this he and Menius were branded as “heretics” by Flacius Illyricus, Nicholas Amsdorf, Johann Wigand, Joachim Mörlin and Alexius Prætorius. It was in the midst of this passionate wrangle, which deeply agitated the ranks of the preachers and disturbed the congregations, that Amsdorf, with a determination and defiance equal to Luther’s own went to the extremes of publishing his tract entitled “That the proposition ‘good works are harmful to salvation,’ is a sound and Christian one.”[1521] Flacius brought a writing against Major to a close with the pious wish that Christ would speedily crush the head of the serpent. Major, the confidant of Luther whom he had once despatched to attend the religious Conference at Ratisbon, was now obliged to give in; he made a shameful recantation. Menius, however, was denounced to the preachers and people as a “Papist,” and, in spite of his weak compliance, was unable to maintain his position against the inquisition put into motion by the higher powers. Although he resigned his office as Visitor and submitted patiently to a reprimand from the Court, he was obliged to leave the land; he besought the sovereign in vain for protection against his theological adversaries and freedom to communicate with the “dear gentlemen” at Wittenberg. The Town Council of Gotha was forbidden to give him a testimonial to the purity of his doctrine, and he himself, in spite of his protest that he was as much heir to Luther’s doctrine as Flacius, was summoned to take his trial before a sort of religious Synod at Eisenach in 1556, which also ousted him from his Superintendency. “He died on Aug. 11, 1558, from the effects of what he had undergone.”[1522]

In the third great controversy, the Adiaphoristic, Flacius Illyricus behaved with great violence, indeed his extreme Lutheran views were the cause of the quarrel which in itself well illustrates the pettiness and acrimony of those concerned in it. The question under dispute was whether certain “indifferent matters” (ἀδιάφορα) sanctioned in the Augsburg Interim of 1547 might be allowed in Protestant circles even though Luther during his lifetime had frowned on them. Under the Elector Maurice the theologians and Estates of the Saxon Electorate had answered in the affirmative. This answer embodied in the so-called “Leipzig Interim,” was firmly contradicted by Flacius. It is true that what was in question was not only ceremonies, images, hymns and such-like external things but also the rites of Confirmation and Extreme Unction, and, in a certain sense, the use of Penance, the celebration of a kind of Mass and the veneration of Saints. Flacius was supported by Nicholas Gallus, Johann Wigand, Nicholas Amsdorf, Joachim Westphal, Caspar Aquila, Johann Aurifaber, Anton Otto and Matthæus Judex. These poured forth a stream of angry tracts against the opposite party, the Wittenbergers, who, however, defended themselves with a will, viz. against Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, George Major, and Paul Eber, and their friends elsewhere, such as the Provost of Magdeburg and Meissen, Prince George of Anhalt, Bernard Ziegler and Johann Pfeffinger of Leipsig, Justus Menius of Gotha, etc. Even the use of lights on the altar and of surplices were to these zealots “Popish abominations” and a sign of the abandoning of all that Luther had won; they even complained, though untruly, that the Wittenberg theologians no longer declared the Pope to be Antichrist.[1523] Bugenhagen, Luther’s right hand man at Wittenberg, had to hear himself charged by Flacius, Amsdorf and Gallus with having denied and falsified Luther’s doctrines and with teaching something not far short of Popery. These Adiaphorists, wrote Amsdorf, “in the name and under the semblance of the Word of God, seek to persuade us to worship the Antichrist at Rome, the Whore of Babylon and the Beast on which she is seated (Apoc. xvii.).” Such dangerous men he brands as “belly servers” “who seek to make terms with the world.” He himself on the other hand was ready to meet the contempt of the world for the falling off in the number of Luther’s true followers, hence on the title-page of the new edition of Luther’s works, which he commenced when the quarrel was at its height (1555), he printed the consoling verses: “Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased the Father to give you a Kingdom” (Luke xii. 32), and “In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John xvi. 33).[1524] Towards the end of the Preface he consoles those who shared his way of looking at things, and, as Luther had done before, he alludes to the near end of the world, when everything would be righted.

At the time when the private judgment Luther had preached was thus bearing fruit we hear Melanchthon groaning: “You see how many teachers are fighting against us in our own Churches; every day new foes spring up, as it were, from the blood of the Titans; gladly would I leave these regions, nay, shake off my mortal coil, to escape the fury of such men.”[1525] Melanchthon too was accused of indirectly promoting Popery. An obstinate opponent of his was that very Johann Aurifaber who had been present at Luther’s death and who subsequently published the Table-Talk. Melanchthon included him in 1556 among the “unlearned fanatics, men filled with furious hate, lickspittles at the Court who seek to curry favour with the populace,” and with whom it was impossible to come to any understanding.[1526] Aurifaber, like many others of his party, was dismissed from his post as Court preacher at Weimar, and, subsequently, when pastor at Erfurt, was excommunicated on account of his teaching,

## particularly on original sin. His opponents he persisted in charging with

Popery.

Against any relapse into Popery the Lutherans were well guarded since 1555, by the Religious Peace of Augsburg and its principle: “_Cuius regio, illius et religio_.” This, however, produced no inward unity, rather the opposite. The war among the theologians on account of the “adiaphora” still went on in the Protestant camp. The hopes entertained of the Protestant Convention at Coswig (1556) suffered shipwreck owing to Melanchthon’s disinclination to come to terms. Nor did the Conference at Altenburg (1568) settle things. It was not until 1577-1580 that the formulas of Concord established a “_modus vivendi_” by leaving to each individual Church the decision about the “adiaphora.” Flacius himself was compelled to leave Wittenberg early in the controversy. He went to Magdeburg, but fell into disgrace on account of his tendency to insist on the Church’s independence and had to go into exile to Ratisbon, Antwerp, Frankfurt, Strasburg, wandering about from place to place until, at last, he, Luther’s most ardent champion, died in want and poverty at Frankfurt-on-the-Main (1575).

With the Synergistic controversy the name of Flacius is likewise very closely linked.

Here, however, the question on which minds were divided was a vital one. Many refused to accept Luther’s rigid doctrine that, in Justification, the Holy Ghost worked on man as on a senseless block. Johann Pfeffinger of Leipsig agreed with Melanchthon in assuming some sort of co-operation (“_synergia_”) of the human will. In this he had the Leipsig Interim on his side; eventually Victorinus Strigel of Jena, George Major, Paul Eber, Christian Lasius and others also embraced this view. Against them stood the zealots like Flacius and Amsdorf, the latter of whom boldly attacked Pfeffinger’s “_De libertate voluntatis_” and insisted on the unfreedom of the will. Certain of the theologians of Jena also distinguished themselves by their opposition to the Synergists.

Flacius Illyricus went to great extremes in his antagonism to Synergism. He asserted that man was powerless by means of free will to effect anything in the matter of his salvation because “original sin was a ‘substance’ for otherwise holiness too would not be a ‘substance’”; the soul was by nature a mirror or image of Satan; it was itself original sin, and original sin was no mere ‘accident.’ It was impossible for Luther’s doctrine to be carried to its legitimate conclusion more ruthlessly than in this theory of Flacius. “It was utter demonism, was this doctrine of the substantial bedevilment of human nature.”[1527] At this point, however, Luther’s true friends drew back: Johann Wigand and Tilman Hesshus, professors at Jena, withstood Flacius, arguing that he was a traitor to Lutheranism and that his teaching was Manichæan. Like some others Cyriacus Spangenberg, then Dean of Mansfeld, was accused of favouring Flacius and of teaching that Satan had created man, that sin was baptised, and that pregnant women bore within them young devils. As was usual in such controversies, the people took an active share in the quarrel.

When the Elector August of Saxony assumed the government of the Duchy of Saxony, Hesshus and Wigand were deprived of their offices and driven from the land. Nine Superintendents and 102 preachers lost their posts at the same time. Hesshus had already tasted exile as pastor of Magdeburg, when in 1562 the Town Council expelled him from the town with his wife and child on account of his too emphatic enforcement of the strictest Lutheranism.

Spangenberg too had to flee when the administrator of Magdeburg called in the troops against the Flacian preachers. Cruel measures were used to force the burghers to accept the doctrine professed by the governor; the bodies of relatives of the Count of Mansfeld were even exhumed and reinterred in places untainted with “substantialist error.”

Spangenberg’s fate was that of many faithful Lutherans.

Having made his escape to Thuringia disguised as a midwife he there accepted a position as pastor, but was again driven out in 1590 owing to the rigid views on original sin he had imbibed from Luther. From that time he lived by his pen until his death at Strasburg in 1604. He declared that he was suffering on behalf of the articles on sin and righteousness, but that he was determined to remain “a staunch old disciple of Luther’s.” The behaviour of the Wittenberg theologians was a source of great grief to Spangenberg: They have not only fallen away from Luther’s doctrine in ten or twelve articles, but also speak of him in the most unseemly manner: “They call Luther a ‘philauticus,’ i.e. a man who thinks highly of no one but himself, and whom nothing pleases but what he has himself said or done; item, a ‘philonisticus’ and ‘eristicus,’ a quarrelsome fellow who always insisted he was in the right, believing no good of anyone, yielding to no one, only seeking his own honour and unable to endure that anyone else should be highly thought of.” “His books [so they say] contain things that are very Manichæan, and others that resemble the old heresies.”[1528]

Nor was Spangenberg doing an injustice to the Wittenberg professors when he charged them with having thrown Luther over.

_Cryptocalvinism_

At the time when Flacianism was being suppressed by force, a trend of opinion known as Cryptocalvinism had the upper hand in the Saxon Electorate where it was causing grave troubles. Such was the name given to the gradual leavening of the pure Lutheran doctrine with elements derived from Calvinism. In other Protestant districts on German soil Calvinism took root openly, and either supplanted Luther’s teaching, or prevented its springing up. This was the case in the Palatinate, where the Elector Frederick III exerted his influence in favour of Calvinism with the help of the Calvinistic professors of Heidelberg Caspar Olevian and Zacharias Ursinus. The Elector himself told his son-in-law Johann Frederick of Saxony, that though for more than forty years the “pure doctrine” of the Evangel and the holy Word of God had been proclaimed, “little amendment of life had followed,” and, in “excessive eating and drinking, gambling, avarice, immorality, envy and hatred we almost outdo the Papists.”[1529] He also said that it was not merely the lack of morality in Lutheranism that prejudiced him against it, but that he had decided to introduce Calvinism into his land because he had discovered in Luther’s writings many errors and contradictions which he must remove,

## particularly in his views on the “bodily presence of Christ” in the

Sacrament of the Altar.[1530]

The spirit of criticism which Luther had let loose in the Saxon Electorate grew among some of the Cryptocalvinists into scepticism, though they boasted of being great admirers of Luther. This scepticism was first directed against the mystery of mysteries. Luther’s own uncertainty regarding the Sacrament of the Altar, his halt mid-way, and his strange theory of the ubiquity of Christ, were in themselves a challenge. Around Melanchthon there grouped themselves at Wittenberg and Leipsig men, who, by a prudent introduction of the Calvinistic view of the Supper according to which Christ is only received spiritually, sought to question at the same time two of Luther’s pet dogmas, viz. the indwelling of Christ in the Bread at the moment of reception (Impanation) and the ubiquitous albeit spiritualised bodily presence of Christ. Hardly six years had elapsed since Luther’s death when the Hamburg preacher, Joachim Westphal, strove to set up a barrier against the threatening inroad of Cryptocalvinism in his “_Farrago Opinionum de Cœna Domini_”(1552). The Elector August, who assumed the reigns of government in the Saxon Electorate (1553-1586), for quite twenty years of his reign was entirely committed to Cryptocalvinism. Among the theologians and Court officials who were responsible for his attitude were, particularly, Melanchthon’s son-in-law, Caspar Peucer, Court physician to the Elector, the Court preacher Christian Schütz, Johann Stössel, Superintendent of Pirna and Privy Councillor Georg Craco, the most influential person in the government of the Saxon Electorate. A “_Corpus doctrinæ Philippicum_” was drawn up in 1560 from Melanchthon’s writings by these so-called “Philippists.” In 1571 a Catechism appeared, which, like the “_Corpus_” had the Elector’s approval. The doctrine it contained was endorsed by an assembly of theologians at Dresden in the same year, and it was intended to enforce it as the true faith throughout the land.

As might have been expected, the opposition of the “Gnesiolutherans” against these doings in the Saxon Electorate, the original home of Lutheranism, was very strong.

Protests were registered by Martin Chemnitz, the “aristarch of Brunswick” as the opposite party called him, and by the Jena theologians, as, for instance, Wigand, Hesshus, Johann Frederick Cœlestinus and Timotheus Kirchner. At Jena the new system was branded as a “fresh incursion of devilish spirit” and, in a “Warning” against the Wittenbergers, it was stated: “They want to make an end of Luther, that is to say, of his doctrine, and at the same time to appear innocent of so doing.”[1531] Similarly in the following year, 1572, a writing entitled “Von den Fallstricken” declared: “They trample Luther’s doctrine under foot, laugh at it, ridicule it and anathematise it in the most scandalous manner,” etc.[1532] The Jena divines, so they asserted, were alone in having the true unalloyed doctrine which they were anxious to keep free from all the extravagances and errors of the Pope, the Turks, blasphemers of the Sacrament, Schwenckfeldians, Servetians, Arians, Antinomians, Interimists, Adiaphorists, Synergists, Majorites, Enthusiasts, Anabaptists, Manichæans and other sects.[1533]

The divergencies were so considerable and far-reaching, and the falling away from Luther’s doctrine so great, that Aurifaber, who boasted of having closed the eyes of his immortal master and of being soaked in his spirit, prefaced as follows the collection of the Table-Talk, which he gave to the world in 1566: “His doctrine is now so despised, and, in the German lands men have become so tired, weary and sick of it, that they no longer care to hear his name mentioned, nor do they much esteem the testimony of his books. It has come about that, if one wishes to find Dr. Martin Luther’s doctrine pure and unfalsified anywhere in the German lands, one has to put on strong spectacles and look very closely; this is a dreadful thing to learn.” Aurifaber has this sole consolation, viz. that Luther, because he had foreseen this state of things, had proved himself a “true prophet.”[1534]

Another writer speaks in the following terms of the decay of Luther’s doctrines and the utter contempt for his person: The endless benefits Luther brought to Germany—of these the author enumerates eighteen—those who now profess the Evangel treat with the “most shocking and gruesome unthank,” doing so not merely by their “evil life” but by “scorning, decrying and condemning” both his benefits and his faith. People refuse any longer to follow the great teacher in his chief doctrines “about the Law and the true knowledge of sin,” “true justice,” “the distinction between Law and Gospel,” and about the holy sacraments. “This worthy sendsman of God” meets with “shameful contempt,” nay, with something worse than contempt, seeing that, “to boot, he is abused, reviled and defamed by most people,” which “is all the more hard in that not only his person but also the wholesome doctrine and divine truth revealed to us by Luther the man of God, is too often contemptuously rejected by the greater number.” The author, in his concern, also fears that as people were also bent on introducing changes in the language “in a few years not much will be left of Luther’s pure German speech.”[1535]

At the Court at Dresden, however, the opposition to the Cryptocalvinism described above gradually gathered strength. Finally the Elector August, too, was won over, partly on political, partly on theological grounds. As early as 1573 August declared: “It would not take much to make him send all the rogues to the devil,”[1536] and, on another occasion that, “for the sake of three persons he would not expose his lands to the harm wrought by the Sacramentarians.”[1537] When at last an unmistakably Calvinistic writing by Joachim Curæus on the Supper was published by a Leipzig printer, known to be well disposed to the Wittenberger party, the fury of the Elector broke loose and he declared at a meeting at Torgau “The venomous plant must now be torn up by the roots.”[1538] In his name the so-called Articles of Torgau denoting more or less a return to Luther’s doctrines were drawn up by an ecclesiastical court. All the theologians who refused to subscribe to them were to be “arrested.” On this the Leipzig theologians all signed the Articles, that they agreed in their hearts to all the things contained in Luther’s writings including his controversial writings against the Heavenly Prophets and his “Kurtz Bekentnis” on the Supper.[1539] Among the many Cryptocalvinists who submitted without any protest was Nicholas Selnecker, the editor of Luther’s Table-Talk. In matters of faith he followed the bidding of the secular authorities, and on one occasion, wrote to the Elector that “he would gladly crawl on hands and knees to Dresden only to escape the suspicion which had been cast on him.”[1540]

Among the Wittenbergers, on the other hand, four theologians refused their assent: “Luther’s books,” they said, “were not positive; sometimes he wrote one way, sometimes another; besides which there were dirty spots and objectionable things in his controversial writings.”[1541] Such was the opinion of Widebram, Pezel, Moller and, particularly, Caspar Cruciger. The latter, a personal friend of Luther’s, called the Articles of Torgau “a medley of all sorts of things which Luther himself, had he been alive, would not have signed.” His fate like that of the three others was removal from his office and banishment from the country.

Of the four former favourites at Court Stössel the Superintendent though he craved pardon was kept a prisoner until his death; the Court-preacher Schütz, in spite of his promise to hold his tongue, was shut up in prison for twelve years; the Privy Councillor Craco was flung into the filthiest dungeon of the Pleissenburg at Leipzig, tortured on the rack for four hours and died with mangled limbs on a miserable layer of straw (March 16, 1575).[1542] Finally Peucer, professor of medicine and history, who, owing to his influence, had once controlled the University, because he declared he would not “abjure the doctrine of the Sacrament that had been rooted in his heart for thirty-three years and adopt Luther’s instead,” was left pining in a damp, dirty dungeon in the Pleissenburg and was constantly harried with injunctions “to desist from his devilish errors” and “not to fancy himself wiser and more learned than His Highness the Elector and his distinguished theologians, who had also searched into and pondered over this Article [of the Sacrament].”[1543] He continued to languish in prison, after the death of his wife, Magdalene, Melanchthon’s daughter, sorrowing over his motherless children, until after wellnigh twelve years of captivity he was released at the instance of a prince. “The behaviour of the Elector and Electress and their advisers towards him gives us a glimpse into an abyss of injustice, brutality and malice made all the more revolting by the hypocritical religious cant and pretended zeal for the Church under which they were disguised. In spite of all the attempts made of old as well as later to excuse the course of the so-called cryptocalvinistic controversies, it remains—especially the case of Peucer—one of the darkest pages in the annals of the Lutheran Church and of civilisation in the 16th Century.”[1544]

But the intolerance displayed by orthodoxy in that struggle had been taught it by Luther. As has been shown already, he had urged that, whoever advocated blasphemous articles, even if not guilty of sedition, should be put to death by the authorities; the sovereign must take care that “there is but one religion in each place”; above all, such was the opinion of his friends,—the sovereign should “put a Christian bit in the mouth of all the clergy.”[1545]

_The so-called formula of concord (1580)_

Owing partly to the wish of the secular authorities for some clearer rule, partly to the sight of the confusion in doctrine and the bad effects of the quarrels on faith, there arose a widespread desire for greater unity based on some new and thoroughly Lutheran formulary.

The Confession of Augsburg and the Apologia were found insufficient; they contained no decisions on the countless controversies which had since sprung up. Thus it came about that “one German province and town after another attempted to satisfy its desire for unity of doctrine by means of a confession of faith of its own.… This in itself, in view of the dismemberment of Germany and the attitude of the Emperor towards the reformation, would necessarily have resulted in a splitting up of the Lutheran Church into countless sects unless some means was found of counteracting individualism and of uniting the Lutherans in one body.”[1546]

It was, however, the politicians, who, in their own interests, were the chief promoters of union.

Elector August of Saxony wishful of achieving the desired end “by means of a princely dictum” led the way in 1576 with the so-called Book of Torgau.

This work was drawn up by the theologians Jakob Andreæ, Martin Chemnitz, David Chytræus, Andreas Musculus and Wolfgang Körner. The Book of Torgau was subsequently revised by Caspar Selnecker and reissued under the title of the Book of Bergen (1577). It was hoped that it would become the theological statute-book for all the Protestant Churches; the Protestant Estates of the Empire were to accept it and it was proposed by the theologians that all the Lutheran preachers and school-teachers should be required to give their assent to it.[1547]

Selnecker supported this attempt by referring to the Council of Trent which had been successfully concluded in 1563. They ought, so he said, at last to draw up a “common body of doctrine” as an “evangelical counterblast to the damnable conciliabulum of Trent”; he adds frankly that this was essential, “in order to check the corruption of morals amongst the Evangelical people which was growing worse and worse”; at the same time he wished to see “a united front against the idolatrous Popedom and its devilish satellites the Jesuits, with all their verminous following.”[1548]

Hopes of preserving Luther’s work by means of the new Formula had risen high since Frederick, the zealous Calvinistic Elector of the Palatinate, had been called away by death in Oct., 1576; his successor, the Elector Louis held Lutheran views and was determined to make a stand for Lutheranism.

In spite, however, of the latter’s patronage, and notwithstanding the efforts of the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, the Formula, as Louis of the Palatinate sorrowfully admitted, was not approved by even one-half of the Protestant Princes and townships. One of the strongest objectors was Landgrave William of Hesse. He did not hesitate to abuse Luther’s memory in the rudest language, and asserted that the latter had written “contradictory things.”[1549]

The Unionists, not satisfied with their partial success, published on June 25, 1580, the “_Formula Concordiæ_,” consisting of an “_Epitome_” and a “_Solida declaratio_.” This document occupies an important place in the history of Lutheranism.

The doctrines of original sin, unfreedom, justification, the Supper, the ubiquity of Christ and of the “_communicatio idiomatum_” were taken as they had been by Luther, though they are often stated with deliberate ambiguity. Thrusts at Melanchthon, not to speak of Calvin, are found more

## particularly in the “_Declaratio_.”

The permanent rift with Calvinism was as strongly emphasised, as that with the Papacy. One of the propositions taken from the Articles of Schmalkalden ran: “All Christians ought to shun the Pope and his members and followers as the kingdom of Antichrist, and execrate it as Christ has commanded.”[1550]

The cement, however, which was to bind together the antagonistic Lutheran views and schools was not very durable. The fact that “Melanchthon’s memory had been completely blotted out,”[1551] or that the Pope had been condemned afresh, did not suffice to bring people together, nor did much good come of the smoothing over, toning down and evasions to which it had been necessary to have recourse in the work in order to arrive at a written basis of outward unity. Over and above all this it became known that the Protestant Estates were at liberty to add printed prefaces of their own to the Concord, in which they might, if they chose, set forth their own theological position, and thus interpret as they liked the text of the Concord, so long as they did not interfere with the text itself.[1552] It was also known that the father of the whole scheme, Jakob Andreæ, Inspector General of the churches of Saxony, had quite openly made of the acceptance of the Formula a pure formality and had told the Nurembergers who showed signs of antipathy that all that was required was their signature, and that this would not prevent their being and remaining of the same opinion as before.[1553]

The authors of the Concord, however, displayed such mutual distrust, nay hatred of each other, as greatly to obscure even the origin of the Concord and to raise but scant hopes of its future success. Andreæ bewailed Selnecker’s “diabolical tricks”; he was very well aware that the latter would be delighted were he (Andreæ) strung up on the gallows. Selnecker, on the other hand, complained loudly of Andreæ as a dishonest, egotistical man; he accused Andreæ of calling him: “a damned rascal, a good-for-nothing scoundrel, an arch-villain and a hellish thief.”[1554] Andreæ was equally severe in his censure of the church-councillors and theologians for the part they took in the matrimonial questions: “After a theologian had dealt with marriage cases two years in the Consistory,” he said, “he would by that time be well fitted to be appointed keeper of a brothel.”[1555] We hear an echo of Luther in the coarse language his followers were in the habit of using against each other.

In spite of all this the Concord constitutes the greatest and most important step ever taken by Lutheranism to define its position. The year 1580 gave to the Lutheran Churches a certain definite status, though, among the theologians, the controversies continued to rage as before.

The Concord itself, the supposed new palladium, became a theological bone of contention. The following years were taken up with wild quarrels about the Formula of Concord. At Strasburg alone in three years the different

## parties hurled against each other approximately forty screeds, full of

vulgar abuse, and the literary feuds had their aftermath in the streets in the shape of hand-to-hand scuffles between the students and the burghers. Even at Wittenberg the quarrels went on.

The Calvinistic Count Palatine, Johann Casimir, notorious for his bloody deeds on behalf of the French Huguenots, instructed one of his theologians, Zacharias Ursinus, to draw up the so-called “Neustadt Admonition” in which the adherents of the Concord were accused of “making an idol of Luther”; it was a mere farce when the Concord professed to subordinate his books to Holy Scripture, because in reality they were exalted into a rule of faith and treated as the standard of doctrine; all subscribers to the Augsburg Confession were wont without exception to appeal to these writings whatever their opinions were; as a matter of fact, owing to the errors, exaggerations and contradictions they contained it was possible to quote passages from Luther’s writings in support of almost anything. His controversial works, above all, had no claim to any authority, though it was to these that the followers of the Concord preferred to appeal. “Here, as his own followers must admit,” so the “Admonition” declares, “he had been carried away into excitement and passion which exceeded all bounds and had been guilty of assertions which contradicted his own earlier declarations, and which he himself had often been under pressure obliged to withdraw or modify.”[1556]

There was, however, a large party which did not make an “idol” of Luther, but openly rejected his teaching. It was in this that Aurifaber saw a fulfilment of Luther’s prophecy of the coming extinction of his doctrine among his followers. As early as 1566 he said that the master had not been wrong in his idea, that “the Word of God had seldom persisted for more than forty years in one place.” “The holy man,” he goes on, “had frequently told the theologians and his table companions that, though his teaching had thus far grown and thriven, yet it would begin to dwindle and collapse when its course was finished. And he had declared that his doctrine had stood highest and been at its best at the Diet of Augsburg, anno 1530. But that now it would go downhill.” That, as stated above, the Word of God seldom persisted in one place for more than forty years he had proved “by many examples” taken from the times of the Judges, Kings and Prophets; even the teaching of Christ had not remained pure and free from error for longer “in the land of the Jews, in Greece, Asia and elsewhere.”[1557]

4. Mutual Influence of the Two Camps. Growing Strength of the Catholic Church

One cannot but recognise in the history of the 16th century the religious influence indirectly exerted on one another by Lutheranism and Catholicism, an influence which indeed proved advantageous to both.

_Luther’s Churches_

To begin with the phenomena grouped around the Formula of Concord we may say, that the movement towards greater religious unity, among the Lutherans was largely stimulated by the brilliant and to Luther’s adherents quite unexpected example of Catholic unity resulting from the religious struggle and particularly from the Council of Trent. Selnecker had insisted that Protestants must endeavour to produce an “evangelical counterblast” to Catholic theology and the Council.[1558] In the case of many others too, it was the harmony and united front of the Catholics at the Council of Trent that served as an incentive to create a similar positive bond between their own Churches. Many once more mooted the question of a Protestant General Council, but others, as for instance Andreæ, pointed out how impossible this would be and what a danger it would involve of even greater dissensions. It was also of advantage to the Protestant writers on theology to have a clearly formulated statement of the Catholic doctrine set before them in the definitions of a General Council and explained in the “Roman Catechism.” Though Luther had distorted beyond recognition the Catholic doctrines he attacked, it was less possible than formerly to doubt—after so solemn a declaration—what the teaching of the despised Church was, or, with a good conscience, to deny how alien to her was the anti-Christian doctrine of which she had been accused. Catholic polemics, too, who were growing both in numbers and in strength, must necessarily have opened the eyes of many to the interior continuity, the firm foundation and the logical sequence of the Catholic propositions and, at least in the case of the learned and unprejudiced, led them to regret keenly the absence of clearness and logic on their own side. The latter holds good in particular of the untenability of the conciliatory Lutheran theology which sought to gloss over all the contradictions and which had given rise to the phantom of the Concordia.

“In the work of unifying Protestant theology,” Janssen justly writes, “no slight service was rendered by the Catholic controversialists and apologists and also and especially by the Tridentine Council and the Roman Catechism. Those who opposed to the hurly-burly and confusion of the new teaching the settled, uniform system of a theology, harmonious and consistent in all its parts, thereby made manifest to the dissentient theologians the defects and the glaring discords which Protestantism presented both in its formal and material principles. The sharply defined terminology and the wealth of speculative matter which they offered stood here also in very good stead.”[1559]

This thought also reminds us of the great store of spiritual treasure that Luther’s Churches carried away with them when they severed their connection with Mother Church. Who can question that Luther bequeathed to his Churches much of the heritage of mysteries which Christianity brought to mankind? Faith in the Holy Trinity; in the Father as Source of all being; in the Eternal Son as the Redeemer and Mediator; in the Holy Spirit as the organ of sanctity; again, in the Incarnation, in Christ and His works, miracles and Resurrection; finally a firm belief in an eternal reward, in the again-rising of every man and the everlasting life of the just; in short all the consoling articles of the Apostles’ Creed must be included amongst the treasures which Luther not only took over from the olden Church but, in his own fashion, even defended with warmth and energy against those who differed from him.[1560]

On Catholic principles we may broadmindedly admit that countless well-meaning men since Luther’s day have found in the doctrine he preached the satisfaction of their religious cravings. Very many erred and still err “in good faith” and “with no stubbornness.”[1561] But wherever there is good faith and an honest conviction of having the best, there a religious life is possible. “This the Catholic Church does not deny when she claims to be the one ark of salvation. One would think that this had been repeated often enough to make any misapprehension impossible on the part of Protestants. As to how far this result is due to the Protestant Churches and how far to the Grace of God which instils into every willing heart peace and blessing, is no open question seeing that the Grace of God alone is the foundation of a truly religious life.”[1562]

But if, on the one hand, Lutheranism owes much to the ancient Church, on the other, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the revival in the Catholic Church during the 16th century was indirectly furthered by Luther and his work.

_Progress and Gains of Catholicism_

There were Catholic contemporaries who pointed out that the going over to Luther of many who were members of the Church merely in name, and whose lives did not correspond with her demands, had a wholesome effect on the Church’s body. This held good of the monasteries in particular. In many places relief was felt and a revival of discipline became possible when those, who had entered the religious life from worldly motives, took their departure in order, as Luther himself lamented, to seek greater comfort in the bosom of the new Church. “God has purged His floor and separated the chaff from the wheat,” wrote the Cistercian Abbot, Wolfgang Mayer.[1563] Augustine Alveld, the Franciscan, portrayed with indignant words the evil lives of many apostate monks and declared with relief that: “Those who were of the same pack and lived among us have now, thanks be to God, all of them run away from their convents and institutions.”[1564] In lesser degree the same was true of the laity.

“Indirectly, though very much against his will, Luther helped to promote the regeneration of the Catholic Church by means of the Council of Trent.”[1565] It was his apostasy which made possible that gathering of the Bishops which hitherto external obstacles, shortsightedness, indolence and worldly aims had prevented.

Theological studies profited by the struggle with Protestantism. More attention was bestowed on the question of man’s natural and supernatural equipment; the dangers with which the excessive spread of Nominalism had threatened the doctrine of Grace were effectually circumvented, and the indispensable need of Grace for any work meritorious for heaven was more strongly emphasised. Thus, on the whole, there was a gain which we must not underrate, a new development of theological lore and a clearer formulation of dogma on threatened points similar to that which had resulted from the great controversies in Patristic times.

Under the Divine guidance the Church also more than made up for the numbers torn from her, by the rapid growth of her missions in distant parts of the world, where the voyages of discovery and the conquest of the Western Continent at the dawn of the new century gave rise to unlooked-for new opportunities; this, too, at a time when Lutheranism and the other Protestant sects were still inclined to discountenance any universality and preferred to remain strictly local and national.

Above all it is indisputable that the Catholic Church, in order to emphasise her opposition to the so-called Evangelical freedom, devoted herself ever more assiduously to promoting a true inward life of religion among the people, the lower clergy and the bishops.

Whereas—at the close of the Middle Ages and dawn of the new era—the Papacy had been too eager in the pursuit of humanistic aims, had cultivated too exclusively merely human ideals of art and learning, and at the same time had become entangled in secular business and politics and was altogether too worldly, after Luther’s terrible attack on the formalism of the Church the Popes devoted themselves more and more to the real problems of the Kingdom of God, summoned to their side better advisers in the shape of Cardinals of strict morals, and introduced disciplinary new regulations in the spirit of a St. Charles Borromeo. The charge of shallowness brought against Catholic life was not—so far as it was justified—made in vain. From the new seminaries, from the sublime and saintly figures, who, in greater numbers than ever before, set an example of heroic virtue, and from the newly founded religious Orders such as the Theatines (1524), Capuchins (1528), Somaschans (1528), Barnabites (1530) and last but not least the Jesuits (1534), a new spirit breathed through the Church’s life and revived once more the practice of prayer, self-denial and neighbourly charity.

In this connection we need have no scruple in characterising the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius Loyola as a phenomenon typical of the increasing religiousness of the age. Many, particularly amongst the influential representatives of the Church in Germany, under the guidance of such men as Pierre Favre, Peter Canisius and Claude Jaius, found in them a new wellspring of love for the Church and her aims.[1566]

“To the Exercises, through which many of the great German nobles went,” so Pierre Favre wrote from Ratisbon, “almost all the good was due that was afterwards done in Germany.”[1567]

The struggle with the apostasy called forth everywhere an increase of intellectual activity on the part of the threatened Church. Not only was theology deepened, but all the cognate branches of learning were more sedulously cultivated. “I scarcely think,” wrote the Jesuit, Peter Canisius, to the General of his Order, speaking of religious writings, that “Our Order could undertake or carry out any work that would be more useful and more conducive to the general welfare of the Church. Fresh writings on religious questions make a great impression and are a source of immeasurable comfort to the hard-pressed Catholics at a time when the writings of the false teachers are disseminated far and wide and cannot be exterminated.”[1568] Canisius was, however, of opinion that a simple exposition of the Catholic faith was more in place than polemics; he did not wish to see too much heat and human passion in the writings: “We do not heal the sick by such medicine but only make their case worse”;[1569] as he says in a memorandum: “In Germany there are countless numbers who err in religion, but they do not err from stubbornness or bitterness; they err after the manner of Germans who by nature are generally honest, very ready to accept everything that they, born and bred in the Lutheran heresies, have learnt, partly in schools, partly in churches, partly by the writings of false teachers.”[1570]

There is a true saying of Erasmus’s often quoted by Catholics: “Just as it would be wrong to approve all that Luther writes, so, too, it would be unjust, if, out of hatred for his person, we condemned what is true or distorted what is right.”[1571] “What writer is so bad,” he asks elsewhere, “that we do not find some good in his writings?”[1572]—What there was of good in his own and Luther’s writings was not without its effect on Catholicism. Some of their censures of things Catholic were seen to be deserved, and, in the course of time, were acted upon, at least in order to give opponents less cause for fault-finding.

The following remarks of Erasmus also found an echo amongst Catholic contemporaries and bear witness to the good which came of the sad religious struggles: “Often have I pondered in my own mind, whether, perchance, it had not pleased God to send a strong physician to deal with the profound corruption of morals in our day, who should heal by cutting and searing what was incapable of remedy by means of medicines and bandages.”[1573]—“May God, Who is wont to turn evil to good, so dispose matters, that, from this strong and bitter medicine (‘_ex hoc violento amaroque pharmaco_’) with which Luther has purged the world, as a body sick unto death, there may come some good for the morals of Christians.”[1574]—In 1524 he even went so far as to term Luther a “necessary evil” which they must not even desire to see removed.[1575] Yet Erasmus writes severely of him and ranks him with the greatest foes of the people of God: God had chosen to use Luther as a tool just as He had used the Pharaohs, the Philistines, Nabuchodonosor and the Romans.[1576]

That Luther wielded a wholesome rod was admitted even by the Papal Legate Zacharias Ferreri in an admonition he addressed to him in 1520; with such a scourge as this God from time to time tried Christians in order to bring them to repentance. “If you are a scourge, praised be the name of the Lord, if by this wicked instrument He is leading us to a better mind, purifying and purging us!… Is it astonishing if, even through you, we are purified and cleansed? Oh, that the Almighty would pour on us ‘clean water,’ ‘sprinkle us with hyssop’ and wash us!”[1577]

Thomas Murner, the Strasburg Franciscan, a man who was wont to scourge the failings and abuses in the Church of his day in very outspoken language, frankly admitted in a reply to Luther’s book “An den Adel” that much of the Wittenberg monk’s censure might be useful to those who wanted to put a stop to immorality, and to abuses and obsolete ecclesiastical customs and statutes. He even goes so far as to say to Luther: “Where you speak the truth, there undoubtedly the Holy Spirit speaks through you, for all truth is of God.” He adds, however, “Where you do not speak the truth, there assuredly the devil speaks through you, he who is the father of lies.” Speaking of the pictures of Luther with the symbol of the dove, which even then were common, in his satirical fashion, he suggests an improvement: “They paint the Holy Spirit over your head as though He were speaking through you. Now I learn for the first time that the Holy Spirit can say silly things.… I should suggest that they paint over your head, the Holy Ghost on one side and the devil on the other, and, in the middle, the city of Prague,” (to symbolise the heresy of Hus of which he accused Luther).[1578] Anxious as Murner was to see an end of the real abuses which Luther censured, yet, in the true Catholic spirit, he left to the ecclesiastical authorities the right and duty of taking the initiative, and it was to them that he addressed his urgent exhortations.

Cochlæus is likewise unable to refrain from remarking that, in Luther’s writings, side by side with what is worthless there is much that is good, in his exposition of Holy Scripture, in his exhortations and also in his censures. For many men, and among them some of high standing, believed [at first] that he was guided by the Spirit of God and by zeal for virtue to remove the abuses of the hypocrites, to amend morals to improve the education of the clergy, and to promote in people’s hearts the love and worship of God.“[1579] Cochlæus points out how Luther had taught his followers to steep themselves in the Bible, so that they gained “so much skill and experience” that they had “no scruples in disputing about the faith and the Gospel even with magisters and doctors of Holy Scripture”; they had been much more diligent than the Catholics in learning by heart the Bible in its German dress; they were in the habit “of quoting Scripture more than the priests and monks did, for which reason they accused Catholics of being ignorant of it or not understanding it however learned they might be as theologians”; their teachers “quoted the Greek and Hebrew texts, and the variant readings, scoffed at our theologians when they were ignorant of these things and all agreed in representing Luther as the best theologian in the world.” Cochlæus also admits, that, in the field of historical criticism Luther and his party were ahead of many Catholic preachers, who, albeit in good faith, were fond of adducing “fables and tales invented by men.” He describes the zeal of the Protestant printers, which far exceeded that of the Catholics, the “diligence, care and money” lavished on the writings of their party, and “how carefully and accurately they printed their books”; apostates and escaped monks travelled far and wide through Germany, peddling Lutheran writings “like booksellers.”[1580]—It is notorious, on the other hand, that the Catholic writers were hardly able to find publishers. At Ingolstadt Cochlæus managed to preserve a Catholic printing press, which was in danger of being shut down, and established a second at Mayence whence a large number of good works issued. “Stress must be laid on the self-sacrifice with which Cochlæus, after having by dint of many privations amassed a sum of money for the publication of his own writings, devoted it to the printing of the works of one of his colleagues, being convinced that they would prove of greater benefit to the common cause than his own productions.”[1581]

In all these particulars, in the study of Holy Scripture, in the cultivation of historical and critical research among the clergy, in the use of the vernacular and of the art of printing for the instruction of the faithful, a real, though rather slow, change for the better took place. Had it not been for the misgivings felt even in the highest circles, and for a certain amount of prejudice against anything new, due to the fear of heresy, the gains doubtless would have been even greater and more quickly secured. In all this the Church owed much to Protestant example, for it was the innovators who involuntarily pointed out better methods of satisfying the spiritual needs of the new age, and a more effectual way of exerting a religious influence over the people.

Further examples of this are to be found in the sermons and in the catechism.

Clear-sighted Catholic contemporaries, like the worthy Dominican preacher and writer Johann Mensing, comparing the Bible preaching used and advocated by Luther with the empty, vapid sermons in vogue among many of the Catholic preachers were keenly conscious of what was lacking. At the close of a book written in 1532 Mensing exhorts the Catholic clergy to study Holy Writ and to make more use of it in the pulpit: “There are some now who say that Luther has driven the learned to Scripture. Would to God it were true that our well-beloved masters and brothers, the theologians, would turn their hearts wholly to Holy Scripture and leave out those other questions which serve no useful purpose. Some of them preach the laws and canons of heathen doctors and poets which are of small help to salvation, or they air their own opinions, and, where Scripture and Holy Church or the witness of the olden Doctors is not enough, reinforce them by incredible miracles, whereas, with the aid of Holy Scripture, they ought to endeavour to establish in men’s hearts the fear of God, faith, hope and charity, mildness and pity and such like.” If they learn something from the Lutherans in this then “we may hope that God has permitted Luther’s heresy for our good, it being to our profit that such heresy has arisen, and, as some declare, driven us to the Scriptures.” Mensing wonders, however, whether the dispersal of the monks, the plundering of the convents and lack of stipends for learned theologians and preachers will not make study of any kind a difficult matter for a long while to come.[1582]

In the field of catechetical instruction it was clear that Luther and his followers had given their attention very skilfully to the young, the better to imbue the rising generation with their doctrines. At the time of Luther’s first appearance, as recent research has established, in many parts of Germany there was no regular, systematic religious instruction of the young by the clergy or in the schools, but the children were left to pick up what they could in the home or from the public sermons.[1583] There were indeed regulations in force for the priests and the schools, but they were not acted upon. About the very elementary home instruction, Cochlæus had words of commendation in 1533. As they were taken to the services and the sermons, the children had, he says, “sucked in” their religion “as it were with their mothers’ milk, and this is still the case to-day amongst Catholics.”[1584] In his sermons published in 1510 Gabriel Biel asks for no more than that the parents should impart to their children a knowledge of the things essential and prepare them for their first communion.[1585]

Luther, however, as our readers know, insisted that his preachers must concern themselves directly with the children.

He enjoined on them to preach from the pulpit at set times, even daily if necessary, on the most elementary points of doctrine, and again at home in the house to the children and servants in the mornings and evenings; if they wished to make Christians of them these points would have to be recited or read to them, “and this, not merely in such a way that they learn to say the words by heart, but that they be questioned on them one by one and made to say what each means and how they understand it.”[1586] “Let no one think himself above giving such instruction to the children or look down upon it,” he wrote; “Christ, when He wished to train up men, had to become a man, hence, if we are to train up children, we must become children with them.” At Wittenberg and elsewhere from 1528 onwards four sermons a week for two weeks on end were preached on the Catechism four times a year. When, seeing the importance of the matter, Luther himself took the Catechism in hand he was so anxious to make it popular and practical, that he first published his “Smaller Catechism” (1529) in the form of sheets to hang upon the wall (this method had been used even before his day), and thus to act on the memory through the eye.

It would, however, be historically incorrect to describe Luther as the originator of the Catechism. Catholic Catechisms, even illustrated ones, had existed before Luther’s time, having been printed not only in Germany but also elsewhere. But, after the success attained by Luther’s Catechism, writers of Catholic Catechisms tried to profit by his example. The best of these Catholic works was the famous Catechism of Peter Canisius. It was first printed in Vienna in 1555 under the title “_Summa doctrinæ christianæ_”; eighteen years later it had already been translated into twelve different tongues.[1587] It is a work rich in thought and positive matter where almost every word is based on Holy Scripture or some utterance of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authority. Abbreviated editions, the “_Parvus Catechismus_” (Viennæ, 1559), the “_Institutiones_” (1561), and particularly the short German one: “The Catechism or Sum of Christian Doctrine arranged in question and answer for the simple,” rendered it of greater use for the common people.[1588] “Canisius’s book,” writes a Protestant expert in pedagogics, “is a masterpiece of brevity, precision and erudition; in it one sees from beginning to end an endeavour to excel in style even the great Protestant prototype” (viz. Luther’s Catechism).[1589]

Among the secular no less than among the regular clergy work for the souls of the children continued to win new friends. St. Ignatius of Loyola esteemed the teaching of the Catechism so highly that he expressly made it a duty incumbent on all members of his Order previous to their making their profession. Lainez, his companion and successor, when staying at Trent during the Council, instructed the people and the small folk in the Catechism. The Council itself impressed on the bishops in 1563 the duty of seeing that the children in each parish received religious instruction from the priest on Sundays and holidays.[1590]

The spread of the new religion had at first been followed by a lamentable decline in the educational system by no means confined to those regions torn away from the old faith.[1591] The Protestants were the first to recover their balance, partly owing to Luther’s vigorous appeals on behalf of the schools, partly thanks to the active co-operation of Melanchthon, who had great experience in this sphere and on whom his co-religionists in consequence bestowed the title of “_Præceptor Germaniæ_.” The methods followed by the Lutherans were borrowed principally, as indeed was only to be expected, from the treasure-house of the humanists. Protestant effort was largely crowned with success, especially since the old Catholic endowments of the Grammar Schools, and some part of the income of the sequestrated Church properties, were applied by the sovereigns and townships to the erection and maintenance of these new educational institutions.[1592]

The Catholics indeed were angry to see that these flourishing schools were at the same time hotbeds of the New Faith. They also lamented that, owing to the sad conditions of the times, they themselves had fallen astern of the other party in the matter of education. Their best leaders exhorted them to take a lesson from their opponents and thus reconquer the position the Catholic schools had lost. “With the spread and development of the Jesuit schools a change came over the face of affairs.”[1593] Before this Archbishop Albert of Mayence had declared in 1541 that the Protestants were far ahead of Catholics in the matter of education and were drawing all the youth of Germany into their schools. In 1550 Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, wrote to Julius III: “The Protestant schools public as well as private are in a flourishing condition; ours are crumbling into ruin; the Protestants attract men by large salaries, we do not do this.” Already in 1538 George Wicel had expressed his regret to Julius Pflug that so little was done for the schools among the Catholics as compared with the Protestants, and that already the want of men of learning was being felt.[1594]

To mention two other spheres in which Catholics received a stimulus from Luther’s example and work, we may call to mind the German translation of the Bible and the German hymns.

What was good in Luther’s translation of the Bible was very soon turned to account in Catholic circles. If Catholic writers made use of Luther’s translation in their own editions, they probably excused themselves by arguing that Luther himself was undoubtedly indebted to the Catholic translations of the past. In the same way Luther had made use of some of the old hymns of the Church, amended and popularised them and published them as his own. Catholic hymns in the German language there were already in plenty. But, after 1524, when the first Protestant hymn-books made their appearance, Catholics copied these efforts to collect and improve on the originals, and the first Catholic hymn-book brought out by Michael Vehe, Provost at Leipzig as early as 1537, contained fifty-two hymns with forty-seven tunes—though, strange to say, the old Catholic hymns were given in the new Protestant version.[1595] A much bigger hymn-book was that of Johann Leisentritt, a Dean (1567); it contained in the first edition 250 hymns and 147 tunes. In the following century hymns well known to be Protestant but of which the words were orthodox were incorporated without demur in the Catholic collections.

The Middle Ages had been too neglectful of positive studies, particularly of history and languages, both of which are of such vast importance to theology. Since the dawn of humanism, however, a good beginning had been made, and the need of meeting the demands of the new age was recognised, as, in the domain of Biblical languages, the example of Faber Stapulensis and Jodocus Clichtoveus shows.[1596] The methods of the Protestants made further progress in this field imperative.

In criticism and church-history, where much good work had been done by the Protestants, Peter Canisius was one of the first to suggest that it would be advisable to devote more pains to the study and examination of the history of the Papacy, since, as he wrote, our “people seem to be still quite asleep” and unaware of all that had been done in the opposite camp. He was anxious for books that should be in no way inferior to those of the other side, and of which “the style must be in keeping with the present method and trend of scholarship.”[1597] It is not as yet enough known generally what great success crowned the labours of Onuphrius Panvinius (1529-1568) the Augustinian Roman antiquarian and historian, who was spurred on by the labours of the Protestants, though even more by the humanist traditions of his native country. Better known is the Oratorian, Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607), whose “Ecclesiastical Annals” unquestionably laid the foundation of a new era in the writing of Church history.[1598]

Good and useful work was done by some of the Protestant scholars who edited the writings of the Fathers.

Thus Luther, for instance, encouraged Bugenhagen to edit certain works of St. Athanasius on the Trinity and himself wrote (1532) a Preface to them which is well worth reading.[1599] The Patristic labours subsequently undertaken by Catholics, even the great work of Marguérin de la Bigne,[1600] that forerunner of the French Maurists of the 17th century, had their _raison d’être_ in the very ideas which Luther had set forth in his above-mentioned Preface to Bugenhagen’s work.

The worksomeness of the Catholic Church showed that people were beginning to understand the new era and to mould themselves to its requirements. “How can one deny,” asks Adolf Harnack, “that Catholicism, as soon as it pulled itself together for the counter-reformation … was for over a century in far closer touch with the new era than Luther’s Protestantism? Hence the many converts from Protestantism to Catholicism, particularly among learned Protestants, down to the days of Queen Christina of Sweden and even after.”[1601]

* * * * *

As for the ideas, however, which constituted the essence of the religious innovations the Catholic Church could not accept them short of being untrue to herself and betraying what had been committed to her custody. Whereas she gradually found a way to comply with all just demands for betterment and progress, she was nevertheless obliged relentlessly to close her ears to proposals for the subversion of her dogma and the alteration of her constitution.

She steadfastly refused to make her own the new and mistaken conception of the Church, of Bible interpretation, of faith, justification and good works. In spite of the heart-rending sight of the growing apostasy around her, she kept her eyes fixed on the promises of her Founder and remained true to her olden conception of the Church as a visible society controlled by Chief Pastors who are the vicars of Christ.

Ulrich Zasius of Freiburg in Baden, one of the greatest lawyers and humanists of the 16th century, who had for a while dallied with some of the demands of the innovators, afterwards repudiated as follows any idea of going over to their side:

“I shall remain true to the doctrines and decisions of the Church even should all the host of heaven command me otherwise.” “Such an insult I will on no account offer to the Lord of Truth as to believe He had deceived us for so many hundreds of years”—by permitting the Church to fall into error in spite of the promise that the Spirit of truth would always remain with her.

“For more than a thousand years the Church has taught us by the voice of her Doctors who all take their stand on Holy Scripture. But you twist the Gospel about as you please. Is Luther then to be set above all the Doctors of the past? Our forefathers, who also were authorities and all the wise men, would have called such a demand sheer madness.” “You, however, argue that the Spirit leads and guides you. But what sort of Spirit is it that teaches you to scold and calumniate as you do? In the Epistle of James I have read on the contrary that wisdom is peaceable and modest.”

“Give me a man who renounces all earthly things, keeps all the precepts of Christ, loves his enemies from his heart and does them good, abuses none and is cheerful in adversity. Such a man I will call worthy of the Evangel. But among the ranks of such men you can scarcely reckon Luther.”

“You are free to censure abuses, but is it right on their account to throw the whole Church into confusion? You blame the whole for the misdeeds of some of its parts; pleading the defects you attack what is good and thus unsettle everything.” He too, so he tells his opponents, was at pains to go to the sources of Faith, but he preferred the interpretation of Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom to theirs; and, again, unable to control his indignation, he exclaims: “What incredible arrogance is this that one man should require his reading to be accounted better than that of all the Fathers of the Church, nay, of the Church herself and the whole of Christendom?”[1602]

When passions were at their height voices such as these failed to secure a hearing. The deep chasm torn open by the wanton act of one man could no longer be bridged over; the bond of religion that had hitherto united the German nation had been rudely severed.

5. Luther as described by the Olden “Orthodox” Lutherans

It is a study that will well repay us to follow through the history of Protestantism the changes that Luther’s description underwent. The awakened historical sense of the present day has already led more than one critic to undertake this task, with a crop of interesting results.[1603]

It would be a mistake to think that Luther’s memory survived anywhere among the orthodox Protestants with that freshness and distinctness which the statements of some of his old friends might lead us to expect. Of the actual personality of the man no clear picture had been transmitted. His words and deeds were commented on according to the outlook of the different schools, needless to say, always with a certain affection and admiration, but no one troubled to leave to posterity a living picture of his unique character as a whole.

Tracing the history of the Protestant representation of Luther down to the present day three periods may be distinguished, the so-called Orthodox one, the Pietistic and Freethinking one that followed, and the last hundred years. Orthodoxy, with its rigid attachment to the formularies of Faith, with the assistance of the State was for a long while able to suppress all contrary tendencies; towards the middle of the 18th century, however, the Pietists and, at the other extreme, a free-thinking party also made their appearance on the field.

Pietism was a reaction against the hard-and-fast doctrinal system of an earlier age, which, clinging desperately to Luther’s doctrine of works, tended to be neglectful of the Christian life and of the revival of morals. If Pietism rather exaggerated the moral side of religion, the so-called “Enlightenment” erred in another direction, setting out as it did to vindicate the rights of reason and, in so doing, making scant account of subordination to the truths of Divine revelation.

On the whole, Orthodoxy retained a supernaturalist view of Luther, though it was apt to assume different colours according to the leanings of the several schools.

Pietism, in its conception of his person, frankly throws over the real Luther and seeks to “vindicate his spirit against the claims of his more orthodox adherents.”

The period of the enlightenment also presents a “sadly distorted” picture of Luther; it had “not the least comprehension of his fiery spirit” and, as was its wont, was “anxious to wipe out everything too distinctive.”[1604]

“Misunderstood and disfigured ‘beyond recognition,’ Luther steps over the threshold of the new era. But here again misfortune awaits him: ‘Sectarians, Anabaptists, Pietists, Democrats, Rationalists, Orthodox’ … all these set to work to improve upon the hero until they can stamp him as their own.”[1605] Finally, “the latest phase of theological development spells a revision of the whole idea and appreciation of Luther.” In the consciousness of having far outrun Luther on the road to a purely natural religion minus any faith, people are beginning to “emphasise more strongly the fact, that he was held captive in the bonds of mediæval feelings and ideas.”[1606]

“Who really knows him?” asked Adolf Harnack in 1883, “and who can be expected to know him? People are willing enough to worship him as what they wish him to be, as the upholder of their own ideals; but in their heart of hearts, they feel that, after all, he was really quite different. His character impresses all, but his convictions are left in the background, or else are worked up into new and more serviceable coin.”[1607]

Yet all these Protestant impressions of Luther, to be examined more in detail below, however they may differ have at least this much in common, that Luther must be acclaimed as the great opponent of the authority of the olden Church.

Maybe we shall come nearest to a correct picture of Luther if we combine the modern view of his being a “mediævalist” with the olden orthodox claim that he was a Prophet of God. Luther stood partly for the old supernaturalist Christianity, partly for a new pseudo-supernaturalism; so far those who speak of his “mediævalism” are in the right. He himself, however, summed up his own character in that of the God-sent “Prophet of Germany,” and divinely appointed conqueror of Antichrist and the devil—a point which was rightly emphasised by his orthodox followers.

To go back now to the various descriptions of Luther. The Orthodox derived their idea of Luther from the oldest traditions. In these there was a breath of the supernaturalism in which Luther’s own view of himself was decked out, of the inbreathing of the Spirit, of his mysterious struggles with a power unseen, and of his divinely assured victory over the Roman Babylon.

At the present day one marvels to see how cheerfully and naïvely members of the old “orthodox” school were wont to magnify the founder of their denomination on the lines sketched out by Luther himself. All that interested them was the teacher, Luther the theologian; to them he appeared a sort of “professor of divinity of heroic dimensions.” In the century which followed his death it was the custom to exalt him “into the region of the marvellous and more-than-human.” So fond were they of “depicting his divine halo” that it became quite the usual thing to “set Luther side by side with the olden Prophets and Apostles.”

After Elias and John the Baptist, he is “the third Elias, who makes ready the way against the return of Christ to Judgment.” He is the second Noe, the second Abraham, the second Samson, the second Samuel, the second Jeremias, above all, he is the second Moses who frees the people from their bondage; the Egyptian bondage, so some one computed had come to an end in B.C. 1517 just as the Papal bondage reached its end in 1517 A.D.[1608]

Holy Scripture, so the orthodox declared, points to Luther not only where it speaks of the revelation and overthrow of Antichrist (2 Thes. ii. 8), not merely where it proclaims that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem (Zach. xiv. 8), but also in the Apocalypse of John where we are told of the angel having the eternal Gospel—flying through the midst of heaven to the mount on which is seated the Lamb with 144,000 who bear His name—“in order to preach it to them that sit upon the earth, to every nation and tribe, and tongue and people” (Rev. xiv. 6). That this angel was Luther is also plain from the fact that, if the letters of the verse quoted are reckoned by their position in the alphabet and then added together the number will be exactly the same as that of the words (in German): Martin Luther, Doctor of Holy Scripture, born at Eisleben, baptised on Martinmas-Day, viz. 819![1609] In a sermon in 1676 the flight of the angel through the midst of heaven is taken to signify the marvellously rapid spread of Luther’s Evangel, and the Gospel he preaches is termed “eternal,” because Luther’s doctrine is found even in the Fathers of the Church.[1610]

The story of Hus, the “swan,” as prophetic of the coming of Luther, was an integral part of the panegyrics even of Mathesius and Bugenhagen; it served much the same purpose as the statue of a monk with the inscription L.V.T.E.R.V.S., said to have been erected by Kaiser Frederick Barbarossa.[1611]

The recovery of Melanchthon and Myconius for whom Luther had prayed so ardently became evident miracles. The preservation of his picture in great fires was another miracle of frequent recurrence. Splinters from a beam in his house, according to Gottfried Arnold, the Pietist, in his Church-History, were deemed an efficacious cure for toothache and other ills. Arnold calls this a subtle form of idolatry. Leonard Hutter, who became professor at Wittenberg in 1596, learnedly set forth the proofs of Luther’s “being endowed with a ‘_spiritus vatidicus_’ enabling him to foresee many things of importance,” though his prophetic insight is chiefly confined by Hutter and others to his peculiar divine gift for the interpretation of Holy Writ, or to his proclamation of the destruction of contemners of the Evangel.[1612] Johannes Klai (or Claius), the German grammarian and a zealous Lutheran, expressed it as his opinion in 1578 that the German used by Luther was so pure and beautiful that he could have learnt it only by the special help of the Holy Ghost.[1613] Johannes Albertus Fabricius collected, chiefly in the interests of the orthodox party, the titles of the works dealing with Luther; the bare lists of the books setting forth the services he had rendered, the honourable epithets bestowed on him, his eminent qualities, his miracles and his own prophecies and those of others, occupy many pages.[1614]

Even as late as 1872 Carl Frederick Kahnis, the Lutheran theologian and professor at Leipzig, depicted Luther in his “Deutsche Reformation” with all the olden traits. Luther’s doctrines he regarded as the true norm, though it was necessary to understand and develop them. According to Kahnis the young monk’s experience with the devil in the refectory at night and again at the Wartburg, were real assaults of the Evil One on the chosen prophet of God, visible and audible marks of the hostility of Satan to the saviour of mankind, for Luther “was no slave to fancy or excited feelings.” “Maybe,” so he says rather incautiously, “no Father of the Church since the days of the Apostles ever had to feel so keenly the power of Satan.” The prophecy of the “bare-foot monk” and the auguries of the Eisenach Franciscan become matters of history, for had not Luther himself appealed to them? Even the tale of the Elector’s dream who saw the monk’s pen stretching even to Rome and blotting out everything there, rested, according to him, on “history.” As for the fallen Church of pre-Lutheran days, against which his wonderful pen worked, it sinks into the abyss of its own errors before the rising sun of Luther’s new doctrine.[1615]

6. Luther as seen by the Pietists and Rationalists

Luther, as pictured to themselves by the Pietists, differed widely from the Luther of the orthodox. To Pietists like Spener, Luther’s actual doctrine—regarded by them as contradictory and wavering—appealed far less than certain personal mystic traits of his. To them the inward struggles of soul to which Luther ascribes his transition from despair into the peace of the Gospel, his remarks on piety and the interior life, his realisation of the universal priesthood, and the breathing of the Spirit were very dear. They were less enamoured of Luther’s views on faith, the outward Word, or the State-Government of the Church. At any rate, the Pietists wove from the material at their disposal a new Luther who was practically a counterpart of themselves. They preferred to dwell on his earlier years, when Luther, as Gottfried Arnold said in 1699 in his “Kirchenhistorie,” yet lived “in the Spirit,” and before he had ended “in the flesh” as he did later. They either said nothing of his worldlier side or else openly censured it as the fruit of his backsliding and later errors.

Arnold complains bitterly that things had gone so far after Luther’s death that he was called a “Saint” and a divine man, and that he was made out to be the Angel foretold in the Apocalypse. Still he recognises in him “in a usual way,” an “apostolic mission” in so far as he had been the recipient of “a direct inspiration, stimulus or divine gift.” “At the first” he had “indeed been mightily directed, and utilised as a divine tool”; at any rate up to the time of his breach with Carlstadt he could boast of enjoying “the strength and illumination of the Spirit which gave him on particular points and in difficult cases a rule and true certainty.” Only with such limitations will the historian of Pietism accept Luther’s epitaph at Wittenberg where mention is made of the inbreathing of God’s spirit.[1616]

Whereas the orthodox Lutherans, owing to the abiding influence of Melanchthon’s humanism, allowed the study of philosophy and of the wisdom of the ancients, the Pietists at Leipzig, Giessen, Stargard and elsewhere rejected all philosophy, appealing to Luther who had spurned it as the offspring of that fool reason which ought to be done away with; Melanchthon, they urged, had corrupted the faith by the admixture of Plato and Aristotle, and, hence, had never been regarded by Luther “as a true, staunch theologian, but rather as a cunning Aristotelian dialectician.”[1617]

When other Lutherans taunted them with their separatist tendencies so much at variance with Luther’s view of the outward government of the Church by the State, the Pietists retorted by appealing in defence of their conventicle system and so-called “_collegia pietatis_,” to Luther’s Church-Apart of the True Believers. They quoted those passages of the “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts” (1526), where Luther lays stress on the ideal kinship of those who earnestly desire to be Christians, and characterises the services in the Church as worthless for those who “are already Christians.”[1618]

“Thus quite a struggle raged around Luther’s person.”[1619]

Books appeared on the one side with such titles as “_Lutherus Antipietista_” and on the other: “Luther the precursor of Spener who faithfully followed in the footsteps of the former.” Count L. von Zinzendorf, with his Pietistic leanings, claimed to be a perfect counterpart of Luther; he wished, as he said in 1749, to be “what Luther had been in part, and what, according to the logical sequence from given premises, he should and ought to have been.” “The Luther who still lives and teaches in Count von Zinzendorf,” was the title of a work by one of the latter’s followers. Things went so far that, in the controversies, it became necessary to ask: Which Luther do you mean, the earlier or the later? Nor was even this sufficient, for Consistorialrat J. A. Bengel of Württemberg (†1752) actually distinguished three Luthers: “the first and the last,” he said, “were all right, but the middle one, owing to the heat of controversy, was sometimes rather spoiled.”[1620]

Among the Protestant writers of the so-called “Enlightenment” we again find Luther under a different guise.

They disagreed with the Pietists’ renunciation both of the conclusions arrived at by reason and of worldly pleasures; in the latter respect they found in Luther a welcome advocate of enjoyment of the good things of the world. His advocacy of a cheerful addiction to earthly pleasures was summed up by them in the saying attributed to him: Who loves not women, wine and song, etc.[1621] On the other hand, by setting Luther on a rationalist plane, they blotted out his essential characteristics; they showed no comprehension for his faith though they were not disposed to minimise his labours for the amendment of religion and for the bringing of light out of darkness.

Gottfried Herder extols him, now as a church founder, now as a writer, and yet again as a great German. Luther’s doctrines seem to him of comparatively small account, but he is willing enough to depict him as a model of cheerful, “strong, free, wholesome and exalted sensibility.”[1622] He is unsparing in his criticism of Luther’s attacks on the Epistle of James and adds: “The sphere of the Spirit of God is wider than Luther’s field of vision.”[1623] In these circles critics were disposed to be bolder and more outspoken than among the orthodox and the Pietists; they also found other things to censure in Luther. Lessing condemns in the severest language his vanity and irascibility: “O God, what a terrible lesson to our pride,” he exclaims, “and how much do anger and revenge degrade even the best and holiest of men.”[1624] He nevertheless opines that Luther’s faults had been of service to him in his great task.

Those few who really perused Luther’s writings marvelled at his extravagant ideas about his divine mission and struggles with the devil, about the end of the world and Antichrist. As a general rule, however, they conveniently skipped all that Luther said against human reason and had no eye for his energetic supernaturalism and his insistence on the bare letter of Scripture.[1625]

Among those infected with the rationalism of the age, antagonism to Catholicism undoubtedly helped to shape their view of Luther. They felt their whole outlook to be at variance with that of Catholicism. Under these circumstances it was natural that Luther should be depicted first and foremost as the liberator from the Papacy; in Luther they recognised, not without some show of reason, “the opponent of all outward authority, of everything Catholic in every domain of the life of the mind”[1626]—an argument, moreover, which occasionally they turned against the Lutheran “Church” itself.

Thus was the dictator of Wittenberg, such as the Orthodox knew him, transformed into a “champion of freedom”; the rationalists made his pen the vehicle of their own ideas. Luther became the “herald of the Enlightenment.” He began what others were to carry on later. “A little longer,” so one wrote in 1797, “and the heavenly light which Luther only saw dimly as in a dream will stream in upon us in all its brightness.”[1627]

The Berlin leader of this movement, A. F. Büsching, as early as 1748, said of himself that he had seen “Luther in his true greatness and as known only to the few; how, in matters of religion, he had absolutely refused to depend on any man, but had relied simply on his own insight and convictions and what had been borne in upon him by diligent reading of the Bible.”[1628] The Halle editor of Luther’s Works, J. G. Walch, vaunted among the other services rendered by Luther that of having established freedom of conscience; in the eyes of Julius Wegscheider he was the “_libertatis cogitandi assertor_”; it was this which inclined even Frederick II of Prussia to respect him, though otherwise he considered him a “furious monk” and a “barbarous writer.”—Those who thus credited Luther with tolerance “had no inkling of the antithesis between this idea and the true Luther.”[1629] His wanton way of dealing with the Canon of Scripture was urged against the Orthodox in defence of a more critical treatment of Holy Writ. Lessing, referring to Luther’s whole system of Bible interpretation, wrote to J. M. Goeze, the chief pastor of St. Catherine’s church at Hamburg: “What greater authority had Luther than any other Doctor of Divinity?”[1630]

Less dangerous to Lutheranism, and in itself harmless enough, though quite characteristic of the age, was the discovery then made, that Luther was the very personification of a public benefactor and great servant of the State. The Leipzig Professor, C. H. Wieland, described him as a “scholar to whom all were indebted”; Luther, he says, “unmasked obsolete prejudices and opened up to his contemporaries in more than one direction fresh prospects of a coming enlargement of the circle of human knowledge. And this great man _was a German_.”[1631] From the good bourgeois point of view the fact that Luther had, as it was thought, cultivated respect for the secular authorities was a great feather in his cap. Such people readily shut their eyes to the severity with which Luther had been wont to lash the rulers, even the highest in the land, and to the fact that he had undermined the very foundations of authority. The patriotic thought that “this great man was a German” was made to cover all his failings.

This sort of patriotism gradually produced a new pattern of Luther, differing in many respects from the others. Particularly after the outbreak of the great German wars of deliverance and the burning enthusiasm for the Fatherland which they called forth many felt that they could not sufficiently extol Luther as the great German, and a typical child of his beloved country.

Gœthe repeatedly called Luther a “great man.” But what, above all, prepossessed him in his favour was, first, his “Struggle against priestcraft and the hierarchy,” and, then, his translation of the Bible. “By him we have been freed from the fetters of intellectual narrowness … and have once more the courage to stand upright on God’s earth and to realise our own divinely endowed nature.”[1632] The poet, himself a true child of his age, had no eye for the truths defended by Catholicism against Lutheranism. In a letter to Knebel dated August 22, 1817, when the centenary of Luther’s promulgation of his Theses was being celebrated far and wide, he said: “Between ourselves, the only interesting thing in the whole business [the Reformation] is Luther’s character; it is also the only thing that really impresses the masses. All the rest is worthless trumpery of which we still feel the burden to-day.” As for the usual view of Luther he characterises it as mythological.

7. The Modern Picture of Luther

In the so-called Romantic School the picture of Luther tends to become as shifty as the character of the age.

The Romanticists, like the poets they were, were anxious, as in other fields so also in respect of Luther, to make a stand against the shallowness of the “Enlightenment.”

Zacharias Werner, while still a Protestant, wrote in Luther’s honour his drama “Die Weihe der Kraft,” and, then, as a Catholic, the drama entitled “Die Weihe der Unkraft.”

Novalis, who was deeply read in Luther’s works, was of opinion that he, like Protestantism itself, was something democratic; to him Luther appeared a “hothead.” Disgusted with Lutheranism and vaguely conscious of the beauty of the past he was anxious to see the scattered faithful once more united in a new Christianity. “Luther,” so he wrote, “treated Christianity as he liked, failed to recognise its spirit and introduced another letter and another religion, viz. the sacred principle of the Bible over all.” A “fire from heaven” had indeed presided over the commencement of his career; later on, however, the source of “holy inspiration had run dry” and worldliness gained the upper hand in Luther.[1633]

The religious spirit which had animated the Romanticists and had led them to cast yearning eyes at the Middle Ages was soon extinguished by the new criticism, historical and Biblical, and by the spread of infidelity.

_The latest efforts to portray Luther_

Luther had now to submit to being criticised by scholars who prided themselves on being dispassionate and were not slow to pass judgment on the characteristics, whether actual or imaginary, which they seemed to discover in him. What the Göttingen Church-historian, Gottlieb Jakob Planck, representing the so-called “Pragmatic” writers had begun—much to the disgust of the then Luther devotees[1634]—was pushed forward by many other Protestants. The lengths to which independent criticism has gone of recent years is emphasised in the Göttingen theologian, Paul de Lagarde. Typical of his remarks is the following: “That great scold Luther, who could see no further than the tips of his toes, by his demagogy threw Germany into barbarism and dissension.”[1635] It was particularly with Luther’s “coarseness” and tendency to indulge in vulgar abuse that the critics were disposed to find fault. Some indeed were inclined to excuse him. Hardly any other writer, however, in seeking to exculpate Luther has used language so startling as that of Adolf Hausrath the Heidelberg scholar who, in his Life of Luther (1904), “thanks God for the barbarism of these polemics,” and goes so far as to say that, “since Luther’s road led to the goal it must have been the right one.”[1636]

Of the three comprehensive and most widely known biographies of Luther, that of Hausrath depicts Luther from the standpoint of a liberal divine. Here Luther almost ceases to be a theologian, or at any rate the theological problems amidst which Luther lived are scarcely even mentioned. On the other hand, in the biography by Theodore Kolde of Erlangen (2nd ed., 1893), the Wittenberg professor again figures as a teacher; his scholarly two-volume work is positive in tendency and regards Luther as a preacher of truth against the darkness of the Middle Ages—which, however, the author has misunderstood and fails to treat fairly. The third large modern work on Luther, also in two volumes, is by the late Julius Köstlin of Halle and Breslau; a new edition was published in 1903 with the collaboration of G. Kawerau; here the picture of Luther is a product of the so-called theology of compromise.[1637]

Wilhelm Maurenbrecher, professor of History at Bonn and Leipzig, said truly in his “Studien” (1874), that the traditional Luther “myth” the “stuff and rubbish” which the past had looked upon as true history, deserved to be cleared away. He traces back to Sleidanus the “current ‘_fable convenue_’” about Luther; this writer, in the work he published in 1555, which became a classic, had begun the process of “moderating and toning down the theological colours” of Luther’s picture, in such a way as to make Luther the living expression of the “already finished programme of the Protestant princes and theologians.” He lifted the author of the religious upheaval “out of his democratic, revolutionary setting” and stamped him as a “model” for theologians. Maurenbrecher, as a layman, is very frank in his opinion as to the central question of Bible-interpretation: “It is undoubtedly the right of every man at the present day to appeal to Luther’s own example, in favour of the unfettered freedom of Bible-research.”[1638]

By an objective portrayal of his characteristics, Protestant non-theologians such as Maurenbrecher have done good service,

## particularly as regards the more secular side of Luther’s picture.

The historian Onno Klopp was still a Protestant when, in 1857, in his “Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” albeit recognising Luther’s merits, he censured his “boundless confidence in the infallibility of his own judgment”; the “unstable character of the new Church, so dependent on the favour of princes”; also the blind, idolatrous veneration of his followers for him, especially the attitude of the “narrow-minded Elector and his advisers who were ready to take all the morbid drivel of a quarrelsome old man for the Word of God.” And these same authorities, so Onno Klopp declares, set up a new “Protestant Cæsarean Popedom” which year by year became more burdensome and oppressive.[1639] On the whole his portrait of Luther is the reverse of flattering.

Had the writings of Leopold von Ranke and Carl Adolf Menzel been as independent as Maurenbrecher’s or as broad-minded as Klopp’s, their picture of Luther would have been more true. Even to-day, in spite of the abundance of works on the Reformation period, an independent historian at home in all the profound and detailed studies which have recently appeared, is still lacking in Protestant circles; hence a living picture of Luther’s person has not yet been painted.

As for the Protestant theologians they have, as a rule, not contributed much to the portrait of Luther; what they have given us has been rather a sort of kaleidoscope of Luther’s dogma; they busy themselves more with crumbs from his history than with it as a whole. Dealing with some particular doctrine, writing or action of his they have sketched, so to speak, only one facet of his personality; with the help of this they have, nevertheless, built up a picture of the founder of Protestantism as he seemed to them. Hence even the fundamental conception of Luther’s message, i.e. that whereby it differs essentially from Catholicism has been very variously estimated.[1640]

Protestant theologians of more “positive” leanings have protested against the Rationalist views of those other theologians who hold that Luther banished dogma from his Christianity, and rediscovered Christianity “as a religion.”[1641] They declare that, not only did he not abrogate dogma but that he actually “revived and preserved” it. A religion without dogma was unthinkable to him.[1642]

It is true that these positive theologians who believe in the existence of Lutheran “dogmas” are at variance when it comes to stating clearly the actual dogmas which Luther “revived,” or in what his essential message consisted. Some insist above all on the ethical side; thanks to Luther there came a “deeper understanding for the idiosyncracies of the individual” than was the rule in mediæval Christianity.

Where such inveterate differences of opinion prevailed even the theology of conciliation was bound to fail. Reinhold Seeberg, the Berlin theologian, tried to promote some sort of settlement in his “Grundwahrheiten der christlichen Religion,” a work “framed on the lines of the olden Gospel and in the spirit of Paul and Luther which seeks to make the Christian standpoint understood in wider circles.” But his scheme met with a poor reception; the more orthodox looked at it “askance, and, on the other hand, the progressive party were only the more confirmed in their antagonism.”[1643]

Several Protestant theologians of late years have compared Luther to St. Paul. This, for instance, was also done by Walter Köhler of Zürich, a liberal theologian, who does not hesitate to reprehend in Luther whatever he finds amiss, and who also shows considerably more broad-mindedness than many others in his appreciation of the works of Catholics.

_The Janus-Picture of the Mediæval and Modern Luther_

Thanks to Denifle’s work Luther’s relation to the Middle Ages is now more clearly seen. The need for bestowing more attention than has hitherto been done on that side of Luther’s picture which belongs to the Middle Ages has been strongly insisted on by another liberal theologian, viz. Ernst Troeltsch of Heidelberg. In Troeltsch’s writings Luther’s features become to a great extent mediæval. His views on grace and faith, his ethics, his Churches, the stress he lays on the Word—all this, in reality, is an echo of Catholic times. All that forms the very being of Luther is mediæval and the Protestant traits are merely the wrapping.[1644] With the belief in revelation, which he still retained, he had been unable to rise above the hedge of the mediæval way of thought.

Troeltsch thus comes to the conclusion that the new era in which we live did not commence with Luther but only some two centuries ago, i.e. with the dawn of the Enlightenment. The older Protestantism, no less than Luther himself, belongs to the Middle Ages. Luther stuck fast in the Middle Ages chiefly because he clung to the belief in the “supranatural,” whereas the modern world, thanks to a mathematico-mechanical natural science, has done away with all that stands above nature.

Troeltsch also points out that Luther traces his conception of the Evangel back to Paul, and not to Jesus as the New Theology does; also that he, like the earlier Protestantism, had not completely shaken himself free of the mediæval asceticism, and that he held fast to the traditional doctrine of an original sin.

A Catholic writer has expressed himself more correctly on Luther’s false “supranaturalism,” according to which God does everything and man nothing: “The innermost kernel of his doctrinal system was more ultra-mediæval than the Middle Ages themselves.” “So far was he from desiring to make religion less unworldly or less Christian, that, according to what he was incessantly hammering into his hearers, man was to live himself ever more and more into conscience and faith, into Christ and the Gospel.”[1645]

Nevertheless the objection brought forward repeatedly of recent years against the theory of Luther’s mediævalism is also worthy of note; it is urged that, particularly in the early years of his tempestuous struggle, he threw off ideas which stamp him as thoroughly modern.

F. Loofs, for instance, says: “His leading ideas include in them a whole series of inferences which, however, he never followed up to their logical conclusion.… I may mention Luther’s dislike for all bare historical and dogmatic belief, the tendency he had caught from Erasmus to criticise even the Canon, the distinction he adumbrated between the message of salvation or ‘Word of God’ and the actual written word of Scripture.… Semler, who has been styled the father of Rationalism, in his ‘Abhandlung vom freien Gebrauch des Kanons’ has not unjustly claimed Luther as a forerunner … moreover, the services rendered by Luther to the [liberal Protestant] theology of the 19th century in many of its varied schools of thought cannot easily be overlooked.”[1646]

In these remarks there is doubtless much truth, and there are facts which go to bear out the theory that Luther indeed stands in close relations to the modern spirit. There can be no doubt that, in Luther, we find mediæval and modern features combined. What is wanting is an organic connection between the two; as explained in the foregoing volumes it was only at the expense of flagrant contradictions that he took over certain elements from the past while rejecting others; that he took one step forward towards modern infidelity and another backwards. The ancient figure of Janus with one face looking forward into the future and the other back upon the past was harmonious, at least inasmuch as the two faces were depicted as separate. In Luther, however, the two faces are one, a fact which scarcely improves his physiognomy.

From the recent studies on Luther we can now see more clearly than before that a “revision of the whole conception and appreciation of Luther” is imperative in his own household. But, in view of all the work already done, “is it not high time for us to expect an estimate of the Reformation as a whole which shall also be just to the whole Luther?” Stephan, who asks this question, answers it as follows: “We are still to-day in the midst of a new development that started more than a century since from the contrast presented by the different schools of thought.”[1647]

_The “Religious” Reformer and the Hero of “Kultur”_

Two other conceptions are in vogue at the present day, which are in part a reaction against the rather over-bold assertions sometimes made about Luther’s mediævalism. Some have insisted that Luther is to be taken as a “religious” teacher, without examining his actual doctrines too narrowly. To others he appears in the light of the founder of modern “Kultur,” i.e. of civilisation in its widest sense. Neither of these ideas can boast of being very clear, nor have they met with any great success.

Those who regard Luther merely as a religious teacher practically confine themselves to imputing to him the “religiousness” of modern Protestantism as the inward force which moved him; albeit, maybe, in his teaching, he did not quite come up to the modern standard. This was to all intents and purposes the view of Albert Ritschl and his school. Luther, they declared, taught first and foremost that both “piety and theology should rest on the consciousness of having in Christ a Gracious God, thanks to which consciousness we rise superior to the world with all its goods and all its duties.” With him “it was not a question of denominations but simply one of religion.” Ritschl, as another Protestant not unjustly observed, “undoubtedly fell a victim to the temptation” of “modernising” Luther.[1648] Moreover, whereas, according to Ritschl, one of Luther’s main achievements was his introduction of a new view of the Church as an institution devoid of legal jurisdiction, according to other Protestant scholars, it was “chiefly in his views regarding the Church that Luther remained under the spell of mediæval thought.”[1649] On the other hand, some few have sought to make out Luther’s religiousness to have been simply ethical. Thus Wilhelm Wundt, the philosopher, declared that Luther had taught mankind no new religion but only a new ethical system, which, however, was merely an offshoot of the Renaissance. As against this we may set the affirmation of Paul Wernle, viz. that neither Luther nor Lutheranism had a system of ethics at all.[1650]

Recently, it is true, Luther’s “religiousness” has been described by a skilful pen as consisting in an interior union with God, as something altogether “spiritual,” “personal,” as “a sentiment bringing comfort to man’s conscience.”[1651] The truth is, however, that the greatest minds, in mediæval and still more in patristic times, were also in favour of greater inwardness and were against that sort of righteousness which consists merely of words and works. This is a result borne in upon one by all the research now being conducted with so much vigour into the views prevalent in the Middle Ages and earlier.

Hence those who look upon Luther as a new preacher of religion are compelled to paint the pre-Lutheran world as absolutely heathen. Luther, “with his peasant’s pick, relentlessly attacked the vulgar polytheism of the people, the sublime polytheism of public worship and dogma, and likewise the pantheism of mysticism.” But, even if we suppose that all these dreadful things prevailed before Luther’s coming, what did he set up in their place? He induced people, so it is said, to “seek God and find Him in Jesus Christ the image of the fatherly heart of God, to fear, love and hope in God above all things, to fix our heart on God alone and there let it rest.”[1652]—But this was precisely what the olden mediæval Church had sought to do, hence, where is Luther’s peculiarity?

The state of the question to-day would almost seem to justify the words of the famous Ernst Moritz Arndt in his “Ansichten und Aussichten der teutschen Geschichte.” He wrote in 1814: “What Luther really taught and wished has hitherto been understood only by the few; his contemporaries failed to understand him, nor did he understand himself”; but “he foresaw that fiery, disembodied, formless Christianity that was to consist of nothing more than fire and spirit.” Arndt concludes with the solemn words: “But peace be with thine ashes, thou great German man, and may the earth hide thy shortcomings and Christian charity thy faults.”[1653]

The aim of other modern thinkers is to breathe new life into Luther by depicting him as the founder and the hero of modern “Kultur.” The conception of the author of Protestantism as the fount and origin of all present-day civilisation is certainly new and different from the earlier portraitures we have thus far considered. In this picture the “cultural” traits are put in so strong a light that his “religiousness” tends to vanish.

Modern civilisation is non-religious. It is perfectly true that Luther materially contributed to the expulsion of religious influences from the secular government and from public life in general; also that he intervened with a powerful hand to promote the secularisation—that had already begun—and to loosen the existing bond between the Church and the world. On the other hand, it is quite wrong to shut one’s eyes to the other powerful factors at work both before him and in his day which were also tending towards the civilisation of to-day with its estrangement from the Church and preponderance of material interests. Such a factor was the later Humanism. The whole background of the time in which he lived and the seething ferment that preceded the birth of the new world has been misunderstood. His friends indeed point to the after-effects of his undertaking as seen in the subsequent growth of education and scholarship; also to his attitude towards public morality; to the services he rendered to the German tongue; even to the benefit which, indirectly, accrued to agriculture, to the arts, to music, poetry, etc. But, even if we are disposed to allow that an improvement has taken place, it would be utterly unjust to blink the fact that many other spiritual and material influences were at work in all these spheres and were far more potent than Lutheranism. The Lutheran territories were still in a state of servitude and general backwardness when there passed over Germany a great wave of civilisation that was partly of German partly of foreign and even of Catholic growth. For the good that undoubtedly exists in modern civilisation we have to thank partly the natural sciences, which on their revival found a fertile soil even in Italy and France, partly commerce in which, however, the South of Europe was as active as any other region of the world, partly the arts, the best work being, however, cisalpine, partly the development of the State and the army, which again is certainly no indigenous product of Protestantism; hence what we now know is the result of a rivalry between varied influences and many countries. Then again all those qualities which to-day give Germany so high a place among the nations had existed in his countrymen long before Luther’s day; such were their readiness to appreciate the good in others, their openness to outside ideas, their ability to exploit foreign progress, their industry, their domesticity, their tenacity in overcoming all obstacles, and their sober outlook.

Those who make Luther the hero of “Kultur” are also apt to forget the sad ethical, social and political consequences of the schism. To these Adolf Harnack referred plainly enough in a lecture delivered in 1883: “We are well aware of what the Reformation cost us Germans and still costs us. For ages it delayed our political unity; it brought on us the Thirty Years’ War; it made it difficult for us to be just to the Church of the Middle Ages, nay, even to the Church of Antiquity—we cannot break with history without obscuring it—it brought upon us a religious schism which still hinders our growth.”[1654]

If, however, we examine those elements of the new “Kultur” which from the religious or moral standpoint are somewhat questionable (though, amongst Protestant unbelievers, writers are not wanting who are ready to justify them) we meet with many indications which lead us back to Luther. Yet, here again, on the other hand, there were other great and far-reaching causes at work which account for them, which have but little to do with Lutheranism. Such were, for instance, the English Deism which reached Germany by way of France and which helped to produce the infidelity of the Enlightenment; also the revolutionary ideas of 1789 on liberty, the Rights of Man and the lawfulness of rising in revolt, ideas to which the masses are still addicted; then again the luxury that was imported from abroad; above all the inclination of the human heart everywhere to sensuality, to egotism and to promote one’s own standing and temporal welfare even at the expense of one’s neighbour. These maladies to which human nature is prone have, by various causes, been sadly aggravated in modern times. How far Luther was responsible for some of these causes should not be difficult to determine after all that has been said above. At any rate his repudiation of authority in religious matters, his new ideas on faith and good works, and, again his whole system of subjectivism, were poor barriers against the inrush of those elements hostile to faith in God, to Christianity and to ethics, which, in modern civilisation, have a place side by side with much that is good.

Nietzsche laid it down that Luther was the first to free the German people from Christianity by teaching them to be un-Roman and to say: Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.[1655] He was anxious to make Luther the patron of his newest brand of “Kultur.” But this new, antichristian and atheistic “Kultur” is largely repudiated in Protestant circles. Many, like Walter Köhler, refuse to admit that Luther was in any sense the father of modern freethought; how could he have been, asks Köhler, since he would not sanction any freedom of conscience, and did not even understand what such a thing was?[1656]

Hence Luther makes a rather unsatisfactory “Hero of Kultur.” To depict him in this light his relations with the more favourable side of “Kultur” have to be so much exaggerated and distorted that one almost expects him, the sworn opponent of “fool reason” and champion of the “enslaved will,” to leap from his grave in protest; on the other hand, it is quite impossible to claim Luther as an advocate of that side of modern “Kultur” which is antagonistic to religion and morality. Protestant authorities have also protested against any claim being made on his behalf that he at least abolished that “Kultur which was directed by the Church”; on the contrary, so they declare, the “Kultur” for which he stood was in many respects “still tied up to the one and only Church” and was quite “mediæval in its character.”[1657] Thus, here again, a sort of dual picture, painted partly in the gay colours of the present day, partly in the sombre tints of the past.

_A “Political” Luther?—Conclusion_

Over and above all the previous presentations of Luther another strange portrait has recently appeared, which finds admirers among lay historians and students of political history. Here Luther’s political traits are emphasised. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, in his much-read work “Grundlagen des 19 Jahrhunderts,” insists on this view of Luther, starting from the assumption which is beyond question “that the separation from Rome for which Luther fought with such passion all his life was in itself the greatest political upheaval that could possibly occur.… However pitiful the later history of the Reformation may have been, still Luther’s deed was an undying one for this reason, that it rested on a firm political groundwork.” Chamberlain quite rightly makes much of Luther’s attempt to link his cause with that of the princes and with the German national sentiment.

“Without the princes,” says Chamberlain, “nothing could have been done. Who seriously believes that the princes who patronised the Reformation were inspired by or acted from religious enthusiasm? The fingers of one hand would be more than enough on which to reckon up those of whom such a thing holds good. Political interest and political ambition backed by the awakening of national sentiment were the determining factors.” “Even in the later wars of religion the political question was paramount.” It was his desire to win over the German statesmen that made Luther “speak so highly of the ‘German nation’ and so disrespectfully of the Papists.” That was why he wrote, for instance: “For my Germans was I born, them will I serve.” He is “more a politician than a theologian.” “Luther is, above all, a political hero.”

This portrait of the “political hero” is not one whit less one-sided than the others; above all, the author, who has no understanding for Christianity and the Church, fails also to see the so-called “religious” side in Luther. It is true that political motives often loomed so large in Luther’s case and in that of the princes who lent him their support as actually to obscure the religious side of the struggle. Luther himself, however, was anything rather than a great politician on the world’s stage. He had, in fact, to quote a Protestant historian, woefully distorted and imperfect views of the actual trend of human events, particularly of the determining personalities and active factors in the politics of that day. Never perhaps has a more childish diagnosis been given than that contained in the advice of the Wittenberg theologian to his sovereigns about their attitude towards Charles V.[1658] The circumstance that he was deficient in political sense may explain to some extent his mistakes and want of logic in this sphere, but cannot excuse the masterful tone in which he so often expresses himself on the public questions of the day. Then again there was his changeableness. Resistance to the Kaiser, which at one time he had declared unlawful, was advised by him later. After he had handed over the rights of the Church to the lawyers he turns on them and denounces them as his worst foes, who must be fought with every weapon for the sake of the independence of the preachers. In the same way, in spite of the religious freedom which he seemed at first to proclaim as a lasting principle for all future government of Church and State, we find him making his own that repellant intolerance, which, at last subsequent to 1530, led him to advocate the death-penalty for those who held “sectarian” doctrines, or any that differed from his own.

Discouraged by the failure of all these attempts to portray Luther others, at present, are inclined to deny him any mark of distinction and, in particular, any creative power, and depict him simply as the sum, or “product, of existing historical forces.” They emphasise strongly the pre-existing factors and regard him less as a mover than as one moved. This view, however, has also been stigmatised by Protestants as “Mythological.” They object that even “the masses also have a certain share in the achievements of genius,” and that genius itself is but “a child of its time.”[1659]

“The literary portraits of Luther,” says the Protestant author of “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” “are all more or less unlike the original. They are not in the strict sense of the word portraits at all but rather represent a type.… Every age has to some degree altered the traditional picture of the Reformer to make it fit its own ideals.” “The naïve way of idealising which credits the hero of history with our own ideals … is still at work even at the present day. If we cannot claim the whole Luther for ourselves, we can at least claim a bit of Luther.”

“In most of the popular Luther biographies of recent times,” the same author says, “all that is harsh and rude, violent and demagogic, rough and crude in the physiognomy of the Reformer has been obliterated.”[1660]

Adolf Harnack, also, seeks to discourage the practice of “hero painting”; he speaks unkindly of the common, “emotional pictures” of Luther as the reformer of civilisation which are fabricated somehow or other with the help of a select collection of artificial strokes. He adds: “The reformer himself would not recognise such a picture as his.” “Such a thing would be to him,” to quote an expression of Luther’s own, simply “a painted Luther.”[1661]

To get as close as possible to the real Luther and not to present a painted or fictitious one has been our constant endeavour in the present work. We venture to hope that the claims of objective history may be recognised even in a field which trenches so closely on religious convictions. There is so much that is purely historical and may be judged quite apart from denominational considerations, so much neutral ground where it is merely a question of facts. To construct an opinion of one’s own based on the incontrovertible facts is open to everyone. We trust that the new discussions that seem called for for a further sifting of facts will be undertaken in all calm and in the dispassionate temper befitting the historian. Should these volumes serve as a stimulus in this direction, the author will feel that, by this alone, he has achieved something great.

APPENDICES

XLI—APPENDIX I

LUTHER’S WRITINGS AND THE EVENTS OF THE DAY ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

[The list in the original was compiled by Peter Sinthern, S.J. We have retained it intact, save that here, as in the body of the work, we give the title of each of Luther’s German writings in the quaint spelling of the earliest “Urdruck” to which we had access. _Note of the English Editor._]

As the plan of the present work, as explained in the Introduction (vol. i., pp. xxvii., xxxi.), did not allow of a strict chronological order being followed, and as, moreover, many of Luther’s writings and not a few events of the day had to be passed over in silence, the following list may be found both interesting and useful.

Reference is made in it to all Luther’s publications, even the smaller ones, and the reader is told where they may be found, either in the older Erlangen edition, or in the more recent Weimar edition, so far as the latter goes. Such a catalogue forms the best skeleton for Luther’s history. The list is based on that given by Köstlin (“Luther,”⁵ 2, p. 718 ff.), slightly enlarged, for instance by references to Luther’s correspondence (in Enders, De Wette and the Erlangen ed.), to his Disputations (as in Drews), and to his sermons. Works which do not figure in the actual list for each year but in the paragraph inset at the end, are those which, though published during the year in question, were written earlier. Some works apparently omitted in the list will be found either in the Sermons or in the Correspondence of Luther.

The bringing into conjunction of Luther’s writings with the principal events of the years in which they saw the light will be found of advantage, in that the two often mutually complete and explain each other.

Till =1516=. Accession of Pope Leo X, 1513; of Kaiser Maximilian I, 1493; of Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 1486; of George, Duke of Saxony, 1500; of William IV, Duke of Bavaria, 1508; of Joachim I, Elector of Brandenburg, 1499; of Albert Archbishop of Mayence, 1514; of Scultetus, Bishop of Brandenburg, 1507.—In 1502 foundation of the University of Wittenberg. In 1503 death of Andreas Proles. Johann Lang, professor (since 1511) at Wittenberg goes (1515-16) back to Erfurt. In 1510 Eck is appointed professor at Ingolstadt; Carlstadt wins his doctorate. In 1511, Amsdorf becomes a licentiate in theology. In 1513, Spalatin is appointed Court-chaplain and secretary to the Elector Frederick. In 1513-1514, the attitude of the peasants becomes threatening. In 1515, publication of the “Epistolæ obscurorum virorum” of Crotus Rubeanus, etc.—1483, Nov. 10, Birth of Martin Luther. In 1497, he is sent to Magdeburg to the Brothers of the Common Life. In 1498, he goes to Eisenach and, in 1501, to Erfurt. 1502, he becomes a Baccalaureus. In 1505, he is made a Master and enters the cloister (July 17). In 1506, he makes his vows; his first Mass (May 2?). He begins to study theology. In 1508, he goes to Wittenberg to study; his lectures on dialectics and ethics. In 1509, he becomes a Baccalaureus biblicus (March 9); late in the year he returns to Erfurt and becomes Sententiarius. At the end of 1510 he goes to Rome and early in 1511 returns to Germany; “deserts to Staupitz” and removes again to Wittenberg. In 1512, the Cologne Chapter; beginning of his friendship with Lang and Eberbach; his doctorate (Oct. 18); he succeeds Staupitz as professor of Holy Scripture. In 1514 he takes Reuchlin’s side. In 1515 is made District-Vicar at the Chapter of Gotha; his discourse “Against the Little Saints.” His opinions become fixed whilst engaged on his Exposition of Romans (1515-1516); echoes of the new doctrine in his sermons at Christmas.

1. 1510-1511. Marginal notes to the Sentences (Bks. i.-iii.) and certain works of St. Augustine (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 2 ff., 28 ff.

2. 1513-1515. First lectures on the Psalms: “Dictata super psalterium” (publ. 1743 and 1876, complete 1885). Weim. ed., 3, pp. 1(11)-652 (ps. i.-lxxxiv.); 4, pp. 1-462 (ps. lxxxv.-cl.); 9, pp. 116-121 (ps. xli.).

3. 1514-1517. Sermons on the Lessons (in Latin) preached at the monastery (publ. 1720). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 18(20)-141; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 41-214.

4. 1514-1520. Sermons (ed. Roth, 1886). Weim. ed., 4, pp. 587(590)-717; 9, pp. 203(204); cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 25-232.

5. 1515-1516. Lectures on Romans (ed. Joh. Ficker, 1908).

6. 1515? “Sermo præscriptus præposito in Litzka” (publ. 1708). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 8(10)-17; “Opp. lat var.,” 1, pp. 29-41.

Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 6. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 4-27. Erl. ed., 53, p. 1.

=1516.= Hermann von Wied becomes Archbishop of Cologne; Erasmus’s “Colloquia”; his first edition of the Greek New Testament with a new Latin translation; Lang as Prior of Erfurt.—Luther’s first mention of Tauler, in his “Commentary on Romans”; his mystical letters to Spenlein and Leiffer (April 8, 15); his quarrel with the Erfurt monks (June 16); his Catholic sermon on Indulgences (July 27); his sermons against the “holy-by-works” (July-Aug.); Opposition to his new theology at Wittenberg and Erfurt (Sept.); back to Augustine! (Oct. 19); Carlstadt’s Theses; Luther busy on Galatians and Titus, 1516-1517.

7. 1516-1517. “Decem præcepta Wittembergensi prædicata populo” (publ. 1518). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 394(398)-521; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, pp. 1-218.

8. (Sept.). “Quæstio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia” (Theses for Barth. Bernhardi: “Initium negocii evangelici”). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 142(145)-151; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 232(235)-255.

9. (Oct. 27, 1516-1517). “In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas” (Lectures, publ. 1519). Weim. ed., 2, pp. 436(451)-618. Irmischer, 3, pp. 141-485.

10. 1st ed. of “Eyn geystlich edles Buchleynn” (the “Theologia Deutsch”), with “Vor Rede.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 152(153); Erl. ed., 63, p. 238.

Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 7. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 28-78.

=1517.= Creation of 31 new Cardinals (July 1); ridicule of the German Humanists; Hutten settles in Germany; his edition of the “Donatio Constantini”; “our” Erasmus (March 1) publishes his paraphrases on the Epistles, and, later, on the Gospels; the old exegesis fares badly; “De planctu ecclesiæ” reprinted at Lyons; Tetzel visits Magdeburg, Halberstadt and (in Oct.) Berlin; Luther nails up his Latin Indulgence-Theses (Oct. 31).

11. “Die sieben Puszpsalm mit deutscher Auszlegung nach dem schrifftlichen Synne” (first personal work published by Luther). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 154(158)-220; Erl. ed., 37, pp. 345-442.

12. “Auslegung deutsch des Vater Unnser fuer dye einfeltigen Leyen” (publ. by Agricola, and by Luther himself in 1518, No. 31).

13. Lectures on Hebrews (still unpublished).

14. “Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam” (Theses for Franz Günther). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 221(224)-228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 315-321.

15. “Die zehen Gepot Gottes … mit einer kurtzen Ausslegung” (publ. 1518). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 247(250)-256; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 146-154.

16. The 95 Indulgence-Theses: “Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 229(233)-238; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 285-293.

Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 7. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 79-137; Erl. ed., 53, p. 1 f.

=1518.= Philip II Landgrave of Hesse (March 31); Sickingen and his men desert the French for the Kaiser (May 16); Melanchthon goes to Wittenberg (Aug. 25).—Early in 1518 Archbishop Albert sends his report to Rome; Tetzel’s counter-theses (Jan. 18); Leo X directs the Augustinian superiors to take steps; the Heidelberg Chapter and the Disputation in Luther’s favour; Lang displaces Luther as District-Vicar; charges formulated at Rome against Luther as a spreader of heretical opinions (middle of June); he is summoned to Rome (Aug. 7); the Augsburg trial (Oct.); Papal Bull to defend the doctrine of Indulgences (Nov. 9); Luther appeals to a General Council (Nov. 28); he discovers the secret of the certainty of salvation.

17. “Eyn Sermon von dem Ablass und Gnade.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 239(243)-246; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 4-8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 326-331.

18. “Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 522(525)-628; 9, pp. 171-175; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 126-293.

19. “Sermo de pœnitentia.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 317(319)-324; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 331-340.

20. Theses for the Heidelberg Disputation (Leonard Beyer’s). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 350(353)-355; 9, pp. 160(161)-170; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 387-390.

21. “Asterisci Lutheri adv. Obeliscos Eckii” (publ. 1545). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 278(281)-314; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 410-456.

22. Preface to the complete ed. of “Eyn Deutsch Theologia.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 374(378)-379; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 238-240; cp. No. 10.

23. “Eyn Freiheyt dess Sermons Bepstlichen Ablass und Gnad belangend.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 380(383)-393; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 10-25.

24. “Ausslegung des 109 Psalmen.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 687(689)-710; 9, pp. 176-202; Erl. ed., 40, pp. 3-38.

25. “Ad dialogum Silvestri Prieriatis de potestate Papæ responsio.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 644(647)-686; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 6-67.

26. “Sermo de virtute excommunicationis.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 634(638)-643; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, 2, pp. 306-313.

27. “Sermo in festo S. Michaelis in arce Wimariensi” (publ. 1556). “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 226-232.

28. “Acta Augustana.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 1(6)-26; 9, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 354-361, 367-392.

29. “Appellatio a Caietano ad Papam.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 27(28)-33; “Opp. lat var.,” 2, pp. 398-404.

30. “Appellatio ad futurum concilium universale.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 34(36)-40; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 438-445.

31. “Auslegung deutsch des Vater Unnser fuer dye einfeltigen Leyen.” (Cp. No. 12.) Weim. ed., 2, pp. 74(80)-130; 9, pp. 122(123)-159; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 159-227; 45, pp. 204-207.

32. “Sermo de triplici iustitia.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 41(43)-47; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 322-329.

“Decem præcepta,” cp. No. 7. Brief explanation of the Ten Commandments, cp. No. 15. Sermons, Erl. ed., 16², pp. 3-33; cp. No. 4. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 138-337; 5, p. 1; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 3-5.

=1519.= Death of Maximilian I, Charles V succeeds him (June 28); Ulrich becomes Duke of Würtemberg; the “Onus ecclesiæ” of B. Pirstinger of Chiemsee; death of Tetzel (Aug. 11); Capito becomes cathedral-preacher at Mayence; Zwingli at Zürich (Jan. 1); Oldecop visits Rome; Miltitz calls on Luther (Jan.); the Leipzig Disputations (June-July).

33. Preface to Prierias’s “Replica.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 48(50)-56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 68-78.

34. “Kurtz Unterweysung wie man beichten sol.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 57(59)-65; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 245-253 (cp. No. 66).

35. “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 66(69)-73; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 3-9; 24², pp. 5-11.

36. “Eyn Sermon von der Betrachtung des heyligen Leydens Christi.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 131(136)-142; Erl. ed., 11, pp. 144-152; 11², pp. 154-163.

37. Commentary on Galatians, cp. No. 9.

38. 1519-1521. Second course of Lectures on the Psalms. “Operationes in psalmos” (Ps. i.-xxii.). Weim. ed., 5, pp. 1(19)-673; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 14-16.

39. “Sermo de duplici iustitia.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 143(145)-152; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 329-339.

40. “Disputatio et excusatio adv. criminationes Eccii.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 153(158)-161; 9, pp. 206(207)-212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 12-17.

41. “Eyn Sermon von dem Elichen Standt.” Original text, Weim. ed., 9, pp. 213-220; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 150-158; 16², pp. 50-57. Revised text, Weim. ed., 2, pp. 162(166)-171; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 158-165; 16², pp. 60-67.

42. “Eyn kurtze Form des Pater Noster zu versteen unnd zu betten.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 9(11)-19; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 21-32.

43. “Kurtze nützliche ausslegung des Vatter Unsers fürsich und hindersich.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 20(21)-22; Erl. ed., 45, p. 208-211.

44. “Eyn Sermon von dem Gepeet unnd Procession yn der Creutz Wochen.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 172(175)-179; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 290-296; 16², pp. 69-76.

45. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 1(3)-8; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 122-127; 16², pp. 113-117.

46. “Resolutio super propositione sua (Lipsiensi) XIII de potestate Papæ.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 180(183)-240; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 296-384.

47. “Scheda adv. Hochstraten,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 384(386)-387; “Opp. lat var.,” 2, pp. 295-297.

48. “Resolutiones super propositionibus Lipsiæ disputatis.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 388(391)-435; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 228-292.

49. “Tessaradecas consolatoria pro laborantibus et oneratis.” (publ. 1520). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 99(104)-134; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 88-135.

50. “Contra malignum Ioh. Eccii iudicium.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 621(625)-654; “Opp. lat. var.,” pp. 472-514.

51. “Ad ægocerotem Emserianum additio.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 655(658)-679; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 13-45.

52. “Sermon von dem Sacrament der Puss.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 709(713)-723; Erl. ed., 53, p. 30 f.; 20, pp. 179-193; 16², pp. 35-48.

53. “Eyn Sermon von der Bereytung zum Sterben.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 680(684)-697; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 258-274; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 453-473.

54. “Ad Eccium super expurgatione Ecciana.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 698(700)-708; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 47-58.

55. “Eyn Sermon von dem heyligen hochwirdigen Sacrament der Tauffe.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 724(727)-737; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 229-244; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 398-410.

56. “Eyn Sermon von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament des heyligen waren Leychnams Christi.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 738(742)-758; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 28-50.

57. “Scholia in librum Genesios” (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 329-415.

58. “Enarrationes epistolarum et evangeliorum quas postillas vocant” (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 415-676.

59. Latin Advent-postils (publ. 1521). Weim. ed., 7, pp. 458(463)-637.

Sermons, cp. No. 36, 41, 44, 52, 55-59. Letters, Enders, 1, p. 338—2, p. 289; 5, pp. 4-8; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 5-34; 56, pp. i.-vii.

=1520.= Suleiman II begins his career. The war in Hungary. Coronation of Charles V at Aachen (Oct. 23). Hutten offers Luther his own and Sickingen’s protection; his “Vadiscus” and “Inspicientes” (April). Münzer at Zwickau (May 17); Urban Rhegius cathedral-preacher at Augsburg; Link succeeds Staupitz as General Vicar (Aug. 28). Eck goes to Rome; the first Consistory against Luther (Jan. 9). The Stolpen decree of the Bishop of Meissen (Jan. 24). Luther’s letter to Charles V (Aug. 30); his third and last epistle to Leo X (after Oct. 13). The Bull “Exsurge” and its condemnation of 41 theses (June 15), published in Germany by Eck (in Sept.) and burnt by Luther (Dec. 10). Luther’s open attack on the freedom of the will.

60. “Eyn Sermon von dem Bann.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 61(63)-75; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 51-70.

61. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 33(36)-60; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 89-120; 16², pp. 79-110.

62. “Erklerung … etlicher Artickel yn seynem Sermon von dem heyligen Sacrament.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 76(78)-83; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 71-77.

63. “Antwort auff die Tzedel sso unter des Officials tzu Stolpen Sigel ist aussgangen”; “Ad Schedulam inhibitionis.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 135(136)-141, 142(144)-153; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 78-84; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 138-151.

64. “Sermon von den guten Wercken.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 196(202)-276; 9, pp. 226(229)-301; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 193-290; 16², pp. 121-220.

65. “Responsio ad condemnationem doctrinalen per Lovanienses et Colonienses.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 170(174)-195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 176-205.

66. “Confitendi ratio.” Weim. ed., 6, 154(157)-169; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 154-171 (cp. No. 34).

67. “Eyn kurcz Form der czehen Gepott. Eyn kurcz Form dess Glaubens. Eyn kurcz Form dess Vatter Unssers.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 194(204)-229; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 3-32.

68. “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome wider dem hochberumpten Romanisten tzu Leiptzk” (i.e. Alveld). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 277(285)-324; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 86-139.

69. “Epitoma responsionis Silv. Prieratis” with preface and postface. Weim. ed., 6, pp. 325(328)-348; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 79-108.

70. “An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 381(404)-469; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 277-360.

71. “Eyn Sermon von dem newen Testament das ist von der heyligen Messe.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 349(353)-378; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 141-173.

72. “De captivitate babylonica ecclesiæ præludium.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 484(497)-573; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 16-118.

73. “Erbieten” (“Oblatio sive Protestatio”). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 478(480)-481, 482-483; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 9-11; 24², pp. 12-14; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 4-6; early draft of same, Weim. ed., 6, pp. 476-478; 9, pp. 302-304; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 12-14; 24², pp. 14-16.

74. Preface to “Adv. constitutionem de cleri cœlibatu.” Cp. Weim. ed., 7, p. 677.

75. “Von den newen Eckischenn Bullen und Lugen.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 576(579)-594; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 15-28; 24², pp. 18-31.

76. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 12(20)-38; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 175-199.

77. “Eyn Sendbrieff an den Bapst Leo. den czehenden.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 1(3)-11; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 41-52.

78. “Epistola Lutheriana ad Leonem decimum.” “Tractatus de libertate christiana.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 39(42)-73; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 219-255.

79. “Adv. execrabilem Antichristi bullam.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 595(597)-612; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 134-153.

80. “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 613(614)-629; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 36-52; 24², pp. 39-55.

81. “Appellatio ad Concilium repetita.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 74(75)-82; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 121-131.

82. “Appellation odder Beruffung … repetirt.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 83(85)-90; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 30-35; 24², pp. 32-37.

83. “Das Magnificat verteuschet und ausgelegt” (publ. 1521). Weim. ed., 7, pp. 538-604; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 212-290.

84. “Warumb des Bapsts und seyner Jungern Bucher … vorbrant seyn.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 152-186; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 152-164; 24², pp. 154-166; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 257-270.

85. “Assertio omnium articulorum per bullam damnatorum.” (publ. 1521). Weim. ed., 7, pp. 91-151; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 156-237.

Tessaradecas (cp. No. 49). Sermons (cp. No. 58). Letters, Enders 2, p. 290-3, p. 37; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 34-53.

=1521.= First war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1526). Henry VIII publishes his “Assertio.” Death of Leo X (Dec. 1). Fall of Belgrad. Bugenhagen comes to Wittenberg and Eberlin of Günzburg goes to Ulm. The Bull “Decet Rom. Pontif.” is issued (Jan. 3). The Diet of Worms; the “Gravanima”; Aleander’s discourse (Feb. 13). Luther is summoned to the Diet (March 6), his sermon at Erfurt (April 7), his condemnation by the Sorbonne (April 15), his arrival at Worms (April 16); he refuses to recant (April 18); his stay at the Wartburg (May 4, 1521-March 1, 1522); the sentence of outlawry, May 8 (May 26). Carlstadt assails clerical celibacy; the turmoil at Erfurt (July); the Mass is abolished among the Wittenberg Augustinians (Oct.). Luther busies himself with the translation of the Bible (Dec. 1521-1534); Melanchthon’s Commonplace-Book (Dec.). Luther’s secret visit to Wittenberg (Dec. 3-11). Carlstadt introduces a new rite for the Supper (Dec. 25). The Zwickau “prophets” come to Wittenberg.

86. “Grund vnd Vrsach aller Artickel … so … verdampt seindt.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 299(308)-457; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 53-150; 24², pp. 56-150.

87. “An den Bock zu Leyptzck.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 259(262)-265; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 201-205.

88. “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 266(271)-283; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 205-220.

89. “Unterricht der Beychtkinder ubir die vorpotten Bucher.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 284(290)-298; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 203-209; 24², pp. 206-213.

90. “Auff das ubirchristlich, ubirgeystlich und ubirkunstlich Buch Bocks Emssers.” Weim. ed. 7, pp. 614(621)-688; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 221-308.

91. “Ad librum Ambrosii Catharini responsio,” Weim. ed. 7, pp. 698(704)-778; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 289-394.

92. “Responsio extemporaria ad articulos ex Babylonica et Assertionibus excerptos.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 605(608)-613; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 24-30.

93. “Eyn Sermon … am Gründornstag.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 689(692)-697; Erl. ed., 17, pp. 65-72; 16², pp. 242-249.

94. “Deutsch Auszlegũg des sieben uñ seditzigstẽ Psalmẽ.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 1(14)-35; Erl. ed., 39, pp. 179-220.

95. “Von der Beicht ob der Bapst Macht habe zu gepieten.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 129(138)-204; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 319-379.

96. Church-postils, Advent to Epiphany (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, pp. 1-728; Erl. ed., 7, 10; 7², 10².

97. “Eyn Kleyn Unterricht was man ynn den Euangeliis suchen und gewartten soll.” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, pp. 8-18; Erl. ed., 7, pp. 5-12; 7², pp. 6-13.

98. “Rationis Latomianæ confutatio.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 36(43)-128; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 395-521.

99. “Der sechs uñ dreyssigist Psalm.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 205 (210)-240; Erl. ed., 38, pp. 373-396; 39, pp. 124-136.

100. “Eyn Urteyl der Theologen tzu Paris uber die Lere Dr. Luthers. Eyn gegen Urteyl Dr. Luthers.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 255(267)-312; 9, pp. 716(717)-761; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 380-410.

101. “Evangelium von den tzehen Aussetzigen.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 336(340)-397; Erl. ed., 17, pp. 146-176; 14², pp. 42-87; 16², pp. 259-291.

102. “Themata de votis.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 313(323)-335; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 344-360; 6, p. 235.

103. “Eyn Widderspruch seynis yrthũss erczwungen durch den … Herrn H. Emser.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 241(247)-254; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 308-318.

104. “De votis monasticis” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. 564(573)-669; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 238-376.

105. “De abroganda missa privata” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. 398(411)-476; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 115-212.

106. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. 477(482)-563; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 28-141.

107. “Eyn trew Vormanung … sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 670(676)-688; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 43-59; 22², pp. 43-58.

108. Translation of the New Testament (publ. 1522).

The Magnificat, cp. No. 83. Latin Postils, cp. No. 59. “Assertio omnium articulorum,” cp. No. 85. Sermons, cp. Nos. 58, 96 and Weim. ed., 7, pp. 792(795)-802; 9, pp. 501-516; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 221-301. Letters, Enders, 3, pp. 38-268; 53, pp. 55-103.

=1522.= Hadrian VI (Pope from Jan. 9, 1522, to Sept. 14, 1523). Charles V goes to Spain, remaining there till 1529; the Diet of Nuremberg (Dec.); the Turkish question, the “Centum gravamina,” the fall of Rhodes (Dec. 25). Iconoclastic riot at Wittenberg (Jan.); the Wittenberg Augustinians abolish their rule about begging (Jan. 6); relics no longer to be exposed at the Collegiate Church (April 16). Jonas (Feb. 22) and Bugenhagen (Oct. 13) take wives. Luther returns from the Wartburg (March 1); his sermons against Carlstadt (March 9-16). Hartmuth von Cronberg’s missive; Luther returns to Erfurt (Oct.). The innovations forcibly introduced into Altenburg, Schwarzburg, Eilenburg, etc.

109. “Bulla Cœnæ Domini.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 688(691)-720; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 165-202; 24², pp. 168-204.

110. “Acht Sermon” (Against Carlstadt). Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 1-64; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 203-285.

111. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes zu nehmen.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 1(11)-41; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 286-318.

112. “Eyn Missive an den ereñvestenn Harttmutt vonn Cronberg.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 42(53)-60; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 120-128.

113. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 61(72)-92; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 330-343.

114. “Die erst Epistel Sanct Petri gepredigt und ausgelegt” (publ. 1523). Weim. ed., 12, pp. 249(259)-399; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 325-494.

115. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 93(105)-158; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 142-202.

116. “Bulle des Ecclesiasten tzu Wittenbergk.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140-144; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 380-387; 24², pp. 214-220.

117. “Epistel odder Unterricht von den Heyligen an die Kirch tzu Erffurdt.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 159(164)-168; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 139-144.

118. “Contra Henricum regem Angliæ.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 175(180)-222; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 385-448.

119. “Antwort deutsch … auff König Henrichs von Engelland Buch. Lügen thun myr nicht, Warheyt schew ich nicht.” Weim, ed., 10, 2, pp. 223(227)-262; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 344-387.

120. Latin letter to the Bohemian Estates. Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 169(172)-174; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 144-148.

121. 1522-1523. Translation of the Old Testament (Pentateuch, publ. 1523).

122. Preface to “Wesselii epistolæ.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 310(316)-317; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 495-497.

123. Preface to “Gochii fragmenta.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 327(329)-330.

124. “Vom Eelichen Leben.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 267(275)-304; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 57-87; 16², pp. 510-541.

125. “Ain Betbüchlin.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 331(375)-482.

The German New Testament, cp. No. 108. Church-Postils, cp. No. 96. “De votis monasticis,” cp. No. 104. “De abroganda missa privata,” cp. No. 105. Sermons, Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 1-435; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 263-265; 16², pp. 304-543. Letters, Enders, 3, p. 269—4, p. 52; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 103-157.

=1523.= Clement VII (Pope from Nov. 19, 1523, to Sept. 25, 1534). In Sweden, Gustavus Vasa (†1560). In Denmark, Frederick I (†1533). Edict of the Diet of Nuremberg (Feb. 8). The Lutherans begin to form parishes apart. The innovations introduced into Prussia. Luther has the Mass done away with at Wittenberg. Two Augustinians of Lutheran sympathies are burnt at Antwerp. Flight of Bora and the other Nimbschen nuns; Lang’s marriage. End of the German Augustinians. Luther’s illness. His interview with Carlstadt at Jena (Aug. 22). Link goes to Altenburg. The attempt to establish a new order of things at Leisnig. Luther drafts a constitution for the Churches of Bohemia.

126. “Die ander Epistel S. Petri und eyne S. Judas gepredigt und ausgelegt” (1523-1524). Weim. ed., 14, pp. 1(13)-91; Erl. ed., 52, pp. 213-287.

127. “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts des heyligen Leychnams Christi.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 417(431)-456; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 389-421.

128. “Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren, Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg ynn Meysszen funden Philippus Melanchthon D. Martinus Luther.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 357(368)-385; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 2-16.

129. “Adversus armatum virum Cokleum.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 292(295)-306; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 44-60.

130. Various Sermons, etc. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 36-62.

131. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt wie weytt man yhr Gehorsam schuldig sey.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 229(245)-281; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 60-105.

132. “Eyn Bepstlich Breve widder den Luther.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 337(342)-356; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 411-420; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 466-477.

133. “In Genesim Declamationes” (publ. 1527). Weim. ed., 24; 14, pp. 94(97)-488; Erl. ed., 33, 34.

134. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 31(35)-37; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 153-156.

135. “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 387(394)-400; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 34-42.

136. “Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne … Macht habe alle Lere zu urteylen.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 401(408)-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 141-151.

137. “Das Jhesus Christus eyn geborner Jude sey.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 307(314)-336; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 46-74.

138. “Das Tauff Buchlin Verdeutscht.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 38(42)-48; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 158-166.

139. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 1(11)-30; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 106-130.

140. “Widder die Verkerer und Felscher Keyserlichs Mandats.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 58(62)-67; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 182-190.

141. “Das siebẽdt Capitel S. Pauli zu den Corinthern aussgelegt.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 88(92)-142; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 3-69.

142. 1523-1529. Latin translation of the Bible (publ. 1529).

143. Epistolary Recommendation of Johann Apel’s “Defensio pro suo coniugio.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 68(71)-72; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 500 ff.

144. Preface to the German translation of Lamprecht’s (Lambert of Avignon) “In regulam Minoritarum … Commentarii.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 457(461); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 498 _sq._

145. Introduction to Savonarola’s “Meditatio pia.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 245(248); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 497 _sq._

146. “Eyn Brieff an die Christen ym Nidder Land.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 73(77)-80; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 180-182.

147. “Allen Christen zu Righe, Revell und Tarbthe [Dorpat].” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 143(147)-150; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 190-194.

148 Hymns: “Nu freut euch liebe Christen gmein,” “Ein newes Lied wir heben an.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 309 f., 340 ff.

149. “De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 160(169)-196; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 494-535.

150. “Eyn Sendtbrieff … an ein Christl. Gemain der Stat Essling.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 151(154)-159; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 213-217.

151. “Eyn trost Brieff an die Christen zu Augspurg.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 221(224)-227; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 223-227.

152. “An die Herrn Deutschs Ordens das sie falsche Keuscheyt meyden und zur rechten ehlichen Keuscheyt greyffen.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 228(232)-244; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 17-33.

153. “Formula missæ et communionis.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 197(205)-220; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 1-20.

German Old Testament (1st part), cp. No. 121. Sermons on the 1st Epistle of Peter, cp. No. 114. Other sermons, Weim. ed., 11, 12; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 1-72. Letters, Enders, 4, pp. 53-272; 5, p. 8; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 158-230; 56, pp. 166 f., vii. f.

=1524.= Diet of Nuremberg for the execution of the Edict of Worms. Amsdorf introduces the Reformation into Magdeburg. Münzer sacks the chapel at Malderbach near Eisleben. The Peasant War (beginning in June and lasting till the following year). League of the South-German Catholic Estates entered into at Ratisbon (July 6). Joh. Walther’s “Spiritual Song-book.” Münzer’s “Well-grounded plea” in his own defence (Sept.). Erasmus’s “Diatribe” (Sept.). Catholic worship is forbidden at Altenburg. Luther throws off the Augustinian habit (Dec.).

154. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands das sie christl. Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 9(27)-53; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 170-199.

155. Translation of the Old Testament (2nd part, from Josue to Esther).

156. “Duæ episcopales bullæ super doctrina Lutherana et Romana.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 141(146)-154; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 63-73.

157. “Eyn Christlicher Trostbrieff an die Miltenberger.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 54(69)-78; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 117-128.

158. Preface to Bugenhagen’s “In librum psalmorum Interpretatio.” Weim. ed., 15, p. 1(8); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502 _sq._

159. “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawẽ ausgelffen hat.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 79(86)-94; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 103-113.

160. 1524-1526. “Prælectiones in Prophetas minores” (publ. 1526-1545). Weim. ed., 13, pp. 1-703; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 24-28.

161. “Deuteronomium Mosi cum annotationibus” (publ. 1525). Weim. ed., 14, pp. 489(497)-744; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, pp. 5-351.

162. “Widder das blind und toll Verdamnis.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 95(110)-140; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 76-92.

163. “Dass Elltern die Kinder zur Ehe nicht zwingen noch hyndern.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 155(163)-169; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 236-244.

164. “Zwey keyserliche uneynige und wydderwertige Gepott.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 241(254)-278; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 210-237; 24², pp. 221-247.

165. “Der Psalter deutsch.” Erl. ed., 37, pp. 107-249.

166. “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 279(293)-322; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 200-226.

167. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher” (2nd edition, cp. No. 61).

168. “Widder den newen Abgott und allten Teuffel der zu Meyssen sol erhaben werden.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 170(183)-198; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 239-257; 24², pp. 250-268.

169. “Zwue Sermon auff das xv. und xvi. Capitel ynn der Apostel Geschichte” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 15, p. 571-622; Erl. ed., 17, pp. 223-253.

170. “Eyn Brieff an die Fürsten zu Sachsen von dem auffrurischen Geyst.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 199(210)-221; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 256-268.

171. “Sendbrieff an die … Burgermeyster, Rhatt und gantze Gemeyn der Stadt Mülhausen.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 230(238)-240; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 253-255.

172. “Ain Senndbrief an den Wolgeb. Herren, Herren Barth von Staremberg.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 1(5)-7; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 202-204.

173. “Geistliches Gesangbüchlein” (with 24 hymns by Luther) Cp. Erl. ed., 56, p. 306 ff.

174. Sermons on Exodus (publ. in 1526, 1528, 1564, and, in full, in 1899). Weim. ed., 16, pp. 1-646; Erl. ed., 33, pp. 3-21 (“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 75-112); 35, pp. 1-392; 36, pp. 1-144.

175. German Old Testament (3rd and final part, without the “Apocrypha”).

176. “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 8(22)-36; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 114-133.

177. “Der 127. Psalm ausgelegt an die Christen zu Rigen ynn Liffland.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 348(360)-379; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 130-150; 53, p. 281.

178. “Eyn Brieff an die Christen zu Straspurg widder den Schwermer Geyst.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 380(391)-397; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 270-277.

Sermons on the 2nd Epistle of Peter and on the Epistle of Jude, cp. No. 126. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 15, pp. 398(409)-803; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 73-115. Letters, Enders, 4, p. 273 to 5, p. 99; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 230-281.

=1525.= Charles V is victorious near Pavia (Feb. 24). Prussia becomes a secular principality (April 10). Luther opposes the so-called fanatics, Carlstadt and the rest. The massacre at Weinsberg (April 16). Death of the Elector Frederick (May 5). Johann succeeds him on the Saxon throne and reigns till 1532. Münzer is vanquished near Frankenhausen (May 15). The Erfurt Articles. League of the North German Catholic princes, meeting at Dessau (July 19). Link becomes preacher at Nuremberg (Aug.). The Mayence assembly (Nov.). Eck’s “Enchiridion.” Carlstadt’s humiliation. Luther’s marriage (June 13). He calls for the entire suppression of “idolatry” at Altenburg (July 20). The Reformation is violently carried through in the Saxon Electorate (Oct. 1). Interview with Schwenckfeld (Dec. 1). Nuremberg openly comes over to Luther’s side.

179. “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 37(62)-214; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 136-297.

180. “Von Bruder Henrico ynn Diedmar verbrand sampt dem zehenden Psalmen ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 215(224)-250; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 347-354; 27², pp. 400-426.

181. “Vorrede an den Leser von der Jubil Jars Bullen.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 251(255)-269; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 298-318.

182. Sermons on 1 Timothy. Weim. ed., 17, 1, pp. 102-167; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 276-324.

183. “Eyn christl. Schrift an Herrn Wolfgang Reissenbusch sich ynn den Ehelichen Stand zubegeben.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 270(275)-278; Erl. ed., 33, pp. 286-290.

184. “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die zwelff Artikel der Bawrschafft ynn Schwaben.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 279(291)-334; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 259-286; 24², pp. 271-299.

185. “Vertrag zwischen dem löblichen Bund zu Schwaben und den zweyen Hauffen der Bawrn am Bodensee und Algew.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 335(336)-343; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 2-12.

186. “Wider die mordischen und reubischen Rotten der Bawren.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 344(357)-361; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 288-294; 24², pp. 303-309.

187. “Eyn schrecklich Geschicht unnd Gericht Gottes uber Thomas Müntzer.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 362(367)-374; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 13-22.

188. “Eyn Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin widder die Bauren.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 375(384)-401; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 295-319; 24², pp. 310-334.

189. “Eyne Christliche Vormanung von eusserlichem Gottis Dienste unde Eyntracht an die yn Lieffland.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 412(417)-421; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 315-321.

190. Preface to Bodenstein’s “Entschuldigung D. Andres Carlstats des falschen Namens der Auffrůr.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 431(436)-438; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 404-408.

191. Preface to Carlstadt’s “Erklerung.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 446(453)-466; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 408-410.

192. “Die sieben Buss Psalmen” (revised). Weim. ed., 18, pp. 467(479)-550; Erl. ed., 37, pp. 344-442.

193. Notes to the 28 Articles of the Erfurt Council. Weim. ed., 18, pp. 531(534)-540; Erl. ed., 56, pp. xii.-xviii.; 65, pp. 239-247.

194. “Radtschlag wie in der Christlichen Gemaine ain … bestendigen Ordnung solle fürgenommen und auffgericht werden” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 19, pp. 436(440)-446; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 2-8.

195. “De servo arbitrio.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 551(600)-787; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 113(116)-368.

196. Church-Postils (2nd part), Epiphany to Easter. Erl. ed., 8-11; 8²-11².

197. “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 19, pp. 44(70)-113; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 227-244.

198. Hymn, “Jesaia dem Propheten das geschach.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343.

199. “Epistel des Propheten Jesaia so man ynn der Christmesse lieset” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 19, pp. 126(131)-168; Erl. ed., 15, pp. 65-110; 15², pp. 70-116.

“Annotationes in Deuteronomiam,” cp. No. 161. Other sermons, Weim. ed., 17, 1, pp. 1-507; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 116-253. Letters, Enders, 5, pp. 100-297; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 281-357; 56, pp. 168-170, viii.-xviii.

=1526.= The Diet of Augsburg demands (Jan. 9) an Œcumenical Council. Luther lays it down (Feb. 9) that, in each locality there must be but one doctrine. The new worship in the Saxon Electorate. The Electorate and Hesse enter into a league (at Gotha, and, later, at Torgau, May 2). Lambert of Avignon helps Philip of Hesse to introduce the innovations. The Kaiser threatened by the League of Cognac (May 22). The Diet of Spires (Aug. 27) tempers the Edict of Worms. The Battle of Mohacs (Aug. 29). Charles V politically estranged from the Pope. The “Hyperaspistes” of Erasmus.

200. “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern gemalet und beschrieben.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 1(6)-43; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 360-378.

201. Sermons (publ. in full in 1898). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 204(212)-591; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 254-267.

202. “Widder den … Radschlag der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 252(260)-282; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 23-46.

203. “Der Prophet Jona aussgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 169(185)-251; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 325-414.

204. “Sermon von dem Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts Christi widder die Schwarmgeister.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 474(482)-523; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 329-359.

205. Two Prefaces to the Swabian “Syngramma.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 447(457)-461, 524(529)-530; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 108-185.

206. “Antwort auff ettliche Fragen Closter Gelübd belangend.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 283(287)-293; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 318-327.

207. “Der Prophet Habacuc ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 336(345)-435; Erl. ed., 42, pp. 3-108.

208. “Das Tauffbuchlin verdeudscht auffs new zugericht.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 531(537)-541; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 291-294.

209. “Annotationes in Ecclesiasten” (publ. 1532). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 1(7)-203; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 21, pp. 1-266.

210. “Der 112. Psalm Davids … gepredigt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 294(297)-336; Erl. ed., 40, pp. 241-280.

211. “Vier trostliche Psalmen.… An die Königyn zu Hungern ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 542(552)-615; Erl. ed., 38, pp. 370-453.

212. “Der Prophet Sacharja ausgelegt” (publ. 1528). Weim. ed., 23, pp. 477(485)-664; Erl. ed., 42, pp. 109-362.

213. “Epistel aus dem Propheten Jeremia von Christus Reich” (publ. 1527). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 549-561; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 187-219.

214. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 618(623)-662; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 264-290.

“Deudsche Messe,” cp. No. 197. Two sermons on Acts xv., xvi., cp. No. 171. Sermon on Is. ix., cp. No. 199. Lecture on Osee, cp. No. 160. Instruction on Moses, Weim. ed., 16, pp. 363-394; Erl. ed., 33, pp. 3-21. Various memoranda, cp. No. 194. Summer part of the Church-Postils (Erl. ed., 8, 9, 11-14; 9², 11²-14²). Sermons, cp. Nos. 201, 204, 210, 213. Letters, Enders, 5, p. 298 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 357-394.

=1527.= Second war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1529). Henry the Eighth’s plans for a divorce. Ferdinand I is crowned at Prague as King of Bohemia (Feb. 24). Sack of Rome (May 6-14). Peace between Charles V and Clement VII (Nov.). Gustavus Vasa takes Luther’s side. The Visitation of the Saxon Electorate (lasting till 1529) and introduction of the office of Superintendent. Emser’s translation of the New Testament (Dec.). Melanchthon in his “Commonplace Book” modifies his teaching on Predestination. Luther falls ill; beginning of his worst “struggles of conscience.” Commencement of the controversy with Zwingli, etc., on the Supper. Wittenberg is invaded by the Plague.

215. “Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce.) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 38(64)-320; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.

216. Translation of Isaias.

217. “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 17(26)-37; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 2-14.

218. Sermons on Leviticus and Numbers (publ. 1902). Weim. ed., 25, pp. 403(411)-522.

219. Preface to “Commentarius in Apocalypsim ante centum annos editus.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 121(123)-124; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 506-508.

220. Preface to “Die Weissagungẽ Johannis Lichtenberger.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 1(7)-12; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 250-258.

221. “In Esaiam scholia ex D.M.L. prælectionibus collecta” (publ. 1532-1534). Weim. ed., 25, pp. 79(87)-401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, pp. 1-296.

222. “Ob man fur dem Sterben fliehen muge.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 323(338)-386; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 318-341.

223. Lecture on the 1st Epistle of John (publ. 1708 and 1799). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 592(599)-801.

224. “Trostunge un die Christen zu Halle uber Er Georgen yhres Predigers Tod.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 390(401)-434; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 295-316.

225. “Octonarius David” (Ps. xix.). Weim. ed., 23, pp. 435(437)-442; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 93-115.

226. “Von Er Lenhard Keiser ynn Beyern umb des Evangelii Willen verbrandt.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 443(445)-476.

227. “Ain feste Burg” (1528?). Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., see above, vol. v., p. 549.

228. Lecture on Titus and Philemon (publ. 1902). Weim. ed., 25, pp. 1(6)-78.

Church-Postils, Summer part and conclusion, ed. Roth, cp. Erl. ed., 15, 16; 15². Sermon on Jer. xxiii. 5-8, cp. No. 213. Sermons on Genesis, cp. No. 133. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 23, pp. 665(682)-757; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 268-322. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 1-172; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 395-416; 56, pp. 170-176.

=1528.= The Pack negotiations. Anabaptists are threatened with the death-penalty. Death of Albert Dürer (April 6) and Emser (Nov. 8). Cochlæus, Court-chaplain to Duke George. Cruciger and other friends come to Wittenberg. Letters of Hasenberg and von der Heyden. Bugenhagen’s work in Brunswick. Progress of the Visitation of the Saxon Electorate. The “catechetical sermons” at Wittenberg. Philip of Hesse’s breach of the peace and hostilities against Bamberg, Würzburg and Mayence. The Turks threaten new inroads.

229. “Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pharhern ym Kurfurstenthum zu Sachssen,” etc. Weim. ed., 26, pp. 175(195)-240; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 3-70.

230. “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 241(261)-509; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 152-373.

231. “Ein Gesichte Bruder Clausen ynn Schweytz und seine Deutunge.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 125(130)-136; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 260-268.

232. Lecture on 1 Timothy (partly publ. 1797). Weim. ed., 26, pp. 1(4)-120.

233. “Von der Widdertauffe an zween Pfarherrn.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 137(144)-174; Erl. ed., 26, pp. 255-294; 26², pp. 282-321.

234. “De digamia episcoporum propositiones.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 510(517)-527; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 360-373.

235. New edition of the German Psalter; cp. No. 165, 289.

236. Three series of sermons on the Catechism (publ. 1899). Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 2-122.

237. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken” (publ. 1529). Weim. ed. 30, 2, pp. 81(107)-148; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 32-80.

238. “New-Zeittung von Leyptzig.” “Ein newe Fabel Esopi newlich verdeudscht gefunden.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 534(539)-554; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 326-337.

239. “Von beider Gestalt des Sacraments.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 555(560)-618; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 374-426.

240. Week-day sermons on John xvi.-xx. (in part publ. 1530, 1557). Weim. ed., 28, pp. 31(42)-502; Erl. ed., 50, pp. 1-441.

241. Week-day sermons on Mt. xi.-xv. Weim. ed., 28, pp. 1(4)-30.

242. “Nachwort zu der Durchleuchtigen hochgebornen F. Ursulen Hertzogin zu Mönsterberg. Christliche Ursach des verlassen Klosters zu Freyberg.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 623(628)-633; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 132-169.

Exposition of the Ten Commandments, Weim. ed., 16, pp. 394-528; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 1-144. Commentary on Zacharias, cp. No. 212. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 27, 28, pp. 503-763. Letters, Enders, 6, p. 173-7, p. 38; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 416-452; 54, pp. 1-60; 56, pp. 176-180, xix.

=1529.= Peace of Barcelona (June 29). Peace of the Ladies (Cambrai, Aug. 5). Retreat of the Turks from Vienna (Oct. 14). Diet of Spires. “Protest” of the Lutheran Estates (April 19). They promise each other mutual support (April 22). Philip of Hesse and Melanchthon seek a union with the Zwinglians; the Marburg Conference (Oct. 1-4). Luther submits to the Upper German townships his so-called Schwabach Articles which are rejected by Strasburg and Ulm at the Schwabach Conference (Oct. 16). The same thing happens again at the Schmalkalden Conference (Nov. 29) and spoils all prospect of an arrangement with the South-Germans. Nuremberg alone stands true to the union.

243. “Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 1(25)-48; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 2-30.

244. “Deudsch Catechismus.” Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 123-238; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 26-155.

245. “Der Kleine Catechismus für die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger.” Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 239-425; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 5-25.

246. “Ein Trawbüchlin für die einfeltigen Pfarherr.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 43(74)-80; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 208-213.

247. “Teütsche Letaney” and “Latina Litania correcta.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 1(29)-42; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 360-366.

248. Preface to the “Œconomia christiana” of Justus Menius. Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 49(60)-63; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 117-121; 63, pp. 277-282.

249. Translation of the Book of Wisdom.

250. Sermons on Deuteronomy (publ. 1564). Weim. ed., 28, pp. 501(509)-763; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 164-411.

251. Preface to Melanchthon’s Exposition of Colossians. Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 64(68)-69; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 492 _sq._

252. Preface to Brentz’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Weim. ed., 26, pp. 619(621)-622; Erl. ed., 54, p. 59 f.

253. Preface to Venatorius’ “Ein kurtz Underricht den sterbenden Menschen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 70(79)-80; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 285-287.

254. The “Wittenberg Song-book” with new hymns and a preface.

255. “Von Ehesachen” (publ. 1530). Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 198(205)-248; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 93-154.

256. Marburg Conference and Articles. Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 92(110)-171; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 88-91.

257. Articles of the Schwabach Convention. Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 81(86)-91.

258. “Eine Heer-Predigt widder den Türcken.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 149(160)-197; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 81-121.

259. Scholia to Ps. cxviii. (to Eobanus Hessus).

Latin translation of the Bible, cp. No. 142. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” cp. No. 237. Sermons, cp. No. 240 and Weim. ed., 29. Letters, Enders, 7, pp. 39-212; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 60-121; 56, pp. 181, xix.-xxvii.

=1530.= Charles V is crowned Emperor at Bologna (Feb. 24). Death of Willibald Pirkheimer and of Luther’s father, Hans (Feb.). The “Confessio tetrapolitana” of Strasburg, Constance, Lindau and Memmingen (drawn up by Bucer and Capito). The Torgau Articles (March). Diet of Augsburg (June 20-Nov. 19). Luther at the Coburg (April 23-Oct. 4). At Torgau he begins to favour the use of armed resistance to the Emperor (Oct.). The “Confessio Augustana” (June 25), the “Confutatio” and Melanchthon’s “Apologia” (Sept.). Bucer at the Coburg (Sept. 25). The warlike league planned by the Protesting Estates at the Schmalkalden Assembly (Dec. 22). Spread of the innovations in Hungary.

260. Preface to Spengler’s “Kurczer Auszuge aus den Bebstlichen Rechten.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 215(219); Erl. ed., 63, pp. 288-290.

261. Preface to “Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcarum.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 198(205)-208; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 514-519; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 248-254.

262. New ed. of the New Testament.

263. Translation of Daniel.

264. Preface to “Der Widdertauffer Lere” of Justus Menius. Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 209(211)-214; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 290-296.

265. Lecture on the Song of Songs (publ. 1538). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 21, pp. 273-368.

266. “Vermanũg an die geistlichen versamlet auff dem Reichstag zu Augsburg.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 237(268)-356; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 330-379; 24², pp. 358-407.

267. (1530-1532). Translation of Jeremias, Ezechiel and the Lesser Prophets.

268. “Das xxxviii. und xxxix. Capitel Hesechiel vom Gog.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 220(223)-236; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 220-231.

269. Twenty-one Sermons (publ. 1702). Weim. ed., 32, pp. 1-298; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 323-472.

270. “Auff das Schreien etlicher Papisten uber die siebentzehen Artickel.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 183(186)-197; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 321-329; 24², pp. 337-344.

271. “Das schöne Confitemini” (Ps. cxviii.). Erl. ed., 41, pp. 2-19.

272. Short exposition of the first 25 Psalms (publ. 1548, and, in full, 1559). Erl. ed., 38, pp. 1-275; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 17.

273. (1530?). German version of Æsop’s Fables. Erl. ed., 64, pp. 350-361.

274. “Etliche tröstliche Vermanungen … Mit diesen Sprüchen hat sich der heilige Man … getröstet.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 697(700)-710; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 155-162.

275. Reflections of the Holy Fathers, on how a Christian must bear his cross with patience. Erl. ed., 64, pp. 298-300.

276. Glosses on the Decalogue. Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 357(358).

277. “Widderruff vom Fegefeur.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 360(367)-390; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 185-215.

278. “Ettlich Artickelstück so M.L. erhalten wil, wider die gantze Satans Schüle uñ alle Pforten der Hellen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 413(420)-427; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 373-377; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 122-125.

279. “Predigt das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 508(517)-588; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 1-45; 17², pp. 376-422.

280. “Brieff an den Cardinal Ertzbisschoff zu Mentz.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 391(397)-412; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 159-168.

281. “Der lxxxii. Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 39, pp. 225-264.

282. “Von den Schlüsseln.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 428(435)-507; 30, 3, pp. 584-588; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 126-184.

283. “Der hundert und siebenzehende Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, pp. 281-328.

284. “Vermanung zum Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts unsers Herrn.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 589(595)-626; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 163-207.

285. “Sendbrieff D.M.L. von Dolmetzscheñ.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 627(632)-646; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 103-123.

286. “Der hundert und eilffte Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, pp. 193-240.

287. Week-day sermons on Mt. v.-vii. (publ. 1532). Weim. ed., 32, pp. 299-555; Erl. ed., 43, pp. 2-368.

288. Sermons on John vi. 26-viii. 38 (publ. 1564). Weim. ed., 33; Erl. ed., 47, pp. 227-394; 48, pp. 1-410.

“Von Ehesachen,” cp. No, 255. “Heer-Predigt widder den Türcken,” cp. No. 258. Sermons on John xvii., cp. No. 240. Letters, Enders, 7, p. 213—8, p. 334; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 122-209; 56, pp. 181-183, xxvii.-xxix.

=1531.= Ferdinand becomes the German King (Jan. 5). League of Schmalkalden (Feb. 27). Bavaria takes the field against Ferdinand (24 Oct.). Archbishop Albert stays at Halle (till 1540). Melanchthon prepares for the press his “Confessio Aug.” and its “Apologia.” Luther suggests to Henry VIII that bigamy would be preferable to divorce (Sept. 3). England (1531-1545) is carried into schism by Henry VIII. Zwinglian iconoclastic riots in Swabia. Zwingli slain in Battle (Oct. 11) is succeeded by Bullinger. Luther’s revision of his translation of the Psalms; his memoranda on the means of stamping out the Anabaptist movement (end of Oct.).

289. New edition of the Psalms, cp. Nos. 165, 235.

290. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict ausgangen jm 1531 Jare.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 321(331)-388, 583; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 51-88; 25², pp. 50-88.

291. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 252(276)-320, 392-399; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 2-50; 25², pp. 3-49; 65, p. 259 f.

292. “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen gedrückt.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 413(446)-471; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 89-109; 25², pp. 109-128.

293. “Commentarius (maior) in Epistolam ad Galatas” (publ. 1535). Weim. ed., 40, 1 (cap. i.-iv.); Irmischer, 1; 2; 3, pp. 1-120.

294. “Exemplum theologiæ et doctrinæ papisticæ.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 494(496)-509; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 21-43.

295. Psalm cxlvii. (publ. 1532). Erl. ed., pp. 152-181.

296. “Enarratio psalmi xlii.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 17, pp. 234-238.

Sermons, Weim. ed., 34, 1, 2; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 1-135. Letters, Enders, 8, pp. 335-9, p. 135; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 209-265; 56, p. 183.

=1532.= The Turkish invasion of Hungary and Austria (June); Suleiman II does not venture to attack Vienna. Elector Johann dies and is succeeded by Johann Frederick (till 1547). Calvin stays for a while in Geneva. The Nuremberg proposals for a religious truce (June 23) are rejected by the Catholic Estates at Ratisbon (July 2). Melanchthon thinks of leaving Wittenberg.

297. “Brieff von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 510(518)-527; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 214-226.

298. “An den Durchleuchtigen Hochgebornen Fürsten und Herrn Herrn Albrechten Marggraffen zu Brandenburg.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 541(547)-553; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 281-289.

299. “Enarratio psalmorum ii. et xlv.” (publ. 1533 and 1546). “Opp. lat. exeg.” 18, pp. 1-127, 129-264.

300. “Enarratio psalmi li.” (publ. 1538). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, pp. 1-154.

301. Preface to Bugenhagen’s ed. of “Athanasii libri contra idolatriam.” Weim ed., 30, 3, pp. 528(530)-532; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 523-525.

302.“Summarien uber die Psalmen und Ursachen des Dolmetschens” (publ. 1533). Erl. ed., 37, pp. 254-339.

303. Sermon on Charity (1 Jo. iv. 16-21; publ. 1533). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 416-477; Erl. ed., 19, pp. 358-412; 18², pp. 304-311.

304. Translation of the Old-Testament “Apocrypha” (publ. 1533 f.).

305. Sermon on the sum total of the Christian life (1 Tim. 1, 5 ff. publ. 1533). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 352-375; Erl. ed., 19, pp. 296-328; 18², pp. 370-304.

306. (1532-1533). “Enarratio in psalmos graduales” (publ. 1540). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, pp. 157-289; 20, pp. 1-306.

307. “Brieff an die zu Franckfort am Meyn.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 554(558)-571; Erl. ed., 26, pp. 295-313; 26², pp. 372-389.

308. (1532-1534). Home-sermons (Home-postils, ed. Veit Dietrich, 1544; ed. Rörer, 1559). Weim. ed., 36, 37; Erl. ed., 1-6; 1²-3² (after Dietrich); 4²-6² (after Rörer).

Exposition of Ps. cxlvii., cp. No. 295. Translation of the Prophets, cp. No. 267. Sermons on Mt. v.-vii., cp. No. 287. “In Esaiam prophetam scholia,” cp. No. 221. “Annotationes in Ecclesiasten,” cp. No. 209. Sermon on Numbers, vi. 22-27, cp. No. 218. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 36; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 136-384. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 136-258; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 266-348; 56, pp. 184 f.-187.

=1533.= Clement VII takes steps for the assembling of an Œcumenical Council (Jan.). The Schmalkaldeners refuse to hear of a Council (June). Henry VIII weds Anne Boleyn (Jan). Progress of Protestantism in the Duchy of Jülich-Cleves, in Anhalt-Köthen and Mecklenburg.

309. Sermons on 1 Cor. xv. (publ. 1534). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 649-697; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 71-275.

310. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 228-269.

311. “Die kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.” Weim. ed., 31, pp. 270-307.

312. “Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffen Weihe.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 308-377.

313. Preface to the “Rechẽschafft des Glaubens” (of the Bohemian Brethren). Erl. ed., 63, pp. 320-323.

314. Preface to Balth. Rhaida’s reply to Wicel. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 317-319.

“Summarien,” cp. No. 302. “Brieff,” etc., cp. No. 307. Exposition of Ps. xlv., cp. 299. Sermon on 1 John iv. 16-21, cp. No. 303. Sermon on 1 Tim. i. 5 ff., cp. No. 305. Translation of Sirach, cp. No. 304. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 37, pp. 1-248; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 1-102. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 259-370; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 1-35; 56, pp. 185-191, xxix.-xxxv.

=1534.= Death of Clement VII (Sept. 25). Paul III (from Oct. 13, 1534-Nov. 10, 1549). Bull against Henry VIII (March 23). Act of Supremacy is passed by the English Parliament (Nov. 3). Ulrich of Würtemberg is reinstated by Philip of Hesse; his treaty with King Ferdinand signed at Baden (June 29). Reformation of Anhalt (March) of Würtemberg (May) of Augsburg (July) of Pomerania (Dec.). Carlstadt at Basle. Luther again attacks Erasmus, the latter’s “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri.” Death of Cardinal Cajetan (Aug. 9). Strasburg the centre of the Anabaptist movement. The Anabaptists’ orgies at Münster (Feb., 1534, to June 25, 1535). First edition of Calvin’s “Institutio.”

315. “Ein Brieff D. Mart. Luth. von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 378-391.

316. “Der lxv. Psalm durch D.M.L. zu Dessaw … gepredigt.” Weim. ed., 37, pp. 425-451; Erl. ed., 39, pp. 137-177.

317. “Biblia das ist die gantze Heilige Schrift.”

318. “Convocatio concilii liberi christiani” (of doubtful authenticity). Erl. ed., 31, pp. 411-416; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 370-372.

319. “Præfatio in Antonii Corvini librum de Erasmi concordia.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 526-531.

320. Preface to Urban Rhegius, “Widderlegung der Münsterischen newen … Bekentnus.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 332-336.

321. Preface to the “Newe Zeittung von Münster.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 336-341.

322. “Enarratio psalmi xc.” “Opp. lat exeg.,” 18, pp. 264-334.

323. Exposition of Psalm ci. Erl. ed., 39, pp. 266-364.

324. “Einfeltige Weise zu beten.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 215-238.

325. “Klagschrift der Vögel an D.M. Luther über seinem Diener Wolfgang Sieberger.” Erl. ed., 64, p. 347 f.

“Scholia in Esaiam,” cp. No. 221. Sermons on 1 Cor. xv., cp. No. 309. Further Sermons, Weim. ed., 37, pp. 249-672. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 371—10, p. 117; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 36-81; 56, pp. 191-196.

=1535.= Growth of the Schmalkalden League after the accession of Würtemberg. Death of Joachim I of Brandenburg (July 11). Joachim II his successor (†1571) a friend of Luther’s. Execution of Sir Thomas More. Vergerio’s interview with Luther (Nov. 7). Amended edition of Melanchthon’s Commonplace-Book. The ordination-oath introduced at Wittenberg. The Schmalkalden League is prolonged for ten years (Dec.). King Ferdinand to the Emperor on Germany’s downfall (Dec.).

326. Sermon on Infant-Baptism. Weim. ed., 37, pp. 258-293; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 43-105; 19², pp. 103-167.

327. “Etliche Spruche Doc. Martini Luther wider das Concilium Obstantiense (wolt sagen Constantiense).” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 391-411.

328. (1535-1545). “Enarrationes in Genesim” (publ. 1544). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1-11.

329. Prefaces to Anton Corvinus’s “Kurtze Ausslegung der Euangelien … der Episteln.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 348-353.

330. Letter to the preachers of Soest. Erl. ed., 65, pp. 95-102.

331. (1535-1536). Sermons. Weim. ed., 41; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 103-242.

332. Disputations, “de concilio Constantiensi” and for the promotion of Hier. Weller, and Nic. Medler. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 402-410, 377-389; Drews, pp. 1-3, 9-32.

333. Hymns: “Von Himel hoch”; “Sie ist mir lieb”; “All Ehr und Lob soll Gottes seyn.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 348 f., 350 f.

“Comment, in epist. ad Galatas,” cp. No. 293. Sermons, cp. No. 331. Letters, Enders, 10, pp. 118-282; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 81-117; 56, pp. 196-198, xxxv. f.

=1536.= Third war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1538). The Turkish peril. Denmark converted to Protestantism (Aug.). The “Consilium de emendanda ecclesia” drafted by Cardinals Pole, Contarini, Sadoleto and Caraffa. A General Council is summoned (June 2) to meet at Mantua in 1537. Death of Erasmus (July 12). Luther makes advances to Henry VIII and admits the lawfulness of his divorce. Articles are drafted to the object of inducing the King of England to make common cause with the German Reformers. The Articles are thrown over by Henry. The Wittenberg Concord (May). Luther endeavours to win over Augsburg, Ulm and the Swiss. Bucer labours for a union. Synods held by the Swiss at Basle and Bern (Sept., Nov.). Memoranda of the Wittenberg theologians regarding the Council (Aug.). Bull for the bettering of the City of Rome and the Papal Court (Sept. 23). Calvin begins his work at Geneva.

334. Disputations: “De iustificatione,” “De muliere peccatrice” and “Contra missam privatam” (Jan. 14, 21, 29). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 389-394, 398-402, 413; Drews, pp. 55-66, 66, 69-89.

335. Preface to Robert Barnes (Chaplain to Henry VIII), “De vitis pontificum.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 533-536.

336. “Præfatio in tres epistolas Hussii.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 _sq._

337. “Der xxiii. Psalm Auff ein Abend uber Tisch nach dem Gratias ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 39, pp. 62-122.

338. Preface and Postscript to “Joan. Nannii Viterbensis, De monarchia Papæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 110-121.

339. Disputations for the promotion of Jakob Schenk and Philip Moth. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 417-419; Drews, pp. 100-109.

340. “Artickel so da hetten sollen auffs Concilion zu Mantua,” etc. (publ. 1538). Erl. ed., 25, pp. 110-146; 25², pp. 169-205.

341. Disputation “De homine.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 413-416; Drews, pp. 90-96.

“Enarratio” on Joel, Amos, Obedias, cp. No. 160. Sermons. Weim. ed., 41, pp. 493-763; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 243-259. Letters, Enders, 10, p. 283—11, p. 151; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 117-167; 56, pp. 199-206, xxxvii. f.

=1537.= Ferdinand’s defeat in Slavonia. Paul the Third’s Bull on the Turkish question (July 14). Bugenhagen helps in the conversion of Denmark to Protestantism. Luther’s so-called Schmalkalden Articles sent by him to the Elector (Jan. 3). The Schmalkalden Meeting (Feb.). Luther is taken ill and returns home. The Princes decide to have nothing to do with the Council. They accept the Augsburg Confession and the “Apologia.” The Schmalkaldeners call on the King of France for help (March 5). Melanchthon’s “De potestate papæ.” Luther returns sound to Wittenberg (March 14). Cordatus opposes Melanchthon. The cleavage between Luther and Melanchthon is carefully veiled. On Oct. 8 the Council is summoned to meet at Vicenza on May 1, 1538. Efforts of Bucer and others to promote a Protestant Council. Luther’s spiritual indisposition.

342. Sermon on Mt. iv. 1 ff. Erl. ed., 17, pp. 7-34; 19², pp. 260-292.

343. “Die drey Symbola oder Bekentniss des Glaubens Christi jnn der Kirchen einträchtiglich gebraucht.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 252-281.

344. (1537-1538). Exposition of John xiv.-xvi. (publ. 1538). Weim. ed., 46, pp. 1-112; Erl. ed., 49, pp. 2-391; 50, pp. 1-154.

345. Disputations of Peter Palladius and Tilemann Schnabel. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 394-397; Drews, pp. 115-160.

346. Discourse at the promotion of Peter Palladius. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 315-322.

347. “Disputatio de cœna magna (i.e. de veste nuptiali).” “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 419; Drews, pp. 163-245.

348. (1537-1539). Exposition of John i.-iv. (publ. 1565 and 1847). Weim. ed., 46, p. 538 ff.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 291-422; 46, pp. 1-378; 47, pp. 1-226.

349. (1537-1539). Sermons on Mt. xviii. 24-xxiii. 23. Erl. ed., 44; 45, pp. 1-203.

350. “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 176-201; 25², pp. 207-232.

351. “Bulla papæ Pauli” (publ. in “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362 ff.).

352 Exposition of Ps. viii. (publ. 1572). Erl. ed., 39, pp. 2-60.

353. Preface to “Ein alt Christlich Concilium … zu Gangra.” Erl. ed., 64, p. 57 f.

354. “Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo an die Heiligen Veter inn dem vermeinten Concilio zu Mantua.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 202-218; 25², pp. 232-249.

355. Postscript to “Tres epistolæ I. Hussii.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 _sq._

356. “Præfatio in epistolas quasdam Hussii.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 59-83; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 538-540.

357. First disputation against the Antinomians (Dec. 18). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 420-427; Drews, pp. 249-333.

358. Hymns “Erhalt uns Herr bey deinem Wort,” “Vater unser im Himelreich.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 354, 351 f.

359. “Conciunculæ cuidam amico præscriptæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 374-433.

Further Sermons, Erl. ed., 19², pp. 260-466. Letters, Enders, 11, pp. 152-320; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 167-195; 56, pp. 206-208, xxxix. f.

=1538.= The Truce of Nice between the Kaiser and François I (June 15). Luther in conflict with the Antinomianism of Agricola (1537-1540). His quarrels with Lemnius, Schenk and Joh. von Metzsch. His antagonism to Albert of Mayence. The assembly of the Protestants at Brunswick (April 8). The Schmalkaldeners enter into a league with Christian III of Denmark (April 9). They send missions to the Kings of France and England (Aug., Oct.). The strength of the League in Germany increases the danger of a religious war. The Kaiser (aided by his vice-chancellor Held) succeeds in inducing the Catholic princes to form the so-called Holy Alliance at Nuremberg (June 10). Calvin is banished from Geneva.

360. Revised edition of the “Unterricht,” cp. No. 229.

361. “Ratschlag eins ausschus etlicher Cardinel,” etc. Erl. ed., 25, pp. 146-174; 25², pp. 251-278.

362. “Præfatio in librum S. Hieronymi ad Evagrium de potestate papæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 541-544.

363. “Brieff … wider die Sabbather.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 417-449.

364. “Der cx. Psalm Dixit Dominus gepredigt und ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, pp. 39-192.

365. First answer to the “Epigrammata” of Simon Lemnius. Erl. ed., 64, p. 323 f.

366. Second disputation against the Antinomians (Jan. 12). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 427-430; Drews, pp. 336-418.

367. Third disputation against the Antinomians (Sept. 13). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 436-441; Drews, pp. 423-484.

368. “Præfatio in Confessionem Bohemorum.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 548-551.

369. “Wider den Bischoff zu Magdeburg Albrecht Cardinal.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 15-59.

370. Preface to Rhau’s “Symphoniæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 551-554.

371. “Frau Musica,” to Joh. Walther’s “Lob und Preis der Himlischen Kunst Musica.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 295 f.

372. Sermons. Weim. ed., 46, pp. 113-537; Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 1-171.

The Schmalkalden Articles, cp. No. 340. Æsop’s Fables, cp. No. 273. The Three Creeds, cp. No. 343. Exposition of Ps. li., cp. No. 300. Lecture on the Song of Songs, cp. No. 265. Sermons on John xiv.-xvi., cp. No. 344. Further Sermons, cp. Nos. 344, 348 f., 372. Letters, Enders, 11, pp. 321—12, p. 61; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 195-216; 56, pp. 208-220, xl.-xlv.

=1539.= Death of Duke George (April 17). Apostasy of Joachim II. The Duchy of Saxony, the Electorate of Brandenburg, and Livonia become Protestant. Memorandum of Luther and Melanchthon to Elector Johann Frederick, in favour of armed resistance. The Frankfurt meeting of the Protestants (April 19); their decision not to appeal as yet to force and to promote a simple conference rather than a Council; a new mission dispatched to England (April 29). The Protestant Visitation of the Duchy of Saxony. Luther and his friends again at work (1539-1541) revising the German Bible. The Consistories established in the Saxon Electorate. The Hessian “Order of Church-Discipline.” In England, dissolution of the Monasteries. Luther’s disputation on the “Papal Werewolf” (May 9). He sanctions the Bigamy of Philip II (Nov. 10).

373. “Wider die Antinomer.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 2-14.

374. “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 219-388; 25², pp. 281-448.

375. Sermon at Leipzig on Jo. xiv. 23 ff. (publ. 1618). Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 242-253.

376. Disputation on Mt. xix. 21 (Vade, vende, etc.). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 442-449; Drews, pp. 536-584.

377. Preface to Myconius’s “Wie man die einfeltigen … im Christenthumb unterrichten sol.” Erl. ed., 63, p. 364 f.

378. Preface to a work of Moibanus, on Ps. xxix. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 342-344.

379. Preface to German version of Galeatius Capella’s “De bello Mediolanensi seu rebus in Italia gestis.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 354-357.

380. Disputation on “Verbum caro factum est” (Jo. i. 14). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 458-461; Drews, pp. 487-531.

381. Revision of the German Bible.

382. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 282-338.

383. Preface to the 1st part of his Collected German Works. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 401-406.

384. Sermons. Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 172-264.

“Wider den Bischoff,” cp. No. 369. Further Sermons, cp. Nos. 348 f., 384. Letters, Enders, 12, pp. 62-334; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 217-269; 56, pp. 221 ff., xlvi.-l.

=1540.= Death of Duke William IV of Bavaria. The Jesuits approved by the Pope (Sept. 27); Pierre Favre in Germany. Philip II of Hesse weds his second wife in Melanchthon’s presence (March 4). Luther at the Conference of Eisenach (July 10). Melanchthon’s “miraculous” cure at Weimar; the “Confessio variata.” Meeting at Schmalkalden (March); Catholic worship not to be tolerated. Persecution of Schwenckfeld by the Lutherans. Religious conferences at Hagenau (June) and Worms (Nov. 25-Jan.). Agricola goes to Berlin to the Elector of Brandenburg (Sept.). Morone the Papal Legate complains of the apathy of the German Bishops.

385. Disputation “De divinitate et humanitate Christi” (Feb. 28). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 461-466; Drews, pp. 586-610.

386. Preface to Robert Barnes’s “Bekantnus des Glaubens … verdeudscht.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 396-400.

387. New edition of the Winter part of the Church-Postils.

388. Disputation for the promotion of Joach. Mörlin. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 411 _sq._; Drews, pp. 613-636.

“An die Pfarherrn,” cp. No. 382. On the “psalmi graduales,” cp. No. 306. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 265-512. Letters, Enders-Kawerau, 12, pp. 335-400; 13, pp. 1-240; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 269-293; 56, pp. 223-227.

=1541.= The Turks secure their footing in Hungary. Naumburg given over to the Protestants; the Bishop-Elect, Julius von Pflug shut out from his See by the Saxon Elector (Jan.). The Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann von Wied is won over to Protestantism. Accession of Maurice of Saxony (†1553). Philip of Hesse comes to an understanding with Charles V. Jonas goes to Halle to convert it to Protestantism; Schenk at Leipzig. Death of Carlstadt (Dec. 24). Religious conferences of Worms (Jan.) and Ratisbon (April 27-May 22); Diet of Ratisbon and Ratisbon Interim. The Catholic spokesmen: Eck, Julius von Pflug and J. Gropper; the Protestant: Melanchthon, Bucer and Frederick Pistorius. Calvin in supreme power at Geneva (till 1564).

389. “Wider Hans Worst.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 2-75; 26², pp. 21-93.

390. Preface to Ezechiel, explanation of the figure of the Temple. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 64-74.

391. Exposition of Dan. xii. Erl. ed., 41, pp. 294-324.

392. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 75-99.

393. Preface to Urban Rhegius’s “Wider die gottlosen blutdurstigen Sauliten und Doegeten,” etc. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 366-368.

394. Hymns: “Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam,” “Was furchstu, Feind Herodes, seer.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 353 ff.

Revised edition of the German Bible, cp. No. 385. “Enarratio in Ps. xc.,” cp. No. 322. Letters (Enders), Kawerau, 13, pp. 241-395; De Wette, 5, pp. 326-420; 6, pp. 279-294; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 294-343; 56, pp. 227-232.

=1542.= Fourth War of Charles V with François I (lasting till 1544); Diet of Spires meets on Feb. 9 to vote supplies for the war against the Turks. The Elector and Duke of Saxony fall out over Wurzen (March); Luther’s mediation; his last will (Jan. 6). Amsdorf is “consecrated” Bishop of Naumburg (Jan. 20). A Bull dated May 22 summons the Council to assemble on Nov. 1 at Trent. The Schmalkaldeners are successful in their attack on the Duchy of Brunswick (July). Bucer goes to Bonn to the Elector Hermann von Wied (Dec.).

395. Tract against Bigamy (publ. 1749). Erl. ed., 65, pp. 206-213.

396. Disputation for the promotion of Joh. Macchabæus Scotus (Theses by Melanchthon). Drews, pp. 639-683.

397. “Exempel einen rechten Christlichen Bischoff zu weihen.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 77-107; 26², pp. 94-128.

398. Disputation for the promotion of H. Schmedenstede. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 452-455; Drews, pp. 686-698.

399. “Von den Jüden und jren Lügen.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 100-274.

400. Preface to “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi Prediger Ordens anno 1300.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 190-205.

401. Preface to “Barfuser Münche Eulenspiegel und Alcoran.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 373-376.

402. “Trost fur die Weibern welchen es ungerat gegangen ist mit Kinder geberen.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 339-343.

403. Preface to the Hymn Book. Erl. ed., 56, pp. 299-306.

Comment. on Micheas, cp. No. 160. No sermons. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 421-525; 6, pp. 294-343; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 1-43, 232-238, li.-lvii.

=1543.= Diet of Nuremberg (Feb.). The Protestants refuse to vote supplies for the Turkish War. The Emperor is victorious in his campaign against the Duke of Cleves though the latter is supported by the Elector of Saxony and by France (Aug., Sept.). The Bishop of Münster and Osnabrück connives at the introduction of Lutheranism into his diocese. Canisius the first German Jesuit (May 8). Death of Eck (Feb. 10). Schenk in Brandenburg; The Cologne Book of Reform drafted by Melanchthon and Bucer is severely handled by Luther.

404. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 275-358.

405. “Von den Letzten Worten Dauids.” Erl. ed., 37, pp. 2-103.

406. Disputation for the promotion of Joh. Marbach (Feb. 16). Drews, pp. 701-707.

407. Disputation for the promotion of Fr. Bachofen and Hier. Noppus. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 466-470; Drews, pp. 730-748.

408. Disputation for the promotion of Erasmus Alber. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 473-476; Drews, pp. 750-752.

409. Lecture on Is. ix. (publ. 1546). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, pp. 303-438.

410. Hymns: “Von Himel kam der Engel Schar,” “Der du bist drey in Einigkeit.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 357-558.

New edition of the German Bible, cp. No. 381. Church-Postils, Summer part. Sermon, Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 513-523. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 526-614, 6, pp. 343-559; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 43-72, 238-242, lvii.-lxi.

=1544.= Peace of Crespy between the Kaiser and France (Sept. 18). Diet at Spires (beginning in Feb.). Concessions to the Protestants. The Abschied of June 10 postpones the religious controversy to a later Diet and “A free Christian Council within the German Nation.” The Pope’s protest to the Kaiser (Aug. 24). Luther again at daggers drawn with the lawyers (on the question of secret espousals). The people of Cologne denounce their Archbishop to the Pope (Oct. 9). The theses of the Louvain theologians against Luther (Nov. 6). The Council is yet again summoned (Nov. 19, to meet on March 15, 1545) to avert the schism and the inroads of the Turks.

411. Lecture on Is. liii. (publ. 1550). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, pp. 443-536.

412. Disputation for the promotion of Theod. Fabricius and Stanislaus Rapagelanus (Melanchthon’s Theses). Drews, pp. 756-781.

413. “Kurtz Bekentnis vom heiligen Sacrament.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.

414. Sermon at the Dedication of the Castle-church at Torgau. Erl. ed., 17, pp. 239-262; 20², 2, pp. 215-243.

415. Disputation for the promotion of George Major and Joh. Faber. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 470-473; Drews, pp. 784-830.

Home-Postils, cp. No. 308. “Enarratio in I. librum Mosis,” cp. No. 328. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 1-266. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 615-709; 6, pp. 359-367; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 72-122, 242-244.

=1545.= Diet of Worms. The Abschied hints at a religious conference and the imminent danger of a War of Religion. George, the Protestant Prince of Anhalt, is “consecrated as Evangelical Bishop” of Merseburg (Aug. 2). The “Wittenberg Reformation” (Jan.). The final edition of the German Bible. “Popery Pictured.” Luther goes in disgust to Leipzig (July, Aug.). Goes as arbiter to Mansfeld (Oct.). Duke Henry of Brunswick is taken prisoner by the Schmalkaldeners (Oct. 20). A final Bull of Dec. 4 convokes the Council to Trent for Dec. 13, where it is opened in the presence of 34 Fathers qualified to vote. The Schmalkaldeners’ meeting (Dec. 15) at Frankfurt to devise a counterblast. Death of Spalatin (Jan. 16) and of Albert of Mayence (Sept. 24).

416. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 110-228; 26², pp. 131, 251.

417. Verses to Cranach’s cuts in the “Abbildung des Bapstum.”

418. “Wellische Lügenschrifft von Doctoris Martini Luthers Todt zu Rom ausgangen.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 426-430.

419. “Bapst Trew Hadriani iiii und Alexanders iii gegen Keyser Friderichen Barbarossa geübt.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 359-396.

420. Disputation for the promotion of Peter Hegemon (July 3). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 476-480; Drews, pp. 833-903.

421. “Wider die xxxii Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 170-178.

422. “Articuli a magistris nostris Lovaniensibus editi.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 480-492.

423. “An Kurfursten zu Sachsen und Landgraven zu Hesse von dem gefangenen H. von Brunswig.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 229-253; 26², pp. 254-281.

424. Preface to the new edition of the “Unterricht” (No. 360).

425. Preface to the first vol. of his “Opera Latina.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15-24.

German Bible, new ed., cp. No. 381. “Enarratio in Hoseam prophetam,” cp. No. 160. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 267-454. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 710-772; 6, pp. 368-413; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 122-147, 244, xli.-lxv.

=1546.= The Diet opens at Ratisbon (March 29) without the Schmalkalden Leaguers. Luther’s last journey to Mansfeld (Jan. 23). His death at Eisleben (Feb. 18) and burial at Wittenberg (Feb. 22).—Treaty between the Kaiser and King Ferdinand, and Duke William of Bavaria in view of the eventual war (June 7). The Kaiser also makes an alliance with the Pope (June 7) and comes to an agreement with Maurice of Saxony (June 19). Schärtlin as commander of the South German townships begins hostilities at Füssen (July 9). Outlawry of Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony and of Landgrave Philip of Hesse (July 20). The Schmalkalden War (ending in the Kaiser’s victory at Mühlberg, April 24, 1547).

426. Sermons. Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 455-574.

Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 773-801; 6, p. 413 f.; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 147-165.

XLII—APPENDIX II

ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS

[In the following Appendix we have ruthlessly excised all that seemed to us merely personal and to have no direct bearing on Luther. Many of the smaller emendations have already been incorporated in their proper place in the body of this translation. _Note of the English Editor._]

1-2. Luther’s Visit to Rome

_The Scala Santa_: According to Paul Luther, when his father “was about to say the usual _preces graduales in scala Lateranensi_, there suddenly came into his mind the text of Habacuc ‘the just shall live by his faith,’ whereupon he refrained from his prayer.” As we pointed out in vol. i., p. 33, it is most unlikely that Luther should, at this time, have seen this text in such a light. Moreover, as it now turns out, Luther actually did perform the usual devotions at the Scala Santa. It is to G. Buchwald (“Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.,” 1911, p. 606 ff.) that we are indebted for a quotation from a yet unpublished sermon of Luther’s own, which shows that he conformed to the common usage and ascended the famous steps on his knees: “I climbed the stairs of Pilate, _orabam quolibet gradu pater noster_. _Erat enim persuasio, qui sic oraret redimeret animam. Sed in fastigium veniens cogitabam: quis scit an sit verum? Non valet ista oratio, etc._”

As for the doubt expressed in the latter portion of the text, it seems at variance with Luther’s general credulity in those early days. On the other hand, it is by no means unlikely that the scepticism of the Renaissance suggested a doubt to Luther’s mind regarding this supposed trophy of Christ’s Passion.

_The projected General Confession_: In “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil (3, p. 169, n. 33), Luther says: “_Causa profectionis meæ erat confessio, quam volebam a pueritia usque texere, et pietatem exercere. Erphordiæ talem confessionem bis habui. Sed homines indoctissimos Romæ inveni, qui me plus offendebant quam ædificabant_” (cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 414). In this text it is to be noted that Luther falsely makes out the main object of his journey to Rome to have been his proposed general confession, and his progress in piety. The truth is that he went there first and foremost for the business of his Order. That the general confession was probably never made may be inferred from Luther’s use of the word “_sed_” in the above text (cp. vol. i., pp. 30-31).

_Oldecop’s account of Luther’s petition to be secularised_: (Against Kawerau, “Schriften d. Vereins f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1912). Though but little notice has hitherto been taken of Oldecop’s narrative, yet there is no solid ground for distrusting it. As we were careful to point out (vol. i., p. 36, n. 1), he was indeed wrong in saying that Luther had gone to Rome without his superiors’ authorisation, for the journey was at least authorised by the seven priories whose representative Luther was. Luther had, however, no authorisation to seek secularisation, nor was his mission countenanced by the minister-general of the Augustinians. This may have led Oldecop to suppose that his whole undertaking was unauthorised. Regarding Jacob, the Jew mentioned in Oldecop’s account, Kawerau (_ib._, p. 36) makes out a likely case for distinguishing him from his German homonym with whom (vol. i., p. 37, n. 1) we tentatively identified him.

_The outcome for the Order of Luther’s visit to Rome_: Under the title “Aus den Actis generalatus Ægidii Viterbiensis,” G. Kawerau has published in the “Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.” (1911, p. 603 ff.) a few short extracts from a MS. in the Royal Berlin Library. One of these seems to bear on Luther’s mission from the seven priories opposed to Staupitz: “_MDXI. Jan. Appellare ex legibus Germani prohibentur. Ut res germanæ ad amorem et integram obedientiam redigerentur, Fr. Joh. Germanus ad vicarium missus est._” Hence Luther’s appeal was prohibited, nor had his mission the slightest support from Ægidius of Viterbo the minister-general. That, on the contrary, he was opposed to the movement then afoot against Staupitz, is also clear from the expression he uses on March 18, 1511, viz. that “obedience to the Order and its head” must be reintroduced into the German Congregation. At any earlier date (May 1, 1510) we are told that Staupitz himself had come to Rome “_[Germanicæ] congregationis colla religionis iugo subiecturus._” His visit, however, had nothing to do with the matter of the seven priories, but concerned the general discipline of the Congregation.

3. Luther’s conception of “Observance” and his conflict with his brother friars

What we said of Luther’s early antagonism to the Observantines in his Order has been very diversely appreciated by Protestant experts. Kawerau and Scheel, for instance, are of opinion that no proof is forthcoming of the continuance of the conflict between Observantines and Conventuals. On the other hand, A. Harnack, K. A. Meissinger and W. Braun hold that the persistence of the conflict has been made out and that it really formed one of the starting-points of Luther’s new conception of faith. Modesty, however, dictates a protest on our part against being considered the inventor of this explanation, for it had, even previously, been suggested by Protestant scholars (cp. vol. i., p. 200, n. 3), though they may not have used it to such purpose. Again, a word of warning must be uttered against the supposition that, for instance as late as 1515-1516, there was still in Luther’s Congregation a clear-cut division between those devoted to the “observance” and the others who inclined to “Conventualism.” Of such a schism we hear no more after the Cologne Chapter of 1512. Nevertheless, that the partisan spirit that had once led to the appeal of the seven priories still smouldered, so much at least seems obvious from those addresses and writings of Luther in which he trounces the Pharisaism of certain members of his Congregation and their attachment to their statutes, privileges and exemptions. It must not be lost to sight that the Congregation to which Luther belonged was in name and fact an “observantine” one, having been founded to promote the stricter observance of the Augustinian Rule; for this reason it was exempted from the jurisdiction of the German Provincial of the Order and placed directly under the Roman minister-general, whose representative in Germany was the Vicar.

Regarding the mediæval cleavage of several of the Orders into Observantines and Conventuals we must be on our guard against flying to the conclusion that all mere Conventuals were necessarily slack in the performance of their duties. This was by no means the case; in many localities the Franciscan Observantines, e.g. were scarcely more zealous than the Franciscan Conventuals, though the latter had at an early date mitigated their rule of poverty; much the same held good among the Dominicans, Servites and Carmelites. In the event, so far as the Augustinians are concerned, the Saxon Observantines, for all their “observance,” were among the first to fall before the storm let loose from Wittenberg, whereas the German Conventuals, under such worthy provincials as Träger and Hoffmeister, showed themselves better able to cope with the innovations. The Dominican Conventuals under a Vicar like Johann Faber also furnished several protagonists of the faith.

* * * * *

In view of the doubts raised in certain quarters we shall now submit to a closer scrutiny Luther’s utterances on the question of the “observance.”

On one occasion Luther complains of those who made so small account of obedience, though this virtue was the very soul of good works:

“Tales hodie esse timendum est omnes observantes et exemptos sive privilegiatos; qui quid noceant ecclesiæ nondum apparuit, licet factum sit; apparebit autem tempore suo. Quærimus autem, cur sic eximi sibi et dispensari in obedientia velint. Dicunt propter vitam regularem. Sed hæc est lux angeli Satanæ.”

Obedience is something which cannot be dispensed (_non eximibilis_, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 155; O. Scheel, “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung,” 1911, p. 74 f.; above, vol. i., p. 68 f.). Truth, so Luther argues, hides its face from the unwise and the particularist:

“Sic etiam omnibus superbis contingit et pertinacibus, superstitiosis, rebellibus et inobedientibus, atque ut timeo et observantibus nostris, qui sub specie regularis vitæ incurrunt inobedientiarn et rebellionem.” (Weim. ed., 4, p. 83; above, vol. i., p. 69.)

In the former text he was speaking of “all Observantines,” here he speaks of “ours,” presumably, of the more zealous Augustinians. These “_observantes_” are the same opponents whom he goes on to describe as “_superbi in sanctitate et observantia, qui destruunt humilitatem et obedientiam_.” The real meaning here of the words “_observantia_” and “_observare_” can scarcely escape the reader, particularly when Luther couples this “observance” with disobedience to superiors. Thus he says:

“Nostris temporibus est pugna cum hypocritis et falsis fratribus, qui de bonitate fidei pugnant, quam sibi arrogant, per observantias suas iactantes suam sanctitatem.” (_Ib._, 4, p. 312.)

“_Observantia_” means of course outward practices, but there can be little doubt that the word is here used in the more exclusive sense defined in the text first quoted. Thus he denounces those who defend their own “_traditiones et leges_,” which “_usque hodie statuere conantur_”; those who busy themselves about ceremonies and the “_vanitas observantiæ exterioris_”; he several times repeats the “_usque hodie_,” as though to show that the practices he had in view were present ones. (Cp. Weim. ed., 3, p. 61.)

It must be borne in mind that Luther delivered his Lectures on the Psalms (in which most of the texts in question are found) to an audience composed in the main of young Augustinians sent by the various priories to prosecute their studies at Wittenberg. Some of these may well have brought with them some of those stricter ideas which the seven “Observantine” priories had once championed against Staupitz. To one, who, as Luther now was, was against such ideas, it was an easy matter, even though in itself wrong, to make the question one of obedience, by urging either that their exemption from the jurisdiction of the Provincial was irregular, or that Staupitz had now abandoned his one-time projects.

Luther charges the other faction, not only with disobedience, but also with pigheadedness, e.g. in refusing to conform to the usages of the other priories, and in laying such stress on their own customs and institutions.

“Nunc quam multi sunt, qui sibi spiritualissimi videntur et tamen sunt sanguinicissimi, ut sic dixerim, verissimique Idumæi. Hi scilicet qui suas professiones, suum ordinem, suos sanctos, sua instituta ita venerantur et efferunt, ut omnium aliorum vel obfuscent vel nihil ipsi curent, satis carnaliter suos patres observantes et iactantes; (such was the New Judaism of those), qui suos conventus, suum ordinem ideo laudant et ideo aliis præstare volunt ac nullo modo doceri, quia magnos et sanctos viros habuerunt, quorum titulum, nomen et habitum gestant, … O furor late regnans hodie! Ita nunc pene fit, ut quilibet conventus contemnat alterius mores acceptare adeo superbe, ut sibi dedecus putet, si ab alio, quam a se ipso doceatur aut recipiat. Hæc vera superbia est Iudæorum et hæreticorum, in quo et nos heu infelices comprehendimur. Quia cum in nullo similes patribus nostris simus, solum de nomine et gloria eorum contra invicem contendimus et superbimus.” (_Ib._, 3, p. 332.)

Though what Luther here says might be applied to other religious Orders, yet it seems more natural to take it as referring chiefly to what was going on in his own.

_Luther’s then Conception of Cloistral Life and Religious Mendicancy_: Luther spoke very plainly about that part of the Rule which enjoined mendicancy; as Conventuals no less than Observantines were bound to observe this enactment it follows that Luther’s attack was directed, not so much against the Observantines as such, as against any attempt seriously to put in practice the Evangelical Counsels. Thus, in the passage quoted above (vol. i., p. 71) he says: “_O mendicantes, mendicantes, mendicantes! At excusat forte quod elemosynas propter Deum recipitis et verbum Dei ac omnia gratis rependitis. Esto sane. Vos videritis._” (Weim. ed., 3, p. 425.) Here, it is true, he is speaking of the abuses to which the system led, yet he is also annoyed that their vow of poverty should be the motive of their preaching: “_Horribilis furor et cæca miseria, quod nunc nonnisi ex necessitate evangelizamus._”

Now, though these hasty words were open to a perfectly sound interpretation, yet their effect must have been to arouse a certain contempt for their calling in the minds of the young men to whom they were spoken. At any rate Luther had then not yet lost his esteem for the religious life, particularly as an incentive to humility and general Godliness. (See vol. i., p. 218 f.)

It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that, in 1518 (at Augsburg), Staupitz released Luther “from the observance” has nothing whatever to do with the question in hand. Luther says: “_me absolvit ab observantia et regula ordinis_.” (Weim. ed., of the Table-Talk, 1, p. 96.) All that his superior did was to dispense him from his obligation of carrying out outwardly the rule of the Order, e.g. from dressing as a monk, etc. Even had Luther been a Conventual he could still have spoken thus of his having been absolved from the “observance.” It may be that Staupitz, for his own freedom of action, also absolved Luther from his duty of obedience to him as Vicar. Even so, however, Luther remained an Augustinian, returned to his monastery, wrote on behalf of the vows, and, long after, still continued to wear the Augustinian habit.

* * * * *

One notice brought to light from the Weimar archives and published by Kawerau (_loc. cit._, p. 68) is of interest. It deals with the practices of the severer Observantine priories (about the year 1489) with which the laxer members were later to find fault. Among their practices was that of “not speaking at meal-time but of listening to a reader, of fasting from All Hallows till Christmas (in addition to the other fasts), of singing Matins every night, of abstaining from food and drink outside of meal-time, and of holding a Chapter every Friday with public admission of shortcomings and imposition of penance.”

4. Attack upon the “Self-righteous”

In 1516 Luther presided at Bernhardi’s Disputation, “_De viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia_.” (Above, vol. i., p. 310 f.) In the letter to Lang about it he says that Bernhardi had held the debate “_motus oblatratorum lectionum mearum garritu_.” Some opinions therein put forward had much scandalised the adherents of Gabriel Biel (“_cum et mei [Gabrielistæ] vehementer hucusque mirentur_”), but, at any rate, the Disputation had served its purpose (“_ad obstruendum ora garrientium vel ad audiendum iudicium aliorum_”). He goes on to speak of the offence his denial of the authenticity of the tract “_De vera et falsa pænitentia_”—hitherto ascribed to St. Augustine—had given at Wittenberg (“_sane gravius offendi omnes_”). Mathesius (above, vol. i., p. 304) also alludes to the opposition he encountered about this time among his brethren. At any rate a few months later Luther could triumphantly tell Lang:

“Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt et regnant in nostra universitate, Deo operante.… Mire fastidiuntur lectiones sententiariæ, nec est ut quis sibi auditores sperare possit, nisi theologiam hanc … velit profiteri.”

Before this, the young Professor (at Christmas, 1515) had told his hearers, that, just as the Prophets, wise men and scribes had been persecuted, so _he_ was being persecuted now:

“Sed state firmiter, neque moveatur ullus contradictionibus; sic enim oportet fieri. Prophetæ, Sapientes, Scribæ, dum mittuntur ad iustos, sanctos, pios, non recipiuntur ab ipsis sed occiduntur.”

The supposed “saints” he goes on to describe in their true character. What they were bent on persecuting was really Grace, viz. what he preaches under the figure of “Christ our mother-hen”:

“Superbi semper contra iustitiam Dei pugnant et stultitiam æstimant, quæ sapientia [sic] eis mittitur; similiter veritas eis mendacium videtur. Imo persequuntur et occidunt eos, qui veritatem dicunt. Sic enim et ego semper prædico de _Christo, gallina nostra_. Efficitur mihi errans et falsum dictum: ‘Vult Dominus esse gallina nostra ad salutem, sed nos nolumus’.… Nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint, quæ gallina egeant, imo quod peius est, versi in vultures etiam ipsi alios a gallina rapere nituntur et persequuntur reliquos pullos.… Sicut Iudæi … iustitiam statuentes quod sibi placuit, ita isti hoc gratiam vocant quod ipsi somniant.” (Weim. ed., 1, p. 31.)

A few pages further on, the new Lutheran teaching on Grace is clearly seen in its process of growth:

“Ecce impossibilis est lex propter carnem; verumtamen Christus impletionem suam nobis impertit, dum se ipsum gallinam nobis exhibet, ut sub alas eius confugiamus et per eius impletionem nos quoque legem impleamus. O dulcis gallina, o beatos pullos huius gallinæ!” (P. 35.)

To the “vultures,” i.e. his opponents, he returns again in the same lectures. They build only on their “_sapientia carnis_” when they set out to gain what they consider to be virtue and the gifts of grace. (Weim. ed., 1, pp. 61, 62, 70.)

“In his maxime pereunt [peccant?] hæretici et superbi, dum ea pertinaciter diligunt, quasi ideo Deum diligant, quia hæc diligunt. Inde enim zelant et furiunt, ubi reprehenduntur in istis, et defendunt se ac zelum Dei sine scientia exercent.… Quantumlibet sapiant et bene vivant, recte adhuc de sapientia carnis vivere dicendi sunt.… Servi [superbi?] sine timore et occultissime superbi.… Talis est stultitia hypocritarum de virtutibus et gratiis Dei, præsumentium se esse integros et iustos.”

A trace of the antagonism within the Order is also found in the notes of the sermons preached in the summer of 1516. On July 6, Luther speaks of the greatest plague now rampant in the Church:

“Prosequimur, quæ incepimus, nam singularem illi tractatum quærunt, cum non sit hodie pestis maior per ecclesiam ista peste hominum, qui dicunt, ‘bonum oportet facere,’ nescire volentes, quid sit bonum vel malum. Sunt enim inimici crucis Christi i.e. bonorum Dei.”

As we know, his theology was professedly the “theology of the cross.” As for his foes, lay, clerical or monastic, their outward works were but the lamb-skins concealing the wolves beneath:

“Ad alia vocati, quam quæ ipsi elegerunt, difficiles imo rebelles sunt et contrarii, impatientes, [inclinati] detrahere ac iudicare, alios negligere, contentiosi, opiniosæ cervicis, indomiti sensus, ideo non pacifici, brevianimes, immansueti, duri, crudi. Hæc vitia et opera interioris hominis _ovina veste_ contegunt, i.e. actionibus, oblationibus, gestu, ceremoniis corporalibus, ita ut et sibi et aliis simplicibus boni et iusti videantur.”

On July 27 he speaks of the “darts” which the foes let fly from their ambush at those who are right of heart.

“Hæc ideo iam commemoro, quia iam accedo ad subtiliores homines et invisibiles transgressores præcepti Dei et in abscondito peccantes et sagittantes eos qui recte sint corde.”

In another sermon preached on the same day, speaking of the Pharisee and the Publican, he says:

“Credo quod pauci timeant se pharisæo similes esse quem odiunt; sed ego scio, quod plures ei similes sint.… Non præsumamus securi, quod publicano similes simus.”

In this sentence, and elsewhere, stress should not be laid on the use of the first person plural, as it is merely a rhetorical embellishment. The Pharisee is the self-righteous man; he bears “_idolum iustitiæ suæ in corde statutum_”; he refuses to be accounted a sinner, hence:

“incurrit in Christum, qui omnes peccatores suscepit in se. Et ideo Christus iudicatur, accusatur, mordetur, quandocunque peccator quicunque accusatur, etc. Qui autem Christum iudicat, suum iudicem iudicat, Deum violenter negat. Vide quo perveniat furens et insipiens superbia.”

This indeed, in itself, is all capable of a perfectly orthodox interpretation, not, however, if we take it in conjunction with all the circumstances. On Aug. 3, the preacher again inveighs against the “_sensuales iustitiarii_,” who hang on their works and observances: This is to remain

“… pueri abecedarii in isto statu; sed heu quam plurimi hodie in illis indurantur, quia hæc putant esse seria, et magna ea æstimant. [Tamen] qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, ubi didicerint exterioris hominis disciplinas, non eas multum curant nisi ut præludium.”

True piety on the other hand consisted in allowing oneself to be ridden by God. The man of God

“vadit quocumque eum Dominus suus equitat; nunquam scit quo vadat, plus agitur quam agit, semper it et quomodocunque per aquam, per lutum, per imbrem, per nivem, ventum, etc. Tales sunt homines Dei, qui Spiritu Dei aguntur.”

The “holy-by-works” soil themselves with the seven deadly sins of the spirit. Hence, let us not befoul ourselves by making a rock of the “_opera iustitiæ_.” Let us leave that sort of thing to beginners to whom indeed we may teach

“multis bonis operibus exercere et a malis abstinere secundum sensibilem hominem, ut sunt [sic] ieiunare, vigilare, orare, laborare, misereri, servire, obsequi, etc.”

These words must have been addressed to men with some theological training, for, in this discourse, Luther dilates at some length on a text of Alexander of Hales; doubtless those present were members of his Order; but what then must we think of the teacher who thus proclaims a freedom from all the observances and traditional rules by which his fellow-monks were bound? Luther’s point of view was one, which, if adopted, spelt the end not only of the Observantines but even of Conventualism. Hence it is no wonder that it caused murmuring.

5. The collapse of the Augustinian Congregation

The fifth Council of the Lateran took measures against many abuses which had crept in among the mendicant Orders, particularly among the Hermits of St. Augustine. As we know, the German Congregation under Staupitz and with Luther as Rural Vicar was no better off than the other branches. It is from June 30, 1516, i.e. during the period of Luther’s “vicariate” that we find a curious note in the “Acta Generalatus Ægidii Viterbiensis.” (Above, p. 497.)

“Universo ordini significamus bellum nobis indictum ab episcopis in concilio Lateranensi, ob idque nos reformationem indicimus omnibus monasteriis.” [Cp. 2 Jan., 1517]. “Religioni universæ quæcunque in concilio acta sunt contra mendicantes per litteras longissimas significamus et reformationem exactissimam indicimus.”

In thus doing the Minister-General’s intention, to judge by the few scraps his Acts contain, was to bring back his people “_ad communem vitam_.” No doubt too many dispensations had been given for the sake of making study easier, or for other reasons. The reader may remember the incident (above, vol. i., p. 297, n. 1) of Gabriel Zwilling’s being sent to Erfurt and the words used by Luther in his letter to Lang. Zwilling, who, after leaving the Augustinians, became one of the Zwickau “Prophets” but afterwards accepted an appointment as Lutheran minister at Torgau, had joined the Augustinians in 1502 and matriculated at Wittenberg University in 1512; hence he had already been sixteen years an Augustinian at the time when Luther wrote that he had “not yet seen or learnt the rites and usages of the Order.” Does not this seem to prove that the Rule must have been greatly relaxed and that too many exceptions were allowed in the common way of life? Luther himself, as we know, had been dispensed in his student-days from attending Matins and had been assigned a serving-brother; this is proved by the manuscript notes of the Table-Talk made by Rörer. “_(Staupitzius) absolvit eum a matutinis et addidit fratrem famulum._” (Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, p. 370.) It has indeed been urged that Zwilling’s ignorance of the “rites” was due to the smallness of the Wittenberg monastery. But, as Luther wrote to Lang on Oct. 26, 1516, the house contained “twenty-two priests, twelve students, and, in all, forty-one persons.” (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67). This was surely enough to allow of the carrying out of the “rites and usages of the Order.” Zwilling, moreover, was sent to Erfurt, not only to get a better insight into the ways of the Order, but, mainly, to learn Greek: “_Ut et ipse et alii quam optime, ~i.e.~ christianiter, græcisent._”

6. _The Tower Incident_ (vol. I, pp. 388-400)

To avoid giving unnecessary offence we did not unduly insist on the locality in which Luther professed to have received his chief revelation. To have suppressed all mention of the locality would, however, have been wrong seeing that the circumstance of place is here so closely bound up with the historicity of the event. We, however, confined ourselves to a bald statement and explanation of what is found in the sources, and chose the most discreet heading possible for the section in question. In spite of this, Adolf Harnack (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, p. 302), dealing with our first volume, informed his readers that, on this point, we had made our own “the olden fashion of vulgar Catholic polemics” and had made of the “locality a capital question,” no doubt in the hope that Catholic readers would take the matter very much as the olden Christians took Arius’s death in the closet. Needless to say, what Harnack wrote was repeated and aggravated by the lesser lights of German Protestantism. The truest remark, however, made by Harnack in this connection, is that, the actual “locality in which Luther first glimpsed this thought is of small importance,” and that, even had I made out my case, “what would it really matter?”

As to our authorities the chief one is Johann Schlaginhaufen’s notes of Luther’s Table-Talk in which the words are related as having been spoken some time between July and Sept., 1532.

_The forms in which Luther’s utterance has been handed down_: The friends who, in 1532, either habitually or occasionally, attended at Luther’s parties and noted down his sayings were three in number, viz. Schlaginhaufen, Cordatus and Veit Dietrich. The (yet unpublished) notes of the last as given in the Nuremberg MS. contain nothing about this utterance. From Cordatus we have the version given below as No. III. But, according to Preger, the editor of Schlaginhaufen, Cordatus “at this time was no longer at Wittenberg”; if this be true, then what he says on the subject must have come to him at second hand, though, otherwise, his notes contain much valuable first-hand information. Nevertheless both Preger and Kroker, two experts on the Table-Talk, are at one in arguing that an attentive comparison of Cordatus’s notes with those of the other guests, proves that Cordatus not seldom fails to keep closely enough to Luther’s actual words and sometimes misses his real meaning, which is less so the case with Schlaginhaufen. As for Lauterbach, as Kawerau points out, he was not at that time a regular visitor at Luther’s house, though we several times hear of his being present at the Table-Talk. It is more than doubtful whether his version of the utterance in question (given below as IV) was taken down from Luther’s lips. Moreover his notes, as printed by Bindseil, often show traces of subsequent correction.

In Schlaginhaufen, on the other hand, we find throughout first-hand matter, the freshness, disorder, and even faulty grammar, showing how little it has been touched up by the collector’s hand. He was a personal friend of Luther’s, and, whilst awaiting a call to the ministry, stayed at the latter’s house from November, 1531, where he was always present at the evening repast. Luther was aware that he was taking notes of the conversations, and, on one occasion (Preger, p. 82) particularly requested him to put down something. He was comforted in his anxieties by Luther (above, vol. v., p. 327), nor, when he left Wittenberg at the end of 1532 to become minister at Zahna, did he break his friendly relations with Luther. He quitted Zahna in Dec., 1533, and took over the charge of Köthen.

The notes of Schlaginhaufen made public by Preger in 1888 are not in his own handwriting. The Munich codex (Clm. 943) used by Preger is rather the copy made by some unknown person about 1551, written with a hasty hand, and (as we were able to convince ourselves by personal inspection) by one, who, in places, could not quite decipher the original (now lost). There are, however, three other versions of Schlaginhaufen’s notes of the utterance under consideration: That of Khummer (mentioned above, vol. i., p. 396), that made in 1550 by George Steinhart, minister in the Chemnitz superintendency, and that of Rörer, which, thanks to E. Kroker the Leipzig city-librarian, we are now able to give. That of Steinhart is found bound up in a Munich codex entitled “Dicta et facta Lutheri et aliorum.” (Clm. 939, f., 10.) Steinhart evidently made diligent use of the papers left by Schlaginhaufen, Lauterbach and others. Generally speaking, his work is well done. Steinhart’s rendering of the utterance in question agrees word for word with that of Khummer, though they both differ from the Munich copy published by Preger and show it to be lacking in some respects. Rörer’s text V, in many ways, stands by itself.

Khummer had fled from Austria on account of his Lutheran leanings and gone to Wittenberg, where he matriculated on May 11, 1529. He was then a fellow-student of Lauterbach. He is supposed to have been given by Luther (between 1541 and 1545) charge of the parish of Ortrand, where he still was in 1555 when the Visitors gave a good account of him. His collection, now in the Royal Dresden Library, contains a copy (not all in his own handwriting) made in 1554 from Lauterbach’s Diary (1538), and, further, in the second part, this time all in his own handwriting, copies of many things said by Luther at table. “We shall not be far wrong,” says Seidemann (p. x.), “if we surmise that Khummer obtained his version from Pirna [where Lauterbach had been superintendent since 1539].” Below we give his version as printed in Seidemann (p. 81, n.):

_Luther’s words as they were heard by Schlaginhaufen_:

I. Copies of Steinhart (1550) and Khummer (1554):

“Hæc vocabula iustus et iustitia dei erant mihi fulmen in conscientia. Mox reddebar pavidus auditor. Iustus, ergo punit. Sed cum semel in hac turri speculabar de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit, iustitia dei, mox cogitaveram, [Steinhart: cogitabam] si vivere debemus iusti ex fide et iustitia dei debet esse ad salutem omni credenti, mox erigebatur mihi animus. Ergo iustitia dei est, quæ nos iustificat et salvat. Et facta sunt mihi hæc verba iucundiora, Dise khunst hat mir der heilig geist aüff diser cloaca aüff dem Thorm (ein)gegeben.”[1662]

II. Anonymous Copy of (Preger) 1551:

“Hæc vocabula: iustus et iustitia erant mihi fulmen in conscientia. Mox reddebar pavidus auditis: Iustus—ergo puniet, Iustus ex fide vivit, Iustitia dei revelatur sine lege. Mox cogitabam, si vivere debemus ex fide et si iustitia dei debet esse ad salutem omni credenti, mox erigebatur mihi animus: ergo iustitia dei est, quo nos iustificat et salvat, et facta sunt mihi hæc verba iucundiora. Dise kunst hatt mir d[er] S[piritus] S[anctus] auf diss Cl. eingeben.”

Here the identical text of Khummer and Steinhart (I) supplies certain missing parts in text II, and, as it is the more understandable of the two, is more likely to represent the earlier form of Schlaginhaufen’s rendering. Thus in text II, line 1-2, the word “_Dei_” after “_iustitia_” is wrongly omitted; so also, the words “_Sed cum semel in hac turri speculabar de istis vocabulis_,” or others to that effect, are required to introduce the “_mox cogitabam_” a few lines below. Read alone the “_Iustus ex fide_,” as in II, is not intelligible. In both I and II there is, on the other hand, an omission, viz. after the words “_omni credenti_” which III, IV and V seek to supply each in their own way. Here we shall not be far wrong in assuming the omission to have been the fault of the lost original of Schlaginhaufen of which they made use. The fact that No. I here refrains from completing the passage is in itself a testimony to its copyist’s integrity. Again, in the Steinhart-Khummer version, the final allusion in the German words at the end to the “Thorm” (tower) brings us back to the “_turris_” mentioned earlier. Now, what is noteworthy, is that, at the conclusion of this version which seems the better of the pair, the word “cloaca” is spelt out in full (as it also is below, in Rörer’s copy).

In II, however, we find only the abbreviation “Cl.” Now, in the MS. followed by the editor of text II, though we find a large number of abbreviations, they are merely the ones in use in those times. “Cl.,” however, is a most singular one, and, were it not explained by other texts, would be very difficult to understand. Why then is it used? It can hardly be merely from the desire to avoid using any word in the least offensive to innocent ears, for, elsewhere, in the same pages (e.g. in Preger’s edition, Nos. 364, 366, 375) the coarsest words are written out in full without the slightest scruple. Hence in this connection the copyist must have had a special reason to avoid spelling out so comparatively harmless a word.

* * * * *

The remaining texts are those of Cordatus, Lauterbach and Rörer.

Cordatus was assigned too high a place by his modern editor, Wrampelmeyer (1885). He had, indeed, his merits, but, as Preger points out, an inspection of the many items he took from Schlaginhaufen shows him to have been careless and often mistaken. Moreover, he has wantonly altered the order of the utterances instead of retaining Schlaginhaufen’s chronological one. Those utterances which he had not heard himself (such as the one in question) have naturally suffered most at his hands. As for Lauterbach’s so-called “Colloquia” preserved at Gotha (ed. H. E. Bindseil), it also betrays signs of being a revision and rearrangement of matter collected together or heard personally by this most industrious of all the compilers of Luther’s sayings. Whether Lauterbach was actually present on the occasion in question cannot be told, but it seems scarcely likely that he was if we compare his account carefully with that of Schlaginhaufen. On Rörer’s connection with Schlaginhaufen, see Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 56 ff.

_Luther’s words in the revised form_:

III. Cordatus 1537 (Wrampelmeyer, p. 423, No. 1571):

“Hæc vocabula iustus et iusticia in papatu fulmen mihi erant conscientia, et ad solum auditum terrebant me. Sed cum semel in hac turri (in qua secretus locus erat monachorum) specularer de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit et Iusticia dei, etc. obiter veniebat in mentem: Si vivere debemus iusti fide propter iusticiam et illa iusticia Dei est ad salutem omni credenti, ergo ex fide est iusticia et ex iusticia vita. Et erigebatur mihi conscientia mea et animus meus, et certus reddebar, iusticiam dei esse quæ nos iustificaret et salvaret. Ac statim fiebant mihi hæc verba dulcia et iucunda verba. Diesze kunst hatt mir der heilige geist auff diesem thurm geben.”

IV. Lauterbach c. 1559 (Bindseil, 1, p. 52):

“Nam hæc verba iustus et iustitia Dei erant mihi fulmen in consciencia, quibus auditis expavescebam. Si Deus est iustus, ergo puniet. Sed Dei gratia cum semel in hac turri et hypocausto specularer de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit et Iustitia Dei, mox cogitabam: Si vivere debemus iusti ex fide et iustitia Dei debet esse ad salutem omni credenti, non erit meritum nostrum, sed misericordia Dei. Ita erigebatur animus meus. Nam iustitia Dei est qua nos iustificamur et salvamur per Christum, et illa verba facta sunt mihi iucundiora. Die Schriefft hat mir der heilige geist in diesem thuen [thurm] offenbaret.”

V. Rörer (Jena, Bos. q. 24 s, Bl. 117´, 118):

“Vocabula hæc iustus, misericordia erant mihi in conscientia tristitia. Nam his auditis mox incutiebatur terror: Si Deus est iustus, ergo puniet, etc. Cum autem diligentius cogitarem de significatione et iam incideret locus Hab. 2: Iustus ex fide vivet, item Iustitia Dei revelatur sine lege, cœpi mutare sententiam: Si vivere debemus ex fide, et si iustitia Dei est ad salutem omni credenti, non terrent, sed maxime consolantur peccatores hi loci. Ita confirmatus cogitavi certo iustitiam Dei esse, non qua punit peccatores, sed qua iustificat et salvos (salvat) peccatores pœnitentiam agentes. Diese Kunst hat mir der Geist Gottes auf dieser cloaca [in horto] eingeben.”

It will be noticed that III and IV resemble each other and both conclude with a mention of the tower (as in Schlaginhaufen I). At the beginning, however, each adds a few words of his own not found in Schlaginhaufen. Cordatus adds a parenthesis about the “_locus secretus_,” i.e. privy (whether the marks of parenthesis are merely the work of the editor we cannot say, nor whether the parenthetic sentence is supposed to represent Luther’s actual words or is an explanation given by Cordatus himself). At any rate the words really add nothing new to Schlaginhaufen’s account, if we bear in mind the latter’s allusion at the end to the “cloaca” and the fact that Cordatus omits to refer to this place at the end of his account. Hence we seem to have a simple transposition. As to why Cordatus should have transposed the words, we may not unreasonably conjecture that, in his estimation, they stood in the earlier form in too unpleasant proximity with the reception of the revelation.

Lauterbach’s text, even if we overlook the words it adds after “_credenti_,” betrays an effort after literary polish; it can scarcely be an independent account and most likely rests on Schlaginhaufen. One allusion is, however, of importance, viz. the words “_in hac turri et ~[in Rebenstock’s version: _vel_]~ hypocausto_” which here replace the mention of the cloaca or privy. Here the “_hypocaustum_” signifies either a heating apparatus or a heated room.

In Rörer the whole text has been still further polished up. He agrees with II in leaving out the “_in hac turri_,” but, with I, in introducing the “cloaca” at the end. The words “_in horto_” which are inserted in his handwriting just above would seem to be his own addition due to his knowledge of the spot (the tower really stood partly in the garden).

_Other interpretations of the texts in question_: Kawerau (p. 62 f.) takes Lauterbach’s “_hypocaustum_” to refer to Luther’s workroom in the tower, which Luther had retained since his monkish years and from which “he stormed the Papacy.” Unfortunately, in the references given by Kawerau, we find no allusion to any such prolonged residence in a room in the tower.

Luther himself once casually alludes to two different “_hypocausta_” (or warmed rooms) in the monastery. According to a letter dated in Nov., 1527 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 117), whilst the Plague was raging, he put up his ailing son Hans in “_meo hypocausto_,” whilst the wife of Augustine Schurf, the professor of medicine, when she was supposed to have contracted the malady, was also accommodated in a “_hypocaustum_” of her own. For another sick lady, Margareta von Mochau, he found room “_in hybernaculo nostro usitato_,” and, with his family, took up his own lodgings “_in anteriore magna aula_.” Hans’s “_hypocaustum_” was probably the traditional room furnished with a stove still shown to-day as Luther’s (Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 491). Unfortunately this room is not near the town-wall, or the tower, but on the opposite side of the building. There is another allusion elsewhere (Feb. 14, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 791) to a “_hypocaustum_,” but, there again, no reference is made to its being situated in the tower.

An undated saying in Aurifaber’s German Table-Talk, in which Luther expresses a fear for the future of his “poor little room” “from which I stormed the Pope” (Erl. ed., 62, p. 209; Förstemann, 4, p. 474) might refer to any room. As a monk Luther is not likely to have had a warmed cell of his own but merely the use of the common-room of the community. He himself speaks of what he suffered from the cold (above, p. 194); elsewhere he tells us of the noise once made by the devil “in the chimney” of the refectory (above, p. 125) to which Luther had betaken himself to prepare his lecture, presumably for the sake of more warmth.

In vol. i. (p. 397) we perhaps too hastily assumed the “necessary building” to have been a privy which Luther, in 1519, asked permission to erect. It may even have been the “pleasant room overlooking the water” in which Luther “drank and made merry”—to the great disgust of the fanatic Ickelsamer. (See above, vol. iii., p. 302.) Being new it would no doubt have been “pleasant” and no doubt, too, it also had a fire-place. It may be conjectured that, possibly Lauterbach, with his allusion to the “tower” and the “_hypocaustum_” was intending to suggest this room as the scene of the revelation rather than the more ignoble locality of which Cordatus speaks.

* * * * *

Others have sought to escape the disagreeable meaning of the text in other ways. Wrampelmeyer interpreted it figuratively: The tower was Popery and the “_hypocaustum_” Luther’s spiritual “sweat bath.” Preger did much the same and even more. He says: “I hold that ‘Cl.,’ from which abbreviation the other readings seem to have sprung[!], stands for ‘Capitel’ [i.e. chapter].” Even Harnack inclines to this latter view. The meaning would then be: “This art the Holy Ghost revealed unto me on this chapter” (of the Epistle to the Romans). But, apart from the clumsiness of such a construction, as it was pointed out by Kawerau, such an abbreviation as “Cl.” for “capitel” or “capitulum” is unheard of. With even less reason Scheel tentatively makes the suggestion to read “Cl.” as “claustrum,” or “cella.”

Kawerau admits that “Cl.” stands for “cloaca,” but he urges that it arose through a misunderstanding on Schlaginhaufen’s part of Cordatus’s “_secretus locus_”—as though Schlaginhaufen was likely to depend on second-hand information regarding an utterance he had heard himself.

Kawerau further points out, that the locality in which the revelation was received is, after all, of no great moment, that “the stable at Bethlehem was not unworthy of witnessing God’s revelation in Christ”; Scheel, likewise, asks whether all Christians, even those of the Roman persuasion, do not believe that God is present everywhere? They certainly do, and nothing could have been further from our intentions than any wish to prejudice the case by making the locality of the incident a “capital question.” Had Luther received his supposed revelation on Mount Thabor, or on Sinai, or before the altar of the Schlosskirche we can assure our critics that we should have faithfully recorded the testimonies with the same regard for historical truth.

7. The Indulgence-Theses

In vol. i. (p. 332) and vol. ii. (p. 16) we insinuated that Luther wilfully concealed the true character of his 95 Theses. Whereas, in reality, his system had no room for Indulgences at all, in the Theses he chose to veil his opinions under an hypothetical form. It has, however, been objected that Luther’s letters to Spalatin and to Scheurl, of Feb. 15 and March 5, 1518, prove that his views were not yet fixed.

But this is scarcely a true presentment of the case. In his private letter to Spalatin he openly brands Indulgences as an “illusion.”

“Dicam primum tibi soli et amicis nostris, donec res publicetur, mihi in indulgentiis hodie videri non esse nisi animarum illusionem et nihil prorsus utiles esse nisi stertentibus et pigris in via Christi.… Huius illusionis sustollendæ gratia ego veritatis amore in eum disputationis periculosum labyrinthum dedi me ipsum.”

He tells Spalatin not to bother about gaining Indulgences but rather to give his money to the poor, otherwise he will deserve the wrath of God. All would be demonstrated in the forthcoming “Resolutiones”; only the “_ipsa rudiores ruditate_” still assail him as a heretic, etc. (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 155.) From these words his true opinion emerges clearly enough, in spite of the previous ones: “_Hæc res in dubio adhuc pendet et mea disputatio inter calumnias fluctuat_,” and in spite, too, of his assurance to the Court-preacher, that he had not the slightest wish to bring the Prince under any suspicion of being unfriendly to the Church.

As to the letter sent a fortnight later to Scheurl at Nuremberg, the historian must bear in mind the effect it was calculated by Luther to produce at Nuremberg, where some were evidently inclined to find fault with the Theses. In this letter, just as he does in his letter to Bishop Scultetus (above, vol. ii., p. 16) Luther makes out the Theses to be quite innocent, almost impartial, and, moreover, in no wise intended for the outside public. They were to be the subject-matter of a Disputation, “_ut multorum iudicio vel damnatæ abolerentur vel probatæ ederentur_.” He is sorry now that they were made so public. “_Sunt enim nonnulla mihi dubia, longeque aliter et certius quædam asseruissem vel omisissem, si id ~[their publication]~ futurum sperassem._” He also adds: “_Mihi sane non est dubium, decipi populum, non per indulgentias, sed usum earum_” (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 166.) Here he seeks to depict his downright antagonism to Indulgences as such, as merely directed against their abuse.

8. The Temptations at the Wartburg

Luther writes to Melanchthon (July 13, 1521): “_Carnis meæ indomitæ uror magnis ignibus; summa, qui fervere spiritu debeo, ferveo carne, libidine, pigritia, otio_.” He adds that for a whole week he had been “_tentationibus carnis vexatus_,” and concludes: “_Ora pro me, peccatis enim immergor in hac solitudine_.” In his letter of Nov. 1, 1521, to Nic. Gerbel, the temptations are also alluded to, but less clearly qualified.

“Mille credas me satanibus obiectum in hac otiosa solitudine. Tanto est facilius adversus incarnatum diabolum, id est adversus homines, quam adversus spiritualia nequitiæ in cœlestibus pugnare. Sæpius ego cado, sed sustentat me rursus dextra excelsi.”

Though, in the former text, there is undoubtedly an element of exaggeration (as we pointed out, vol. ii., p. 88), yet there can be no question that his main complaint relates to temptations of the flesh and that it is in their regard that he asks for prayers of his friends.

9. Prayer at the Wartburg

Against us it has been said that we were too disposed to make of Luther a “prayerless” man. One critic, in proof of Luther’s prayerfulness, points out that, in his Wartburg letters, Luther uses the word “Amen” no less than thirteen times in the text, apart from its use at the end of the letters. Now, in all the Epistles of St. Paul—which cover far more paper than these Wartburg letters—the word “Amen” occurs in the text only eleven times. But, notoriously, Luther was accustomed to use this word in rather unusual connections, as he does for instance when speaking of the wife of the “_theologus coniugatus_” Johann Agricola (“_Dominus det, ut uteri onus feliciter exponat. Amen._” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 151).

Moreover, Luther’s prayers were very peculiar. We hear nothing of his having used his enforced stay at the Wartburg to ask of God whether the path he had chosen was the right one, and for the grace to carry out, not his own will, but that of God. In the interests of his new doctrine, he is, however, “_paratus ire quo Dominus volet, sive ad vos sive alio_.” (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 193.) He asks a friend to pray “_ut non deficiat fides mea in Domino_,” i.e. that his views may not change (_ib._, p. 214); “_commenda, quæso, tuis orationibus Deo causam nostram_.” (_Ib._, p. 324.) Elsewhere he writes:

“Benedictus Deus, qui nobis eam non solum dedit colluctationem adversus spiritualia nequitiæ, insuper revelavit nobis, non esse carnem aut sanguinem, a quibus oppugnamur in ista causa.… Satan furit in sapientibus et iustis suis.…”

above all, in Emser, whom he calls a “_vas diaboli proprie obsessum_.” (_Ib._, 3, p. 197.)

10. Luther’s state during his stay at the Coburg

In addition to the troubles mentioned in vol. ii., p. 390, which tended to depress Luther at the Coburg there were yet others. He felt keenly the separation from his family and from those with whom he had been accustomed to work. His father’s death was also a cause of sadness to him. Finally the difficulties of corresponding with his friends at Augsburg were responsible for his being often in a state of uncertainty as to what was going on at the Diet.

11. Luther’s moral character

Exception has been taken to our interpretation (vol. ii., p. 161, n. 1) of a certain utterance of Luther’s. In the “Comment. on Galat.,” 1, p. 107 _sq._, he says:

“zelavi pro papisticis legibus … conatus sum eas præstare plus inedia, vigiliis, etc., … Bono zelo et ad gloriam Dei feci … [Yet] in monachatu Christum quotidie crucifixi et falsa mea fiducia, quæ tum perpetuo adhærebat mihi, blasphemavi. Externe non eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem, denique totus eram deditus ieiuniis, vigiliis, etc. Interim tamen sub ista sanctitate et fiducia iustitiæ propriæ alebam … odium et blasphemiam Dei.”

But, in these words written in his old age, he is not witnessing to his virtuous life in former days, but, on the contrary, he is striving to show that, for all its outward propriety, it was the merest blasphemy. Moreover, the words “_servabam … obedientiam_,” etc., cannot be taken too literally, as Luther himself elsewhere admits that he was careless about the Office, though this was a matter on which the Rule was very severe. A more appropriate self-justification would be the utterance recorded in Veit Dietrich’s MS. of the Table-Talk (Bl. 83) which begins: “_Monachus ego non sensi multam libidinem_.”

A man’s speech is in some sense an index to his character. Our volumes teem with samples of the filthy expressions to which Luther was addicted. No theologian or preacher had hitherto dared to speak as he did; the Franciscans Johann Pauli and Thomas Murner—albeit by no means too

## particular—certainly cannot compare with Luther on this score. Moreover,

it should not be forgotten that Luther uses such language chiefly as a weapon against his Catholic foes without, and the Protestant “sectarians” within. In his polemics, insults and foul speaking go hand in hand, and the greater his wrath the fouler his speech.

In connection with one instance of his use of unseemly comparisons when (above, vol. ii., p. 144) we spoke of his allusion to the “Bride of Orlamünde” we were not aware that—as Kawerau now points out—Staupitz, his old superior, had described in very free language the nature of the union between the soul and her divine Bridegroom. (“Von der endlichen Vollziehung ewiger Fürsehung,” 1516.) Such mystical effusions were very apt to be misinterpreted by the unlearned fanatics, whom Luther ridicules.

12. Luther’s views on lies

That Luther believed in the permissibility of “lies of convenience” is fairly evident. (Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 108 ff.) The “_mendacium officiosum_” is an “_honestum et pium mendacium_”; it is useful and wholesome; “_si hoc peccatum esset, ut non puto_, etc.” In “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289, speaking of Isaac’s statement that Rebecca was his sister, he says: “_non est peccatum, sed est officiosum mendacium_.” But, if it be no sin, then, presumably, it is allowed.

It is true that Luther speaks of Isaac’s untruth as an “_infirmitas_,” but, by this, he does not mean a “venial sin,” rather he is alluding to the “_infirmitas fidei_,” which, in Isaac’s case was the cause of his untruth. Hence Isaac’s untruth, according to Luther, comes under the category of the

“mendacium officiosum, quo saluti, famæ corporis [corpori?] vel animæ consulitur; e contra perniciosum (mendacium) petit ista omnia, sicut officiosum defendit [quod est] pulcherrima defensio contra periculum animæ, corporis, rerum.”

Hence the “_mendacium officiosum_,” far from being a sin, is an “_officium caritatis_,” i.e. to tell one is “_servare, non transgredi, præcepta Dei_.” (_Ib._, p. 288 _sq._)

Even another text which has been quoted to the opposite effect must mean much the same. Luther says:

“quod non offendatur Deus, sive constanter confitearis, id quod heroicum est, sive infirmus sis; dissimulat enim et connivet. Atque ex eo perspicimus nos habere propitium Deum, qui potest ignoscere et connivere ad infirmitates nostras, remittere peccata, tantum non perniciose mentiamur … nec proprie sed æquivoce et abusive mendacium dicitur quia est pulcherrima defensio contra periculum animæ corporis et rerum.” (_Ib._, p. 288.)

Here the word “_peccata_” cannot well include such untruths since he distinctly affirms that such “infirmities” “do not offend God.”

Moreover, since, as we know, Luther admits no distinction between mortal and venial sins, holds that all sins “_ex natura et substantia peccati_” are equal, and makes no allowance for “_parvitas materiæ_,” it follows that, even if such untruths as those of Isaac, the Egyptian midwife, etc., are “infirmities,” yet, since they are not mortal, they are not sins at all.

In “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 140-143, Luther distinguishes the “_iocosum mendacium_”—which is merely a “_grammaticum peccatum_”—and the “_officiosum mendacium_”—such as was Christ’s on the road to Emaus—from the true lie: “_Revera unum tantum mendacii genus est, quod nocet proximo_.”

That Luther himself quite realised the novelty of his teaching, comes out clearly enough in the fragmentary notes of a sermon preached on Jan. 5, 1528, i.e. on the eve of the feast of the Three Kings. The reporter’s notes are as usual partly in Latin partly in the vernacular.

“Hujusmodi officiosa mendacia, charitable lies, in which I lie for someone else’s sake, non incommodat, but rather does him a service. Sic filia Saul.… Illi [magi] mentiuntur, quia sciunt eius object to be murderous, et tamen non est mendacium, quia quando aliquid loquor ex bono corde, non est.… Ergo mendacium [est] quando my heart is bad and false erga proximum.… Si etiam seduxissem [misled others], how I should rejoice over my trickery, si ita ad salutem seducerem homines.… Monachi in totum volunt dici veritatem. Sed audistis, etc.” (Weim. ed., 27, p. 12.)

Hence, as the concluding words show, Luther was of opinion that the “monks” went too far in insisting on the truth everywhere.

* * * * *

Elsewhere Luther is disposed to follow the teaching of his Nominalist masters and to see in certain apparent lies (e.g. in that told by Abraham about his “sister” Sara) the result of divine inspiration. (Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 142 _sq._) “_Hoc ipsum consilium ex fide firmissima et ex Spiritu Sancto fuisse profectum iudicem._” Abraham was moved by the Holy Ghost to take steps to save his person and thus ensure the fulfilment of the Divine promises made to his posterity. “_Quæ fiunt ad gloriam Dei et verbum eius ornandum et commendandum, hæc recte fiunt et merito laudantur._”

Gabriel Biel, a representative Nominalist, admits that a sort of inspiration may sometimes make lawful what God has forbidden: He says, e.g.:

“Nam lex [non mentiendi] quantum ad id, ubi concurrit familiare consilium Spiritus Sancti, per ipsum Spiritus Sancti consilium revocatur, et ita non erit contra conclusionem et, ubicunque cum mendacio, secundo modo accepto, concurrit consilium Spiritus Sancti, ibi excusatur a peccato; et per hoc multa mendacia excusari possent.” (In III Sent. dist. 38, q. unica.)

Biel appeals to St. Augustine’s excuse of Jacob’s lie to his father Isaac, and then proceeds to justify it on Nominalist grounds; the “_potentia Dei absoluta_” can make lies lawful; by virtue of this “_potentia_” the Holy Ghost, in such inspired cases, can suspend for the while the prohibition. Biel himself had only the Old Testament instances in view, but the theory was a dangerous one.

13. Luther’s lack of the missionary spirit

Walter Köhler in his article “Reformation und Mission” (in the Swiss “Theologische Zeitschrift,” 1911, pp. 49-60) seeks to find the reason for the Reformers’ lack of interest in the Missions. (See above, vol. iii., p. 213 ff.) It cannot be simply because they were too busy with Rome, for this might indeed explain their not sending out missionaries but not the fact that even the thought of so doing never occurred to them. Yet a movement which professed to be Evangelical and to take as its standard the Apostolic Church should surely have concerned itself more about the heathen.

Against those who argue that the absence of missionary effort was due to Luther’s eschatological expectations and his belief in the nearness of the Last Day, Köhler points out that the teaching of history rather shows that such expectations, far from hindering, tend to promote missionary work. He alludes, for instance, to the rapid spread of Christianity at a time when the Second Coming was thought so near. He might also have referred to the case of St. Gregory the Great, who, though he believed the end of the world to be imminent, did not scruple to send his missionaries to England.

Others have said that the Reformers had no knowledge of the number of the heathen. But, as Köhler urges, though their knowledge was small compared with ours, yet they were not wholly ignorant of the state of things. They had at least heard of the discovery of America, as we see, for instance, from a sermon of Luther (Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 21), where he says: “Quite recently many islands and lands have been found, to which, so far, in fifteen hundred years, nothing of this grace (of the Gospel) has been proclaimed.”

The real reason is found by Köhler in the exegesis and theology of the Reformers: Luther, for instance, opined that the Apostles alone had been commanded to carry the Gospel throughout the world. He also followed the olden view that the Apostles had actually preached the Gospel to the very ends of the earth. Hence, since Apostolic times, no one is any longer under any obligation to preach Christ everywhere; we are now no longer apostles, but merely parish-priests.

His theology also comes into play in this. For God alone calls men to faith and salvation; He it is Who assembles His elect from among the heathen. But if it is God alone who arouses the faith in helpless man, then organised activity is useless. True to his principles the Reformer left the conversion of the heathen in the hands of God. To him an organised mission would have seemed to partake of the evil nature of work-service.

14. Notes

In vol. iv., p. 90 the author rather too hastily expresses wonder that Luther should have spoken of Pope Alexander VI as an “unbelieving Marane.” Luther, however, in so doing was merely re-echoing what had been said in Rome. Cp. Pastor, “History of the Popes” (Engl. Trans., vol. vi., p. 137): “When Julius II, who was an implacable enemy of the Borgia, occupied the Papal Chair, it became usual to speak of Alexander as a ‘Maraña.’” Cp. also, _ib._, p. 217 f. “His [Julius’s] dislike for this family was so strong that on the 26th of November, 1507, he announced that he would no longer inhabit the Appartamento Borgia, as he could not bear to be constantly reminded by the fresco portraits of Alexander of ‘those Marañas of cursed memory.’” (Note of the English Editor.)

* * * * *

In connection with the bishopric of Meissen (above, vol. v., p. 200 ff., etc.) we may quote a few words from the correspondence of its occupant. They will show how the Bishops, while taking no steps themselves, were vexed with the Pope and Kaiser for doing so little to obviate the danger to religion. Johann von Maltitz, Bishop of Meissen, wrote on Oct. 16, 1540, as follows to Johann Fabri, Bishop of Vienna (Cardauns, “Nuntiaturberichte,” 6, p. 233):

“Nihil imprimitur contra hanc sectam [Lutheranam] nec quisquam tale quid vendere audet, nam cum magna potentia regunt, quibus contra ne mutire quisquam aliquid audet, et quidquid visitatores et Lutherus in rebus spiritualibus ordinant, id exequi et servari per omnes debet et episcopi mandata nihil efficiunt.”

On Dec. 10, 1540, he wrote to the same correspondent:

“Martini Lutheri secta egregie suum processum habet quotidieque augetur; timeo iram Dei super papam, Cæs. ac Regiam Mᵗᵉᵐ, quod eorum temporibus ac regimine religionem ita decrescere supprimique patiuntur, et Sᵗⁱ S. Maiestatibusque illorum iocose objicietur, esse adhuc pios aliquot homines, qui obedientes essent, si modo haberent, qui eos ita defenderet. Videmus autem, quod quicquid Lutherani præsumunt, id patitur et locum habet et quod plures religionis sectæ efflagitantur ac dantur quam obedientiæ (sic). Misniæ adhuc nulla divina exequi audemus. Intrusus est nobis vi in nostram ecclesiam quidam Lutheranus concionator.… Sane ferme in omnibus locis male agitur quantum ad religionem.” (_Ib._, p. 237 f.)

FOOTNOTES

[1] “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands das sie Christl. Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 9 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 170 ff.

[2] Weim. ed., 15, pp. 30, 34, 35 f.; Erl. ed., pp. 22, 173, 178, 180 f.

[3] In such passages “beast” more often merely implies stupidity; cp. “bête” in French. Hence it would be a mistake to think that Luther is here crediting the Germans with any actual “bestiality.” Cp. below, p. 15 and above, vol. v., p. 534, n. 2.

[4] Weim. ed., 15, p. 44; Erl. ed., 22, p. 189.

[5] “De constituendis scholis,” etc.

[6] Weim. ed., 15, p. 53; Erl. ed., 22, p. 198.

[7] A schoolmaster of Zwickau remarked on the writing to the Councillors: “With this pamphlet Luther will win back the favour of many of his opponents.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.

[8] Erl. ed., 14², pp. 390, 389.

[9] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381, in “Das man Kinder,” etc. The object of furthering the Evangel which is set forth in both this and the former writing is indicated by the very title of the first writing with its reference to “Christian” schools.

[10] _Ib._, p. 518=379, in the writing mentioned below. See, however, below, p. 36.

[11] _Ib._, p. 519=380.

[12] “Predigt, das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 508 ff.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 378 ff. As early as July 5, 1530, Luther wrote from the Coburg to Melanchthon that he was “meditating” this writing and adds: “_Mirum, si etiam antea fui tam verbosus, ut nunc fieri mihi videor, nisi senectutis ista garrulitas sit_.” It is curious to hear him already speaking of his old age. When sending the finished work to Melanchthon on Aug. 24, 1530, he wrote: “_Mitto hic sermonem de scholis, plane Lutheranum et Lutheri verbositate nihil auctorem suum negans, sed plane referens. Sic sum. Idem erit libellus de clavibus_” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 80, 204). The latter remark certainly applies to his long writing, “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530 (Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 428 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff.).

[13] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381.

[14] P. 554=401, 402.

[15] Pp. 556, 559=403, 404.

[16] P. 586=420 f.

[17] P. 587=421.

[18] _Ib._, 15, p. 34=22, p. 178.

[19] “Reformation und Gegenreformation” (W. Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.”), 3³, p. 437, No. 2.

[20] Cp. Kawerau, _ib._

[21] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 197.

[22] See below, p. 20, n. 3.

[23] See above, vol. iii., p. 361.

[24] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 15: “_Scholæ crescentes verbi Dei sunt fructus_,” says Luther, “_et ecclesiarum seminaria_”; if these are furthered, then, so God will, things will be in a better case (in Rebenstock: “_Hæc si promoveantur, tunc Deo volente, nostrum inceptum meliorem habebit progressum_”). _Ib._, p. 14: Although the work of the schools was performed quietly, “_attamen magnum fructum exhibent, ex quibus ecclesiæ conservatio consistit.… Inde collaboratores et ludimagistri vocantur ad ministerium ecclesiæ_.”—Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 208: “Wretched parsonages are not the place for schoolmasters”; they deserve to be superintendents and to rule over others. _Ib._, p. 213 on the importance of the schools.

[25] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 173.

[26] _Ib._, p. 35 f.=175.

[27] See also above, n. 1.

[28] Proofs in G. Rietschel, “Luther und die Ordination,” ², 1889. Cp. Paulsen, p. 203.

[29] Weim. ed., 15, p. 47 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 193.

[30] _Ib._, p. 40=185.

[31] _Ib._, p. 53=198.

[32] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421 f.

[33] See above, p. 6, n. 3.

[34] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 582; Erl. ed., 17², p. 418.

[35] _Ib._, p. 584=419.

[36] P. 530=387.

[37] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 456; Erl. ed., 17², p. 396.

[38] P. 586=421.

[39] _Ib._, 15, p. 36 f.=22, p. 181 f.

[40] Cp. F. M. Schiele, in H. Delbrück, “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 132, 1908, Art. “Luther und das Luthertum in ihrer Bedeutung für die Gesch. der Schüle und der Erziehung,” p. 381 ff. P. 386: “The principal motive with Melanchthon … is the love of learning, Luther’s motive [in the above writings] is to educate leaders for Christendom who shall deliver her from the unholy abominations of the olden days.… With this is connected the fact that for him ‘government,’ whether exercised by the sovereign, the bishop, or the father of the family, is a work of charity.” P. 384: According to Luther “the erection of schools must always remain a matter which concerns the Christian authorities.” To those historians of education, who, according to Schiele, are wont to ask: “Was not Luther the father of the national schools?” he replies: “The matter wears a different aspect when viewed in the light of history.” He roundly describes as fabulous the supposed foundation of the national schools by Luther. “Nor do we find in Luther’s schemes for the organisation of education the slightest trace of any tendency to the secularisation of the schools” (pp. 384, 381 f.). The last words are aimed at the friends of the secularised or undenominational schools of the present day.

[41] In the Introduction to the Weimar edition of the writing “An die Radherrn” (15, 1899, p. 9 ff.) we read: “It is very characteristic of the reformer’s attitude to the question of education in his day that he does not, as we might expect, give the preference to these German elementary schools in which we can see the beginnings of the national schools, but, whilst admitting their claims, insists emphatically on the need of a classic training.” “To characterise the writing in question as ‘of the utmost importance for the development of our elementary-school system’ (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.” III, iii.) is to be unfair to it.”

[42] Erl. ed., 62, p. 307.

[43] _Ib._, p. 306.

[44] _Ib._, p. 297; cp. p. 289.

[45] Weim. ed., 19, p. 445; Erl. ed., 26², p. 7: “Proposal how permanent order may be established in the Christian community.”

[46] Compare with this Luther’s letter to Johann, Elector of Saxony (Nov. 22, 1526), advocating the Visitation; Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefe,” 5, p. 406). Of the final article of the Instructions for the Visitors (1538), which refers to the schools, Köstlin-Kawerau says, 2, p. 37: “The chief point kept in view here, as in Luther’s exhortations referred to above [in his writing to the Councillors], was the need of bringing up people sufficiently skilled to teach in the churches and to be capable also of ruling. Hence the regulations prescribed the erection of schools in which Latin should be taught.”

[47] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311, a conversation dating from 1542-3 noted down by Heydenreich.

[48] _Ib._, p. 332. It may be mentioned here that amongst the German universities, Erfurt, where he had received his own education, always held a high place in his memory. “The University of Erfurt,” he once said in later years, “enjoyed so high a reputation that all others in comparison were looked upon as apologies for universities—but now,” so he adds sadly, “its glory and majesty are a thing of the past, and the university seems quite dead.” He extols the pomp and festivities that accompanied the conferring of the mastership and doctorate, and wishes that such solemnities were the rule everywhere. Erl. ed., 62, p. 287.

[49] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 198.

[50] Weim. ed., 15, p. 46 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192.

[51] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 37.

[52] Schiele (above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 389, where he adds: “What the children needed to fit them for household work they could as a matter of fact have learnt better from their parents or at the dame-school than in the Councillors’ schools which Luther so extols.” Cp. above, p. 7, Luther’s statement: “German books are principally intended for the common people to read at home,” etc.

[53] Weim. ed., 26, pp. 236-240.

[54] _Ib._, 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.”

[55] Erl. ed., 62, p. 458 f., “Tischreden.”

[56] _Ib._, p. 344.

[57] Paulsen, _ib._, p. 204. O. Schmidt, “Luther’s Bekanntschaft mit den Klassikern,” Leipzig, 1883.

[58] “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 191 f.

[59] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 431. Uttered in 1537 and noted by Lauterbach and Weller.

[60] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 13, p. 166.—K. v. Raumer, “Gesch. der Pädagogik,” 1, Stuttgart, 1843, p. 272, says: “It seems to us incredible that the learning by heart and acting of plays so unchaste as those of Terence could fail to exert a bad influence on the morals of the young.… If even the reading of Terence was questionable, how much more questionable was it when the pupils acting such plays identified themselves wholly with the events and personages of the drama.”—Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 443 f., Melanchthon on the Roman condemnation of the school edition of Erasmus’s “Colloquia.” Luther condemned this book of his opponent in very strong language.

[61] “An die Radherrn,” etc., Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192.

[62] _Ib._, p. 47=192.

[63] “Martin Luthers Werke,” Stuttgart und Leipzig, 1907, p. 231.

[64] Before this Boehmer had said: “The importance of the lower schools, girl schools and national schools, was fully recognised. Luther’s concern was, however, with higher education.… It was not indeed his intention to promote classical studies as such, but he wished to see them harnessed to the service of the Gospel and to the furthering of its right understanding. Hence, though Luther had in view other classes besides the theologians, and though he advanced other motives in support of his plans, still it was the religious standpoint which was the determining one.”

[65] Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 350, “An den Adel.”

[66] Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185.

[67] Weim. ed., 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 347, 348, “An den Adel.”

[68] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 62, p. 304 f., “Tischreden.”

[69] _Ib._, 63, p. 281 f. (“Briefe,” 7, p. 73). Written in the middle of March, 1529, this served at the same time as a preface to the work by Justus Menius, “Œconomia christiana.”

[70] _Ib._, p. 280.

[71] Thus in the Introduction to Luther’s “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 9 f.

[72] See above, p. 6.

[73] Erl. ed., 63, p. 280 f.

[74] Luther expressed this in his way as follows: Of all “the wiles of Satan” this, aimed at the holy Gospel, was perhaps the worst, for it suggested to men such dangerous ideas as these: Now that there is “no longer any hope for the monks, nuns or priestlings there is no need of learned men or of much study, but we must rather strive after food and wealth,” “truly a masterpiece of diabolical art,” for creating “in the German lands a wild, hideous mob of ‘Tatters’ or Turks.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 522 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 383, Preface to the work on the schools (1530).

[75] “Werke,” _ib._, 6, p. 462=21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.”

[76] The violence of the tone in which Luther speaks of the Universities in the writings which followed his “An den Adel,” as the real strongholds of the devil on earth, has perhaps never been equalled in any attack on these institutions either before or after his day. See passages in Janssen, _ib._, Engl. Trans., iii., _passim_. Some of the preachers of the pure Gospel, who soon sprang up in great numbers, went a step further: “The Word of God alone was sufficient and in order to understand it what was required was, not learning, but the spirit.” Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185.

[77] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177.

[78] Erl. ed., 62, p. 319. The Note is by Lauterbach. Copernicus is not named, but is merely alluded to as “the new astrologer”=astronomer. His work “De orbium cœlestium revolutionibus,” with its detailed proofs in support of the new theory of the heavens, appeared only in 1543, at Nuremberg.

[79] Cp. for proofs H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” p. 35 f.

[80] Weim. ed., 15, p. 36; Erl. ed., 22, p. 180 f., “An die Radherrn.”

[81] “Didymi Faventini pro M. Luthero adversus Thomam Placentinum oratio,” “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, particularly p. 343. Cp. Paulsen, _ib._, p. 186 f.

[82] “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 132, 1908 (see above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 381 f. The author safeguards himself by remarking that the above account contains “nothing new.” In Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” vol. xiii., this subject is dealt with in full.

[83] P. 382. In the “Archiv für Kulturgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 120, Schiele’s art is described as “an excellent piece of criticism.”

[84] To Eobanus Hessus, March 29, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 118.

[85] Hessus had told Luther of this complaint, as is evident from the latter’s reply.

[86] For a detailed account see above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff.

[87] Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., p. 258.

[88] _Ib._

[89] Luschin v. Ebengreuth, “Gött. Gel. Anz.,” 1892, p. 826 f., in a review of Hofmeister, “Die Matrikel der Universität Rostock,” Part II., 1891. Cp. Janssen, _ib._, p. 266.

[90] F. Eulenburg, “Über die Frequenz der deutschen Universitäten in früherer Zeit,” “Jahrbücher f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” 3. Vol. 13, 1897, pp. 461-554, 494, 525. Janssen, _ib._

[91] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 550; Erl. ed., 17², p. 399, “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.”

[92] N. Paulus, “Wolfgang Mayer, Ein bayerischer Zisterzienserabt des 16. Jahrh.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 575 ff.), p. 587 f. from MS. notes.

[93] Weim. ed., 15, p. 28; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171 f., “An die Radherrn.”

[94] Cp. on Wittenberg, Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., 286 and below, xxxix, 1.

[95] Erl. ed., 53, p. 387. See above, vol. v., pp. 582, 590.

[96] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

[97] Cp. Chr. Scheurl, “Briefbuch, ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Ref.,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, 1872, pp. 127, 132, 138, 177. See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 790 (p. 653, N. 2).

[98] Cp. for the change in Humanism, above, vol. ii., p. 38 ff., etc.

[99] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177.

[100] “Opp.,” 3, col. 777: “_Lutherana factio … perdit omnia studia nostra_.”

[101] _Ib._, col. 915: “_… intolerabili degravavit invidia_.”

[102] _Ib._, col. 1089: “_Tantam ignaviam invexit hoc novum evangelium_.”

[103] _Ib._, col. 1069: “_Amant viaticum et uxorem, cetera pili non faciunt_.”

[104] To Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 164.

[105] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29; Erl. ed., 22, p. 172, “An die Radherrn.”

[106] Work cited above, p. 29, n. 2 (p. 525).

[107] _Ib._, p. 260.

[108] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 68 ff.

[109] Raynald., “Annal. eccles.,” a. 1514, n. 29.

[110] Cp. Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., 9 ff.

[111] _Ib._, i., p. 25 ff.

[112] Weim. ed., 15, p. 33; Erl. ed., 22, p. 177, “An die Radherrn”: “When I was young there was a saying in the schools: ‘_Non minus est negligere scholarem quam corrumpere virginem_.’ This was said in order to frighten the schoolmasters.”

[113] “_Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus. Et tamen hoc genus hominum maxime litteris alitur. Duo tantum quærunt, censum et uxorem. Cætera præstat illis evangelium, ~i.e.~ potestatem vivendi ut volunt._” To Pirkheimer, 1528, from Basle. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1139.

[114] Schiele, _ib._, p. 391.

[115] C. Hagen, “Deutschlands literarische und religiöse Verhältnisse im Reformationszeitalter,” 3², 1868, p. 197. Janssen, _ib._, xiii., p. 100.

[116] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1363 _sq._

[117] M. Töppen, “Die Gründung der Universität Königsberg,” etc., 1844, p. 78. Janssen, _ib._, p. 101.

[118] Janssen, _ib._, p. 102.

[119] Cp. Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 483 ff.; 2, p. 584 ff.

[120] For proofs see Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., p. 71 ff.

[121] “Preuss. Jahrb.,” _loc. cit._, p. 392.

[122] _Ib._, p. 393.

[123] Janssen, _ib._, p. 43. Schiele, _ib._, p. 593.

[124] Schiele, _ib._, p. 390.

[125] He even says: “_Academiæ nunc quidem Dei beneficio omni genere doctrinarum florent_.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1068. Bishop Julius Pflug informed Pope Paul III, in a letter in which he gives him a vivid picture of the needs of the country in order to determine him to active assistance: “_Scholæ Lutheranorum cum privatæ tum publicæ florent, nostræ frigent plane ac iacent_.” “Epistolæ Mosellani,” etc., p. 150 _sq._ Kawerau, “Reformation und Gegenreformation”³, (Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, p. 437.)

[126] G. Steinhausen, “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig and Vienna, 1904, p. 515. There we read (p. 514) in the description of the education given by the Protestant Universities that it was “rendered sterile” by the new theology. “The intellectual leaders of the time became more and more Court theologians. It is noteworthy that many of the edicts and regulations begin with an improving theological preface.… What had become of the intellectual revival of the first decades of the 16th century?” Eobanus Hessus had prophesied in 1523 that the new theology would bring in its train a worse barbarism than that which had been overthrown, and already in 1524 he had been obliged to speak of the “New Obscurantists.”

[127] Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1², p. 509.

[128] M. Ritter, “Matthiä Flacii Illyrici Leben”², 1725, p. 105 Janssen, _ib._, p. 265.

[129] For proofs see Janssen, _ib._, p. 286 ff.

[130] _Ib._, p. 295.

[131] On the contrast between mediæval and Lutheran charity, see above, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xv., pp. 425-526.

[132] Adolf Bruder, art. “Armenpflege,” “Staatslexikon der Görresgesellschaft.”

[133] F. Ehrle, “Beiträge z. Gesch. u. Reform der Armenpflege,” 1881; do. “Die Armenordnungen von Nürnberg (1522) und von Ypern (1525),” “Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888, p. 450 ff. Ratzinger, “Gesch. d. kirchl. Armenpflege”², 1884, p. 442 ff. Janssen, p. 431.

[134] L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Jahrb. für Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. (I), and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff. (II), I, p. 169.)

[135] “De origine, situ, moribus et institutis Norimbergæ,” cap. 12.

[136] Reprint of the Regulations of 1522 according to the oldest revision, in Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” p. 459 ff. For the passage “Our salvation,” etc., see p. 467.

[137] Ehrle, _ib._, p. 477 f. Feuchtwanger, _ib._, I., p. 184.

[138] Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 439 ff.

[139] Feuchtwanger, _ib._, p. 182. For all the towns mentioned above see Janssen, _loc. cit._

[140] Weim. ed., 26, p. 639; Erl. ed., 63, p. 270.

[141] _Ib._, 6, p. 450 f.=21, p. 335 f.

[142] Cp., for instance, the passage in the Church-Postils, Erl. ed., 14², p. 391: “The whole world is full of idle, faithless, wicked knaves, among the day labourers, lazy handicraftsmen, servants, maids, to say nothing of the greedy, work-shy beggars,” etc.

[143] Weim. ed., 6, p. 42; Erl. ed., 16², p. 87. (Longer) Sermon on Usury, 1520.

[144] _Ib._, 19, p. 654 f.=22, p. 281 in “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden.”

[145] Barge, “Andreas Karlstadt,” 2, p. 559 f.

[146] E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1, p. 696 ff.

[147] _Ib._, p. 596 ff.; also “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 112 ff. On Leisnig cp. above, vol. v., p. 136 ff.

[148] _Ib._, pp. 11 ff., 14=106 ff., 110.

[149] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 551.

[150] It was the first to be established with so much pomp and circumstance.

[151] To Spalatin, Nov. 24, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 72 f.

[152] Cp. Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” etc. (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888), p. 475. The Altenburg regulations are no longer extant.

[153] Feuchtwanger, “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., I., p. 173. He quotes the enthusiastic words written on this occasion by the Wittenberg student Ulscenius: “_O factum apostolicum, fervet hodie in Wittenbergensium cordibus Dei et proximi dilectio ardentissima_,” etc., and remarks: We may take in conjunction with this statement the libertinism which actually prevailed in the town at the end of 1521.

[154] Cp. below.

[155] Weim. ed., 19, p. 74 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231.

[156] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 584 f.=17², p. 419 f.

[157] See Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 303 ff.

[158] Erl. ed., 14², p. 391. Church Postils.

[159] _Ib._, p. 389.

[160] Weim. ed., 32, p. 409; Erl. ed., 43, p. 164. Expos. of Matt. vi.

[161] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 356. Sermons on Matt. xviii.-xxiii.—For similar statements see the passage in the last Note and Erl. ed., 23, p. 317; also above, vol. iv., _passim_. Cp. also Luther’s statements in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 465 ff.; Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 2, p. 215, 306, 349.

[162] Erl. ed., 23, 313 f. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher.” 1539.

[163] Feuchtwanger, II. (see above, p. 44, n. 2), p. 192.

[164] _Ib._, pp. 197, 180, 177 f., 176.

[165] The quotations here and in what follows are from Feuchtwanger.

[166] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 197. He quotes from the compilation of A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” and Sehling (above, p. 49, n. 3) Bugenhagen’s “Ordnungen” subsequent to those set up for Wittenberg in 1527. Cp. in K. A. Vogt, “Bugenhagen,” 1867, p. 101 ff., on the latter’s “Von den Christen-loven,” etc., 1526.

[167] Cp. Janssen, xv., p. 456 f.

[168] Feuchtwanger, _ib._, II., p. 206.

[169] Cp. _ib._, p. 214.

[170] _Ib._, p. 212.

[171] In his instruction against the Anabaptist doctrines (Wittenberg, 1528, D 3b) Melanchthon says: “Never have the people shown themselves more unfriendly and malicious towards the parsons and ministers of the Church than now. Some who wish to be thought very Evangelical seize upon the property given to the parsons, pulpits, schools and churches, and without which we should end by becoming heathen. The common people and the mob refuse to pay the parson his dues,” etc.

[172] See Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 480, n. 1, where the touching complaint of Eber’s is quoted, viz. that the ministers of the Church were stripped and left to starve. He prophesies that future times will show how “little blessing spoliation brought those who warmed and fed themselves on Church property.” It was everywhere worst in the villages and small towns.

[173] _Ib._, xv., p. 477.

[174] _Ib._, p. 469 ff.

[175] _Ib._, p. 481 ff.

[176] For proofs see Janssen, _ib._

[177] G. Kawerau, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, ed. W. Möller, 3rd ed., 1907, p. 434, with a reference to the works of Bossert.

[178] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541 (in 1522).

[179] Cp. Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 501.

[180] O. Jolles, “Die Ansichten der deutschen nationalökonomischen Schriftsteller des 16. und 17. Jahrh. über Bevölkerungswesen” (“Jahrb. f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” N.F. 13, 1886, p. 196). Janssen, _ib._

[181] Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 505. Feuchtwanger must have been familiar with all this though he never quotes Janssen. He says (p. 214): “Only one who was unfavourable to the reformation would judge Protestantism by the fruits of its first two centuries.”

[182] “Reden und Aufsätze,” 2, 1904, p. 52, in the lecture “Die evangelischsoziale Aufgabe im Lichte der Gesch. der Kirche.”

[183] F. Schaub, “Die kath. Caritas und ihre Gegner,” 1909, p. 45.

[184] See the excellent work by Schaub, p. 14 ff., quoted in the previous Note, where it is stated, that, under present conditions, private charity certainly does not suffice and that, therefore, State relief is necessary; yet the latter is always merely subsidiary, because what is assumed by real Christian charity, i.e. self-sacrifice, and individual care, can only be realised in private relief of the poor; the State, on the other hand, has its efficient compulsory taxation (“_caritas coacta_”) and its own bureaucratic means of carrying out its work; in any case the State must not monopolise any branch of poor relief, and public and private charity ought to be in close touch. These remarks may serve to assist in the right appreciation of the historical movement described above.

[185] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 194.

[186] _Ib._, pp. 212, 214.

[187] Cp. _ib._, p. 214.

[188] Vol. iv., p. 127 ff.

[189] Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533. Above, vol. v., p. 59.

[190] _Ib._, p. 239 f.

[191] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, pp. 202-204.

[192] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.,” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, pp. 725-755). “Similar testimony,” Paulus says, p. 740, “dating from the close of the Middle Ages is to be found in abundance.” He lays particular stress on the witness of monks and friars.

[193] Sermon on Marriage in his “Sermones dominicales,” Leipzig, 1530, Bl. J. 4a, L1. Q 2b. Paulus, _ib._, p. 741.

[194] Of pilgrimages in particular, Luther is fond of saying, that the monks enjoined them at the expense of the duties of a man’s calling. Cp., for instance, the passage cited above, p. 67, n. 1 (p. 203): “_Mater familias … non faciat, quæ in papatu solent, ut discurrat ad templa_,” etc. For the passages from Hollen see Paulus, _ib._, p. 740, and Fl. Landmann, “Das Predigtwesen in Westfalen in der letzten Zeit des MA.,” 1900, p. 179 f.

[195] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 9 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 749.

[196] Janssen, _ib._ Paulus, _ib._, p. 748.

[197] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 750 ff., and H. Pesch, “Lehrb. der Nationalökonomie,” 2, 1909, p. 726.

[198] Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden?” 1526.

[199] _Ib._, 18, p. 394=24², p. 324. “Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin widder die Bauren,” 1525.

[200] _Ib._, 19, p. 659=22, p. 287.

[201] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 157=28, p. 200.

[202] _Ib._, p. 631=255. He speaks before this of nobles, who, after the peasant risings, had gone too far in their revenge.—Luther inveighs in the strongest language against the way in which the nobles oppressed the poor “burghers, unhappy pastors and preachers,” and says: “Here the lion has caught a mouse and fancies he has overcome the dragon. Germany is now full of such nobles and Junkers, who stink out the beer-houses and draw their steel only on the poor, wretched, defenceless people; such are the nobles. Out on such abandoned people! We Germans are indeed swine and savage beasts, and have no noble thoughts or courage in us, as the world too thinks!” This in the Commentary on the Four Psalms of Consolation, 1526. Weim. ed., 19, p. 604 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 439 f.

[203] Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523, Preface.—Cp. what was said, above, vol. ii., p. 205 f., etc.

[204] Weim. ed., 19, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 43. “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey,” 1526 (not published by him on account of his sovereign’s prohibition).

[205] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175.

[206] Weim. ed., 28, p. 520; Erl. ed., 36, p. 175.

[207] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 137 ff.

[208] K. J. Fuchs, “Die Epochen der deutschen Agrargesch.” (“Allg. Ztng.,” 1898, Suppl. 70).

[209] Weim. ed., 16, p. 244; Erl. ed., 35, p. 233 (1524-26).

[210] _Ib._, 33, p. 659=48, p. 385 (1530-32).

[211] _Ib._, 24, p. 367 f.=33, p. 389 f.

[212] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Erl. ed., 55, p. 239; “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.

[213] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 388.

[214] _Ib._

[215] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 245.

[216] Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 529 f.

[217] _Ib._, p. 518 ff., Sermon of June 11, 1531.

[218] _Ib._, p. 109.

[219] _Ib._, p. 334 f.

[220] Weim. ed., 28, p. 329; Erl. ed., 50, p. 350. “We are ministers in a hostel where the devil is the landlord and the world the landlady, and the barmaids all kinds of wicked lusts, and all these, landlord, landlady and barmaids, are enemies and opponents of the Evangel.”

[221] Erl. ed., 32, p. 77.

[222] Above, vol. v., p. 403 ff.

[223] Erl. ed., 62, p. 375 f., “Tischreden.”

[224] _Ib._, p. 366.

[225] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 49 ff. Lucas Osiander the Elder sent Luther’s Schem Hamphoras to Duke Frederick of Würtemberg in 1598 in support of his petition for the expulsion of all Jews. For the same purpose, in 1612, the theological faculty of Giessen had some of Luther’s strongest sayings against the Jews reprinted. _Ib._, p. 51, n.

[226] C. Krause, “Eoban Hessus, sein Leben und seine Werke,” 2, 1879, p. 107. Janssen, _ib._, xiii., p. 101.

[227] 1, p. 279.

[228] To Johann Lang, Dec. 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 281: “_facturus, ut multo plures offendat Christi pura doctrina_.”

[229] Weim. ed., 6, p. 38; Erl. ed., 16², p. 82. Sermon on Usury, 1519.

[230] _Ib._, p. 37 f.=81, on the words of Christ, Matt. v. 40 f., that, to him who takes our coat we should leave our cloak also: “Many fancy this is not commanded or to be observed by every Christian, but is merely a voluntary counsel of perfection, and, like virginity and chastity, counselled not commanded.” But “these are the artifices whereby the teaching and example of our dear Lord Jesus Christ as given in the holy Gospel, together with that of all His Martyrs and Saints, is reversed, neglected and altogether suppressed.… God will blind and disgrace those who turn His clear and holy Word into darkness.… No excuse is of any avail, it is simply a command which we are bound to observe.” He continues: As true Christians we have to observe it, but, as members of a commonwealth we enjoy a divine institution whereby “the secular sword” protects us from any injury to our possessions.

[231] _Ib._, p. 50 f.=98.

[232] _Ib._, p. 6=117; cp. p. 50=98.

[233] Weim. ed., 15, p. 294 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 201.

[234] _Ib._, p. 312 ff.= 223 ff.

[235] _Ib._, 6, p. 466=21, p. 357.

[236] Cp. _ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 214 f.

[237] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 83.

[238] Quoted by Luther in 1540, see Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 78.

[239] _Ib._

[240] Weim. ed., 6, p. 466; Erl. ed., 21, p. 357.

[241] _Ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 213 f. Von Kauffshandlung, etc.

[242] _Ib._, p. 36=181. “An die Radherrn.”

[243] _Ib._, 6, p. 465 f.=21, p. 356.

[244] _Ib._, p. 466=356.

[245] _Ib._, 24, p. 351 f.=33, p. 370 f.

[246] _Ib._, 18, p. 391=24², p. 320 (1525).

[247] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 73.

[248] Kampschulte, “Johannes Calvin,” 1, 1869, p. 430. Ward, _ib._

[249] Ward, _ib._, p. 74.

[250] Weim. ed., 15, p. 296; Erl. ed., 22, p. 204. Ward, _ib._, p. 75.

[251] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 295=202.

[252] Ward, p. 101.

[253] Ward, _ib._, p. 94

[254] Weim. ed., 24, p. 368; Erl. ed., 33, p. 390.

[255] On June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 244 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 354).

[256] Cp. Enders in n. 3 to the above letter.

[257] See above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[258] Weim. ed., 24, p. 8; Erl. ed., 33, p. 11 (1527).

[259] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 279. Cp. J. Schneid, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 108, 1891, pp. 241 ff., 473 ff., and B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. Kath. Theol.,” 24, 1900, p. 210.

[260] Cp. the Sermons on Usury of 1519, also certain passages in his “An den christl. Adel,” the booklet “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher,” 1524, and the Sermon against Usury of April 13, 1539, which he followed up by a written appeal to the Wittenberg magistrates. M. Neumann, “Gesch. des Wuchers in Deutschland,” Halle, 1868, pp. 481, 618 ff.

[261] Erl. ed., 23, p. 283 f.

[262] _Ib._, p. 285.

[263] The Anabaptist Jorg Schnabel said in 1538, that on 20 gulden two or three were now taken as interest. For the text, see Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 38.

[264] Erl. ed., 23, p. 285.

[265] _Ib._, p. 304 f.

[266] _Ib._, p. 285.

[267] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259; according to Heydenreich’s Notes. Erl. ed., 57, p. 360.

[268] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[269] _Ib._, p. 319.

[270] _Ib._, cp. above, p. 80, n. 4.

[271] _Ib._, p. 311 f.

[272] P. Schanz, “Commentar über das Lukasevang.,” 1883, p. 226.

[273] Printed in H. Grisar, “Iacobi Lainez Disputationes Tridentinæ tom. 2: Disaput. variæ; accedunt Commentarii morales,” Oeniponte, 1886, pp. 227-321, with Introduction, pp. 60*-64*.

[274] P. 240; cp. p. 63*.

[275] P. 244 _sqq._

[276] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 432.

[277] P. 287.

[278] P. 294.

[279] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259.

[280] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[281] _Ib._, p. 338.

[282] Sep. 19, 1525, Erl. ed., 65, p. 239 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243).

[283] To Dorothy Jörger, March 7, 1532, Erl. ed., 54, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 160).

[284] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 94.

[285] _Ib._, p. 95.

[286] Weim. ed., 6, p. 53; Erl. ed., 16², p. 102 (1519).

[287] _Ib._, p. 51=99.

[288] _Ib._, p. 466=21, p. 356 f.

[289] _Ib._

[290] _Ib._, 6, p. 58=16², p. 108 (1519).

[291] June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 245 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 354).

[292] To Sebastian Weller at Mansfeld, July 26, 1543, Erl. ed., 56, p. lviii.

[293] To Count Wolfgang von Gleichen, March 9, 1543, _ib._, p. 57.

[294] _Ib._, 45, p. 7.

[295] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. “The properties have risen. Where formerly an estate was worth one hundred florins it is now worth quite three; _qui ante potuit dare 5, potest nunc dare 6 vel septem_.”

[296] Erl. ed., 23, pp. 286, 338. In the above letter to Sebastian Weller he declares (p. lviii) that, in his epistle to the parsons, he had only spoken “of _mutuum_ and _datum_.”

[297] _Ib._, p. 289.

[298] _Ib._, p. 298.

[299] _Ib._, p. 289.

[300] _Ib._, p. 296. Very mild indeed are the directions he gives in his letter to the town-council of Dantzig on the charging of interest (May 5 (?), 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 296, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 165): “The Gospel is a spiritual rule by which no government can act.… The spiritual rule of the Gospel must be carefully distinguished from the outward, secular rule and on no account be confused with it. The Gospel rule the preacher must urge only by word of mouth and each one be left free in this matter; whoever wishes to take it, let him do so, whoever does not, let him leave it alone. I will give an example: the charging of interest is altogether at variance with the Gospel since Christ teaches ‘lend hoping for nothing.’ But we must not rush in here and suddenly put an end to all dissensions in accordance with the Gospel. No one has the right or the power to do this, for it has arisen out of human laws which St. Peter does not wish abrogated; but it is to be preached and the interest paid to those to whom it is due, whether they are willing to accept this Gospel and to surrender the interest or not. We cannot take them any further than this, for the Gospel demands willing hearts, moved by the Spirit of God.” The letter seems also to be aimed at the fanatics, whose violent action in opposing the charging of interest as un-Evangelical, Luther frowned on.

[301] “Luthers Theol. in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung,” 2², 1901, p. 328.

[302] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 331, quotes G. Schmoller (“Zur Gesch. der nationalökonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland während der Reformperiode,” in the “Zeitschr. f. die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,” 16).

[303] From the Munich Kreisarchiv, in B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1905, 29, p. 180.

[304] Duhr, _ib._, 1908, 32, p. 609. Cp. 1900, 24, pp. 208 f., 210, on Eck.

[305] G. Scherer, “Drey unterschiedliche Predigten vom Geitz,” etc., Ingolstadt, 1605, p. 57 f.

[306] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158. “Vitæ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, vol. i., p. 17.

[307] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 158: “_Totus stupebam et cohorrescebam.… Tanta maiestas (Dei)_,” etc.; Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 89: “I thought of fleeing from the altar … so terrified was I,” etc. (1532); Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “_fere mortuus essem_”; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 119; 3, p. 169; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400. See above, vol. i., p. 15 f.

[308] Erl. ed., 58, p. 140; cp. 60, p. 129. Of his “_territus_” we hear also from Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95, and “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 292.

[309] See above, vol. i., p. 16 f.

[310] Mainz, 1549, Bl. B. 8a. The book was written in Latin in 1533.

[311] “Acta Lutheri,” p. 1.

[312] What Denifle urges to the contrary (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 726, n. 2) is not convincing.

[313] Cp. Kawerau, “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, p. 447: “What anguish of soul he went through in the monastery is related by himself as early as 1518 in the touching account contained in the ‘Resolutiones’ to his 95 Theses.”

[314] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 30.

[315] See above, vol. i., p. 381 f.

[316] Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 180 _sq._

[317] See above, vol. ii., p. 170.

[318] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.

[319] To Spalatin, Jan. 13, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 12: “_me subito sanguinis coagulo circum præcordia angustiatum pœneque exanimatum fuisse_.”

[320] Cp. vol. v., p. 333, above, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[321] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 1, p. 104 ff.; also “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 _sqq._ Cp. Bugenhagen’s account in his “Briefe,” ed. Vogt, p. 64 ff.

[322] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 109: “_in illis undis tentationum_.” Cp. above, vol. v., pp. 334, 339.

[323] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 200, where we read (under Dec. 19, 1536): “_Eo die Lutherus magno paroxysmo angustia circa pectus decubuit_.” The dates given in the Table-Talk are not as a rule altogether reliable, but here they may be trusted because they happen to coincide with a portent in the sky looked upon as a bad omen.

[324] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 622 f.

[325] We may here call attention to what will be said in the next chapter concerning similar phenomena in Luther’s early days. This chapter, no less than the present one, is important for forming a just opinion on Luther’s pathological dispositions.

[326] To Johann Hess at Breslau, Jan. 31, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 50.

[327] To Johann Agricola, Feb. 1, 1529, _ib._, p. 51.

[328] Enders, _ib._, p. 54, n. 3.

[329] To Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, Feb. 13, 1529, _ib._, p. 53.

[330] To the same, March 3, 1529, _ib._, p. 61: “_fere assidue cogor sanus ægrotare_.”

[331] To Melanchthon, Aug. 1, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 162: “_ut neque tuto legere litteras possim neque lucem ferre_”—common symptoms of neurasthenia.

[332] _Ib._

[333] Aug. 3, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 166. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 346.

[334] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, Oct. 2, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).

[335] Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 313.

[336] Dietrich’s Latin account, ed. Seidemann, “Sachs. Kirchen- und Schulblatt,” 1876, p. 355. Cp. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 71; Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 264; Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 314.

[337] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 125.

[338] To Melanchthon, April 12, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 300.

[339] _Ib._

[340] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, pp. 189, 223, 226.

[341] Cp. above vol. v., pp. 107-16, and vol. iv., p. 284 ff.

[342] See vol. ii., p. 163, n. 3.

[343] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[344] On uric acid and gout as the explanation of all his bodily troubles, see below, xxxvi. 5.

[345] Cp. above, vol. v., 333 ff.

[346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[347] For the different passages quoted cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315: Other temptations were nothing compared with this interior “_angelus Sathanæ colaphizans_, σκόλοψ,” where a man is nailed to the gibbet. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 53: “_Ego vertigine seu capite hactenus laboravi, præter ea quæ angelus Sathanæ operatur. Tu ora pro me Deum, ut confortet me in fide et verbo suo_” (to N. Hausmann, Feb. 13, 1529). The “sting of the flesh” was not in his case, as has been asserted, the result of nervousness, but an intellectual temptation to waver in the “faith” he preached, and to doubt of the “Word.”

[348] Cp. the numerous statements of contemporaries who were unable to explain Luther’s uncanny behaviour, his “infernal outbreaks of fury” and morbid hatred of the Pope (above, vol. v., p. 232 f.), otherwise than by supposing him to be possessed or mad (vol. iv., p. 351 ff.).

[349] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.

[350] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Staupitz: “_dicebat, se nunquam sensisse_.”

[351] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[352] See vol. i., pp. 120 ff., 223 ff., 269 ff.

[353] Weim. ed., 18, p. 633; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 154.

[354] Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[355] July 16, 1517, _ib._, p. 102.

[356] Oct. 26, 1516, _ib._, p. 67: “_præter proprias tentationes cum carne, mundo et diabolo_.” Cp. above, vol. i., p. 275.

[357] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.

[358] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

[359] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 166 ff., and, in particular, pp. 230-40.

[360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 50: “_illos horrores contra Deum_,” etc., March 29, 1538.

[361] June 4, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 207.

[362] (In Sep.?) 1516, _ib._, p. 55.

[363] May 18, 1517, _ib._, p. 100.

[364] March 1, 1517, _ib._, p. 88.

[365] Nov. 11, 1517, _ib._, p. 124.

[366] Luther wrote this about the time of the “Tower incident” (above, vol. i., p. 377 ff.), when engaged in wrestling after “certainty.”

[367] Weim. ed., 5, p. 165. Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die KG.,” I, 1 (1900), p. 260.

[368] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 203; Köhler, _ib._, p. 259.

[369] Erl. ed., 10², p. 67.

[370] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 70.

[371] Weim. ed., 9, p. 215; Erl. ed., 16², p. 52, in the first non-expurgated form of the sermon (cp. above, vol. ii., p. 148).

[372] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[373] Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431. For “_titillatio_” see vol. ii., p. 94.

[374] To Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. An attempt has been made to deprive the word _libido_ of the sense it always has with Luther (cp. 1st Comm. on Galatians, 1519, and the later Commentary of 1531). It was alleged to mean “nothing more than an unusual desire for food and drink”; in the same way the word “flesh” was taken merely as the antithesis of “spirit,” i.e. the Holy Ghost!

[375] _Ib._, p. 193: “_peccatis immergor in hac solitudine_.”

[376] Aug. 3, 1521, _ib._, p. 213.

[377] To Nicholas Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, _ib._, p. 240.

[378] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1521, _ib._, p. 247 f.

[379] _Ib._

[380] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9.

[381] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55. Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 81.

[382] “Myconii Historia reformationis,” ed. E. S. Cyprianus, p. 42.

[383] “Ratzebergers Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 54.

[384] “Hist.,” Bl., 196.

[385] _Ib._

[386] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 440.

[387] Erl. ed., 59, p. 340 f.

[388] “Tagebuch,” p. 293.

[389] Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.

[390] _Ib._

[391] Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[392] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 85, where Lœsche remarks that the Gotha Codex 263, 122 proved this by an instance taken from Luther’s life. Cp. also Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[393] Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[394] _Ib._, 57, p. 65.

[395] _Ib._, 60, p. 108.

[396] _Ib._, 58, p. 128 f. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 286 f.

[397] In Aurifaber’s edition, 1568, Bl. 91, 92. Stangwald, who as a rule eliminates, as he assures us, all that was not Luther’s very own, has retained it in his edition of the Table-Talk (1571); likewise Selnecker (1577). For this reason we also find it in Förstemann’s 1st ed., 1844, p. 400. It is not given in the Latin Table-Talk, but, as a comparison with Bindseil’s “Tabellen,” 3, p. 471, shows, we miss in the Latin a whole number of unquestionably authentic Luther conversations occurring in the German editions. It is to be found in “Werke,” Erl.

[398] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 517.

[399] Erl. ed., 58, p. 128.

[400] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 72.

[401] _Ib._, p. 71.

[402] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532. The passage commences: “_Tanta spectra vidi_,” seemingly referring to the ghosts at the Wartburg.

[403] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.

[404] Erl. ed., 58, p. 4.

[405] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface dating from 1545.

[406] See below, p. 142 ff.

[407] “_Fui (dignus), cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem._” Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81, n. From Khummer’s “Tagebuch.” Reference to some external apparition is not excluded.

[408] See above, p. 125.

[409] Cp. above, p. 117, etc.

[410] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 42. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.

[411] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[412] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 95. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 305.

[413] From the MS. quoted by Kawerau, “Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1, 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 67 f.

[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., on the German Bible, 3, p. xlii. Risch, “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 80.

[415] Above, p. 123.

[416] “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 310.

[417] Alber Erasm., Dialogus vom Interim, 1548, Bl. B. III. Cp. Seidemann, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1876, p. 564 f.

[418] Above, p. 123 f.

[419] C. F. Kahnis, “Die deutsche Reformation,” 1, 1872, p. 142.

[420] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed. 21, Suppl., p. 325.*

[421] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 133.

[422] Ratzeberger, _ib._

[423] To Cath. Bora, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 786. Cp. the letter of Feb. 7 to the same, _ib._, 5, p. 787: “I think that hell and the whole world must be empty of devils who have all forgathered here at Eisleben on my account; so great are the difficulties.”

[424] “Fünf Briefen aus den letzten Tagen Luthers,” ed. Kawerau (”Stud. und Krit.,“ 54, 1881, p. 160 ff.), p. 162: “_Ut video, Sathan nates videndas porrigit mihi et ultro derisum adest (addit?)_”; after this, adds Friedrich, the way was paved for some sort of reconciliation.

[425] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 773: “_Satanica sunt hæc, sed Deus, quem rident, ridebit eos suo tempore_.” Cp. also vol. v., _passim_.

[426] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 113. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73.

[427] p. 193 ff.

[428] _Ib._, p. 200.

[429] Erl. ed., 31, p. 311.

[430] To Nich. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363.

[431] Cp. G. Koffmane, “Handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907. See above, vol. iv., p. 520 f.

[432] This was the view taken, e.g. by Fr. Balduinus, who published a work at Eisleben in 1605 against the unfortunate attempt of the learned Jesuit, Nicholas Serarius, to uphold the reality of the dialogue with the devil. According to Balduinus it was really a “_gravissima tentatio beati Lutheri_,” by which the devil sought to reduce him to despair.

[433] Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Dec. 14, 1531.

[434] _Ib._, p. 89, in May, 1532, thus only a few months after the above statement.

[435] Seb. Fröschel, “Von den heiligen Engeln, vom Teuffel und des Menschen Seele. Drey Sermon,” Wittenberg, 1563, Bl. L2 to Bl. 4a.—Friedr. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten waren Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, p. 154´.

[436] “Whereupon Luther became even more anxious and alarmed.… It was wonderful to see how he ran about the sacristy meanwhile, wringing his hands for very fear.”

[437] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. xxiv., where the exorcism is transposed to Jan. 18(19).—_Ib._, p. 772, Luther relates how he had cured the madness (“_mania_”) of a “melancholy” person who had been subjected by the devil to this “temptation,” and also explains how blessings were to be given.

[438] See above, vol. v., p. 240 f.

[439] To Bora, July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 107.

[440] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 138-40.

[441] Luther to Ebert, Aug. 5, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 21.

[442] Kirchhoff is alluding to the case of the “changelings” mentioned above, vol. v., p. 292. It is true Luther did not regard them as human beings.

[443] “Allg. Zeitschr. für Psychiatrie,” 44, 1888, p. 329 ff.—For Luther’s view of the insane as possessed, see above, vol. v., p. 281.

[444] See above, p. 128, n. 7.

[445] Vol. i., p. 391.

[446] Above, vol. v., p. 322.

[447] Above, vol. v., p. 226 ff.

[448] Erl. ed., 9², p. 358 f.

[449] See above, vol. i., p. 391 ff.

[450] Above, vol. i., p. 398.

[451] Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296, end of Feb., 1522). Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 111.

[452] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 106 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 143 f.

[453] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81; above, p. 128, n. 7.

[454] Above, vol. iv., p. 258.

[455] 1 Cor. xiv. 30. The passage, however, refers to the “charismata” of the early Church and sets up no sort of standard for judging of doctrine in later times.

[456] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 175 f. Greving, p. 18 f. Cp. Steph. Ehses, “Röm. Quartalschrift,” 12, 1898, p. 456, on M. Spahn, “Cochlæus,” p. 81, who criticises Cochlæus unfavourably because he demanded signs and wonders from Luther.

[457] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211, from notes taken at the time.

[458] Jonas, i., 2: “_Surrexit Ionas, ut fugeret a facie Domini_.”

[459] “Werke,” _ib._, pp. 11=214.

[460] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40; Erl. ed., 28, p. 316 in the revision of the above Wittenberg sermon entitled: “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes zu nehmen.”

[461] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391: “_Certus sum, dogmata mea habere me de cœlo_” (against Henry VIII).

[462] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 496; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23: “_revelatione divina ad hoc vocatus_.”

[463] Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. The passage is from the Wolfenbüttel MS., which reproduces Rörer’s Notes (revised, possibly, by Flacius). In another set of Notes Luther speaks here of his doctrine as “_evangelium veritatis_.”—Cp. vol. iv., p. 408: “_not without a revelation_ of the Holy Ghost.”

[464] Weim. ed., 32, p. 477; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[465] Note in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81.

[466] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 169: “_Deus revelavit in hoc schola verbum suum. Quicumque nos fugiunt et sugillant nos clanculum, ii defecerunt a fide_,” etc. In 1540.

[467] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 _sq._; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211.

[468] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 363* f. Seckendorf, “Commentaria de Lutheranismo,” gives the passage as follows: “_Ionas sæpe eum dixisse memorat, se nemini mortalium aperturum esse_, etc., _fore autem ut in die novissimo innotescant, sicut et revelationes egregiæ, quæ sub initium doctrinæ habuerit et nemini detexerit_” (Lips., 1694, lib. 3, sect. 36, p. 647). Bugenhagen says in his funeral oration (Walch, 21, p. 329*), that God the Father had revealed His Son through Luther, whilst Melanchthon goes so far as to boast that the latter had received his doctrine, not from “human sagacity,” but that God had revealed it to him (see “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 _sq._, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 625). The expression that Luther’s gospel had been “revealed” became quite usual, as we see from the heading of a chapter in the Latin “Colloquia,” entitled: “_Occasio et cursus evangelii revelati_” (ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178).—Just as Luther asserted he was reforming the Church, “_divina auctoritate_” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 16), so Calvin, too, claimed to derive his ministry of the Word (which differed from that of Luther in so many points) from Christ. Zwingli did the same, and his followers cared but little for Luther’s claim to the contrary.

[469] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.

[470] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 23=28, p. 298.

[471] P. 40=316.

[472] _Ib._

[473] P. 23=298; op. Gal. i. 28.

[474] Paul forbade his disciples to say: “_Ego sum Pauli_,” and asked: “_Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis?_” (1 Cor. i. 12 _sq._).

[475] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 363 ff.

[476] In Casel’s account, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[477] Weim. ed.; 25, p. 120; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, p. 93 _sq._

[478] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49; cp. above, vol. v., p. 352. Above, vol. v., pp. 339 f., 319, 328. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176.

[479] Above, vol. v., p. 327 f.

[480] Weim. ed., 5, p. 385. “Operationes in Psalmos,” 1519-21.

[481] Erl. ed., 38, p. 225.

[482] _Ib._, p. 221.

[483] See vol. iv., p. 222.

[484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53; cp. Erl. ed., 49, p. 91, on John xiv.-xv.

[485] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 181 _sq._ Enarr. ps. cxxx.; cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 206 ff.; Erl. ed., 37, p. 420 ff.

[486] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27 f.

[487] On Marcus, cp. Weim. ed., 61, pp. 1, 73.

[488] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 377 f., 371 f., and, with regard to Campanus, p. 378.

[489] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 28.

[490] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362. “De servo arbitrio.” See vol. ii., p. 276.

[491] To the Elector Augustus of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766: “_Stoica et manichæa deliria_.” Cp. vol. v., p. 258.

[492] _Ib._, 24, p. 375; cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrb.,” p. 81.

[493] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 45, 75 f., 125 f.

[494] On his discovery of Antichrist see above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff. He reached it amidst strange fears: “_Ego sic angor_,” etc. To Spalatin, Feb. 24, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332. On the thoughts of Satan see the letter to Egranus of March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “_Nisi cogitationes Satanæ scirem, mirarer quo furore ille [Eccius] amicitias solveret_,” etc.

[495] Vol. iii., p. 149 ff.

[496] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 301.

[497] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 176-311.

[498] Cp. his statement in Schlaginhaufen’s Table-Talk, p. 56: “_Adversariorum verbi natura non est humana, sed plane diabolica_” (1532).

[499] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 404 f. (Jan., 1537), with reference to Dan. xi. 36; xii. 1. The “_Sic volo_,” etc., from Juvenal, “Sat.,” 6, 223, he applies to himself, above, vol. v., p. 517.

[500] Mathesius, _ib._, p. 293. In 1542-3. The picture given at the beginning of this portion of the Table-Talk of how Luther the “monk” and Catherine the “nun” seated at table after dinner raise the cross hand-in-hand against Antichrist and say: “_Post scripturam non habemus firmius argumentum quam crucem!_” speaks volumes for their infatuation.

[501] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410, in a sermon of Nov. 1, 1531.

[502] Erl. ed., 63, p. 276. On his abnormal hatred see vol. iv., p. 300 f.

[503] _Ib._

[504] To Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461.

[505] Cp. vol. iv., p. 95 f. My belief that in the passage in question in Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of Aug. 28, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235), the word “_mendacia_” should be read after “_dolos_” as in the oldest Protestant editions, has since received confirmation from P. Sinthern in the “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1912, p. 180 ff., where the quotations from Johann Lorenz Doller, “Luthers katholisches Monument,” Frankfurt-am-Main, 1817, p. 309 ff., are set forth in their true light.

[506] Erl. ed., 25², p. 425.

[507] Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.

[508] Vol. iv., p. 304.

[509] See vol. iv., p. 327 ff., and the remark of Harnack, _ib._, p. 340 f.: “Either he suffered from the mania of greatness or his self-reliance really corresponded with his task and achievements.”

[510] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 210.

[511] _Ib._, p. 308 (1540). Cp. above, vol. v., p. 241 ff.

[512] To Lang: “_Sitne libellus meus [De captivitate babylonica] tam atrox et ferox tu videris et alii omnes. Libertate et impetu fateor plenus est, multis tamen placet, nec aulæ nostræ penitus displicet. Ego de me in his rebus nihil statuere possum. Forte ego præcursor sum Philippi [Melanchthonis], cui exemplo Heliæ viam parem in spiritu et virtute, conturbaturus Israel et Achabitas ~[cp. 1 Kings xviii. 17]~ oratione itaque opus erit, si quid peccatum est._” A little later he says of Antichrist: “_Odi ego ex corde hominem illum peccati et filium perditionis ~[2 Thes. ii. 3]~ cum universo suo imperio._”

[513] In Casel’s report (Nov. 29, 1525), Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[514] To Lang, Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[515] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 6.

[516] Erl. ed., 57, p. 73. “Tischreden,” ed. Aurifaber, Eisleben, 1566, pp. 18 and 18´.

[517] Above, vol. iii., p. 121.

[518] Erl. ed., 65, p. 62, preface to his translation of Jeremias.

[519] See below, xxxviii, 1.

[520] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 169.

[521] Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[522] _Ib._, p. 473=265.

[523] Cp. Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” pp. 45 and 51.

[524] See above, vol. iii., p. 159 ff. On the nun Florentina.

[525] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 92: “_Articulus remissionis peccatorum est in omnibus creaturis_” (a. 1532). Cp. p. 139: “_Deus in omnibus officiis, statibus intromisit remissionem peccatorum_,” etc.

[526] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201 (Khummer): “_Melanthon retulit, Lutherum sæpe dixisse, articulum de remissione peccatorum esse fundamentum, unde exstruatur articulus de creatione_.”

[527] Erl. ed., 58, p. 390.

[528] See vol. iii., p. 195 ff.

[529] See above, vol. v., p. 517.

[530] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 585; vol. iv., pp. 331, 343; vol. ii., p. 294.

[531] Weim. ed., 26, p. 531; Erl. ed., 63, p. 273 (1528).

[532] _Ib._, p. 530=272.

[533] See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[534] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129 f.: “Break out at once into abuse,

## particularly if the devil attacks you with justification! He frequently

assails me with an argument that is not worth a snap, but in the turmoil and temptation I do not notice this; but when I have recovered I see it plainly.”

[535] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.

[536] To Chancellor Brück, Jan. 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282.

[537] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129.

[538] To Melanchthon, Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 166: “My head is indeed obstinate as you fellows say.”

[539] Paul Pietsch, in the preface (p. xxi. f.) to vol. 32 of the Weim. ed.: “His annoyance and his tendency to see only the darker side of things show plainly enough … that Luther was suffering from that deep depression to which great men are sometimes liable. In later life, for instance in 1544, this depression again overtook Luther, and he even resolved to quit Wittenberg, and it was only with difficulty that he was dissuaded from doing so. In 1545 again something similar occurred. Yet in 1544 and 1545 his discouragement had again no real cause.”

[540] Cp. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.” (Lit. Beil.), 1906, p. 355, on vol. 32 of the Weimar edition.

[541] To Link, Dec. 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.

[542] “_Si quid hic iocis aut conviciis excedit._”

[543] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 67 ff.

[544] We remember having recently read in a review, that many, at the present day, consider “mental aberration an indispensable condition of mental greatness.”

[545] “_Si hæc a febricitante dicerentur, quid dici possit insanius!_” “_Opp._,” 10, col. 1282, in 1526.

[546] The passages are given in Latin above, vol. iv., p. 353, n. 3.

[547] Cp. above, vol. ii., pp. 267 and 274; cp. also below, what Hausrath and Möbius say. The expression “abnormal state of temper” is used by W. Köhler in the “Theol. Literaturbericht,” vol. 23 (1903), p. 499. Elsewhere he calls Luther “the most paradoxical figure imaginable, who speaks differently to every hearer” (_ib._, vol. 24, 1904, p. 517).—See also Döllinger (“Kirchenlexikon,”[2] art. “Luther,” col. 344), and Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 48, 1873 ed., p. 423. U. Berlière, O.S.B., recently remarked: “Une étude psychologique de Luther ne peut être séparée de son histoire ni de l’évolution de sa vie intérieure, encore moins de son état pathologique.… Cette étude n’est pas encore achevée” (“Revue bénédictine,” 1906, p. 630 f.).

[548] See Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 27.

[549] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 383. Cp. also the remarks on the next page, n. 2.

[550] In the art. “Luthers Bekehrung” (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,” 6, 1896), p. 193.

[551] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1905, p. 109 f. The author speaks of the “secret sufferings of soul” which did not, however, interfere with the thoroughness of his work (p. 110); incidentally, in exoneration of the violence of Luther’s writings against Zwingli, he urges that Luther wrote it “at a time of great depression, which he even wished his opponents might endure for but a quarter of an hour to see if it would not convert them” (2, p. 213). At the Wartburg “his mental suffering returned, as it always did when he remained for any length of time without outward stimulus or active intercourse with the outside world” (1, p. 475). In the supplement to his unaltered 2nd edition Hausrath deals with the objections raised against his “pathological” view though he considerably modifies his wordings (1, p. 573 ff.).

[552] On Ebstein see below, p. 176 f. Ebstein’s is an improvement on Küchenmeister, “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankengesch.,” Leipzig, 1881. Küchenmeister did not do justice to the historical material and always quotes at second hand. Th. Kolde rightly speaks of his work as a “book that had better not have been written” (“Anal. Lutherana,” p. 50). He also thinks Berkhan’s treatment of the subject (_ib._, p. 51) “of small value.”

[553] “Deutsch-evangelische Bl.,” 29, Halle, 1904, p. 303 ff.

[554] See above, p. 109 ff.

[555] P. 316.

[556] “Archiv f. Psychiatrie,” 11, Berlin, 1880-1, p. 798 ff.

[557] P. 799. Cp. above, p. 100 ff.

[558] Möbius proceeds on the principle that “in each of us what is healthy is mixed with what is morbid and the more anyone rises above the average, the further he departs from the normal.” “The pathological element is part of every eminent man.” This, according to Möbius, is

## particularly the case with the genius. Hence, in his studies, it is

his aim to show how psychiatry “may be used for appreciating great men.” Möbius intended to deal in detail with the pathology of Luther but was prevented by death from carrying out his plan. In his study on Schopenhauer (“Ausgewählte Werke,” Bd. 4)—who according to him was certainly not insane in the ordinary sense—he says: “I consider Schopenhauer one of the best instances to prove that it is only pathology which teaches us rightly to understand great writers and their works.… Schopenhauer became the philosopher of pessimism because, from the beginning, he was a sickly man. It was not the recognition of the evils in the world that made him take this line, but he deliberately sought out and described the evils because he needed to vindicate his own pessimism. He had displayed the latter even as a boy, having inherited it from his father, and his morbid disposition influenced his whole mode of thought.”

[559] In “Schmidts Jahrb. der in- und ausländischen gesamten Medizin,” ed. P. J. Möbius and H. Doppe, 288, Leipzig, 1905, Hft. 12, Dec., p. 264 in the notice of my articles “Ein Grundproblem aus Luthers Seelenleben,” in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” Lit. Beilage, 1905, Nos. 40 and 41.

[560] [Above, p. 173.]

[561] [Emil Kraepelin, “Psychiatrie, Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und Ärzte,”⁶ Leipzig, 1899, Cap. ix.: “Das manisch-depressive Irresein,” pp. 359-425.]

[562] “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankheiten und deren Einfluss auf seinen körperlichen und geistigen Zustand,” Stuttgart, 1908.

[563] Pp. 7, 64.

[564] Pp. 45 ff., 56 ff.

[565] Pp. 62, 10, 63 f., 60, 55, 54, 64.

[566] This Ebstein admits (p. 44), though he argues that the “seizures in the joints” of which Luther complains must have had a gouty origin.

[567] _Ib._, p. 40. But cp. above, p. 110 f.

[568] Cp. in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 191, for the proofs in support of this letter quoted by Enders from Kawerau.

[569] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[570] Ebstein, _ib._, p. 44.

[571] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 691 f.

[572] Pp. 49, 53.

[573] P. 55 f.

[574] P. 56.

[575] P. 12.

[576] P. 62.

[577] P. 10.

[578] P. 44 f.

[579] “Luther auf dem Standpunkt der Psychiatrie beurteilt,” Wien, 1874. Bruno Schön declares that Luther was “in part excused by the fact that he was deranged” (p. 3); this derangement Luther contrived to explain away by laying it all down to the devil, whom he had seen in actual hallucinations (p. 9); he had regarded all his opponents as fools, just as the inmates of an asylum look upon all others as fools and on themselves as perfectly sane (p. 28), etc.

[580] “Grundriss einer Gesch. der deutschen Irrenpflege,” 1890, p. 76.

[581] “Antwort auf das Sendschreiben,”³ Sulzbach, 1817, p. 70 ff.

[582] See the 2nd ed. of this writing, bearing the same title as the 1st, “Seitenstück zur Weisheit Luthers.” The 1st ed. is weaker in its animadversions than the 2nd.

[583] P. 188.

[584] See above, vol. i., p. 16.

[585] “Zeitschr. des Harzvereins,” 39, 1906, p. 191 ff. It cannot be proved from the records that the second Hans Luther had been guilty of actual manslaughter. Hence in vol. i., it was not necessary to point out that the manslaughter of which Wicel accuses Martin Luther’s father, repeating his accusation most emphatically in public writings without its being called into question by Luther, cannot be placed to the account of the second Hans with any semblance of likelihood (though it has been done, cp. “Luther-Kalender,” 1910, p. 76 f). Wicel came to Eisleben in 1533, thus only a few years after the father’s death, and was able to assure himself of the facts, concerning which there was not likely to be any mistake owing to Martin Luther’s celebrity at that time.

[586] Aug. Cramer, “Die Nervosität,” Jena, 1906.

[587] “Grundriss der Psychiatrie,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 104.

[588] _Ib._, p. 141 f.

[589] “Monatsschr. für Psychiatrie,” Berlin, 1907, p. 230.

[590] _Ib._, p. 236.

[591] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.

[592] _Ib._, p. 432 f.

[593] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169.

[594] _Ib._, (from Rebenstock).

[595] _Ib._, p. 175.

[596] _Ib._, p. 170.

[597] _Ib._

[598] Erl. ed., 31, p. 257.

[599] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.

[600] _Ib._, p. 188: “… _et D. Staupitius me incitabat contra papam_.”

[601] _Ib._, p. 176.

[602] See above, vol. i., pp. 104 ff., 184 ff., 303 ff., where his theological attitude previous to the indulgence theses is discussed. It is taken for granted that the account of his development given in vol. i. is already known to the reader. The fictions have already been discounted in vol. i., p. 20 f. and p. 110 f.

[603] “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung” (“Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengesch. Quellenschriften,” 2, Reihe 9. Hft.), 1911, p. 11 ff.

[604] Luther’s untrustworthiness here, where it is a question of his polemics, does not render untrue certain other data of a non-polemical character and otherwise supported. This is the case, e.g. with the date given above when the meaning of Rom. i. 17 first dawned upon him; this happens to agree with the facts. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[605] Erl. ed., 63, p. 405, in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[606] See vol. iii., p. 153 ff. Cp. “Werke,” _ib._, p. 370, in a preface of 1531, where, referring to the “many and great miracles,” he makes no distinction between Evangel and Gospel.

[607] _Ib._, p. 373 (1542).

[608] _Ib._, p. 400 in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[609] _Ib._, p. 328.

[610] _Ib._, p. 295 (1530).

[611] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.

[612] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” p. 219.

[613] “Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft. 100, 1910, p. 14.—Cp. K. A. Meissinger, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 362, n. 2.

[614] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.

[615] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.

[616] Weim. ed., 33, p. 431 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 201.

[617] _Ib._, 49, p. 118.

[618] _Ib._, 20², 2, p. 420.

[619] “Comment. in Galat.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 138; Irmischer, 1, p. 109 _sq._

[620] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[621] _Ib._, 7, p. 74.

[622] Weim. ed., 33, p. 560; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306.

[623] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27. Cp. 20, 2, p. 420.

[624] Weim. ed., 33, p. 575; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.

[625] Erl. ed., 46, p. 73.

[626] At the time the present writer’s series of articles on Luther’s intellectual development was appearing in the “Köln. Volkszeitung” (1903, 1904), Denifle’s work which also insists on the unreliable nature of the legend (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹ 1904, pp. 389 ff., 725 f., 739 f.) was already in print.

[627] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183.

[628] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 123 (1545).

[629] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300. Comm. on John xiv.-xvi., of 1537.

[630] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 72. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c.a. 1541.

[631] _Ib._, 5, p. 267, a. 1539.

[632] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27 (1537).

[633] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. Comm. on John vi.-viii., 1531.

[634] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273. “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch,” 1533.

[635] Comment. in Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 107. Cp. p. 138=p. 109. The passage was only introduced by Luther in the 1538 ed., a fact remarkable for the history of the legend.

[636] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.

[637] Comment. in Galat. ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 20, 1535.

[638] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enar. in ps. 45, a. 1532.

[639] See above, p. 126.

[640] See above, p. 150.

[641] Erl. ed. 58, p. 377.

[642] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 401. Enarr. in Is. (1543).

[643] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137; Irmischer, 1, p. 109, of 1535.

[644] Erl. ed. 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.

[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36. From Khummer, no date, but a late utterance.

[646] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23, preface to the Latin works (1545).

[647] N. Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 ff.

[648] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100 (1532).

[649] To Bugenhagen (1532), preface to the latter’s edition of Athanasius, “De trinitate,” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).

[650] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410 (1531). In the text, for “_deinde quando_,” read “_deinde quanto_.” A second hasty report, _ib._, gives the passage in this form: “_Multos scio, et ego unus fui, quando confessus_ and clean _et dixi orationes meas_, I came to the altar it was all not worth a straw; _vocabam presbyterum, et quando absolutio_ had been pronounced _et missa perfecta [erat], tum certus ut antea [eram]_ and as much at peace with God _ut antea_, …” Of the Last Day: “_Ego non libenter audiebam istum diem_.”

[651] Above, vol. i., p. 290 f.

[652] Ericeus, “Sylvula,” l. c.

[653] G. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers 1537-1540,” 1905, p. 61 f. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. x., n.

[654] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 122 (1532).

[655] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.

[656] _Ib._, p. 154, from the same sermon.

[657] _Ib._, 31, p. 279. “Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.”

[658] Dr. Kirchhoff, “Zeitschr. f. Psychiatrie,” vol. 44, 1888, p. 376.

[659] Cp. previous volumes, _passim_, particularly vol. iv., pp. 120-31.

[660] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182. See above, p. 192.

[661] Erl. ed., 14², p. 342.

[662] Comment. in ep. ad Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137. Irmischer, 1, p. 109.

[663] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.

[664] _Ib._, 49, p. 27.

[665] _Ib._, 45, p. 156 f.

[666] _Ib._

[667] _Ib._, 14², p. 185.

[668] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 10, p. 232.

[669] _Ib._, 19, p. 100.

[670] See above, vol. i., p. 278.

[671] Cp. apart from the “Dicta Melanchthoniana” (ed. Waltz, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.), p. 330:—“_diebus Sabbati, cum esset vacuus a concionibus_,” etc., “_initio evangelii—_” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, where the same thing is related no less than three times: 1, p. 67; 1, p. 198; 3, p. 279, the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 59, pp. 10 and 21, and Ericeus, “Sylvula Sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 _sq._

[672] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.

[673] _Ib._, 49, p. 315.

[674] Aquinas, “Summa theol.,” 3, q. 40, a. 2 ad 1. In ep. ad Tim. c. 4, lect. 2. “Summa theol.,” 2, 2, q. 88, a, 2 ad 3. Denifle, _ib._, 1², p. 365 f., where other quotations are given from Thomas and the mediæval theologians.—Cp. the wholesome teaching of the “Imitation”—already widely read in Luther’s day—on the value of outward works compared with interior virtue and charity (Bk. II., cap. 1): “_Regnum Dei intra vos est, dicit Dominus_,” are the words with which it begins. Bk. I., c. 19: “_Multo plus debet esse intus quam quod cernitur foris_,” and, again: “_Iustorum propositum in gratia Dei potius quam in propria sapientia pendet_,” etc. On the need of discretion see _ib._, 3, c. 7.

[675] “De non esu carnium ap. Carthus.,” “Opp.,” 2, pp. 723, 729. Denifle, _ib._, p. 370.

[676] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 49.

[677] See above, vol. i., p. 80 ff.

[678] Weim. ed., 4, p. 626. Denifle, 1², p. 376 f.

[679] _Ib._, 6, p. 246; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180. Denifle, 1², p. 377 f.

[680] Weim. ed., 37, p. 661. Sermon of Feb. 1, 1534.

[681] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enarr. in ps. 45. Jan., 1532.

[682] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. In the Comment. on John vi.-viii., 27 Oct., 1531.

[683] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300 (1537): “I myself must testify from my own experience: After having been a pious monk _for over twenty years_.” This reading of the sermons reported and edited by Cruciger is embodied in the text, whereas, in the notes, it is corrected to “fifteen.”

[684] Erl. ed., 46, p. 78, Sermon of 1537.

[685] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 490: “_Fraterculus in Christo … in angulo sepultus_,” etc.

[686] To Joh. Braun, April 22, 1507, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 1 f; “_sola et liberalissima sua misericordia … tanta divinæ bonitatis magnificentia_.”

[687] March 17, 1509, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6.

[688] From a MS. sermon of Luther’s of 1544 at Gotha. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. 20.

[689] To N. Paulus is due the credit of having drawn attention in 1893 to the description given by Luther to Usingen. Hausrath in his article “Luthers Bekehrung” in 1896 (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,”) also noted how happy Luther had at first been in the convent. Cp. his “Leben Luthers,” 1, p. 22.

[690] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 197 (Khummer): The good old man had taught him to commit perplexing matters of conscience “_divinæ bonitati_.”—Preface to Bugenhagen’s edition of St. Athanasius “De Trinitate”: “_Vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo verus christianus_.”—Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100, on the preceptor’s words (above, vol. i., p. 10): “_Fili quid facis, an nescis, quod ipse Dominus iussit nos sperare?_”—Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 84 (Khummer): Luther’s reminiscence of the wise exhortation of his preceptor on conversations with women (“_pauca et brevia loquatur_”).—Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 1.

[691] See above, vol. i., p. 11.

[692] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.

[693] Flacius Illyr., “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” Magdeburgi (1549), pages not numbered, end of cap. xv.: “_Affirmabat is Martinum Lutherum apud ipsos sancte vixisse, exactissime regulam servasse et diligenter studuisse_.” Copy of this rare work in the Vienna Hofbibliothek.

[694] On the passages in the Comm. on Rom. of 1515-16 in which he speaks well of the religious life, see above, vol. i., p. 270.

[695] Weim. ed., 2, p. 736; Erl. ed., 21, p. 242. Denifle, 1², p. 39.

[696] _Ib._, 2, p. 644; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 500, and in his “Letter to the Minorites of Jüterbogk,” May 15, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 40: “_Media quibus facilius implentur præcepta_.” Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 36.

[697] Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 226.

[698] Above, vol. ii., p. 181 ff.

[699] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183: “_in gloriam Dei et confusionem sathanæ_.”

[700] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “_etiam in complexus veni coniugis_,” etc. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See above, vol. v., p. 354; vol. iii., p. 175.

[701] To Nich. Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241: “_ut nihil iam auribus meis sonet odiosius monialis, monachi, sacerdotis nomine et paradisum arbitrer coniugium vel summa inopia laborans_.” Thus the monk and priest, four years before his marriage.

[702] To George Mascov, Provost of the Premonstratensian house at Leitzkau, end of 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 76. At the close of the letter, of which only fragments have been preserved, we read: “_Quam maxime rogo ut pro me Dominum ores; confiteor enim tibi, quod vita mea in dies appropinquet inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et miserior_,” which must, of course, be understood of his moral, not his physical, condition. The “drawing nigh to hell” is an echo of Ps. lxxxvii., which was such a favourite of his, where we read: “_repleta est malis anima mea et vita mea inferno appropinquavit_” (v. 3), and: “_In me transierunt iræ tuæ, et terrores tui conturbaverunt me_” (v. 17).

[703] Above, vol. i., p. 88.

[704] To Spalatin, Dec. 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73 f., where he begins by humbly confessing his unworthiness to receive any attention from the Elector (“_talis tantusque princeps_”), at whose Court Spalatin held a post.

[705] To Joh. Lang, Feb. 8, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 86. “_Quid enim non credant, qui Aristoteli crediderunt, vera esse, quæ ipse calumniosissimus calumniator aliis affiingit et imponit tam absurda, ut asinus et lapis non possint tacere ad illa?_” (_ib._, p. 85).

[706] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 44, from Dietrich’s MSS.

[707] To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.

[708] “_Videbis_,” Staupitz had said, according to him, “_quod ad res magnas gerendas te ministro (Deus) utetur. Atque ita accidit_,” Luther goes on. “_Nam ego magnus (licet enim hoc mihi de me iure prædicare) factus sum doctor_.” Such utterances, he continues, have in them something of the “_oraculum et divinatio_.” Then follows the statement quoted above concerning the other prophecy of his future greatness: “_huius dicti sæpissime memini_,” and again he declares such words contain “_aliquid divinationis et oraculi_.”

[709] Above, p. 102.

[710] Reprinted in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 79: “_De tua præstantia, bonitate, eruditione creber sermo incidit_.” After having spoken of Luther’s “_celebris fama_,” Scheurl expresses the wish “to become his friend.” The words are simply those in common use among the humanists.

[711] Jan. 27, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 82 ff.

[712] Weim. ed., 1, p. 30; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 57: “_Nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint.… Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam iactant_.”

[713] “_Incurrunt inobedientiam et rebellionem._” See vol. i., p. 69.

[714] “_Hæc est lux angeli Sathanæ_” (_ib._).

[715] _Ib._, p. 53.

[716] Weim. ed., 1, p, 12; “Opp. lat. var.,” I, p. 33.

[717] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 41: “_præsulari id est pergræcari sodomitari, romanari_.”

[718] To Spalatin, in the spring, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 91: “_eruditio sæculi nostri ferrea, immo terrea, sive sit Græcitatis sive Latinitatis sive Hebræitatis_.”

[719] To Lang, March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.

[720] See above, vol. i., p. 228.

[721] _Ib._, p. 70.

[722] To Nich. Hausmann at Zwickau, “Briefwechsel,” p. 144: “_Corpore satis bene valeo, sed tot distrahor externis actibus, ut spiritus prope extinguatur raroque sui curam habeat. Ora pro me, ne carne consummer._” Cp. Gal. iii. 3: “_Sic stulti estis, ut quum spiritu cœperitis, nunc carne consummemini_.”

[723] To Lang, Oct. 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67: “_raro mihi integrum tempus est_,” etc.; above, vol. i., p. 275.

[724] To Lang, Sep. 4, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 106. Cp. vol. i., p. 313.

[725] To Chr. Scheurl, May 6, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 97: “_Sunt paradoxa modestis et qui non ea cognoverint, sed eudoxa et calodoxa scientibus, mihi vero aristodoxa. Benedictus Deus, qui rursum iubet de tenebris splendescere lumen._”

[726] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31: “_sola prudentia sensus nostri causa et radix universæ inquietudinis nostræ_.”

[727] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88: “_si nulli placerent, mihi optime placerent_.”

[728] March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489.

[729] Vol. i., p. 391: “_furebam ita sæva et perturbata conscientia_,” etc.

[730] Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.

[731] To Sylvius Egranus (Joh. Wildenauer), March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “_Ego quo magis illi furunt, eo amplius procedo; relinquo priora, ut in illis latrent, sequor posteriora, ut et illa latrent_.”

[732] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 512.

[733] To Staupitz, Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 430: “_Deus rapit, pellit, nedum ducit me; non sum compos mei, volo esse quietus et rapior in medios tumultus_.”

[734] Above, vol. ii., p. 17.

[735] Lectures on Romans, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Scholia, p. 221.

[736] _Ib._, p. 220.

[737] _Ib._

[738] Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366. “Vom Abendmal Bekentnis,” 1528.

[739] Melanchthon in his “Elogium” on Luther, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158: “Vitæ Reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, p. 100.

[740] To supplement what we said in vol. i., p. 4, we may give a passage from Rörer’s notes of the Table-Talk (ed. Kroker, in “Archiv f. RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 346): “_Cum in monasterium intrabam et relinquebam omnia desperans de me ipso, postulavi iterum biblia_.” _Ib._, p. 369 f. “_Causa ingrediendi monasterii fuit, quia perterrefactus tonitru, cum despatiaretur ante civitatem Erphordiæ, votum vovit Hannæ et fracto propemodum pede_ [? through being thrown down by the stroke of lightning?] he entered the cloister and bound himself by vows.”

[741] Vol. i., p. 16.

[742] Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” etc., Bl. 14.

[743] “Chronik.” etc., ed. Euling, 1891, p. 30.

[744] Account published by Tschakert in “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1897, p. 578. The passage may possibly have been influenced by Luther’s statement above concerning his father’s words “_illusio et præstigium_.” Cp. below, p. 224, n. 6.

[745] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 408 (in 1537).

[746] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187, related by Luther to his friends on the feast-day of St. Anne, July 16 [? 26], 1539.

[747] _Ib._, under date, July 16 (1539), the anniversary of his entering the convent.

[748] See above, vol. i., p. 4.

[749] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.

[750] _Ib._, 3, p. 185.

[751] Weim. ed., 8, p. 573 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 239, in the dedication to his father of “De Votis monasticis” (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 249).

[752] _Ib._, he refers to the same remark of his father’s in a letter to Melanchthon of Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225: “_Utinam non esset sathanæ præstigium.… Videtur mihi per os eius Deus velut a longe me allocutus, sed tarde, tamen satis._”

[753] To Joh. Braun at Eisenach, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6: “_Quod si statum meum nosse desideras, bene habeo Dei gratia, nisi quod violentum est studium_.”

[754] B. Heyne, “Über Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 126.

[755] Erl. ed., 44, p. 127.

[756] _Ib._, 45, p. 156. See above, p. 197.

[757] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 36, p. 553 f.; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146, Comment. on 1 Cor. xv.

[758] See above, p. 99 ff.

[759] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156.

[760] Note, _ib._

[761] _Ib._, 44, p. 127.

[762] G. Buchwald, “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten 1528-1546,” vol. iii., 1885, p. 50: In Popery “horrible fears” had been caused by the doctrine of Christ as Judge. “_Iuventus non intelligit; videat ne amittat hanc lucem ~[of his Evangel]~. Si scivissemus non ivissemus in cœnobia. Quando Christum inspexi, vidi diabolum._”

[763] W. Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 28. The mental struggle had not been denied, either by Denifle, or in my article in the Beilage of the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 44.

[764] Köhler, _ib._, pp. 27-29. Cp. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 69.

[765] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 330; Erl. ed., 24², p. 391.

[766] _Ib._, p. 280=365.

[767] _Ib._, p. 279 f.=364.

[768] _Ib._, p. 290=370.

[769] Late in June, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.

[770] See above, vol. i., p. 269 f.

[771] Above, p. 101 f.

[772] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362.

[773] _Ib._

[774] Weim. ed., 28, p. 48, June 10.

[775] Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372.

[776] _Ib._, p. 504=366.

[777] _Ib._

[778] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.

[779] Weim. ed., 32, p. 241. Cp. the similar passage quoted above, p. 197, from Schlaginhaufen.

[780] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273 in “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.” Given more in detail above, p. 195.

[781] Weim. ed., 36, p. 554; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.

[782] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.

[783] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 109.

[784] Cp. Erl. ed. 31, p. 273.

[785] “Opp. lat. exeg.” 11, p. 123.

[786] Erl. ed., 14², p. 343.

[787] See above, vol. iii., p. 206; vol. iv., p. 213 f.

[788] Denifle, 1², p. 392.

[789] Erl. ed., 19², p. 151 f.

[790] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317 f.

[791] _Ib._, 14², p. 342 ff.

[792] Erl. ed., 63, p. 369 f., 1542.

[793] _Ib._, p. 372.

[794] _Ib._, 63, p. 374. Preface to his “Barfuser Eulenspiegel und Alcoran,” 1542.

[795] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.

[796] Weim. ed. 42, p. 504; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 119.

[797] _Ib._, p. 505=200.

[798] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 368 and above, p. 202.

[799] _Ib._

[800] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156 f.

[801] _Ib._, 31, p. 279.

[802] Cp. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 408-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 141-151.

[803] Above, vol. v., p. 432 ff., and vol. iii., p. 9 ff.

[804] Cp. vol. ii., p. 346.

[805] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 265, 1524.

[806] Above, vol. iii., p. 392 f.

[807] _Ib._, p. 10.

[808] Weim. ed., 1, p. 624; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 288. In the Resolutions, 1518.—Weim. ed., 7, pp. 139, 439; Erl. ed., 24², p. 139. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, 221. In the “Assertio omnium articulorum.” Cp. proposition 33 condemned by Leo X, 1520, in the Bull “Exsurge Domine.” N. Paulus, in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 140, 1907, p. 357 ff., and “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16 Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 26 f.

[809] Weim. ed., 7, p. 139; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 221.

[810] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 424: “Hence there is no alternative, you must either believe everything or nothing,” and vol. v., p. 398, n. 3.

[811] Weim. ed., 11, p. 267; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.

[812] Weim. ed., 18, p. 298 f. Erl. ed., 24², p. 276.

[813] Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356). He adds that he had notified the Altenburgers that “the rights, authority, revenues and power of the Canons were at an end because they were publicly opposed to the Evangel.”

[814] To the Wittenberg Canons, July 11, 1523, Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 176).

[815] In a sermon of Aug. 2, 1523, Weim. ed., 12, p. 649; Erl. ed., 17², p. 57. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 5.

[816] Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 76. According to Burkhardt, Hier. Schurf and the licentiate Pauli were entrusted with the mission to Luther; but “Luther continued to storm, and the council took steps to forbid the Mass and even intercourse with others. So far had Luther carried matters!”—Bezold, “Gesch. der deutschen Ref.,” Berlin, 1890, p. 563, observes of Luther’s attitude at that time: “It is of interest to note his transition from the principles of freedom of conscience and the independence of the Church to religious coercion and State assistance.”

[817] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 327 ff.; vol. iv., p. 510.

[818] Cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 10.

[819] Reprinted in Kolde’s, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 68 ff.

[820] _Ib._, p. 72.

[821] The Memo. of the three preachers in “Mitteil. der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1866, p. 513 ff.; cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318, n. 1. On Altenburg, see above, vol. ii., p. 314 ff.

[822] Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).

[823] In Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 102, and Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 320.

[824] Text in Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” Abt. 1, 1. Hälfte, 1902, p. 142 ff. See above, vol. v., p. 592 f.

[825] _Ib._ These stern measures were aimed at the followers of Carlstadt and Zwingli, but were also applied to the Catholics.

[826] The writing, most probably by Link (spring, 1524), is in the “Mitteilungen der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 119 ff.

[827] In the Mem. referred to above, p. 241, n. 3.

[828] Paulus, _ib._, p. 12.

[829] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.

[830] Cp. their petition to George drafted by Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 285.

[831] Letter of the first half of July, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 243 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 318).

[832] Sep. 19, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.

[833] Beginning of July, 1539, in the Memorandum on the need of abolishing the Mass at Meissen. _Ib._, p. 189. Paulus, _ib._, p. 15.

[834] Paulus, _ib._

[835] To Jos. Levin Metzsch of Mila, Aug. 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).

[836] On Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[837] Sehling, “Kirchenordnungen,” 1, 1, pp. 175, 176, 187, 195. Cp. Luther to Beier of Zwickau, 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[838] Above, vol. ii., p. 311, and present vol., p. 240, n. 1.

[839] _Ib._, vol. ii., p. 318.

[840] _Ib._, p. 381.

[841] _Ib._, p. 319.

[842] _Ib._, p. 318.

[843] Above, vol. iv., p. 298.

[844] Above, vol. iii., p. 45.

[845] _Ib._, p. 359.

[846] _Ib._, p. 79 f.

[847] Above, vol. v., p. 367.

[848] _Ib._, p. 578.

[849] _Ib._, p. 580.

[850] _Ib._, p. 579.

[851] Paulus, _ib._, p. 32.

[852] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 35.

[853] Above, vol. iii., p. 431.

[854] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,”¹ p. 801. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 384, and elsewhere.

[855] Above, vol. ii., p. 324.

[856] Above, vol. v., p. 110.

[857] Vol. ii., p. 13.

[858] Above, vol. v., p. 383.

[859] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 156 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 136).

[860] Liborius Magdeburger (Dec. 2, 1536) to the Town Clerk of Zwickau Johann Roth. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” _ib._, p. 136, n. 3.

[861] Enders, _ib._

[862] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 171.

[863] _Ib._, p. 180.

[864] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 44 ff.

[865] Vol. ii., p. 101.

[866] _Ib._

[867] Vol. iii., p. 46.

[868] _Ib._

[869] _Ib._

[870] _Ib._, p. 126.

[871] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 f.

[872] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 117.

[873] Weim. ed., 18, p. 299; Erl. ed., 24², p. 276. Paulus, _ib._, p. 28 f.

[874] Erl. ed., 4², p. 290 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 30 f.

[875] Letter of July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299: “_In hac causa terret me exempli sequela, quam in papistis et ante Christum in Iudœis videmus.… Idem sequuturum esse timeo et apud nostros._” If on the other hand they erred on the side of severity in the matter of banishment, the evil was not so great. Paulus, p. 31.

[876] Paulus, _ib._, p. 29.

[877] _Ib._, p. 31.

[878] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 17 _sq._ Paulus, _ib._, p. 32.

[879] Erl. ed., 39, p. 224 ff.

[880] _Ib._, pp. 250, 252, 254. The Commentary was printed in the spring of 1530.

[881] U. Haussdorff, “Leben Spenglers,” Nuremberg, 1741, p. 190 ff. Paulus, _ib._, p. 34.

[882] Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 163.

[883] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740. Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 41 f.

[884] Printed at Wittenberg in 1536 and signed by Luther, Bugenhagen, Cruciger and Melanchthon on June 5. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 347; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 195 _sqq._

[885] Vol. 32, 1911, p. 155, in a review of Wappler’s work. For further details from Wappler and from the valuable studies of W. Köhler see below, p. 266 ff.

[886] Weim. ed., 32, p. 507; Erl. ed., 43, p. 313.

[887] _Ib._, p. 475=264 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 45.

[888] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552 f.; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 f., Letter of Feb. or the beginning of March, 1532 (“Briefwechsel.” 9, p. 157).

[889] Erl. ed., 1², p. 196 f. (_c._ 1533).

[890] _Ib._, 39, pp. 318-320.

[891] Weim. ed., 18, p. 148; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[892] _Ib._, p. 148 ff.=68 f.

[893] See Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” 1910 (“RGI. Studien und Texte,” ed. J. Greving), p. 156.

[894] Wappler, _ib._, p. 4.

[895] _Ib._, pp. 12, 36, 85.

[896] P. 204 f.

[897] P. 37 ff., 83 ff.

[898] Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 28 ff., 70 ff. Paulus, _ib._, p. 316.

[899] Wappler, _ib._, p. 96 ff.

[900] Hasche, “Diplomatische Gesch. Dresdens,” vol. ii., 1817, p. 221. Paulus, _ib._, p. 317.

[901] Wappler, “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 242. Paulus, _ib._, p. 319.

[902] Wappler, _ib._, p. 164. Paulus, _ib._, p. 314.

[903] Wappler, _ib._, pp. 155, 234. Paulus, _ib._, p. 311.

[904] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525. This is one of the answers he gave to opponents who say, “_neminem debere cogi ad fidem et evangelion_,” and “_principes in externis solum ius habere_.” To the latter he replies: “_principes cohibent externas abominationes_,” and goes on to add: “_Cum igitur ipsimet [adversarii] fateantur, in externis rebus esse ius principum, ipsi sese damnant_.” If they wanted an example let them remember Christ Who drove the sellers out of the Temple. This he wrote, relying on the favour which the new Elector had extended to his cause: “_Nosti quantum princeps iste noster est evangelii studiosus_,” so he remarks with satisfaction. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271.

[905] In the Visitation Rules of 1527, Sehling, _ib._

[906] Brandenburg, “Moritz von Sachsen,” 1, p. 22 f.

[907] Erl. ed., 57, p. 6.

[908] Commentary on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 257 f.

[909] Memorandum of 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 179 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 105).

[910] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., p. 251 f.

[911] _Ib._

[912] _Ib._, p. 252 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 39.

[913] Above, p. 252, n. 1.

[914] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 346.

[915] Comment. on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.

[916] _Ib._, p. 251 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 36.

[917] To Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg. “Ein Sendbrief und Vorred der Dieneren zu Zürich,” Zürich, 1532, A 4b. Paulus, _ib._, p. 48.

[918] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., _ib._

[919] _Ib._

[920] Above, vol. ii., p. 347.

[921] Vol. iii., p. 390.

[922] _Ib._, p. 392.

[923] Above, vol. v., p. 399.

[924] _Ib._, p. 448.

[925] Above, p. 144.

[926] Erl. ed., 20², p. 555 ff. Aurifaber assures us that he “took down the sermon from Luther’s lips” and revised it “with diligence” at Wittenberg. Paulus, _ib._, p. 57 f.—Cp. the intolerant sermon preached at Halle shortly before, below, p. 274.

[927] Above, vol. iii., p. 39.

[928] Erl. ed., 54, p. 98 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151).

[929] “Briefwechsel,” _ib._

[930] Weim. ed., 26, p. 223; Erl. ed., 23, p. 45 f.

[931] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 349; Erl. ed., 21, p. 7.

[932] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 104, n. 11.

[933] In 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[934] Sehling, 1, p. 195.

[935] “Ordnungen,” etc., Dresden, 1573, Bl. 132, 146. Paulus, _ib._, p. 318.

[936] Cp. the Rescript of Sep. 1, 1623. Paulus, _ib._

[937] Hannoviæ, 1652, p. 861. Cp. _ib._, p. 858 _sqq._ Paulus, _ib._, n. 4.

[938] “Practica nova,” I, q. 44, n. 45: “_Usu ac consuetudine saxonica obtinuit, eiusmodi hæreticos seditiosos aut blasphemantes igne comburi_.” Paulus, _ib._, p. 323, n. 7.

[939] Paulus, _ib._, p. 49 against O. Ritschl.

[940] C. E. Förstemann, “Liber Decanorum facultatis theol. acad. Vitebergensis,” 1838, p. 152 _sqq._

[941] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², p. 212.

[942] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57.

[943] _Ib._, p. 35, April 18, 1540.

[944] Luther to Myconius at Gotha, Oct. 24, 1535, _ib._, 10, p. 248.

[945] “Corp. ref.,” 23, p. cvii. _sq._

[946] P. 25 f.

[947] P. 29.

[948] P. 38.

[949] Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1906, p. 211.

[950] “Ref. und Ketzerprozess,” p. 23.

[951] Cp. above, p. 252.

[952] “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 123 f.

[953] _Ib._, p. 125.

[954] _Ib._, p. 126 f.

[955] “Die Inquisition,” p. 70 f.

[956] _Ib._, p. 69 ff.

[957] “Inquisition,” etc., p. 6 f.

[958] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der RZ.,” 1874, p. 20.

[959] “Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien,” 1885, p. 446. Paulus, _ib._, p. 314.

[960] “Die rechtliche Stellung der evangel. Kirche in Deutschland,” 1893, p. 90.

[961] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3⁴, p. 816.

[962] “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, 1905, pp. 138, 187.

[963] “Literarisches Zentralblatt,” 1905, No. 36.

[964] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1896, No. 2, on Paulus, “Über die Reformatoren und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1895.

[965] “Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.,” 1896, p. 138.

[966] Neander, “Das Eine und Mannigfaltige des christl. Lebens,” 1840, p. 224.

[967] “Ursachen, warumb die altgleubige catholische Christen bei dem alten waren Christenthumb verharren sollen,” Cologne, 1589, p. 354.

[968] “Kirche und Kirchen,” 1861, p. 68.

[969] _Ib._, p. 50 f.

[970] Above, vol. iii., pp. 358 ff., 438 ff.

[971] _Ib._, p. 358.

[972] _Ib._, Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 74 f.

[973] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 851 _sqq._: “Quæstio, an politica potestas debeat tollere hæreticos.”

[974] “Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch.,” 8, 1869, p. 264.

[975] “Die Theol. der Gegenwart,” 3, 3, 1909, p. 49.

[976] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.

[977] M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 70 ff. Paulus, _ib._, p. 33. Luther’s “booklet” to which his opponents appealed is the letter of July, 1524, to the Saxon Princes, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 365.

[978] Paulus, _ib._, p. 143.

[979] _Ib._, p. 144.

[980] P. 156 ff.

[981] P. 166.

[982] Paulus, pp. 223, 226.

[983] Cp. Kawerau in Möller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 471 ff.

[984] _Ib._, p. 474.

[985] To Martin Frecht at Ulm, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 955. Cp. his letter to Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558, against Schwenckfeld, _ib._, 9, p. 579. Paulus, _ib._, p. 78.

[986] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 983. Cp. on Franck’s objections to compulsion, A. Hegler, “Geist und Schrift bei S. Franck,” 1892, p. 260 ff.—See also below, p. 289.

[987] Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” pp. 155, 223, 234. Paulus _ib._, p. 311.

[988] Paulus, _ib._, p. 75. Cp. vol. iii., p. 358.

[989] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 274, 1542. Cp. vol. iii., p. 409.

[990] Feb. 4, 1538, to Luther and “_Domini in Christo et venerandi et amandi_,” i.e. the other theologians at Wittenberg, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 328: “_Parata est paulo post satis feliciter per Christum ordinatio ecclesiarum totius regni Daniæ a sereniss. rege_,” etc. “_Per totum regnum Daniæ regnat Christus in omnibus ecclesiis_,” etc.

[991] See vol. iii., p. 413.

[992] See J. C. v. Dreyhaupt, “Ausführliche Beschreibung des Saal-Kreyses,” 1, 1749, p. 982 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 2, p. 1. Paulus, _ib._, p. 80 ff.

[993] On this sermon of Jan. 26, 1546, see below, xxxix., 3.

[994] Dreyhaupt, _ib._, p. 210 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 191.

[995] To Lang the Erfurt preacher, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 224: Halle, with the whole of its Church, had submitted to the Elector “_beneficio altissimi Dei … a cultu Baal, a fanis idololatricis et omni idololatria tandem expurgata_.”

[996] Above, p. 240 f.

[997] _Ib._ Cp. his letter to the Elector, Oct. 1, 1525, Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72. Paulus, _ib._, p. 11.

[998] To Philip of Hesse, Jan. 15, 1532. Wappler. “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 156.

[999] His letter of 1533, above, p. 255 f.

[1000] “Verlegung,” etc. (Wittenberg, 1536), Bl. A 4a, E 3a. Paulus, _ib._, p. 71 f.

[1001] “Prozess,” etc., Worms (1557). Paulus, _ib._, p. 72 f.

[1002] “Ob eine weltliche Obrigkeit … möge die Wiedertäufer … richten lassen,” Marburg, 1528. Paulus, _ib._, p. 115, correcting Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers.”

[1003] Melanchthon, Feb., 1530, to a friend, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 18.

[1004] F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog zu Würtemberg,” 3, 1844, p. 172. Paulus, _ib._, p. 123.

[1005] Chr. Besold, “Virginum sacrarum monimenta,” etc., 1636, p. 237 _sqq._ Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 7, pp. 80-90.

[1006] “Von den Worten Christi, Matt. xiii. (v. 30),” no place, 1541, Bl. C 1 to D 3, Paulus, p. 92 f.

[1007] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 86-91.

[1008] Cp. _ib._, pp. 100-115, with extracts from A. Wrede, “Die Einführung der Reformation im Lüneburgischen durch Herzog Ernst den Bekenner,” 1887. Cp. Wrede, “Ernst der Bekenner,” 1888.

[1009] “Responsio de missa, matrimonio et iure magistratus in religionem,” Argentorati, 1537. 2nd ed. 1540. Extracts from the latter in Paulus, p. 129 ff.

[1010] C. Hagan, _ib._, quoted p. 153.

[1011] Paulus, _ib._, p. 155.

[1012] P. v. Stetten, “Gesch. der Stadt Augsburg,” 1, 1743, p. 445.

[1013] Paulus, _ib._, p. 160.

[1014] On Bucer, cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 142-175.

[1015] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 7, p. 91.

[1016] _Ib._

[1017] To Anton Lauterbach, May 7, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 468. The persons in question had already frequently communicated under both kinds as a sign of their entry into Lutheranism, but had passed unfavourable criticisms on certain measures of Luther’s. He commissions Lauterbach: “_Ubi etiam pœnituerint, hoc exigendum est, ut hactenus a nobis gesta et in posterum gerenda probent. Alioqui quæ erit pœnitentia, si nostra facta damnaverint hoc est sua omnia per fictam pœnitentiam stabilierint?_”

[1018] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 322.

[1019] Deut. xiii. 5 ff., above, p. 273.

[1020] Erl. ed., 61, p. 7, “Tischreden.”

[1021] _Ib._, p. 26.

[1022] P. 8 f.

[1023] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 377.

[1024] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 26.

[1025] P. 30.

[1026] P. 11.

[1027] P. 27 ff.

[1028] P. 31.

[1029] P. 14.

[1030] See e.g. the next quotation.

[1031] Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f., “Vier trostliche Psalmen … an die Königyn zu Hungern.”

[1032] _Ib._, p. 585=414.

[1033] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 394; Erl. ed., 24², p. 112.

[1034] _Ib._, 19², p. 273.

[1035] _Ib._, 38, p. 177 f.

[1036] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 235; Erl. ed., 39, p. 114.

[1037] _Ib._, 10², p. 193 f.

[1038] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83.

[1039] Erl. ed., 61, p. 17.

[1040] Cp. Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 56.

[1041] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.

[1042] Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.

[1043] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.

[1044] _Ib._, 11², p. 267.

[1045] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.

[1046] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295.

[1047] _Ib._, p. 317.

[1048] _Ib._, p. 295.

[1049] Erl. ed., 61, p. 21.

[1050] _Ib._, p. 1.

[1051] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 153 ff.

[1052] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 162.

[1053] Letter of Aug. 21, 1524, Weim. ed., 15, p. 240 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377 f.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 538).

[1054] Above, vol. iii., p. 154.

[1055] “Briefe,” 6, p. 199 f. See above, vol. iv., p. 292.

[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 549.

[1057] Erl. ed., 60, p. 318 f. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 156 _sq._

[1058] See above, vol. iii., p. 234, n. 1.

[1059] Ed. Const. v. Höfler, “SB. der böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 79 f.

[1060] P. 123 Lemnius says the following of Luther’s private life: “_Dum se episcopum iactitat evangelicum, qui fit, ut ille parum sobrie vivat? Vino enim ciboque sese ingurgitare solet suosque adulatores et assentatores secum habet, habet suam Venerem ac fere nihil prorsus illi deesse potest, quod ad voluptatem ac libidinem pertinet._” Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 274.

[1061] “Apologia,” p. 136.

[1062] See above, vol. v., pp. 169 ff., 250 ff.

[1063] Erl. ed., 61, p. 16

[1064] _Ib._, p. 7 f.

[1065] P. 8 f.

[1066] P. 17.

[1067] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 249.

[1068] _Ib._, p. 239.

[1069] P. 167.

[1070] P. 90.

[1071] P. 154.

[1072] P. 253.

[1073] P. 109.

[1074] P. 166.

[1075] P. 403.

[1076] Erl. ed., 61, p. 19 f.

[1077] _Ib._, p. 22.

[1078] P. 24.

[1079] P. 25.

[1080] Above, vol. ii., p. 377.

[1081] Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the 2nd part of his German Works (compiled from his writings). Cp. vol. 28, pp. 64, 89.

[1082] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 529 (1534).

[1083] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 407; Erl. ed., 63, p. 303 (1531).

[1084] Erl. ed., 49, p. 163 f.

[1085] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17.

[1086] “_Ecclesiæ ratio diligenter habenda est._” _Ib._

[1087] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 128: a bishop has no ecclesiastical authority, no “_potestas statuendi quidquam … quia ecclesia est libera et domina_.”

[1088] Weim. ed., 6, p. 300 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 107. Cp. _ib._, p. 296 f.=102; the Church is chiefly “inward, spiritual Christianity,” though she, like the soul in the body, has also an external existence of a kind; P. 297 f.=103: She is governed only by Christ. “Who can tell who really believes or not?”

[1089] Weim. ed., 7, p. 719: “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 309 (1521): “_Dicet autem, si ecclesia tota est in spiritu et res omnino spiritualis, nemo ergo nosse poterit, ubi sit ulla eius pars in toto orbe_.”

[1090] Erl. ed., 25², p. 440 (1539).

[1091] Weim. ed., 8, p. 419; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 127 (1522): “_Quis ecclesiam nobis monstrabit, quum sit occulta in Spiritu et solum credatur? Sicut dicimus: Credo ecclesiam sanctam._”

[1092] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20.

[1093] Köstlin, Art. Kirche, in “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901.

[1094] Weim. ed., 6, p. 301; Erl. ed., 27, p. 108.

[1095] Cp. the passage quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 49, p. 427, from “De servo arbitrio.”

[1096] Erl. ed., 25², p. 416.

[1097] Cp. the theological doctrine of the distinction between the body and soul of the Church. H. Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” 1¹¹, 1903, p. 259. Tract iii., art. 2.

[1098] Erl. ed., 25², p. 418.

[1099] _Ib._, p. 419.

[1100] P. 420.

[1101] P. 421 ff.

[1102] For Bellarmine, see “Controversiæ,” Colon., 2, 1615, 1. 3. “De ecclesia militante,” p. 65 _sq._

[1103] Cp. above, p. 150 ff.

[1104] Bellarmine, l. c., p. 65.

[1105] Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” p. 227.

[1106] Erl. ed., 25², p. 434.

[1107] “Symbolik,” §49, p. 424 f.

[1108] Cp. “Apol. conf. August.,” art. 7. Müller-Kolde,¹⁰ p. 153.

[1109] The Church, according to his explanation of the article of the Creed in question, is “the assembly of the Saints, i.e. an assembly composed only of saints,” not an assembly of all those who have been baptised. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², pp. 257, 278.

[1110] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 21.

[1111] Erl. ed., 66, p. 440 f.

[1112] Art. “Kirche,” in “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, pp. 337, 349.

[1113] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 262, with the quotation from Erl. ed., 9², p. 285 f.: “In her each one must be found, in her each one must be enrolled, whoso wishes to be saved and to come to God, and, outside of her, no one will be saved.”

[1114] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 269.

[1115] _Ib._, p. 169.

[1116] See above, vol. ii., pp. 267 f., 287 f.

[1117] Prop. 23.

[1118] Prop. 24.

[1119] See above vol. i., p. 371.

[1120] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 224.

[1121] See above, vol. iii., p. 143 ff.

[1122] And yet he declares later (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 15) that he would gladly have acknowledged the Pope (i.e. sacrificed his doctrine of the Church) “_modo evangelium docuisset_,” i.e. if the Pope had agreed to his doctrine of Justification. Indeed at the end of Feb., 1519, he says, in the “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell” (see below, p. 307) “for no kind of sin or abuse” is it lawful to begin a schism. Weim. ed., 2, p. 72; Erl. ed., 24², p. 10. Cp. W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 20.

[1123] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.

[1124] To Spalatin, Jan. 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 352; he adds: “_Non ligat nec nocet ira Decretalium, quando tuetur misericordia Christi_.”

[1125] Weim. ed., 2, p. 183 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 296 _sqq._

[1126] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 250.—Other statements made by Luther at this time must be read in the light of the above theory, e.g. his words in the “Comm. on Gal.”: “As widely, broadly, and deeply as possible do I distinguish between the Roman Church and the Roman Curia.” “They must know that they are mistaken when they cry out that I do not hold with the Roman Church; I who love so truly not only the Roman Church but the whole Church of Christ.” “Comm. on Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 134 _sq._ Cp. W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 24.

[1127] Weim. ed., 2, pp. 399, 404 ff., 427, 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 240, 244 _sqq._, 281, 284. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 255 ff.

[1128] For his earlier days cp. the passage in “Freiheyt dess Sermons Bepstlichen Ablass belangend” (1518), Weim. ed., 1, p. 384; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12: “If already so many and thousands more, and all of them holy Doctors had held this or that, yet they are of no account as compared with a single verse of Holy Writ, as St. Paul says, Gal. (i. 8): ‘Even though an angel from heaven,’ etc.”

[1129] Weim. ed., 2, p. 431; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.

[1130] _Ib._, p. 183 ff.=296 _sqq._ (Thesis 13).

[1131] Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion,” p. 259.

[1132] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §44, p. 399.

[1133] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 387 ff. and vol. ii., p. 368.

[1134] Above, p. 237.

[1135] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 256, from Weim. ed., 2, p. 430; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 285.

[1136] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349. Augustine, however, is speaking of truth in general.

[1137] See above, vol. iv., p. 403 ff.

[1138] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §46, p. 409, with the following quotation from Luther’s “De captiv. Babylon.”: “_Christianis nihil nullo iure posse imponi legum, sive ab hominibus, sive ab angelis, nisi quantum volunt; liberi enim sumus ab omnibus_.”

[1139] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398. The work is printed in Weim. ed., 7, p. 704 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 286 _sqq._

[1140] Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 _sqq._

[1141] Cp. the passages quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” §45, p. 405, n. 2: “_Christianus ita certus est, quid credere et non credere debeat, ut etiam pro ipso moriatur, aut saltem mori paratus sit_.” Thus to teach as a priest involved nothing very dreadful, “_cum verbum Dei hic luceat et iubeat, simul necessitas animarum cogat_.”

[1142] “Symbolik,” §45, p. 409.

[1143] _Ib._, §45, p. 406.

[1144] _Ib._, §44, p. 399.

[1145] Art. Kirche, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, p. 337.

[1146] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 427.

[1147] Erl. ed., 26², p. 188.

[1148] Köstlin in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 7², p. 716. Omitted in the 3rd ed.

[1149] “Christl. Welt,” ed. Rade, 1, 1902, No. 38.

[1150] Weim. ed., 2, p. 69 ff; Erl. ed., 24², p. 5 ff.

[1151] _Ib._,6, p. 477 ff.; 9, p. 302 ff.=12 ff.

[1152] _Ib._, 2, p. 72 f.=24², p. 10 f.

[1153] _Ib._, 6, p. 480=24², p. 13. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 303 f.; 9, p. 476 f.

[1154] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 232=28, p. 350.

[1155] _Ib._, p. 232=351.

[1156] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 86 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 337 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 151 _sqq._ Kolde, “Die Augsburgische Konfession,” p. 123 ff.

[1157] Vol. ii., p. 179.

[1158] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 428 n.

[1159] “Confessio August.,” art. 7. “Symbolische Bücher,” ed. Müller Kolde, p. 40.

[1160] “Apol. confess.,” art. 7, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 152.

[1161] Art. 14, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 42.

[1162] “De potestate et iurisdict. episcoporum” (by Melanchthon). “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 341 f.

[1163] Erl. ed., 31, p. 348 f. (1533).

[1164] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 230.

[1165] In “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 435 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 222 f.

[1166] See above, vol. ii., p. 112.

[1167] “Symbolik,” §47, p. 416.

[1168] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398.

[1169] “Christlicher Gegenbericht,” 1561, Bl. Y III´. (The copy in the Munich State Library contains the autograph dedication of Staphylus to Joh. Jacob Fugger.) Also in the “Apologia,” by Laur. Surius, Colon, 1562, p. 353. Cp. Bellarminus, “Controversiæ,” t. 2 (Colon, 1615), p. 58.

[1170] “Centur.,” 1, lib. 1, c. 4, col. 170, in Bellarmin, _ib._ In recent times Protestant theologians have divided on the subject, some favouring more the visible, others the invisible Church. The latter are the more logical. Cp. G. Kawerau’s statement: “We may dispute as to whether the term invisible ‘Church’ is well chosen or not, but what it means is clear; for what else is it but a decided protest against every attempt to attribute within the domain of the Evangel, to a visible, ecclesiastical, legally constituted society the attributes of the Church in which we believe? Protestantism by its very nature cannot make of its outward edifice an ‘_ecclesia proprie dicta_.’” “Über Berechtigung und Bedeutung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” 1887, p. 12.

[1171] See above, p. 265.

[1172] Testimonial of May 17, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57 f.

[1173] Testimonial of April 18, 1540, _ib._ p. 35 f.

[1174] Above, vol. iii., p. 41.

[1175] See above, vol. v., p. 250.

[1176] Erl. ed., 43, p. 281. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 102.

[1177] Above, vol. v., p. 191, n. 4.

[1178] _Ib._

[1179] Above, vol. v., p. 170.

[1180] _Ib._

[1181] _Ib._, p. 171.

[1182] _Ib._

[1183] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 138 f.

[1184] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 26.

[1185] Above, vol. v., p. 180.

[1186] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47.

[1187] Aug. 26, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151.

[1188] Köstlin, Art. “Kirche” in the “RE. f. prot. Th. und Kirche,” vol. 10³.

[1189] Above, vol. v., p. 180.

[1190] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20: “_Lutherus dicebat de usu et necessitate consistorii, quod lapsam et pendentem ecclesiam iterum fulciret_,” etc.

[1191] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 520; Erl. ed., 31, p. 217, in the writing “Von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern” (1532), Luther directs “officials, judges and whoever has to rule” to ask the teachers who were under suspicion: “Who has sent you?” “Why are you after setting up something new?” “If this work was done with zeal it would be of great profit.… Otherwise, unless they insisted on the call or command, there would come to be no Church left.”—Concerning the provision for the Church’s needs Luther speaks of the “duty” of the Elector to see in some way that the parsonages were adequately supported “in order that the Universities and divine worship be not hindered from want, from the needs of the poor belly.” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331.

[1192] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552.

[1193] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 50; Art. “Luther,” “KL.,” 8², p. 338.

[1194] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 625 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358.

[1195] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 50, p. 8.

[1196] _Ib._, 46, p. 226.

[1197] Luther says, for instance, that, in earlier days, “Emperors and Kings had commanded and instituted public worship in their lands” (Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42).

[1198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42.

[1199] To Albert Count of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90).

[1200] We may quote the remarkable letter to the Town Council of Zwickau, dated Sep. 27, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 146 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 88): “My feeling is always that the two rules, the spiritual and the secular, or Church and Town-Hall, are not to intermingle, otherwise the one devours the other and both perish as happened in Popery.” Cp. on the other hand, above, vol. v., p. 580: “everything must be equal and made to intermingle whether it be termed spiritual or secular.”

[1201] To Daniel Cresser, parson at Dresden, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596.

[1202] Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.

[1203] Mejer (†) und Sehling, “Kirchengewalt,” in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³. Cp. the art. “Kirchenregiment”: “The Church, as a body separate from the State, is something modern (?) and quite unknown to Luther.”

[1204] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 22.

[1205] See Emil Richter, “Gesch. der evangel. Kirchenverfassung in Deutschland,” 1851, p. 64.

[1206] Erl. ed., 25², p. 424 f.

[1207] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 424 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 122 f.

[1208] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 129 f.

[1209] H. Hermelink, “Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft., 98, pp. 37-70), 1908, p. 49.

[1210] _Ib._, p. 66, n.

[1211] Above, vol. v., p. 565.

[1212] See Paulsen, above, vol. v., p. 57.

[1213] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. vi., p. 148.

[1214] Köstlin refers to the same thing when he says: “The fact that there was originally in Christianity a well defined office of overseers was either not recognised by him at all, or at least not adequately.” Art. “Kirche,” “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³.

[1215] Scholia to Romans, p. 248 f. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 323.

[1216] Above, p. 297.

[1217] Memo. of Aug. 22(?), 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 40 ff.

[1218] “An die Christen zu Erfurt,” Jan.-Feb., 1527, Erl. ed., 53, p. 411 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15).

[1219] Above, vol. ii., p. 360.

[1220] Sep. 30, 1533, Erl. ed., 55, p. 25 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 341).

[1221] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff.

[1222] In the Notes to the memorandum of 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 342.

[1223] To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596. See the text, above, vol. v., p. 182.

[1224] Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.

[1225] Cp. above, p. 320 n. 1.

[1226] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 130 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 58 f.

[1227] Erl. ed., 65, p. 177.

[1228] See above, vol. ii., p. 297 ff.

[1229] To the Elector Johann, Aug. 26, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 188 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, 215).

[1230] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 272.

[1231] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, pp. 554, 563. In the 2nd ed. the chapter has been altered and not always for the better.

[1232] _Ib._, p. 563.

[1233] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 339 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 396 ff.

[1234] _Ib._, p. 338-396.

[1235] Joh. Mensing, “Gründtliche Unterrichte, was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirche … halten sol,” 1528, in Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” 1903, p. 25.

[1236] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.

[1237] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, p. 546.

[1238] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.

[1239] “Digamy” as a canonical hindrance to ordination is founded on the prescription of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. For the history of this impediment see Phillips, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, p. 519 ff.

[1240] Erl. ed., 25², p. 427.

[1241] _Ib._, p. 428.

[1242] Erl. ed., 26², p. 45 f.

[1243] _Ib._, p. 46.

[1244] _Ib._, p. 43. This, some years later, was to form the frontispiece of his book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[1245] Cp. what he says elsewhere: “The Church is an assembly of the people which is founded on the invisible. It is the ungodly who see in the Church nothing but misery, weakness, scandal and sin. The wise of this world take offence at her look because she is subject to scandals and divisions; they dream of a holy, pure and undefiled Church, the Divine Dove. It is true that, in God’s sight, the Church does so appear, but to the eyes of men she resembles her bridegroom Christ Who according to Isaias liii., seemed torn, bruised, spit upon, crucified, mocked at” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 14).—Luther was perfectly aware of the works of holiness by which the Catholic Church is distinguished, her penitential practices and life of prayer. Speaking of this he is fond of depreciating it as something external and declaring: “Hence we must speak differently of the matter and learn to know that the Christian Church is holy, not in herself nor in this life, but in Christ; a holiness by grace is indeed received here, but it is completed in the next world.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 408 f.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 304 f. Preface to Crossner’s “Sermon von der Kirche,” 1531.

[1246] Erl. ed., 26², p. 55.

[1247] P. 66.

[1248] P. 55.

[1249] These errors constituted, according to Luther, a “flood of all kinds of human doctrine, lies, errors, idolatry and abominations,” “countless devilish dens of murderers in which the welfare of souls suffers gruesomely” (Erl. ed., 31, p. 336 f.).

[1250] _Ib._, 26², p. 53. Cp. _ib._, 31, p. 337: “The Church, or Christendom, has remained and will stand, this is undoubtedly true.”

[1251] Above, p. 330 n. 3. Paulus, _ib._, p. 24.

[1252] Köstlin’s summary, “Luther’s Theol.,” 2¹, p. 552.

[1253] Erl. ed., 31, p. 333.

[1254] _Ib._, p. 332.

[1255] _Ib._, p. 334.

[1256] _Ib._, p. 332.

[1257] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 552: “While he … repeatedly declared, that, in spite of the Divine promises, Christendom had fallen into error on certain points, he could never be induced to admit this of the article of the Presence of the Body [of Christ in the Sacrament].”

[1258] Erl. ed., 31, p. 339. Elsewhere he likewise admits, that, in the olden Church and particularly in the convents “there lived many great saints”; it was true that they, “the elect of God,” had been led astray, “yet they were at last delivered and made their escape through faith in Jesus Christ.” Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366 (1528).

[1259] Erl. ed., 26², p. 46 f.

[1260] _Ib._, p. 43.

[1261] “_Augustinus voluit scribere iudicanda non credenda, sicut alius locus eiusdem scriptoris testatur: Nolo meis scriptis plus credi_,” etc. (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17). Cp. vol. iv., p. 400.

[1262] “_Ecclesia verbo Dei generatur, alitur, nutritur, roboratur_” (Erl. ed., 25², p. 420).

[1263] Mensing, in Paulus, _ib._, p. 25.

[1264] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 13-25: “_Ecclesia, quæ regnum Christi dicitur_.”

[1265] Erl. ed., 26², p. 172 ff., “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft,” 1545.

[1266] As early as the Leipzig Disputation Luther had been obliged to have recourse to the explanation, that by the rock was meant either the faith Peter had confessed, or else Christ Himself. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 245, remarks on this: “We cannot honestly deny its weakness.”

[1267] “Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Parallelen,” Halle, 1876, p. 393.

[1268] “Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.,” ed. Hilgenfeld, 1878, p. 115.—H. A. Meyer, “Kritisch-exegetisches Handb. über das Evangelium des Matthäus,”⁶ Göttingen, 1876, says of Matt. xvi. 18 f.: “There is no doubt that the primacy among the Apostles is here bestowed on Peter.”—Schelling wrote (“Philosophie der Offenbarung,” 2, Stuttgart. 1858, p. 301): “These words of Christ (Matt. xvi. 18 f.) are conclusive to all eternity as to the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles; it requires all the blindness of party spirit to fail to see this or to give them any other meaning.”

[1269] P. 185.

[1270] Above, p. 305.

[1271] P. 188.

[1272] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 638.

[1273] See vol. iv., p. 329. Cp. vol. iii., p. 436 f.

[1274] Jan. 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.

[1275] Dec. 2, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 701.

[1276] To Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 17, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 714.

[1277] May 7, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 737.

[1278] _Ib._, p. 735.

[1279] P. 733.

[1280] P. 737.

[1281] P. 738.

[1282] P. 739.

[1283] See below, p. 355 ff.

[1284] “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.

[1285] _Ib._, p. 742.

[1286] P. 743.

[1287] _Ib._, 6, p. 379.

[1288] _Ib._, 5, p. 380.

[1289] P. 739.

[1290] P. 745.

[1291] P. 746.

[1292] P. 746.

[1293] P. 750.

[1294] Pp. 744, 750 f.

[1295] P. 751.

[1296] P. 754. To Ratzeberger, Court Physician to the Elector, Aug. 6, 1545: “_credo, nos esse tubam illam novissimam, qua præparatur e præcurritur adventus Christi_.” Cp. above, vol. v., p. 239.

[1297] P. 740.

[1298] See below, p. 352.

[1299] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 606.

[1300] To Amsdorf, June 15, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743.

[1301] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 513. Cp. also the passage quoted above, vol. v., p. 237.

[1302] For the breaking off of the sermons in 1530 see above, p. 168. We read in the “Historien” of Mathesius, that Luther “In [15]39 said wildly that he would never again get up in the pulpit.”

[1303] “Briefe,” 5, p. 752 f.

[1304] On Catherine’s position at Wittenberg the following words speak volumes: “After my death the four elements [Faculties] at Wittenberg will most likely not put up with you, hence it would be better that what there is to do were done during my lifetime.” Luther was right in his anticipations. After his decease “the sad fate of a poor parson’s widow was not spared her. In countless petitions to the King of Denmark, ‘Dr. Martin’s widow’ had year by year to beg for support now that ‘everyone looks at me askance and no one comes to my assistance.’” Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 497 f.

[1305] Cp. Cruciger, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313.

[1306] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” p. 125.

[1307] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 608. What Aurifaber relates in the German Table-Talk of a conversation of Luther’s on the bigamy of Philip of Hesse “at Leipzig in 1545 during a convivial gathering” (Erl. ed., 61, p. 302) rests on a false chronology and only repeats a conversation which took place much earlier. For the incorrectness of the date given, see Cristiani in the “Revue des questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.

[1308] “Briefwechsel,” ed. Burkhardt, p. 482 f.

[1309] In Latin in “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 480 _sqq._ German according to the Wittenberg original ed. of 1545, in Erl. ed., 65, p. 170 ff.

[1310] See above, vol. iii., p. 268.

[1311] Theses 31 and 32, p. 173.

[1312] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 609.

[1313] Letter of Jan. 17, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 778.

[1314] See vol. iii., p. 147.

[1315] “Briefe,” 5, p. 761

[1316] Above, vol. v., p. 394 f.

[1317] Cp. “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1894, p. 771 f.

[1318] “Briefe,” 5, p. 764 f.

[1319] Aug. 19, 1545, _ib._, p. 757.

[1320] _Ib._, p. 768.

[1321] P. 769.

[1322] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 325.

[1323] To Amsdorf, Jan. 19, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 780.

[1324] To Prince George, Administrator of Merseburg, Oct., 1545, _ib._, p. 759.

[1325] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 771.

[1326] Hausrath, “Leben Luthers,” 2, p. 483.

[1327] See above, vol. v., p. 261.

[1328] “Orthodoxa Tigurinæ ecclesiæ ministrorum confessio … cum responsione ad vanas et offendiculi plenas D. Martini calumnias, condemnationes et convicia, etc.,” 1545.

[1329] To Jakob Probst, Jan. 17, 1546, “Briefe,” 4, p. 778. Cp. Ps. 1, 1: “_Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit et in cathedra pestilentiæ non sedit_.”

[1330] April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 728.

[1331] Hausrath, _ib._, 2, p. 469.

[1332] See Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 570. He was referring to Luther’s attitude towards the lawyers. On Melanchthon’s earlier plan of leaving the town, see above, vol. iii., p. 370 f.

[1333] Cp. No. 16 of the Theses “Wider die Theologisten zu Löven,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 171, and the passage from Mathesius quoted in the following note.

[1334] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 with Kroker’s remarks; the latter places this important utterance recorded by Besold (1544) in its right chronological setting, as against Lœsche and Köstlin. Here Luther says, in condemnation of processions: “_Alia res est circumferri, alia elevari_.” The Wittenberg Concord says evasively: “The Body of Christ is present when the bread is received, and is truly given.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 346.

[1335] Hausrath, “Leben Luthers,” 2, p. 475. The latter says of the charges made by the Zwinglians: “It is not surprising that his opponents found that his (Luther’s) obstinacy and his hatred of everything Zwinglian was leading him into palpable self-contradiction.”

[1336] Hausrath, _ib._, p. 465.

[1337] Hausrath, _ib._, p. 477 f.

[1338] “Briefe,” 5, p. 715.

[1339] [The 4th Commandment, with the Lutherans as with the Catholics, is that known as the 5th by Anglicans and the English sects. Note to the English edition.]

[1340] Köstlin-Kawerau (above, vol. iv., p. 288).

[1341] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 207: Erl. ed., 23, p. 95 f.

[1342] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469 f.

[1343] See vol. iv., p. 289 f.

[1344] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 292.

[1345] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 614.

[1346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 570. The text is embodied in the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 62, p. 240. See in vol. iii., p. 39 ff. some further utterances of Luther’s on the marriages in question. The allusion above to “the paternal consent that follows” is probably to be understood as referring to the unlawfulness of any subsequent ratification by the parents. Such in any case was Luther’s view: “In his eyes the secret betrothals were sinful, even when the consent was obtained afterwards, nay actually invalid,” Kawerau, 2, p. 570. After Luther’s “victory” in 1545 it was, however, decided that such marriages should be null and void until the parents gave their consent, or until the Consistories had determined whether the parents’ refusal was based on valid, important or sufficient grounds.

[1347] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 571, 687, n. “_Fax domestica_,” see above, vol. iii., p. 216.

[1348] To Spalatin, Jan. 30, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 626.

[1349] To Caspar Beier, Jan. 27, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 721: “_Responde amori te amantis et anxie expectantis, nihil moratus Satanæ et Satanicorum verba, quorum mundus plenus_.”

[1350] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 340. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 355 f. and Erl. ed., 62, pp. 95 and 282.

[1351] Erl. ed., 62, p. 214 ff. and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 287 _sqq._

[1352] Erl. ed., 62, p. 245.

[1353] To Melanchthon, Feb. 6, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 785.

[1354] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 3.

[1355] _Ib._, p. 14, and see above, vol. iv., p. 289 f.

[1356] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 81.

[1357] From the sermon of Feb. 23, 1539, “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295.

[1358] Jan. 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 712.

[1359] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 284.

[1360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.

[1361] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 290.

[1362] To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[1363] To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 10, 1541, _ib._, p. 407.

[1364] To Duke Maurice of Saxony, 1541 (not dated), _ib._, p. 417.

[1365] To a Town Councillor, Jan. 27, 1543, _ib._, p. 537.

[1366] To Amsdorf, July 21, 1544, _ib._, p. 675.

[1367] To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, _ib._, p. 552.

[1368] To Justus Menius, May 1, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 467.

[1369] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 124.

[1370] Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[1371] Erl. ed., 62, p. 245.

[1372] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 131.

[1373] Erl. ed., 62, p. 234.

[1374] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 132.

[1375] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 472 ff.

[1376] _Ib._, p. 479 f.

[1377] P. 479.

[1378] P. 475. This is not the only passage in which Luther labels the concupiscence “which everyone feels” as a “sin.”

[1379] P. 481.

[1380] P. 480.

[1381] P. 482.

[1382] Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773: “_Spiritus Munsterianus post rusticos nunc nobiles invasit_,” etc.

[1383] Feb. 10, 1546, _ib._, p. 789.

[1384] To Beier, see above, p. 359, n. 3.

[1385] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.

[1386] Erl. ed., 62, p. 287. Cp. the chapter of the Table-Talk dealing with the “schools and universities” (_ib._, pp. 285-308), and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 13-20 where many excellent thoughts are found.

[1387] See above, vol. iv., p. 228 f.

[1388] Erl. ed., 62, p. 291 f.

[1389] Hausrath, 2, p. 487 f.

[1390] _Ib._, p. 488.

[1391] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 87.

[1392] _Ib._, p. 135.

[1393] The fragmentary work, ed. E. Thiele in the “Neudrucken deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 76, according to the Cod. Ottobon. 3029 in the Vat. Library. For an older ed. see “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 14, p. 1365 f.—Cp. Luther’s praise of Æsop and hints on its use, in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 379.

[1394] End of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753. See above, vol iii., pp. 280 f., 307.

[1395] Feb. 7, 1546, _ib._, p. 787.

[1396] Erl. ed., 32, p. 426. The Latin verses begin: “_Dura lues pestis, sed mors est durior illa_.” One may well ask whether the broadside, which bears no date, was not perhaps written in Germany by friends of Luther’s to afford a pretext for inveighing anew against the Catholics.

[1397] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 323 f., 12, 113.

[1398] Erl. ed., 61, p. 435.

[1399] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 115.

[1400] To Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 439.

[1401] Mathesius, _ib._, p. 113.

[1402] _Ib._, p. 384.

[1403] _Ib._, p. 113.

[1404] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.

[1405] Erl. ed., 52, p. 36.

[1406] _Ib._, 61, p. 432; 64, p. 289. Cp. _ib._, 3², p. 418 f.; 11², p. 148; Weim. ed., 16, p. 418 f.=Erl. ed., 36, p. 27. “Briefe,” 6, p. 411.

[1407] “Briefe,” 5, p. 780. For the devil’s preference for water see above, vol. v., p. 285.

[1408] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 483 ff.

[1409] Hausrath, 2, p. 493. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 618.

[1410] To Catherine Bora, Feb. 14, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 792.

[1411] “Briefe,” 5, p. 783 f.

[1412] _Ib._, p. 789 f.

[1413] Erl. ed., 65, 187 ff.

[1414] March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 725.

[1415] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 282.*

[1416] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 619.

[1417] Above, p. 132.

[1418] “Briefe,” 5, p. 791 f.

[1419] _Ib._, p. 792.

[1420] Erl. ed., 61, p. 437.

[1421] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 614.

[1422] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773.

[1423] The phrase was a popular one and, though not above a suspicion of frivolity, was certainly not “blasphemous.” The account here is that of Jonas.

[1424] “Briefe,” 6, p. 414: “_Scripturas sacras sciat se nemo degustasse satis, nisi centum annis cum prophetis, ut Elia et Elisæo, Ioanne Baptista, Christo et Apostolis ecclesias gubernavit. Hanc tu ne Æneida tenta, sed vestigia pronus adora ~[cf. Statius, _Thebaid._ l. 12, v. 816 _sq._]. We are beggars,~ hoc est verum. 16 Februarii anno 1546._”

[1425] The following narrative is based on the account of witnesses who were present at the death or called in immediately after, viz. on the letter of Jonas to the Elector of Saxony dated in the night of Luther’s death (Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 177 ff.), the letters of Count Albert of Mansfeld and Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt to the same and sent on the same day (Förstemann, “Denkmale,” 1846, p. 17 f.), the letter of Johann Aurifaber to Michael Gutt, also of the same date (Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 427); then on the panegyric of Michael Cœlius on Feb. 20 at Eisleben, published together with the panegyric of Jonas at Wittenberg, 1546, and reprinted together with other matter in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 274* ff. and particularly, the “Historia” of the death written by Jonas, Cœlius and Aurifaber which appeared at Wittenberg in the middle of March, 1546. It is also reprinted in Walch, _ib._, p. 280* ff. For the report of the apothecary Johann Landau see below, p. 379. Of no importance for the account of the death is the so-called “Neues Fragment zu Luthers Tod,” given by G. L. Burr in the “Americ. Hist. Rev.” (July, 1911, pp. 723-736), as it is merely a repetition by one of Melanchthon’s pupils of the latter’s funeral address. The account, first made public at Philadelphia by A. Spaeth, and printed in the “Lutherkalender” for 1911 (p. 88), likewise contains nothing substantially new.

[1426] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” p. 138. That the idea embodied in the verse was familiar to Luther is clear from other sayings: cp. above, vol. v., p. 102 and below, p. 394. Ratzeberger’s narrative cannot, however, compare in value with the other authorities quoted above, p. 376, n. 2, and Catholic writers have lent too much credence to it. Luther’s prayer, for instance, which Ratzeberger quotes as having been overheard by a servant, Johann Sickell, is given only by him (p. 140).

[1427] With the silence of the witnesses present it is rather difficult to square the statement contained in an Autograph of Paul, Luther’s son, which according to Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 695) lies in the library at Rudolstadt; it tells how he, and his brother Martin, while standing by their father’s bedside had heard him repeat three times the text, John iii. 16.

[1428] In Cochlæus, “Ex compendio actorum M. Lutheri caput ultimum, etc.,” Moguntiæ, 1548. In 1565 the account was embodied in the larger work of Cochlæus: “De actis et scriptis M. Lutheri.” To N. Paulus (below, p. 381, n. 2) belongs the credit of having examined in detail the report (p. 67 ff.) and pointed out the author.

[1429] For some further remarks of the apothecary see above, vol. iii., p. 304.

[1430] “_Visa enim est tortura oris et dexterum latus totum infuscatum._”

[1431] On the grave see Köstlin, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1894, p. 630 ff, 1897, pp. 192 ff., 824 ff. and in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 11³, p. 752 f. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 626.

[1432] Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende, eine kritische Untersuchung” (“Erläuterungen und Erganzungen zu Janssens Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” vol. i., Hft. 1), 1898, p. 63.

[1433] Paulus, _ib._, pp. 67-82. It may be added that, in the 2nd decade of the 17th century the fable had no support at Munich, for Ægidius Albertinus in his work “Der Teutschen Recreation,” printed there in 1613 (which contains many falsehoods about Luther), says he “died a sudden death”; it is said that “a stroke, _apoplexia_, or the hand of God, smote him” (p. 85 f.). That his sudden death as the result of a stroke was known abroad is also plain from the account of Pedro de Gante, Secretary to the Duke of Najera. This contemporary of Luther’s writes in his “Relaciones” (Madrid, 1873), p. 149: Luther went to bed without feeling ill, but, “early in the morning he was found dead in his bed, wearing such a dreadful countenance that it was impossible to look at him without being dismayed.” Cp. “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 454.

[1434] See above, vol. iv., p. 304.

[1435] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 236. Paulus (p. 27) notes that, according to Aurifaber in Luther’s Table-Talk (Eisleben, 1566), p. 586, and Spangenberg in his “Theander Lutherus,” p. 191´, the Papists had told the same tale of Luther whilst he was still alive. Thus Luther’s own methods were applied to himself.

[1436] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83. Erl. ed., 60, p. 327.

[1437] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 329.

[1438] See the chapter of the Table-Talk entitled “The end of the enemies of God’s Word,” _ib._, p. 327 ff.

[1439] _Ib._, p. 328.

[1440] Paulus, p. 5 ff.

[1441] Erl. ed., 31, p. 318. Cp. Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 116. Paulus, _ib._, p. 7.

[1442] “Rechte Ausslegung der geheymen Offenbarung” (no place), 1589, p. 19; Paulus, _ib._, p. 21. Staphylus, as Paulus points out, really died a very edifying death.

[1443] Paulus, _ib._, p. 61, n. 2.

[1444] _Ib._, p. 61 f.

[1445] _Ib._, p. 60, n. 6.

[1446] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 _sq._

[1447] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., p. 365* ff.

[1448] _Ib._, p. 329* ff.

[1449] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans., 6, p. 419). Cp. on the medals M. C. Juncker, “Vita Lutheri nummis illustrata,” Francof. et Lipsiæ, 1699, e.g. p. 176 (Plate II), and p. 459. Juncker enlarged this work and published it in German as “Das Guldene und Silberne Ehrengedächtniss Lutheri,” Franc. and Leipsig, 1706. Cp. on p. 212 the medal of 1546. On p. 260 he says that at the Wittenberg Schlosskirche there was “an altar over which was a life-size effigy of Luther as he stood in the pulpit”; beside him was Melanchthon baptising a child and Bugenhagen sitting in the confessional. On another picture in the parish church see F. S. Keil, “Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” Leipsig, 1764, p. 280.—Albertinus (above, p. 382, n.) speaks, p. 87, of a wooden effigy of Luther in the Schlosskirche bearing the inscription: “_Divus et sanctus doctor Martinus Lutherus, propheta Germaniæ_.”

[1450] We find them in reprints of 1519, 1520 and 1521. One edition with the Wittenberg imprint contains the picture, but was really printed at Strasburg. Thomas Murner, writing from Strasburg, refers to the picture in 1520. See below, section 4.

[1451] “Historien von des ehrwirden in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris M. Lutheri Anfang, Lehr, Leben und Sterben,” Nürnberg, 1566, Bl. 200.

[1452] _Ib._, Preface.

[1453] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 211.

[1454] See above, vol. iii., p. 228.

[1455] Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.

[1456] Account of Hieronymus Mencel, dated Nov. 1, 1562, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 695.

[1457] “Theander Lutherus,” Ursel, pp. 45, 193.

[1458] Flacius, “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” Magdeburgi, 1549, end of cap. 15.

[1459] “Luthers Werke,” Jena ed., 1555 ff., vol. i., Preface.

[1460] That the proposition “‘Good works are harmful to salvation’ is a right, true and Christian one, taught and preached by Saints Paul and Luther.” 1559.

[1461] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 24, p. 250.

[1462] _Ib._, 21, p. 380.*

[1463] H. Lietzmann, “Zu Luthers Grabschrift,” in “Zietschr. f. wiss. Th.,” 1911, p. 171 f., points out that as there can be no doubt that Luther was born on Nov. 10, 1483, his age as given in the epitaph ANN. LXIII M(enses) II D(ies) X is “quite wrong,” but that the error can be explained by the fact that the writer or the workman transposed one of the strokes from the months to the years; it should read: ANN. LXII M. III D. X.

[1464] Reprinted in Walch, 24, p. 250 ff. The poem begins: “_Hic prope Martini rursus victuri Lutheri_.”

[1465] Walch, 24, p. 253 f.

[1466] Walch, 24, p. 258, commencing “_Hœc erat effigies operose facta Luthero_.”

[1467] Vol. ii., p. 355; vol. v., p. 341.

[1468] Above, p. 29.

[1469] Vol. ii., p. 253; vol. iv., p. 354.

[1470] Vol. ii., p. 335.

[1471] De Rossi, “Inscriptiones christ. Urbis Romæ,” 2, 1, p. 147.

[1472] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.

[1473] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 66.

[1474] K. L. Grube, in the “KL.,” 12², Sp. 1720.

[1475] Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222.

[1476] Erl. ed., 65, p. 221.

[1477] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

[1478] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119. The Bible passage alluded to (Rom. vi. 7) says rather that, in the man who is justified, the old man being crucified with Christ is dead to sin.

[1479] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 383.*

[1480] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 74.

[1481] Weim. ed., 23, p. 36; Erl. ed., 30, p. 13.

[1482] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 49, p. 359 ff., 1538.

[1483] Weim. ed., 33, p. 626 f; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358 f.

[1484] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 10.

[1485] To Justus Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 591.

[1486] Weim. ed., 23, p. 32; Erl. ed., 30, p. 8.

[1487] _Ib._, p. 27 ff.=2 ff.

[1488] _Ib._, p. 27=3.

[1489] _Ib._, 33, p. 630=48, p. 361.

[1490] _Ib._, p. 634 f.=365.

[1491] Weim. ed. 10, 2, p. 105; Erl. ed. 28, p. 143.

[1492] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 54.

[1493] See above, vol. iv., p. 44.

[1494] To Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[1495] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.

[1496] “Luther, eine Skizze,” pp. 51, 57; “KL.,” col. 339, 343.

[1497] Dec. 22, 1525, to Duke George of Saxony (?), Erl. ed., 53, p. 340 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281). Cp. Weim. ed., 7, p. 274; Erl. ed., 27, p. 210, where the assertion also occurs that, my doctrine “is not mine but God’s,” “because it is the very Gospel itself” (1521). The allusion is of course to Galatians, i. 1 ff.

[1498] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 f.

[1499] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 159.

[1500] Cp. the 18th-century Protestant historian, G. J. Planck, “Gesch. der Entstehung des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 1², Leipsig, 1791, pp. 2, 3, 41.

[1501] Above, vol. i., p. 45 ff.

[1502] Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 53.

[1503] _Ib._, p. 684=54.

[1504] On the ecclesiastical and social disorders see above, vol. i. and ii., _passim_.

[1505] Weim. ed., 10, 1, p. 707 ff.: Erl. ed., 10², p. 464 f.

[1506] _Ib._

[1507] For Luther’s strange idea that the rapid spread of his doctrine was really a “miracle,” see above, vol. iii., p. 156, etc.

[1508] See, for instance, the passages from Aurifaber and Spangenberg, below, p. 416.

[1509] See above, vol. v., p. 393.

[1510] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1898, p. 1005.

[1511] M. Spahn, “J. Cochläus,” 1898, p. 90.

[1512] Cp. J. Schlecht, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 19, 1898, p. 938, quoted from Cochlæus’s “Vorrede zu Hertzog Georgs Entschuldigung,” 1533.

[1513] “De Actis,” etc., Moguntiæ, 1549, Preface.

[1514] Letter to Pirkheimer, Sep. 5, 1525. Quoted by Schlecht, “Jahrb.,” _ib._

[1515] “De Actis,” etc., p. 318.

[1516] Preface.

[1517] _Ib._

[1518] “De Actis,” p. 317.

[1519] “De Actis,” p. 318.

[1520] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” Engl. Trans, vii., p. 304.

[1521] See above, vol. iv., p. 475. Characteristic of Amsdorf is his assurance in the Preface to vol. i. of the Jena ed. of Luther’s works (1555), that Luther, whose books “could not be paid for with all the world’s goods and gold,” was especially deserving of praise because he had eradicated “the worst and most pernicious heresy that had ever appeared on earth, viz. that good works are necessary for salvation.”

[1522] Kawerau, “RE. f. prot. Th.”³, Art. “Menius.”

[1523] The only one of all the “reformers” who did not regard the Pope as Antichrist was, according to R. Mumm (“Die Polemik des Martin Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trient,” Part I., p. 41), the Calvinist theologian Zanchi. The latter, however, protested against such a “calumny,” as he called it; see Paulus, against Mumm, in the “Theolog. Revue,” 1906, p. 17.

[1524] “Luthers Werke,” Jena ed., vol. i., 1555.

[1525] To Ehrhard Schnepf, Nov. 10, 1553, “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 171.

[1526] “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 798.

[1527] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 157.

[1528] “Theander Lutherus, Vom werthen Gottes Manne D.M. Luther,” 12.

[1529] A. Kluckhohn, “Briefe Friedrich des Frommen, Kurfürsten von der Pfalz,” 1, p. 478.

[1530] _Ib._, p. 587. Of Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature the Prince says, “it degrades the manhood of Christ and makes it something so intangible that it exists in all stones, wood, leaves, grass, apples, pears and in all that lives, also in the stinking swine and, as someone had admitted to the old Landgrave, in the great wine-tun at Stuttgart.”

[1531] Janssen, _ib._, 8, 175.

[1532] Janssen, _ib._, p. 176.

[1533] Janssen, _ib._, p. 176 f. Cp. the 1571 inscription under Luther’s memorial at Jena where the Latin verses on the founder of the University run as follows:

“_Esset ut hæc sanctæ doctrinæ strenue custos_ _Condidit ad Salæ pulcra fluenta scholam_ _Quæ tumidos docto confunderet ore sophistas,_ _Nec sineret falsis dogmata vera premi,_ _Sed quia mox ætas mundi trahet ægra ruinam,_ _Pullulat errorum nunc numerosa seges_, etc.”

[1534] “Tischreden,” Eisleben, 1566, Preface.

[1535] Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” Preface.

[1536] V. E. Löscher, “Ausführliche Historia motuum zwischen den Evangelisch-Lutherischen und reformierten,” 3², 1723-1724, p. 158.

[1537] H. Heppe, “Gesch. des deutschen Prot. in den Jahren 1555-1581,” 2, Marburg, 1852, ff., p. 419 f.

[1538] L. Hutter, “Concordia concors,” Wittenbergæ, 1614, c. 8. R. Calinich, “Kampf und Untergang des Melanchthonismus,” Leipzig, 1866, p. 128 ff.

[1539] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 8, p. 189 f.

[1540] G. J. Planck, “Gesch. der Entstehung, usw., des prot. Lehrbegriffs”, vol. v., Part 2, Leipzig, 1781 ff., p. 600 f.

[1541] Janssen, _ib._, p. 190.

[1542] _Ib._, p. 192.

[1543] _Ib._, p. 193.

[1544] Wagenmann, Art. “Peucer,” “Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” 25, p. 555. An attempt has been made of recent years to exonerate Peucer from the charge of pure Calvinism. This may possibly prove successful, but his guilt lay in the fact that, “under the semblance of Lutheranism, he abandoned Luther’s Christology and his doctrine of the Supper and advocated something so closely resembling Calvinism that it was easily mistaken for it.” Kawerau, “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³ Art. “Peucer.”

[1545] See above, vol. v., p. 592 f.

[1546] J. A. Dorner, “Gesch. der prot. Th.,” (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in Deutschland,” vol. v.), Munich, 1867, p. 370 f.

[1547] Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.) 8, p. 406.

[1548] Cp. “Beiträge zur evangel. Concordie,” “Festschrift,” etc., by Chr. G., no place, 1717, p. 42 f. Janssen, _ib._, p. 413.

[1549] The Landgrave demanded, e.g. that it should be pointed out to him where in Holy Scripture it was stated that the Body of Christ was not in heaven, that the Virgin Mary did not bring forth like another woman, or that the human nature of Christ was everywhere; “all these are new-fangled dogmas, let them smear and daub them with Luther’s excrement as much as they please”; “the poor old spoonbill goose did not know what he was writing about.” Report of the envoys, in L. Hutter, “Concordia concors,” 1614, p. 215 _sq._ Janssen _ib._, p. 420 f.

[1550] “Symbol. Bücher,”¹⁰ ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 702.

[1551] Heppe, “Gesch. des Prot.,” 3, p. 116.

[1552] _Ib._, 4, p. 150. Janssen, _ib._, p. 419.

[1553] Heppe, _ib._, 3, p. 299 ff. Janssen, _ib._, p. 429.

[1554] Janssen, _ib._, p. 414 f.

[1555] _Ib._, p. 415.

[1556] J. C. Johannsen, “Pfalzgraf Johann Kasimir und sein Kampf gegen die Concordienformel,” in Niedner’s “Zeitschrift f. hist. Th.,” 31, 1861 (pp. 419-476), p. 461 ff. Janssen, _ib._, p. 436.

[1557] Aurifaber, “Tischreden,” Eisleben, 1566, Cap. I. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 19, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 47, 48.

[1558] Above, p. 419.

[1559] “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 160 f.

[1560] H. Grauert, “P. Denifle, ein Wort zum Gedächtnis,” etc., p. 6: “The strength and energy of Luther’s personality it was that for centuries kept wide circles of his followers true to the belief in the Redeemer of the world, the God-man, Jesus Christ. With a practical and highly significant inconsequence, for all his principles of freedom Luther transmitted to his followers a relatively fixed doctrinal system, and, with it, a summary of the articles of faith which have preserved even to the present day a certain spiritual community of faith between the believing Protestant world and Catholicism.”

[1561] Words of Canisius in the passage quoted below, p. 429.

[1562] A. Ehrhard, “Der Katholizismus und das 20ste. Jahrh.,”¹² 1902, p. 126.

[1563] “Votorum monast. Tutor,” in Cod. lat. Monac., 2886, fol. 35´ Denifle, _ib._, 1², p. 9.

[1564] Lemmens, “Pater Augustin von Alfeld,” 1899, p. 72. Denifle, _ib._

[1565] Grauert, _ib._, p. 37.

[1566] The “Exercises” were approved by Pope Paul III in 1540. Cp. the “Regulæ ad sentiendum vere, sicut debemus, in ecclesia militante,” which St. Ignatius appended as early as 1541 to the Exercises, reg. 1 and 13. Without naming the new heresy the author gives in these rules practical hints as to how to counteract the spirit of the age. He urges that all the commandments of the Church should be zealously upheld, that the respect due to the authorities both spiritual and temporal should not be diminished by seditious public censure, since efforts after reform were more effectual when carried out quietly; also that the traditional learning of the Church, Scholasticism and positive studies should be held in honour (“a right understanding of Holy Scripture and the saintly Doctors is of great advantage to the modern theologians of the schools,” etc., Reg. 11); prudence too should be exercised in the matter of controversy, for instance, in sermons and writings grace should not be exalted at the expense of free-will, or faith emphasised so as to depreciate good works; the motive of the pure love of God should be recommended, but at the same time the fear of punishment admitted, because a “childlike fear is pious and holy and bound up with the love of God, whilst servile fear, if a man is unable to rise any higher, at least helps him to forsake mortal sin and to rise to a childlike fear.” At the same time he recommends all the usual Catholic devotions, not merely the frequent reception of the sacraments but also the keeping of the feasts and fasts, the veneration of relics, office in choir, processions, the use of lights and the beautifying of the churches. Above all, in harmony with the spirit of the Exercises, the interior virtues are extolled and vows, virginity and the inward and outward works of penance recommended. Thus did the founder of the Order, whose ideal was the extension of the Kingdom of Christ to the utmost limits, provide for the needs of the day. That the Jesuit Order was founded in order to oppose Protestantism can only be maintained by one who has not read the first pages of the Constitutions of St. Ignatius.

[1567] “Memoriale b. Petri Fabri, primi S. Ignatii alumni,” ed. M. Bouix, Lut. Paris. 1873, p. 19. Cochlæus too wished to go through the Exercises under Favre. The latter informs Ignatius in a letter from Spires dated Jan. 23, 1541, that after he had discussed with Cochlæus the distinction between “_scientia_” and “_sensus spiritualis_” (enjoyment of the higher truths) the latter, “_subridens cœlesti lætitia_,” had said; “_gaudeo quod tandem magistri circa affectus inveniantur_.” Braunsberger, “Canisii Epistulæ,” 1, p. 77 note 2.

[1568] To Francis Borgia from Dillingen, Sep. 8, 1570. Janssen, 8, p. 241. Canisius also pointed out to his General, Aquaviva, the necessity of “publicly defending the Catholic truths with the pen and thus meeting with prudence the demands of our day; such a work was of no less importance than the conversion of the wild Indians.” F. Sachinus, “De vita Petri Canisii.” Ingolstadii, 1616, p. 361 _sq._

[1569] To the General of the Order, Lainez, April 22, 1559. Janssen, _ib._, p. 237. Braunsberger, _ib._, 2, 398.

[1570] Memo. for the General of the Order, Aquaviva, Janssen, _ib._, p. 235 f.

[1571] “Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 658: “_Ut insanum sit, omnia probare quæ scripsit aut scripturus sit Lutherus, ita non placet, odio auctoris damnare quæ vera sunt, ea depravare quæ recta sunt_.”

[1572] _Ib._, 9, p. 1084, “Hyperaspistes,” 1, 1: “_Quis enim est tam malus scriptor, ut non aliquid admisceat probandum_.”

[1573] _Ib._, 10, col. 1251.

[1574] To the Emperor’s brother Ferdinand, Nov. 20, 1524, _ib._, 3, col. 826.

[1575] To Auerbach, Dec. 10, 1524, _ib._, col. 833.

[1576] To Duke George of Saxony, Dec. 12, 1524, _ib._, col. 838.

[1577] May 20, 1520, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 378 (ed. J. Fijalyek). On the last sentence cp. John viii. 21 and Ez. xxxvi. 25.

[1578] “An den grossmechtigsten.… Adel tütscher Nation,” etc., Strasburg, 1520 (anonymously published), Bl. K 1´. Murner attributes the contempt for the Ban to its abuse (D 4) and says, it would be better were some of the precepts and some of the numerous Church holidays done away with (H 1´).

[1579] “De actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 29. He adds, however, that the good was often all sham.

[1580] _Ib._, p. 55 _sqq._ German ed., Dillingen, 1611, p. 109 ff. Cp. “Lutheri Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 146. “_Nunc omnes artes illustratæ florescunt._ So too God has now made us a present of the press, _præcipue ad premendum papam_.” Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, pp. 498-533.

[1581] W. Friedensburg in the art. “Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der Reformationsgesch.” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59), p. 40, where it is true, he says of Cochlæus that “Vanity as a rule played a great part in his character.”

[1582] “Vormeldunge der Unwarheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, 1532.

[1583] Cp. for instance Falk, “Pfarramtliche Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu St. Christoph in Mainz, 1491-1518” (“Erläuterungen u. Erg. zu Janssen,” vol. iv., Hft. 3). Falk, _ib._, p. 5: “The family was at that time responsible for the religious instruction of the young.” In many of the schools the Catechism was taught, but the schools were not as yet generally attended.

[1584] Otto, “Joh. Cochläus,” Breslau, 1874, p. 3.

[1585] He only advises a “_consilium plebani_” when the result of the instructions to the Communicants was doubtful. “Sermones,” Hagenau, 1510, “De festivitatibus Christi,” xix., “on Maundy Thursday,” “on preparation for communion.”

[1586] In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl, ed., 22, p. 232. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 50.

[1587] O. Braunsberger, “Entstehung und erste Entwicklung der Katechismen des sel. Petrus Canisius” (“Ergänzungshefte zu den Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” No. 57, 1893). Cp. J. Fijalyek, “Über das wahre Jahr der Erstlingsgabe des Grossen Katechismus des sel. Petrus Canisius” in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 17, 1896, p. 804 ff.

[1588] Published in 1556 as shown by N. Paulus, “Zeitsch. f. kath. Th.,” 27, 1903, p. 172.

[1589] K. Kehr, “Gesch. der Methodik des deutschen Volksunterrichts,” 1, 1877 ff., p. 33.

[1590] Sess. 24, “De reform.,” c. 4.

[1591] See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xiii., _passim_.

[1592] Janssen, _ib._, p. 58 ff.

[1593] Janssen, _ib._, p. 129.

[1594] See the statements of Albert of Mayence, of Pflug and Wicel, in Janssen, _ib._, p. 58.

[1595] W. Bäumker, in Wetzer and Welte’s “KL.,” 7², p. 606 f.

[1596] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 287 ff.

[1597] To Cardinal Otto Truchsess (Dec. 7, 1560) (Cod. Vat. 6417): “_Abundat Roma viris doctis et historiarum peritis. Magni profecto referret, ex his deligi aliquem ad conscribendas pontificum vitas. Nunc sectarii quæ volunt effingunt, nobis plane stertentibus. Iudicet Rᵐᵃ D.V. quomodo succurri possit non modo præsenti sed etiam sequenti ecclesiæ. Ita de catechismis et postillis quoque dixerim, salvo semper iudicio sapientium. Sed opus plane videtur, ut ad huius ætatis rationem docendi modus accommodetur_,” etc. Cp. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii epist.,” 3, p. 30, and Jos. Schmid, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 17, 1896, p. 79.

[1598] And yet it would have been better had even Panvinius and Baronius shown themselves more critical, particularly in dealing with the Saints, relics, etc. The Council of Trent itself had been most urgent in demanding the removal of false relics; nor were preachers to be allowed to relate untrue stories about the souls in Purgatory for filthy lucre’s sake (“_incerta vel quæ specie falsi laborant, evulgari ac tractari non permittant_”; Sess. 25; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 983). The false indulgences were among the abuses condemned by the Council of Trent in the Decree “De indulgentiis” (Sess. 25): “_abusus qui in his irrepserunt et quorum occasione insigne hoc indulgentiarum nomen ab hæreticis blasphematur_.”

[1599] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 _sqq._ Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252 f.

[1600] “Bibliotheca sanctorum Patrum,” Paris, 1575-79, in 9 folio volumes.

[1601] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3⁴, p. 810.

[1602] To Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambr. und Thom. Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.

[1603] Cp. Horst Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” Giessen, 1907 (“Stud. zur Gesch. des neueren Protestantismus,” Hft. 1). This book has been largely utilised in what follows. Cp. J. Schmidlin, “Luther im Luthertum,” in the “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 441 ff. The words we quote in inverted commas without further reference are from H. Stephan.

[1604] Stephan, _ib._, pp. 17, 34, 67.

[1605] Schmidlin, _ib._, col. 445.

[1606] Stephan, _ib._, p. 126.

[1607] “Martin Luther und seine Bedeutung für die Wissenschaft und Bildung,” Giessen, 1883. New ed. 1911, p. 4.

[1608] Stephan, _ib._, pp. 15, 18, 22.

[1609] Stephan, _ib._, p. 23 calls the prophecy on Luther (Rev. xiv. 6) “that most frequently used from Styfel’s time down to Löscher’s ‘Unschuldige Nachrichten.’”

[1610] Sermon of Reisner, pastor of Mittweida near Chemnitz, printed 1677. _Ib._, p. 24. Joh. Alb. Fabricius appeals in his “Centifolium Lutheranum” (Hamburg, 1728), p. 331, to Bugenhagen’s funeral oration on Luther where the passage is taken to refer to Luther, and remarks quite seriously that Samuel Benedict Carpzov had seen in the other two angels mentioned there Flacius Illyricus and Martin Chemnitz.

[1611] In the “Centifolium Lutheranum” just mentioned, p. 339, Fabricius quotes from Theophrastus Paracelsus, “Descriptio Carinthiæ” (Argentor. 1616, p. 250), the inscription in question, said to be in a church at Ingingen in Carinthia, to which some statues had been presented by the Emperor.—The swan is mentioned in Bugenhagen’s funeral address and in Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 199.

[1612] Stephan, _ib._, p. 25. Cp. Hutter, “Compendium locorum theologicorum,” 1610, and “Concordia concors,” 1614.

[1613] Stephan, _ib._, p. 21. Claius, “Grammatica Germanicæ linguæ, ex bibliis Lutheri,” etc., Lipsiæ, 1578, Præf.

[1614] “Centifolium Lutheranum,” p. 330 ff.

[1615] “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, Leipzig, 1872, pp. 178, 179, 399.

[1616] “Unparteiische Kirchenhistorie,” Part II, Frankfurt, 1699-1700, pp. 42, 45, 48. See the epitaph above, p. 393.

[1617] Zierold, rector at Stargard, quoted by Stephan, _ib._, p. 36.

[1618] See above, vol. v., p. 147 f. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 16. Stephan, _ib._, p. 34, here rightly draws on Ritschl, “Gesch. des Pietismus.”

[1619] Stephan, _ib._, p. 34.

[1620] _Ib._, pp. 35-38, 43.

[1621] See above, vol. iii., p. 293.

[1622] “Werke,” ed. Suphan, 7, p. 258.

[1623] “Werke,” ed. Suphan, 7, p. 500.

[1624] “Rettungen des Lemnius und Cochläus,” 1754, Stephan, _ib._, p. 73. Cp. below, p. 448.

[1625] Stephan, _ib._, p. 54.

[1626] _Ib._, p. 46.

[1627] In Nicolai, “Allg. deut. Bibliothek,” 1797. G. Frank, “Luther im Spiegel seiner Kirche” (“Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,” 1905, p. 465 ff.), p. 475.

[1628] Ritschl, “Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, p. 575. Stephan, _ib._, p. 58. Ritschl adds that, according to this view (Büsching’s), “religion was a matter of the individual and only incidentally of the congregation.”

[1629] Stephan’s words, _ib._, p. 59.

[1630] _Ib._, p. 74; cp. _ib._, p. 72, Lessing’s high opinion of Luther.

[1631] “Pantheon der Deutschen,” 1, Chemnitz, 1794, p. 232.

[1632] Conversation with Eckermann, March 11, 1832.

[1633] “Novalis’ Schriften,” 2, ed. Minor, Jena, 1907, p. 27 f.

[1634] See vol. i., p. xxxv, f.

[1635] Quoted by Franck, “Gesch. d. prot. Theol.,” 4, p. 144.

[1636] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. xiii.

[1637] Of the legendary traits common in the popular literature on Luther there is no lack in Köstlin’s “Martin Luther.” G. Kawerau, who, after the author’s death, finished the latest edition of the book already in the press, would doubtless have depicted many things differently had he had a free hand.

In the long discussion of Luther’s monastic days his later utterances are accepted implicitly without being submitted to criticism. Thus his account of his penitential martyrdom, by which he even “endangered his life,” is taken at its face value, and so is his testimony to his own saintliness. “Of any more evangelical conception of the road to salvation,” Luther heard nothing at Erfurt, indeed there was “no Christian preaching at all,” etc., etc. “In the convent he was left practically to himself.” “The lax standard by which his scholastic teachers judged of sin [the motions of concupiscence] did not alleviate what he had to endure,” viz. “the standard of the law.” In the theological lectures he heard nothing of “how, in the Man Christ, the Godhead descends to us”; on the contrary they led him to turn away in terror from the Master and Judge. It was a cause of deep grief to him that forgiveness was made “to depend on the worthiness and the works of the sinner himself,” etc., etc. The Church gave him no “insight into the meaning of the Mediatorship of Christ.” Even at Erfurt the Bible “had led him to see many errors in the Papal Church,” but the most important thing was that, by means of this same Bible he attained “by the gracious dispensation of God” to the “overthrow of all proud self-righteousness.” His flying for refuge simply to the merciful Love of God became the salvation of the quiet, laborious, struggling monk, whose destiny was to mould the world’s history (pp. 55, 60-66, 72, 75, 77 f.).

According to Köstlin Luther began “this attack on ecclesiastical abuses straightforwardly, conscientiously, with moderation and prudence” (1, 142). “At last he came forward from the ‘corner’ where he would gladly have remained and entered upon the struggle” (2, 626). During the struggle itself he was calm and peaceful, etc., “what would ensue he did not know, but committed it to Him Who sits on High” (1, 354). This grand tranquillity was permanent with him. “Of good courage, inwardly peaceful and confident, we see Luther (after his marriage) living his new life” (738). Köstlin indeed repeatedly mentions his inward struggles, but, according to him, Luther conquers the burden of his temptations with “a bold faith” (2, 178). “He warns his followers against the belief that the Papacy was to be overthrown by the use of force” (1, 583). He also demands that no constraint should be used in the “purely interior domain of faith”; the heretics were to “be resisted only by the Word,” so long at least as they did not “outwardly manifest” their errors (1, 584), which, however, they nearly always did.

Luther’s sovereign “merely looked on while the Word and the Spirit did the work” (1, 603). Luther never “imposed on him either the duty or the right to protect him and his work against Emperor and Empire.” “Never did he lend a hand to measures that might have been of advantage to the furtherance of the evangelical cause, but which would have militated against his principles” (2, 522).

No trace of false enthusiasm dominates Luther, but rather a “conscientious sobriety”; the passion that urges him on is merely “fiery enthusiasm for the faith and his absolute confidence” (cp. 2, 517).

“It is from the religious foundations on which his life is based that proceeds the freedom to which he has attained with regard to temporal things, his joyousness in using them and the calmness with which he renounces them and awaits what is better” (2, 512). “The faith with which he embraces God, holds intercourse with Him and seeks strength and victory through Him alone bears a character of childlike simplicity” (2, 513). It is a “bold faith,” a courageous faith, that animates him. “In heartfelt prayer lies for Luther all his strength” (2, 514).

His “modesty as to his theological achievements” (2, 512) ought not to be overlooked. He had no fears as to the permanency of his Evangel. “That it was the Evangel of God for which he was working and that He would not let His Evangel fall to the ground, of this he was quite sure” etc. (2, 522).

At the time of his death “true religious interests were once more paramount and Rome’s domination, till then all-powerful, was for ever shaken to its foundation” (2, 626).

[1638] “Stud. und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Ref.,” Leipzig, 1874, Introd. and pp. 208, 212 f., 237. Cp. above, vol. i, p. xxix.

[1639] (Anonymous) Schaffhausen, 1857, pp. 104, 111, 113.

[1640] This was the opinion of H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 115.

[1641] See above, vol. v., p. 432 ff.

[1642] Cp. C. Stange, “Die ältesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers,” 1900, p. vi. ff.

[1643] 4th edition, 1906, Preface, p. vii. f.

[1644] Troeltsch, “Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit,” in “Kultur der Gegenwart,” 1, vol. iv.,²; Stephan, _ib._, p. 128 f.

[1645] J. Schmidlin, “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage der Germania,” 1909, No. 15), pp. 117, 119.

[1646] “Leitfaden der Dogmengesch.,”³ p. 535.

[1647] Stephan, _ib._, p. 69.

[1648] _Ib._, p. 110 ff.

[1649] Boehmer, _ib._, p. 120.

[1650] _Ib._, 2nd ed., p. 140.

[1651] _Ib._, 2nd ed., p. 153.

[1652] Boehmer, _ib._, p. 153.

[1653] Stephan, _ib._, p. 93.

[1654] In the lecture quoted above, p. 441, n. 4.

[1655] “Fröhliche Wissenschaft,” Pocket edition, 6, p. 202. Stephan, _ib._, p. 120.

[1656] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” 1905, p. 52 f.

[1657] W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 303.

[1658] Cp. also H. Boehmer, _ib._,¹ p. 136.

[1659] _Ib._, p. 100; 2nd. ed., p. 139 f.

[1660] _Ib._, p. 10.

[1661] In the lecture mentioned above, p. 441, n. 4.

[1662] “With this knowledge the Holy Ghost inspired me in this cloaca on the tower.”

INDEX

In this Index “L.” stands for “Luther.”

Abailard, i. 401

Abbots, Prince-, ii. 120, iii. 262 f.

Abel, i. 43

Abortions. _See_ Misbirths

Abraham, iv. 109, 111, 156, v. 124, 413, vi. 74; “I am A.,” iii. 273; his “lie,” iv. 109, 113, v. 501, vi. 514; his idolatry, iii. 192, v. 124

Absolution. _See_ Confession

Abstinence. _See_ Fasts

Abuses in the Church, i. 26, 45 ff., 53, 70, 84, 123 f., 130 ff., 226 ff., 272, 325, 350 f., ii. 3, 123 ff., 127, 190 ff., 222, 312 f., 338, v. 120 f., vi. 404

Abusive language, i. 69, 72, 83, 209 f., 284, ii. 152 ff., 396, iii. 172, iv. 188 f., 192, 300, 306-326, 365, 370, v. 88, 116, 342, 383 f., 395, 398 f., 411 f., vi. 109, 214 f.; shocks Bullinger, v. 409; Melanchthon, iii. 364 f.; Zwingli, iii. 380. _See_ Unseemliness

Acceptation, i. 155. _See_ Imputation

Accolti, P., ii. 46

Acta Augustana, i. 359

## Activity.

_See_ Work

Actual sin. _See_ Sin

Actus matrimonialis, iv. 137, 151 f., v. 48

Adam, ii. 271, 282 f.

⸺ Melchior, v. 271 f.

Adiaphora, v. 263, vi. 410 ff.

Adrian. _See_ Hadrian

Adulteration of wine, iii. 297, 313

Adultery, ii. 33, iii. 245, 247, 254 ff., iv. 158 f., 165, 208, v. 25

Ægidius Romanus, i. 13, 129

⸺ Viterbiensis, vi. 497, 503

Æpinus, J., vi. 82, 408

Æsop’s Fables, iv. 246, vi. 16 ff., 368 f.; “A New F.,” iv. 177

Agnus Dei, iv. 123

Agonies. _See_ Temptations

Agony in the Garden, v. 363

Agricola, George, ii. 242, iii. 304

⸺ Johann, as L.’s helper, v. 181, 563, n.; against L., ii. 370, iii. 301 f., iv. 100, 309, vi. 280 f.; L. on A., iii. 219, 278, 400, 407, 475, v. 15, 25, 238, 276, vi. 281, 289, 343, 354, 398; and Bugenhagen, v. 275; and Bora, iii. 216, v. 21; and Jonas, iii. 414; and Melanchthon, iii. 444, v. 22. _See_ Antinomians

⸺ Stephen, iv. 514

⸺ Wolfgang, iii. 284 ff.

Ailly, Cardinal P. d’, i. 13, 132, 141, 155, 157, 161 f., 243

Ailments: apoplexy, vi. 107, 376 ff., 379 f.; calculus, ii. 161, iii. 434 f., v. 348, vi. 109, 341, 345; catarrh, iii. 297, vi. 109; constipation, ii. 81 f., 95, 164, n., vi. 109, 177; ear-trouble, ii. 161, v. 236, vi. 104, 106 ff.; epilepsy?, i. 17, vi. 101; eye-trouble, iv. 261; fainting-fits, i. 16 f., ii. 170, vi. 103 ff., 373; giddiness, i. 278, ii. 161, vi. 106; gout?, ii. 162, n., vi. 176 f.; headache, etc., ii. 161, iii. 124, 299, 317 f., v. 346, vi. 130, 170, 341, 371; heart-trouble, vi. 100 f., 103, 178, 341, 376 f.; hemorrhoids, vi. 109, 177; influenza, vi. 110; insanity? iii. 136, iv. 183, 353, n., vi. 170-186; nerve-trouble, ii. 390, iii. 299, 317, v. 226, vi. 105 ff., 111; running wound, vi. 109, 132 f.; sleeplessness, ii. 163, iii. 305 f., 310; sweat (English), vi. 109; syphilis?, i. 37, ii. 161 ff.; tears as a relief, vi. 104, 108, 132, 169; vomiting, iii. 300 f. _See_ Pessimism, Temptations

Alber, Erasmus, iii. 402, 409, iv. 74, 357, vi. 493

Albert of Brandenburg, v. 220

⸺ Mansfeld, ii. 137, 289 f., vi. 350 f., 372, 379 f.

⸺ Mayence; concern in the Indulgence, i. 328, 348 ff.; L. invites him to wed, ii. 141, 205; attacks him, ii. 6, 70, 214 f., iv. 98, 292, 319 f., v. 307 f., vi. 188, 350; his “relics,” iv. 292, v. 307 f.; A. and Erasmus, ii. 248; and Lemnius, vi. 287; and Melanchthon, iii. 370; and Schönitz, iv. 319 f., v. 106; and Erfurt, ii. 354 f., 359 f.; residence, vi. 485; on the schools, vi. 436

⸺ Prussia, ii. 223, iii. 423, iv. 196, vi. 253, 408

Albertinus, Æ., v. 271, vi. 382, n.

Albertus, L., iv. 226

⸺ Magnus, i. 162

Albrecht, B., v. 295

Alderspach, vi. 29 f.

Aleander, ii. 6, 61, 71, 78 f., 256, iii. 303, iv. 355, 357

Alemann, A., ii. 139, 141

Alexander III, iv. 109 f., v. 424, vi. 494

⸺ VI, i. 55, iv. 90 (cp. correction, vi. 516)

⸺ of Hales, i. 162, vi. 503

Alfeld. _See_ Alveld

Allstedt, ii. 364, iv. 172

Alms. _See_ Poor-Relief

Altenburg, ii. 314 ff., vi. 49, 52, 240

Alveld, i. 366, ii. 11, iii. 145, iv. 288, v. 124, 307, 520, vi. 426

Ambiguity. _See_ Dishonesty

Ambrose, St., iii. 250, iv. 335, v. 586; pseudo-, iv. 174 f., 177

Amen, L.’s use of the word, vi. 511. _See_ Pope-Ass

Amerbach, B. and V., iv. 183, 364, vi. 170

America, vi. 515

Amsdorf, N., as L.’s henchman, i. 39, 91, 278, 304, 311, ii. 169, iii. 405; against good works, iv. 475, vi. 392; matrimonial agent, ii. 137, 139; dealings with spirits, v. 282, 315 f.; “consecration,” v. 191 ff.; edits L.’s works, ii. 55; coarseness, iii. 336; quarrels, vi. 409 ff.; and Agricola, v. 20; and Erasmus, iv. 181 f.; and Melanchthon, iii. 366, v. 257; ejected from his bishopric, vi. 408

Anabaptists: their rise, iii. 418 f.; effect on L., ii, 93, vi. 75 f., 86, 312; Melanchthon denies their existence, iii. 374, iv. 113; L. attacks them, ii. 363 ff., iii. 419; appeals to tradition, iv. 488; condemns them to death, ii. 365 f., v. 349, vi. 249, 275; their strictures on L., ii. 130, 367 f., 377, iii. 275. _See_ Fanatics, Münzer

Andreæ, J., iv. 200, vi. 275, 419, 421, 424

Angels, v. 381, 395, vi. 127 f., 131; A. guardian, i. 19, v. 279 f., 297, 309, 327, vi. 374; visions of A. _See_ Ghosts

Anger. _See_ Passion

Anhalt, Adolf of, i. 22

⸺ Johann, vi, 226. _See_ Wolfgang, etc.

Anne, devotion to St., i. 4, iv. 140, vi. 223

Anointing, Last, iii. 7, vi. 410

Antichrist, i. 359, 385, ii. 13, 56 f., 80, 260, iii. 142-148, 355, 431, 436, 439, iv. 81 f., v. 243 f., 420, vi. 154 f. _See_ Pope

Antinomians, ii. 289, iv. 245, 475, v. 15 ff., 158 f., vi. 279 f. _See_ Agricola

Antwerp, ii. 167, v. 172, vi. 43

Apel, J., ii. 174, 183

Apocalypse, v. 521 f.

Apocalyptics, ii. 103, iii. 84, 92 f., 140-152, iv. 296, 313 f.

Apocrypha, v. 497, 521 f. _See_ Bible (Canon)

Apostasy, i. 62 ff., 120 f., 258 f., 385 ff.; concealment of, i. 146 ff., ii. 15 ff.; later description of, vi. 187-205

Apostate monks and priests, ii. 115 ff., 123 ff., 138, 317 ff., 342

Apostles described, iii. 191 f., v. 124; L.’s belief about them, vi. 515

Apothecaries, i. 245, v. 235. _See_ Landau

Apparitions. _See_ Ghosts

Appeal to Pope, i. 258; to Council, i. 356, 359, iii. 432 f., 443, v. 376 f.

Appearance of L., i. 279, ii. 157 ff., iii. 428 f., iv. 230. _See_ Dress, Eyes, Portrait

Apriolus. _See_ Eberlin

Aquila, C., iii. 366, vi. 410

Aquinas, i. 85, 131, 137, 141 f., 150, 162 f., 243 f., 270, 370, iii. 143, vi. 236

Arcimboldi, i. 344, 352

Argula, ii. 173

Aristotle, i. 22, 77, 85 f., 127, 136 f., 149 ff., 159, 211 f., 244, 305, 313, 339, 370, ii. 269, iii. 143, iv. 102, 336, 346, v. 50, 113, 390, 518, vi. 20 f., 235

Arndt, E. M., vi. 456 f.

Arnold, G., iii. 138, iv. 205, vi. 443 ff.

Arnoldi, B. _See_ Usingen

⸺ F., ii. 392, 396, iv. 101, 191, 306, 355, iv. 267

Arnstadt, iv. 15, vi. 139

Art, works of, ii. 351 f., iv. 198 f., v. 203-224

Asceticism, v. 87. _See_ Mortification

Astrology, ii. 168, iii. 118, 166, 356, iv. 267. _See_ Superstition

Athanasius, i. 10, ii. 398 f., vi. 206, 438

Attrition, i. 292 ff. _See_ Contrition.

Augsburg, Diets of, i. 340 f., ii. 284 f., 383 ff., iii. 65, 123, 328-343, 420 f.; trial of L., i. 66, 340, 355-359, 384 f., ii. 39, 367, iv. 388, vi. 190, 299; Confession, ii. 384, iii. 329 ff., vi. 281

August of Saxony, iv. 209, vi. 413, 415-419

Augustine, St., i. 12, 23 f., 76 f., 90 f., 92, 204, 210 f., 250, 305 f., 400 f., ii. 225 f., 233 f., iv. 108 ff., 331, 335, 439 f.; pseudo-A., i. 311 f., vi. 501, 515; L. and Melanchthon disagree with A., iii. 333, vi. 336; on works, iv. 457-464

Augustinians, i. 4 f., 9 f., 28 f., 68, 81 f., 147, 262 ff., 297 ff., 315 f., ii. 89, 334, 337; vi. 473 f., 498-504; Rule of, vi. 202 f.; and Dominicans, i. 105

Aurifaber, J., i. 184, ii. 289, iii. 218, 224, 230, 239, iv. 269, v. 30, vi. 372, 387, 391, 410 f., 416, 423

Aurogallus, M., v. 496 f., 499

Authority, ecclesiastical, ii. 31, 73, 74 f., vi. 163 f.; secular A., ii. 294-312; “A.” instead of State, v. 584; L.’s changes of view about, ii. 196-211, 346; contradictions, v. 601; has nothing to do with the Church, v. 55; yet must uphold Lutheranism, v. 56. _See_ Freedom

Babel, ii. 34, v. 171, vi. 315

Babylon, Roman, ii. 13, 19 f., 56

Babylonian captivity, ii. 20, 27, 37, iii. 146, 407, iv. 510, vi. 302

Bachmann, P., iii. 63, iv. 100, 352 f., v. 123

Bachofen, Fr., vi. 493

Backsliding, i. 289

Balaam, iv. 337

Balduin, F., v. 295

Bamberger, P., ii. 345

Banishment. _See_ Intolerance

Baptism, infant, ii. 97, 372 f., iii. 277, 391, 395, 421, iv. 487 ff., v. 292, 462, vi. 166; of Jews, v. 412 f.; is a sacrament, ii. 27; mark of the Church, vi. 294; B. and original sin, v. 451; optional?, iii. 11, iv. 488 ff.; works through faith, i. 364, iv. 486 f., vi. 310; lost by L., vi. 197

Barnes, R., iii. 260, 428, iv. 3 f., 8, 11 ff., vi. 488, 492

Barnim XI, Duke, vi. 61

Baronius, C., vi. 437

Basle, ii. 422, vi. 38, 272

Baumgärtner, H., ii. 138 f., iii. 327, 337, iv. 222

Bawdy houses. _See_ Brothels

Beer, ii. 22, iii. 208 f., 219, 294 ff., 304, 306 f., 313 ff., 317, v. 354, 364, vi. 373

Beger, L., iv. 71

Beggars, v. 562, vi. 42 ff., 55. _See_ Mendicancy

Beier. _See_ Beyer

Belief. _See_ Faith

Bellarmin, i. 91, vi. 294, 323, 384 f.

Beltzius, iv. 219 ff.

Benevolence. _See_ Generosity, Poor-relief, Students

Bennet, iv. 7

Benno, St., v. 123 ff., vi. 243 f.

Bergen, Book of, vi. 419

Berlepsch (Berlips), ii. 95, vi. 124 f.

Bernard, St., i. 18, 84, 88, 181, 243, iii. 176, v. 91; his “perdite vixi,” iv. 88 f.

⸺ the Jew, iii. 301

Berndt, A., iii. 216

Bernhardi, B., i. 65, 310 ff.

Berthold of Chiemsee, iv. 356

⸺ Ratisbon, v. 77

Besler, iv. 221

Besold, H., iii. 218, 221, vi. 360

Beyer, C., iv. 282, vi. 358 f.

⸺ L., i. 66, 316 ff., 334, iv. 222, v. 353, vi. 263

⸺ M., iv. 43

Beza, T., 278

Bible, olden editions and translations, i. 14, 28, v. 542 ff.; looked down upon by Nominalists, i. 134 f.; a “heretics’ book,” iv. 396; “Bible, Bubble,” ii. 365, 370 f.; Canon, iv. 400 ff., 505, v. 436 f., 521 ff.; inspiration, iv. 398 ff., v. 437 f.; interpretation, ii. 235 ff., iv. 387-431; _see_ Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.; L.’s translations, iv. 242 f., v. 494-546; Revised B., v. 523 ff.; “B. alone,” iv. 387-405; Lutherans’ use of the B., vi. 431 f.; the “paper idol,” vi. 271. _See_ Word

Bibliander, v. 421

Bibra, L. von, i. 334

Bidembach (brothers), iv. 221

Biel, G., i. 13, 91, 125, 132, 135, 140 ff., 151, 224, 243, 311, 345, iv. 119, 440, 508, 516 f., vi. 433, 514 f.

Bigamy, ii. 33. _See_ Henry VIII, Philip II, Leprosy

Billicanus, i. 316, iii. 447

Bing, S., iv. 15

Bishops, Catholic, i. 46 ff., 224 f., 281, ii. 28, 101, 103, 114, 193, 210 f., 301, 387 f., iii. 440, v. 101, vi. 324, 404, 493; Lutheran, iii. 428, iv. 126, v. 191, n., 602, vi. 315, 356; L.’s offer to the B., iii. 330, 337 f., 343, 439 f., v. 190-198, 329, 386, 601, vi. 239; only B. are forbidden to have several wives, iv. 28

Blasphemy, utterances savouring of, iv. 292, 344, v. 198, 233, 310, n., 407; B. to be punished by death, iii. 71, 358, iv. 266, vi. 259. _See_ Idolatry, Temptations

Blaurer (brothers), i. xvii, ii. 153, 155, 157, iii. 304, 433, iv. 6, 116, 196 f., 323, vi. 278

Bock, H., vi. 265, 313

Bohemian Brethren, ii. 25, iii. 152, vi. 316

Bolsec, J., vi. 385

Bomhauer, i. 244

Bonaventure, St., i. 84, 181 f., 346, iii. 176, 261

Boniface VIII, i. 339, v. 584

Bonn, H., v. 166

Books, on forbidden, ii. 58 f.

Bora, Cath. von, flight from nunnery and marriage, ii. 135, 138, 141, 173-188; brews the beer, iii. 313; “too rude,” ii. 379, iii. 229, v. 83; “go back to the convent,” iii. 268; gifts from sovereigns, ii. 139, iv. 8, 26; after L.’s death, vi. 346; and Agricola, iii. 216, v. 21; and Cruciger, vi. 359; in Letters, iv. 281 f., v. 199, 308 f., vi. 369, 372 f.; Legends, iii. 281 f., v. 372; and Melanchthon’s wife, iii. 365. _See_ Will, L.’s last

Borner, C., ii. 258

Bose, M. A. J., v. 271

Bossuet, iv. 71

Bozius, T., vi. 381

Brandenburg, iv. 195, v. 408

Brant, S., iii. 152, v. 540

Braun, J., i. 15, 127, vi. 206

Brenz, J., i. 316, iii. 50, 405, iv. 5 f., 167, 459 f., vi. 257, 408, 482

Brethren of the Common Life, i. 5, 46, vi. 35

Breviary, i. 127, 225, 269, 275-279, ii. 126, iii. 114, v. 316, vi. 200 f.

Briesmann, J., iv. 155, v. 152

Brothels, ii. 359, iii. 122, 227 f., iv. 176, 229. _See_ Prostitutes

Brück, C., vi. 40 f.

⸺ G., iii. 87, 123, 216, iv. 36, 40, 44, v. 197, 201, 385, 590, vi. 372, 385 f.

Brulefer, S., iv. 120

Brunswick, ii. 215, iii. 408, v. 167, 217, 394 f., vi. 35, 276 f.

Bucer, M., joins L., i. 316; disagrees with L., iv. 99 f., v. 237, vi. 354; denies sacramental presence, iii. 354, iv. 498, v. 268; shocked at L.’s language, ii. 155, iii. 417, iv. 326; intolerance, vi. 271, 277 f.; in favour of a Protestant Council, v. 176; serves Landgrave Philip as adviser in the bigamy, iv. 15-62; suggests a lie, iv. 114; at Cologne, v. 166; at Strasburg, vi. 46; agrees with Calvin, v. 399 f.; against Schnepf, iv. 198; allows 12% interest, vi. 98; a mediator, iii. 383, 417, 420 ff., 446 f., v. 172

Buchholzer, G., v. 313

Buchner, A., vi. 392

Bugenhagen, J., friendship with L., iii. 404-413, 432, v. 22, 173, 175, 262, 328, 335, n., vi. 326, 347, 364; at L.’s wedding, ii. 174; untruthfulness, iii. 74; coarseness, iii. 178, 229 f., v. 304; “cardinal,” iii. 427; “ordains” pastors, vi. 265, 313 f.; disagreement with L., iv. 239, vi. 353; parish-priest of Wittenberg, ii. 174, iv. 231, 273, v. 136; L.’s confessor, iii. 437, iv. 249, v. 333, vi. 103; panegyric on L., vi. 387 f., 443; intolerance, vi. 273; is called a Papist, vi. 410; literary work, ii. 118, 399, v. 489, 499; vi. 438, 476; missionary work, ii. 323, v. 167, 217; poor-relief, vi. 57 f.

Bullinger, H., his intolerance, vi. 271, 278; indignant with L., iii. 277, 417, iv. 325, v. 115, 409; on L. as translator, v. 520, 523; on the bigamy, iv. 10, n., 43, 68

Burer, A., ii. 157, iv. 269

Burgos, P. of, i. 243, 401, v. 411

Burkhard, iv. 11

Burning of the Bull, ii. 51, 54, vi. 381

Büttner, W., v. 295

Butz, P., vi. 271

Cahera, G., ii. 112

Cajetan, Cardinal, 340 f., 344, 357, 384, iv. 86, 302, vi. 487; on polygamy, iii. 261

Calculus. _See_ Ailments

Calixt, G., iv. 310

Calixtines, ii. 112

Call. _See_ Mission

Calovius, A., iii. 138

Calumnies: on olden Church, i. 79, 271, 283, 394, iv. 80-98, 102 f., 117-134, v. 485, vi. 199; on the Popes, iv. 90 f. [amend according to vi. 516]; on Erasmus, ii. 251, 294, iii. 135; on others, iv. 86, v. 106 f.

Calvin, relations with L., v. 399-402; as an organiser, iv. 280, n.; “agonies,” v. 75; predestinarianism, ii. 268, 271, iii. 189, 350; vocation, iii. 140, n.; intolerance, iii. 258; on the Supper, iii. 354, 446 ff., v. 264; end justifies the means, iv. 111, n.; at Geneva, vi. 488, 490, 492; Calvinism, vi. 414

Camerarius, J., relations with L., ii. 256, iv. 220 f., vi. 348; with Melanchthon, ii. 145 ff., iii. 357, 364, iv. 61 f., 209, vi. 6, 37; as editor, ii. 176 ff., 180

Campanus, J., ii. 376, 378, 398, iii. 403, vi. 251, 284

Campeggio, L., ii. 380, 392, iii. 334 ff.

Candles, ii. 321, v. 147, 282, vi. 410

Canisius, P., ii. 253, iii. 238, 376, iv. 385 f., v. 264, 296 f., vi. 323, 384, 427 ff., 434, 437

Canon. _See_ Bible, Mass

Canon Law, i. 227, v. 183, 601, vi. 21, 188 f. _See_ Lawyers

Canonisation, v. 122 f.

Canus, M., vi. 323

Capella, Galeatius, vi. 491

Capito, W., relations with L., ii. 6 f.; against L., ii. 242, iv. 99, vi. 280; on bigamy, iv. 6, 10, n.; intolerance, vi. 277 f.; despair, iv. 220; dishonesty, iv. 115; relief of poor, vi. 46

Caraccioli, M., ii. 6

Caraffa, vi. 488

Cardinals, iii. 427 f., 443, n., v. 108 f.

Caricatures, in the German Bible, v. 528; in “Popery Pictured,” in “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern,” in the “Passional Christi et Antichristi,” v. 421-426

Carlowitz, iv. 69, v. 252

Carlstadt, A. B. von, friendship with L., i. 40, 304, 362 f.; takes side of the Zwickau Prophets, ii. 97-100; against L., iii. 183, iv. 336; against images, v. 208; Real Presence, iv. 493; sacraments, iv. 486; saint-worship, ii. 345; vows, ii. 83 f.; on Epistle of James, v. 523; L. against him, i. 14, 91, 97, 101, ii. 154, 166, 374, iii. 4, 121, 154, 177, 385-400, 409, 424, iv. 87, 308, v. 104, 399, vi. 280, 289. Cp. vi. p. 478

Carpi, A. P., ii. 256

Carpzov, B., v. 264, 295, vi. 443, n.

Carthusians, ii. 335. _See_ Lening

Casel, G., v. 127

Casimir of Brandenburg, v. 317

Cassian, iv. 110

Catechism, ii. 119, iv. 233 ff., v. 483-494, vi. 263, 433 ff.

Catharinus, A., ii. 57, iii. 142, 276, 279, 303, vi. 323

Catherine of Alexandria, St., iv. 246

⸺ Aragon, iv. 3

⸺ Bologna (and Genoa, SS.), i. 173

Catholic, L.’s Church C., ii. 108, iii. 368

Catholics, act against their conscience, iii. 90, vi. 284; cannot pray, v. 88; have a beam in their eye, vi. 332; know L. to be in the right, ii. 70. _See_ Calumnies, Church, Intolerance

Cato, vi. 16, 18

Catullus, vi. 18

Celibacy, clergy’s disregard for the law, i. 50; assailed by L., i. 120, 276, ii. 83-87, 115-129, iii. 246-251, 262, iv. 87, 147-150, v. 112. _See_ Marriage, Preachers, Vows

Celichius, A., iv. 223

Celtes, C., vi. 45

Centuriators, Magdeburg, vi. 313. _See_ Flacius

Certainty, need of, i. 308, ii. 368, iii. 9, 47 f., 112, 140-141, notes, 146, 159, iv. 440 ff., v. 25-43, 323, vi. 283 ff., 302; our lack of C., i. 95, 97, 207 ff.

Chalice, ii. 99, 110, 321, iii. 10, 371, v. 216

Chamberlain, Houston Stewart, vi. 459 f.

Chancery, German, iv. 244

Changelings, v. 292, vi. 140; L. a C.?, iv. 358

Charity. _See_ Love of God and Poor-relief

Charles V, L. to, or on, C., ii. 20, 69, iii. 105, n., iv. 270; at Worms, ii. 61 ff.; against L., i. 340, ii. 79; and Erasmus, ii. 256; Hermann von Wied, v. 166; Josel of Rosheim, v. 409; Landgrave Philip, iv. 21 f., 68, v. 396; the Schmalkalden League, iii. 430; the Council, iii. 424 f., v. 380; the Turks, iii. 88 f. _See also_ Appendix I _passim_

Chastity, Catholic teaching and practice, ii. 120 f., 128 f., iv. 133, 135, 138; in L.’s view, i. 259, 362, iii. 243 f., iv. 147 f., 473 f., vi. 404; L.’s C., i. 7, 19; Melanchthon on C., iii. 325; temptations against, i. 287, ii. 86, 161, n., vi. 118 f. _See_ Celibacy

Chemnitz, M., vi. 313, 415, 419, 443, n.

Children, L.’s, iii. 215 f., 232, 280 f., 428, iv. 265, v. 108, 226, 230, vi. 31, 373, 378 f. _See_ Luther (Hans, etc.)

Chrism, iv. 519, v. 101, 195

Christ, Divinity of, iv. 238 ff., v. 412; almost forgotten, ii. 245; darkened by Aristotle, i. 137; formerly unknown, i. 135, 282, 320, ii. 92; known only as the Judge, i. 391, ii. 281, iv. 103; who did not die for our sins, vi. 245, 260; the “weak” C., ii. 385, iii. 191, v. 227; His Body omnipresent, iii. 396, iv. 495 f., vi. 253 f., 414 f.; sole content of Scripture, v. 541; His preaching in Hell, v. 48; His “lie,” vi. 514; “C. our hen,” i. 80, vi. 372, 501 f. _See_ Faith

Christian III of Denmark, ii. 139, iii. 413, iv. 75

Christians, L.’s title for his followers, ii. 108, 345, v. 172, 518; what C. must do, iii. 52, 60, 69, 79, 81, v. 44 f., vi. 80, n.; need no divine worship, vi. 147 f.; nor government, v. 572 f.; they are few, iii. 24 f., vi. 292 f. _See_ Church-Apart, Evangelicals, Temptations, Worship

Christina, Landgravine, iv. 14, 18 f., 24, 69

Chronology of the world, iii. 147, vi. 349

Chrysostom, St. J., i. 243, iv. 335

Church, iii. 22-38, vi. 290-340; to be esteemed, i. 223 ff., 337, iv. 406, 410, 488; L.’s view connected with Wiclif’s and Hus’s?, i. 106, vi. 299; visibility, ii. 304, iii. 28; criticised by moderns, v. 465 ff.; _my_ Churches, v. 173, vi. 314, 356; marks of the C., vi. 293-297, 327; Church-Apart of the true Believers, ii. 104, 111, 304, ii. 25 f., v. 133-140; Church property, ii. 318, 327, iii. 33-38, 68, 234, 440, v. 203 ff., vi. 51, 61. _See_ Infallibility

Chytræus, iv. 461, vi. 419

Cicero, i. 8, vi. 17, 376

Circumcision, iii. 256

Cistercians. _See_ Mayer

Civilisation, L. founder of modern, vi. 457 ff.

Claius, J., v. 505, vi. 443

Clandestinity. _See_ Marriage

Classics, vi. 16 f.

Clavasio, A. de, ii. 51

Clémanges, N. of, i. 50

Clement IV, iv. 89, v. 424

⸺ VI, i. 134

⸺ VII, ii. 392, iii. 424 f., iv. 6

Clergy, i. 46-53, 57, 283 f., iv. 127 ff., 169 f., v. 485

Cleve, W. von, v. 396

Clichtoveus, J., iv. 152, n., 353, n., vi. 437

Cloaca, i. 393, vi. 504-510

Clothes. _See_ Dress

Coarseness. _See_ Unseemliness

Coburg, ii. 95, 384 ff., 389 ff., iii. 87 f., 123, 175, 299, iv. 313, v. 98, 117, 346, 497, vi. 106, 512

Cochlæus, with Luther at Worms, ii. 65, vi. 135, 143 f.; on L., i. 17, 24, 30, iii. 303, iv. 92, 354, 358, vi. 431; L. on C., v. 182, 303; C. on Melanchthon, v. 267; literary work, ii. 196, 212, iii. 63, 86, 276, n., iv. 380 ff., 522, v. 591, vi. 405 ff.; language, ii. 150; and the Jesuits, vi. 428, n.; death, vi. 384

Cœlestinus, J. F., vi. 415

Cœlius, M., vi. 132, 374, 377 ff., 387 f.

Coler, M., vi. 255

Cologne, i. 42, v. 166, 233; L. at C., iv. 171, n.; Book of Reform, iii. 354, 447

Combats, spiritual. _See_ Temptations

Commandments, Ten, “unknown to Catholics,” vi. 200; in L.’s Catechism, v. 485; a bad law, i. 313; not to be dwelt on, iii. 175, 226, 394, v. 454; sermons on the, i. 361; C. do not justify, i. 43; need not be kept, ii. 28 f., iv. 454; indeed cannot, i. 100, 144, 189, 207, 339; hurtful to salvation, i. 317; their object, i. 287 f., ii. 271 f.; C. of the Church, v. 46, 246, vi. 316; L.’s unwillingness to impose C. and precepts, v. 85 f., 139, 142, 147, 179, 484. _See_ Counsels

Commerce. _See_ Merchants

Communicatio idiomatum, iv. 240, v. 456, vi. 420

Communion, under both kinds, ii. 99, 321, iii. 10, 330, 335, iv. 525, vi. 279, n.; of the sick, v. 464. _See_ Eucharist, Mass, Supper

Compostella, iv. 105, vi. 405

Concords (various Protestant), iii. 330 f., 421 f., 434, 436, 441, 447, v. 176, 259, vi. 412, 419-423

Concubinage, among the German clergy, i. 50 f.; recommended by L. to the members of the Teutonic Order, iii. 262 f.; the Landgrave’s “concubine,” iv. 28, 40, 52

Concupiscence, i. 141, 207 ff.; all-powerful, i. 73 f., 110-117; destroys freedom, ii. 278 f.; is a sin, i. 99, 203, 210, ii. 150, vi. 365; identical with original sin, i. 98

Concurrence, Divine, i. 144, 153 f., ii. 233

Conduct, L.’s safe, i. 334, ii. 62, 66 ff., 69, 367, iv. 85, vi. 188

Confession, i. 10, 99, 208 ff., 290-296, 250, 380, n., 384 f., ii. 59 f., 99, iii. 10, 210, 324, 410, 421, 437, iv. 21, 30-39, 248-256, v. 74, 315, 320, vi. 340, 374, 496 f. _See_ Penance

Confirmation, vi. 410

Congregational Churches, ii. 98-114, iii. 22-43

Conjugal due, rendering the, a sin, iv. 152. _See_ Marriage

Conradin, iv. 89, v. 424

Consanguinity, iv. 156 f.

Conscience, iv. 56 f.; the only true C. is that which agrees with L.’s, v. 66-78; all the Lutheran’s troubles of C. must be from the devil, v. 328 ff., 339, 355 f.; struggles of C., _see_ Temptations; freedom of C., _see_ Intolerance; _see also_ Synteresis

Consecration. _See_ Ordination

Consistories, iii. 29, v. 179-185, 601 f., vi. 314, 356

Constance, Council of, i. 364, ii. 232, iii. 426, iv. 287

Constantine, ii. 309, iii. 71, v. 229, 594; Donation of C., iii. 145, vi. 489

Constipation. _See_ Ailments

Consubstantiation, i. 162, ii. 320, iii. 380, iv. 495 f., v. 463, vi. 415

Contarini, C., ii. 78, iii. 429, iv. 69, 359, vi. 488

Contelori, F., i. 354

Contingent things, i. 193. _See_ Necessity

Contradictions: the Schoolmen admitted grace, and didn’t, i. 150; the monks were, and were not, zealous, i. 271; death was a reason why L. should, and should not, marry, ii. 181; the Bible errs, and does not, iv. 418; God is, and is not, author of evil, ii. 281 f.; hell can, and can’t, be escaped by those predestined, i. 192; works are, and are not, called for, i. 255, iv. 447, v. 454 f.; Scripture is, and is not, sole rule of faith, iv. 415 ff.; God alone does all, i. 255; yet man must prepare for Grace, i. 213; freedom of judgment and yet binding creeds, iii. 3; continence possible, and impossible, iii. 243 f.; repentance out of fear, good, and yet evil, i. 293; armed resistance lawful, and not lawful, v. 55 f., 58 f.; Church has, and has not, any power of her own, ii. 295 ff., v. 597 ff., vi. 329; for money lent money may, and may not, be taken, vi. 91 f.; on the Eucharist, v. 464. _See_ Councils, Opposition

Contrition, not necessary for justification, iv. 433 f. (but cp. iv. 438 f. and v. 15); nor for confession, iii. 210; what C. is, i. 290-296, v. 12, 310, n.

Controversy. _See_ Polemics

Conventuals, vi. 498. _See_ Observantines

Conviction. _See_ Certainty

Copernicus, iii. 100, vi. 25

Copes. _See_ Vestments

Cordatus, C., i. xvii., 395, iii. 178 f., 218, 225, 228, 231, n., 294, 369, 371, 377, 414, 434, iv. 269, 461, vi. 391, 505 ff.

Cordus, E., ii. 125, 220, 256, 342, iv. 176, vi. 28

Corpulence, ii. 157, iii. 296, 309

Corvinus, A., iii. 218, iv. 14, 25, 28, 74, 184, vi. 487 f.

Coster, F., vi. 385

Cotta, K. and U., i. 5, iii. 288 f.

Councils, Œcumenical, L. appeals to one, i. 359; cannot err, i. 339; can err, i. 364, v. 378, vi. 299; a “Christian” C., ii. 50; Rome’s efforts to assemble a Council, iii. 424-429; a free German C., v. 379; the projected Protestant Council, iii. 432 f., 441, v. 170, 175-179, vi. 424. _See_ Constance, Trent, etc.

Counsels, Evangelical, vi. 89; are really commands, ii. 166, 299, v. 46 ff., 56-60, vi. 80, n., 89; with the exception of chastity, ii. 166. _See_ Law

Courage, ii. 27, 76 f., 367, v. 131

Craco, C., vi. 415, 417

Cranach, Lucas (the Elder and Younger), ii. 158 f., 174, iii. 300, v. 224, 422 f., 425, 429, 495 f., 498, 519, 528

Cranmer, iv. 10, n.

Creed, iv. 415, 483, v. 360, 473, 485 f., 554

Cricius, A., iii. 370

Critical acumen, i. 90 f., 181, 282 f., 311 f., iv. 174 f., 177, 246, v. 153, 474, 522, vi. 335. _See_ Apocrypha

Cromwell, iv. 12

Cronberg, H. von, ii. 325 f.

Cross, sign of the, iii. 83, 435; mystic particles of the C., i. 88. _See_ Crucifix, Theology of the C.

Crotus Rubeanus, i. 4 f., 7, 403, ii. 3 f., 62, 256, iii. 403, vi. 28, 31

Crucifix, iii. 84, 132, v. 212, vi. 197, 225, 335; taken to bed by nuns, iv. 106

Cruciger, C., iii. 171, 371, 377, 433 f., iv. 194, 299, v. 22, 237, 262, 270 f., 499, vi. 5, 346, 359, 364, 417

Crusades, iii. 81, 83

Cryptocalvinism, vi. 414-423

Culsamer, J., ii. 344

Curæus, J., vi. 417

Curia, iii. 128. _See_ Rome

Curses, i. 209, ii. 13, iv. 295-305. _See_ Maledictory prayer

Cusa, N. of, i. 50

Cyprian, i. 243, iii. 250, vi. 339

Daniel, ii. 57, iii. 84, 141 f., 148, iv. 134, 315

Dantiscus, iv. 274, n., 357

Dantzig, v. 216

David, v. 300, 579 f., vi. 253

Day, The. _See_ Last Day

Deacons, Lutheran, vi. 57, 265

Death, vi. 376-386; Italian pamphlet on L.’s death, vi. 371; L.’s wish to die, vi. 107, 341; best d. for Pope and his cardinals, v. 383 f. _See_ Opponents

Decalogue. _See_ Commandments

Deceit. _See_ Dishonesty

Decretals, i. 367, ii. 51, iv. 303, vi. 338

Defiance, ii. 52, iii. 21, 394, iv. 317, 416, 511, v. 369, vi. 168 f., 318, 396-403

Degree, academical, i. 21, 58, 127 ff., 285, ii. 130, 362, vi. 466. _See_ Doctorate

Demonology, ii. 389 f., v. 275-305, 427, vi. 111

Denmark, ii. 323, iii. 412 f., vi. 247, 273

Depression. _See_ Pessimism

Desertion, ground for divorce, iii. 252 ff., 257

Despair, L.’s reason for becoming a monk, i. 4, vi. 224; necessary, i. 191. _See_ Fear, Temptations

Dessau, League of, ii. 213

Determinism, i. 116, 183, n., ii. 227, 241, 266, 284, 288

Dettigkofer, D., iv. 75

Deuterocanonical Books. _See_ Apocrypha

Devils, v. 275-305, vi. 122-140; white d., ii. 348; attend L.’s funeral, vi. 385; “as many devils as tiles on the roofs,” ii. 62, 367; Devil holds the Jews captive, v. 406 f.; is a poisoner, v. 235; a good dialectician, ii. 379; kidnaps people, vi. 383; lives in the water, vi. 372; L.’s vocation, from the d.? i. 16, ii. 86; cause of L.’s ailments, iii. 317 f., vi. 111; sorely wounded by L., iii. 122; the d. as L.’s father, iv. 358; the d.’s embassy, v. 98, n. _See_ Exorcism, Ghosts, Possession, Satan

Didymus Faventinus, vi. 26

Diet, L’.s, iii. 211, 305, 309 f., 317 f.

Dietenberger, J., ii. 222, iv. 101, 355, 383, v. 520

Dietrich, V. (Theodoricus Vitus), iii. 58, 216, 218, 317, iv. 12, 180, vi. 130, 250, 391, 505 ff.

Diller, M., vi. 275

Dionysius “the Areopagite,” i. 181

Diplomacy, i. 365, ii. 15, 21 f., 55, 58 f., 100, 109 f., 295 f., 302 f., 321, 365 f., iii. 331, n., iv. 6, 39, 97, n., vi. 325-340

Discipline, Church, i. 57, v. 388. _See_ Clergy and Preachers

Diseases. _See_ Ailments

Dishonesty, i. 335 f., ii. 15-25, 49, 385 ff., 392, iv. 41, v. 111, 537 f. _See_ Gospel-proviso, Lies

Dispensations, Papal, i. 271, iv. 3, 5, 18, 20, 156, 319, vi. 497; Luther’s, i. 9, 358, iv. 30, 38, n., vi. 500, 504

Disputations, i. 310-320, 362-365, vi. 21; early disputatiousness, i. 58 ff.

Distractions, need of, iii. 179, v. 353 f.

Divorce, ii. 33, 149, iii. 252-258, iv. 3-13, 156 ff. _See_ Pauline privilege

Doctor, Doctorate, i. 33, 38, 78, 281, ii. 375, iii. 157 f., 297, 315 f., 320, 369 n., 391, iv. 227, 344, 346, v. 103 f., 304, 384, 510 n., vi. 375; “A great Doctor,” i. 20, iii. 177, iv. 330. _See_ Degree

Doliatoris, J., ii. 339

Domestic life, iii. 215 ff., iv. 280 ff. _See_ Family

Dominicans, i. 39, 105, 163, 179, 337, 339, 370 f., ii. 12, iv. 383. _See_ Cajetan, Tetzel, etc.

Doubts, ii. 79 f., iii. 112, iv. 218-227. _See_ Temptations

Down-heartedness. _See_ Pessimism

Draco, J., ii. 124

Draconites, J., ii. 256

Dreams, v. 352, vi. 149, 444

Dress, L.’s, i. 9, 276 f., 285 f., ii. 78, iii. 428, iv. 74

Dressel, M., i. 266 f.

Dringenberg, L., vi. 34

Drink, ii. 87, 94, 131, iii. 294-318. _See_ Beer, Wine

Dungersheim, i. 24, 26, 168, ii. 145 f., 186, iii. 275, iv. 335, vi. 101

Dürer, A., ii. 40-44, 127, 158, 244, n., iii. 137

Ear-discharge. _See_ Ailments

Eber, P., vi. 275, 410, 412

Eberbach, P. _See_ Petreius

Eberlin, J., ii. 124, 129, 162 ff., 189, 354 f., v. 215, vi. 62

Ebner, H., ii. 334

Ecclesiastes by the Grace of God, ii. 102, 345, iv. 329, vi. 400

Eck, J., relations with L., i. 262 ff., 313, iv. 388; attacks L., i. 336, ii. 147, iv. 86, 101, 377 ff.; literary work, iv. 457, 502, 513, v. 456, 520, vi. 87, 323; L. on E., i. 179, 336, ii. 49, 51, 70, iii. 114, iv. 86, 182, 287, 301 f., 319, v. 110, 282, 473; E. in Rome, ii. 45 f.; E. and Emser, ii. 222; and Pirkheimer, ii., 39; and Melanchthon, iii. 446, v. 267; his death, vi. 383

Eckhard, iii. 163

Eckhart, Master, i. 172

Economics. _See_ Usury

Edemberger, L., ii. 170

Education, L.’s, defects of, i. 126 ff.; of children, i. 362, v. 280. _See_ Schools

Egranus, iii. 384 f., 402 f., iv. 360, v. 42, vi. 289

Ehem, C., vi. 271

Ehrhardt, J., vi. 78

Eilenburg, ii. 319

Eisenach, i. 5, ii. 68, iii. 288, 421, vi. 125, 276; Conference, iv. 50-55

Eisleben, i. 5, 262, iii. 159, iv. 361, 497, v. 30 ff., vi. 5, 372 ff.

Election. _See_ Predestination, Vicar

Eleutherius, i. 314

Elevation of the Elements, iii. 393 f., iv. 195, n., 239 f., v. 153, 397, vi. 353

Elias, the New, ii. 129, 163 f., 189, iii. 141, 165, 322, iv. 348 f., v. 426, vi. 347, 391, 442

Elisabeth, Palsgravine, iv. 70

⸺ of Rochlitz, iv. 16, 24, 27, 201

Eliseus, his trick, iv. 113

Eloquence, iii. 103. _See_ Rhetoric

Emotion, value of, iii. 179

Emperor. _See_ Kaiser

Emser, H., relations with L., i. 8, 27, 371 ff.; against L., i. 79, 346, 366, ii. 14, 220 ff., iii. 127, iv. 324, 354, 376; L. against E., ii. 13, 51, iv. 182, 288, v. 307, 541, vi. 383, 512; literary work, v. 123, 517, 519, 531; E. and Melanchthon, vi. 26

End, justifies the means, ii. 156, iv. 110, n., vi. 92, 399; of World. _See_ Last Day

Epicure, Epicureans, v. 116, 173

Epicureans. _See_ Erasmus, Papists, Rome

Epilepsy. _See_ Ailments

Episcopate. _See_ Bishops

Epistolæ obscurorum virorum, i. 6 f., 42, 91 f., ii. 3 f.

Epitaph, L.’s, ii. 159, vi. 377, 393

Equivocation, iv. 28 f., 51. _See_ Dishonesty

Erasmus, secularised, i. 36; edition of New Testament, i. 242 f., v. 510, vi. 454, 467; “Colloquia,” iii. 443 f., vi. 16, 38; for L., i. xxx., ii. 3, 9; alleged saying, vi. 390; against L., ii. 126, 154, 242-294, iii. 173, iv. 179-186, 325, 353, v. 115 f., vi. 32, 36, 170, 429 f.; on L.’s marriage, ii. 186; blames L. for the Peasant War, ii. 212; L. on E., i. 43, 92, ii. 219, 223, 267, iii. 135, 208, 403, iv. 91, 100 f., 287, 329, v. 456, vi. 397, 429 f.; E. and Charles V, ii. 256; and Dürer, ii. 41; and Ferdinand I, ii. 249, vi. 429 f.; and Duke George, ii. 246, 261; and Melanchthon, iii. 320, 346, 366, 369, 376, 443 f., v. 268; and Stadion, v. 273; and Vives, vi. 44

Erbe, F., vi. 255

Erfurt, i. 3, 6, 21, 58 f., 263, 312, 363, ii, 62 f., 336-362, v. 213 ff., vi. 27 f., 326 f.

Ericeus, iii. 436, n.

Eschatology. _See_ Apocalyptics, Last Day

Eschwege, iv. 38

Esdras, ii. 235

Esther, iii. 253; Book of E., v. 521

Ethics, iii. 200 f., v. 3-164, vi. 453; in Occamism, i. 157. _See_ Works

Eucharist, iii. 380-384, 393 ff., 444 f., iv. 250 f., 492-499, v. 74, 149, 462-465; is a sacrament, ii. 27; to be adored, iv. 239 f., vi. 353; not to be reserved, ii. 320 f., v. 222. _See_ Communion, Consubstantiation, Elevation, Mass, Supper, Zwinglians

Eusebius, v. 411

Eustochium, ii. 121, iii. 243

Eutychianism, v. 81

Evangel. _See_ Gospel

Evangelical Church Evangelicals, ii. 108, iii. 96, 301, iv. 21, 210, 311, v. 230. _See_ Christians

Exaggeration, i. 57, 124, 244, 283, iv. 343 f., vi. 22, 200, 216 f.

Excommunication, Church’s use of, against L., ii. 19 f., 45-52, 90; L. against E., i. 24 f., 51 f., 54, 66, 337, 371, ii. 231 f., iii. 120, 146, iv. 85 f., 320, v. 122; L.’s own use of E., ii. 335, iii. 324, iv. 209 f., 216 f., 245, v. 19, 139 f., 143, 148, 186 ff., 603, vi. 263, 293, 316

Exegesis. _See_ Bible interpretation

Exemption, i. 283. _See_ Dispensations

Exorcism, iii. 411, vi. 137-140

Expectants, iv. 339

Experience, inward, i. 159, 170, 241 f., 323, 377, 380, ii. 233, n., 277, iv. 391 ff., v. 7, 81, 161 f., vi. 127, 192, 234

Exsurge Domine, ii. 47

Extra ecclesiam. _See_ Salvation

Extreme Unction, iii. 7, vi. 410

Eyb, A. von, iv. 136

Eyes, L.’s., i. 86, 279, ii. 158 f., iv. 357 f.

Ezechiel, iii. 84, 88

Faber (J.) Stapulensis, i. 63, 92, 243, vi. 437

⸺ J., vi. 494

⸺ J., vi. 498

⸺ (or Fabri), J., of Vienna, ii. 135, iii. 194, 335, 416, iv. 302, 383, 514, v. 266, 529, vi. 323, 384, 516

⸺ P. _See_ Favre

Fabricius, J., iii. 292, vi. 443

⸺ T., vi. 494

Facienti quod est in se, etc., i. 144, 205, n.

Fainting-fits. _See_ Ailments

Faith, L. begins to make more of F. than of works, i. 72 f., 121, 133, 221; what F. means to L., ii. 34, iii. 352 f., v. 38 ff., 444-449; true F. is humility, i. 219, 252 f.; it comprises the “fides historica,” i. 76, 377, iii. 14 f., 415, iv. 413 ff., 432 f.; and all the elements of Christianity, ii. 72, iii. 13 f.; such F. is either complete or non-existent, i. 253, iii. 384, 424, v. 398; F. as a mere assent, iii. 18; iv. 432 f.; articles of F., iv. 414 f.; justification, due to Fiducial F., i. 377-400, iv. 431-449; which is the one thing necessary, iii. 180-186; and is produced by God alone, ii. 290, n.; this F. is weak even in L. himself, iii. 201 ff., 415, iv. 275, 441 f., v. 74 f., 130, 357-368; this F. is Saving F., i. 261, 385; it includes the love of God, v. 41 f., 477 (but, cp. i. 308, also excludes it), yet is no “fides formata caritate” which is a “thing accursed,” i. 209, iii. 329, v. 12; “by F. alone,” v. 515; criticised by Schwenckfeld, v. 160 f.; Rule of F., iv. 482 ff.; “vera fides,” i. 170. _See_ Reason

False charges. _See_ Legends

Family, L.’s, iii, 42, iv. 232 f., v. 558 f., 561. _See_ Domestic life

Fanatics, origin, ii. 97 ff.; they force L. to reconsider his theory of the worthlessness of works, iv. 474; and to insist on the rights of the authorities, v. 569 f.; why don’t they perform miracles? vi. 151 f.; L.’s attack on them, ii. 167, 363-379. _See_ Anabaptists, Carlstadt, etc.

Farel, Guil., v. 167

Fasting, i. 227, 339, iii. 226 f., 309, 428, v. 87 ff., 355, vi. 321. _See_ Mortification, Penance

Fatalism, ii. 263. _See_ Pessimism

Fathers of the Church, iv. 410; Erasmus’s work, ii. 243, 253; L. demands a return to them, i. 138, 320 (_See_ Augustine); yet he dislikes their praise of chastity, ii. 120 f.; their belief in free will, ii. 287; and their ignorance of faith alone, iv. 335; nevertheless they may be appealed to, iii. 380 f., iv. 409 f., 415, vi. 336. _See_ Tradition

Faust, Dr., v. 241

Favre, P., iv. 385 f., vi. 427 f.

Fear of God’s judgments, i. 125, 251, 294 f., 318, iv. 433, 455, 462, v. 22 f.

Feasts. _See_ Holidays

Feige, J., iv. 41, 54, 69, 113

Ferber, G., iii. 286 f.

Ferdinand I (Archduke, King and Kaiser), ii. 132, 215, 380, iii. 89, 276, 303, 437, iv. 162, 285, v. 404, vi. 480, 485, 487, 489

Ferinarius, J., v. 193

Ferreri, L., iii. 173 f., vi. 430

Festivals. _See_ Holidays

Finance, Papal, i. 51 f., 54, 347 ff.

Findling, J., iii. 171 f.

Fischart, v. 295

Fischer, C., vi. 61

⸺ J., vi. 265, 314

Fisher, Bp. of Rochester, iii. 70, 428, iv. 9, v. 110, vi. 246

Flacius Illyricus, ii. 361, iii. 446, iv. 514, v. 219, 263, 426, vi. 40, 207, 391 f., 407 ff., 412 f., 443, n.

Flasch, S., iv. 160

Fliesbach, C., vi. 61

Florence, hospitals, iv. 481; tale, v. 318

Florentina, the runaway nun, iii. 159 f.

Fomes peccati. _See_ Concupiscence

Fontaine, S., vi. 385

Forchheim, ii. 345

Forgiveness of sins, i. 10; a covering over, i. 99 f., v. 6 f.; not an actual removal, i. 208, 210 f., iii. 182, v. 37; St. Augustine’s view, iv. 462; comes through faith in Christ, i. 115, iii. 183, 192 f.; believer sins not in doing evil, i. 208, iii. 180 f.; article of F. is fundamental, vi. 166, n.; chief article of the creed, v. 95. _See_ Confession, Contrition, Faith, Sin

Formal principle. _See_ Bible alone

Forstemius, v. 500

Forster, vi. 271

Fortenagel, L., ii. 158

Fox, Bp. of Hereford, iv. 10

Franciscans, ii. 128, 254, iii. 166, 172, vi. 247

François I., ii, 168, iii. 424, iv. 69, 76, vi. 472, 480, 488, 490, 492

Frank, S., v. 83, 190, vi. 271, 289

Frankenhausen, ii. 365

Frankfurt on Main, iii. 71, v. 377, 400, vi, 35, 61

⸺ ⸺ Oder, vi. 29, 41

Franz, W., iv. 469

Frederick Barbarossa, v. 424, vi. 443, 494

⸺ II of Prussia, vi. 447 f.

⸺ the Wise of Saxony, his character, iv. 205 f.; praised by L., ii. 7 f., 91, 101, iii. 167 f.; his familiarity, v. 311; passion for relics, i. 284 f., 327; receives the Golden Rose, i. 365, n.; L.’s strictures on F., i. 81; F. protects L., i. 334, 340 f., 355, ii. 67; restrains him, v. 587; hinders his marriage?, ii. 183; F. and Carlstadt, ii. 97 f.; and Erasmus, ii. 246; and Spalatin, ii. 23

⸺ III of the Palatinate, vi. 414, 420

Freedom of the Gospel, i. 229, 251, ii. 27 ff., 34, 84-87, 241, iii. 9, v. 476 f., vi. 447. _See_ Intolerance

⸺ ⸺ Will, i. 100, 204 ff., 207, 318 f., ii. 223-294, iii. 349 f.; in Augustine, iv. 458 f.; according to Calvin, v. 400 f.; Melanchthon, iii. 346 ff., iv. 436, v. 258, vi. 152 f.; Schwenckfeld, v. 159. _See_ Determinism

Free-thought, L. the herald of?, iii. 109

Friars. _See_ Monks

Friedrich, A., vi. 133

Fröschel, S., v. 188, 280, vi. 137

Fugger family, i. 328, 348 ff., 352, vi. 83

Funk, J., vi. 408

Furtenbach, B., vi. 82

Galatians, commentary on, i. 64, 66, 306-310, 386, v. 292

Gallicanism, i. 164

Gallows grief, i. 292. _See_ Fear of God’s judgments

Gallus, iv., vi. 410

Gangra, Council, vi. 489

Gantner, J., vi. 271

Gebhard of Mansfeld, iii. 64

Geiler of Kaysersberg, ii. 151, iv. 135, v. 290, vi. 46

Generosity, iv. 270 ff.

Genesis, commentary on, i. 395, iv. 14

Geneva, iii. 448. _See_ Calvin

George, “Junker,” ii. 81, 159

⸺ of Anhalt, iii. 215, v. 167, 192, vi. 347, 366

⸺ of Brandenburg, ii. 384, iii. 50, 62, 314, vi. 263

⸺ Saxony, iv. 187-193; L.’s mystical advice to G., i. 228, 242; preaches before him, i. 334, 369 f.; at the Leipzig Disputation, i. 362 ff.; L.’s rage with him, ii. 396 f., iii. 121, iv. 287, 302 f., vi. 243; G. against L., ii. 395 f., iii. 275, iv. 101 f., 159, 192 f., 322, v. 171, vi. 400 f.; G.’s severity to peccant clergy, iv. 158; G. and Arnoldi, ii. 392; and Erasmus, ii. 246, 261; and the “Leipzig poets,” iv. 173 ff.; and Wicel, iv. 362; G.’s sons, iv. 163; his death, iv. 27, 194, 302

Gerbel, N., ii. 83

Gerhard, J., iii. 138

Gerhoch of Reichersberg, v. 553

German, Council, v. 379, 382; G. language a barbarous one, v. 497; L.’s influence on G., iii. 103, v. 504-510, vi. 15, 416, 443; makes unseemliness popular, iii. 239; G. nationalism, i. 403, ii. 10, 26, iii. 93-108, v. 129, vi. 390 f., 446, 448, 457, 460 f.; G. theology, i. 66, 87, 177, 180 f., 230, 237, 345, ii. 145, 225

Germans, L.’s unflattering descriptions, v. 534, vi. 4, 72. _See_ Italians, Prophet of the G., etc.

Gerson, J., i. 13, 84, 134, 142, 159, 173, 179 f., 233, 243, iii. 179, v. 91, vi. 202

Getelen, A. von, iv. 383

Ghinucci, G., i. 338

Ghost, egg and feathers of the Holy, iv. 292. _See_ Spirit

Ghosts, etc., i. 19, 176, ii. 81 f., 95 f., 167, 389 f., iii. 118, 160, 356 f., iv. 315, v. 283 f., 346, vi. 122-140; L.’s ghost, iv. 300. _See_ Devils

Giddiness. _See_ Ailments

Giengarius, ii. 164

Gifts to L., i. 285 f., iii. 304, 314 f., iv. 8, 10, 26, 271. _See_ Talents

Glareanus, H., vi. 31

Glatz, C., ii. 139, 174, n.

Gleichen, E. von, iv. 20

Glosses, i. 62 f., iii. 398

Gluttony, ii. 87, 94. _See_ Diet

Gnesiolutherans, iii. 375, vi. 415

God: the Hidden G., i. 161, ii. 239, 268 ff., 284, iii. 190; G. “in se” and “quoad nos,” v. 441 f.; Occam’s view that His existence is not demonstrable, i. 158, 161; shared by Melanchthon, v. 269; “falsehood” of the Catholic opinion of G., i. 190, 301, ii. 269 f., 284; L.’s gloomy conception of G., i. 113, 116, 187-197, 381; fear of G.’s judgments, i. 10, 189, n., 294 f., 393, v. 473; G. is not bound by justice, i. 196 f., ii. 292 f., n.; commands impossibilities, i. 144, 188 f.; works evil in the wicked, ii. 233, 270, 282, iii. 190. _See_ Will

Gödelmann, J. G., v. 295

Goethe, vi. 448

Golhart, J., vi. 265

Good intention, works, etc. _See_ Intention, Works

Gospel, rediscovered by L., i. 393 f.; “my G.,” iv. 334; content of the G., iii. 186; G. existed before Christ, v. 8; rule of G. quite distinct from worldly rule, v. 564 f.; Gospel-proviso, ii. 384 f., iii. 330, 338, 343, iv. 96. _See_ Law

Gotha, i. 69 f., 262, vi. 326, 409

Gout. _See_ Ailments

Government. _See_ Authority

Grace, semi-Pelagian stamp of Occam’s teaching, i. 132, 141 ff., 311, vi. 426; exaggerated by L., i. 151 ff.; need of G., 72 ff., 83; means of G., v. 461 f.; actual grace, v. 36; G. and predestination, i. 204 ff., ii. 229; preparation for G., i. 75, 144 f., ii. 226, iii. 210; Catholics never know whether they are in G., vi. 193. _See_ Justification

Granvell, iv. 369

Gräter, J., v. 295

Gratian, i. 91, 311, ii. 51

Gravamina nationis Germanicæ, i. 52 f., ii. 66, 77, iii. 98

Great man, a, iv. 260, 330, vi. 211 f., 448, 457; a G. theologian, vi. 349; _see_ Doctor, Megalomania;

Greatness, vi. 398-407

Grebel, C., ii. 370 f.

Greek, i. 28, 128, ii. 235, v. 494, 509 f., 606, vi. 12, 19, 36, 38, 431, 504; G. orthodox, ii. 13, v. 175

Grefenstein, J., i. 25

Gregorian chant, ii. 171. _See_ Hymns

Gregory I, iv. 335, 464, 525, v. 252, vi. 515

⸺ VII, iv. 110, n., v. 424, n.

⸺ of Rimini, i. 143 f., 159

Greiffenklau, R. von, ii. 65, vi. 383

Greser, D., vi. 61

Groote, G., i. 88, 173

Gropper, J., vi. 492

Gross, C., iii. 218, n.

⸺ E., iv. 128 f., 136

Grynæus, S., iv. 10, n.

Gualther, R., iv. 10, n., 68

Guidiccione, G., iii. 425

Günther, i. 65, 312, vi. 216

Güttel, C., v. 19

Gymnasia, vi. 20

Haarlem, whale of, iii. 148

Habit, supernatural, i. 155 f. _See_ Virtue

Hadrian IV, v. 424, n., vi. 494

⸺ VI, i. 55, ii. 39, 165, iv. 371

Hagenau conference, v. 400

Hagiolatry. _See_ Saint-worship

Halberstadt, v. 220

Halle, v. 165, 219, vi. 272, 381, 384 f., 407

Hallucinations, ii. 81, vi. 129 ff., 172-186

Halo. _See_ Portraits

Hamburg, iii. 408, v. 218

Hamelmann, H., iv. 223

Hammelburg treaty, ii. 360

Hamster, Hans, vi. 255

Haner, J., iv. 470 f.

Hardenberg, A. R., iv. 497

Harnack, A., on L., i. 398, ii. 72, iv. 483 f., v. 432-469, vi. 63, 441

Hasenberg, J., iv. 173 ff., v. 519

Hass, J., i. 344

Hatred, of God, i. 389; resignation to God’s H., i. 238; L.’s H. for his foes, iii. 172, 412, 434, iv. 508, v. 98-116, 429

Haubitz, A. von, v. 591

Hausen, vi. 288

Hausmann, N., ii. 135, 205, 387, iv. 219, v. 140, 590

Health. _See_ Ailments

Heathen, salvation of ancient, v. 48; their virtues, vices, i. 101, v. 50. _See_ Missions

Hebrew, i. 28, 35, 128, iv. 46, v. 410, 413, 428, 494 f., 510 ff., 533, vi. 19, 36, 431. _See_ Jews

Hebrews, commentary on Epistle to the, i. 64, 251, 260 ff., 306, 378; Pauline authorship denied, v. 521

Hecker, G., i. 355

Hedio, C., ii. 193 f., vi. 46, 58, 278

Hegemon, P., vi. 494

Hegius, A., vi. 34

Heidelberg Chapter, i. 298, 334, v. 13; Disputation, i. 115, 315 ff., 334, 379, ii. 230; University, iii. 291, vi. 29, 40, 414

Heintz, P., iii. 411

Hel, C., vi. 271

Held, G., iii. 215

⸺ M., vi. 490

Helding, M., iv. 223, 384, v. 21

Helfenstein, U. von, ii. 131

Hell, predestination to, i. 102, 307, 312 f., 317, ii. 227, 239, 268, iii. 329, v. 5, 438, 441; according to Calvin, v. 400; Mosellanus, ii. 242; Melanchthon, iii. 347; Schwenckfeld, v. 159; resignation to H., i. 174, 190, 192, 237 ff., 376, vi. 220

Heller, S., iii. 314

Hemorrhoids. _See_ Ailments.

Hen. _See_ Christ

Hendriks-Hoen, C., iv. 493

Henry VIII, L. and the divorce, iii. 255, 260, iv. 3-13, vi. 488; approval of H.’s cruelty, iii. 70, 428, v. 110; L.’s rudeness to H., ii. 152 f., 211, iv. 302, 391; H. and Erasmus, ii. 259; and Melanchthon, iii. 357, 373 f.; and the Schmalkalden League, iii. 65

⸺ of Brunswick, iii. 124, 270 f., iv. 63-71, 97 ff., 288, 293 f., v. 167, 236, 394 f., vi. 349, 407

⸺ Saxony, iv. 27, 194, v. 124 f., vi. 243, 255

Herborn, N., ii. 254

Herder, G., vi. 446

Heretics, in L.’s fold, ii. 74, 379, iii. 398, iv. 245, v. 169 ff., 238 f., 349, vi. 288 f., 343, 351 ff., 364 f., 398, 415 f.; on H., i. 225, n.; H. all begin by doubting one article, i. 253, iii. 384, 424, v. 398; the ways of H., vi. 280-289; their vanity, i. 225, 324, vi. 164; obstinacy, i. 253, v. 349; H. are the devil’s dwelling-place, v. 284; not to be punished, ii. 301; and yet to be punished severely. _See_ Intolerance, Zwinglians.

Herolt, J., iv. 120, 128

Hersfeld, ii. 68

Hervagius, iv. 183

Hesse, iv. 210 f., v. 141 f., 188, 408

Hesshusen, T., iv. 323, vi. 413, 415

Hessus, Eobanus, joins L., ii. 3, 43, 62, 256; fanaticism, ii. 355; at Nuremberg, vi. 6; on runaway monks, ii. 124 f.; on the decay of learning, vi. 27 f., 37, 79; and of morals, ii. 342, 349 f.

Heyden, J. von der, ii. 188, iv. 173 ff., v. 592

Heydenreich, C., i. 393, iii. 221

Hierarchy. _See_ Bishops

Hilary of Poitiers, iii. 381, iv. 110

Hildesheim, v. 218 f.

Hilten, J., iii. 166

Hindrances. _See_ Impediments

History, study of, vi. 4, 19, 36, 437

Hoff, H. von, ii. 351, 353 f.

Hoffmann, C., iv. 355

Hoffmeister, J., iv. 114 f., 352, vi. 384-498

Hofmann, M., v. 151

Hohenzollerns. _See_ Albert, Joachim, of Brandenburg

Holbein, ii. 158

Holidays, i. 227, ii. 253, vi. 430, n.

Holiness, as a mark of the Church, vi. 296, 330, 332 f.

Holkot, R., iv. 137

Hollen, G., vi. 68

Holler, J. L., v. 521

Holy monk, L. a, vi. 194 f.

Holzhausen, H. von, ii. 184

Homberg, synod, v. 141

Home. _See_ Domestic life, Postils

Homoousios, iv. 240

Hondorf, A., v. 295

Honesty (in Bible-translation), v. 513 ff. _See_ Truthfulness

Honstein, W. von, i. 228

Hoogstraaten, ii. 14, iv. 302, 383, vi. 383

Hope. _See_ Faith (Fiducial)

Horn, A., ii. 361, n.

Horns, L.’s, v. 109, vi. 398

Hosius, S., i. 105, n., vi. 385

Hospitals, iv. 480 f.

Hoyer of Mansfeld, ii. 79, 131 f., iii. 276, 303, 312

Hubmaier, B., ii. 365

Huguenots, vi. 422

Humanism, i. 6 ff., 40-44, 91 f., ii. 3-9, vi. 30 f. _See_ Erasmus, etc.

Humility, source of justification, i. 214-219, 258; L.’s H., ii. 16 f., 21, 366, iv. 273 f., 277, 327 ff., 347, v. 114, vi. 209-212

Humour, i. 277, ii. 140-145, 183 f., iii. 281, 306, iv. 104, 257, 279, 303, v. 306-318, vi. 350, 373 f.

Hundelshausen, H. von, iv. 25

Hungary, iii. 89, vi. 480, 483

Hus, J., i. 25 f., 106 ff., 356, 364, iii. 143 f., 155, 165, iv. 188, 317, 330, 417, n., v. 243, 389, 425, vi. 443

Hutten, U. von, i. 403, ii. 4-10, 54, 66 f., 248, vi. 467, 470

Hutter, L., vi. 443

Huttner, A., v. 215

Hymns, i. 278, n., v. 223, 342 f., 546-556, vi. 436

Hyperius, A., iv. 468 f., vi. 58

Hypocrisy. _See_ Dishonesty

Ickelsamer, V., ii. 126 f., 130, 377, iii. 170, 302, iv. 337, v. 115

Iconoclasm. _See_ Image-worship

Idol, L. made into an, iv. 70, vi. 422

Idolatry, to stand by one’s statutes, i. 72; to look on God as the Judge, i. 390 f.; to honour Mary, iv. 502 f.; to say Mass, iv. 507, n.; to pray, i. 309; L.’s gainsayers are all idolaters, ii. 316, 329, 364, v. 113. _See_ Intolerance, Saint-worship

Ignatius of Antioch, iii. 381

⸺ Loyola, vi. 384, 427 f., 435

Illnesses. _See_ Ailments

Illuminism. _See_ Rationalism

Image-worship, iconoclastic riots, etc., ii. 97 ff., 244 f., iii. 391 ff., iv. 411, v. 202 ff., 207-224

Immaculate conception, iv. 238

Immoral, L.? i. 26 f., 111, iii. 273-294

Impanation. _See_ Consubstantiation

Impediments, matrimonial, ii. 33, 150, 187, iii. 257 ff., iv. 10, 156 ff.

Impotence, ground for Divorce, iii. 255. _See_ Marriage

Impropriety. _See_ Unseemliness

Imputation, i. 94 f., 155 ff.; a nominalist view, i. 75, 122, 133, 161; L.’s peculiar conception of it, i. 74, 94, 117, 191, 212, 214 f., 219, 290. _See_ Justification

Incense, v. 147

Inconsistencies. _See_ Contradictions

Incubi, iv. 358 f., v. 286. _See_ Possessed

Indulgences, L.’s earlier views on, i. 35, 75, 324; the quarrel with Tetzel, i. 325-356, vi. 510; other attacks on I., i. 70 f., 149, 227, 260, 284, 296 f., ii. 16, iv. 372 f., v. 472

Infallibility of the Church, acknowledged, i. 162, 323, ii. 50, vi. 253; denied, ii. 301; L.’s own, ii. 375 f., vi. 256 f. _See_ Pope

Infant. _See_ Baptism

Infidelity. _See_ Unbelief

Informers, L.’s, about Roman matters, i. 348 f., ii. 27, v. 382

Ingolstadt, vi. 431

Inkpot legend, ii. 96

Innocent III, i. 162, ii. 522

⸺ VIII, v. 296

Inquisition, the Saxon, ii. 332, iv. 409, v. 592 f., vi. 241 f., 264 ff.

Insanity. _See_ Ailments

Inspiration, L.’s, ii. 93 f., iii. 137 f. _See_ Bible, Spirit

Intemperance. _See_ Drink

Intention (“intentio bona”), i. 177, 190, 202, 205, 277 f., ii. 241

Interest, vi. 79-98

Interim, iii. 375 f. _See_ Leipzig, Ratisbon

Intermarriage of nobles, vi. 71

Intolerance, L.’s, ii. 72, 318, 331 f., 335, iii. 357 ff., 393, 409, 439, 447, iv. 512, v. 567, 577, 592, vi. 237-280, 408 f. _See_ Blasphemy, Carlstadt, etc., Jews, etc.

Irrationalism, iii. 8

Isaac’s untruth, vi. 513

Italians, i. 54, 356, 339, ii. 5, iii. 94, 96 f., 130, iv. 320, v. 391

Iwanek, G., v. 373

Jacob’s lie to Isaac, vi. 515

⸺ the Jew, i. 35 f., vi. 497

Jaius, C., iii. 376, vi. 427

James, Epistle of, ii. 32, iv. 277, 389, 474, v. 522 f., vi. 446

Jena, iii. 385 f., v. 236, vi. 40, 412, 415

Jeremias, L. a new, vi. 161 f., 442

Jerome, St., i. 92, ii. 121 ff., iii. 243 f., iv. 164, 331, 335, v. 284, vi. 413, 530

Jests. _See_ Humour

Jews, iii. 235, n., 281, 289 f., iv. 265 f., 284-288, 296, v. 30 f., 115, 283, 298, 402-417, vi. 78, 262, 373 f.

Joachim of Anhalt, v. 313

⸺ I of Brandenburg, i. 349, ii. 214, iv. 302, v. 282

⸺ II, iii. 71 ff., iv. 195, v. 20, 313, vi. 61, 76

Joachimstal, iii. 402, vi. 389

Job, iv. 266, v. 497

Johann the Constant, of Saxony, relations with L., ii. 240, 345, iii. 35, iv. 206 f., 316, v. 496; furthers L.’s cause, ii. 214, 331, v. 144, 576, 579, 587; on resistance to the Kaiser, ii. 382, iii. 49, 51, 54, 325 f.; and Erfurt, ii. 359; one of the “Protesters,” ii. 384; moral character, iv. 206; not strong, iii. 37 f.; temperate, iii. 307; intolerance, vi. 241, 255 ff., 274 f.

⸺ Casimir, iv. 70, vi. 422

⸺ Frederick, L. dedicates to him his Magnificat, v. 480; opinion of Henry VIII, iv. 11; and the Turkish War, iii. 87, 90; and resistance to the Kaiser, iii. 70; rude behaviour to the Legate, iii. 441; interference at Naumburg, v. 165 f.; invites L. to draft his Schmalkalden Articles, iii. 431 f.; intolerance, v. 403, vi. 274 f.; and the Landgrave’s bigamy, iv. 22 f., 27; relations with L., vi. 341, 347, 394; sometimes has a drop too much, iii. 307, n.; a sodomite, iv. 60, 202 ff.; his moral character, iii. 268, iv. 202 ff., 207; is deposed, vi. 407

John the Baptist, L. a new, vi. 442

Jokes. _See_ Humour

Jonas, J., close relationship with L., ii. 174, 387, iii. 44, 52, 55, 57, 70, 300 f., 348, 367, 413-416, 432, v. 138, 175, 197, 231, 333, vi. 222, 326, 372 ff.; translates L.’s works into Latin, ii. 264, iv. 521 f., v. 382, 403 f.; help in the German Bible, v. 499 f.; missionary work, iv. 194, v. 124 f., 165, vi. 273 f.; assists at ordinations, vi. 314, 347; promotes the Consistories, iii. 31, v. 181, 183 f.; acts as judge, iii. 171, 401 f., v. 20, vi. 281; fanaticism, iii. 131, iv. 299, 510 f.; a misunderstanding with L., v. 107; his writing paper, ii. 144; his melancholy, iv. 219; and the bigamy, iv. 26, 36, 43; and Wicel, v. 43; present at L.’s death, his panegyric, iv. 244, 348, vi. 373, 380 f., 387 f., 396

⸺ Prophet, v. 532

Jordan of Saxony, vi. 236

Jörger, D., vi. 92

Josel of Rosheim, v. 403, 408 f.

Jovian, iii. 41, vi. 355

Jubilee Year, vi. 86

Judae, L., iii. 227, 302, 417

Judas, ii. 282, iii. 190, v. 352

Jude, epistle of, v. 522

Judex, M., vi. 410

Judge. _See_ Christ

Judgment. _See_ God, Last Day

Julius II, i. 55, 228, 339, 351, vi. 516

⸺ III, vi. 436

Juncker, C., iii. 292, vi. 289, n.

Justice, of God, i. 391, 388-402, iv. 93 f., vi. 190; human J., i. 150; the twofold and threefold “justice,” i. 387; natural and supernatural, v. 49-52; “justice” becomes “piety,” v. 514; commutative, v. 58, 117 ff.; reaching of J., i. 71 ff., vi. 195; “formalis justitia,” iv. 460. _See_ Justification

Justification, according to L., iv. 432-449, v. 453-461; consists in a being declared just, i. 213 ff.; the fear of its absence is the sign of its presence, i. 218, 302; is ever doubtful, i. 97; preparation for, i. 213 f.; its preaching makes the congregation snore, iv. 232. _See_ Certainty, Faith, Grace, Humility, Imputation

Justinian, ii. 269, vi. 91

Justitiarii, i. 148, 199 ff., iv. 170

Juvenal, vi. 18

Kaiser, iii. 48-54. _See_ Charles V, etc., Resistance

Kalteisen, H., i. 346

Karg, G., iii. 171, vi. 275

Kaufmann, F., iii. 217, vi. 358

⸺ M., iii. 216 f., v. 344

Kauxdorf, A., ii. 319

Kern, J., iv. 172 f.

Kessler, J., ii, 157 ff., iv. 268, 357 f.

Khummer, C., i. 396, vi. 505 ff.

Kingdom of God _v._ Kingdom of the World, ii. 297; consists in forgiveness of sins, iv. 448

Kirchner, T., vi. 415

Kleindienst, B., iv. 95, 101

Kliefoth, v. 150

Kling, C., ii. 355, v. 341, vi. 326

⸺ M., iv. 289, vi. 356

Klingenbeyl, S., vi. 157, n.

Kneusel, B., v. 203

Knights, ii. 26, 56, 66 f., 197, vi. 402; Teutonic, ii. 120, 223, iii. 16, 262, iv. 196

Koch, V., vi. 4

Kohlhase, Hans, v. 117-119

Kokeritz, C. von, iii. 72

Kolb, F., iv. 493

Kollin, C., ii. 154, iv. 383

Königsberg, v. 216, vi. 41, 408

Koppe, L., ii. 136

Koran, v. 419, 421

Körner, W., vi. 419

Koss, J., iv. 303 f.

Kötteritz, S. von, vi. 49

Krafft, U., iii. 238

Kraft, A., ii. 256, iv. 25

Kramer, M., iv. 158, 208, n.

Krapp, C., iii. 365

Kraus, J., v. 373

Krautwald, V., v. 79

Krug, N., v. 295

Kultur. _See_ Civilisation

Lagarde, P. de, v. 512, vi. 449

Lainez, vi. 90, 435

Laing, J., vi. 385

Laity, i. 281, ii. 103, v. 178. _See_ Clergy

Lamb of God, iv. 123, 517

Lambert, Fr., of Avignon, ii. 137, v. 141 f., vi. 8, 475, 479

Landau, J., iii. 304, vi. 376, n., 379 f.

Lang, J., at Erfurt, i. 40; relations with the Humanists, i. 28, ii. 256; love for mysticism, i. 41, 84, 169, 264 f., 280; L.’s right hand man, i. 7, 265 f., ii. 342, vi. 114, 116, 118; translates Matthew, v. 546; succeeds L. as Augustinian Vicar, i. 315, 334; promotes the apostasy of Erfurt, ii. 337, 340; causes scandal, ii. 123, 355; intolerance, ii. 354; difficulties with his flock, vi. 326 ff.

⸺ P., i. 353

Langen, R. von, vi. 34

Language, L.’s, advantages, iii. 103, iv. 242 ff.; defects, ii. 153 f., 198, iii. 172. _See_ Abusive L., German L., Unseemliness

Languages, vi. 3, 12, 15, 25 f., 83, 436 f.

Lasco, vi. 58

Lasius, C., vi. 412

Last Day, v. 241-252; will come in less than a century (v. 393) now that L. has shown up the Roman Antichrist, ii. 56, 103, iii. 147; signs of its nearness, ii. 168, 200 f.; among them the prevalence of syphilis, ii. 162; and of melancholy, iv. 224; also the bad morals of the New Believers, iii. 165, iv. 218, v. 180; the dissensions rampant among them, v. 170 f.; the inroads of the Turks, iii. 82, 84, 88, 92, v. 418; its expectation a ground for L.’s marriage, ii. 181; as an explanation of his lack of missionary zeal, vi. 515; does not prove L. a man of strong faith, v. 361; its pathological character, vi. 154

Lateran Councils, i. 162, vi. 34, 503

Latin, iii. 396, 428, v. 146, 508

Latomus, iv. 329, vi. 384, 473. _See_ Louvain

Lauterbach, A., i. xx., 394, iii. 163, 218 ff., 223, 230, v. 169, 188, iv. 342, 391, 505 ff.

Lauterbecken, G., vi. 98

Lauze, W., iv. 202

Law and Gospel, iv. 459, v. 7-14, 24, 323, 451; hard to distinguish, ii. 375, iv. 227, vi. 204 f.; mosaic L., iii. 387, 394 f. _See_ Antinomians, Commandments, Natural L., Schwenckfeld

Lawyers, attacked by L., i. 202, iii. 39 ff., 56 f., 233, 411, iv. 228 ff., v. 207, 293 ff., vi. 355-361

Learning. _See_ Schools

Legends, L.’s, about his early life, vi. 187-236; about the olden Church, iv. 116-178; Legends about L., i. 111, n., ii. 69-74, 94 ff., iii. 278-294, v. 367-374, vi. 381-386; Legends of the Saints. _See_ Critical acumen

Leib, K., ii. 39, 253, iv. 354

Leiffer, G., i. 88, 274

Leipzig Disputation, i. 362 ff.; Interim, iii. 375, v. 263, vi. 410, 412; University, vi. 29; L.’s last visit, vi. 348

Leisentritt, J., vi. 436

Leisnig, v. 136 ff., 142, vi. 49 ff.

Lemnius, S., ii. 188, iii. 233 f., 274, 297, 302, iv. 292, vi. 287 ff.

Lening, J., iv. 24 f., 65 ff., 201

Leo X, and Albert of Mayence, i. 348-354; takes steps against Luther, i. 333, 341, ii. 45; his Bulls, ii. 39, 52 f.; Luther’s letter, i. 335, 340, ii. 17 ff., 30, vi. 218

Leprosy, ground for bigamy or divorce, iii. 255, iv. 20

Lessing, vi. 446, 448

Leyser, P., iv. 469

Libraries, v. 215, vi. 19

Lichtenberg, ii. 317

Lichtenberger, J., iii. 167, iv. 330

Liége, vi. 35

Lies, iv. 28 f., 51, 55, 80-178, vi. 191, 513 ff. _See_ Abraham, etc., Dishonesty

Lights. _See_ Candles

Liguori, v. 469, n.

Lindanus, W., vi. 385

Link, W., Luther’s intimate, i. 40, 264, 359, ii. 184, iii. 54, 60, 121, n., 143 f., 424, iv. 96, v. 516; resigns his office as General Vicar and goes to Altenburg, i. 315 f., vi. 49, 52, 242; at Nuremberg, ii. 335 f., v. 172 f., 186; his temptations, v. 338 f.

Litany, iii. 412, vi. 482

Liturgy. _See_ Worship

Lochau, v. 251

Locher, J., iii. 152

Lombard, Peter, i. 12, 22, 86, 91, 98, 150, 243, 305, 311, 410, vi. 21

Löscher, T., vi. 316

Lotichius, N., v. 295

Lotther (or Lother), the printer, ii. 367, v. 498

Louis of Bavaria, ii. 380, iii. 430

⸺ the Palatinate, vi. 420

Louvain, the town, vi. 35, 38, 43; the theologians, ii. 46, vi. 328, 348 f. _See_ Latomus

Love of God, perfect, i. 158, 172, 191, 194, 236, 238 f., 308, v. 33 f.; imperfect is mere egotism, i. 251; required together with faith for justification, i. 207, ii. 240. _See_ Faith.

Love of one’s neighbour, _see_ Poor-relief

Lübeck, iii. 64 f., 408, 410

Ludel, T., iii. 285

Ludicke, J., iii. 72

Luft (Lufft), Hans, the printer, v. 498, 502

Lüneburg, ii. 384, vi. 276

Lupinus, P., i. 304, iii. 389

Luscinius, O., iv. 471, vi. 31

Lute-playing, i. 7, ii. 131, 157, iii. 288

Luther, spelling of the name, i. 6, 264; Hans, the father, i. 5, 15 f., 19, 25, ii. 86, 182, 216, iii. 308, iv. 265, v. 230, vi. 182 f., 224; Hans, the son, iii. 216, iv. 181, vi. 346, 368, 371, 509; Catherine L., _see_ Bora; James L., v. 108; Paul L., i. 33, vi. 378 f., 496. _See_ Children

Lutherans, ii. 108, vi. 476. _See_ Christians

Lutz, R., v. 296

Lycosthenes, C., iii. 152

Lyra, N., of, i. 92, 243, 401, ii. 237, v. 413, 535

Macarius, St., ii. 379

⸺ Magnes, iii. 381

Macchiavelli, vi. 57

Machabees, 2nd Book, iv. 505 f.

Madness, is from the devil, v. 280. _See_ Ailments (Insanity)

Magdeburg, i. 5, iii. 64, 442, v. 219 f., 236, vi. 5, 35, 408, 413

Magdeburgius, J., iv. 225

Magenbuch, J., ii. 162 f., iv. 349

Magi, their lie to Herod, vi. 514. _See_ Three Kings

Magic, v. 240 f., 277, 284 f. _See_ Superstition, Witches. M. in the sacraments, i. 248

Magnus of Mecklenburg, iii. 371

Major, G., v. 262, 265, vi. 272, 364, 408 ff., 412, 494

Maladies. _See_ Ailments

Maledictory prayer, iii. 172, 208, 437 f., v. 94. _See_ Curses

Malipiero, iii. 152

Malsburg, H. von der, iv. 25

Maltitz, J. von, vi. 516

Malvasian wine, ii. 131, iii. 297

Man. _See_ Great M.

Mania. _See_ Madness

Manichæans, ii. 376, iii. 259, vi. 413, 415

Mansfeld, i. 5, ii. 131, iv. 165, vi. 132, 350 f.

Mantel, J., iv. 210

Mantua, Council, iii. 425, 428 f., vi. 488

Marbach, J., vi. 275, 493

Marburg, archives, iii. 51; Conference, ii. 334, 390, iii. 328, 342, 381, 382 f., 416, v. 340, 531 f.; University, vi. 40

Marcion, i. 300

Marcolfus, iii. 268, iv. 45 f.

Margaritha, A., v. 411

Marguérin de la Bigne, vi. 438

Marienwerder, v. 216

Marquard, iv. 120

Marriage, iii. 241-273, 324 f., iv. 129-178; L.’s charges against the Papists, v. 112, vi. 232; did he better it? ii. 148 ff., v. 283; M. secularised, iii. 38-42; a remedy against fornication, ii. 116 ff., 142, vi. 166; impediments, iii. 290 f.; is commanded, ii. 166; clandestine M., ii. 120, 149, n., iii. 39 ff., iv. 289 f., vi. 355-359; with brother of impotent man, ii. 33 f.; exchange of wives, iv. 160. _See_ Actus matrimonialis, Bigamy, Divorce, Impediments, Intermarriage, Leprosy, Sacraments, Women L.’s M., _see_ Wedding

Marschalk, i. 263

Marsupino, v. 382

Martial, vi. 18

Mary, Virgin, L. on honour paid to the, iv. 235-238, 500-503, v. 146, 476; conceived without sin, iv. 238, n.; her virginity, v. 446; on the Hail M., iv. 502, v. 478, 480, 517. _See_ Saint-worship

Mascov, G., i. 83, 267 f.

Mass, iv. 506-527; L.’s first M., i. 15, 125 f., iv. 170, vi. 100, 226; how quickly Masses are said in Rome, i. 35; last M., ii. 88; early distaste for, i. 275 f., iv. 124 f., vi. 196 f.; insults, i. 27 f., ii. 166, iii. 130, 227, 305; Masses for dead bring in money, iii. 439, iv. 513 f.; M. suppressed, ii. 311, 320 f., 327 f.; against the Canon, ii. 330, v. 154; the “winklemass,” ii. 88, iv. 518-523; not a sacrifice, ii. 89 f., 320, 385, iv. 506-518, v. 150, 439; yet L. calls it the “sacrificium eucharisticum,” v. 149, 464; M. is quietly changed into Communion-service, ii. 98 f., v. 145 ff., 150; “Formula missæ,” v. 135, 145, 546; German M., v. 139, 146, vi. 445. _See_ Eucharist

Material principle. _See_ Faith, Justification

Mathesius, J., relations with L., iii. 312, iv. 269; enthusiasm, v. 364, 488, vi. 389 f.; “Historien,” i. xx., vi. 389 f., 443; on his Catholic days, v. 490, n.; on Tetzel, iv. 84; on Egranus, iii. 402 f.; Frau Cotta, iii. 288; on the beginning of the Gospel-business, i. 303 f., 393; on the ghosts, etc., vi. 123; on L.’s prophecies, iii. 164; on L.’s habit of taking a sip at night, iii. 305 f., 310; on the German Bible, v. 499 f.; on the Table-Talk, iii. 218 f., 222, 228, 232, 239, iv. 43 f., v. 170; and the song for driving out Antichrist, v. 555 f.; his melancholy, iv. 222, v. 363 f., vi. 150 f.

Maupis, F., vi. 346

Maurice of Saxony, iv. 315, v. 125, 167, 200 ff., 252, vi. 347, 407, 410

Maximilian I of Bavaria, ii. 43

⸺ I, Kaiser, i. 340

Mayence, ii. 6, 214 f., v. 221, vi. 431

Mayer, W., vi. 29, 426

Mayron, F., i. 346

Mechanical system of grace, i. 156, 308, ii. 274, n., 284

Mechler, Æ., ii. 345, 354

Meckbach, J., iv. 69

Medals, vi. 389

Medicines, spoilt by the devil, v. 283. _See_ Physicians

Meder, v. 295

Mediævalism, L.’s, vi. 440-444, 453 ff.

Medici, Guilio dei, ii. 46

Mediocrity standardised, i. 71 f., iii. 211 f., 311 f., v. 124

Medler, N., v. 165, 194, vi. 346, 488

Medmann, P., v. 166

Megalomania, iv. 327-350, v. 110 f., 389 ff., 530-533, vi. 161 ff., 284 f., 361, 398-406. _See_ Doctor, Great man

Meinhardi, A. von, i. 40, n., iv. 141

Meirisch, M., i. 144, iv. 160

Meissen, iv. 86, v. 123, 200 ff., vi. 243

Melancholy, iii. 402, 416, iv. 210, 218-227, v. 305, vi. 176, 221, 227

Melanchthon, Ph., character and work, iii. 319-378, 438-449, v. 252-275; acts as intermediary between the Knights and L., ii. 5; pictured with L., vi. 389, n.; and alone, ii. 158; enthusiasm for L., i. 303, iii. 165, iv. 269, 357; his “Passional,” v. 425; “Pope-Ass,” iii. 150 ff.; his Commonplace-Book, ii. 239, 282, n., 287 f., iv. 498, v. 4; Instructions for the Visitors, v. 591; panegyric on L., v. 262, vi. 387; Vita Lutheri, i. 17 f., 303; helps in the German Bible, v. 495 ff.; favours the fanatics, ii. 99; comparative moderation, iii. 134; criticises L.’s teaching, v. 460 f.; drops predestinarianism, ii. 239, 268, 287, n., iv. 435 f., vi. 152 f.; on the Law, v. 17; penance, v. 452 f.; need of good works, iv. 476; Eucharist, iii. 424, v. 465; finds fault with L.’s language, ii. 144 f., 155, 176 ff., iii. 240, 276 f.; M.’s melancholy, ii. 167, iii. 201, iv. 219; belief in astrology, ii. 168, iii. 306; superstition, ii. 390, v. 240; dances occasionally, iii. 303; on the Virgin Mary, iv. 502; strictures on the Universities, vi. 26; and Agricola, v. 15, 20; and Amerbach, iv. 364; and Amsdorf, v. 193; and Bucer, iii. 421; and Calvin, v. 401; and Cordatus, iv. 461; and Erasmus, ii. 248 f., 262, iv. 183; and Henry VIII, iv. 10 f.; his daughter, vi. 418; and Lemnius, vi. 287; as an educationalist, iii. 391, vi. 5 f., 9, 13, n., 16 f., 18, 21, 26, 38, 435; his students’ lack of discipline, v. 157, 247; his hopes of a Protestant Council, v. 170, 175 f.; his leading place in Lutheranism, v. 173, 183; ordains ministers, vi. 265, 314; intolerance, ii. 203, iv. 9, v. 20, 22 f., 82, vi. 251 f., 269 f.; truthfulness, ii. 386 f., iv. 112 f.; misrepresents Augustine, i. 305 f., iv. 459; thwarts L.’s Schmalkalden Articles, iii. 432; armed resistance, iii. 59; the Landgrave’s bigamy (iv. 13-79) is the cause of an indisposition, iii. 268, iv. 144; miraculously cured by L., iii. 162, iv. 48; is sometimes suspected by L., v. 237, vi. 345; plans to leave Wittenberg, vi. 347, 352 f.; at Mansfeld, vi. 350 f. _See_ Cryptocalvinism, Pecca fortiter, Synergism

Melander, D., iv. 24 f., 157, 201, 251

Memmingen, iii. 64, 421

Mendicancy, i. 71, 270, ii. 337, vi. 473, 500. _See_ Beggars

Menius, J., ii. 256, iii. 68, 421, iv. 66 f., 74, 203, v. 282, vi. 276, 391, 409 f., 482 f.

Mensing, J., i. 79, iii. 195, iv. 121, 160, 303, 385, vi. 330, n., 432

Merchants, v. 157, vi. 6, 79-86

Merit, i. 75, 102, 119, 143, 157, 179, iv. 449, v. 8 f., 459 f.; of Christ, i. 71 f.

Merseburg, v. 167, 219, vi. 347

Metz, v. 167, 396

Metzsch, Hans, ii. 169, iii. 426, iv. 216, 245, v. 118, 187 f., 312, vi. 22

⸺ Jos. L., vi. 262

Meyer, P., ii. 327

Michol’s lie, iv. 109

Micyllus, vi. 36

Middle Ages, L.’s misrepresentations of the, iv. 116-178. _See_ Mediævalism

Military service, iv. 247

Milsungen, iv. 18

Miltitz, C. von, i. 341 f., 348, 365, ii. 18, 86, vi. 190, 307

Mind, L.’s, vi. 156-186

Ministers, Ministry, ii. 107-111, 113 f., iv. 126, vi. 311; their choice, ii. 112, 192, 358, vi. 599; their support, iii. 34. _See_ Ordinations, Preachers, Priests

Minkwitz, J. von, v. 220

Miracles, ii. 63, iii. 117, 153-162, v. 288, 313, vi. 164 f., 191, 285 f., 443. _See_ Fanatics, Melanchthon, Monk-Calf

Misbirths, iii. 152; consolation for women suffering M., iv. 248

Misrepresentations. _See_ Calumnies, Legends

Mission, L.’s, i. 37, 74, 91 ff., iii. 109-168, iv. 313-318, 391, v. 321 ff., vi. 161-166, 283 f., 285 f. _See_ Certainty, Revelation, Vocation

Missions, foreign, iii. 213 ff., v. 249, vi. 427, 515

Misson, M., iii. 292

Mochau, M., von, vi. 509

Modern spirit, L. and the, ii. 72, iii. 19, vi. 454 f.

Modesty. _See_ Humility

Mohacz, iii. 89

Mohammed, iv. 6, v. 479. _See_ Koran, Turks

Mohr, G., iv. 219, vi. 346, 349

Möhra, i. 5, 16

Moibanus, A., vi. 491

Moller, H., vi. 417

Monastery, L. in the, i. 3-34, iii. 114; his legend, vi. 187-236. _See_ Wittenberg

Money, vi. 84, 87 f.

Monk-Calf, ii. 57, iii. 149 f., 355 f., v. 244, 310, vi. 155

Monkeys, v. 286

Monks, what their name comes from, iv. 161; L. on M. and friars, i. 270 f., ii. 138, iii. 228, v. 113 f., vi. 514. _See_ Apostate M., Spectre M., Vows

Mönsterberg, U. von, vi. 482

Morality. _See_ Ethics. L.’s morals, vi. 512

Moravia, v. 403 f.

Morbid trains of thought, vi. 141-182, 224 ff.

More, Sir Th., ii. 244, n., iii. 70, 237, iv. 9, 284, v. 110, vi. 246

Mörlin, J., vi. 408, 492

Morone, J., iv. 28, vi. 492

Mortal sins, all breaches of the Rules, i. 15, iv. 105, n. _See_ Scapular, Sin

Mortification, i. 191, 235, iii. 211, v. 31, 86, 92, 481, vi. 235. _See_ Penance

Mosaism. _See_ Law, Mosaic

Mosellanus, P., ii. 242, iv. 269, vi. 16

Moses, i. 179, ii. 221, v. 236; to be slain, v. 324; a German M., vi. 442; a second M., vi. 442; “relics” of, iv. 292

Moth, Ph., vi. 488

Motives, v. 34

Mountjoy, ii. 251

Mühlberg, vi. 407

Mühlhausen, ii. 167, 364 f., iii. 422

Müller, C., ii. 208, iii. 296, 315 f., iv. 361

Münch, J., vi. 385

Munich, ii. 172

Münster, ii. 365, iii. 419, v. 166, 173, vi. 35

⸺ S., v. 411, 413, 532, 535

Münzer, Th., ii. 200-207, 363-378; at Allstedt, iv. 172; at Zwickau, iii. 402; L.’s rival, iii. 4; won’t work miracles, iii. 154, vi. 285; his “presumption,” iii. 389 f., vi. 152; his “sins,” iii. 177; preaches against the two popes, of Rome and Wittenberg, iv. 309, 337, vi. 281; his defence, ii. 130, iii. 275, 302, iv. 100; is doomed, iii. 384

Murmellius, J., vi. 34

Murner, Th., ii. 154, iv. 376, 384, vi. 430, 513

Musa, A., ii. 345, iv. 222, v. 174, 363

Musæus, S., iv. 220

Musculus, A., vi. 61, 419

⸺ W., iii. 300, vi. 277

Music, i. 8, ii. 170 ff., iii. 66 f., iv. 256 f., v. 223, 302, 547 f., 551 f., 554, vi. 19

Mutian, R., i. 7, 28, 41, ii. 3, 243, iii. 287, vi. 31, 350, 387

Myconius, F., iii. 62, 162, 166, 421, iv. 84, 200, vi. 123, 265, 326, 341, 491

⸺ O., iv. 198

Mylius, G., i. 33

Mysticism, i. 160, 165-183, 268; German M., i. 84, 87 f., ii. 275, n.; mystic pangs of hell, i. 231-240, vi. 102, 115 ff.; was L. a mystic? i. 89, n., v. 476; some mystic effusions, i. 82-90, 230-240, 280 ff., 318, v. 32 f., 198, 476

Namur, vi. 43

Nannius, J., vi. 488

Nathin, J., i. 4, 13, 17, 22, 58, 128, ii. 337, 361, n., iv. 354, vi. 101, n.

Nationalism. _See_ German N.

Natural virtues, _see_ Virtue; N. order, v. 49-52; N. law, i. 141, 143 f.; thunderstorms, etc., not N., v. 286; Nature and Grace, i. 204

Naumburg, iii. 375, v. 165 f., 192 ff., vi. 328, 408

Nausea, F., iv. 383

Necessity, all takes place of, ii. 227, 290, v. 53; N. knows no law, iii. 90

Neobulus, H. _See_ Lening

Neoplatonism, i. 76, 174

Nerve trouble. _See_ Ailments

Neustadt Admonition, vi. 422

Nicene Council, iii. 157, iv. 240, vi. 314

Nider, J., i. 48

Nietzsche, vi. 459

Nigrinus, iv. 324

Nimbschen. _See_ Nuns

Nimbus. _See_ Portraits

Nobility, ii. 3 ff., 26 ff., 199, 216, vi. 71 f., 402

Noe, L. a new N., vi. 388, 442

Nominalism, i. 130 ff., ii. 275, n.; Nominalists on lies, vi. 514 f.; Semi-Pelagianism of the, vi. 426. _See_ Occam, etc.

Noppus, J., vi. 493

Nordhausen, v. 236, vi. 276

Nossenus, M., ii. 342

Novalis, vi. 449

Nuns, apostate, of Nimbschen, etc., ii. 135-148, 177 f., 282; their fate, iv. 172 ff., 175 f.; persecution of the faithful ones, vi. 276 f., 278 f.; two newly “cursed” N., vi. 343

Nuremberg, ii. 334 ff., v. 172 f., 186, 223, 255; Town-Council, ii. 335, iii. 59 ff.; Diets of N., ii. 189, 334, 380, iii. 76; Poor-relief, vi. 46; Schools, vi. 5 f., 35 ff.; tolerance, vi. 270 f.

Oaths, lawful to take, v. 570

Obedience, ii. 15 ff., 308 ff., iii. 172, vi. 498 f.

Observantines and Conventuals, i. 28-38, 67-78, 81 f., 147, 198 ff., 255, 262 f., 267, 298, vi. 497-503

Obstinacy. _See_ Defiance

Occam, Occamism, i. 13, 84 ff., 120, 130-165, 171, 191, 204 f., 212, 216, 243, iv. 417, n., v. 51. _See_ Nominalism

Œcolampadius, J., takes Zwingli’s side, iii. 409, n., v. 79; wants to establish synods, v. 176; opposes the bigamy, iv. 6, 10, n.; Œ. on L., iv. 99; L. on Œ., ii. 254, iii. 389, 403, 424, iv. 87, 308, v. 105, 447, vi. 278, 281, 284, 289

Office. _See_ Breviary, Calling, Ministry

Oils. _See_ Anointing, Chrism

Oldecop, J., 24, 29, 35 f., 304, 332, 361, iv. 229, 429, v. 218, vi. 222, 385, 497

Olevian, C., vi. 414

Olmütz, W. von., iii. 152

Omnipresence. _See_ Christ

Opponents, awful death of L.’s, iv. 302, 304, vi. 161, 191, 383 f.; _See_ Catholics, Heretics

Opposition, a sign that one is in the right, i. 253

Orders, Holy, all “jugglery,” vi. 404; “donkey-smearing,” v. 101

Ordinations, Lutheran, ii. 112, iii. 428, v. 101, 190-197, vi. 264 f., 313 f., 347, 374

Ordo matrimonialis, iv. 129 f.

Organs, ii. 227, v. 148

Origen, iv. 110, 331

Original sin, i. 74 f., 92, 99, 140 f., 203 f., 210, ii. 250, v. 6, 37, 438,450, 487, vi. 412 f., 420. _See_ Concupiscence, Grace

Orlamünde, iii. 256, 385

Orthodox side, L.’s, ii. 399, iv. 239 ff., 526 f.; O. Lutheranism, vi. 440-444

Ortiz, iv. 386

Ortwin de Graes, i. 42

Osiander, A., ii. 334, iii. 434, 444, iv. 9, 29, 223, v. 170, 257, 410, 531, vi. 408 f.

Osnabrück, v. 166

Ossitz, vi. 137

Ostermayer, W., i. 127

Ostia, v. 109, 384

Otto I, Kaiser, v. 220

⸺ A., vi. 410

Our Father, the, i. 65, 361, ii, 240, v. 94, 124, 473, 476, 478, 485

Outlawry, L.’s, ii. 45

Overwork, i. 267. _See_ Work

Pack, O. von, iii. 48 f., 326, v. 343

Pagans. _See_ Heathen

Pagninus, S., v. 535

Palladius, P., iii. 413, n., vi. 273, 489

Pallavicini, S., iv. 259

Palpitations. _See_ Ailments

Paltz, J., i. 13, 105, 224, 243, 272 f. 327, n., 345

Palude, P. de, i. 346, iii. 261

Pantheism, i. 166, 172, 178, ii. 284, vi. 456

Panvinius, O., vi. 437

Papacy. _See_ Pope, Popedom

Papists are murderers, iii. 130 ff., 414; Cains and devils, iii. 43; fattening pigs, iv. 288; as bad as Turks, iii. 91 f., vi. 155; abnormal nature of L.’s views of the P., vi. 156 ff.

Pappus, H., iv. 100

Parents, L.’s, i. 5, v. 294, vi. 223. _See_ Luther, Hans

Paris, University of, i. 363, v. 279, vi. 37, 349, 472

Parrots, v. 286

Pastors. _See_ Ministers

Pathology. _See_ Ailments

Patmos (the Wartburg), ii. 91

Patriarchs, iii. 259, iv. 4, vi. 74, 85. _See_ Prince

Patriotism. _See_ German nationalism

Paul, St., as L.’s mainstay, i. 94, 140, 179; Paul rather than Jesus, iii. 169, vi. 453 f.; his failings, ii. 289, v. 360, 362 f., 393; L. a new P., iii. 165, v. 517 f.; like P., iii. 119, iv. 273

⸺ III, Pope, ii. 250, iii. 420, 425, 427, 443, iv. 90, v. 168, 234 f., 380, 382, vi. 427, n.

Pauli, B., v. 22

⸺ J., vi. 513

⸺ S., iv. 225 f.

Pauline privilege, ii. 33, iii, 254

Pázmány, P., vi. 385

Peasants, ii. 180, 189-219, 350, 353, 356 f., iii. 323 f., v. 181, 588, vi. 70-74, 76, 84, 406

Pecca fortiter, iii. 195-199, vi. 166

Pelagianism, i. 91 ff., 190, 199, 205 f., 287, ii. 225, 232, 293, n. _See_ Grace

Pelargus, A., iv. 383

Pelayo, A., i. 55

Pellicanus, C., iii. 383 f.

Penance, i. 65 f., 90 f., 119, 290, 292-296, 311 f., iii. 176, 184 ff., 212, 323, iv. 460, 491, v. 23 f., 452 f; the sacrament, ii. 27, iii. 338, iv. 249, 491 f., v. 462. _See_ Confession, Contrition, Satisfaction

Perfection, reputed to be found only in the cloistral “state of P.,” i. 85, n., iv. 130 f., 133; L.’s idea of P., i. 166, v. 43, 84 ff., 439; his own efforts, iii. 187-193. _See_ Counsels

Perrenoti, N., v. 382

Perusco, M. de, i. 338

Pessimism, i. 126, 289, iii. 24, 84, 98 f., 123, 190 f., v. 130, 225-234, 241

Pessler, ii. 334

Pestel, P., vi. 255, 267

Pestilence. _See_ Plague

Peter, thou art, v. 518, vi. 338 ff.; L. like P., v. 340; P.’s denial, iii. 182; second epistle of, v. 522; the legend of P., iv. 264

Petreius, i. 28

Peucer, C., vi. 415, 418

Peutinger, C., ii. 76, vi. 45, 271

Pezel, C., vi. 417

Pfeffinger, J., vi. 76, 347, 410, 412

Pfeifer, H., ii, 364, 373

Pflug, J. von, iv. 69, v. 21, 165, 191, 197, vi. 39, n., 408, 436, 492

Pharisees, i. 82, iv. 45

Philip II, Landgrave of Hesse, a patron of the new religion, ii. 216, 388, iii. 64, 72, 340, v. 201 f., 576; inclines to the Church-apart, v. 141 ff.; to Zwinglianism, ii, 333 f., iii. 327, 337, 383, 445, v. 172; refuses help against the Turks, iii. 87; stands for resistance against the Kaiser, iii. 50; and carries L. with him, iii. 54 ff.; raid on Würtemberg, iii. 67 f.; and Brunswick, v. 394 ff.; makes a secret covenant with the Kaiser, v. 396; vanquished by the latter, vi. 407; favours a Protestant Council, v. 175; his bigamy, iv. 13-79, 209; sends L. a barrel of wine, iii. 314; and Melanchthon, iii. 373; his morality, iv. 201, 71 f.; intolerance, vi. 256, 258, 272

Philippists, iii. 375, vi. 415

Philosophy, i. 22, 136, 158 f., 244 f., 281, 320, v. 440 ff., 445, vi. 18, 20 f., 445. _See_ Aristotle

Phocas, iii. 93, iv. 297

Phormion, vi. 82

Physicians, iii. 211, v. 203, 281, 283, vi. 7, 21, 378 ff. _See_ Ratzeberger, Rychardus

Picards, i. 34, 106 f., ii. 186

Pictures. _See_ Images, Portraits

Pietism, v. 173, vi. 63, 440, 444 f.

Pighius, A., v. 75, vi. 384

Pilgrimages, i. 46, 124, v. 212, 288, vi. 68

Pirata, A., iv. 383

Pirkheimer, C., ii. 334 f.

⸺ W., ii. 39 f., 43, 67, 127, 256, iv. 353, 453, 471, v. 431, vi. 37

Pirna, vi. 415

Pirstinger, B., i. 48, 344 f.

Pistorius, F., ii. 131, vi. 275, 290, n., 492

Plague, i. 265, iv. 248, 272 f., v. 337, vi. 509; “the Pope’s Plague,” iii. 435, v. 102, vi. 370, 377, 389, 394 f., 407

Planck, J., i. xi. f., iii. 174, vi. 449

Planitz, Hans von der, v. 591

Plantsch, M., v. 290

Plassen, C., van der, iv. 368

Plato, L.’s guest, iii. 218, 232

Plautus, vi. 16, 18

Plenaries, iv. 135

Poison, iii. 116, v. 235 f.

Pole, Cardinal, vi. 488

Polemics, iv. 283-350, v. 375-431. _See_ Calumnies, Lies, Unseemliness

Polenz, G. von. iv. 96 f., 155

Poliander, vi. 37

Politician, L. a P.? vi. 459 ff.

Pollich, M., i. 39, 86, iv. 258 f., 357

Polner, Hans, iii. 217, 307

Poltergeists. _See_ Ghosts

Polygamy, iii. 259 ff., 268, iv. 3 ff., 146, v. 72, vi. 86. _See_ Philip II, his bigamy

Polygranus, F., i. 345

Pomeranus. _See_ Bugenhagen

Pommersfelden, L. von, ii. 215

Ponikau, iii. 435

Pontanus. _See_ Brück, G.

Poor-Relief, vi. 42-65; in olden times, iv. 477-481; L.’s merits, v. 26, 117, 562; bad effects, v. 205

Pope of Rome, Popedom, iii. 128 ff., iv. 295-305, v. 381-389; acknowledged by L., i. 34 f., 324; “papa, papa!” ii. 347; not infallible, ii. 50; P. flings about indulgences, i. 70; early blame for Julius II, i. 228; and Leo X, i. 348; what the P. teaches, vi. 337 f.; P. oppresses the Germans, iii. 96 ff., 105 f.; presumes to decide on matters of faith, iii. 130; not head of Christendom, v. 383; instituted by the devil, vi. 190; attacked in his very marrow, ii. 260; is adored as God, iii. 130; Popes are seducers, i. 227; the Pope-Ass, iii. 150 ff., 355; worse than the Turk, i. 359, iii. 72, 79, 82, 86, n., 91 f., 126, iv. 164, v. 416; “Popery pictured,” v. 421-431. _See_ Antichrist, Infallibility, Peter, Plague, Rome, Werewolf

⸺ of Wittenberg, L. a new P., iii. 277 (Judae); has set up a new Papal chair, ii. 130, 377 (Ickelsamer); has taken the P.’s place (iv. 337); is a new P. (vi. 281) who bestows church-property on the princes, ii. 377 (Münzer); “pseudo-papa,” ii. 163, n.,; “I am your P.,” v. 231; P. of Germany, vi. 77; “called by God to be an anti-pope,” ii. 54, iii. 110; “ego sum papa,” v. 191, n., vi. 315; “the German P.,” iii. 427, vi. 77; a Cæsarean popedom, vi. 452

Porchetus de Salvaticis, v. 411

Portents, iii. 148-152, v. 239. _See_ Astrology

Portraits, L.’s vi. 389, 393 f., 430, 443; depicted with a halo, ii. 66. _See_ Appearance

Possessed, L. P.? ii. 68, 392, 396, iii. 127, 429, iv. 352-360, vi. 112; Agricola P., v. 22; Carlstadt, iii. 390 f.; Schwenckfeld, v. 83; other cases, ii. 289, 376, iii. 148; calm of the P. at L.’s funeral, vi. 385; in the P. the devil takes the soul’s place, v. 281, n., 292

Postils, Church-P., ii. 119, iii. 151, v. 158, 473 f., 480; Home-P., iv. 217, 232, v. 470

Powers, natural, made too much of by the Nominalists, i. 132; and too little of by L., i. 65, 74 f., 100 f., 117, 133, 140, 160, 310 ff., iv. 229. _See_ Determinism

Prætorius, Alexius, vi. 409

⸺ Anton, vi. 61

Prague, ii. 112

Prateolus, vi. 385, 409

Prayer, true P. L.’s “discovery,” iii. 345; P. arises from Faith, v. 27; his opponents don’t pray, iii. 399; how monks pray in choir, i. 277; P. is necessary, i. 35, 153, 235, 279, ii. 349; how to pray, v. 478 ff.; P. decried, i. 68, iii. 205; all P. petition, v. 87; L.’s P., ii. 87, iii. 206 ff., 365, 410, 435, iv. 275-278, v. 94, 199, vi. 232 f., 235, 511 f.; power of L.’s P., iii. 113, 162, 209, n., iv. 267, v. 313, vi. 161 f., 391, 395 f.; Catholics’ P., i. 390, iii. 131 f.; “Pray Maurice to death,” iv. 315. _See_ Breviary, Maledictory P.

Preachers, even “millers’ maids” (iv. 389) can expound Scripture, yet true P. are only those “in office,” iv. 126, vi. 250, n., 315; best unmarried, iii. 248; L.’s complaints about the P., ii. 123, 127; preach faith and decry good works, iv. 466 ff.; on the faults of others, ii. 344, iii. 323 f., iv. 323 f.; preach violence, ii. 323 f., 340 f., 354 f., iv. 514; responsible for breaches of wedlock, iv. 158, 160, 165 ff., 172 f., 201, 208; seek only an income and a wife, ii. 126, vi. 32; scorned by the people, iii. 34, iv. 209, 211, 218, 478, n., v. 182, 249, vi. 77, 326, 343. _See_ Ministers, Priesthood

Precepts. _See_ Commandments

Predestination, i. 74, n., 183, 187-198, 208, 238, 313, 369, ii. 268-294, iii. 189, 347, iv. 434, 447, v. 159, 438; doubts concerning P., i. 19, 124 f., 161, 190 f., 376, vi. 219, 221. _See_ Determinism, Hell

Predictions. _See_ Prophecies

Presents. _See_ Gifts

Prices, high, vi. 77, 84 f.

Pride, i. 123, 279, 287, ii. 54, 130, 221, 368, iii. 200, 389, iv. 332, n., v. 110 f.; according to L. source of all heretical pravity, i. 287, 324, ii. 376

Prierias, S., i. 66, 163, 338 ff., 366, ii. 12 f., iii. 145, iv. 373 ff.

Priesthood, the olden P. a wall between man and God, iv. 123, 126, 516; the new P. universal, all being priests though not preachers, ii. 31, 35, 89, 106, 113 f., 193, 211, 304, iii. 12, 15, iv. 455, 516, v. 160, vi. 250, n., 303 f., 306, 311, 403. _See_ Apostates, Preachers

Primacy, Roman, dates only from Phocas, iii. 93. _See_ Peter

Prince, as patriarch, v. 579-584; as bishop, vi. 322; as chief member of the Church, v. 144; as supreme head, v. 590; his duties, v. 568 ff.; P. and Christian two different things, iii. 60, 69, 81, v. 55 f.; L.’s treatment of the princes, ii. 305 ff., iii. 24, iv. 290-294. _See_ Authority, secular

Printers, printing-press, ii. 52 f., iv. 365, 381, v. 558, 560, vi. 431. _See_ Lotther, Lufft

Private judgment. _See_ Bible interpretation

Probst, J., ii. 346, iii. 300, iv. 160, v. 195, vi. 349

Processions, whether right, iv. 239, v. 313, 464, vi. 353, n.

Professor, L. as University P., iv. 228 ff.

Proles, A., i. 29, 46, 107, 297, iv. 119, vi. 68

Prophecies, L.’s, iii. 155, 163-168, iv. 13, v. 169-174, vi. 416, 443 f.; P. fulfilled in L., iii. 165 ff., 396 f., iv. 330

Prophet, L. a, vi. 306, 391; P. of the Germans, iii. 96, iv. 329, vi. 389 f., 442. _See_ Fanatics

Prostitutes, iii. 243, iv. 148, 215 f., 227, v. 109, 231. _See_ Brothels

Protest of Spires, ii. 381

Protestants. _See_ Christians

Proverbs, iii. 104, iv. 246

Proviso. _See_ Gospel-P.

Prussia, iv. 196, v. 216, 286

Psalms, commentaries and lectures on the, i. 63, 67-77, 119, 285, 361, 386

Psychology of L.’s abuse, iv. 306-326; of his development, vi. 112-123; of his humour, v. 319 ff.

Purgatory, i. 75, 179, 324, 343, iii. 329, iv. 504 ff., v. 283, 299, 438, vi. 484

Qualitas, “Christ my Q.,” iv. 460; concupiscence a Q.? i. 141

Quare. _See_ Reason

Quarrelsomeness, i. 79

Quietism, i. 83, 167, 221 f., 231 f., ii. 225, iii. 210, v. 45, 86 f. _See_ Mysticism

Rabbis, v. 407, 414, 533. _See_ Jews

Rabe, A. _See_ Corvinus

⸺ L., v. 106

Rapagelanus, S., vi. 494

Ratichius, W., vi. 9

Rationalism, v. 269, vi. 440, 446 ff. _See_ Zwinglianism

Ratisbon, vi. 47, 412; conferences and Interim, iii. 446, v. 274, 379 f.; Diet, vi. 495

Ratzeberger, M., ii. 82, 170, iii. 74, 288, 309, vi. 103, 123, 132, 344, 347, 364, 377

Rauchhaupt, v. 239

Reaction, iii. 3-21. _See_ Antinomians, Fanatics, Peasants

Reason, L.’s antipathy for, i. 132, 158, 216, iii. 8, 21, 203, 210, 321, v. 4, 440, vi. 25, 364; leads him to deny freedom, ii. 279 f.; to require faith of infants brought for baptism, ii. 373; “quare” comes from the devil, ii. 378; R. a devil’s whore, vi. 364 f. _See_ Philosophy

Reform, need of R., ii. 222; desired by all, vi. 402; Roman proposals for R., iii. 443. _See_ Humanism

Reformation, v. 119-132; its birth-hour, i. 23; “from the monk’s melancholy sprang the R.,” vi. 176; usual idea of it “mythological,” vi. 448; the “peasant-rising of the spirit,” iii. 19; a “remedy for the future,” ii. 249, 257

Reformer, L. a R.? iii. 236 f., 273, vi. 401 ff.

Regeneration, iii. 271. _See_ Justification

Reginald, W., vi. 385

Rehlinger, J., vi. 271

Reichenbach, ii. 138

Reinholdt, v. 218

Reisner, vi. 443

Reissenbusch, ii. 116 ff., 319 f.

Relaxation, weekly, iii. 307

Relics, i. 235, 284 f., ii. 245, 327; L.’s list of R., iv. 292; L.’s R., vi. 443

Religious teacher? L. a, vi. 455 f. _See_ Blasphemy, Quietism; R. War, _see_ Resistance

Rellach, J., v. 543

Remission. _See_ Forgiveness

Resignation. _See_ Hell

Resistance, armed R. against the Kaiser, ii. 309 f., iii. 43-76, 95, 431 ff.

Responsibility, ii. 79 f., 125, 272, iii. 438, v. 373 ff., vi. 162, 171, 228, 406 f.

Retractations, v. 23 f., vi. 260, 308

Reuchlin, J., i. 42, iii. 320

Reutlingen, ii. 384, iii. 64, 421, v. 80

Reval, vi. 265, 313

Revelation, L.’s, i. 377 f., 393, 397 ff., ii. 91, 114, 153, iii. 110 ff., 119, vi. 141-171, 387 f. _See_ Faith, Mission

Reward. _See_ Merit

Rhaide, B., iv. 25, vi. 486

Rhau, G., ii. 170

Rhegius, U., iv. 165, 467 f., vi. 58, 276, 487, 492

Rhetoric, iv. 342-350, vi. 200

Richardus, v. 419

Riesenburg, v. 216

Riga, vi. 475

Righteousness. _See_ Justice

Rings, L.’s, iii. 302, 428

Ritschl, A., v. 28, vi. 456

Ritual, iv. 223, 296, v. 313. _See_ Worship

Rivander, Z., iv. 222

Rivius, J., iv. 165, 470

Rochlitz, E. von, iv. 16, 24, 27, 201

Romans, Commentary on, i. 93-102, 184-260, iv. 422, 426

Romanticists, vi. 449

Rome, a heathen place, i. 286; where nothing is believed, iv. 102, 296; though seat of the martyrs, vi. 307; abode of Antichrist, i. 359; where Erasmus learnt unbelief, iii. 135; a good thing if attacked by Turks, iii. 92; L’s visit to R., i. 29 ff., vi. 188, 496 f.; union with R. not necessary, ii. 9. _See_ Babylon, Pope, Pope-Ass

Rorarius, T., vi. 61

Rörer, G., iii. 218, iv. 498, v. 191, 499 ff., vi. 281, 391, 505 ff.

Rosary, i. 119, v. 248

Rose, golden, i. 365, n.

Rosheim. _See_ Josel

Rosina, iii. 217, 281, v. 107 f., 235, vi. 369

Rostock, iii. 371, vi. 29, 61

Rotenburg, iv. 25

Roth, S., iv. 99, v. 158

Rothenburg, ii. 167, iii. 387

Roting, M., vi. 6

Rubeanus. _See_ Crotus

Rudolstadt, vi. 265, 314

Rühel, ii. 142, 204, 206

Ruler. _See_ Prince

Rungius, P., vi. 275

Ruysbroek, J., i. 173

Rychardus, W., ii. 162 ff., iv. 349

Sabbatarians, v. 403 f.

Sabbath-Sunday, iii. 394 f.; Sabbath of the soul, v. 86 f. _See_ Quietism

Sabellicus, iv. 89

Sabinus, G., ii. 390, iii. 362

Sachs, Hans, v. 223

Sachse, M., iv. 222

Sacrament, _see_ Supper; Sacramentarians, _see_ Zwinglians

Sacraments, i. 27, 37, ii. 59, 389, iii. 262 f., iv. 146, 486-500, v. 438 f., 461 f.; may be received or not, iii. 10; preparation for, iii. 209 f.; depend on faith of the receiver, i. 357, vi. 310; are marks of the true Church, vi. 295, 309; L.’s doctrine of the S. criticised, v. 461-465; marriage is a S., iv. 146, 149; is not, iii. 262 ff.; not even with the Papists, iv. 134; a merdiferous S., iv. 163. _See_ Baptism, etc.

Sacrifice. _See_ Mass

Sadoleto, J., iii. 335, 443, v. 401, vi. 488

Sailer, G., iv. 15, 65

Sainctes, C. de, vi. 386

St. Gall, iii. 422

Saint, use of the word by L., i. 82, ii. 217, n., iii. 187 f.; L. a S., ii. 396, iii. 154, 169, vi. 389, 392, 445. _See_ Sanctus; “S. L.,” vi. 391, _see_ Portraits

Saints, what the S. did a dog or pig could do, iii. 227; frailty of the S., iii. 191 f.; the “little S.,” _see_ Observantines; legends of the S., i. 124, 282, iv. 246, v. 153 f., 474, vi. 335, 437, n.; worship of the S., abuses in, i. 46, 361; assailed by Erasmus, ii. 245; L.’s attitude, iv. 499-503; Mary made into a goddess, iv. 237; and adored, 502 f.; on canonisation, v. 122 f.; suppression of feast-days, v. 146; reintroduction mooted, vi. 410

Sala, B. von, i. 370

Salat, Hans, iv. 324

Sale, A. and M. von der, iv. 14, 16, 24 ff., 69 f.

Salvation, “outside of the Church no S.,” vi. 297, 425. _See_ Certainty, Faith, Grace, Hell, Humility, Justification

Salzburg, iii. 430

Sam, C., iii. 277

Samson, v. 382; a “second S.,” iv. 338, vi. 442

Sanctity. _See_ Holiness

Sanctus Domini, ii. 51, n., vi. 389, n.

Sapidus, J., vi. 271

Sarcerius, E., iv. 71, 165, 222, vi. 61

Satan, L. reads his thoughts, vi. 154; buffets, etc. of S., vi. 160 f., 111; the prince of this world, ii. 273, iii. 190 f. _See_ Devil

Satire. _See_ Humour

Satisfaction, i. 75, 288, 296. _See_ Penance

Saur, A., v. 295

Savonarola, vi. 475

Saxo, J., iii. 412

Saxon, “I am a hard S.,” iv. 44, vi. 398

Saxony, v. 219, vi. 8; Duchy of, iii. 416, iv. 194 ff., v. 124 ff.; Electorate of, ii. 327-334, iii. 33 ff., iv. 202-210, v. 181, 296, vi. 241 f., 254 f., 414; chief playground of the demons, v. 286

Scala Santa, i. 33, vi. 496

Scapular, mortal sin to leave cell without one’s, iv. 94, vi. 200

Scepticism, utterances savouring of, iii. 415, v. 360 f., 501; L.’s promotion of S., ii. 32, 253, iii. 18. _See_ Rationalism

Schade. _See_ Mosellanus

Schaffhausen, iii. 422

Schalbe, C., i. 7

Schärtlin von Burtenbach, v. 219

Schatzgeyer, C., ii. 128, iii. 237, iv. 131, 353, n., 384

Schauenberg, S. von, ii. 5, 9, 27, iv. 83

Schelhorn, vi. 288

Schem Hamphoras. _See_ Jews

Schenk, J., iii. 371, 401 f., 414, iv. 309, v. 16, 237 f., vi. 273, 280, 285, 488

⸺ zu Schweinsberg, R., iv. 25, 38

Scheurl, C., i. 40, n., 304 f., 313, 361, ii. 149, iv. 141, 429, vi. 31, 212 f., 510 f.

Schlaginhaufen, J., i. xxiii., 393, iii. 177, 218 f., 225, 231, 287, 383, iv. 180, 226 f., v. 323, vi. 504-510; his fainting-fit, v. 326 ff.

Schlahinhauffen, iii. 286 f.

Schleupner, D., ii. 334

Schlick, S. von, ii. 70

Schmalkalden, Conventions, iii. 58 f., 123, 430-441, v. 82, 175, 376, vi. 272; League iii. 62, 64-68, 71, iv. 8 f., 11, v. 185, 394 f.; War, v. 219, 252, vi. 274, 375, 407

Schmaltz, iii. 83

Schmedenstede, H., vi. 493

Schnabel, T., v. 142, vi. 51, 489

Schnauss, C., iii. 416

Schnepf, E., i. 316, iv. 29, 197, 461

Schöffer, J., v. 543

Scholasticism, L.’s relations with, i. 22 f., 84 ff., 130-164, 208, 243, 320, 357, iv. 92, v. 50, 59. _See_ Aquinas, Louvain, Nominalists

Schönfeld, A. von, ii. 139, 141

Schönitz, Hans von, v. 106 f.

Schools, vi. 3-41; school-punishments, i. 5; L’s concern for the S., iv. 247, 264 f., v. 386, 562; decline of the S., iv. 208, vi. 367, 435 f. _See_ Æsop, Greek, etc.

Schott, F., v. 117

Schud, G., iv. 10

Schultheiss, W., vi. 271

Schurf, A., vi. 509

⸺ H., i. 304, ii. 99, 176, iii. 407, iv. 289, v. 591, vi. 356 ff.

Schütz, C., vi. 415, 417

Schwabach Articles, v. 340, vi. 309

Schwäbisch-Hall, vi. 275

Schwarzburg, ii. 318

Schweiniz, iii. 300

Schwenckfeld, C., v. 78-84, 155-164; L’s interview with S., v. 138 f.; L. on S., ii. 376, 379, iii. 409, n., v. 276, 397, vi. 272, 289; “Stinkfield,” iii. 424

Scotus, Duns, i. 22, 86, 91, 130, 142, 146, 243, 311, iv. 120

⸺ J. M., vi. 493

Scribonius, G. A., v. 295

Scripture. _See_ Bible

Scruples, i. 11, 15, 110, 124 f., iii. 180, n., vi. 203, 219

Scultetus, H., i. 228, 332, 336, ii. 16 ff., iv. 82

Seckendorf, i. xxiii.

Sects, Sectarians. _See_ Heretics

Secular, calling, iv. 127-131, v. 55-60, 561, vi. 65-98. _See_ Authority, Clergy

Secularisation. _See_ Church-property, Marriage

Sedulius, H., iv. 178, vi. 382

Self-denial. _See_ Mortification

Self-righteousness. _See_ Works, holiness by

Selnecker, N., iii. 445, iv. 220, 225, vi. 62, 391, 417, 419, 421

Senfl, L., ii. 171 f., iii. 66

Sepulchre, the Holy, ii. 91, iii. 167 f.

Serarius, N., vi. 136, n.

Serfdom, ii. 217, vi. 74

Sermons, in Catholic times, i. 78 ff., iv. 136, v. 153 f., vi. 432; _see_ Geiler, etc.; L.’s S., iv. 230 ff.; notes of his S., ii. 149, n.; place of the Sermon in Lutheran service, v. 152 f. _See_ Preachers

Servetus, iii. 358, vi. 266, 269, 272, 275

Service. _See_ Worship

Sic volo sic iubeo, iv. 346, v. 517, vi. 156, 166

Sickell, J., vi. 377, n.

Sickingen, F. von, ii. 4, 9, 67, 69, 93, 326, v. 240, vi. 467

Sickness. _See_ Ailments

Sidonie of Saxony, iv. 22

Sieberger, W., vi. 487

Silvius, P., iii. 429, iv. 178, 356, 358 f.

Simony, i. 328, 350 f.

Sin, the burden of past sins, i. 10 ff., 18; need of finding a gracious God, i. 108 f.; L.’s teaching on S., i. 209 ff., iii. 180-188; all done without grace is S., ii. 229; wicked man sins in doing good, i. 318 f.; all man’s deeds are mortal sins, i. 101, 203; no distinction between mortal and venial S., i. 102, iv. 459, vi. 514; murder, adultery, etc., are small sins, v. 305; the marriage-rite a S., iv. 152; does God will S.? i. 188 f.; man’s will all turned to S., ii. 287; actual S., i. 99, 224, v. 438; we should gladly be sinners, i. 73, 88 f., 186, iii. 177; and cast our sins on Christ, v. 12; it is good to commit a S., ii. 339, iii. 175 ff.; “doing good we sin,” i. 101; L. rebukes S., v. 31 ff.; biggest S. (saying Mass), iii. 410; “daily” S., iii 309. _See_ Concupiscence, Contrition, Forgiveness, Justification, Original S., Pecca fortiter, Scapular

Siricius, M., iv. 70

Sittardus, M., iii. 195, 238, iv. 383

Slander, i. 69. _See_ Calumnies

Sleeplessness. _See_ Ailments; Sleep-walkers, v. 283

Sleidanus, J., ii. 196, iii. 239, vi. 451

Social work, L.’s, v. 561-564

Sodom, _see_ Wittenberg; Sodomite. _See_ Johann of Saxony

Sola fides, _see_ Faith; interpolation of “sola,” iv. 345 f., v. 513 f.

Soli Deo (to the Sun-God), vi. 350

Solida Declaratio, vi. 420

Solitude, to be avoided, v. 93, 302

Solomon’s, Temple, v. 501; wives, iv. 161 f.

Somnambulists, v. 283

Sophists, i. 23. _See_ Scholastics

Sorbonne. _See_ Paris

Sorcery. _See_ Devil, Superstition, Witches

Sovereign. _See_ Prince

Spalatin, G., L.’s intimate, i. 7, 42, ii. 58, iii. 38, n., 113 f., 144 f., 269, v. 110, vi. 510; his friend at Court, i. 263 f., 358, 368, ii. 19, 23, iii. 78, 301, vi. 241; helps in the German Bible, v. 495; marriage matters, ii. 137, 140, 173; intolerance, ii. 331, v. 145, 593, vi. 240, 274; missionary work, ii. 316, v. 124 f.; becomes a victim to melancholy, iii. 197, iv. 219 f., v. 362; consoled by L., v. 330; the tale about his parents, iii. 284-287

Spangenberg, C., iii. 209, n., iv. 269, v. 174, 300, 426, vi. 62, 134 f., 276, 391, 413

⸺ J. von, ii. 361, n., vi. 391

Spectre-monks of Spires, ii. 389 f., vi. 209

Spee, F. von, v. 295

Spener, vi. 444

Spengler, L., ii. 334, 385, iii. 50, 58 ff., vi. 7, 36, 250, 483

Spenlein, G., i. 88 ff., 177, 263

Speratus, v. 190

Spires, i. 214, v. 221; Diets, ii. 380 ff., iii. 49, 86, 88, 327, v. 168, 396

Spirit, iii. 382, 397 f., iv. 309, 314, 387-419, v. 73. _See_ Synteresis. Bible S., _see_ Word

Stadion, v. 273

Stangwald, vi. 391

Staphylus, F., iv. 167, vi. 137, 312 f., 384

Stapleton, T., vi. 323

Stapulensis. _See_ Faber

Staremberg, B. von, vi. 477

State, L. and the S., v. 559 ff., 568-579, 582, 585; S. Church, iii. 29-33. _See_ Consistories, Intolerance, Prince

Statues. _See_ Images

Staupitz, J., theological deficiencies, i. 129; his aims in the Order, i. 29; L. “falls away” to S., i. 38; esteem for and rapid promotion of L., i. 11 f., 14, 19 ff., 127, 160, 262, 295-299, 340, v. 63, vi. 212 f., 228; advice to L., i. 16; on Hus, i. 107 f., iii. 144; at Heidelberg, i. 315 f.; “your works are read in houses of ill-fame,” ii. 151, iii. 122; proposed for a bishopric, i. 57; dispenses L., i. 358, vi. 500, 504; his sister, ii. 137; the prophecy, iii. 165; an enemy of the popedom? i. 326, vi. 189; visit to Rome, vi. 497; on the soul and her bridegroom, vi. 513

Stein, W., v. 194, vi. 86

Steinbach, W., i. 345

Steindorf, J., vi. 255

Steinhart, G., vi. 505 f.

Stiefel, M., ii. 376, iii. 389, v. 250 f., vi. 285

Stolberg, L. von, v. 211

Stolpen, v. 125

Stoltz, J., iii. 218

Storch, N., vi. 152

Stössel, J., vi. 415, 417

Stoutness. _See_ Corpulence

Stralsund, v. 216

Strasburg, ii. 382, iii. 386 f., 421, v. 409, vi. 46, 278, 412, 422

Strauss, J., iii. 409, n.

Strigel, V., iv. 222, vi. 412

Strobel, C. G., v. 271

Stübner, M., vi. 285

Students, L.’s care for, iii. 296 f., iv. 228 ff., vi. 367; lack of discipline, ii. 51 f., v. 157, 247, vi. 30, 37, 41. _See_ Melanchthon

Stuhlweissenburg, v. 227

Sturm, Jakob, iv. 75

⸺ Joh., vi. 255

Sturz, G., ii. 350, v. 495

Stuttgart, vi. 38, 275

Stützel, ii. 334

Suarez, v. 375, n.

Subjectivism, i. 223 ff., 367, ii. 31 ff., 73, iii. 18 f., 81, 128, vi. 334, 458

Sublitz, vi. 122

Suevus, S., iv. 224, n.

Suicide, a work of the devil, v. 281 f.; increase in Lutheranism, iv. 222 f., v. 240; L.’s temptations to commit S., v. 352 f.; and the baseless tale that he did, vi. 379, 381 f.

Suleiman II, iii. 76, 81, 88, 92, vi. 485; inquires after L., iii. 83

Sunday. _See_ Sabbath-S.

Superintendents, iii. 30, 324, v. 190, 595, vi. 10

Supernatural, order, v. 49-52; L.’s view of the S., i. 132, 157. _See_ Justification

Superstition, ii. 103, 167 f., 389, iii. 118, 148-152, 229 f., 355 ff., 410 f., v. 239 ff., 276 f., 428. _See_ Astrology, Changelings, Demonology, Last Day, Witches

Supper, Lord’s, the new rite, ii. 109 f.; S. versus Sermon, v. 152 f.; abuse of the, iii. 304, v. 163; examination of those who partake, v. 134 f.; no S. without communicants, v. 152; L.’s last attendance at the S., vi. 374. _See_ Cryptocalvinism, Eucharist

Surgant, J., v. 491

Surplice. _See_ Vestments

Suso, H., i. 173

Sutel, J., iii. 163

Sweden, vi. 474, 480

Sylvius. _See_ Silvius

Synergism, ii. 287 ff., iii. 349 f., v. 53 f., 263, 454, vi. 412 ff.

Synteresis, i. 75, 114, 233 f., ii. 227 f. _See_ Conscience

Syphilis, i. 37. _See_ Ailments

Table-Talk, iii. 217-241, iv. 262-268, vi. 504-510; L.’s words softened in the German T.-T., iii. 179, n.; reasons for its publication, vi. 390 f.; on the “good drink,” iii. 305 ff.; the bigamy, iv. 43-49; the Mass, iv. 523 f.; end of the world, v. 247 ff.; Antichrist, vi. 155. _See_ Aurifaber, Cordatus, etc.

Tagler, U., iv. 172

Talents, i. 24, iii. 217, iv. 257 ff., 327 ff., v. 475 f., 482 f., vi. 111

Talmud, iv. 285. _See_ Jews

Tauler, J., i. 84, 87, 122, 166-174, 178-183, 232 ff., 237, 243, 273 f., 299, 381, ii. 145, 372, vi. 115 ff., 215

Taxes, iv. 291. _See_ Tithes

Temptations, of the flesh, i. 18 f., 275, 287 f., ii. 82 f., 94 f., vi. 118, 120 f., 511; to blasphemy, i. 194, ii. 122; T. against faith, i. 25 f., 124, v. 362 f.; to despair, i. 19, 376, ii. 276, v. 361; “struggles and T.,” etc., v. 319-375, vi. 98-122, 150-154; due to remembrance of past sins, v. 303; to uncertainty whether his teaching be true, iii. 178, 202; such T. are exalted ones, ii. 121; make good Bible-interpreters, iii. 119, v. 390, 532, vi. 149; make one humble, iii. 389; are God’s own seal on L.’s work, iii. 119; a mark of the true Christian, vi. 294 f.; drink, a good remedy, iii. 306

Terence, iv. 47, 61, 186, 217, vi. 16, 18 f., 235

Tetrapolitana, Confessio, iii. 444, iv. 199

Tetzel, J., i. 105, 163, 314, 320, 325-330, 341-347, 352, iv. 84, 372, 390, vi. 188 f.

Teutleben, C., von ii. 21

Teutonic Knights. _See_ Knights

Thann, E. von der, iv. 25, 40 f.

Theocracy, v. 580-584, vi. 57

Theology, speculative T., v. 440 ff.; T. of the Cross, i. 174, 191, 234 f., 270, 319, 332, ii. 146, 234, vi. 116. _See_ Scholasticism; “deeper” T., _see_ Mysticism

Thesaurus ecclesiæ, i. 70, 75, 357. _See_ Indulgence, Mass, Purgatory

Thomae, M., vi. 151

Thomas of Aquin, _see_ Aquinas; Thomists, i. 162 f., 243, 271, 339, 370. _See_ Aristotle

Three Kings, i. 174, iv. 171. _See_ Magi

Thuringia, v. 21

Timothy, v. 328

Tithes, ii. 193, 221, vi. 85 f., 94 f.

Titillationes, ii. 94

Titles. _See_ Doctor, Ecclesiastes, Pope (of Wittenberg), Prophet, etc.

Titus, 64, 306, 386

Tobogganing, vi. 373

Tolerance, L. the herald of T.? iii. 109, v. 558, vi. 266 f., 448. _See_ Intolerance

Tomb, L.’s, vi. 387 ff., 392 ff.

Tonsure, i. 120, 276, v. 113, 515

Torgau, ii. 215, iii. 55 ff., v. 183, 340, vi. 108; T. Articles, vi. 417; Book of T., vi. 419

Tower-incident, i. 388-400

Tradition, not the same as the personal views of the Fathers, vi. 336; is the common usage of the Churches, vi. 253, 309; scorned, iv. 420 f.; thrown over, v. 437 f.; and yet appealed to, iii. 395 f., iv. 409 f., 494; v. 399, 462. _See_ Fathers

Training. _See_ Education

Translations, iii. 413 f., 416. _See_ Bible, etc.

Transubstantiation, i. 161 f., iii. 329, 382, n., 445 f. _See_ Consubstantiation

Transylvania, v. 167

Treasure. _See_ Thesaurus

Trent, Council of, indirectly brought about by L., vi. 426; steps towards its assembling, iii. 424 ff., vi. 492, 494; its doings, v. 387 ff.; on relics, etc., vi. 437; the Catechism, vi. 435; not fair to judge L. everywhere by its standard, i. 224; L. on the Council, iv. 339 f., v. 376-394, 429, vi. 344, 364, 375; its reaction on the Protestants, vi. 419 f., 423 f.

Treptow, iii. 407

Treves, v. 221

Trinity, ii. 397 ff., iv. 240 f., 488 f.

Trithemius, J., i. 48, 91

Trump of doom, iv. 329, v. 239, vi. 344

Trutfetter, J., i. 6, 137, 311, 320, 343, iv. 356

Truthfulness, v. 111. _See_ Calumnies, Lies

Tübingen, iii. 430, vi. 38

Turks, iii. 76-93, iv. 247, v. 417-421; a sign of the Last Day, v. 227; L.’s fear, v. 167; L. does little to help the defence, ii. 383, iii. 70 f., 94 f., 214, v. 129, 231; T. and Pope, etc., ii. 324, v. 234; T. and Evangelicals, iv. 20, v. 197, 234, 417-421, 479; Embassy to the T., v. 234, vi. 344 f. _See_ Appendix I, passim

Tyrants, world cannot get on without, iii. 147; assassination of T., ii. 199, iii. 357, iv. 12, vi. 269

Ubiquity. _See_ Christ

Ulenberg, C., i. xxiv., ii. 131, iv. 243, 262, n., vi. 268

Ulm, ii. 382, iii. 64, 421, vi. 272, 278

Ulrich of Augsburg, S., iii. 250, iv. 89 f.

⸺ Würtemberg, iii. 58, 67 f., iv. 196 ff.

Ulscenius, vi. 52, n.

Unbelief, L.’s occasional U., v. 373; the worst of sins, iii. 177; “Catholic U.,” i. 326, 390, 395; lack of fiducial faith constitutes U., vi. 193 f. _See_ Faith, Rome

Undermark, M., iv. 383

Universities, appealed to, ii. 21, iv. 6; unmarried Fellows at the, iv. 154; derided, ii. 80, 347, iii. 143, iv. 336, vi. 24 f., 33; decline of the U. due to L., ii. 340 f., 358 f., vi. 27 f.; the new U., vi. 38. _See_ Paris, etc.

Unseemliness of L.’s language, specimens of the, i. 245, ii. 117 f., 121, 144 ff., iii. 226, 229-241, 251, 264-273, 399, 403, 426, iv. 45, 64, 106, 143, 148, 153 f., 161-164, 177, 285 ff., 295 f., 305, 318-322, v. 115, 196, 229, 238, 397, 406 f., 421-431, vi. 72, 254, 336, 338, 349, 363 f., 513. _See_ Abusive language

Urban, vi. 383

Ursinus, Z., vi. 414, 422

Usingen, B. A. von, L.’s professor, i. 6, 14; suspicious of Aristotle, i. 136 f.; the “best Paraclete,” i. 10, vi. 206; traces in the Comm. on Romans, i. 243; U. on the two “factions,” i. 147; opposes L., i. 311, ii. 342 ff., 350; L.’s treatment of U., ii. 337, 347, 361, n.

Usury and interest, iii. 104, iv. 216, 266, v. 479, 562, vi. 78, n., 81-98

Utilitarianism, vi. 23

Utraquists of Prague, ii. 9, 112

Vadian, J., iv. 100

Valla, L., ii. 286, iii. 145

Vasa, G., vi. 480

Vehe, M., iii. 238, iv. 383, vi. 436

Venatorius, T., ii. 43, vi. 483

Venial sin. _See_ Sin

Venice, i. 228, iii. 430, v. 167

Vergerio, P. P., iii. 70, 425-430, iv. 358 f., 485, v. 391

Vestments, ii. 323, iii. 393, 413, iv. 511, v. 147, 220, 222, 313, vi. 410

Vicar, District, L. elected, i. 69; doings as D. V., i. 88 ff., 124, 262-268, 297 f., 315 f., 333 f.

Viccius, J., ii. 27

Vienna, iii. 81, 88, 383

Vio, T. de, ii. 46

Violence, of language, ii. 11, 13 f., iii. 365 f., 444, iv. 306 f., vi. 108 f., 112; V. advocated, ii. 55, iii. 127.

Violent measures, _see_ Intolerance

Virgil, vi. 17 f., 376

Virgin, Blessed, _see_ Mary; Virgin-Birth, iv. 241, vi. 420, n.; L. a V., ii. 143

Virginity, iii. 244, iv. 147 f. _See_ Chastity

Virtue, no infused V., v. 35; no efforts to be made after V., i. 83, iii. 187 ff.; the conception of V. altered, iv. 459; natural V. is no V. but rather vice, i. 101, 160; V. is not a real “habit” nor a “quality,” i. 149 f., 209-213, 216; L.’s new view of V., iii. 200-217; its defects, v. 84 ff. _See_ Qualitas

Vischer, S., vi. 61

Visions. _See_ Ghost

Visitations, ii. 113, 223, 299, n., 332, iii. 34, 323, iv. 207 ff., v. 588-597, vi. 241 f.

Vitalis, F., iii. 152

Vives, J. L., vi. 44, 58

Vocation, L.’s V. to the monastic state, i. 18 f., 25, 167, 297 f. _See_ Mission, Secular calling

Volta, G. della, i. 333

Vows, according to Erasmus, ii. 245; Melanchthon, iii. 325, 330, 360, 439; according to L., i. 269 f.; L.’s attack on V., i. 120, ii. 83-87, 115 ff.; encourages others to break their, ii. 116 ff., 139 f., 142, 169; L.’s own V., i. 12, ii. 86, vi. 205 ff., 222 f. _See_ Chastity

Vulgarity. _See_ Unseemliness

Wages, high, vi. 84 (iii. 291)

Walch, J. G., iii. 138, 164, 222, vi. 447

Waldensians, iv. 417, n.

Waldschmidt, B., v. 295

Walther, J., ii. 334, iv. 256, v. 547

⸺ R., vi. 40

Wanckel, M., v. 421

War, legitimacy of, iv. 299; evil of, v. 282. _See_ Julius II, Peasants, Resistance, Turks

Warsager, J., iv. 64, n.

Wartburg, stay at the, ii. 79-96, 368; temptations, ii. 88, iii. 196, vi. 511; apparitions, etc., vi. 123 f., 134; beginning of the German Bible, v. 494, 544; effect on L. of his stay, iii. 5 f., 120 f.

Water, Holy, iii. 266

Wealth, on whom bestowed, iv. 265

Wedding, L.’s, ii. 173-189; his thoughts before it, ii. 86 f., 118 f., 139 ff., 147 f., 169 f., 218 f., vi. 208; a “Joseph’s marriage,” ii. 142; after-allusions to his W., iii. 269; “good days,” iii. 178, v. 328, vi. 208; a means of escaping temptations, vi. 209; God’s own work, vi. 162; not recognised by the lawyers, iii. 42, vi. 341, 355. _See_ Bora, Marriage

Wegscheider, J., vi. 447

Weida, M., of, iii. 238, iv. 128, 136

Weier, M., ii. 323

Weimar, iii. 70, iv. 23, 44 f., 48, vi. 9

Weinsberg, ii. 198, vi. 477

Weislinger, N., ii. 131

Weller, A., iv. 206

⸺ Hier., iii. 175 ff., 196, 218, 221, 306, iv. 219, 244, 269, v. 329, vi. 488

Werdenberg, Hans von, iii. 292

Werewolf, the Papal, iv. 298, v. 384, vi. 244 f., 491

Werner, Hans, iv. 197

⸺ Z., vi. 449

Wesenberg, vi. 61

Wessel, J., vi. 474

Westphal, J., vi. 408, 410, 415

Whale. _See_ Haarlem

Whore, use of the word, iii. 270 f.

Wicel, G., i. 16, iii. 403, 416, iv. 160, 165 f., 181 f., 361 ff., 471, v. 43, 379, 436

Wiclif, i. 106, 108, n., ii. 232, 286, n., iv. 417, n., v. 243, vi. 26

Widebram, F., vi. 417

Widerstett, ii. 137

Wied, H. von, v. 166, vi. 492 f.

Wieland, vi. 448

Wife, terrible to die without a W., iii. 242 f. _See_ Bishop, Bora, Marriage, Women

Wigand, J., vi. 409 f., 413, 415

Wild, J., iii. 238, iv. 366

Wilde, S., iv. 99

Will of God, reason why things are good and evil, i. 157, 212, _see_ God (the hidden); Will (human), _see_ Freedom; L.’s strong Will, iii. 112, iv. 259, vi. 396. _See_ Defiance

Will, Last W. and Testament, iii. 42 f., 435 f., iv. 207, 281, 329

William of Bavaria, ii. 171 f., 380, iii. 66, 430, iv. 367

⸺ II, of Hesse, iv. 45, 61

⸺ IV, iv. 70, vi. 420

Wimpfeling, J., i. 24, 48, 52, iii. 238, iv. 169, vi. 18, 34, 214

Wimpina, C., i. 344, iv. 303, 384

Winand, i. 12

Wine, iii. 293, 301, 304, 307, 310, 314, iv. 26, 171, vi. 446

Winistede, J., vi. 61

Winther, J., iv. 25

Witches, L. and the, iii. 230, 356 f., v. 187, 241 f., 276 f., 289-297, 304

Wittenberg, L. goes to W., i. 21; dislike for, iv. 215 f., vi. 345 ff.; “compelled by God” to go thither, iii. 114; the escaped nuns at W., ii. 136 ff.; conversion of the town, ii. 327 ff., vi. 240 f.; Bugenhagen made parish-priest, iii. 407; suppression of the Mass, ii. 90 f., iv. 510 f.; “Church of W.,” “School of W.,” v. 384, vi. 314 f.; morals, iv. 209 f., 215-218, v. 247, vi. 77; the students vi. 367; hasty marriages, vi. 358; the Black Monastery, i. 297, n., iii. 218, 282 f., v. 203 f., 207, 346, vi. 509; Elster Gate, ii. 51, 54, vi. 381; Parish church, ii. 98, iv. 286; University, i. 38 f. _See_ Melanchthon, Pope (of Wittenberg), Zwingli

Wolferinus, vi. 354

Wolfframsdorff, J. F. von, iii. 292

Wolfgang of Anhalt, ii. 384, iii. 64, vi. 380 f.

Wollin, iii. 407

Women, status of, iii. 233, 267, iv. 132-178; advice of L.’s director, vi. 206, n.; degraded by L., iii. 253; “plenty of wives and children few,” iii. 291; “who loves not woman, wine and song,” iii. 293 f.; “a woman’s love,” iii. 289. _See_ Marriage

Word, the inner W. (i.e. spirit), i. 229, 299, iv. 397 f.; replaced by the outward W. (i.e. letter), iii. 397 f., iv. 408-411, v. 161, 164, vi. 149; the divine W. in the Sermon and the Eucharist, v. 153; the W. of truth, i. 83. _See_ Bible, Revelations, Temptations

Work, L.’s power for work, i. 267, 274 f., ii. 52 f., 87 f., 97 f., 134, 160, 223, iii. 117, 298 f., iv. 260 f., v. 497 ff., vi. 342, 348

Works, good, iv. 449-481, v. 38-43; L.’s dislike for, i. 43, 62, 118 ff., 167, 208, ii. 348 f., v. 45; reason for his apostasy, i. 117 ff., vi. 189; natural G. W. non-existent, i. 92; probably all of them mortal sins, i. 317; G. W. are mere Mosaism, i. 251; the Catholic “Holiness-by-works,” i. 67, 71, 108, 182; the only goodness in W. is imputed goodness, i. 212; truly G. W. are found only in those justified by faith, i. 215; in these all works are G. W., ii. 36, n.; whereas in others all are sins, v. 47 f.; the best of G. W. is fiducial faith, v. 85; L.’s teaching on G. W. helps on his cause, vi. 403 f. _See_ Commandments, Concurrence, Counsels, Ethics, Law, Merit, Synergism

World, L. against the W. and the W. against L., vi. 271; W. and Christianity, v. 55 f.; end of W. _See_ Last Day; _see also_ Secular Calling

Worms, L. at the Diet of, ii. 57 f., 61-79, 132, 324, 367, iii. 209, n., iv. 85, 355, vi. 105; Edict of W., ii. 380 f.

Worship, L.’s charges against Catholic W., i. 283, ii. 354 f., iii. 46, v. 46, 439, vi. 242-245; true W. consists of faith, praise and thanks, v. 44; public W., v. 145-154, 466; not meant for “Christians,” v. 466, vi. 445, n.; must be free, i. 252; the new form of W., ii. 97 f., 320 f.; to be in Latin, iii. 396; v. 146; or in Greek, or Hebrew, iv. 280; to be settled by the Government, vi. 263. _See_ Ritual

Würtemberg, iii. 67 f., iv. 46, 53, 196-201

Würzburg, v. 220, vi. 47

Wurzen, v. 200, 202

Ypres, vi. 43 f.

Zachariae, J., i. 107

Zanchi, vi. 410, n.

Zasius, U., ii. 39, 211 f., 244, n., 256, 261, iv. 336, 360, vi. 31, 438 f.

Zeitz, v. 193, iv. 346

Zell, M., ii. 153, vi. 278

Zerbst, v. 189, 218, vi. 266

Ziegler, B., v. 500, vi. 410

⸺ J., ii. 133, iii. 303, vi. 271

Zinzendorf, vi. 445

Ziska, iii. 96

Zoch, L., iv. 349

Zulsdorf, vi. 346

Zürich, iii. 422 ff., 447

Zwickau, ii. 97, 99, 205, iii. 234, 402, vi. 34 f., 255, 263, 266

Zwilling, G., i. 297, n., ii. 98, 314 ff., 336, iii. 121, vi. 504

Zwingli, U., an Erasmian, ii. 248; yet a predestinarian, iii. 189; an iconoclast, v. 208, 222; rationalist, i. 175; intolerance, vi. 278; stands up for the Epistle of James, v. 523; against the bigamy, iv. 10, n.; relations with L., iii. 379-385; L.’s jealousy, ii. 376, iii. 65, 177, 389, iv. 87, 308 ff., 410 f., 493 f., v. 104, 231, 531 f., vi. 108, 280, 289, 352; Wittenberg Concord, iii. 417-424; Z. on L., iii. 277. _See_ Marburg Conference, Philip II

Zwinglians, Sacramentarians, etc., ii. 223, iii. 67, 327 f., 379-385, 409, 424, v. 76, 79 f., 104 f., 169, 231, 397 ff., 465, vi. 289, 316, 351 f., 396. _See_ Supper

Zwolle, vi. 35

PRINTED BY WM. BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND.