CHAPTER XXXV

LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIETY AND EDUCATION

1. Historical Outlines for Judging of his Social Work

IT would be beyond our present scope to examine in detail all the views advanced concerning Luther’s social and economic attitude. Recent research in social economics has already rectified many of these.

What the historian of sociology chiefly misses is any appreciation of Luther in the light of the theories and conditions prevailing at the close of the Middle Ages. It has been remarked quite rightly, that, from the way in which the matter is dealt with in Protestant Church-history and “practical theology,” it is perfectly clear that, hitherto, the Middle Ages have in many instances been altogether misjudged.[2165]

There is still much for historical research to do in this field. Neglect to study as they deserved whole centuries of our history, prolific though they were in great things, has avenged itself by the one-sided character of the prevalent views concerning them. In the case of many writers too much attention to the verdicts pronounced by Luther on every possible occasion against the Church of the past is what is chiefly responsible for their disinclination to pursue the matter further; they are too prone to regard things from the watch-tower of Lutheran theology. It is not so very long since hardly any paradox or calumny against the social “disorders” prevalent amongst the clergy and the monks, in family life and the commonwealth under Popery, was too monstrous, provided it had been uttered by the Wittenberg Professor, to be dished up again, though possibly under somewhat politer form, by the occupants of Protestant pulpits and chairs of theology.

Statements such as the following, taken word for word from recent works, which, following our habit, we shall refrain from naming, are based on the traditional assertions of controversy and on insufficient acquaintance with the Middle Ages.

“Luther accomplished something eminently positive when he put the State-idea on those lines which it was ultimately to follow in his own country.” For, “according to him, the duty of the State is the promotion of the general welfare.” “We have the fullest right to appeal to the spirit of his State policy, above all, because, in opposition to the mediæval view, it conceded to the State an independent status.” “The State, according to him, was to put in practice in social life the principle of ‘serving our neighbour.’”

We often find all “political” as well as all “civil freedom” traced back to Luther. He it was, so we are told, who introduced, or laid the foundations for, the real mutual tolerance displayed by citizens in the State, just as he did for the principle of nationality, for scientific freedom, for the freedom for invention, and, finally, for the freedom of the Press.

He “laid constant stress on charity towards our neighbour in direct contrast to the individualism of the Middle Ages, when even almsgiving resolved itself ultimately into mere selfish interest, the giver living in hope of a heavenly reward.” “He proclaimed that: Mendicancy was to be done away with.... The number of the destitute, and their claim on public benevolence he reduced to a minimum. These principles are in direct contrast with the devout and indiscriminate almsgiving of the Middle Ages and paved the way for the modern poor-law system.”

“The sanctity of the home and the family had suffered severely under the influence of monasticism.” Luther had to “reorganise the methods of education in order to make, of the home and the family, institutions for the public welfare.” He became the “father of the modern National Schools.”

“In his plans for the maintenance and direction of civic affairs Luther once more brought into their own the ‘principles of social responsibility.’”

He set aside the mediæval “contempt for material things and for labour as a means of production.” Luther performed a signal service to economics by restoring respect for work; for, “maybe, there was no phenomenon of mediæval life which presented a greater obstacle to material happiness than laziness.” “Economic progress was impossible” where the theory prevailed, that “the contemplative life was of greater value than the active.” “Luther bestowed new dignity not only on work in general, but also on its every branch”; according to him “no work is degrading which serves the interests of mankind.”

He was the “guardian and promoter of the interests of society,” and the “importance of his influence is still more enhanced by the fact that he showed himself a conservative and guiding spirit in the midst of social disorder and confusion of ideas.”

If this holds good of the service he rendered to society as a whole, he was also within narrower limits the “reformer and restorer” of family life. His own marriage was “one of his greatest reforming acts, by which he confirmed his rehabilitation of the conjugal state, and, by his labours as a whole, he secured to marriage, and thus to the very foundation of family life, the prerogative of being a ‘divine institution.’” He brought the duties of the family into respect, whereas, formerly, “the Church, which permeated everything, had been the cause of their neglect.”

“It remains an historical truth that the greatness of the German people in politics, economics and intellectual life may be traced back to those divine powers which the Reformation set free by its recognition of the free grace of God in Christ.”

There are, however, other Protestant scholars, who are not theologians, who regard such praise of Luther’s social importance as either quite mistaken or at least greatly exaggerated; in their opinion Luther’s services lay rather in his work for religion, and on behalf of the knowledge of God and union with Him by faith.

L. Feuchtwanger, for instance, a representative sociologist, recently spoke in tones almost ironical of the view held “by most [Protestant] Church-historians,” who praise “the religion of Luther as having produced autonomous ethics, the modern State, a society that despises idleness, the German family, in short all that is great and good.” He is of opinion that such views call for “revision”; nor would such a revision, so he says, “detract from the eminent importance of the reformation.”[2166] We shall speak later on of the proofs he adduces to show the error of the “obstinate opinion,” as he terms it, “that Protestantism created the modern system of public charity,”[2167] and that Luther brought about the regeneration of benevolence.

E. Troeltsch, the Heidelberg theologian, says in “Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt”: “As a matter of fact, the importance of Protestantism must not be one-sidedly exaggerated. The foundations of the modern world in the State, in society, in economics, learning and art were established in a great measure independently of Protestantism, partly as an outgrowth of the later Middle Ages, partly as the result of the Renaissance,

## particularly of the Renaissance as assimilated by Protestantism,

## partly—as in the case of the Catholic countries, Spain, Austria,

Italy and especially France—after the rise of Protestantism and concurrently with it.” “With the principle of nationalism,” writes Troeltsch, “his [Luther’s] system of an established Church had no connection. The latter merely promoted the solidification and centralisation of the chief authorities, whereas the former is a product of the entirely modern democratic awakening of the masses and the romantic idea of a national spirit.” In another passage he says: “There can be no question of [Protestantism] having paved the way for the modern idea of freedom—of science, of thought, or of the press—nor of its having inspired the scholarship which it controlled with new aims, or led it to break new ground.”[2168]

There are even Protestants who are disposed to deny that Luther took any interest in the State and in public affairs. “It follows from Luther’s views of life,” writes Erich Brandenburg, the author of “Luthers Anschauung vom Staate und der Gesellschaft,” that a Christian neither can nor ought to care for the outbuilding of the existing order of the State and society. For “God has thrown us into the world and put us under the rule of the devil, so that here we have no paradise but look forward hourly to every kind of misfortune to life and limb, wife and child, goods and honour.’[2169]... By the fact of his birth the Christian [according to Luther] has been given a definite place.... To seek for a better one, or to wish to create an entirely different state of things would be to rebel against the Will of God. Far from its being the Christian’s duty to strive after an improvement in the order of the State or of society, any such striving would be really sinful.” “He [Luther] regards civil life as merely one aspect of the probation which he has to endure on earth”; in his eyes the struggle for political freedom simply implies an “unlawful devotion to earthly aims, an absence of trust in God, and an attempt to create a paradise on earth by our own strength.”[2170] Where tyranny prevails one is not even allowed to emigrate, so Luther insists, unless indeed the ruler will not suffer the Evangel, when it became lawful and advisable, to seek another home.[2171] Nowadays people have a different conception, so Brandenburg points out, of national greatness and political freedom.[2172]

Albert Kalthoff, a Bremen preacher, who belongs to the extreme left of the Protestant party, goes still further: “There is a considerable amount of conceit sticking to our Protestant churches, indeed the Reformation festival seems to afford it a fitting occasion for celebrating each year its orgy. What is not Protestantism supposed to have brought to the world? National freedom and prosperity, modern science and technicology, all this we hear described as the fruit of the tree of Protestant life; not long since I even read of a German professor who quite seriously ascribed the whole of our present-day civilisation to Luther.”[2173]

Luther’s favourable traits in respect of social conditions, his eloquent admonitions on family life and love of our neighbour deserve a high place. There is no call again to bring forward examples after all we have quoted elsewhere. Luther is even fond of including under the “neighbourly love” of which he so frequently speaks the whole of our social activity on behalf of our fellow men.[2174]

His struggle against voluntary celibacy and renunciation of the world, however ill advised, had at least one good result, viz. that it afforded him an opportunity to speak strongly on the duties of the home, which were so often neglected, on the importance of the humble, everyday tasks involved in matrimony and the training of children, on work at home and for the community, whether in a private or a public capacity. That plentiful children were a blessing, a principle which had always been recognised in the Christian world, he insisted upon emphatically in connection with his advocacy of marriage. The keeping of the fourth commandment, which had always been regarded as the corner-stone of society, was warmly emphasised by him as regards the relations both to parents and to other secular authorities. It would be hard to gainsay that his teaching has bequeathed to Protestantism a wealth of instructions on the cultivation of family affection and the maintenance of a well-ordered household. From the first it was beneficial to the social foundations of society, and its good influence has been apparent even down to our own times. Luther’s writings and sermons, as we soon shall see, also contain some excellent admonitions against usury as well as against begging; he preaches contentment with our lot as well as honest industry; he has also much to say of relief of the poor and education of the young either for the learned professions or for life in general. In the same way that he sought to interest the community more and more in the relief of the indigent—though by rather novel means, which it seemed to him might take the place of the help formerly afforded by the churches, monasteries and private charity—so also his appeals on behalf of the schools were addressed more to the congregation, the authorities and the State than had been customary in the days of the Church schools. The increased share now taken by these bodies in this work, if kept within reasonable bounds, might indeed turn out advantageous, though the results did not reach his expectations, and in fact did not show themselves until much later, and then were due to factors altogether independent of Protestantism.

It must also be pointed out to Luther’s credit that he at once vigorously withstood the communistic views which had begun to make their appearance even before his day, as soon as experience had opened his eyes to their dangers. He perceived the radical trend of the Anabaptists—which it is true was not without some affinity with his own doctrines. He came after a while to oppose in popular writings the extravagant social demands of the peasants, and, in spite of the crass exaggeration of his language, his tracts give many a useful hint for the improvement of existing conditions on Christian lines.

The charge he brings against earlier times, viz. that, owing to the too great number of clergy and religious a premium had been placed on idleness,[2175] is perhaps not devoid of a grain of truth; nor was his complaint that the indolence of so many people who lived by the Church endangered the welfare of the State and was opposed to the interests of the community altogether unjustified.[2176] The strongly worded passages where Luther speaks in favour of work and exhorts the authorities to cultivate and promote labour were quite in place, though it is true they can be matched by a whole row of equally vigorous admonitions by Catholic writers, dating from the Middle Ages and from the years immediately preceding Luther’s day.[2177]

Owing to his having by his attacks on ecclesiastical institutions dried up many of the existing sources of charity there can be no doubt that indirectly he contributed to awaken those who were less well off to a sense of their duty to work for their own living. In this wise the sense of responsibility was aroused in the masses. The secular authorities were also obliged to intervene more frequently owing to the falling off in the support afforded by the Church to the needy and oppressed, particularly in cases where all the labour and exertion of the individual were insufficient to guarantee subsistence or legal protection. In so far therefore, viz. in regard of the growing needs of social life, it has been truly remarked that the religious revolution of the 16th century smoothed the way for the material conditions of modern society and new cultural problems; in this sense Luther assisted in bringing about the economic conditions of the present day. We shall say nothing here of the rise of the modern spirit with its rejection of authority and its principle of unrestrained intellectual freedom.

Luther also helped in a certain sense to set the worldly authorities on their own feet and to make them more independent. This was an outcome of his violent struggle against the influence previously exerted over the State by the olden Church, or to speak more accurately of his assault on the Church as such, albeit it was attended by the other eminently unfortunate results. In the course of history, according to the Divine plan, new and useful elements not seldom spring up from evil seed. Owing to a too close union of the two powers and the assumption of many worldly functions by the Church, the representatives of the latter were too often exposed in their work to a not unjustifiable criticism. The Church was charged with being inefficient in her management of outward business and this detracted from the respect due to her spiritual functions; unnecessary jealousy was aroused and social developments in themselves desirable were frequently retarded. Thus, though the storm let loose by Luther wrought great devastation, yet it is not to be regretted that since then many temporal forces now transferred from the Church to the State have been set to work with satisfactory results such as might otherwise not have been attained. In some places certainly they had come into operation long before this, but speaking generally, things in this respect were still in a backward state.

* * * * *

Important factors for judging of Luther’s social work are two ideas on which he laid great stress and which we have already discussed. One is the separation of the Church from the world, which, albeit, in very contradictory fashion, he attempted to carry out; the other is his plea that the Church, which he sought to divest of all legislative power, possessed no authority to make binding laws. What has been said already may here be summed up anew with a few more quotations to the point.

We have in the first place the separation of the spiritual and supernatural. Luther’s work did great harm in the sphere of the supernatural and, so far as his influence extended, alienated society from it.[2178] His doctrine, particularly concerning the state of man, grace and good works was of such a nature as in reality to withdraw society from the supernatural atmosphere, however much he might extol the “knowledge of the free grace of God in Christ,” which he claimed had been won by his exertions.

The detachment of the supernatural life expressed itself also in a systematic, jealous exclusion of any worldly meddling in the spiritual domain, for the rule of the Gospel must, according to Luther, be something quite distinct from the worldly rule. By his principles and his writings he materially contributed to the secularisation of society and the State. According to him Christ simply says without any reservation: “My kingdom is no business of the Roman Emperor.” The spiritual rule must be as far apart from the temporal rule “as heaven is from earth.”[2179]

“What is most characteristic of the kingdom of grace,” so writes E. Luthardt, one of the best-known Lutheran moralists, who, however, fails to point out its want of clearness, “is the order of grace, whilst what is most characteristic of the kingdom of the world and the world’s life is the order of law; they are quite different in kind nor do they run on the same lines but belong to entirely different worlds. To the one I belong as a Christian, to the other as a man; for we live at once in two different spheres of life, and are at the same time in heaven and on earth.” “Each one must keep within his own limits,” and “not make of the Gospel outward laws for life in the world, for Jesus gave His law only for Christians, not for the rest.”[2180]

Luthardt rightly appeals to Luther’s words: “This is what the Gospel teaches you: It has nothing to do with worldly things, but leaves them as God has already disposed them by means of the worldly authorities.” “The kingdom of Christ has nothing to do with outward things, but leaves them all unaltered to follow their own order.” “In God’s kingdom in which He rules through the Gospel there is no going to law, nor have we anything to do with law, but everything is summed up in forgiveness, remission and bestowing, and there is no anger or punishment, nothing but benevolence and service of our neighbour.” As to the temporal matters, “there the lawyers are free to help and advise how things are to be.” “If anyone were to try and rule the world according to the Gospel, just think, my good friend, what the result would be. He would break the chains and bonds that hold back the wild and savage beasts.”[2181]—It is true that he here altogether overlooks the fact that religion has, on the contrary, to help in governing the world by her moral laws, restraining the “wild and savage” elements by means of her laws, her authority and her means of grace; just as when speaking above of the two spheres of life in which man is placed he forgets that we are endowed with but one conscience and one responsibility, viz. that of the Christian, which is inseparable from man as he is at present constituted.

“Now, praise be to God, all the world knows,” says Luther, of his sundering of the two spheres of life, “with what diligence and pains I have laboured and still labour to distinguish between the two offices or rules, the temporal and the spiritual, and to keep them, apart; each one now is instructed as to his own work and kept to it, whereas in Popery it was all so entangled and in such confusion that no one kept within his own powers, dominion and rights.”[2182]

Protestants have found the essential difference between Protestantism and Catholicism to consist in the fact, that, according to Luther’s directions, Protestantism separates “religion and theology, faith and knowledge, morality and politics, Christianity and art,” whereas Catholicism, according to the motto of Pius X, seeks to “renew all things in Christ.” “We know that revelation has only an inward mission to the individual soul; the Catholic believes in its public mission for universal civilisation.” “We should fear for the purity of our faith and no less for morality and civilised order should these domains ever be christianised.”[2183]

The result of forbidding the “spiritual rule” ever to encroach on the temporal domain was so to enfeeble the precepts of ethics as to deprive them of any real authority for making themselves felt as a power in secular government.

With Luther everything is constructed without any basis of authority; he proffers, as he is fond of saying, “opinions and advice,”[2184] and even this he does without a trace of theory or method; as for binding regulations he has none; nor has he any Church behind him that can set up an obligatory ethical standard; he recognises indeed the universal priesthood, but no Church with any paramount authority in spiritual things, no hierarchy and no social institution such as the Catholic Church is. This is the chief reason why his moral instructions lack any definite and binding force over people’s minds. The great mass of mankind must be guided by clear and fixed rules, counsels which address themselves to man’s good-will are in themselves practically useless for the direction or guidance of the masses, constituted as they are. The Gospel, moreover, in spite of what Luther says to the contrary, though it brings the glad tidings of salvation and forgiveness, also contains a large number of strict moral precepts; the Divine Founder of the Church, in His wisdom, also equipped her with full power to issue, on the lines traced out by Himself, the commands called for by the needs of every age. She disposes of spiritual penalties and has the right to excommunicate offenders when this is necessary to emphasise her laws.

With Luther the last resource lay in the system of the State-Church. The “Christian authorities” became the authorities of the congregations (see below, p. 579 ff.).[2185] Thus the founder of the new religion frequently requires the rulers who had rallied to his system to make use of their power in order to lend their sanction and authority to the ethical regulations he gave to his followers, and which he himself was unable to enforce.

Here we shall only consider one class of cases where it was of great importance to him to see his “opinion and advice” followed. According to him, as Luthardt himself admits in his “Ethik Luthers,”[2186] “The authorities were to serve and promote the cause of the Evangel.... From this Luther went on, however, to give advice which really was at variance with his fundamental views. It is true when he demands that the rulers should not suffer any such sects as deny the rights, etc., of the authorities, he was merely imposing on them the fulfilment of one of the duties of the State,[2187] but when he requires the rulers to make use of their powers to check the scandal of heresy and false worship, which was the most horrible and dangerous form of scandal; or, when heresy had been proved from Scripture, to forbid its preaching; ‘to insist on the true worship, to punish and forbid false doctrine and idolatry and to risk everything rather than allow themselves and their people to be forced into idolatry and falsehood’; or ‘to banish from the land those who deny such articles as the Divinity of Christ and the redemption,’ etc.; or again, when two opposing parties confront each other, as, for instance, the Lutherans and the Papists, to decide according to Scripture and forbid the party that failed to agree with Scripture to preach,[2188]—all these and similar matters are plainly based on the assumption that the ruler had a right to form an independent opinion as to whether a doctrine was or was not in accordance with Scripture, an assumption which Luther, as a matter of fact, strongly deprecates in theory. When Luther speaks in this way he is taking it for granted that he has to do with a Christian ruler, who as such does not merely perform his office of ruler like the heathen Emperor or the Grand Turk, but is influenced by the Gospel and recognises the Word of God.”

Expressed in different words Luthardt’s ideas would amount to this: According to Luther it is imperative that the rulers should be good Lutherans and accept the Evangel and the Word of God as he taught it. No other Christian ruler may venture to put the above measures in force, for the truth is he is no Christian at all.

This leads us to look closer into Luther’s ideas on the secular authority and the State-Church.

2. The State and the State Church

Most Protestant writers become very eloquent and go into great detail when dealing with the main ideas Luther is supposed to have expressed on the State and on social order.

He maintained, so they assert, and impressed strongly on all ages to come, that the purpose of the State was to keep the peace and uphold the right against the wicked by means of legislation and penalties: “_Magistratus instrumentum, per quod Deus pacem et iura conservat_.”[2189] This temporal peace was the best earthly possession and comprised all temporal blessings; in point of fact the “true preaching office” should, so he declared, bring peace, but with the greater number “this is not the case,”[2190] so that the authority of the ruler was necessary for the maintenance of outward peace. “This worldly government,” according to him, “preserves temporal peace, rights and life,” indeed he says it makes wild beasts into men and saves men from becoming wild beasts.[2191] The true Evangelical doctrine, unlike the earlier one, leads to the secular government being regarded as “the great gift of God and His own gracious order,”[2192] notwithstanding that all authority was instituted by God on account of the sin that reigns in man. Human reason and experience, and also the Holy Ghost, must teach the authorities how to fulfil their duty. They must, so far as this is possible, work for the common welfare of their subjects in this world. Since, according to Luther, they must punish what is evil in their subjects’ external behaviour and take care that “all public scandal be banished and removed,”[2193] their task seems to trench on morals and on religion. Good sovereigns instruct their people concerning temporal things, “how to manage their homes and farms, how to rule the land and the people, how to make money and secure possessions, how to become rich and powerful,” further, “how we are to till the fields, plough, sow, reap and keep our house.”[2194] In short the ruler must interest himself in the needs of his subjects as “though they were his very own.”[2195] The worldly rulers must provide for the support of their subjects, and

## particularly for the poor, the widows and orphans, and extend to them

their fatherly protection.

Other fine sayings of Luther’s on this subject and on the duties he assigns to the rulers are instanced in plenty.

The ruler “holds the place of a father, only that his sway is more extensive, for he is not merely the father of one family, as it were, but of as many as there are inhabitants, citizens or subjects in his country.... And because they bear this name and title and look upon it as in all honour their greatest treasure, it is our duty to respect them and regard them as our dearest, most precious possession on earth.”[2196] Luther insisted in the strongest terms on the duty of obedience, more particularly after his experiences during the Peasant War. He emphasises very strongly, in opposition to the fanatics, that the secular Courts must rule and their authority be recognised, and also that the oath must be taken when required.

He even tells the rebels: “God would rather suffer the rulers who do what is wrong than the mob whose cause is just. The reason is that when Master Omnes wields the sword and makes war on the pretence that he is in the right, things fare badly. For a Prince, if he is to remain a Prince, cannot well chop off the heads of all, though he may act unjustly and cut off the heads of some.” For he must needs retain some about him, continues Luther with a touch of humour; but when the mob is in revolt then “off go all the heads.”[2197] “Even where a ruler has pledged himself to govern his subjects in accordance with a constitution—‘according to prearranged articles’—Luther will not admit that it is lawful to deprive him of his authority should he disregard his oath.... No one has the right or the command from God to enforce a penalty in the case of the authorities.”[2198] But things ought not to reach such a pass in the case of the prince’s government. Obedience should make everything smooth for him. He cherishes and provides for all, as many as he has subjects, and may thus be called the father of them all, just as in old days the heathen called their pious rulers the fathers and saviours of the country.[2199]

These ideas are not, however, peculiar to Luther. They were current long before his time and had been discussed from every point of view by Christian writers who, in turn, had borrowed them from antiquity.

In all this, which, furthermore, Luther never summed up in a theory, all that is new is his original and forcible manner of putting forward his ideas. “It is hardly possible to argue,” says Frank G. Ward, one of the latest Protestant writers in this field, “that his view of the duty of the State contained anything very new.... The opinion that the State had an educational duty was held even in classical antiquity.”[2200] If it was held in Pagan times, still more so was this the case in the Christian Middle Ages. It is to classical antiquity that we just heard Luther appeal when he referred to the “_pater patriæ_.” He had become acquainted in the Catholic schools with the ideas of antiquity purified by Christian philosophy.

Still, there is much that is really new in Luther’s views on the State and the rulers which does not come out in the passage quoted above; what is new, however, far from being applauded by modern Protestant judges, is often reprehended by them.

As the accounts we had to give elsewhere were already so full it will not be necessary again to go into details; it is, however, worth while again to emphasise the conclusions already arrived at by calling attention to some data not as yet taken into consideration.

In the first place one thing that was new was the energetic application made by Luther in his earlier years of his peculiar principle of the complete separation of world and Church. The State, or, rather, ordered society (for there was as yet no political State in the modern sense), was consequently de-Christianised by him, at least in principle, at least if we ignore the change which soon took place in Luther himself (see below, p. 576 f.). The proof of this de-Christianisation is found in his own statements. In his writing of 1523, “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” he expressly told the rulers of the land that they had no concern with good people and “that it was not their business to make them pious,” but that they were only there to rule a world estranged from God, and to maintain order by force when the peace was disturbed or men suffered injustice. Amongst real Christians there would, according to Luther, be no secular rulers.[2201] Even when Luther, in this tract of which he thought so highly, is instructing a pious Christian ruler on his duties, he has nothing to say of his duty to protect and further the Church, though in earlier days all admonitions to the princes had insisted mainly on this.

His view of the two powers at work in the social order was new,

## particularly as regards the spiritual sphere and the position of those

holding authority in the Church. The believing Christians in Luther’s eyes formed merely a union of souls,[2202] without any hierarchy or a jot of spiritual authority or power; there is in fact only one power on earth qualified to issue regulations, viz. the secular power; the combination of the two powers, which had formed the basis of public order previously, was thrown over, any spiritual ruler being out of place where all the faithful were priests. There is but a “ministry” of the word, conferred by election of the faithful, and its one duty is to bring the Gospel home to souls; it knows nothing of law, vengeance or punishment.[2203] The ministry of the Word must indeed stand, but is by no means a supervising body, in spite of the “neo-Lutheran conception of the office,” as some Protestant theologians of the present day disapprovingly call it.

Carl Holl, in his “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (1911), says with some truth: “Luther knows as little of a Christian State as he does of a Christian shoemaking trade”; “Our life here below is only Christian in so far as the individuals concerned are Christians. Their sphere of action is not prescribed to Christians by Christianity but rather by the divine order of nature.”[2204]—Hence the whole public congregational system, so far as it needs laws to govern it, must remain on a purely natural basis.

This view is confirmed by the following odd-sounding statements of Luther’s:

Among Christians the sword can have no place, “hence you cannot make use of it on or among Christians, who have no need of it”; still the world “cannot and may not do without it” (this power); in other words, as Christians, both subjects and rulers suffer injustice gladly according to the Gospel, but, for the sake of their neighbours and for the keeping of order in the world, both favour the use of force. Secular rule does not extend beyond “life and limb and what is outward on this earth.”[2205] “Our squires, our princes and our bishops, shall see what fools they are,” when they “order us to believe the Church, the Fathers and the Councils though there is no Word of God in them. It is the apostles of the devil who order such things, not the Church.” And yet “our Emperor and the clever princes are doing this now.”[2206] Hence the princes must keep to their own outward sphere, viz. only coerce the wicked, and not seek to rule over Christians.

“Christians can be governed by nothing but the Word of God. For Christians must be ruled by faith, not by outward works.... Those who do not believe are not Christians, nor do they belong to the kingdom of Christ, but to the kingdom of the world, hence they must be coerced and driven with the sword and by the outward government. Christians do everything that is good of their own accord and without being compelled, and God’s Word is enough for them.”[2207]

When Luther contrasts in this way the kingdom of Christ and the true life of a Christian with the temporal kingdom and the functions of the authorities, he goes so far in his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” and even in his sermons, as strongly to depreciate the secular or civil power. He teaches, for instance, that the Christian who holds the office of ruler, must do things that are forbidden to Christians as such, for instance, pronounce sentence, put to death and use other strong measures against the unruly. But all this belongs in reality to hell.—“Whoever is under the secular rule,” so we read in a curious sermon in Luther’s Church-Postils, “is still far from the kingdom of heaven, for the place where all this belongs is hell; for instance, the prince who governs his people in such a way as to allow none to suffer injustice, and no evildoer to go unrequited, does well and receives praise.... Nevertheless, as explained above, this is not appointed for those who belong to heaven but merely in order that people may not sink yet deeper into hell and make things even worse. Therefore no one who is under the secular government can boast that he is acting rightly before God; in His sight it is still all wrong”; for of Christians more is required; whoever wishes to act according to the Gospel must ever be ready to suffer injustice.[2208] But the secular authority must, either “of its own initiative or at the instance of others, without any complaint, entreaty or exertion of his, help and protect him. Where it does not he must allow himself to be fleeced and abused, and not resist evil, according to the words of Christ. And be assured that this is no counsel of perfection as our sophists lyingly and blasphemously assert, but a strict command binding on all Christians.”[2209] There is a huge gulf between the kingdom of such a Christian and that of the “jailers, hangmen, lawyers, advocates and such-like rabble.”

Such are the epithets Luther flings at the secular power, the State and its ministers, whose task it is to “seek out the wicked, convict them, strangle and put them to death.”[2210] These authorities must indeed exist and a Christian must submit to them willingly—not for his own sake but for that of his neighbour, i.e. for the sake of the common good; he himself has no need of them; the behaviour of the Christian towards this secular power must be dictated by his Christian love for his neighbour.

A Protestant critic writes: “Luther hardly recognises any so-called Christian State.... We find Luther warning his hearers against seeing anything particularly useful or indispensable behind the work of the government. The ruler’s sense of responsibility was to be something purely human.... The Christian in fact has no need of any ruler.”[2211] “Luther’s interest in things political (see below) is practically nil; where the State can be of any use to him he welcomes it and even gives it its meed of praise.... His appreciation of the State is usually just a matter of feeling.”[2212] We come to see that “he took no independent interest in politics.... He even goes so far as to characterise the outward order of the State as a necessary evil. State organisation in his eyes is simply a kind of enforced charity towards our neighbour.”[2213]

“Luther knows no Christian State,” says another Protestant writer of Luther’s theories. “The State is as worldly a thing as eating and drinking”; indeed its commands and its deeds “all belong to hell.”[2214]

This worldly bond of union is good, when, with God’s help, it follows the dictates of reason. It is the only union that exists, for Luther does not recognise State and Church as two unions. This, says Holl, is now regarded “as an axiom.”[2215] We may, it is true, admit with Holl that Luther is not quite consistent in this, but this is only because he reverts inadvertently to the old ideas, and, even in his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” incidentally speaks of a spiritual authority and of bishops in whom it is invested.[2216]

Some Protestant writers, quite erroneously, extol the “Christendom” equipped with both spiritual and secular authority which Luther substituted for the twin powers of yore. It was only owing to his want of logic, and out of practical considerations for the interests of his religion (see below), that he was able to endow as he did the State with spiritual authority. And, besides, “Christendom,” to which indeed he often enough refers, had, in reality, been completely abrogated by him at least in the traditional sense, viz. of the kingdom of God on earth which embraces as in one family all the baptised. For had he not deprived baptism of its dignity and made membership of the Church dependent on the faith of the adult?

“Luther drags away the corner stone on which the whole edifice [of Christendom] rests,” says Holl. “According to his teaching we are not simply baptised into the Church as was the case according to the Catholic doctrine. Baptism, indeed, even to him, constitutes the foundation of Christianity, but the grace of the sacrament is only effective in those who believe in the promises offered therein (‘_Sacramenta non implentur dum fiunt, sed dum creduntur_’).... Luther, by making admission into the spiritual society dependent on a personal condition, destroyed the idea of Christendom in the mediæval Catholic sense”;[2217] this Holl regards as his chief merit.

This is undoubtedly so true, that, in the case of the wars against the Turks, Luther refused to hear of any “Christendom” in the traditional sense which might be pitted against the Crescent, and this on the ground that but few of the combatants were real Christians, i.e. real believers in the Evangel he preached.[2218] He also reserves the honourable title of Christians, as the headings of many of his writings show, for those who personally professed the new faith.[2219]

_Was Luther the Founder of the Modern State?_

The question seems so extraordinary, that we must hasten to say that some of Luther’s more passionate admirers have actually claimed for him that he prepared the way for the modern State.

The difficulty of proving that he is really entitled to such an honour becomes obvious as soon as we recall that all modern theories of government agree in seeing the ideal community in a well-knit body with equal rights and equal liberties for all, religious freedom included. The same standard of justice applies without exception to every citizen and all religions (such at least is the programme) are esteemed alike; moreover, to this standard of justice, all, even the monarch or the supreme representative of the republic, must bow, seeing that the heads of the State have ceased to be absolute.

But what, according to Luther’s theory and practice, was the position of the Lutheran ruler in respect of his civil and religious authority? How did it stand with the freedom and independence of his subjects,

## particularly where different religious practices co-existed?

It is true that, taking his instructions to the rulers just discussed, which he derived from his principle of the separation of Church and world, we should expect him to recognise freedom of conscience. The instructions, however, though seemingly addressed to all, sprang from his opposition to the Catholic rulers. The latter, particularly in the infancy of Protestantism, were above all to be urged to grant entire liberty and not to trouble about religion; what Luther wished to impress upon them was that they had no right to interfere with the Lutheran movement within their jurisdiction.[2220]

Luther spoke quite otherwise when dealing with princes who were favourable to his preaching, or who had introduced the new religious system. In proportion as the rulers and municipalities that favoured his cause grew more numerous, he came to confer on them full powers to stamp out the Catholic faith, and even made it their duty so to do. He also perceived all too well the extent to which zealous Protestant princes, such as Johann of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, could further his innovations. From that time forward he promoted the growing authority of the sovereigns over the Churches, above all by warmly defending the principle that in every country uniformity of worship and doctrine must prevail, short of which there would always be “revolts and sects,” as he said in 1526.[2221]

This was, however, to destroy the main groundwork of the modern State theory, viz. the personal freedom of the individual. It was to interfere with the evenness of justice and with the sacred right of conscience. What other rights of the subject would the sovereign regard as sacred once the door had been opened to arbitrary action in the domain of religious practice?[2222]

The argument with which Luther conceals his selfish aim of securing new fields for his own religious system, and veils the real motive of his struggle against Popery, is deserving of special attention in spite of all its frivolity.

According to Luther’s new modification of his views each locality was to have but one form of worship. Any divergency in preaching or worship must always sow the seeds of dissension, revolt and mob-law; the authorities ought not to permit such a state of things if they valued the preservation of order; so as to insure uniformity of preaching and worship dissenting preachers must be removed. It was for this reason that the inhabitants of Nuremberg had “silenced their monks and shut up their monasteries.”[2223] In this way, encouraged by the wisdom of a “prudent” town-council, which did not look beyond the city walls, Luther came to make his notorious request to his sovereign, viz. that Catholics who remained true to their faith should be banished from the country; for “madcaps,” who refuse to take the proposed arrangement in good part and in the spirit of Christian charity, are not to be suffered among Christians but must be swept away like “chaff from the threshing floor.”[2224] As though the secular power had not even then ample means at its disposal for checking or punishing any real disturbance of the peace on the part of a congregation. At the present day we can afford to smile at the strange reason assigned for measures so far-reaching against innocent citizens of the State; the assertion that difference of worship gives rise to unendurable discord sounds ridiculous to one used to the principles of liberty paramount in the civilised States of to-day. At any rate, this dictum did not make of Luther the founder of the modern State.

In strange contrast with the modern ideas of justice is the excuse he brings forward to vindicate the violent conversion to Protestantism so often practised by the magistrates or petty rulers in their own territories. “What is done by the regular authorities is not to be regarded as revolt.”[2225] Is it really a fact that subversion and violence cease to be wrong when practised by the regular authorities? The modern State—in theory at any rate—recognises no such principle.

It must be added, that both Luther and the princes devoted to him were fond of declaring that the really Christian rulers were bound to put an end to insults and blasphemies against God, regardless of any disturbance of civil life which might ensue. Luther made a beginning by exhorting the sovereign and the congregation to abolish the Mass at Wittenberg which, like Catholic worship in general, was a perpetual blasphemy of God. “The regular authorities” must rise up against “such blasphemy.” The scandal given being public, no indulgence was to be shown by Christians.[2226] Eventually every false doctrine was accounted a public scandal, i.e. every opinion expressed in writings or sermons which deviated from the true Evangel. “It is the duty” of the authorities, he says, “to punish public blasphemers ... and in the same way they should punish, or at least not brook, those who teach that Christ did not die for our sins, but that each one must make satisfaction for himself.”[2227] This, according to him, was notoriously the teaching of the Catholics.

But if the Papists and the Lutherans as they are called, “preach against each other in a parish, town or district” and neither party will yield, “then let the authorities step in and try the case, and whichever party does not agree with Scripture, let him be ordered to hold his tongue.”[2228] Thus the official delegated by the prince—where the prince himself was loath to take the chair—is to decide which is the true meaning of the Bible, and which party really conforms to it.

How opposed this was to the ground principles of the modern State it is scarcely necessary to point out here. The freedom postulated by the latter was absolutely unknown to Luther; had his mind ever risen to such heights he would never have proposed the farcical Bible examination to be held by the authorities.

The relation between such demands as these and Luther’s own former attitude has not escaped the censure of Protestant writers.

“Luther here contradicts himself,” remarks Drews;[2229] “as late as 1524 he had said that men must be allowed to disagree, and a year later that the authorities have no right to prevent every man from ‘teaching and believing whatever he wished, whether it be Gospel or lie’; it was sufficient if they checked the preaching of rebellion and any disturbance of the peace.”[2230]

The Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony adopted the view that uniformity of doctrine was called for. He would, so he declared, “recognise or tolerate no sects or divisions in his lands or principalities,” in order the better “to prevent harmful revolt and other unrighteousness.” But at the same time he assured his subjects that it was not his intention to “prescribe to anyone what he should hold or believe.”[2231]

_The Prince as Absolute Patriarch_

Things drifted, thanks to Luther’s own action, slowly but surely towards an entire control of the Church by the State. Luther knew of no better means of stimulating the Evangelical rulers to take action in ecclesiastical things than by setting up before them the example of King David.

He describes in 1534, in his exposition of Psalm ci. (c.),[2232] how, in order to exterminate false doctrine, David “made a visitation of the whole of his kingdom.” “He always checked any public inroads of heresy. For the devil never idles or sleeps, hence neither must the spiritual authorities be idle or slumber.” “Oh what a great number of false teachers, idolaters and heretics was he not obliged to expel, or in other ways stop their mouths.... The true teachers on the other hand he had everywhere sought out, promoted, called, appointed and commanded to preach the Word of God purely and simply.... He himself diligently instituted, ordered and appointed true teachers everywhere, himself writing Psalms in which he points out how they are to teach and praise God.” “David in this was a pattern and masterpiece to all pious kings and lords ... showing them how they must not allow wicked men to lead souls astray.”[2233] “I say again, let whoever can, be another David and follow his example, more particularly the princes and lords.”[2234] David, so he continues later, led “pious kings and princes rightly and in a Christian manner to the churches,” but he was also a “model in secular government,” which “can have its own rule apart from the kingdom of God”; to this all Popish princes should restrict themselves and not try to instruct Christ how to rule His Church and spiritual realm.[2235]

Hence all that he had once written quite generally of the separation of the kingdom of God with “its own rule” from the “worldly government” was in fact, as he now says more outspokenly, only to apply to the “false priestlings,” and their princes.

But when according to David’s example a Lutheran preacher “by virtue of his office,” or a Lutheran prince, demanded the suppression of the false teaching, this “spiritual rule is nothing more than a service offered to God’s own supremacy”; the Lutheran prince is not thereby intruding on the “spiritual or divine authority but remains humbly submissive to it and its servant.”

“For, when directed towards God and the service of His Sovereignty, everything must be equal and made to intermingle, whether it be termed spiritual or secular.” “Thus they must be united in the same obedience and kneaded together as it were in one cake.”[2236]—It is hardly possible to believe our eyes when we meet with such phrases coming from the same pen that had formerly so strongly championed the complete sundering of the spiritual from the temporal. Yet Luther even seeks to justify the contradiction on more serious grounds. When it was a case of the true Word of God and of the Evangel, then matters stood quite otherwise.

“The secular and spiritual government” are most improperly confused, so he declares, when “spiritual or secular princes and lords seek to change and control the Word of God and to lay down what is to be taught or preached”; here he is referring to the non-Lutheran authorities. Quite a different thing is it “when David concerns himself with the divine or spiritual government,” and really restores God’s glory. Had David said: “My good people, act differently from what God has taught you,” then this would indeed have spelt a “confusion of the spiritual and temporal, of the divine and human government”—such as Luther’s opponents are now guilty of. But David, the servant of God and pattern of all pious princes and kings, because he acted otherwise, was adorned with such high and kingly virtues even in his temporal government that it must have been the work of God, i.e. His peculiar grace; but this same grace is with all pious princes in order that, under their sway and in spite of the hatred of the devil, the temporal rule and “God’s own Rule” may prosper. Supported by such grace David could say of the two authorities he combined: “I suffer neither ungodly men in the spiritual domain nor yet evildoers in the temporal.”[2237]

Thus, in the hands of a pious Evangelical prince, the co-existence of these two rules involves no disturbance of order. And they may all the more readily be put into the hand of one who serves God according to His “Word” seeing that there is in reality but a single power; according to Luther, the hierarchy having been destroyed, there was no one holding spiritual authority; as for the semblance of spiritual authority which the congregation had once possessed it had willingly resigned it into the hands of the Christian David on the princely throne. There is but one authority that embraces everything temporal and spiritual and that works in the two “governments” (read: spheres of life), i.e. in the temporal life of the subjects, which is founded on reason and earthly laws, and in the spiritual domain to which the Gospel lifts them up. In both orders man is admonished to obedience towards God by the pious ruler who regulates everything either himself or by means of the preachers.

Thus Luther’s conception of the State finally grows into a kind of theocracy.

The theocracy of the Israelites is therefore held up to the rulers in the example not only of David but also of the other pious Jewish kings. In the political sphere Old Testament imagery exercised far too great an influence on Luther and his arbitrary new creations. How widely different from the Jewish theocracy was it to see the Father of the country made the highest authority not merely on practical questions of Church government but even on differences concerning faith? The “absolute patriarch”[2238] at Luther’s express demand drives his negligent or reluctant subjects to hear the preachers; on him depends the introduction and use of the greater excommunication, should this weapon ever become necessary; he removes from their posts those professors of the theological or other faculties who oppose the ruling faith, just as he makes his authority felt on the preacher who forsakes the right path. He is, according to Luther, the chief guardian of the young and of all who need his protection, in order, that, where his subjects do not take thought for their salvation and act accordingly, he may “force them to do so, in the same way as he obliges them to give their services for the repair of bridges, roads and ways, or to render such other services as their country may require.”[2239]

On one occasion Luther points out, that in the past, the Pope of Rome had been all in all. Now it is the sovereign of the land, who, as God’s own Vicar, is all in all.

Thus we have here, writes Frank Ward in his “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” “almost the counterpart of the old ecclesiastical absolutism, seeing that all ecclesiastical functions and conditions so far as they belong to the outward domain are put under the State.”[2240] Instead of its being “almost the counterpart,” it would be better to say that it was an absolute caricature of the supposed ecclesiastical absolutism of the past. Ward, however, goes on to say that in the chapter in question he had only shown how, “Luther gave the State an independent dignity and position, and how he had enlarged and strengthened its claims.”

In direct contrast to those writers who see in Luther’s political theory the foundation of the modern State, is a recent statement of Heinrich Boehmer’s.

“Luther’s political and social views,” says this author,[2241] “are in every essential point quite mediæval, antiquated and unmodern. People speak of ‘Luther’s views’ or even of ‘Luther’s teaching on the State and society.’ But it would be better to refrain from using such terms which can only serve to arouse false expectations. As little as the reformer was familiar with the words state and society, so little did he know their meaning. For no State or society in the modern sense of the word existed at the time in central or northern Germany, but merely a large number of bodies somewhat resembling States, all of which, however, fell far short of the ideal of a State.” He goes on to explain, that, for this reason, Luther always speaks to the “authorities,” they being in his eyes the most potent factor in the political organisations he knew; yet, in determining their duties, “his mind moves on quite mediæval lines”; “in the matter of political theory he is far behind even Thomas of Aquin, for Thomas had, in the Italian cities, an example of a far more highly developed State, whilst in the school of Aristotle he had made acquaintance with a number of political ideas and views which had led him to a very thorough study of politics.” Boehmer points out that, according to Luther, the Natural Law upbears the outward order with which alone he was conversant—viz. the landed-aristocratic society which predominated at the time of the reformation—until it came to appear as almost a divine institution, any attempt to overthrow which amounted to a crime, “a view which indeed explains much of the success of Lutheranism, but which is anything but modern.”[2242]

Luther’s “Patriarchal theory,” according to H. Boehmer, had an even greater influence on the political conditions of Lutheran countries than his other theory of the rights of the nobility. The princes within the domain of the new church system entered eagerly into the theory of their supposed paternal rights and finally built it out into a quite insufferable absolutism. Such an undue growth of the secular power was the more to be feared seeing that any independent spiritual power, which might, as in the Middle Ages, have served as a counterweight, no longer existed, having been swallowed up in the authority of the prince. Everything had indeed been secularised, and, to the Lutheran ruler, as God’s own representative, it now was left to direct the religious and temporal concerns of the population on the lines laid down in the Bible.

“The Lutheran prince,” says Boehmer, “as father of the country, undertook to provide for his subjects in every department of life; his rule was absolute, though indeed patriarchal, an ideal of the State quite in accordance with Luther’s views.”[2243]

“Any separation or division of Church and State Luther neither recognised nor desired,” now that he had invested the Evangelical princes with the supreme episcopate.[2244]

The term “Zwangskultur,” often used of the absolutism obtaining in the Lutheran order of society, is not altogether incorrect, in spite of the protests of Protestant theologians. Other Protestant authors find a parallel between Luther’s view of the State and certain late mediæval ones; both, according to them, have been influenced by humanism, with its Cæsarean conception of unfreedom, and by theocratic absolutism.

Carl Sell notes how the Reformation, “in its own way, put new life into the mediæval idea of a new theocracy.” “How deeply the theocratical idea was rooted in the Protestant State-system may be seen from the time it took before the States would consent to surrender their religious character.”[2245]

After the Reformation, says G. Steinhausen, “the theological spirit more than ever laid hold of the world and mankind and fettered the ardent longing for freedom. Herein lies the chief harm wrought by the Reformation.”[2246]

“It was the Reformation,” so O. Gierke says, “that brought about the energetic revival of the theocratic ideal. In spite of all their differences Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli and Calvin agree in emphasising the Christian call, and, consequently, the divine right of the secular authority. Indeed, on the one hand by subordinating the Church more or less to the State, and on the other by making the State’s authority dependent on its fulfilling its religious duties, they give to the Pauline dictum ‘All authority comes from God’ a far wider scope than it had ever had before.”[2247]

_Luther’s Real Merit and his Claims_

If anyone ever really believed that the modern State was in any way embodied in Luther’s ideal or that he paved the way for it, the easiest way to disprove such an assumption would be to show that the most essential feature of the modern State is entirely wanting in the Lutheran, patriarchal one, viz. freedom and the political co-operation of the people, and, above all, the vital atmosphere of personal and corporate independence in religious matters.

In point of fact the most that can be argued is that Luther to some extent, though in an entirely negative way, paved the road for the modern conception of the State.

This he did by his relentless opposition to the Church, which had so long held sway. As early as the days of Boniface VIII attempts had been made to curtail her action in politics. The efforts of some of the Catholic sovereigns, who, without denying the inherent rights of the spiritual authority, laboured to establish State-Churches also tended in the same direction. Luther was, however, the first who sought to destroy all ecclesiastical authority, as a mere symbol of Antichrist. Hence, for those rulers who took his part, one of the chief obstacles that had withstood the growth of modern conditions was swept away. Nevertheless, wellnigh three hundred years, full of gloomy experiences, had to elapse before a way could be found out of the new labyrinth of despotism, indolence and disorder; and, all this while, the theocratic patriarch of Lutheranism almost invariably stood as an obstacle in the way of development.

Frank Ward may indeed assert, that it is possible “to appeal at least to the spirit of his theory of the State, if not to its every detail.”[2248] This, however, is only possible if by “its spirit” we understand not what was new but the old, wholesome, traditional elements which Luther retained, i.e. the political ideas handed down by antiquity and the Christian philosophy of the past, on which he so skilfully impressed his own drastic touch. To these olden elements Luther was, however, scarcely fair.

According to what he says and reiterates there had devolved on him alone the incredibly onerous task of finding a way out of the gruesome darkness into which the relations between prince and hierarchy, State and Church, spiritual and temporal order had been plunged in the past: “This is how things stood then. No one had heard or taught, nor did anyone know anything concerning the secular authority, whence it came, what its office or work was, or how it should serve God. The most learned men—I will not name them—looked upon the secular power as a heathen, human and ungodly thing, as a state dangerous to salvation.... In short princes and lords, even such as wished to be pious, regarded their station and office as of no account.... Thus the Pope and the clergy were at that time all in all, over all and in all, like a very god in the world, and the secular power lay unknown and uncared for in the darkness.”[2249]

Yet he himself had abased the authorities by reducing them in his writing of 1523 to the position of “jailers and hangmen,” working in a domain foreign to all that was spiritual.[2250] This, of course, was at a time when he had not as yet found patrons amongst the rulers as he was to do later. According to him, those who wielded the secular power, i.e. the princes, were no Christians. In 1522 he complains of the princes to whom he had appealed in vain: “Now they let everything go and one stands in the way of the other. Some even help and further the cause of Antichrist. They are at loggerheads and do not show themselves at all willing to help matters on.”[2251] Thus, according to him, Christ is left to Himself; but “He is the Lord of life and death.... Together with Him we too shall conquer and despise even the princes.”[2252] “God Himself will shortly make an end of Popery by His Word.... A new Church will arise but not by the doing of the princes but of those in whom the Word of God has really taken root.”[2253] Luther then wished, as we have already shown, to bring about the establishment of a Congregational Church; later on he even dreamed of assembling together only the true believers. As, however, the Congregational Churches did not thrive and as it proved impossible to carry out the scheme of a Church apart, he allowed the State to intervene, and, with its help, there came the National Church; this soon grew into a State-Church with the sovereign at its head.

Luther still remained, however, the great teacher. He continued to vaunt his ambiguous “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.” In 1529 he even related how Duke Frederick had caused this writing to be copied and “specially bound; he was very fond of it because it showed him what his position was.”[2254] In 1533, looking back on the whole of his writings concerning the authorities he says: “In Popery such views of the secular power lay under the bench”; “since the time of the Apostles no doctor or scribe” has instructed the worldly estates so “well and outspokenly” as he, not even “Ambrose and Augustine.”[2255]

We may here recall the sober and perfectly true remark of Fr. v. Bezold. Luther may have plumed himself on having been the first to revive a right understanding of and respect for the secular authority, but that “the indefensibility of this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated.”[2256]

Luther’s error is evident, though unfortunately not to all, as we can convince ourselves by reading the eulogies of Luther which are still so common under the pen of Protestant writers; for instance, that Luther had “deepened Augustine’s view of the State”; that he was ever moving forward “in a straight line,” expanding and perfecting the knowledge already acquired; and that even in his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” “he was already at his best,” etc.

It may, therefore, be all the more useful to look a little more closely into one side of the present subject which has not yet been dealt with but which leads to interesting disclosures, viz. into the question of the various circumstances, some outward, some inward and personal, which led Luther to evolve his theory of the patriarchal, absolutist State. Here the Visitation of 1527-28 stands out as a milestone on the road of his development.

_Other Factors which assisted in the Establishment of the State-Church_

It was a common phenomenon in all the earlier struggles against the ecclesiastical hierarchy for the separatists to seek for support and assistance from the secular power and the State. From the time of the earliest controversies in the Church this tendency had been noticed among those who broke away. Luther too, from the time of his first public rupture, had cast his eyes on the secular power; nay, even earlier, in his Commentary on Romans, he betrays a tendency to put the secular before the spiritual.[2257]

To these ideas he gave full play in the call to reform the Church which he addressed “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.”

For the next few years, however, the ideas are less to the fore. Luther was very well aware that a quiet and gradual procedure would appeal far more to the then Elector, Frederick the Wise, than any urging on of the innovations at high pressure and with State interference. The Elector was in fact so averse to taking any strong measures, that on the contrary he frequently impressed on the Wittenberg leaders the need there was for caution.

Matters assumed another aspect, when, in 1525, there came a change of ruler. The Elector Johann of Saxony was a zealous friend of Luther’s and soon became the real patron of Lutheranism. His attitude towards the innovations, taken with Luther’s new tendencies, constituted a prime factor in the rise of a State-governed Church.

Another factor was the condition of the Lutheran congregations which had so far sprung up. They were scattered and devoid of organisation. Not seldom they bore within them seeds of dissension born as they had been out of quarrels within the parishes, and maintained for the most part only by the violent action of a majority of the council. The petty rulers naturally sought to link themselves up with the greater powers so as to maintain both the ecclesiastical innovations and their newly acquired rights. The sovereign was a pillar of strength on whom they leaned, when in doubt, when it was a question of defending the preachers they had appointed, of removing persons they regarded with disfavour, or of allaying disputes amongst the burghers.

To all this, however, must be added a further circumstance which contributed to bring about the State supremacy of a later date, viz., the corruption of many of the newly formed congregations, a corruption which urgently called for a strong hand and adequate means of coercion. “When, after the Peasant War,” writes Carl Müller, “the dreadful decline in things ecclesiastical made itself felt, the parsonages and schools threatening to fall into ruins and the agricultural population to relapse into savagery, the time arrived for the rulers of the land to come into greater prominence. It was now no longer a question of individual congregations but rather of the whole country, and above all of the rising generation.”[2258]

The intervention of the prince subsequent to the victory over the peasants in 1525 also greatly promoted the increased devotion with which men of influence, Luther included, attached themselves to the authority of the ruler as a bulwark against revolution. The arrogance of the country folk had to be broken by strengthening the power of the sovereign; this Luther repeated so often and so loudly that his foes began to call him a footlicker of the princes.

_Significance of the Visitation and Inquisition held in the Saxon Electorate_

The decisive importance, for the inward development of the new Church system and for Luther’s position, of the Visitation of the churches of the Saxon Electorate held in 1528 has already been pointed out cursorily.[2259] The Visitation brought to a head a growth which had long been in process. The princely supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs which then came about and was formally sanctioned in Saxony became, with Luther’s consent, which was partly given freely, partly wrung from him, something permanent in the birthplace of the new Church, the Visitations continuing to be carried out in the same way by the prince of the land. Saxony provided a model which was gradually followed in other districts where Lutheranism prevailed, while the then tendency to strengthen the reigning houses so as to enable them to hold their own against Emperor and Empire also exercised a powerful influence.

The Electoral Visitation which Luther had counselled and to which he most zealously lent his help, had for its aim, according to his own words, which we must take in their most literal sense, “the constituting of the churches” because “everything is now so mangled.”[2260] So much did he expect from it that he even expressed the hope that it would clear up for the future the whole problem of the new “Church” and its organisation, which, strange to say, he had never seen fit to think out theoretically. As a matter of fact it was “cleared up,” and that by the very programme for the Visitation issued by the Court. What was to be instituted was to be neither a Church apart, nor a number of free Congregational Churches, nor a great independent National Church, but a State Establishment, a compulsory Church in fact, though calling itself a National Church upheld by the charity of the State.[2261]

We have the programme of the Visitation in the three documents which follow in chronological order, the “Instructions” for the Visitors themselves issued by the Elector on June 16, 1527,[2262] the “Instructions of the Visitors addressed to the ministers of the Saxon Electorate” and the Preface to the same which Luther composed, both of which appeared in print together in March, 1528.[2263]

It can scarcely be doubted that Luther had a hand in the drafting of the Electoral Instructions, which form a sort of Magna Charta of princely supremacy in Church matters. All his previous written communications with the Court had been tending towards this end. In his earliest efforts to bring about the Visitation he had told the ruler that it pertained to his “office” to see that the Evangelical workers were remunerated, that, into his hands “as the supreme head” had fallen “all the monasteries and foundations” and, with them, the “duty and obligation of seeing into a matter in which no one else could or had a right to interfere.” “Not God’s command alone but our own needs require that some step should here be taken.” Thus he demands that the prince, by virtue of his own authority as “one appointed by God for the matter and empowered to act,” should nominate four persons as Visitors, who by his “orders should arrange for the erection and support of schools and parsonages where this was wanted”; of these persons, two were to attend to the material needs, and two who had had a theological training were to examine into the doctrine, preaching and performance of spiritual duties.[2264]

Such were the “principles which were eventually carried into practice. For ages after, the Lutheran sovereigns asserted their right to draw up rules concerning the doctrine and constitution of their National Churches, and, to this end, not only laid claim to the old ecclesiastical revenues but also to the right to levy special taxes on their subjects.”[2265]

Luther was moved to take up his new standpoint not merely by the needs of the day but also by pious Lutherans, such as Nicholas Hausmann, the pastor of Zwickau, who by examples taken from the Bible had pointed out to the Elector himself what his rights and duties were in this field;[2266] an even stronger influence was, maybe, exerted on him by the lawyers of the Court, who were intent on making the most of the rights of the sovereign, especially by Chancellor Brück, their spokesman, with whom Luther was brought into closer contact when seeking to remedy the existing distress. He himself, as we shall see, hesitated a little about entering upon this new course. The supremacy of the prince nevertheless seemed inevitably called for by the secularisation of Church property, also for the appointment and payment of the pastors, for the removal of incapable preachers and those who excited the mob,—especially those of “fanatic” inclinations—and, lastly, for the final and violent uprooting of Catholic worship where it still lingered.

A Visitation was begun in the Electorate in Feb., 1527, by a very characteristic commission appointed by the sovereign assisted by the University of Wittenberg; it was composed of the following members: the lawyer, Hieronymus Schurff, the two noblemen Hans von der Planitz and Asmus von Haubitz, and Melanchthon. The Electoral Instructions of June, 1527, referred to above were the result of previous experience, and had the approval of both Luther and Melanchthon. The practical experience already gained also proved useful in the drawing up of the “Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pharhern” which was of a more theological and practical character. It is almost entirely the work of Melanchthon, though it was formally approved and accepted by Luther after some slight alterations. It was sent to Luther by the Elector, who had carefully gone into its details, and who directed him to look through it and also write an historical preface (“narration”) to it, though the work as a whole was to appear to come from the Court. In due time both the “Instructions” and the Preface were sent to the press by the Elector.

What had transpired of the contents of the “Unterricht” had already aroused considerable opposition within the Lutheran camp; it was displeasing to the zealots to find Melanchthon again returning half-way to the Catholic doctrine in the matter of penance, free-will and good works. They openly declared that official Lutheranism was “slinking back.” After its appearance further criticism was aroused among both Protestants and Catholics. Of the Catholic writers, Cochlæus ironically drew attention in his “_Lutherus septiceps_” to the withdrawal that had taken place from Luther’s former crass assertions. He also incidentally describes the strange appearance of the State Visitors: “Here comes the Visitor wearing a new kind of mitre, setting up a new form of Papacy, prescribing new laws for divine worship, and reviving what had long since fallen into disuse and dragging it forth into the light once more.”[2267] Joachim von der Heyden in his printed letter to Catherine Bora even declared, that, in the rules for the Visitation, Luther “had resumed the Imperial rights,” which he had “for a while discarded.” He is referring to certain of the rules dealing with Church property, which were to Luther’s personal interest.[2268]

The Elector’s Instruction to the Visitors themselves is, however, of even greater importance in the history of the rise of the Lutheran State Church.

“In this Instruction, not only do we meet everywhere with traces of Luther’s wishes,” but it also follows him “in applying the property of monasteries and pious foundations to the support of the churches and schools. In all this, true to Luther’s ideas, it sees the duty of the sovereign who constitutes the Christian authority.”[2269]

In this Instruction the attitude adopted by the Elector with regard to doctrine is, that, in view of the Word of God,[2270] he, the supreme lord, is not free to brook the practice of false worship and the teaching of false dogma in his lands. What the true doctrine really is, is taken for granted as known, though it is never expressly stated. On the other hand, in the Preface to the “Unterricht,” Luther tells, how, “now, by the unspeakable grace of God the Gospel has mercifully been brought back to us once more, or, rather, has dawned on us for the first time.”[2271] It was the duty of the sovereign, so the Instruction says, to abolish public scandals and hence to remove unworthy clerics. He must proclaim the Gospel to his subjects by means of those called to do so, and admonish them through the Visitors to take the same to heart. The congregations must, when necessary, assist in supporting the preachers. The Visitors had the right to insist in the sovereign’s name on the contributions called for by the law, and into their hands the Elector committed the management of the Church property.

The ruler must take steps, as the divinely appointed authority, in obedience to the Word of God, and in the interests of his country to abolish the remnants of Popish error by means of a Visitation. Those ministers who were papistically inclined were simply to be removed and all the preachers “who advocate, preach or hold any erroneous doctrine are to be told to quit our lands in all haste and also, that, should they return, they will be severely dealt with.” Whoever refuses to abide by the regulations of the sovereign in the dispensing of the sacraments, is to leave the Electorate. For, “though it is not our intention to prescribe to anyone what he is to hold or believe, yet we will not tolerate any sect or division in our principality in order to prevent harmful revolt and other mischief.”[2272]

Thus a formal “Inquisition” was introduced, even to the very name, which was to be undertaken by the Visitors in respect not merely of the clergy but even of the laity, attention being paid to the information laid before the Visitors by the officials and members of the nobility. Any layman who refused to desist from his “error” when summoned to do so was obliged within a certain term to sell out and leave the country “with a warning of being severely dealt with” similar to that addressed to clergymen.

Hence by means of this “Instruction” the foundation was laid for the State supremacy in religious matters. “Spalatin’s wish was now fulfilled,” says N. Paulus; “the sovereign had now put the ‘Christian bit’ in the mouth of all the clergy, and they could now preach nothing else than the Lutheran doctrine.”[2273] “Oh, what a noble work it would be,” Spalatin had written in 1525, when first proposing such a use of the ‘bit,’ “and what great good would result for the whole of Christendom.”[2274] “Spalatin’s pious wish,” drily remarks Th. Kolde, “was to be more thoroughly realised than probably he bargained for.”[2275]

Luther himself was pleased with the Instructions. He never ventured to bring forward any real objection against it, greatly as the document ran counter to his earlier principles; after the appearance of the “Unterricht” addressed to the pastors, headed by Luther’s remarkable preface, it was once more printed without any protest. Yet the Preface bears witness to his misgivings.

_Luther’s Misgivings in the Preface to the Visitors’ Directions_

The standpoint taken up by the Wittenberg Professor in his Preface to the “Unterricht” is so curious that it has even been said that a “manifest contradiction” exists between it and the Instructions which follow.[2276]

In it, albeit cautiously, he made certain reservations, which show that the absolutist system of Church government proposed by the Prince did not really appeal to him. It is clear he did not feel quite at ease about the Instructions, because of his former advocacy of the independence of the congregations in ecclesiastical matters, because of the future subserviency of Church to State and because the directions were at variance with honest convictions deeply rooted in his mind from the days of his youth. At the same time his misgivings are expressed only with the greatest restraint.

He says: “Although His Electoral Highness is not commanded to teach and to exercise a spiritual rule, yet it is his duty as the secular authority to insist that no dissensions, factions and revolt take place among his subjects”; for which reason too the Emperor Constantine had exhorted the Christians to unity in faith and doctrine. He adds: His Highness, the Prince, had settled on the Visitation at Luther’s request “out of Christian charity and for God’s sake, though this was not indeed required of him as a secular ruler.”

These, however, were mere Platonic excuses by which he sought to reassure himself, to explain the contradictions involved in his position, and, probably, to defeat those who looked askance at this Visitation ordained by the State.

It is easy to perceive from the language of the Preface that one of the writer’s objects was to meet the objections he feared from his own party. Among the ministers were some, who, it was to be apprehended, would “ungratefully and proudly despise” the action of the Prince; “madcaps, who out of utter malice cannot tolerate anything that is common and applies to all.” These he reminds of the sovereign’s powers of coercion by which they would be “sundered.” Seemingly he also tries to defend himself from the very natural charge of having introduced an incompetent authority into the Church Visitation; this he does by limiting the sovereign power as we just heard him do. The charge, that the Instructions of the Visitors were untrue to his former doctrine (he means more particularly that of good works) he answers by a rhetorical assertion to the contrary.

He also thinks it necessary to defend the measures aimed at those whose belief is different; this he does by a reference to the “unity of the spirit,” which sounds rather strange coming from him. To the Catholics who were obliged to quit their country since, for the sake of peace, conformity was required, Luther sends the following greeting: “Be careful to keep, as Paul teaches, the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace and charity Amen” (Eph. iv. 3).

When judging the Preface the fact must be taken into account that the “Unterricht” which Luther is launching on the public introduces amongst other things the office of the “super-attendents” (superintendents). In these directions coercion is defended in the strongest terms. Whoever preaches or teaches “against the Word of God,” what is “conducive to revolt against the authorities,” is to be “prohibited” from doing so by the Superintendent; if this be of no avail then the matter is to be “notified at once to the officer, in order that His Electoral Highness may take further steps.” All this simply on the authority of the sovereign.

Hence had Luther really wished, as has been asserted, to protest against the powers claimed by the sovereign and his Visitors this should have been very differently worded.

The passage regarding the “super-attendent” in itself shows that Luther did not regard the “Unterricht” merely as a spiritual guide, as has been recently asserted, or as representing that purely spiritual function which, according to him, is concerned only with the conscience, with doctrine and advice, and knows nothing of any law or command. This naturally follows from the above, even though the elastic Preface contains a qualifying statement, viz. that he could not allow the directions in the “Unterricht to be issued as a strict law lest we set up new Papal Decretals”; it is his intention to send them forth as a “history or account, and also as a testimony and confession of our faith.” In this, again, we can only see his desire to explain away the disagreeable expedient into which he had been forced by circumstances.

Since the beginning of the Church, he goes on, there had always been an episcopal Visitation though now this had ceased and “Christendom lay torn and distracted”; none of us (the Wittenberg Professors) having been called or definitely appointed to this, he had come “to play the part of conscience” and had moved the sovereign to take this step. In other words, no one on earth has the right to “constitute” new churches, not even the man who discovered the new Evangel; it was merely a venture on Luther’s part, when, owing to the urgency of the case, he called in the assistance of the secular power. Such a mental process, is, to say the least, highly involved.

It is sufficiently evident that this Preface, inscribed, so to speak, over the portals of the new State-governed Church, may lay claim to great psychological interest.

The interest deepens if we turn our attention to the demonological ideas Luther here brings into play. At that time he was suffering from the after-effects of his dreadful struggles with the “devil” (1527-28) and with his own conscience. That, here too, the devil might not be absent, he shows in the Preface how Satan had wrought all sorts of mischief amongst the Papists (this is Luther’s consolation) by neglect of the Visitations, and had set up nothing but “spiritual delusions and monk-calves.”[2277] The “idle, lazy bellies” had been forced to serve Satan. He gives this warning for the future: “The Devil has not grown good or devout this year, nor will he ever do so.” “Christ says in John viii. that the devil is a murderer.”[2278]

The words Luther uses when he characterises the intervention of the secular authorities in Church matters as merely a work of necessity or charity on the part of the chief member of the Church, are of psychological rather than of doctrinal importance.

What Luther says of the rights of the State authorities in Church affairs reveals how little his heart was in this abandonment of ecclesiastical authority to the secular arm. It shows the need he felt of concealing beneath fair words the road he had thus opened up to State-administration of the Church.[2279] The Saxon Elector is a “Christian member”; he is a “Christian brother” in the Church, who, as sovereign, must play his part; his intervention here appears as a service performed by the ruler towards the Christian community. “Our emergency Bishop,” such is the title Luther once bestows on Johann Frederick. The state of financial confusion amongst the Protestants is what chiefly demands, he says, that “His Electoral Highness, the embodiment of the secular authority, should look into and settle things.” On the other hand, it is not of his _secular_ authority, but simply of his authority, that Luther speaks in the writing he addressed to the Elector on Nov. 22, 1526, where he appeals to him to make an end of the material and spiritual mischief by establishing “schools, pulpits and parsonages.” He says, “Now that all spiritual order and restraint have come to an end in the principality and all the monasteries and institutions have fallen into the hands of Your Electoral Highness as the supreme head, this brings with it the duty and labour of regulating this matter, which no one else either can or ought to undertake.” “God has in this case called and empowered Your Electoral Highness to do this.”[2280] The supervision of the doctrine as well as of the personal conduct of the ministers, and not merely the providing for their material wants, all come within the ordinary province of the “supreme head.”

_Divergent Currents_

The psychological significance of Luther’s hesitation to sanction the ruler’s supremacy in church government lies in its affording us a fresh insight into the various drifts of his mind and temperament.

On the one hand, he helped to raise State-ecclesiasticism into the saddle, and, on the other, he would fain see it off again and looks at it with the unfriendliest of eyes. He not only gives us to understand in the most unmistakable manner that it is not his ideal, but, up to the very last, he says things of it which ring almost like an anathema; nor does he forbear to heap reproaches on the natural consequences of an institution of which notwithstanding he himself was the father. Only error, with its ambiguity and want of logic, combined with an obstinate will, could issue in such contradictions.

His earlier and truer recognition of the independence of the spiritual power refused to be entirely extinguished. It was the same here as with Luther’s doctrine of faith alone, of justification and good works; again and again the old, wholesome views break out from under the crust of the new errors and, all involuntarily, find expression in quite excellent moral admonitions. So too his former orthodox views concerning the dignity of the Bible are at variance with the liberties he takes with the Word of God, and, even according to Protestant divines, lead him to an ambiguous theory and to a practice full of contradictions.[2281] Yet again, his call to make use of armed force against the Emperor is contrary to what he had taught for long years regarding the unlawfulness of such resistance; the disquiet and perturbation, the consciousness of this causes him he seeks to drown beneath ever louder battle cries.[2282] We find something similar throughout the whole field of his psychology: everywhere we can detect gainstriving currents.

In the questions bearing on the rights of the State and the Church, his temperament, which was so susceptible to sudden changes, needed only some strong impulse from without in order to bring to light one or other of these opposing trends. One powerful stimulus of the sort was afforded by the attractive outlook of bettering the frightful condition of the Lutheran congregations in Saxony, making his disputed cause victorious, and at the same time getting rid of the remaining Papists. By this alluring prospect he was taken captive. It would seem to have led him to shut his eyes to the iron fetters which State supremacy in Church matters would forge about his Church system not merely in Saxony but far beyond its borders. When, afterwards, he would willingly have retraced his steps, it was already too late. He was condemned to make statements extolling freedom in spiritual matters, the futility of which was plain to himself, and which, therefore, Protestants should not take so seriously as some of them do.

It is not sufficiently realised how such opposing tendencies run side by side from the very outset of his career.

Even in his “An den christlichen Adel,” in spite of the violence with which he incites the nobility against the Church’s administration we can see that he wishes to set his new allies more against the alleged “robberies and exactions” of the Church and the abuses which he supposed to be beyond remedy, than against the Church as such. It is true, that, by his universal priesthood, he breaks down the walls which mark the field of her sway; God can speak “through the mouth of any pious man against the Pope”; “in principle every Christian has the right to summon a Council”;[2283] but, should the secular powers gather together the Council he desired, they would, according to him, do so simply at the will and command of the Christian congregation which he also takes into account and which he admits possesses a certain spiritual “sword” which exists side by side with the secular sword, though only for the benefit of souls. Thus the spiritual power still exists as a dream. Only a Christian ruler, a “brother Christian, brother priest and sharer in the same spirit-world” may demand that violent reformation for which Luther yearns.[2284]—Thus, even in this stormy work, the two contrary drifts are to some extent discernible.

With the same desire to retain intact some sort of spiritual order distinct from the secular, Luther here and elsewhere seeks to reserve to the Christian congregation the right of choosing their pastors; circumstances were, however, to prove too strong for him.

“Throughout Christendom things should be so ordered that every town chooses from amongst its congregation a learned and pious burgher, commits to him the office of pastor and sees that he is given enough for his upkeep.”[2285] The congregation is also to have the right to depose him should his preaching not turn out in accordance with the Word of God. What Luther has in mind is united action on the part of all the true believers. But here, again, he has perforce to lean rather on the authorities. For, in the congregation, we have first of all the Town-Council, which, even when only a minority of the burghers is in favour of the religious reform, receives from Luther a power which does not belong to it, viz. of seeing that the people it rules are supplied with the right preachers. Above the Council, moreover, stands the supreme authority, viz. the sovereign. The latter must naturally assist the Council in choosing good Evangelical preachers and must himself take steps when dissensions cause the Council to refuse to move. Luther, again, will do nothing in opposition to the Court; for instance, he will not allow any pastor to enter upon his office who is not a “_persona grata_” at the Court, even though he should have been duly called by the congregation.[2286] Every parish is indeed independent by divine right, but the prince also acts by divine right when, as protector and defender, he intervenes, regardless of the traditional rights of patron and warden, etc.[2287]

In Saxony, where the ruler was favourable to Lutheranism, his authority was indispensable for the establishment of the Church. On the other hand, where the conditions were less favourable to Luther, there, according to his “_De instituendis ministris_,” the principal work must devolve on the town councillors and the patrons as well as on the preachers appointed by them to the congregations;[2288] to these it falls to elect bishops, so that everything may be put on independent ecclesiastical lines.—Thus Luther was not so averse to changing both methods and principles.

The change in Luther’s views comes out most clearly in the leave he gives to the highest secular power to annul the choice made by the congregation. The instructions for the Visitation prescribed that, on the bare authority of the prince and regardless of the rights of the congregation, those pastors who taught what was erroneous or who had proved otherwise unsatisfactory were to be deposed and replaced by others. This held even of those who were strongly backed by their congregation. “In point of fact,” says Carl Müller, “this was practically to shift the responsibility from the congregation and its authorities to the sovereign. It is also clear, that, where there was a divergency of opinion concerning the orthodoxy of a preacher, the sovereign naturally had his own way.”[2289] But, even before this, Luther had refused to sanction the demand of the Erfurt burghers, viz. that the parishes should themselves appoint their pastors even against the wishes of the Town-Council; it was “seditious,” so he wrote in 1525, “that the parishes should seek to choose or dismiss their pastors regardless of the Council.”[2290] Here the Council happened to be on his side; where this was not the case, Luther was just as ready to set aside its rights in favour of those of the ruler.

In this wise the right of the congregation to elect its pastor, a right which he had once praised so highly, even in his own day was so whittled away as to become quite meaningless. Of the two tendencies which had been apparent in him from the first, one inclining towards the authorities and the other towards freedom of election, the former had won the day.

We already know that Luther inclined for a long while to the establishment of a Church-Apart or assembly of true believers. Yet, at the same time, he was working for a National Church, albeit he was convinced that such a Church would for the most part be composed of non-Christians. Eventually the latter was to hold the field owing to the force of outward circumstances.[2291]

He was in favour of a Church which should be entirely free, and at the same time of a confessional Church with binding dogmas. So strongly did he stand for freedom in all ecclesiastical matters that he not only refused to recognise the existence of any spiritual “authority” among his followers, but also declared no Pope, no angel, no man had the power to rob the faithful of this freedom or to impose anything on him.[2292] At the same time, however, he was in favour of that strict disciplinary government which finds its expression in the regulations for the Visitation.

According to Luther there is no real Canon Law. He refuses to recognise State and Church as two bodies which exist side by side.[2293] And yet he complains of the way in which the rights of the Church, i.e. of his Church, were being thwarted by the lawyers.[2294]

He wished a distinction to be drawn between the Prince and the Christian, and declared: “His princely authority has nothing to do with his Christianity”; and yet he himself united the spiritual and the secular power in the prince’s hands so closely that they were never afterwards to be wrenched apart. As Carl Müller truly remarks, we must not “press too much the term ‘emergency bishop for the time being’ which Luther applies to the secular ruler.”[2295]

True to one of his ruling tendencies, he based on the Bible the rights and duties of the authorities in every department of the spiritual sphere. “If the authorities do not wish it, then neither must you.” Nevertheless, almost in the same breath, he scoffs at the claims of the authorities when they did not happen to fall in with his wishes, or when they proved an obstacle to the expulsion of Popery: “Why pay attention to him [the Elector]? He has no right to command except in worldly things.”[2296]

He stood for the Consistories and promoted their establishment in spite of Spalatin’s objections; and yet, on the other hand, he opposed them, saying, that the Courts were after ruling the Churches as they pleased, and that Satan was bent on introducing the secular power into the Church.[2297] Hence, from about 1540, he attempted to set up Protestant bishops as in the case of Nicholas Amsdorf.[2298] The Consistories displeased him and made life unbearable. Still, because the ecclesiastical edifice he had erected could not do without them, he bridled his tongue; very different is the picture of Luther from that of the champions of the Church’s independence in the early days of Christianity, for instance, Ambrose or Chrysostom, who, regardless of self, staked all they had in the struggle against the oppressors of the Church. His habit of making the naughty lawyers of the Court the butt of his complaints is significant enough, for the really responsible party was the Court itself and the Elector in person, who used his newly acquired power to rule more autocratically in Church matters than any Pope had ever done.

_Conclusion_

The prince did not rule as a member of a religious commonwealth which also had rights of its own, but rather as one holding the highest powers of the episcopate; he nominated the pastors and provided for their support; he watched over the lives and behaviour of the clergy, and, at Luther’s instance, took proceedings against the false teachers and the remnants of Popery; he alone controlled the consistory which acted in his name; matrimonial cases were already being dealt with by his lawyers and the disposal and management of the property which had formerly belonged to the Church depended entirely on the Court. The right of the congregations “to appoint and dismiss preachers and to pronounce on doctrine” seemed now forgotten. If a layman dared to call a preacher to task the authorities were bound to take proceedings against him for disturbance of the public peace and order.

Not that Luther hesitated to complain or express his displeasure with the State-Church system whenever he found it in his way, or when he saw Catholic princes make use of his principles, or when he thought the cause of the new religion compromised. On such occasions we hear him bewailing: “The worldly rulers, the princes, kings and nobles throughout the land, not to speak of the magistrates in the villages, want to wield the sword of the Word and teach the pastors how and what they are to preach and how they must govern their Churches. But do you boldly say to such: You fool, you brainless dolt, look to your own calling and don’t try to preach; leave that to your pastor.” He declares in the same way: “The secular government does not extend over the conscience, though there are many crazy princes who seek to raise their power and influence over the welkin itself and even to rule consciences, also to settle what is to be believed or not; yet, the worldly power has only to do with that which reason grasps.”[2299]

He considered that the interests of his new Church were endangered when, in 1533, the Hessian theologians advocated the enforcement of the greater excommunication by the sovereign; he saw in this a real peril in the then state of things; he wrote: “I would not have the temporal authorities meddle in this office; they should let it be, in order that the real distinction between the two powers be upheld (‘_ut staret vera et certa distinctio utriusque potestatis_’).”[2300]

But where in the domain of Protestantism at that time, was there to be found any real ecclesiastical ruler who could act with “power”?

The only factor that kept his anger from breaking forth was his consciousness that he owed everything he had achieved to the ruler of the land. But “at heart he saw only too well,” remarks a Protestant Church-historian whom we have repeatedly quoted, “that the Princes, under the cloak of the Christian name which they did not deserve to bear, were solely intent on their own aggrandisement when they laid their hands on ecclesiastical authority. He also saw that he himself, in his ‘Unterricht,’ was to blame for this.”[2301] Hence it is all the stranger to hear Luther declaring when at odds with the officials, that they must never tire of “insisting, impressing, urging and driving home the distinction between the secular and the spiritual rule ... for the troublesome devil will not cease cooking and brewing up the two kingdoms together.” And yet we have heard him say that the two should form “one cake.”[2302]

Concerning his attitude towards the authorities some recent theologians of his own camp have expressed themselves very differently from what might have been expected:

“Thus, with Luther, the end tallies with the beginning,” they write; “everything has been thought out clearly and is in perfect agreement.”

And similarly: “The principles which guided him [in his scheme and arrangement of the Visitation] are precisely the same as appear in his earlier writings.” “It is evident that Luther’s opinions, though ever in a state of growth, were yet in their fundamental lines always the same.”

The opinion expressed by another Protestant theologian comes closer to the truth; he declares openly: The want of logic in Luther’s mode of thought is perhaps “nowhere more apparent than in his views on the authorities and their duty towards religion.... It will never be possible to get away from the contradictions in his theory and between his theory and his practice.”[2303]

It only remains to add, that, of the diverging currents, that one is always the strongest which seems most likely to promote his work, the diffusion of his doctrine and the growth of his Church. A glance at the weathercock of expediency will tell us which tendency we may expect to find predominant, for, as a rule, it is the prospect of success that decides him. At the same time it must be admitted, that, in his zeal for his cause, he is at times hardly aware of the extent to which he is proving untrue to his original plans.

The present-day observer of such vacillation even in matters so far-reaching and fundamental will naturally ask himself how it was that Luther’s fickleness failed to discourage his followers. The answer is, however, not far to seek. He himself, as a general rule, concealed the actual state of the case under the veil of his eloquence, and his

## partisans were either not aware of how things really stood or else

followed him with a blind enthusiasm for the common aims and the common struggle which all his changes and contradictions could not avail to quench. This was the origin of the picture which so many German Protestants cherish of Luther. To them he was a champion of the Church and the State, faithful to his principles to the last. Such a portrait differs widely from that which the historian draws from an impartial study of Luther’s writings and correspondence.[2304]

A Protestant Church-historian, H. Hermelink, recently attempted to place Luther side by side with the “greatest politicians” of our nation.[2305] Although worldly diplomacy and organisation were not Luther’s strong point, still there is much truth in this idea. All that we have said tends to confirm this, though possibly not quite in the sense intended by Hermelink. At the same time what Carl Müller says is also not without its justification: “Luther lacked an insight into the character of the secular government, which, once it has been pushed in a given direction, cannot be expected to stand still at the point which he fixes as the limit of its powers. Thus the longer he lived the more reason he had to complain of the lawyers, and, when he was dead, the process went on even further.”[2306]

END OF VOL. V.

PRINTED BY WM. BRENDON AND SON, LTD, PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “Gesch. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1908, p. 209.

[2] Cp. the passages quoted in Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 11.

[3] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 516; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.

[4] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 295=16², p. 532.

[5] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 7.

[6] Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther’s own words, _passim_, in our previous volumes.

[7] Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.

[8] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 495; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 436.

[9] _Ib._, p. 495=91.

[10] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.

[11] W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908, p. 310.

[12] Braun, _ib._, p. 310-312.

[13] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.

[14] “Leitfaden zum Stud. der DG,” Halle, 1906, p. 722.

[15] _Ib._, pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.

[16] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 771, n. 4.

[17] But cp. what Loofs says, _ib._, p. 772, n. 5.

[18] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153.

[19] _Ib._, 10², p. 96.

[20] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 721 f.

[21] “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 159; cp. _ib._, pp. 126, 136 f., 156.

[22] “_Dixi ... quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus._” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f.; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.

[23] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 238 f.

[24] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 24, p. 10; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 764, n. 2.

[25] Loofs, _ib._, p. 773, where he cites the “Comm. on Gal.” (1535), Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.

[26] “_Quia Paulus hic versatur in loco iustificationis, ... necessitas postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui possumus._” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144. “_Conscientia perterrefacta ... nihil de lege et peccato scire debet, sed tantum de Christo._” _Ib._, p. 207 f.=p. 173 _sq._ Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. (“Tischreden”) and “Opp. lat. var.” 4, p. 427.

[27] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20; vii. 9, etc.

[28] “_Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab ea discedat._” “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 284.

[29] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 498; 40, 1, p. 208; Irmischer, 3, p. 236; 1, p. 173.

[30] Loofs, _ib._, p. 775 f.

[31] “_Quæ (conscientia) sæpe ad desperationem, ad gladium et ad laqueum homines adigit._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141 _sq._

[32] P. 737, n.

[33] Mt. xi. 30; Ps. cxviii. 165.

[34] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 392. Luther frequently uses the term “_conteri lege_.”

[35] “_Dices enim: Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed sunt aliena, Christi videlicet; non ergo me lædere poterunt._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141.

[36] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.

[37] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 723; Erl. ed., 16², p. 48.

[38] _Ib._, 10, 1, l. p. 338 f. = 7², p. 259 ff.

[39] See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.

[40] Vol. i., p. 317 f. and _passim_.

[41] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 260.—Ammon (“Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre,” 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther “regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror,” and that according to him “the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not in moral perfection, but in faith.” De Wette, “Christl. Sittenlehre,” 2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, “but that Luther was not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible.”

[42] Mathesius, _ib._ The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.

[43] “Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 91 f.

[44] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 261.

[45] Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv. _passim_.

[46] It was Luther himself who published the Antinomian theses in two series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 420 _sqq._ The most offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola’s teaching and attributed them to one of the latter’s pupils; Agricola, however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther’s earlier and later teaching on the Law, proceeds: “He paid no heed to the fact that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer, though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and what others carried to extremes: in the one he already saw the other embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther’s way of conducting controversy.”

[47] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).

[48] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352.

[49] _Ib._

[50] _Ib._, p. 357.

[51] _Ib._, p. 403.

[52] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after Trinity, and _ib._, 14², p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers,” 3, p. 108 ff. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.

[53] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323.

[54] Cp. Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” pp. 382, 388, 394; G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” 1881, p. 194.

[55] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 430 _sq._

[56] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.

[57] “Briefe,” _ib._, p. 154.

[58] To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 84.

[59] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 462 f.

[60] (In March, 1540) see C. E. Förstemann, “N. Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Kirchenreformation,” 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.

[61] _Ib._, p. 321 ff.; also in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.

[62] Förstemann, _ib._, p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” “RE. f. prot. Theol.”

[63] Förstemann, _ib._, p. 349.

[64] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.

[65] E. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” 1906, p. 280, from Agricola’s Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.

[66] Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.

[67] “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.

[68] Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560, publ. by Nic. Müller in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 139.

[69] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 90. For other statements of Luther’s see our vol. iii., p. 401.

[70] Loofs, _ib._, p. 858.

[71] On Luther’s attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff., 196.

[72] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 424.

[73] See above, p. 11, n. 2.

[74] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 842.

[75] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 860, n. 2 and 4; 790, n. 7, and Harnack, _ib._

[76] Harnack (_loc. cit._) points out that Luther’s statements on the subject do not agree when examined in detail.

[77] E.g., Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1892.

[78] E.g., Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900.

[79] To the latter passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer draws attention (“Luthers Sermo de pœnitentia von 1518,” 1906, p. 36). Galley (_loc. cit._, p. 20) had also referred to the same as being a further development of Luther’s doctrine on penance.—On Luther’s shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.

[80] “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 452.

[81] _Ib._, p. 402.

[82] _Ib._, pp. 402-404.

[83] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 127.

[84] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 15², p. 40.

[85] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 36; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.

[86] _Ib._, p. 30=189.

[87] “Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.,” 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).

[88] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.

[89] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.

[90] _Ib._, 6, p. 269 f.=16², p. 212, “Sermon von den guten Wercken,” 1520.

[91] Our account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His faithful rendering of Luther’s thought shows how actual grace is excluded.

[92] 3^[4], p. 460.

[93] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Cp. _ib._, Erl. ed., 7², p. 257.

[94] Walther, _ib._, p. 99.

[95] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 249; Erl. ed., 16², p. 184.

[96] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith “then does all the needful,” and that works are a natural product of faith is summed up thus: “_Opera propter fidem fiunt_.”

[97] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 386; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523, on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 18², pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on 1 John iv. 17.

[98] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 273.

[99] _Ib._, 13², p. 97.

[100] Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.

[101] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 219 f.

[102] _Ib._, 14², p. 257.

[103] Cp. Loofs, “DG.,” ^[4], p. 737. Hence Luther also says: “_Dum bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel incredulitate oritur_.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 62; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 239.

[104] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 220.

[105] See below, ch. xxxii., 6.

[106] Printed, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 524.

[107] The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, “might well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther’s] doctrine.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 501.

[108] “Werke,” Erl. ed., _ib._, p. 551.

[109] _Ib._, p. 552.

[110] _Ib._, p. 551.

[111] _Ib._, p. 554.

[112] “Comm. on Gal.,” 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).

[113] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 559; Erl. ed., 12², p. 175. “Comm. on Gal.” (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.

[114] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 17², p. 94; 49, p. 348.

[115] _Ib._, 58, pp. 343, 347.

[116] See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.

[117] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.

[118] _Ib._, p. 548.

[119] _Ib._

[120] _Ib._, p. 549.

[121] _Ib._, p. 554.

[122] _Ib._, p. 555.

[123] Cp. p. 552: “Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and exalt Thy Son.”

[124] Köstlin’s summary, _ib._, p. 206.

[125] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 40. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, p. 144.

[126] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 207.

[127] Cp. vol. i., _passim_.

[128] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 204.

[129] In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.

[130] On Luther’s attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see xxix., 5.

[131] Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff.

[132] See above, p. 32, n. 4.

[133] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 206.

[134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 346.

[135] _Ib._, 20², 2, p. 548.

[136] _Ib._, p. 545.

[137] _Ib._, p. 549 f.

[138] _Ib._, p. 551.

[139] Luther’s opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter under consideration, is expressed by Köstlin (_ib._, p. 126 f.) as follows: Luther “does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act which is contrary to God’s will, nor even on the determination to commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay, in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior to any conscious motion.... We do not find in his writings any further information on the other questions here involved” (e.g. of the children who die unbaptised, etc.).

[140] In the Eisleben sermons, _ib._, p. 551.

[141] _Ib._, p. 546.

[142] “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 385. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.

[143] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 153.

[144] _Ib._, 13², p. 307.

[145] _Ib._, p. 305 ff.

[146] _Ib._, 15², p. 524. Köstlin, _ib._, p. 213.

[147] Cp. _ib._, 43, p. 362 ff.

[148] The headings in W. Walther’s “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above.

[149] Above, p. 32 f.

[150] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 304 f.

[151] Walther, _ib._, p. 102.

[152] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.

[153] _Ib._, 12², p. 219.

[154] _Ib._, 8², p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “And though I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am nothing.”

[155] _Ib._, 15², p. 40.

[156] Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following statement of the Catholic teaching: “We know that free-will of itself without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service. We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts with grace.... But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast, take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy,” etc. “Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 375 _sqq._, in Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.

[158] Feb. 2, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 408.

[159] See vol. iii., p. 462 ff.

[160] Adolf Harnack, “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 850.

[161] Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.

[162] Harnack, _ib._, p. 831 f.

[163] “Confutatio calumn. resp.,” E 2a. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 39.

[164] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 208.

[165] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 33.

[166] Köstlin, _ib._, pp. 284, 295.

[167] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Köstlin, however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.

[168] “Werke,” _ib._, 7², p. 68.

[169] _Ib._, 10², p. 108.

[170] On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 and _passim_.

[171] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 108.

[172] _Ib._

[173] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 206.

[174] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 25. Cp. on Luther’s restriction of good works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above, p. 26, 38 f.

[175] Chr. E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundzügen,”², 1875, p. 70.

[176] Cp. “Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat. O.P.,” V. cap. ult.

[177] Quoted from Luthardt, _ib._, pp. 70-73.

[178] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 68.

[179] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.

[180] _Ib._, pp. 507, 509=370, 372.

[181] Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 705.

[182] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 15², p. 60. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 273 _sqq._; 19, p. 18; 24, p. 463, _sq._ “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.

[183] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 169 f., the passages quoted.

[184] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340; Erl. ed., 7², p. 261.—For the theological and psychological influences which led him to these statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.

[185] Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16: It depends entirely “on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be good or evil,” and “Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its own nature evil,” etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.

[186] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 109, “In Genesim,” c. 3.

[187] See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1.

[188] Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 528, n. 2.

[189] Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f.

[190] “In 2 Sent.,” dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 482, n. 1. Cp. Luther’s frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint: Good works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.

[191] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 598.

[192] Denifle-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks: “Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace.”

[193] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 60. After the words quoted above follows the remarkable passage: One builds churches, another makes pilgrimages, etc. “These are self-chosen works which God has not commanded.... Such self-chosen works are nought ... are sin.”

[194] _Ib._, p. 61 f.

[195] “Symb. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde,^[10], p. 599 f.

[196] _Ib._ The Thesis of man’s lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther’s larger Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593), and to Augustine’s “Confessions” (p. 596).

[197] The last remark is from Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii., p. 348 ff. and _passim_.

[198] “Symb. Bücher,” _ib._, p. 601.

[199] _Ib._

[200] _Ib._, p. 602.

[201] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.

[202] Quoted from Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 758. On the statement “without on that account being unjust” see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.

[203] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 675; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 207. Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 757.

[204] Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.

[205] The above largely reproduces Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81 ff.

[206] See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.

[207] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 439; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60: A prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian is dead to the world.

[208] “Werke,” _ib._

[209] “Jugenderinnerungen aus seinem Nachlasse,” Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.

[210] Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff.; vol. iii., p. 187 ff.; vol. iv., p. 130 f.

[211] Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81.

[212] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 280 f.

[213] Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther’s earlier idea of the “holy brotherhood of spirits,” in which “_omnia sunt indifferentia et libera_.” See also vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.

[214] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 108.

[215] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.

[216] _Ib._

[217] _Ib._, p. 252=70.

[218] _Ib._, p. 251=68.

[219] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 451.

[220] _Ib._, p. 445.

[221] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.

[222] Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², pp. 93-96.

[223] Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the period previous to Luther’s. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff.).

[224] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 42 f.

[225] Cp. W. Walther, “Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 50, where Ritschl’s opinion is disputed. The above complaint of Luther’s “uncertain way” is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make it; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (“Opp. lat. exeg,.” 19, p. 109 _sq._) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.

[226] “Symbolik,” § 25.

[227] _Ib._, § 26.

[228] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.

[229] _Ib._

[230] p. 111.

[231] Owing to his assertion of man’s unfreedom and passivity, Luther found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner voice, the “synteresis,” that urges us to what is good and reproves what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice; this we see from his first Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his Commentary on Romans he characterised the “synteresis,” and the assumption of any freedom of choice on man’s part, as the loophole through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)

[232] Cp. W. Walther, “Die christl. Sittlichkeit,” p. 31.

[233] Above, vol. iv., p. 227. “You are to believe without doubting what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God’s authority and commission to speak to and to comfort you.”

[234] Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680: “Believe me, Christ speaks through me.”

[235] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220: “_persuasi mihi, esse de coelo vocem Dei_.”

[236] Letter of March 8, 1544, “Briefe,” _ib._, p. 636.

[237] In the letter quoted in n. 2, _ib._, p. 679 f.

[238] _Ib._

[239] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 337.

[240] On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders, 6, p. 300 f.

[241] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. vol. i., p. 319.

[242] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 290 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 209. For fuller quotations see vol. ii., p. 58 f.

[243] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.

[244] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 21, p. 324.

[245] _Ib._, 28, p. 224.

[246] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 237; Erl. ed., 29, p. 25.

[247] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 29, p. 23; cp. above, vol. iii., p. 262 ff.

[248] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 653; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 176 _sq._

[249] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 58, pp. 394-398.

[250] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 232; Erl. ed., 39, p. 111. Should a preacher be unable thus to “boast,” he is to “hold his tongue,” so we read there.

[251] See, e.g., vol. iii., pp. 110 ff.-158 f.

[252] “Vita Lutheri,” Coloniæ, 1622, p. 141.

[253] Above, vol. iii., p. 111.

[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.

[255] _Ib._, p. 70=20.

[256] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 22.

[257] On July 24, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 274. Above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[258] To Chancellor Brück, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282: “_Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac certum per verbum Dei, sibi hæc licere_.” Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 259 f.

[259] Letter to Jonas, May 4, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 556.

[260] Text in G. Berbig (“Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” Leipzig, 1908), p. 277 (cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 76 f.). This statement completes what was said in vol. iii., p. 55.

[261] Karl Stange, “Die ältesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers,” 1904, p. vii.

[262] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.—“He ventured, relying on Christ,” says Adolf Harnack (“DG.,” 3^[4], p. 824), “to lay hold on God Himself, and, by this exercise of his faith, in which he saw God’s work, his whole being gained in independence and firmness, and he acquired such confidence and joy as no man in the Middle Ages had ever known.” Of Luther’s struggles of conscience, to be examined more closely in ch. xxxii., Harnack says nothing. On the other hand, however, he quotes, on p. 825, n. 1, the following words of Luther’s: “Such a faith alone makes a Christian which risks all on God whether in life or death.”

[263] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 253 f.

[264] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 248 f.

[265] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch”: “_in quotidiana versor lucta_.” On Feb. 26.

[266] “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, Leipzig, 1885, 3, p. 245. Sermon of March 16, 1538.

[267] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 56.

[268] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 411.

[269] To Amsdorf, Oct. 18(?), 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 173.

[270] Cp. A. Zahn, “Calvins Urteile über Luther” (“Theol. Stud. aus Württemberg,” 4, 1883), p. 187. Pighius had written against Luther in 1543 on the servitude of the will. Cp., _ib._, p. 193, Calvin’s remark against Gabriel de Saconay.

[271] The words can be better understood when we bear in mind that they occur in the dedication to Duke Johann of Saxony, of his “Sermon von den guten Wercken” (March 29, 1520). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 203; Erl. ed., 16², p. 122 f.

[272] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 273 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). Here also we must remember that he is speaking to preachers, some of whom differed from him.

[273] _Ib._, 53, p. 276.

[274] _Ib._, p. 272.

[275] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 174, n.

[276] F. Sawicki, “Kath. Kirche und sittliche Persönlichkeit,” Cologne, 1907, pp. 86, 88, and “Das Problem der Persönlichkeit und des Übermenschen,” Paderborn, 1909; J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,³”, Cologne, 1911. Part 2, particularly pp. 125 ff., 223 ff.

[277] See vol. iv., p. 118 ff.

[278] “A study of the earliest Letters of C. Schwenckfeld,” Leipzig, 1907 (vol. i. of the “Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum”), p. 268. Karl Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” Berlin, 1911, p. 58.

[279] Cp. Ecke, _ib._, p. 59. Ecke (p. viii.) speaks of this writing as a “first-rate source.”

[280] “Epistolar Schwenckfelds,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 94 ff. For full title see Ecke, _ib._, p. 11. Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff. Cp. below, p. 138 f.

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 383 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 337).

[282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 123; Erl. ed., 53, p. 362 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 302).

[283] “Epistolar,” _ib._, p. 645. Ecke, p. 87.

[284] Ecke takes these words as his motto on the title-page.

[285] “Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 200. Cp. on the “experience,” Ecke, p. 48 ff.

[286] Ecke, p. 118 f.

[287] See above, p. 79, n. 1.

[288] P. 222.

[289] Thus G. Kawerau in his sketch of Schwenckfeld in Möller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 475.

[290] _Ib._, p. 478.

[291] Ecke, p. 217.

[292] “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 579: “_Heri Stenckfeldianum librum contra me scriptum accepi.... Talis sophistica principum severitate compescenda est._” To G. Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558.

[293] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 337.

[294] Cp. below, and above, p. 82, n. 5; also Ecke, p. 218.

[295] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 54.

[296] _Ib._, 57, p. 51.

[297] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 167.

[298] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 613. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 29. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 335.

[299] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” _ib._

[300] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.

[301] “Werke,” _ib._, 32, p. 411.

[302] 1520 or beginning of 1521. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 37. Cp., however, Ender’s remark on the authorship.

[303] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 204; Erl. ed., 16² p. 123.

[304] On March 25, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 366.

[305] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 291.

[306] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 209; Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.

[307] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 288.

[308] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 214=138.

[309] Much the same in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1528), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 485; Erl. ed., 36, p. 100.

[310] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 203; Erl. ed., 16², p. 122.

[311] _Ib._, pp. 243-245=177-179.

[312] _Ib._, p. 247 f.=182 f. Cp. the similar statements in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1528), pp. 480 f., 484 f.=93 f., 96 f.

[313] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 245 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180.

[314] Cp. _ib._, p. 246=181.

[315] P. 247=182.

[316] Elsewhere, however, he treats of the other forms of prayer.

[317] Cp. p. 237=168 f., 238 f.=170 f., 247 f.=182 f.

[318] See vol. iv., p. 501 f.

[319] P. 232=162.

[320] P. 262=202.

[321] P. 258=197.

[322] P. 246=180.

[323] P. 207=127.

[324] _Ib._

[325] P. 236.

[326] P. 271.

[327] Kaftan speaks of a theological want which he had attempted to supply in his own “Dogmatik.” In reality, however, he has practice equally in view, and, from his statements we may infer that the want which had been apparent from Luther’s day was more than a mere defect in the theory.

[328] P. 281.

[329] P. 276.

[330] P. 278.

[331] Cp. the letter to Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159; Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 11, 89, etc.; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See our vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[332] See vol. ii., p. 339; iii., p. 180 ff.; above, p. 9 ff.

[333] Above, vol. iii., p. 185 f.

[334] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 155 ff.

[335] Cp. our vol. iii., p. 176 f.

[336] Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

[337] Cp. on Luther’s prayer, vol. iii., p. 206 f.; iv., p. 274 ff.

[338] Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

[339] Vol. iii., p. 207 f.; iv., p. 311.

[340] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553. Cp. pp. 554, 558.

[341] _Ib._, p. 552.

[342] W. Walther, “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” p. 63.

[343] The Explanation of the Our Father in 1518, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 74 ff; 9, p. 122 ff; Erl. ed., 21, p. 156 ff; 45, p. 203 ff. Noteworthy additions to it were made by Luther in 1519, _ib._, 6, pp. 8 ff., 20 ff.=45, p. 208 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 116 f., 291 f.

[344] Above, vol. iii., pp. 169 f., 211 f.

[345] Vol. iii., p. 200 ff.

[346] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, pp. 416-477; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 304-361.

[347] _Ib._, pp. 420=308 f.

[348] P. 448 f.=335 f.

[349] P. 444=331.

[350] P. 452=339.

[351] P. 449 ff.=336 ff.

[352] P. 447=334.

[353] To Melanchthon from the Coburg, July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157: “_ex arce dæmonibus plena_.”

[354] To the same, April 23, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 308: “_Hæc satis pro ioco, sed serio et necessario ioco, qui mihi irruentes cogitationes repelleret, si tamen repellet_.”

[355] To the same, May 12, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 333: “_Eo die, quo literæ tuæ e Norimberga venerunt, habuit satan legationem suam apud me_,” etc. See vol. ii., p. 390. Cp. to the same, June, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 43), where he calls the devil his torturer, and to the same, June 30, 1530, _ib._, p. 51, where he speaks of his “private struggles with the devil.”

[356] To the same, July 31, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 157.

[357] Cp. to the same, April 23, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 303.

[358] To the same, May 12, 1530, _ib._, p. 333.

[359] To the same, May 15, 1530, _ib._, p. 335.

[360] To the same, Aug. 15, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 190: “_Christus vivit et regnat. Fiant sane dæmones, si ita volunt, monachi vel nonnæ quoque. Nec forma melior eos decet, quam qua sese mundo hactenus vendiderunt adorandos._” The “monks or nuns” is an allusion to the appearance of the “spectre-monks” at Spires just before the Diet of Augsburg; see vol. ii., p. 389 f.

[361] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 424; Erl. ed., 18², p. 313 f.

[362] _Ib._, p. 423=312.—The so-called “Sermon on Love” (above, p. 96 f.) seeks to demonstrate in the above words the value of love of our neighbour, and, that this necessarily resulted from true faith. It abounds in beautiful sayings concerning the advantage of this virtue. Cruciger had his reasons for publishing it, one being, as he says in the dedication, to stop the mouths of those who never cease to cry out against our people as though we neither taught nor practised anything concerning love and good works. (Erl. ed., 18², p. 305.) Köstlin-Kawerau remarks (2, p. 273): “The fundamental evil was that the new Church included amongst its members so many who were indifferent to such preaching; they had joined it not merely without any real interior conversion, but without any spiritual awakening or sympathy, purely by reason of outward circumstances.” It must be added that the Sermon, though intended as a remedy, suffers from the defect of being permeated through and through with a spirit of bitter hate against the Church Catholic; in the very first pages we find the speaker complaining, that the devil, “who cannot bear the Word,” “attacks us ... in order to murder us by means of his tyrants”; “we are, however, forced to have the devil for our guest,” who molests us “with his crew.” Weim. ed., 36, p. 417 f.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 306 f.

[363] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 356 ff.

[364] To Melanchthon, May 12, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 332.

[365] To the same, April 29, 1530, _ib._, p. 313: “_Oratio mea ad clerum procedit; crescit inter manus et materia et impetus, ut plurimos Landsknechtos prorsus vi repellere cogar, qui insalutati non cessant obstrepere_.” Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 330.

[366] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199.

[367] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 391 ff.

[368] _Ib._, p. 395 f.

[369] _Ib._, p. 406.

[370] _Ib._, p. 396 f.

[371] Cp. our vol. iii., p. 435.

[372] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144.

[373] To Eobanus Hessus, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 301. Cp. n. 2 in Enders, who suggests the above translation of “_tu habes malam vocem_.” We read in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199: “We must admit, that, judging by the tone of this tract [the ‘Vermanũg’] Luther’s ‘voice’ would have been out of place at Augsburg, as he admits in his letter to Eobanus Hessus.”

[374] On June 5, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 367.

[375] See vol. iv., p. 338 f.

[376] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 364.

[377] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 363 f.

[378] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 361; cp. p. 396.

[379] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 313; Erl. ed., 33, p. 331. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.

[380] _Ib._, p. 312 f.=330 f.

[381] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 108. From the year 1540.

[382] To Jacob Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 353 f.

[383] To Bucer, July 12, 1532, in “Anal. Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 203.

[384] “Anal.,” _loc. cit._

[385] Leo Judae, 1. c., 203.

[386] _Ib._, p. 204.

[387] See our vol. iv., p. 87.

[388] H. Barge, “Carlstadt,” see our vol. ii., p. 154.

[389] F. Hülsse, “Card. Albrecht und Hans Schenitz,” “Magdeburger Geschichtsblätter,” 1889, p. 82; cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 10, p. 182, who remarks of F. W. E. Roth’s review in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 118, 1896, p. 160 f.: “The author does not seem to be acquainted with Hülsse’s work and therefore condemns Albert.”

[390] Enders, _ib._, p. 181.

[391] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 419.

[392] Enders, _ib._

[393] On July 31, 1535, and Jan.-Feb., 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, pp. 98 and 125 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, pp. 180 and 296).

[394] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 420.

[395] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 297; Hülsse, p. 61.

[396] On March 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 442.

[397] To Johann Göritz, judge at Leipzig, Jan. 29, 1544, _ib._, p. 625. Cp. for the account of Rosina, vol. iii., pp. 217 f., 280 f.

[398] Vol. i., p. 59. “_Stupidæ litteræ_” here perhaps means “indignant” rather than “amazed” letters.

[399] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

[400] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.” (Loesche), p. 200. Cp. above vol. iii., p. 437 f.

[401] To Catherine, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 753.

[402] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127. Cp. above vol. iv., p. 276.

[403] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127. “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531.

[404] _Ib._, 26², p. 242, “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” 1545.

[405] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 33, p. 605; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342. Expos. of John vi.-viii., 1530-1532.

[406] _Ib._, p. 341.

[407] Feb. 7, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83 f.

[408] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 427, 428 f.; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 305 and 307. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520. Cp. above p. 88 f.

[409] “_Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent._” Cp. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 17 ff.

[410] Dec., 1535, “Briefwechsel” 10, p. 275.

[411] Feb. 3, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 410; cp. to Spalatin, Feb. 7, 1519, _ib._, p. 412.

[412] 4-9 Dec., 1521, _ib._, 3´, p. 253: “_Exacerbabitur mihi spiritus, ut multo vehementiora deinceps in eam rem nihilominus moliar_.”

[413] Vol. iv., p. 329 ff.

[414] Oswald Myconius to Simon Grynæus, Nov. 8, 1534, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 665, from a MS. source: “_Doctiorem se esse, quam qui ab eiusmodi hominibus doceri velit_”; this showed his “_tyrannica superbia_.”

[415] To Amsdorf, April 14, 1545, “Briefe” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 728.

[416] To Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326.

[417] Vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[418] _Ib._, p. 3 ff.

[419] Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386: “For when once we have evaded the peril and are at peace, then we can easily atone for our tricks and lapses (‘_dolos ac lapsus nostros_’), because His [God’s] mercy is over us,” etc., for the word _mendacia_ after _dolos_ see vol. iv., p. 96.

[420] See vol. iv., p. 95: “_In cuius [Antichristi] deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur_.”

[421] _Ib._, p. 81 f.

[422] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 388 f. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 166 ff.

[423] _Ib._, p. 391. “Even should the Pope, the bishops, the canons and the people wish to remain in the state of celibacy, or the state of whores and knaves—and even the heathen poet admits that fornicators and whoremongers are loath to take wives—still I hope you will take pity on the poor pastors and those who have the cure of souls and allow them to marry.”

[424] Cordatus, “Tageb.,” p. 364.

[425] Cp. vol. iv., p. 102 f.

[426] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.

[427] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 287.

[428] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 364.

[429] _Ib._, p. 365.

[430] _Ib._, p. 364.

[431] _Ib._, p. 361.

[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23.

[433] _Ib._, p. 285-14 f.

[434] “Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss,” Bl. 9´.

[435] _Ib._

[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 290; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22.

[437] “Opp.” 10, col. 1558. “Adv. ep. Lutheri.”

[438] _Ib._, 1555.

[439] _Ib._, 1334. “Hyperaspistes.”

[440] Vol. iv., p. 228 ff.

[441] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 442.

[442] Dec. 8, 1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 71 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 88 f.); “Briefe,” 4, p. 567 ff.: “To set ourselves up as judges and ourselves to judge is assuredly wrong, and the wrath of God will not leave it unpunished.” “If you desire my advice, as you write, I counsel you to accept peace, however you reach it, and rather to suffer in your goods and your honour than to involve yourself further in such an undertaking where you will have to take upon yourself all the crimes and wickedness that are committed.... You must consider for how much your conscience will have to answer if you knowingly bring about the destruction of so many people.”

[443] Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. “Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 84-102; 13, p. 13.

[444] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 444.

[445] Cp. C. A. Burkhardt, “Der historische Hans Kohlhase,” 1864.

[446] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178 ff. In “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt,” 1522.

[447] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 84. In the sermons on Mt. xviii.-xxiii.

[448] See xxix., 8.

[449] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 651 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 511. In the “Defensio contra Eccii iudicium.”

[450] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 15, p. 183; Erl. ed., 24², p. 251. “Widder den newen Abgott und allten Teuffel der zu Meyssen sol erhaben werden.”

[451] _Ib._, p. 194 f.=264.

[452] _Ib._, p. 175=249.

[453] Cp. vol. iii., p. 191 f.; 211 f. and Joh. Wieser in “Luther und Ignatius von Loyola” [“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 7 (1883) and 8 (1884), particularly 8, p. 365 ff.].

[454] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 54.

[455] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 231.

[456] Cp. Janssen, _ib._

[457] July, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 188.

[458] Cp. my “Hist. of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Engl. Trans., i., pp. 9-26).

[459] In what follows we have drawn largely on J. Wieser (see above, p. 124, n. 1).

[460] Wieser rightly points out that Luther claimed above all to be a “National Prophet”; he was fond of saying that he had brought the Gospel “to the Saxons,” or “to the Germans.” _Ib._, 8, pp. 143 f., 356.

[461] _Ib._, 8, p. 352.

[462] Above, pp. 3 ff. and 66 ff.

[463] Cp. Wieser, _ib._, 8, p. 353.

[464] Wieser, _ib._, 8, p. 387.

[465] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 174.

[466] See above, vol. iii., p. 25 ff.

[467] Vol. ii., p. 111. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 _sqq._

[468] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 192=p. 528.

[469] _Ib._, p. 194=532.

[470] “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1908, Suppl., p. 38.) The striking new works of Hermelink, K. Müller, etc., have already been referred to elsewhere. In addition we must mention K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1911, Suppl.), where the writer takes a view of the much-discussed question different from that of K. Müller.

[471] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 484 f.; Erl. ed., 11², p. 205 f. Cp. _ib._, p. 481=201 f., and Erl. ed., 11², p. 82 f.

[472] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 12, p. 215 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, 13. On the “_Formula missæ_,” see below, xxix., 9.

[473] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 11, p. 210. The Latin version reads: “_Si Dominus dederit in cor vestrum, ut simul probetis_,” etc.

[474] _Ib._, 12, p. 693; cp. 697. On the Wittenberg Poor Box see below, vol. vi. xxxv., 4.

[475] P. Drews, p. 55.

[476] Vol. ii., p. 113; cp. vol. iii., p. 27.

[477] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 70.

[478] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.

[479] _Ib._, p. 35 ff=153 ff.

[480] _Ib._, 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens,” 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.

[481] See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4.

[482] Above, p. 78 ff.

[483] “Schwenckfelds Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 ff. Cp. K. Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39, are given, showing that Schwenckfeld “noted down the whole affair from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory.”

[484] Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.

[485] “Epistolar,” _ib._, pp. 39, 43.

[486] “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff.

[487] See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

[488] Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523, _ib._, Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.

[489] In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231: “In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it of my own initiative.”

[490] “Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 65. Drews adds: “He was afraid of doing something contrary to God’s will.” That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also stated by K. Müller (“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 121).

[491] “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10.

[492] As late as June 26, 1533 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317), he wrote: “_In hoc sæculo tam turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda disciplina idoneo non ausim consulere tam subitam innovationem_.” Cp. p. 142, below.

[493] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 32), p. 399.

[494] P. 67.

[495] The plan as Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had been formed “mainly on elements previously brought forward by Luther.”

[496] Reprinted in A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 56.

[497] Jan. 7, 1527. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 9).

[498] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.

[499] F. Feuchtwanger: “Gesch. der sozialen Politik ... im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.,” 33, 1909), p. 193.

[500] Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.

[501] June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.

[502] _Ib._, p. 68.

[503] Below, xxxv., 2.

[504] To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.

[505] To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.

[506] Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.

[507] Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.

[508] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2 _sqq._

[509] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

[510] To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.

[511] “Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular power also urges me to it.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 14², p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, “Lehrb. der Liturgik,” Berlin, 1900, p. 278.

[512] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 95; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.

[513] For Luther’s writing: “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet,” see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.

[514] For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, p. 239, and Kawerau, in Möller, “KG,” 3³, p. 401.

[515] See below, xxxiv., 4.

[516] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains that the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the “Te Deum” he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in the sense in which he taught it. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.

[517] W. Germann, “Johann Forster” (“N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen Altertums,” Hft. 12), 1894.

[518] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.

[519] _Ib._, 12, p. 37=22, p. 156.

[520] _Ib._, 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.

[521] _Ib._

[522] _Ib._, p. 75=230 f.

[523] _Ib._, 74 ff.=229 ff.

[524] _Ib._, p. 72=228.

[525] Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.

[526] Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.

[527] On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[528] Kawerau in the “Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”

[529] J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.

[530] Cp. Kawerau’s quotations in his article in the “Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 115.

[531] June 17, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 315 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen’s letter see “Briefwechsel,” p. 207, for Hofmann’s, _ib._, p. 213.

[532] Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 400; “The influence of the Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and that it culminated in this ‘office.’ This, even in the 16th century, gave rise to difficulties.”

[533] To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above, p. 145, n. 2.

[534] Kawerau, _ib._, p. 401.

[535] _Ib._, p. 400. Luther says: “_Diligens verbi Dei prædicatio est proprius cultus novi testamenti_.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 161.

[536] Gottschick.

[537] This is Kawerau’s opinion, _ib._, p. 401.

[538] See above, p. 146, n. 3.

[539] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 35; Erl. ed., 22, p. 153. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne,” 1523.

[540] Of the most recent studies we need only mention here H. Greving, “Ecks Pfarrbuch für U.L. Frau in Ingolstadt” (“RGI. Studien”), Hft. 4 and 5, 1908, p. 87 ff. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. i., _passim_.

[541] This introduction, together with the whole text of the common Preface, enters into Luther’s Latin Mass. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 8. In his German Mass it is suppressed.

[542] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570. Ecke (see below, p. 156, n. 1), p. 159.

[543] “Der erste Teil der christl. orthodox. Bücher und Schriften.... Schwenckfelds ... durch Mitbekenner zusammengetragen,” 1564, p. 4. Ecke, p. 160; cp. p. 10 f.

[544] “Epistolar,” _ib._, p. 228; cp. p. 246.

[545] _Ib._, p. 645.

[546] _Ib._, p. 519.

[547] “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Ref.,” Berlin, 1911, p. 161.

[548] Ecke, p. 176. The Protestant author adds in a note: “It must, however, be pointed out that this criticism does not affect the apostolic nature of the profound phenomena of Evangelical piety seen among Lutherans.”

[549] “Christl. Bücher,” etc. (above, p. 155, n. 2), p. 384. Ecke, p. 177.

[550] “Epistolar,” _ib._, p. 602. In 1550. Ecke, p. 196.

[551] See our vol. iv., p. 210 ff., for instance, and below, vol. vi., xxxix., 1.

[552] “Die andere Verantwortung,” 1556, Aiii. Ecke, p. 190 f.

[553] “Christl. Bücher,” p. 326 f. Ecke, p. 163.

[554] _Ib._

[555] “Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 680. Ecke, p. 164.

[556] “Christl. Bücher,” p. 362. In 1547. Ecke, _ib._

[557] Ecke, p. 164, from a MS.

[558] “Christl. Bücher,” p. 477. Ecke, p. 164.

[559] Thus G. Arnold, “Kirchenhistorie,” Frankfurt a/M., 1729, 1, p. 413.

[560] _Ib._, p. 395. Ecke, p. 170 f., where he quotes in support of this and what follows, “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 164 f., 174.

[561] _Ib._

[562] _Ib._, p. 325. Ecke, p. 172.

[563] _Ib._, p. 377. Ecke, p. 168.

[564] _Ib._, p. 420. Schwenckfeld’s excuse is, however, worthy of note, p. 401: “Such doctrine is not the outcome of an evil mind but is due to misapprehension.” Ecke, p. 168.

[565] _Ib._, p. 421. Ecke, p. 169.

[566] _Ib._

[567] _Ib._, p. 401. Ecke, _ib._

[568] _Ib._ Ecke, p. 170.

[569] _Ib._, p. 361. Ecke quotes “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 217.

[570] _Ib._, p. 365. Ecke, p. 166, quotes Erl. ed., 13², p. 218; 14², pp. 281 f., 287 ff.

[571] _Ib._

[572] _Ib._

[573] _Ib._

[574] _Ib._, p. 343 f. Cp. “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 912. Ecke, p. 176. Cp. Döllinger, on Schwenckfeld, in “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 254 ff.

[575] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 913. Ecke, p. 55.

[576] _Ib._, p. 427. Cp. “Epistolar,” 1., p. 410.

[577] Ecke’s words, p. 161.

[578] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 513, cp. p. 403 ff.; 1, p. 424. Ecke, _ib._

[579] Ecke, p. 162.

[580] Cp. Ecke, p. 160, n. 3.

[581] _Ib._, p. 222.

[582] Ecke, p. 180 f.; from MS. sources.

[583] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 639. Ecke, p. 179.

[584] “Epistolar,” 1, p. 99. Ecke, p. 181.

[585] _Ib._ Ecke, p. 182.

[586] _Ib._, 1, p. 92. Ecke, p. 181.

[587] _Ib._, p. 736. Ecke, p. 182.

[588] “Christl. Bücher,” p. 363. Ecke, p. 173.

[589] _Ib._

[590] “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 1014. Ecke, p. 160.

[591] Ecke, p. 227, MS.

[592] “Christl. Bücher,” pp. 962, 965. Ecke, p. 191.

[593] “Epistolar,” 1, p. 173. “Christl. Bücher,” p. 74 f., 549. Ecke, _ib._

[594] “Epistolar,” 1, p. iii. B. Ecke, p. 86.

[595] See above, vol. iv., p. 367.

[596] Ch. v. Rommel, “Philipp der Grossmüthige, Landgraf von Hessen,” 1, 1820, p. 517.

[597] Aug. 5, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 580.

[598] May 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 557.

[599] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 562.

[600] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75 ff. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 91 ff.

[601] Letter to the Emperor Charles V, Aug. 24, 1544, in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1544; in German in “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1253 ff. For the former attitude of the Papacy to the idea of the Council, cp. our vol. iii., p. 424 ff.

[602] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.

[603] _Ib._, p. 62.

[604] _Ib._, p. 70.

[605] _Ib._, p. 114.

[606] _Ib._, p. 80.

[607] _Ib._, p. 91 f. Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 90 _sq._; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 42 f.

[608] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101.

[609] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 138.

[610] _Ib._, p. 287.

[611] _Ib._, p. 231.

[612] _Ib._, p. 169.

[613] _Ib._, p. 417.

[614] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[615] _Ib._, p. 475 = 264 f.

[616] In the “Antwort auf das Schmähbüchlein,” etc., “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 146.

[617] April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.

[618] To the Preacher Balthasar Raida of Hersfeld, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288.

[619] April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.

[620] To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 398.

[621] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 18, 1545, _ib._, p. 716: “I will have them [the lawyers] eternally damned and cursed _in my_ Churches.”

[622] To Justus Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, _ib._, p. 612.

[623] To Jacob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, _ib._, p. 703.

[624] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, _ib._, p. 773 f.

[625] _Ib._, p. 774.

[626] Cp. (E. v. Jarcke) “Studien und Skizzen z. Gesch. d. Ref.,” 1846, p. 68.

[627] _Ib._

[628] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 158.

[629] _Ib._, p. 198.

[630] _Ib._, p. 200.

[631] “Theander Lutherus,” Ursel s.a., Bl. 59´.

[632] After June 16, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 20. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312.) The passage in question in the original at Weimar is in Melanchthon’s handwriting. Cp. Enders, p. 313, on the historical connection of the memorandum.

[633] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 139 _sqq._ Rommel, “Philipp von Hessen,” 1, p. 417. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. v., p. 527 ff. Pastor, “Die kirchl. Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V,” p. 95.

[634] To Brenz, April 14, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 340: “_Ulyssea philosophia ... multa dissimulantes_.”

[635] Letter of March 10, 1540, in Bindseil, “Melanchthonis epistolæ, iudicia, etc.,” 1874, p. 146.

[636] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 421 ff.

[637] Letter of Dec. 28, 1543, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” 2, p. 227. “_Nihil est quod minus multum_ [_read_ inultum] _relinquerem._”

[638] Lenz, _ib._, p. 241.

[639] Letter of Feb. 25, 1545, Lenz, p. 304.

[640] Letter of Dec. 1, 1545, Lenz, p. 379.

[641] Letter of April 5, 1546, Lenz, p. 426 f.

[642] Letter of May 12, 1545, Lenz, p. 433.

[643] See below, vol. vi., xl., 3.

[644] Seckendorf, “Comm. hist. de Lutheranismo,” 3, Lips., 1694, p. 468. The disputant, Johannes Marbach, received from Luther this testimony: “_Amplectitur puram evangelii doctrinam, quam ecclesia nostra uno spiritu et una voce profitetur_.” “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 543. Cp. Disputationen, ed. Drews, p. 700 ff. Some of Luther’s other statements concerning unity ring very differently.

[645] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 324, 363, 371 f.

[646] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 230; “_Incipiunt de tota religione dubitare_.”

[647] “Pezelii Object. et resp. Melanchtonis,” P. V., p. 289. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.

[648] Nov., 1536, to Myconius, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.

[649] _Ib._, pp. 460, 488 (1537 and 1538).

[650] To Prince George of Anhalt, June 10, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 379.

[651] _Ib._

[652] “Corp, ref.,” 1, p. 907.

[653] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 441, 574.

[654] To Spalatin, Jan. 12, 1541. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 246. “Spalatin foresaw what was to come better than did Luther.” K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 57.

[655] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 223, Table-Talk.

[656] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90). Cp. above, vol. iii., 38 f., 263 f.

[657] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

[658] _Ib._, p. 152.

[659] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.

[660] To the Visitors in Thuringia, March 25, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 173 “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 118.

[661] To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 596, concerning certain occurrences at Dresden.

[662] See above p. 55, ff., and vol. ii., p. 298.

[663] “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 613.

[664] R. Sohm, _ib._, p. 615.

[665] _Ib._, p. 623.

[666] _Ib._, p. 618.

[667] _Ib._, p. 632. Sohm’s standpoint is, that a Church with powers of self-government or with a “canon law,” as he calls it, is practically unthinkable. Cp. Carl Müller, “Die Anfänge der Konsistorialverfassung in Deutschland” (Hist. Zeitschr. Bd. 102, 3. Folge Bd. 6, p. 1 ff.). He too arrives at the conclusion, contrary to many previously held views, viz. that it was only gradually in the course of the 16th century that the consistories changed, from organs of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, into organs of State government of the Church. Cp. also O. Mejer, “Zum KR. des Reformationsjahrh.,” 1891, p. 1 ff.

[668] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 66.

[669] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 720 _sq._ Memorandum as to whether the Schmalkalden League should continue, etc., March, 1545, signed by him first. Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 374.

[670] To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[671] Pars 3, art. 9: “_Maiorem excommunicationem, quam papa ita nominat, non nisi civilem poenam esse ducimus non pertinentem ad nos ministros ecclesiæ._” “Symbol. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde^[10], p. 323.

[672] To Tileman Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy, June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317: “_Hoc sæculo excommunicatio maior ne potest quidem in nostram potestatem redigi, et ridiculi fieremus, ante vires, hanc tentantes. Nam quod vos sperare videmini, ut executio vel per ipsum principem fiat, valde incertum est, nec vellem politicum magistratum in id officii misceri_,” etc.

[673] N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess,” 1911, p. 32, with reference to “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 539, where the note of the Wittenberg Deacon, George Rörer to Luther’s sermon of Aug. 22 of that year says: “_Hæc prima fuit excommunicatio ab ipso pronuntiata._”

[674] Luther to Leonhard Beier, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[675] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 275.

[676] Cp. the passages quoted, _ib._, p. 675, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.

[677] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 291 _sqq._ Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.

[678] On April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 550. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 162 ff., 159 f.; “We must set up excommunication again.” In the latter passage he speaks of his action against the Wittenberg Commandant, Hans v. Metzsch.

[679] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 42. His words remind us of Luther’s own; above, p. 139.

[680] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 160.

[681] _Ib._, p. 179 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185 (in 1540).

[682] _Ib._, p. 169 f.

[683] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 278 (in 1542-1543).

[684] “Kosmographie,” Bl. 44´, 163. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 535.

[685] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 122.

[686] _Ib._, 1, p. 322.

[687] _Ib._, 3, p. 306.

[688] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 367, Table-Talk.

[689] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 306. In the statement the year given is uncertain. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 368: “_Anno_ 34,” etc.; elsewhere 1543.

[690] Rebenstock, in Bindseil, 1. c.

[691] P. Drews, “Die Ordination, Prüfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg” (“Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.”), 15, 1905, pp. 66 ff., 274 ff., particularly p. 281 ff.

[692] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 22 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80: “_Doctor dixit: Nos qui prædicamus Evangelium, habemus potestatem ordinandi; papa et episcopi neminem possunt ordinare_” (a. 1540). P. 226: “_Doctor ad Cellarium; Vos estis episcopus, quemadmodum ego sum papa_” (a. 1540). Johannes Cellarius was Superintendent at Dresden.

[693] Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), vi., 181 ff.

[694] Letter of Jan. 24, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 253 f.

[695] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 553 ff.

[696] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 126, in the “Exempel” (see below, p. 195).

[697] “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, p. 302, according to MS. Dresdense B 193, 4.

[698] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 554 f.

[699] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 125, in the “Exempel.”

[700] On March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 451: “_Venerabili in Domino viro Iacobo Probst ecclesiæ Bremensis episcopo vero_,” etc.

[701] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 93 ff.

[702] _Ib._, p. 121.

[703] _Ib._, pp. 99, 100, 118, 113.

[704] P. 124.

[705] P. 125.

[706] P. 115.

[707] P. 126 f.

[708] Feb. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 432.

[709] Letter of Jan. 13, 1543, _ib._, p. 532.

[710] Letter of July 23, 1542, _ib._, p. 485.

[711] To Amsdorf after Jan. 20, 1542, _ib._, p. 430.

[712] To Amsdorf, Feb. 12, 1542, _ib._, p. 433.

[713] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 123.

[714] Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773.

[715] Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.

[716] Feb. 10, 1546, _ib._, p. 790.

[717] April 13, 1542, _ib._, p. 464.

[718] To the Elector and the Duke, April 7, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 15 ff. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 304 ff.

[719] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 567.

[720] April 9, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. liii. “Briefe,” _ib._, p. 311.

[721] Leipzig, 1874, p. 28 f.

[722] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 568.

[723] According to Luther’s report to Brück, April 12, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. liv., “Briefe,” p. 314.

[724] _Ib._

[725] Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächs. Kirchen- u. Schulvisitationen, 1524-1545,” 1879, p. 209 f. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 192.

[726] G. A. Arndt, “Archiv der sächs. Gesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1784-1786, p. 333 ff. C. G. Gersdorf, “Urkundenbuch von Meissen,” 3, Leipzig, 1867, p. 375 f. Janssen, _ib._, p. 193.

[727] April 29, 1544, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 91; “Briefe,” 5, p. 646.

[728] In Luther’s household memoranda, “Briefe,” 6, p. 326.

[729] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 34).

[730] July 7, 1544, “Werke,” _ib._, p. 104 f.

[731] Cp. Luther’s attitude at the time when the question of armed resistance to the Emperor was mooted, vol. iii., 56 ff., and his views on the relations of Church and State.

[732] To Amsdorf, Nov. 25, 1538, “Briefe,” 5, p. 136 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 38): “_Vides, quantis premor oneribus.... Miserrimis miserior, ut qui amplius nihil possum præ defectu virium._”

[733] To the Christians at Strasburg, Dec. 15, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 395; Erl. ed., 53, p. 275 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83).

[734] See above, vol. ii., p. 370.

[735] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 67 f.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 141 f. “Against the heavenly Prophets.”

[736] _Ib._, p. 68=143.

[737] _Ib._, p. 73=148.

[738] _Ib._, p. 74=149.

[739] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 334.

[740] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 26; Erl. ed., 28, p. 225 f.

[741] _Ib._, p. 29=228.

[742] _Ib._, 16, p. 440=36, p. 49.

[743] _Ib._, p. 440 f.=50.

[744] _Ib._, p. 444=54. Sermon of 1525.

[745] Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 425; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 51 _sq._ (1518, against the strictures of the Bohemians) and Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 34; Erl. ed., 28, p. 310.

[746] See above, vol. ii., p. 97 f.; vol. iii., p. 385.

[747] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 31 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 229 f.

[748] _Ib._, 16, p. 440=36, p. 49. Sermons on the Ten Commandments.

[749] _Ib._, 28, p. 677 f.=36, p. 329 f. Exposition of Deuteronomy.

[750] _Ib._, p. 716=368.

[751] P. 553=206.

[752] P. 715=367.

[753] April 25, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347).

[754] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 74 f., 82 f.; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 149 f., 159.

[755] _Ib._, 26, p. 509=30, p. 372.

[756] _Ib._, 10, 3, p. 114=15², p. 334.

[757] _Ib._, 18, p. 83=29, p. 159.

[758] _Ib._, 63, p. 391 f.

[759] Cp. above, p. 203.

[760] See vol. ii., p. 351 f.

[761] Th. Eitner, “Erfurt u. die Bauernaufstände im 16. Jahrh.,” Halle, 1903, pp. 59, 95.

[762] _Ib._, p. 72.

[763] _Ib._, pp. 74, 84.

[764] _Ib._, p. 75.

[765] _Ib._, pp. 78, 76.

[766] See below, p. 230.

[767] Chr. Falk, “Elbingisch-Preuss. Chronik,” ed. M. Töppen (“Publik. des Vereins f. die Gesch. der Provinzen Ost- und West-Preussen,” Leipzig, 1879), p. 157 f. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 112 ff.

[768] v. Baczko, “Gesch. Preussens,” 4, p. 173 ff. Janssen, _ib._

[769] Janssen, _ib._

[770] L. Redner’s “Skizzen aus der KG. Danzigs,” Danzig, 1875 (“Marienkirchen”).

[771] Janssen, _ib._, p. 120.

[772] Janssen, _ib._, vol. xi., p. 34 ff.

[773] _Ib._, vol. vi., p. 205.

[774] Whitsuntide Sermon, in Janssen, _ib._, vol. xi., p. 38. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², pp. 121, 131, 222 f., 330. Cp. Janssen, _ib._, p. 37, the passages from the sermons of the superintendent George Nigrinus.

[775] Janssen, _ib._, v., p. 121.

[776] Beckmann, “Historie des Fürstentums Anhalt,” 6, p. 43.

[777] “Repertorium f. Kunstwissenschaft,” 20, p. 46. Janssen, _ib._, vol. xi., p. 36.

[778] Oldecop, in 1548. Janssen, _ib._, vol. xi., p. 36.

[779] “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 9, p. 316 ff.; 10, p. 15 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 209.

[780] “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 10, p. 17.

[781] Ladurner, “Der Einfall der Schmalkaldener im Tirol, 1546,” (“Archiv f. Gesch. u. Altertumskunde Tirols,” 1), p. 415 ff. Janssen, _ib._, vi., 315 ff.

[782] Janssen, _ib._, vi., p. 349.

[783] J. Voigt, “Briefwechsel der Gelehrten des Zeitalters der Reformation mit Herzog Albrecht von Preussen,” 1841, p. 30.

[784] Janssen, _ib._, vi., p. 434.

[785] Aug. 19, 1548, C. W. Hase, “Mittelalterliche Baudenkmale Niedersachsens,” Hannover, 1858, Hft., 3, p. 100.

[786] Janssen, _ib._, vi., p. 438 f.

[787] _Ib._, vi., p. 454.

[788] See A. v. Druffel, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1873 ff., p. 668.

[789] Janssen, _ib._, vi., p. 458.

[790] F. A. Sinnacher, “Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Kirche Säben und Brixen,” 7, 1830, p. 441. D. Schönherr, “Der Einfall des Kurfürsten Moritz in Tyrol,” 1868, p. 101 ff. Janssen, _ib._, vi., p. 478.

[791] See Schönherr, _ib._, p. 137 ff.

[792] Janssen, _ib._, vi., p. 496.

[793] _Ib._, vi., p. 459.

[794] Melchior von Ossa in his diary, Jan. 1, 1553. F. A. Langenn, “D. Melchior von Ossa,” 1858, p. 161. Janssen, _ib._, p. 505.

[795] Döllinger, “Reformation,” 2, p. 318.

[796] “Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. Erhaltung der geschtl. Denkmäler im Elsass,” 15, 1892, p. 248. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), xi., p. 46.

[797] E. Weller, “Der Volksdichter Hans Sachs u. seine Dichtungen,” 1868, p. 118 ff.

[798] _Ib._

[799] He frequently laments that the churches were too ill-provided for. Cp. Walch’s Index, s.v. “Kirche,” & “Gotteshäuser.”

[800] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 82 f.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 158.

[801] See P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern,” Berlin, 1892, p. 84. Janssen, _ib._, xi., 39.—On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xi., ch. ii.

[802] March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 451.

[803] Oct. 9, 1542, _ib._, p. 501.

[804] Oct. 29, 1542, _ib._, p. 502.

[805] Nov. 7, 1543, _ib._, p. 600.

[806] Dec. 3, 1544, _ib._, p. 702.

[807] March 13, 1542, _ib._, p. 444.

[808] Oct. 5, 1542, _ib._, p. 501.

[809] Dec. 16, 1543, _ib._, p. 611 f.

[810] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 144.

[811] _Ib._, p. 105.

[812] _Ib._, p. 140.

[813] _Ib._, p. 122.

[814] _Ib._, p. 113.

[815] _Ib._, p. 132.

[816] Below, xxxii., 6.

[817] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 114, in 1538.

[818] _Ib._, p. 105.

[819] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 303.

[820] According to Mathesius (“Historien,” p. 146) he once said even in the pulpit: “A full belly and ripe dung are easily parted.”

[821] To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[822] _Ib._

[823] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117.

[824] To Lauterbach, _ib._

[825] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 303.

[826] “Hist.,” p. 145´ f. Ecebolius, under the Emperor Constantine, a type of the hypocrite.

[827] To Hans Luther, Feb. 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 130 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 230).

[828] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[829] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 288.

[830] _Ib._, p. 179.

[831] _Ib._, p. 155.

[832] Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefe,” 5, p. 322.

[833] _Ib._

[834] To Justus Jonas, Jan. 26, 1543, _ib._, p. 534.

[835] To Spalatin, Aug. 21, 1544, _ib._, p. 679 f.

[836] To Amsdorf, April 14, 1545, _ib._, p. 728.

[837] June 18, 1543, _ib._, p. 570.

[838] To Justus Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, ib., p. 439: “_Carlstadii ista sunt monstra_.”

[839] _Ib._: “_Furiis furiosis aguntur, quia ira Dei pervenit super eos usque in finem. Quare ergo propter istos perditos nos conficere volumus? Mitte, vadere sicut vadit._”

[840] To Dr. Ratzeberger, the Elector’s physician, Aug. 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 754.

[841] April 14, 1545, _ib._, a letter not in the least intended as a joke.

[842] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185. Rebenstock in Bindseil, l.c.

[843] To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 584. Cp. p. 789: “_ne tandem fiat quod ante diluvium factum esse scribit Moises_,” etc.

[844] _Ib._, p. 585.

[845] Sep. 3, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 396.

[846] On the psychology of his humour, see below, xxxi., 5.

[847] To Justus Jonas, April 17, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 642. Cp. p. 629: “_testes fidelissimi_” report an alliance between the Pope, the Turks, French and Venetians against the Emperor. “Now give a cheer for the Pope.”

[848] To Amsdorf, Jan. 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 713.

[849] To Amsdorf, July 17, 1545, _ib._, p. 750 f.

[850] Cp. Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. Trans.), vol. x.

[851] June-July, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 379.

[852] June, 22, 1541, _ib._, p. 372.

[853] Vol. iii., pp. 217, 280 f.

[854] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 155.

[855] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423. In 1537.

[856] Above, vol. iii., p. 116.

[857] “Colloq.,” l.c., p. 156. Cp. Rebenstock, in Bindseil, l.c.

[858] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 125.

[859] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156.

[860] To Melanchthon, April 20, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 346; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 308.

[861] To Melanchthon, March 24, 1541, _ib._, p. 336=279.

[862] To Jakob Probst, Pastor at Bremen, Oct. 9, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 501.

[863] On Feb. 23, 1545, see Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 269, n. 208, from MS.

[864] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 582. On Melanchthon, cp. above, vol. iii., p. 370.

[865] To Chancellor Brück, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 708.

[866] To Amsdorf, May 2, 1545, _ib._, p. 734.

[867] To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, _ib._, p. 585: “_an colaphus Satanæ?_”

[868] To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 599.

[869] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 561 f., in his last sermon, Feb. 14, 1546, on Mt. xi 25 ff.

[870] _Ib._, p. 562 ff.

[871] _Ib._, p. 565.

[872] _Ib._, p. 564.

[873] _Ib._, p. 566 f.

[874] _Ib._, p. 571.

[875] To Ratzeberger, the Elector’s medical adviser, Aug. 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 754: “_Credo nos esse tubam illam novissimam_,” etc.

[876] To Jonas at Halle, Jan. 23, 1542, _ib._, p. 429.

[877] To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542, _ib._, p. 487.

[878] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 385 f. (Dec., 1536).

[879] To Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 72: “_videns, rem tumultuosissimo tumultu tumultuantem; forte hæc est inundatio illa prædicta anno 24 futura_.”

[880] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423, concluding: “_Videte, tanta est potentia Sathanæ in deludendis sensibus externis; quid faciet in animabus?_”

[881] Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, particularly pp. 20 f., 48 ff.

[882] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 227.

[883] _Ib._, p. 129.

[884] _Ib._, p. 422, from Lauterbach and Weller’s Notes in the summer, 1537.

[885] To Amsdorf, June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741. Amsdorf had sent an inquiry “_de monstro illo vulpium_.”

[886] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69 f. Kirchenpostille.

[887] _Ib._

[888] To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 612: “_congruunt omnia signa_.”

[889] In the “Chronology of the World,” “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278, from the Latin MS. See above, vol. iii., p. 147 f.

[890] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 22.

[891] _Ib._, p. 33.

[892] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 86.

[893] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 208; “Historien,” p. 143. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, pp. 18, 25, “Tischreden.”

[894] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1., p. 85.

[895] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 206.

[896] _Ib._, 62, p. 23.

[897] _Ib._, p. 24 f.

[898] See above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff., on the rise of his idea of the Pope as Antichrist.

[899] Cp. the index to Walch’s edition, vol. xxiii., _s.v._ “Antichrist” and “Widerchrist.”

[900] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, “Bulla Cœnæ Domini” (1522), appendix.

[901] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 646. On the Monk-Calf, see vol. iii., p. 149 f.

[902] On this Reply see vol. iii., p. 142.

[903] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 72.

[904] To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 612.

[905] To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, _ib._, p. 398.

[906] To Jonas, March 13, 1542, _ib._, p. 445.

[907] To Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, _ib._, p. 439.

[908] To Jonas, May 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 328: “_Ego et ægrotus et pæne morosus sum, tædio rerum et morborum. Utinam me Deus evocet misericorditer ad sese. Satis malorum feci, vidi, passus sum._”

[909] To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 551: “_ubique grassatur licentia et petulantia vulgi_.” Cp. p. 552.

[910] To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543, _ib._, p. 569.

[911] To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, _ib._, p. 584.

[912] To Jonas, June 18, 1543, _ib._, p. 570.

[913] To Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, _ib._, p. 599.

[914] To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, _ib._, p. 610.

[915] To Duke George of Anhalt, July 10, 1545, _ib._, 6, p. 370.

[916] _Ib._

[917] Vol. ii., p. 522.

[918] To Lauterbach, Feb. 9, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.

[919] To Amsdorf, June 23, 1544, _ib._, p. 670.

[920] To Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, _ib._, p. 703.

[921] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (1538), p. 34.

[922] P. 172 f.

[923] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” (1531 and 1532), p. 17.

[924] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 85, 86.

[925] _Ib._, p. 86.

[926] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 41, p. 233.

[927] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 282. Cp. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” ed. Lœsche, p. 393.

[928] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 287.

[929] Above, p. 229.

[930] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 131.

[931] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 289.

[932] _Ib._, p. 288.

[933] _Ib._, p. 179.

[934] _Ib._, p. 108.

[935] _Ib._, p. 209.

[936] _Ib._, p. 111.

[937] To Amsdorf, Nov. 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 600.

[938] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 87.

[939] _Ib._, p. 89.

[940] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.

[941] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 41, p. 233.

[942] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 130.

[943] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 86.

[944] _Ib._, p. 87.

[945] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f.

[946] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 30.

[947] See above, p. 226.

[948] Above, vol. iii., p. 362 ff.

[949] April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879 _sqq._

[950] G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (Reprint from “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, 1-3), p. 30.

[951] F. Loofs, “DG.,” 4, 1906, p. 866, n. 3.

[952] G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 535 f.

[953] Nov. 12, 1538, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 606.

[954] To Gelous, May 20, 1559, _ib._, 9, p. 822: “_Pendeo velut ad Caucasum adfixus, etsi verius sum ἐπινηθεύς quam προμηθεύς et laceror, non ut ille vulturibus tantum, sed etiam a cuculis_.”

[955] C. Sell, “Philipp Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” 14, 3, 1897), p. 117.

[956] Nov. 13, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.

[957] Dec. 7, 1537, _ib._, p. 460.

[958] Feb. 13, 1538, _ib._, p. 488.

[959] June 24, 1545, _ib._, 5, p. 776: “_tam atrocia certamina inter collegas_.”

[960] Dec. 25, 1544, to Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 554.

[961] “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 376.

[962] Oct. 11, 1538, to Caspar Borner, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 596.

[963] April 30, 1550, _ib._, 7, p. 580.

[964] Cp. Döllinger, _ib._, 1, p. 379 f.

[965] From a New-Year’s letter (Jan. 1, 1540) to Veit Dietrich, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 895.

[966] Sept. 9, 1541, to Veit Dietrich, _ib._, 4, p. 654, where he continues: “_Tegere hæc soleo, sed, mihi crede, manent cicatrices_.”

[967] About July 16, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 390 _sq._ Before this he had said in humanistic style: “_Video novum quoddam genus sophistarum nasci; velut ex gigantum sanguine alii gigantes nati sunt.... Metuo maiores ecclesiæ motus. Hie cum hydra decerto. Uno represso alii multi exoriuntur._”

[968] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 503 _sqq._ Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 451.

[969] Cp. “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 523.

[970] Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 394.

[971] On March 9, 1559, to the Elector August of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766 _sq._ Cp. “RE.,” _ib._, p. 525.

[972] As early as Aug. 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917.

[973] Sep. 8, 1544, to Peter Medmann, _ib._, 5, p. 478.

[974] Oct. 6, 1538, _ib._, 3, p. 594.

[975] See Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 354, and 3, p. 270.

[976] See above, vol. iii., p. 421 f.

[977] Kolde in the Preface to the “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10], p. xxvi., No. 3. The Articles of Agreement were published in full by G. Mentz in 1905, “Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2). Letter to the Elector, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 128; “Briefe,” 4, p. 683 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 315, where Enders, as late as 1903, had to admit: “The doctrinal articles herewith transmitted are not known”). On the negotiations with the English, see vol. iv., p. 10 f.

[978] Thus Mentz, the editor, p. 11. Some theses from these Articles of Agreement proposed by the Wittenbergers but not accepted by the English deserve to be quoted from the new sources; their divergence from Luther’s ordinary teaching is self-evident. Of good works: “_Bona opera non sunt precium pro vita æterna, tamen sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia sunt debitum, quod necessario reconciliationem sequi debet_.” In support of this Mt. xix. 17 is quoted: “_Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata_.” Again: “_Docemus requiri opera a Deo mandata et quidem non tantum externa civilia opera, sed etiam spirituales motus, timorem Dei, fiduciam_,” etc. (p. 34).—“_Hæc obedientia in reconciliatis fide iam reputatur esse iustitia et quædam legis impletio_” (p. 40).—“_Docendæ sunt ecclesiæ de necessitate et de dignitate huius obedientiæ, videlicet quod ... hæc obedientia seu iusticia bonæ conscientiæ sit necessaria quia debitum est, quod necessario sequi reconciliationem debet_” (p. 42).—Merit, at least in a certain restricted sense, is also admitted: “_Ad hæc bona opera sunt meritoria iuxta illud_ (1 Cor. iii. 8): _Unusquisque accipiet mercedem iuxta proprium laborem_.” (Cp. the Apologia of the Confession of Augsburg, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 120, 148.) “_Etsi enim conscientia non potest statuere, quod propter dignitatem operum detur vita æterna, sed nascimur filii Dei et hæredes per misericordiam_ (which is also the Catholic teaching) _tamen hæc opera in filiis merentur præmia corporalia et spiritualia et gradus præmiorum_,” etc. (p. 46). The ambiguity concerning Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (p. 62) is due to Melanchthon, not to Luther.

[979] Kolde, _ib._

[980] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 497.

[981] To Melanchthon, June 18, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 293; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 91; “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 102 ff.; “Corp. ref.,” 3, pp. 1060 _sq._, 1077, 1081. To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” _ib._, p. 297; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 109: “_mortuum enim invenimus; miraculo Dei manifesto vivit_.” See vol. iii., p. 162.

[982] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 689; “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 402; “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 522.

[983] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 524.

[984] Cp., for instance, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 106, 116, 123, etc.; 13, pp. 282, 318.

[985] Discourse of Feb. 22, 1546, “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 726 _sqq._

[986] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 59.

[987] For further details, see below, vol. vi., xl., 3.

[988] On what follows, see Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 867 f.

[989] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 554.

[990] _Ib._, p. 569.

[991] Cp. the report of Peter Canisius to Lainez, General of the Jesuits, Braunsberger, “Epistulæ b. Petri Canisii,” 2, p. 176 _sq._

[992] Ellinger, _ib._, p. 570.

[993] _Ib._, p. 571.

[994] Thus the Protestant theologian Nitzsch, see “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 525. Loofs,^[4], p. 904. “The religious conference suffered shipwreck from want of unity amongst the Evangelicals.” The Gnesio-Lutherans demanded (Sep. 27) that all errors on “the Supper” should be condemned, “ whether emanating from Carlstadt, Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Calvin or others.” Calvin’s doctrine was, however, substantially identical with Melanchthon’s at that time.

[995] “RE.,” _ib._

[996] To Camerarius, Feb. 16, 1559, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 744.

[997] _Ib._, p. 822. As a Humanist he was fond of conjuring up heaven under the image of the Academy. In his address to the students on Luther’s death he says, the former had been snatched away “_in æternam scholam et in æterna gaudia_.”

[998] To Buchholzer, Aug. 10, 1559, _ib._, p. 898.

[999] _Ib._, p. 1098.

[1000] Thus in his “Testament” of April 18, 1560, _ib._, p. 1099.

[1001] Reprinted in “Opera Ph. Melanchtonis,” t. 1, Vitebergæ, 1562, p. 364 _sqq._

[1002] Jan. 28, 1538, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 20, p. 247 ff. G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kathol. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 73), p. 43.

[1003] To Vergerio, June 1, 1534, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 19, p. 222. Kawerau, _ib._, p. 79.

[1004] To Bishop Cricius, June 2, 1534, in his “Velitatio in Apologiam Ph. Melanchthonis,” 1534, Bl. A. 6 ff. Kawerau, _ib._, p. 23 f.

[1005] “Velitatio,” Bl A. 4. Kawerau, p. 25.

[1006] “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 18, p. 424. Kawerau, p. 64 f.

[1007] Vol. ii., p. 438 ff., and above, p. 266. Cp. vol. iii., p. 447 (Cologne Book of Reform).

[1008] Cp. above, p. 265, n. 6.

[1009] The authors of the Article on Melanchthon in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, say, p. 535: “A Humanist mode of thought forms the background of his theology”; Melanchthon strove for a kind of compromise between Christian truth and ancient philosophy.

[1010] “Versuche,” p. 83, with the above example taken from “Corp. ref.,” 12, p. 269.

[1011] Cp., for instance, the letter of May 12, 1536, to Erasmus, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68 _sq._ Kawerau, _ib._, p. 32.

[1012] Cp. the Article quoted, p. 268, n. 2.

[1013] _Ib._, and pp. 532, 537 of the “Realenzyklopädie.”

[1014] F. X. Funk in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212 f.

[1015] For a supposed remark of Luther’s to Catherine Bora which would seem even more clearly to admit the uncertainty of the new faith, see below, p. 372 f.

[1016] “L’Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle,” l. 2, ch. 9 (Rouen, 1648), p. 166: “On éscrit, qu’éstant sur le poinct de rendre l’âme, l’an 1560, sa mère,” etc. The author is quite uncritical (see below, p. 271).

[1017] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083, Melanchthon to Camerarius. C. G. Strobel, “Melanchthoniana,” 1771, p. 9.

[1018] Cp. N. Müller, “Jakob Schwarzerd,” 1908 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Nos. 96-97), p. 42, on “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 563. Müller assumes (p. 41) that the visit took place in 1524.

[1019] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1, 1830, p. 119 ff., “Die Schwarzerd.”

[1020] P. 122.

[1021] In the collection of essays published by the Wittenberg “Academy,” “Memoria Ph. Melanchthonis, finito post eius exitum sæculo II.”

[1022] 3rd ed., Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531.

[1023] G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 191. F. X. Funk remarks in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212: Melanchthon, “after having made her [his mother] repeat her prayers, is said to have assured her, that if she continued thus to believe and to pray, she might well live in hopes of being saved.”

[1024] “Des Teutschen ... Rekreation,” Munich, 1612, 4, p. 143. The author, who died in 1620, is no authority on historical matters beyond his own times and surroundings.

[1025] “Vitæ theologorum,” p. 333.

[1026] “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531, with reference to Melanchthon’s “Postille,” 2, p. 477.

[1027] Above, p. 270, n. 5, p. 41.

[1028] “Historia comitiorum a. 1530 Augustæ celebratorum,” 3, p. 20.

[1029] Gotha, 1876, p. 191.

[1030] J. B. Hablitzel, “Liter. Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1905, No. 40 f.

[1031] Printed in the Jena edition of Luther’s German works, 5, 1557, p. 41.

[1032] “Apologia,” Ingolstadii, 1542, p. clii.

[1033] Willibald Pirkheimer, who was then on Luther’s side, is usually regarded as the author of this screed published under the pseudonym of J. F. Cottalambergius. Like some others, K. Bauer (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 272) rejects his authorship. The passage in question appears in Böcking’s edition, “Hutteni opp.,” 4, 1860, p. 533.

[1034] “Johannes Eck,” 1865, p. 275 f.

[1035] 1906, p. 885.

[1036] To Melanchthon, Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 227.

[1037] To Melanchthon, Nov. 21, 1540, _ib._, p. 215.

[1038] To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[1039] To Jonas, Jan. 23, 1542, _ib._, p. 429.

[1040] To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, _ib._, pp. 551, 552.

[1041] To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543, _ib._, p. 569.

[1042] To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542, _ib._, p. 487 f.

[1043] To Cordatus, Dec. 3, 1544, _ib._, p. 702.

[1044] To Probst, Jan. 17 (the year of his death), 1546, _ib._, p. 778.

[1045] To Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543, _ib._, p. 591: “_quorum glorias pro stercore diaboli habeo_.”

[1046] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 426, on “Master Grickel,” i.e. Agricola.

[1047] To Caspar Schwenckfeld’s messenger (1543), “Briefe,” 5, p. 614: “_Increpet Dominus in te, Satan_,” etc.

[1048] Cp. for what follows N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, where not only Luther’s (pp. 20 ff., 48 ff.) but also the Zwinglians’ and Calvinists’ attitude to the matter is dealt with.

[1049] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 305.

[1050] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; cp. p. 127=28 ff.

[1051] _Ib._, p. 211=127.

[1052] _Ib._, p. 205=121.

[1053] _Ib._, p. 134=36.

[1054] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 3², p. 477 f., in the first Sermon on the Angels.

[1055] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 590 f.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 359. In the editions from 1522 to 1540 the word “conjugal” is inserted before “members.”

[1056] _Ib._

[1057] _Ib._, 32, p. 112 ff.=18², p. 64 ff.

[1058] _Ib._, p. 120=76.

[1059] _Ib._, 34, 2, p. 263 f.=19², p. 75.

[1060] _Ib._, 32, p. 114=18², p. 68.

[1061] “Drey Sermon, Von den Heiligen Engeln, Vom Teufel, Von der Menschen Seele,” Wittenberg, 1563. In the sermon “Vom Teufel.” See N. Paulus, “Augsburger Postztng.,” 1903, May 8.

[1062] July 26, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 147.

[1063] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 331.

[1064] On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299. Cp. Mathesius, _ib._, p. 179: “Nothing is more certain than that the insane are not without their devils; these make them madder; the devil knows those who are of a melancholy turn, and of this tool he makes use.” Thus Luther in 1540.

[1065] “_Sic informat [diabolus] animam et corpus, ut obsessi nihil audiant, videant, sentiant; sed ipse est iis pro anima._” Mathesius, _ib._, p. 198 (in 1540). Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13, with reference to 1 Cor. v. 5. The passage occurs in the Table-Talk, ch. 24, No. 68. Cp. Erl. ed., vol. 59, p. 289 to vol. 60, p. 75. This

## chapter is followed by others on similar subjects. Demonology occupies

altogether a very large place. Ch. 59, “On the Angels,” comprises hardly four pages.

[1066] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 326 (in 1543).

[1067] Dec. 1, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 699 f.

[1068] July 25, 1542: “_quum ipse occiderit eos et imaginatione animis impressa coegerit eos putare, quod se ipsos suspenderent_.”

[1069] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 59. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 198.

[1070] Mathesius, _ib._ Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 127.

[1071] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 24; cp. pp. 25, 27.

[1072] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 269; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 300.

[1073] Mathesius, in both the passages quoted. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 105 (1538): “_habuit fœdus cum Sathana ipse et pater eius, et fœdissima scortatione occubuit securissime_.”

[1074] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 207, under the heading “_Spectra_.” In the same volume pp. 218-242 treat of the devil under the heading “_Diabolus, illius natura, conatus, insidiæ, figura, expulsio_.” In the second volume the ch. on “_tentationes_,” pp. 287-320, and, in the third, that on “_fascinationes et incantationes_,” pp. 9-14, are important.

[1075] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 224 f. (1540).

[1076] _Ib._, p. 402: “_dixit de machinis bellicis et bombardis_,” etc. (1537).

[1077] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 23.

[1078] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262 (1542-43).

[1079] _Ib._, p. 380 (1536).

[1080] _Ib._, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291: “We see how the milk thieves and other witches often do great mischief” (1543). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

[1081] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117 (1532).

[1082] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 304.

[1083] _Ib._, 60, p. 73.

[1084] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 322 (1543).

[1085] _Ib._, p. 412 f.

[1086] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 130; Erl. ed., 18², p. 70 (1530).

[1087] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 395 f. (1537).

[1088] _Ib._, p. 198 (1540).

[1089] _Ib._, p. 240.

[1090] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[1091] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed. 10², p. 354.

[1092] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. Cp. p. 31 and Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.

[1093] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.

[1094] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.

[1095] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.

[1096] _Ib._, 59, p. 348.

[1097] _Ib._

[1098] _Ib._, 60, p. 70.

[1099] _Ib._, 59, p. 348.

[1100] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279, in the fuller Commentary on Galatians (1535). Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 357: “_In Antinomis furit Sathan_”(1539). _Ib._, p. 206: “_Anabaptistæ non intelligunt iram Dei, sic excæcantur a diabolo; quare non anguntur, ut sancti, qui hæc omnia sentiunt; diabolus enim ipsorum aures et animos tenet occupatos_,” etc. (1540).

[1101] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279.

[1102] _Ib._

[1103] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 2, p. 505 f.; Irmischer, 3, p. 251, in the first Commentary on Galatians.

[1104] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 97 (1540). Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 23, in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1518.

[1105] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 321.

[1106] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 40, 1, pp. 315, 317, 319; Irmischer, 1, pp. 278, 280, 283; Erl. ed., 49, p. 19, in the Exposition of St. John xiv.-xvi. Erl. ed., 59, p. 335.

[1107] Cp., for instance, Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 55, 111. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 97, 130, 174, 198, 279, 380, 436. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 317, 320-323; 60, pp. 24, 27, 57, 63, 71, etc.

[1108] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560.

[1109] _Ib._, 29, p. 401. Sermon of 1529. Similarly in the sermon of July 2, 1536, _ib._, 41, p. 633. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), p. 31.

[1110] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 136. Sermon on Oculi Sunday.

[1111] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 248.

[1112] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 22. Cp. p. 38 f.

[1113] _Ib._, 11², p. 136.

[1114] _Ib._, 59, p. 287.

[1115] _Ib._, p. 324.

[1116] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 110. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 108.

[1117] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179; “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 87, 127.

[1118] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13.

[1119] _Ib._, 59, p. 287. There ever was a widespread tendency to connect the Evil One with the water.

[1120] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380 (1536).

[1121] _Ib._, p. 118 (1540).

[1122] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340.

[1123] _Ib._, 60, pp. 64, 66

[1124] _Ib._, 59, p. 138.

[1125] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).

[1126] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 129. The account assures us that he claimed to have seen the apparition himself.

[1127] _Ib._, 31, p. 363.

[1128] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 140, in the shorter Exposition of Isaias iii. 21.

[1129] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 71.

[1130] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 300 (1542-44).

[1131] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 73.

[1132] _Ib._, 59, p. 294; cp. 60, p. 123. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 235, 318. For an explanation of the word here used see Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 132, n. 3.

[1133] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 281 f.

[1134] _Ib._, 32, p. 291 in “Vom Schem Hamphoras,” 1543.

[1135] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 258 (1542-43).

[1136] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 208.

[1137] _Ib._, p. 218.

[1138] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 211 f., in the Exposition of John i. and ii. (1537-38).

[1139] _Ib._, 60, p. 70.

[1140] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 315; Irmischer, 1, p. 277 _sq._

[1141] “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), pp. 45, 67.

[1142] “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1909, p. 147. Paulus, _ib._, p. 46.

[1143] Leipzig, 1904, p. 518. Cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 1-10.

[1144] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 1-19.

[1145] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 3 _sqq._

[1146] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540): “_hoc malum (sagarum) invalescit iterum_.” In 1519 he had lamented that “this evil is noticeably on the increase.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426, first Commentary on Galatians.

[1147] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 7.

[1148] _Ib._, p. 406 f.=16.

[1149] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 60, p. 57 (heading).

[1150] _Ib._, p. 79.

[1151] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).

[1152] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 406 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 20.

[1153] _Ib._, 12, p. 345. Sermon of 1523.

[1154] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 190.

[1155] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426.

[1156] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156; Nov. 4, 1538.

[1157] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 314 ff.; Irmischer, 1, p. 277 _sqq._, detailed Commentary on Galatians which is fuller on the question of sorcery than the Commentary of 1519 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426).

[1158] _Ib._, 40, 1, p. 314; Irmischer, 1, p. 277.

[1159] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.

[1160] See Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 117, for both.

[1161] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 162; Erl. ed., 33, p. 161. Cp. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 37, 39.

[1162] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198 (1540). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 39 f.

[1163] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 40.

[1164] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).

[1165] _Ib._, p. 380 (1536).

[1166] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.

[1167] Lauterbach, _ib._

[1168] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129.

[1169] _Ib._: there is no “_motus de loco_,” etc., all this “_phantasmata sunt_.” Similarly in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 17 _sq._: the metamorphosis of old women into tom-cats and the nocturnal excursions of the witches to banquets are “delusions of the devil, not actual occurrences”; he, however, admits the possibility.

[1170] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.

[1171] See Paulus, _ib._, pp. 25 ff., 49.

[1172] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.

[1173] _Ib._, p. 117, Aug. 20, 1538.

[1174] _Ib._, p. 121, Aug. 25, 1538. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.

[1175] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 79.

[1176] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 551 (“_occidantur_,” etc.).

[1177] See Paulus, _ib._, p. 43 f., where he quotes Luther’s “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539), in support of the duty of burning witches on account of their compact with the devil, quite apart from the harm they may cause—“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 441 f.: The witches or “devil’s whores, who are burnt at the stake whenever they are caught, as is right, not for stealing milk but because of the blasphemy by which they strengthen the cause of the devil, his sacraments and Churches.”

[1178] Cp. the Eisleben edition (1569), pp. 280, 280´: “They should be hurried to the stake. The lawyers require too many witnesses and proofs, they despise these open, etc.” The same occurs in the Frankfurt edition (1568), p. 218´.

[1179] “Pythonissa,” Frankfurt, 1660, pp. 471, 472, from Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 58, p. 129 (above, p. 287).

[1180] “Hexenwahn,” p. 75 ff.

[1181] _Ib._, p. 54 ff.

[1182] See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xvi., pp. 269 to 526, a very full account of the Witch trials, etc.

[1183] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129. From May 21 to June 11, 1540. See above, p. 290, n. 3.

[1184] Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” pp. 52, 66.

[1185] Karl Adolf Menzel, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 3², 1854, p. 65, is of opinion that the reformers of the 16th century lent the whole weight of their position and convictions to strengthening the belief in witches. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” _loc. cit._: “Through Luther and his followers belief in the power and influence of the devil, who was active in all men and who exercised his arts especially through witches and sorcerers, received an impetus and spread in a manner never known before.” J. Hansen, “Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess im MA.,” 1900, p. 536 f., also admits that Protestantism had increased the readiness to accept such belief. Cp. the admissions of Riezler, v. Bezold and Steinhausen quoted by Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” p. 48 f.

[1186] Cp. J. Diefenbach, “Der Zauberglaube des 16. Jahrh. nach den Katechismen Luthers und Canisius,” 1900.

[1187] To Catherine Bora, Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.

[1188] See below, vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.

[1189] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295 (1542). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.

[1190] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.

[1191] _Ib._, p. 267, speaking of a case of long-continued adulterous incest between brother and sister (1542): “This was the work of the devil himself,” etc.

[1192] “_Satanicum tempus et sæculum._” To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703.

[1193] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, _ib._, p. 774.

[1194] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174 (1540).

[1195] On the great tragedy between God and Satan in which he (particularly in 1541) is so prominently entangled, see the letter to Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.

[1196] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 307 (1542-43).

[1197] To Johann Silvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.

[1198] See above, p. 226 ff.

[1199] Thus as early as June 27, 1522, to Staupitz at Salzburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 407, with the emphatic assurance: “_sed Christus, qui cœpit, conteret eum, frustra renitentibus omnibus portis inferi_.”

[1200] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.

[1201] _Ib._, 59, p. 342.

[1202] _Ib._, 57, p. 65.

[1203] _Ib._, 58, p. 301.

[1204] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1205] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 73, 55. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” ed. Lœsche, p. 113.

[1206] P. 200. Cp. above, p. 174.

[1207] P. 193´.

[1208] “Cochlæi Acta, etc.” (1549), p. 2: “_quod etiam corporaliter visus quibusdam fuerit cum eo conversari_.”

[1209] “I feel him well enough.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 301.

[1210] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198.

[1211] _Ib._, p. 331.

[1212] To Wenceslaus Link, July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 301.

[1213] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 51; Erl. ed., 33, p. 55.

[1214] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 90 f. (1534).

[1215] _Ib._, cp. above, p. 5.

[1216] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 279.

[1217] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 235.

[1218] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 586; Erl. ed., 10², p. 355, Church-postils.

[1219] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[1220] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55 f.

[1221] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340. Lauterbach, _ib._, p. 56.

[1222] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 228. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60, under the heading “Satan flees from music”: “It was thus that David with his harp abated Saul’s temptations when the devil plagued him” (3 Kg. xvi. 23).

[1223] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 313.

[1224] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 343 f.

[1225] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 56.

[1226] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 165.

[1227] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27.

[1228] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 3.

[1229] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.

[1230] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1231] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73.

[1232] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 30.

[1233] _Ib._, p. 163.

[1234] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 88 f. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 101 f., n. 59.

[1235] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12, and Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380, from Notes of Lauterbach and Weller. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 78.

[1236] Lauterbach, _ib._ In the Latin “Colloquia” as well as in the German Table-Talk (_ib._), in connection with “the clergy and schoolmasters” of the past, it is related, that, in their day, the head of an ox was taken from the fence and thrown into the St. John’s bonfire, whereby a great number of witches were attracted to the place. Then follows at once in both passages, in order to emphasise the advance which had been made: “But Dr. Pommer’s plan is the best,” etc., etc. See vol. iii., p. 230, n. 2.

[1237] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 218.

[1238] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 59.

[1239] _Ib._, 31, p. 311.

[1240] _Ib._, p. 316 f.

[1241] _Ib._, 60, p. 61.

[1242] _Ib._, and 59, p. 294.

[1243] See below, xxxiii., 4.

[1244] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[1245] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 312. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 _sq._, and below, p. 314, n. 3.

[1246] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179 (1540), where Kroker remarks: “A favourite saying with Luther,” and quotes Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” pp. 130 and 295. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 215, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 124.

[1247] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 86 ff.

[1248] _Ib._, 7, p. 262 ff.=27, p. 200 ff.

[1249] In the writing against Alveld, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 286; Erl. ed., 27, p. 87.

[1250] “Briefe,” 6, p. 321, of 1542. See above, vol. iv., p. 292.

[1251] Nov. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 505; cp. 6, p. 320.

[1252] Feb. 10, 1546, _ib._, 5, p. 789.

[1253] Feb. 7, 1546, _ib._, p. 787.

[1254] Feb. 1, 1546, _ib._, p. 784.

[1255] Above, vol. ii., p. 140 f.; also vol. iii., pp. 233 ff., 264 ff., 301; vol. iv., pp. 161 ff., 318 ff.

[1256] Feb. 6, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 786.

[1257] Above, vol. iii., p. 305.

[1258] _Ib._, p. 268.

[1259] On certain frivolous expressions which Luther was fond of using of holy things his opponents seized as proofs that he was little better than an atheist or blasphemer. There is indeed no doubt that religious reverence suffered by his jests. Do you suppose Christ was drunk, he repeatedly asks, when He commanded this or that? The Son of Man came to save what was lost, but He set about it foolishly enough. Unless Our Lord God understands a joke, then I shouldn’t like to go to heaven. He even has a jest about the feathers of the Holy Ghost, pokes fun at the Saints, etc., etc.—On the occasion of his journey to Heidelberg, in 1518, undertaken at a grave juncture when the penalties of the Church were hanging over his head, he said jestingly, that he had no need of contrition, confession or satisfaction, the hardships of the journey being equal to “_contritio perfecta_,” etc. (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 184). The Pietists were not so far wrong when they asked in their day: “Who would wish to approve all the jests of that holy man, our dearly-beloved Luther?” (Cp. Frank, “Luther im Spiegel seiner Kirche” (“Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,” 1905, p. 473.)) “Some readers may, for instance, be scandalised at the passages where Luther makes fun of Scripture texts or articles of faith, e.g. the Trinity.” Thus in the “Beil. z. M. Allg. Ztng.,” 1904, No. 26.

[1260] See vol. iii., p. 149 ff.

[1261] See vol. ii., p. 137.

[1262] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.

[1263] _Ib._, p. 391 f.=23.

[1264] March 5, 1522, _ib._, Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[1265] _Ib._

[1266] June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.

[1267] To the Elector Johann Frederick, July 9, 1535, “Werke,” Erl. ed. 55, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 169).

[1268] To Johann Rühel, etc., June 15, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 314 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 195).

[1269] See vol. ii., p. 184.

[1270] Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 317.

[1271] Amsdorf to Spalatin, April 4, 1523, see Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 443.

[1272] May 23, 1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed. 55, p. 54 f. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 48.

[1273] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 249.

[1274] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450. For other remedies against sadness mentioned here or elsewhere see above, p. 92 f., and below, p. 323, and vol. iii., pp. 175 ff., 305 ff.; vol. iv., p. 311 f.

[1275] Bugenhagen’s account of Luther’s illness and temptations of 1527, from the Latin. Walch’s ed. of Luther’s Works, 21, p. 158*; Vogt, “Bugenhagens Briefwechsel,” 1888, p. 64 ff.

[1276] April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 308.

[1277] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 310.

[1278] To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 43.

[1279] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 86 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 127). The preface is addressed to Amsdorf.

[1280] See Dietz, “Wörterbuch, etc.”

[1281] _Ib._, p. 89.

[1282] _Ib._, 26², p. 251.

[1283] _Ib._, p. 275.

[1284] _Ib._

[1285] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.

[1286] _Ib._

[1287] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 406: “_Mentionem fecit morbi sui spiritualis. Nam in 14 diebus nihil edit neque bibit neque dormivit._ ‘_Quo tempore sæpius disputavi cum Deo_,’” etc.

[1288] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 144.

[1289] _Ib._, p. 113. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 16.

[1290] To Justus Menius, May 1, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 467.

[1291] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 159, June 18, 1540: “_tentari de blasphemia, de iudicio Dei, ibi nec peccatum intelligimus nec remedia novimus_.” According to other passages he is here speaking from his own experience.

[1292] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1293] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 65.

[1294] _Ib._, p. 66.

[1295] _Ib._, 60, p. 82 f.

[1296] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 266; Erl. ed., 19², p. 76. Sermon at Michaelmas. In place of the devil’s “raging” (“Rasen”), as in Erl. ed., the Weim. ed. reads “nosing” (“Nasen”) [?“Nahsein”]. Rorer’s MS. reads: “_Et in me sentio satanæ nisum_.”

[1297] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 476; Erl. ed., 18², p. 359, Sermon on 1 John iv. (16-21).

[1298] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 61 f., 63 f.; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 283, 285, at the end of the eight sermons against Carlstadt.

[1299] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 221 _sq._

[1300] _Ib._, 3, p. 154 _sq._ “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 70. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 107. Taken from Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 26, 1532.

[1301] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 243.

[1302] Schlaginhaufen, p. 11 (Dec. 14, 1531). Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 46.

[1303] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 128.

[1304] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 223.

[1305] See vol. iii., pp. 175 f., 178 f.

[1306] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11. Cp. _ib._, Veit Dietrich’s statement, and vol. iii., p. 177 f.

[1307] Schlaginhaufen, p. 41, Jan.-March, 1532. Cp. Cordatus, p. 131; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 298; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 402.

[1308] Above, p. 7 ff.

[1309] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 301.

[1310] _Ib._, p. 301 f.

[1311] _Ib._, 20², 1, p. 161, Sermon on Gal. i. 4 f. (1538).

[1312] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 48, with the addition: “But the Law must be preached to those who are well.”

[1313] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 222.

[1314] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 122.

[1315] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” ed. Lœsche, p. 411. Cp. Khummer, in Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 74.

[1316] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 363.

[1317] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, 301.

[1318] _Ib._

[1319] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 21.

[1320] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 159.

[1321] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 47.

[1322] “Vitæ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, “Vita Lutheri,” c. 4, p. 5. The text was Rom. xi. 32.

[1323] Cp. above, p. 323.

[1324] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 19 ff.

[1325] _Ib._, p. 9. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 177 f.

[1326] See vol. ii., p. 180 f. Cp. Melanchthon’s statement, p. 177.

[1327] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 10.

[1328] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 147 f., June 11-19, 1540. See vol. iii., p. 203 f.

[1329] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 39.

[1330] July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 300.

[1331] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 40: “_Tristitiæ spiritus est ipsa conscientia_.” Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 296, 298, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, 108.

[1332] Cp. above, p. 66 ff.

[1333] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 26, Jan.-March, 1532.

[1334] To Link, July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 301 f.

[1335] March 8, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 635: “_solari contra conscientiam, quæ est mortis sævissimum ministerium_.” Cp. above, p. 67.

[1336] To the Wittenberg Augustinians, Nov. 1, 1521, in the dedication of his writing “De abroganda missa privata,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 411 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 116 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243). Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 79 ff.

[1337] “_Furebam ita sæva et perturbata conscientia_,” etc. “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22. Vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[1338] From the letter to the Augustinians, p. 411 f.=116.

[1339] To Melanchthon, May 26, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 163.

[1340] Khummer (1539), in Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36: “_per totum triennium laboravi omnibus desperationibus_.” The reading “_omnibus desperantibus_” is excluded by what follows: “_scripserunt quidam ad me fratres ad constantiam me adhortantes_.”

[1341] To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[1342] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9.

[1343] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 205. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 80. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 160 f.

[1344] “_Acetissimum mihi acetum_,” speaking of the rapacity of the despoilers of the churches and of the use of church property for purely private purposes. To Spalatin, Jan. 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 3. On this illness, see below, vol. vi., xxvi., 1.

[1345] “Luthers Werke,” Walch ed., 21, appendix, p. 158*, from the Latin. Best rendered in the original Latin text in O. Vogt, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” 1888, p. 64 ff.

[1346] Cp. the account of Jonas, “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 _sqq._, and better still, Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, 1884-85, p. 104 ff. The account begins: “_Cum mane, ut ipse fatebatur nobis, habuisset grandem tentationem spiritualem et tamen utcunque ad se rediisset_.” Kawerau, _ib._, p. 109: “_Dixit (Lutherus) hesternam tentationem spiritualem duplo fuisse maiorem, quam hanc ægritudinem ad vesperam subsecutam_.”

[1347] Aug. 2, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 71: “_Agebar fluctibus et procellis desperationis et blasphemiae.... Deus eruit animam meam de inferno inferiori_” (Ps. lxxxv. 13).

[1348] Aug. 12, 1527, _ib._, p. 73, “_Agon iste meus_,” etc.

[1349] _Ib._, p. 78.

[1350] _Ib._, p. 84 f.

[1351] To Michael Stiefel, _ib._, p. 104.

[1352] To Justus Jonas, _ib._, p. 106.

[1353] To Melanchthon, _ib._, p. 110: “_cum aliud non quæram aut sitiam quam propitium Deum_.”

[1354] _Ib._, p. 111. 2 Cor. vii. 5: “_Foris pugnæ, intus timores_”; Luther: “_pavores_.”

[1355] To Jonas, _ib._, p. 113. He, however, has a joke even here at the expense of Bugenhagen, who was then staying in his house: “_Salutat te Pomeranus, hodie cacator purgandus factus_.”

[1356] Cp. Ps. cviii. 17: “_compunctum corde mortificare_.” Luther, quoting from memory, says: “_contritum corde ad mortificandum_.”

[1357] “_Novissimus omnium hominum._” Cp. Ps. liii. 3: “_novissimus virorum_,” of the Messias; 1 Cor. iv. 9: “_novissimos ostendit_,” of the Apostles.—“_Quem Deus percussit, persequuntur_”; cp. Ps. lxviii. 27.

[1358] For the letters quoted, see “Briefwechsel,” under the dates given.

[1359] To the Elector Johann of Saxony, Jan. 16, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 215 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 195).

[1360] Jan. or Feb., 1527, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 15; Erl. ed., 53, p. 412 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15).

[1361] July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 300.

[1362] Cp. the letter to Link of March 7, 1529, _ib._, 7, p. 63.

[1363] Cp. vol. iii., p. 218 ff.

[1364] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 350 f., Sermon on Rom. viii. 31 (1537).

[1365] To Link, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 214.

[1366] “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 52: “_ut Dominus non me deserat in manu Satanæ_.”

[1367] _Ib._, p. 87.

[1368] To Johann Brismann at Riga, _ib._, p. 139. On the extraordinary states and temptations of certain Saints which some have likened to Luther’s “temptations,” see below, vol. vi., xxxv., 5, at the end.

[1369] To Link, Oct. 28, 1529, _ib._, p. 179 f. On the Marburg Conference, see vol. iii., p. 381 f.

[1370] _Ib._, p. 180. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 180.

[1371] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 13; Erl. ed., 53, p. 411 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15). Cp. the article on Kling by N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1892, 1, p. 146 ff.

[1372] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 322; Erl. ed., 63, p. 259, in the Preface to the work of Justus Menius against Conrad Kling: “Etlicher gottloser Lere ... Verlegung,” etc., 1527.

[1373] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 530 ff.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 271.

[1374] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f. Cp. below, xxxiv., 4. [We give it above in Carlyle’s rendering, “Miscellanies,” “Luther’s Psalm.”]

[1375] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 177, 646.

[1376] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 48 f., 325 f.

[1377] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 41; Erl. ed., 31, p. 20. “Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen,” 1529.

[1378] P. Tschackert, “Die Entstehung des Lutherliedes ‘Ein’ feste,’” etc. (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1905, No. 2, and before, in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1903, Hft. 10).

[1379] Exposition of John xvii., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 91; Erl. ed., 50, p. 174.

[1380] _Ib._, p. 137=213.

[1381] _Ib._, p. 85 f.=169.

[1382] _Ib._, p. 159 f.=233 f.

[1383] _Ib._, p. 199=264.

[1384] _Ib._, p. 182 ff.=252 f.

[1385] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 295 ff.; Erl. ed., 50, p. 328 f.

[1386] To Spalatin, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 308. See above, p. 315.

[1387] To Melanchthon, May 12, 1530, _ib._, p. 332 f.

[1388] To Jonas, May 19, 1530, _ib._, p. 338.

[1389] To Melanchthon, May 15, 1530, _ib._, p. 335.

[1390] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 203.

[1391] “_Spiritus ille, qui me colaphizavit hactenus._” Cp. 2 Cor. xii. 7: “_angelus satanæ, qui me colaphizet_.”

[1392] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 43.

[1393] Oct. 31, 1530, _ib._, p. 301.

[1394] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 87.

[1395] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Oct. 28-Dec. 12, 1536.

[1396] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._

[1397] See above, vol. ii., pp. 391 ff.; vol. iv., pp. 191 ff.

[1398] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115, March 21 to June 11, 1540.

[1399] To Jakob Probst, Dec. 31, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 169.

[1400] To Johann Hess, Jan. 27, 1528, _ib._, p. 199 f.

[1401] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f., “Vier trostliche Psalmen” (1526).

[1402] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295. In 1542-43.

[1403] _Ib._, p. 317, Spring, 1543. His statement runs, that “no heresiarch can be converted.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 262; cp. 23, p. 73; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.

[1404] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.

[1405] _Ib._

[1406] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Eyn trew Vormanung,” etc. Cp. his outbursts against the “obstinacy of the heretics,” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 37 _sqq._: “_Temeritas Schwermeriorum pestilentissima est_,” etc. P. 40, under the heading: “_Quomodo sit cum fanaticis agendum_.”

[1407] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 24 f. According to his sermons.

[1408] Cp. below, p. 355 f.

[1409] “There is only one article and rule in theology, viz. true faith or trust in Christ.... The devil has opposed this article from the beginning of the world.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 398.—“A Christian must be quite convinced that a thing is so and not otherwise ... so that he may be able to withstand every temptation and stand up to the devil and all his angels, nay, even to God Himself, without wavering.” _Ib._, p. 394.—“Whoever is not sure of his teaching and faith, and yet wishes to dispute, is done for.” _Ib._—“Satan comes to accuse what is best; hence a man must have certainty.” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 221.—“For it is absolutely necessary that consciences should reach certainty and confidence in all matters; if ever a doubt remains, then everything wobbles.” To N. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363.

[1410] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.

[1411] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 38.

[1412] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 406, March 21-28, 1537. Cp. above, p. 319, n. 1.

[1413] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 144.

[1414] _Ib._, p. 128, Sep. 10.

[1415] _Ib._, p. 4, Jan. 5.

[1416] _Ib._, p. 106.

[1417] See below, p. 369 ff. Cp. the previous passage.

[1418] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315. The passage 2 Cor. xii. 7: “_Datus est mihi stimulus carnis meæ, angelus satanæ, qui me colaphizet_,” is generally taken with St. Thomas to refer to temptations of the flesh.

[1419] Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 73 f. In 1539.

[1420] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 197.

[1421] _Ib._, 58, p. 286.

[1422] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49.

[1423] _Ib._, p. 97.

[1424] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532.

[1425] _Ib._, p. 214. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 60. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. Leonard Beyer had defended Luther’s Theses as a young Augustinian at the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518.

[1426] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[1427] To Jonas, Dec. 30, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 167.

[1428] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “_aliquis vehementior affectus_.” Vol. iii., p. 174, n. 1.

[1429] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 69, p. 129; above, vol. iv., p. 311.

[1430] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.

[1431] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11. See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[1432] From Veit Dietrich’s MS. Notes, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 516.

[1433] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.

[1434] To Wenceslaus Link, July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 301.

[1435] To Hier. Weller, July (?) 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 160.

[1436] _Ib._

[1437] To Wenceslaus Link, in the passage quoted under n. 7; above, p. 339.

[1438] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176, from Veit Dietrich.

[1439] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 11, Nov. to Dec., 1531. Same in Veit Dietrich. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 47.

[1440] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._

[1441] To Hier. Weller, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 5.

[1442] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, pp. 9, 88. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 316. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 24 f.

[1443] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 99.

[1444] See vol. iii., p. 13 ff.; vol. iv., pp. 413 ff., 440 ff., 444, 448.

[1445] Above, vol. iv., p. 398 ff.

[1446] Above, vol. iv., p. 403 ff.

[1447] _Ib._, pp. 404 f., 410 ff., 414 f.

[1448] Above, vol. iii., pp. 8 ff., 18 ff., and below, xxxiv., 1.

[1449] The “Süddeutsche Blätter f. Kirche u. freies Christentum” (1911, No. 24) appealed, as against the deposition of Pastor Jatho by the Spruchkollegium of Berlin, to Luther’s words in the above writing: “In this matter, i.e. in judging of doctrine, deposing teachers or those holding a cure of souls, we must pay no heed to human regulations and laws, to ancient custom and usage, etc. ... the soul must be ruled and gripped only by the Eternal Word.” “It is high time,” adds the Editor, “for us again to call to mind that view of faith which gives to the soul and the conscience that sacred and inalienable right to which every man has a claim”; he also points out, again appealing to Luther, the “impossible state of things” to which any compulsion exercised under plea of the Creed must lead, of which each of the twelve judges of the Spruchkollegium has a different opinion. “It is admittedly allowable to deviate to a certain extent from the Confession of the Church. In this case, however, the judges suddenly turn on a man and say: But not so far as this. The question is: How far then may one go?”

[1450] “Süddeutsche Bl.,” _ib._

[1451] See above, vol. iv., p. 441.

[1452] Vol. i., pp. 92, 203 f., 213, 231 f.; vol. ii., pp. 232 ff., 286 ff.; vol. iv., p. 434 f.

[1453] Vol. i., p. 187 ff.; vol. ii., pp. 268 ff., 291.

[1454] Vol. ii., p. 397 ff.; vol. iv., p. 526 f., etc.

[1455] Khummer, in Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 73. For Khummer’s Notes (which end in 1554) see Kroker, Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. xxii., and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” Introduction, p. ix. f.—Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219.

[1456] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 128, in 1538.—Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 229 _sq._

[1457] Lauterbach, _ib._, p. 81 (1538). Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 374.

[1458] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313. Cp. “Historien,” p. 147´.

[1459] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 79. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 103: “That I eat and drink and am at times merry and a good boon companion,” etc

[1460] “_Ego non intelligo nec possum credere, et omnes apostoli crediderunt_” (even before the descent of the Holy Ghost).

[1461] See above, p. 241 ff.

[1462] Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514 f.

[1463] May 5, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 328.

[1464] To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703. Above, p. 226 ff.

[1465] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 360.

[1466] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 513.

[1467] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.

[1468] Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 680. See above, vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1.

[1469] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, pp. 380, 393. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 59 _sq._ Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209. From Schlaginhaufen’s “Aufzeichn.,” p. 132 f., June to Sept., 1532.

[1470] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 113.

[1471] _Ib._, 58, p. 26.

[1472] _Ib._, p. 308.

[1473] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 223, Expos. of Psalm xlv.

[1474] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 159.

[1475] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 1, in 1531.

[1476] _Ib._, p. 84, May, 1532.

[1477] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 45.

[1478] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 110 f.

[1479] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.

[1480] _Ib._, p. 147.

[1481] See above, vol. iv., p. 218 ff.

[1482] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 209, and similarly, 58, p. 385.

[1483] _Ib._, 58, p. 397.

[1484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 52 _sq._

[1485] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 155; Erl. ed., 26², p. 296. “Von der Widdertauffe.” In this passage he tries to prove that the text: “He who believes and is baptised shall be saved” (Mk. xvi. 16), could not be quoted in favour of re-baptism; the person baptising could not be certain that the adults brought faith with them to baptism, nor could the adult catechumen always be certain he had the faith.

[1486] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 40, p. 325 f., in 1530.

[1487] According to the MS. in the Vatican Library (Palat. 1825, fol. 117): “_Dum (conscientia mala) præteritum peccatum non potest mutare et iram futuram nullo modo vitare, necesse est, ut, quocunque vertatur, angustetur et tribuletur; nec ab his angustiis liberatur, nisi per sanguinem Christi, quem si per fidem intuita fuerit, credit et intelligit, peccata sua in eo abluta et ablata esse. Sic per fidem purificatur simul et quietatur, ut iam nec pœnas formidet præ gaudio remissionis peccatorum. Ad hanc igitur munditiam nulla lex, nulla opera et prorsus nihil nisi unicus sanguis Christi facere potest; ne ipse quidem, nisi cor hominis crediderit eum esse effusum in remissionem peccatorum._”—Fol. 117´: “_Quæ (fides remissionis peccatorum) haberi non potest nisi in verbum Dei, quod prædicat nobis, sanguinem Christi effusum esse in remissionem peccatorum._”—Fol. 118: “_Unde sequitur, quod hi qui meditantur Christi passionem, tantum ut compatiantur aut aliud quam fidem consequantur, prope infructuose et gentiliter meditantur.... Quo frequentius meditetur, eo plenius credatur, sanguinem Christi pro suis peccatis effusum. Hoc est enim bibere et manducare spiritualiter, scilicet hac fide in Christum impinguari et incorporari._”

[1488] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 502 ff.

[1489] _Ib._, p. 548 f.

[1490] _Ib._, p. 547

[1491] _Ib._, p. 573.

[1492] _Ib._, p. 554. It is obvious that words such as: I do not believe as I ought, and: We cannot rise as high as we ought, may, in themselves, be taken in the best sense seeing they are to be met with even on the lips of saints. The prayer “_Credo Domine, sed adiuva incredulitatem meam_” was a usual one with the faithful, even the most devout. Nor was Luther alone in envying the children their pious faith (below, p. 369). These passages are, however, not the most characteristic of Luther’s faith and doubts, rather all those other sayings, for which he was first and solely responsible and which are placed in their true light by his theological doctrines, must be taken together. The plausible-sounding words given above may well be accepted as proofs of deep feeling, seeing they stand side by side with other strong expressions of his belief in certain central truths of Christianity. The longing for improvement may quite well have remained alive even though the spirit of faith frequently felt itself slighted.

[1493] _Ib._, p. 549.

[1494] _Ib._, p. 523.

[1495] _Ib._, pp. 568 f., 571.

[1496] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 209. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, pp. 92, 373.

[1497] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 362.

[1498] _Ib._, 59, p. 245.

[1499] _Ib._, 57, p. 32.

[1500] _Ib._, 58, p. 429.

[1501] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 242.

[1502] See above, p. 133 ff.

[1503] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, 1 ff. Cp. “Briefe,” 5, pp. 147 ff., 183.

[1504] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 9, in the same work.

[1505] German Trans., Augsburg, 1843, p. 212.

[1506] “_Norma vitæ ad instituendas recte actiones_,” Pragæ, 1685, p. 276. This very rare book has only been found in the Gymnasialbibliothek at Mariaschein in Bohemia.

[1507] _Op. cit._, Pragæ, 1709, pars II., p. 39. “_Erigebat illos [oculos] interdum hæresiarcha Lutherus ad cœlum, cum illud sub mortem scintillantibus stellis pulcherrime rutilaret; sed quia turpissimo voluptaum cœno animum gerebat immersum, simul ita dicebat: Quam pulchrum est, Martine, cœlum, sed non est pro te._” The passage occurs in connection with the Feast of the Ascension. The dialogue with Catherine was a later addition to the story.

[1508] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 266; Erl. ed., 19², p. 76.

[1509] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 411.

[1510] Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 259.

[1511] _Ib._, p. 246.

[1512] Louis de Ponte (de la Puente), “Meditaciones,” 1605; Latin ed. of 1857, t. 2, p. 216.

[1513] Cp. what Suarez says of habit: “_Habitus quidem per se ac formaliter, seu facta suppositione, minuit libertatem, quia inclinando magis voluntatem ad alteram partem minuit indifferentiam eius; tamen moraliter et in ordine ad effectus morales non censetur minuere, quamdiu illa consuetudo libera ac voluntaria est, propter eandem rationem, quia dispositio libera, ut sic, non minuit liberum._” “Opp.” 4, Paris., 1856, p. 209, n. 16.

[1514] See vol. iii., p. 430 ff.

[1515] To Amsdorf, July 9, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 746.

[1516] See vol. iii., p. 59 ff., particularly p. 70.

[1517] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.

[1518] P. 281.

[1519] P. 282 f.

[1520] P. 408.

[1521] P. 409 f.

[1522] P. 448.

[1523] March 14, 1539: “_mire me piget eius scripti, quod tam tenue et verbosum sit ... tempus et labor fuit ultra vires meas_.” “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 115 f.

[1524] Jan. 17, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 714.

[1525] Jan. 26, 1545, _ib._, p. 720.

[1526] May 7, 1544, _ib._, p. 736.

[1527] Below, p. 383.

[1528] May 7, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 737.

[1529] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 131 ff.

[1530] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 655, n. 3118.

[1531] Druffel, “Kaiser Karl V und die Römische Kurie 1544-46,” in the “Abh. Bayr. Akad. der Wiss., hist. Kl.,” vol. 13, Abt. 2, p. 215. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 129 ff.

[1532] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 176.

[1533] _Ib._, p. 229.

[1534] P. 230.

[1535] P. 231.

[1536] P. 233.

[1537] P. 235 f.

[1538] P. 242.

[1539] P. 91, n. 6.

[1540] See vol. iii., p. 234 f.

[1541] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 662 _sq._, n. 3123.

[1542] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 661. In the same letter.

[1543] For text see “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 461 _sq._; also in “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1422 ff.

[1544] To Amsdorf, July 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 746.

[1545] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 48.

[1546] _Ib._, p. 68.

[1547] _Ib._, p. 191.

[1548] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 530 f.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 271. Preface to Klingebeyls’ writing. Cp. an equally grotesque enumeration, above, vol. iv., p. 343.

[1549] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403. Preface to his German writings (1539).

[1550] _Ib._

[1551] _Ib._, p. 408. German Preface (1548, compiled from Luther’s own words).

[1552] _Ib._, p. 412.

[1553] _Ib._, p. 297 (1531).

[1554] _Ib._, p. 369.

[1555] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 157.

[1556] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 10.

[1557] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 48.

[1558] Vol. iv., p. 329 ff.

[1559] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49.

[1560] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 74.

[1561] To Spalatin, Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 680.

[1562] To the same, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 110 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[1563] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 452; Erl. ed., 18², p. 339, Sermon on Charity, 1532.

[1564] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 59, p. 141 f.

[1565] To Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 338.

[1566] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 127.

[1567] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 363.

[1568] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 173.

[1569] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 139.

[1570] _Ib._, from Veit Dietrich’s collection.

[1571] “Enarratio in Ps. xlv.,” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 223 _sq._

[1572] July 10, 1518, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.

[1573] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 229 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 347.

[1574] _Ib._, p. 107=144.

[1575] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 560.

[1576] Cp. Janssen, “History of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 218.

[1577] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 386. After Oct. 24, 1545.

[1578] P. 402.

[1579] P. 391.

[1580] P. 401.

[1581] See vol. iv., p. 68 f.

[1582] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 417.

[1583] Above, p. 83.

[1584] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 396 ff. See above, p. 260 f., on the difference between Luther’s doctrine on the Sacrament and that of Melanchthon.

[1585] P. 415.

[1586] We may compare this with some other true remarks of Luther’s: “It is the way with all heretics to tamper first with only one article and then gradually to deny all.” After a comparison with the ring which on the slightest break ceases to be a ring, and the bell which ever so small a crack makes to lose its sound, he proceeds: “You may say: ‘Dear Luther, it is to be hoped ... that God will not be so severe and cruel as to damn men on account of one article if they faithfully keep all the rest.’ For this is the way not only that the heretics console themselves, but also other sinners.... In reply to this we must say that it cannot be hoped that God will overlook His poor, blind, wretched creatures’ behaving so madly and proudly towards their Creator and Lord.” He insists that “it is impossible to deny or blaspheme a single word without thereby accusing the Divine revelation of falsehood” (p. 419). The heretics are, according to him, godless fools whom God “will some day judge much more severely,” because they have His Word on their lips.

[1587] P. 397.

[1588] P. 404.

[1589] P. 402.

[1590] To Martin Bucer, Oct. 14, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 260: “_salutabis Dn. Ioannem Sturmium et Iohannem Calvinum reverenter, quorum libellos cum singulari voluptate legi_.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 577. See below, p. 401.

[1591] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4] p. 881.

[1592] Feb. 26, 1540, “Calvini opp.,” 11 (“Corp. ref.,” p. 24: “_Si inter se comparantur, scis ipse, quanto intervallo Lutherus excellat_.”) Calvin finds fault namely with Zwingli’s “profane doctrine” of the sacraments. “Calvini opp.,” 11, p. 438. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4] p. 881.

[1593] Loofs, _ib._, p. 887.

[1594] He writes of the treatment of the Catholics in England: that all the Catholics who had risen in rebellion against Edward VI and refused to give up their superstition “méritent bien d’être réprimés par le glaive qui vous est commis, vu qu’ils s’attaquent, non seulement au roi, mais à Dieu.” “Opp.,” 13 (“Corp. ref.,” 41), p. 68. W. Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, ed. G. Kawerau, 1907, p. 188, and still better, N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 250.

[1595] “DG.,”^[4] p. 889.

[1596] It is known only from Calvin’s letter, Nov. 20, 1539, “Opp.,” 10 (“Corp. ref.,” 38), p. 432. Cp. Enders-Kawerau, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 261.

[1597] To Bucer, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 260. Above, p. 399, n. 4.

[1598] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 603 f., which also contains an account of Luther’s remarks.

[1599] “Jesus Christ nous donne en la cene la propre substance de son corps et son sang.” “Opp.” 5 (“Corp. ref.” 33), p. 440.

[1600] Loofs, _ib._, p. 890 f., from the “_Institutio_,” l. 4, c. 17, n. 32, “Opp.,” 2 (“Corp. ref.,” 30), p. 1033: “_quamvis in nos non ingrediatur ipsa Christi caro_.”

[1601] “Opp. Calvini,” 7 (“Corp. ref.,” 35), p. 689 _sq._ Cp. Möller-Kawerau,³ p. 185.

[1602] For Josel and the efforts referred to, see Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Juden,” Berlin, 1910 (“Neue Studien zur Gesch. der Theol. und der Kirche,” ed. N. Bonwetsch and R. Seeberg, 10), p. 62 f.—Luther to Josel, June 11, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 186, also in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 419 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 240).

[1603] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 227; cp. 4, p. 46. Lewin, _ib._, p. 73.

[1604] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 417 ff.

[1605] Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” 1, p. 322.

[1606] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 276. “Die drei Symbola,” printed 1538, written early in 1537.

[1607] Lewin, _ib._, p. 66. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 419.

[1608] Lewin, _ib._, p. 74.

[1609] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 99 ff. and 275 ff.

[1610] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 252, in “Von den Jüden.”

[1611] _Ib._

[1612] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 177 f., “Von den Jüden.” The rest of the passage (“that Bible only should you explore,” etc.) is given in vol. iv., p. 285 f., where we had to quote some of the above writings against the Jews in describing Luther’s mode of controversy and the violence of his angry language. Cp. also vol. iii., p. 270. Since in the selection of these passages the object was to show to what depths Luther could descend, it is hardly necessary to point out that the passages quoted are about the strongest to be met with in these two works, the remainder being written in a somewhat calmer and more seemly vein.

[1613] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 141. “Von den Jüden.”

[1614] _Ib._, p. 342 f. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”

[1615] _Ib._, p. 282. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”

[1616] Cp. vol. iv., p. 285 f.

[1617] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”

[1618] _Ib._, p. 224. “Von den Jüden.”

[1619] _Ib._, p. 226. “Von den Jüden.”

[1620] _Ib._, p. 285 f. “Vom Scham Hamphoras.”

[1621] Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Juden,” p. 103.

[1622] _Ib._, p. 104.

[1623] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 120. “Von den Jüden.” Cp. pp. 182 and 230, and Lewin, p. 92.

[1624] P. 182. “Von den Jüden.”

[1625] Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 242.

[1626] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 325 f. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen mit Bucer,” 2, p. 224, and Lewin, _ib._, p. 98. The latter, though a Rabbi, does not mind letting his opponents, Luther included, speak for themselves.—Bullinger in the letter in question says of Luther’s third writing against the Jews, viz. his “On the Last Words of David”: “Everyone must be astonished at the harsh and presumptuous spirit of the man so haughtily displayed in the ‘Last Words of David.’ That such a theologian, after having arrived at his years, should be guilty of such extravagant acts and writings is a matter that can only be left to the just Judgment of God. The opinion of posterity will be that Luther was not only a man, but a man ruled by criminal passions.”

[1627] Cp. above, p. 115, and vol. iv., p. 325. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 262 f.

[1628] Lewin, _ib._, p. 99 f.

[1629] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291 ff., 296, 305.

[1630] _Ib._, p. 308. On the indecent meaning of ‘Scham Hamperes,’ see above, p. 406.

[1631] P. 309.

[1632] For further particulars, see Lewin, _op. cit._, p. 86.

[1633] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 314 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 45 ff.

[1634] Sermon of Feb. 14, 1524, _ib._, 15, p. 447=65, p. 125 f.: He would “tell them that He [Christ] was a man like any other man, sent by God”; after this he would lead the would-be converts further. Lewin, _ib._, p. 36.

[1635] Lewin, _ib._, p. 31.

[1636] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 309 f.; Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 92 f.

[1637] P. 36.

[1638] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 196. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 131. In both the passage begins: “Should I again baptise a Jew,” thus pointing to an unfortunate experience of Luther’s own, which is related more in detail in Schlaginhaufen’s report. In the corresponding passage in “Colloq.,” ed., Bindseil, 1, p. 460, we read further: “_sicut fecit ille, qui hic Wittebergæ baptizabatur_.”

[1639] Passages in Lewin, _ib._, p. 91.

[1640] _Ib._, p. 57.

[1641] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 296.

[1642] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 100. “Von den Jüden.” Cp. the quotations given by Lewin, p. 89, n. 3.

[1643] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 363 ff. Sermon of Sept. 25, 1539.

[1644] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 442. But cp. p. 445.

[1645] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 259. “Von den Jüden.” Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 265.

[1646] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 303. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.”

[1647] “To the venerable brothers at Venice, Vicenza, and Treviso,” June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 569: “_Mundus, Turca, Iudaeus, Papa furunt blasphemando nomen Domini, vastando regnum eius_,” etc.

[1648] Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Juden,” p. 45, ns. 2, 3, 4. Cp. the “murderers’ den” in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 40.

[1649] Lewin, _ib._, p. 77.

[1650] _Ib._, p. 72. In “Vom Schem Hamphoras.” See above, p. 406.

[1651] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 1 ff.

[1652] _Ib._, p. 3.

[1653] P. 6 f.

[1654] P. 11.

[1655] P. 104.

[1656] “Corp, ref.,” 5, p. 164 _sq._ Lewin, _op. cit._, p. 106.

[1657] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 89.

[1658] _Ib._, p. 87.

[1659] _Ib._, p. 80.

[1660] _Ib._, p. 92.

[1661] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 301 f. Winter of 1542-43.

[1662] _Ib._, p. 149. June, 1540.

[1663] “_Versor iam in transferendo libro qui vocatur Confutatio Alcorani Mahumetis. Deus bone, quanta est ira tua super ecclesiam, sed maxime contra Turcam et Mahumetem! Superat fidem bestialitas Mahumetis._” To Jakob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 452.

[1664] Preface and Warnung in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 189 ff.

[1665] _Ib._, p. 200. Warnung.

[1666] _Ib._

[1667] _Ib._, p. 192.

[1668] P. 199.

[1669] P. 202 ff.

[1670] Cp. our vol. iii., pp. 78 ff., 91 f.

[1671] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 196 f.

[1672] This he said, according to Wanckel’s Notes in the Wittenberg copy of the caricatures; cp. C. Wendeler, “Archiv f. Literaturgesch.,” 14, 1, 1886, p. 18: “_Et sint meum testamentum_.” From “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 951.

[1673] May 8, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 740: “_De tribus furiis nihil habebam in animo, cum eas papæ appingerem, nisi ut atrocitatem abominationis papalis atrocissimis verbis in lingua latina exprimerem_.” The word “_appingere_,” of course, merely means that he suggested the scene. See below, p. 427 f.

[1674] Cp. P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern,” Berlin, 1892. This writer says, p. 71: “Unfortunately our knowledge of Cranach compels us to say that the pictures, as they have come down to us, cannot be regarded as Cranach’s work,” etc. See allusion below to “Master Lucas,” p. 429.

[1675] Copies of the set of pictures with nine, or ten, woodcuts are to be found in the Marienbibliothek at Halle, in the Lutherhalle at Wittenberg and in the Lutherbibliothek at Worms. No. 562* f. 28 in the British Museum with _fourteen_ pictures is a made-up copy, four cuts of which are not uniform with the rest of the set. [Note of the English Editor.]

[1676] Cp. Köstlin, “M. Luther”², p. 614. In the 5th edition the passage is worded otherwise.

[1677] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.

[1678] The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 840.

[1679] “Martin Luther”², p. 614, without the verse. The 5th ed., 2, p. 602, again runs differently.

[1680] See vol. iii., pp. 151 f., 355 f. The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 837.

[1681] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 177. Above, p. 383 f.—According to the Table-Talk (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239) Luther was once shown a picture of the Pope being hanged on his keys. Possibly this is the same caricature of the Pope, which, according to Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 64, he altered and amended with “_technæ veraces et odiosæ_” on Good Friday, 1538. It has no connection with the present picture on which the keys do not appear.

[1682] Luther wrote a special work in 1545 on the supposed deed of Alexander III. Others with less reason take the picture to represent Gregory VII and Henry IV; the verses are of quite a general character. [Was it not rather suggested by an incident in the pontificate of Alexander’s English predecessor, viz. Adrian IV? Note to English Edition.]

[1683] Bl. 177´ and 178.

[1684] Wendeler (above, p. 422, n. 1), p. 33. Lehfeldt (above, p. 422, n. 3), p. 71.

[1685] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 170; Erl. ed., 26², p. 316, in “Von der Widdertauffe,” 1528.

[1686] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 701 ff. _Ib._, the pictures. This ridicule of the Papacy greatly appealed to him (“_mire placet_”), as he writes to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 162).

[1687] “Werke,” _ib._, 19, p. 7 ff., with the woodcuts in which the pig plays a part.

[1688] Pp. 67, 69.

[1689] April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 727.

[1690] Wendeler, p. 30. From Sermon 12 in “Lutherus Theander,” 1569.

[1691] “Erklerung der schendlichen Sünde derjenigen,” etc. Eight pages, 1548.

[1692] Bl. A2. Denifle-Weiss, p. 841.

[1693] He spoke in much the same way to Wanckel according to the passage cited on p. 422, n. 1.

[1694] The letter cited on p. 422, n. 2. On the strength of this letter, Lehfeldt (_ib._, p. 71) comes to the conclusion that Luther gave the draughtsman detailed instructions for his work.

[1695] June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.

[1696] Wanckel’s statement, see p. 422, n. 1.

[1697] July 1, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743. “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 952.

[1698] “_Imaginationes diræ_,” for which reason Jonas had decided to give up wine. _Ib._

[1699] June 15, 1545, “Briefe,” _ib._: He had just started on the continuation of the “Wider das Bapstum” when, “_ecce irruit calculus meus, utinam non meus sed etiam papæ et Gomorrhæorum cardinalium_!”

[1700] To Lauterbach, July 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 745.

[1701] June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 742. When he here speaks of “Master Lucas” and, in the following letter, of “_Lucas pictor_,” he is certainly alluding to the celebrated Lucas Cranach. On his part in the matter see above. Luther’s words mean no more than that the Master had something to do with the particular woodcut under consideration.

[1702] June 15, 1545, _ib._, p. 743.

[1703] Above, vol. ii., p. 152 f.; iii., p. 233 ff., and in particular, iv., p. 322 ff.

[1704] To Prior Leib of Rebdorf, 1529, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1², p. 588, and J. Schlecht, “Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien,” 1909, p. 12.

[1705] A. Harnack, “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], 1910, p. 861.

[1706] Cp. the Protestants already quoted, vol. iii., pp. 8, 15-19; vol. iv., p. 483 ff.; see also above, p. 9 ff.

[1707] _Ib._, p. 861.

[1708] The words still occur in the 3rd ed. of the “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 810. In the 4th the ending is different.

[1709] _Ib._, 3^[4], p. 682 ff.

[1710] _Ib._, p. 684.

[1711] P. 685.

[1712] “Evang. Kirchenztng.,” 1830, p. 20.

[1713] “Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, pp. 88 f., 60 f. Cp. 1, pp. 80 f., 93 f.

[1714] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3^[4], p. 814. Harnack’s statement concerning the “life” of the old formulas of the faith in Protestantism is significant: “We have to thank Luther, that the formulas of the faith possess a living force in Protestantism to-day, and, indeed, in the West, nowhere else. Here men live in them, vindicate them or oppose them.” _Ib._

[1715] See above, p. 356 ff. Cp. vol. iv., p. 398 ff.

[1716] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3^[4], p. 683, n. 1.

[1717] _Ib._, p. 858.

[1718] “Leitfaden der DG.”^[4], 1906, p. 743.

[1719] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 230, Kirchenpostille.

[1720] _Ib._, p. 745 f.

[1721] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3^[4], p. 827 f.

[1722] _Ib._, p. 868.

[1723] P. 879.

[1724] P. 879.

[1725] P. 858.

[1726] For the reason why, see J. Mausbach, “Die kathol. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, pp. 215 ff., 229 f.

[1727] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 852.

[1728] Cp. Mausbach, _ib._, p. 137 ff.

[1729] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 868.

[1730] P. 851.

[1731] P. 855.

[1732] P. 856.

[1733] Cp. Mausbach, _ib._, p. 243 ff.

[1734] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 834.

[1735] P. 869.

[1736] P. 870 f. Harnack congratulates Luther on his opposition to the fanatics, and concludes: “The German Reformation banished the fanatics, but, in their stead, it had to face the rationalists, the atheists and modern positive theology,” p. 871.

[1737] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 747.

[1738] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 134 f. Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.

[1739] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 849.

[1740] _Ib._, p. 835.

[1741] P. 836.

[1742] P. 859 f. Harnack refers here to the passage in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 16, p. 217; Erl. ed., 35, p. 207 f. (Exposition of certain chapters of Exodus): “The sophists [Schoolmen] depicted Christ as God and as Man.... But Christ is not called Christ because He has two natures. What does this matter to me? But He bears this grand and consoling name on account of the office and work He undertook. That He is by nature God and Man concerns Himself, but that He is my Saviour and Redeemer is for my comfort and salvation.”

[1743] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 860.

[1744] “Luthers Lehre über Freiheit und Ausrüstung des natürlichen Menschen bis 1525. Eine dogmatische Kritik,” Göttingen, 1901, pp. 19 f., 49.

[1745] Cp. A. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900, Introd., p. 1 ff., where the quotations in question occur.

[1746] _Ib._

[1747] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 124 f.

[1748] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 684 f.

[1749] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 463.

[1750] _Ib._, p. 698 f.

[1751] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 112. Preface to the New Testament.

[1752] “Luthers Stellung zu Erasmus, Zwingli,” etc. (reprint from the “Deutsch-evang. Blätter,” 1906, Heft 1-3), p. 28.

[1753] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343.

[1754] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 136.

[1755] “Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., Suppl. vol. ii., p. 44, N. 54 to Luther’s “De votis monasticis,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 583, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252: “_Si quis Mariam neget virginem, aut alium quemvis singularem articulum fidei non crediderit, damnatur, etiam si alioqui ipsius Virginis et virginitatem et sanctitatem haberet_.”

[1756] _Ib._, p. 44 f.

[1757] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 414 f. Kurtz Bekenntnis. A similar passage occurs in “Comm. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, pp. 334, _seq._, 336.

[1758] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 399.

[1759] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 189.

[1760] “Formerly it had not been the way with Martinus Eleutherius to make eternal salvation depend on agreement with a single dogma, and even in the Preface to Romans he had meant by justifying faith something very different.”

[1761] _Ib._, p. 189.

[1762] P. 222.

[1763] P. 197.

[1764] P. 189.

[1765] “Luthers Stellung” (see p. 445, n. 4), p. 28.

[1766] _Ib._, p. 27 f.

[1767] P. 28.

[1768] From p. 808.

[1769] From p. 871.

[1770] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 864, n.

[1771] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 740 f. Quoted by Harnack, p. 864.

[1772] “Luthers Lehre über Freiheit,” etc. (p. 443, n. 1), p. 47.

[1773] _Ib._, p. 48.

[1774] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 877 f.

[1775] See above, p. 7 ff.

[1776] P. 843 n.

[1777] P. 884.

[1778] Above, p. 443, n. 2, p. 6.

[1779] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 719 ff.

[1780] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 883 f.

[1781] _Ib._, p. 884 f.

[1782] P. 887. Harnack here quotes a passage to the point from “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 51 _seq._, where the “Instruction” seeks to pacify those who fancied that, by the above statement, “our previous teaching was being repudiated.” Melanchthon says that, “the rude, common man” must learn to accept “commandment, law, fear,” etc., as “articles of faith” which precede penance.

[1783] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 884.

[1784] Above vol. iii., p. 323 ff.

[1785] P. 885 f.

[1786] P. 886.

[1787] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 886.

[1788] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 775 ff.

[1789] Cp. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral,” pp. 214 ff., 226 ff.

[1790] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 237 ff.

[1791] _Ib._, p. 774. Cp. pp. 702, 706, 721, 769.

[1792] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 239. Cp. _ib._, 63, p. 112, where Luther points out that the Gospel condemns works in so far as they are intended to make us pious and to save us.

[1793] P. 233.

[1794] P. 228.

[1795] P. 237.

[1796] _Ib._

[1797] “Leitfaden der DG.,”^[4], p. 769 f. Cp. “Comm. in Gal.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 415 f. Irmischer, 1, p. 382 _seq._

[1798] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, p. 367 f.: “Whoever works more and suffers more will also have a more glorious reward.” _Ib._, 58, p. 354 f.: “Opera ... accidentaliter glorificabunt personam.”

[1799] _Ib._, p. 771, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, pp. 361, 366.

[1800] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 259.

[1801] _Ib._, p. 237.

[1802] And yet Luther, on June 1, 1537, boldly denounced the Thesis “_Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem_.” “Disputationen,” ed. Drews, _ib._, p. 159. Loofs, _ib._, pp. 770, 857.

[1803] _Ib._, p. 770.

[1804] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 178 ff.

[1805] _Ib._, p. 179.

[1806] He also defends the Law in the same way against the Antinomians, speaking very much in Melanchthon’s style. Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 861.

[1807] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 181.

[1808] _Ib._, p. 183. Cp. above, p. 26 f.

[1809] Cp. _ib._, 63, pp. 113 ff., 125, 134. Preface to the translation of Romans.

[1810] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 566, on this Preface. See also above, pp. 39 f., 47 ff.

[1811] _Ib._, p. 771.

[1812] _Ib._, p. 778.

[1813] P. 781 f.

[1814] P. 771.

[1815] Sermo 158, c. 2.

[1816] “Leitfaden,”^[4], p. 773 f.

[1817] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 870.

[1818] _Ib._, p. 900.

[1819] P. 770.

[1820] P. 856 f. Cp. G. Kruger’s opinion, vol. iii., p. 352, n. 2.

[1821] P. 857.

[1822] P. 868.

[1823] Harnack (p. 880) refers to Müller, _ib._, p. 321 f., i.e. to Luther’s Schmalkalden Articles of 1537, where we read (“Symbol. Bücher,” par. 3, Art. 8, ed. Müller-Kolde^[10]): “_Ita præmuniamus nos adversum enthusiastas ... quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta_.” But similar passages occur in the book Harnack also quotes, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten” (1525), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 62 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 134 ff.,

## particularly 136 ff.=208 ff.

[1824] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 879 f.

[1825] _Ib._, p. 881.

[1826] P. 881 f.

[1827] “Where faith is not present [baptism] remains nothing but a barren sign.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 221; Erl. ed., 21, p. 140. Larger Catechism, Part IV: on Baptism.

[1828] “We bring the child for this [Baptism], thinking and hoping that it believes, and praying God to give it the faith.”

[1829] _Ib._, p. 882. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487 ff., the works of the Protestant theologians: J. Gottschick, O. Scheel, E. Rietschel, E. Haupt, W. Herrmann and E. Bunge, on how Baptism suffered in Luther’s system.

[1830] _Ib._, p. 894.

[1831] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 224; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143.

[1832] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 223. Cp. on Zwingli, vol. iii., p. 379 ff., and below, p. 465, n. 1.

[1833] Of the doctrine of Impanation, Loofs (“Leitfaden,” p. 905) says, that the famous formulary on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ: _sub pane, in pane, cum pane_, cannot be traced to Luther, but was only gathered after his day from the Larger and Smaller Catechism (Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 223, 315; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143, 19).

[1834] “Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 894.

[1835] _Ib._, p. 875. Loofs speaks (p. 920) of the “christological enormities inseparable from Luther’s doctrine of the sacrament.”

[1836] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 811.

[1837] Cp. Luther’s letter to Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 295, where he expresses himself opposed to such private communions, though tolerating them for the time being. Communion in the church three or four times a year would suffice in order to be able to die “fortified by the Word.” In a time of public sickness, such as the plague, the communion of the sick would become an insupportable burden, and further the Church must not be enslaved (“_facere servilem_”) to the sacraments, particularly in the case of those who had previously despised them.

[1838] In the work “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts” (1523) Luther says that “each one should be left free to adore or not, and that those who do not adore the sacrament are not to be termed heretics, for it is not commanded, Christ not being there in His glory as He is in heaven.” Those do best who forget “their duty towards the sacrament” and therefore do not adore, because there is “danger” in adoration. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 448 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 410 f.—Still, in 1544, writing to the Princes Johann, George and Joachim of Anhalt, he says: “_Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia tractaretur et adoraretur etiam?_” Prince Joachim declared that he “had seen Luther kneel down and reverently adore the sacrament at the elevation.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 (Notes by Besold, 1544).

[1839] He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the elevation. “_Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari._” The dignity of the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p. 146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.

[1840] “If I am right,” says G. Kawerau, “the peculiar Melanchthonian form of the doctrine of the sacrament is pretty widely spread at the present time among Evangelicals, whether theologians or laity, as the form under which Luther’s religious views on the sacrament are to be accepted,” etc. “Luthers Stellung” (above, p. 445, n. 4), p. 41. On this point Melanchthon, as is notorious, really agreed with Zwingli. Of Zwingli, owing to his denial of the Real Presence, Luther wrote: “I, for my part, regard Zwingli as an unbeliever” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 342; Erl. ed., 30, p. 225), and for the same cause he “would show him only that charity which we are bound to display even to our foes.” To J. Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 354 f.

[1841] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 f.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 f.

[1842] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 872.

[1843] P. 830 f. Cp. above, p. 44 ff.

[1844] P. 855, n. 1.

[1845] Freiburg, 1887, p. 3.

[1846] _Ib._

[1847] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 866.

[1848] _Ib._, cp. p. 865: “Luther believed he was fighting merely against the errors and abuses of the mediæval Church. It is true he frequently declared that he was not pleased with the ‘dear Fathers,’ and that all of them had gone astray; he was not, however, clear-sighted enough to say to himself, that, if the Fathers of the Church had erred, then their definitions at the Councils could not possibly embody the truth.... Unconsciously he himself still laboured under the after-effects of the theory that the outward Church is the real authority.”

[1849] _Ib._, p. 834.

[1850] P. 819.

[1851] P. 834.

[1852] P. 820.

[1853] P. 861.

[1854] P. 871.

[1855] P. 875.

[1856] P. 896. Harnack takes great care to prevent his criticism of Luther giving rise to any impression that he himself is favourably disposed or indifferent towards Catholic dogma and Catholic life. He is shocked at the attitude of Erasmus, the defender of the Catholic view of man’s free will even under Divine Grace, and declares his Diatribe against the “_servum arbitrium_” a “profoundly irreligious work,” whereas Luther “had restored religion to religion” (see above, vol. ii., p. 292, n. 4).—He asks: “What does original sin represent to Catholics?” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 749), as though Catholic dogma discarded it. He mocks at the “whole, half and quarter dogmas” of Catholics (_ib._, p. 764) and at their handbooks of theology (p. 763). The Catholic “system of religion,” so Harnack teaches, gave rise to “a perversion of the moral principles” (p. 749); “this system still works disaster both in theology and in ethics.... Since the 17th century the imparting of forgiveness of sins has been made a regular art.” “But conscience is able to discover God even in its idol” (_ib._). In other passages he places “devotion to the Sacred Heart” and “Mariolatry” on a par with the veneration of idols, though he admits that in Catholics “the Christian sense is not actually stifled by their idols” (p. 748). Only in these devotions and in the anxiety-breeding confessional does piety still live (_ib._).

Of the Pope he exclaims: “The Church has an infallible master, she has no need to trouble about her history, the living voice alone is right.” He asks whether “the mediæval doctrine, now condemned to insignificance, would not gradually disappear,” whether in time the Pope would not be credited “with a peculiar miraculous power,” and whether ultimately he would not be regarded as a “sort of incarnation of the Godhead,” etc. (p. 759).

“The saintly and so holy Liguori is the very opposite of Luther.... All his mortifications only entangled him more and more in the conviction that no conscience can find rest save in the authority of a confessor.... Thanks to Liguori, absolute ethical scepticism now prevailed, not only in morals but even in theology.... In a number of questions, adultery, perjury and murder inclusive, he had known how to make light of what was really most serious” (p. 755). The doctrine of Probabilism was to blame for this, according to Harnack. Cp. J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, p. 163 ff., and the “Kölnische Volksztng.,” 1910, Nos. 485 and 571. The latter passage contains further proofs from Harnack’s “Dogmengesch.” of his insulting language and his lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrines, practices and institutions.

[1857] Of the Church-Postils the first half of the winter part up to the Epiphany had been published by Luther as early as 1522, and then continued down to Easter. The second part (summer portion) had been brought out in 1527 by his friend Stephen Roth. The sermons on the Epistles were only included in the collection in 1543, when the new edition appeared. W. Köhler begins his critical edition of the book of Church-Postils in Weim. ed., 10 (1911).

[1858] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 401 ff.

[1859] Cp. his words to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247: “_Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et catechismum._” Cp. above, p. 370 f.

[1860] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[1861] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 18 ff.

[1862] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 23, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 148. “Das diese Wort ... noch fest stehen.”

[1863] To Nicholas Gerbel at Strasburg, Nov. 24, 1535 (1536?), “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 127.

[1864] Vol. i., p. 175 ff.

[1865] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 548; Erl. ed., 45, p. 217.

[1866] _Ib._, p. 573=250.

[1867] _Ib._, 2, pp. 128-130=45, pp. 204-207.

[1868] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 28 ff.

[1869] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189.

[1870] _Ib._, p. 34 f.=195 f.

[1871] _Ib._, p. 37=199.

[1872] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 2, p. 80 ff., 9, p. 122 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 159 ff.

[1873] _Ib._, 15², p. 318 ff.

[1874] _Ib._, 23, p. 215 ff.

[1875] _Ib._, p. 221.

[1876] _Ib._, 32, p. 75 ff.

[1877] _Ib._, p. 89 f. Cp. above, p. 418 ff.

[1878] _Ib._

[1879] P. 77.

[1880] P. 84.

[1881] P. 97.

[1882] “Briefe,” 5, p. 169, Feb., 1539.

[1883] “Werke,” Erl, ed., 7², p. 21.

[1884] _Ib._, p. 22.

[1885] _Ib._, 15², p. 319.

[1886] _Ib._, 23, p. 217.

[1887] _Ib._, p. 222.

[1888] P. 223.

[1889] P. 215.

[1890] Cp. _ib._, p. 215 f.

[1891] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 126; Erl. ed., 21, p. 28.

[1892] _Ib._, 7, pp. 551 ff., 558, 565 f., 568, 580, 596, 599, 602=45, pp. 222 ff., 231, 240 f., 244, 259, 280, 285, 289.

[1893] _Ib._, p. 584=265; cp. p. 586=267.

[1894] _Ib._, 2, p. 80=21, p. 160.

[1895] Cp. _ib._, 30, 1, p. 160 ff.=21, p. 69 ff.

[1896] Above, p. 84 ff.

[1897] Great Catechism. Preface of 1530. See below, n. 6.

[1898] _Ib._

[1899] To Martin Görlitz, Jan. 15, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 43: “_pro rudibus paganis_.”

[1900] See above, vol. iv., p. 234.

[1901] The passage first given by G. Buchwald, now in the Weim. Luther ed., 30, 1, p. 428 f.

[1902] Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 239 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 5 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 349 ff., etc.

[1903] Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 375 ff.

[1904] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).

[1905] Preface to the Smaller Catechism.

[1906] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 2, quoted by the editor in the Introduction to the Catechisms.

[1907] Cp. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 442 f. On the new Confession see above, vol. iv., p. 248 ff.

[1908] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 134 f., 188, 190; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 36 f., 101, 103.

[1909] Cp. vol. i., p. 187 ff., etc.

[1910] Cp. the “Bibliographie zum Grossen Katechismus,” by O. Albrecht and J. Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 499 ff.; cp. _ib._, p. 666 ff.

[1911] For proofs, see Th. Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. lxiii.

[1912] “Historien,” Bl. 63´.

[1913] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 655.

[1914] “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 518.

[1915] We may recall his statement that he would like to see all his books destroyed except two: “_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum_.” To Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247. See above, p. 471, n. 2.

[1916] New edition by Buchwald, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 1 ff.

[1917] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 444.

[1918] Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 61: “Just as at Wittenberg and in many other churches the useful custom still prevails of preaching on this Catechism four times a year for a fortnight, and of daily assembling for that purpose the children, servants and artisans. Many ministers also teach the Catechism on Sundays in addition to the Gospel, and assemble the children in summer for the recitation and explaining of the Catechism, as is, thanks be to God, the custom with us to-day.”

[1919] _Ib._, Bl. 62´.

[1920] O. Albrecht, “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers vom Jahre 1536,” 1905, p. 94.

[1921] Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 441.

[1922] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl. ed., 22, p. 232 (cp. p. 75=231, and Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 434).

[1923] Thus Albrecht in his introduction to his new edition of the two Catechisms of Luther, Weim. ed., p. 435; he refers also to Falk’s and Battenberg’s editions of Wolff’s “Beichtbüchlein” (see vol. iv., p. 254) and to J. Greving’s “Zum vorreformatorischen Beichtunterricht” (“Veröffentl. aus dem K.-h. Seminar zu München,” 3, 1, 1907, pp. 46-81).

[1924] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 436.

[1925] _Ib._

[1926] Cp. Weim. ed., 26, p. 237.

[1927] “Historien,” Bl. 63. Mathesius, however, will only admit that, on the whole, “some fragments of the Catechism” had been retained in Popery. Luther’s admirer cannot even recall that in Popery he “had ever heard ... the Ten Commandments, Creed, Our Father or Baptism spoken of from the pulpit.... Of the absolution and consolation arising from a believing reception of the Body and Blood of Christ I had to my knowledge never heard a word all my days before I came to Wittenberg, either in the churches or the schools, just as I cannot recall having seen any written or printed explanation of the Catechism in Popery” (Bl. 63 and 63´).—The ignorance of the facts of the case revealed in the latter statement is met with elsewhere in the rest of the passage of Mathesius’s writing; he may have been unfortunate in his own personal experience, but he certainly exaggerates. That, before Luther’s day, preaching was not everywhere sufficiently supplemented by catechetical instruction was undoubtedly to be regretted.

[1928] Albrecht, _ib._, referring to P. Bahlmann, “Deutschlands Katechismen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrh.,” 1894, p. 38, and F. Cohrs, “Evangel. Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion,” (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.,” vol. 20 ff.; vol. 23, 1902, pp. 233, 271). For popular religious instruction before Luther’s day, see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 1, p. 25 ff.; F. Cohrs, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, p. 135 ff., and F. J. Knecht, “KL.,” 7², 1891, p. 288 ff.; cp. 249 ff.

[1929] See above, p. 134 f., and vol. iv., p. 251.

[1930] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 444.

[1931] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 212; Erl. ed., 21, p. 128.

[1932] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 445, referring to Geffcken’s “Der Bilderkatechismus des ausgehenden MA.,” 1855, pp. 86, 98 f., 108, 177, etc., and particularly to Thalhofer, “Die katechetischen Lehrstücke im MA.,” (“Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. deutsche Erziehungs- und Schulgesch.,” 15, 1905, p. 188 ff.)

[1933] Cp. Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 454.

[1934] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 643 (1523).

[1935] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 454 f.

[1936] F. J. Knecht, _loc. cit._, p. 292 f. The “Discipulus” was compiled as early as 1416. Cp. “Zeitschr. f. kath. Th.,” 1902, p. 419 ff.

[1937] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 561.

[1938] Facsimile, _ib._, p. 241, and better still in Otto Albrecht’s “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers,” 1905.

[1939] “Katechismusversuche” (see above, p. 491, n. 1), p. 241.

[1940] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 435-437.

[1941] _Ib._, 30, 3, p. 567; Erl. ed., 26², p. 383 f.

[1942] _Ib._, 30, 1, p. 130=21, p. 31. Cp. above, p. 147 f., the passage taken from Luther’s “Deudsche Messe.”

[1943] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “_Bibliam græcam et hebræam lego_.” To the same, June 10, 1521, _ib._, p. 171: “_Hebraica et Græca disco et sine intermissione scribo_.”

[1944] To Johann Lang, _ib._, p. 256.

[1945] _Ib._, p. 271.

[1946] _Ib._, p. 325.

[1947] Cp. _ib._, n. 4 in Enders.

[1948] Dec. 12 (?), 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 37: “_Bestias istas describas et nomines per species suas_.” There follows the list.

[1949] See the list of Luther’s writings at the end of our vol. vi.

[1950] Feb. 23, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 300.

[1951] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” 1530, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 636; Erl. ed., 65, p. 109.

[1952] “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 277, n. 4.

[1953] June 14, 1528, _ib._, p. 291.

[1954] Paul Pietsch, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., “Deutsche Bibel,” 2.

[1955] _Ib._, p. xxiv, in the preface by K. Drescher, the present chief editor of the Weimar edition.

[1956] Pastor Risch, “Welche Aufgabe stellt die Lutherbibel der wissenschaftl. Forschung?” (“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, pp. 59 ff., 116 ff.), p. 129 f. “Die deutsche Bibel in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung,” 1907, by the same author.

[1957] Cp. Risch, _ib._, p. 121 f. O. Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel” (“RGl. Volksbücher,” iv., 13, 1910), pp. 8, 14, 24, 31, 44.

[1958] Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 32.

[1959] “Historien,” Bl. 160´ ff. G. Lœsche, “Joh. Mathesius’ Ausgewählte Werke,” 3 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” 9), p. 315 ff.

[1960] Discovered at Jena by Buchwald, but only known so far in extracts. See p. 501, n. 3, and “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 353, n. 12.

[1961] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 139 _sqq._

[1962] _Ib._, p. 142. See vol. iv., p. 109.

[1963] Cp. what O. Reichert says in “Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1521 bis 1541,” in Koffmane, “Die hds. Ueberlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1, 1907, p. 97 ff., and Risch’s Articles (above, p. 499, n. 1), p. 78 ff.

[1964] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 41, where examples are given from the notes and emendations to be published later.

[1965] Weim. ed., 1 and 2.

[1966] Reichert says, _ib._, p. 26: “There is hardly a more interesting document to be found in the domain of research concerned with Luther’s German Bible.” He gives a facsimile of Ps. xlv. (xliv.), xlvi. (xlv.). Four facsimiles in Thiele, vol. 2.

[1967] _Ib._, 65, p. 110, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” Sep. 8, 1530. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 14, p. 401 ff.

[1968] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 313. Table-Talk.

[1969] _Ib._, p. 421. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 378.

[1970] K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer, “Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 8-12 Jahrh.,” 1864, p. xxix.

[1971] Cp. Risch, p. 138, in the article mentioned above, p. 499, n. 1.

[1972] H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” 1907, p. 30, remarks: The orthodox period of Lutheranism venerated “Luther’s translation of the Bible with an admiration as boundless and naive as had it been a palladium.”

[1973] Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 143, who there (in the first edition, though not in the second) points out that even Grimm’s colleagues and successors did not share his own warm appreciation of the language of the German Bible. According to Müllenhoff the foundation of New High German had been laid a century and a half before Luther, who represents, not its beginning but its zenith period (see pp. 504, note 3). “If in spite of this,” says Böhmer, “it cannot be denied that the German of Luther played an important part in reducing the German language to unity, still this was not Luther’s doing.” “The stress laid by Protestants on the language of Luther undoubtedly did more to hamper than to further the victory of the common language” (p. 144). “Luther himself was the first to protest against being considered the founder of a new German tongue” (p. 145).

[1974] _Ib._, p. 132 f.

[1975] Preface to the first volume of the Bible, p. x.

[1976] Müllenhoff, etc., _ib._, p. xxvii ff.

[1977] P. 223 f.

[1978] P. 224.

[1979] P. 222.

[1980] Cp. Zerener Holm, “Studien über das beginnende Eindringen der Lutherischen Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Literatur,” 1911 (“Archiv. f. RG.,” Ergänzungsband, 4).

[1981] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.

[1982] _Ib._

[1983] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 150.

[1984] Jakob Grimm, “Deutsche Grammatik,” 1, 1², 1870, Preface, p. x.

[1985] In the articles referred to above, p. 499, n. 1 (p. 137 f.).

[1986] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114. “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.” Before this he had said: “Of what an art and labour translating is I have full experience, and therefore I will allow no Pope-ass or Mule-ass, who has never attempted it, to set himself up as judge or critic.... If there is to be any faultfinding, I will attend to it myself.” And later: “Their abuse is my highest praise and glory. I am resolved to be a Doctor ... and they shall not rob me of this title till the Judgment Day; this much I know for certain.”

[1987] “Historien,” p. 82.

[1988] _Ib._

[1989] F. W. Nippold, “Christian Josias Freiherr von Bunsen,” Leipzig, 1868-1871, 3, p. 483.

[1990] “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen,” p. 72.

[1991] “Mitteilungen,” vol. 3, Göttingen, p. 1899, p. 335 ff. (reprint of the art. in the “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1885, 2).

[1992] P. 359 ff.

[1993] P. 365.

[1994] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” p. 642=117.

[1995] Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 142 f. Theodore Zahn the Protestant exegete says: “Luther by adding the words ‘The righteousness which is acceptable to God’ (here and iii. 21, x. 3; cp. iii. 22) exceeded the task of a translator by implying that the recognition of this righteousness by God is merely the consequence of its origin in God. ‘A righteousness that comes from God,’ as in Phil. iii. 9, would be less open to objection, though here again Luther goes beyond his text.” “Brief des Paulus an die Römer,” Leipzig, 1910, p. 82.

[1996] De Lagarde (p. 358) rightly refers to Döllinger, _ib._, pp. 140-144, where the latter quotes another passage which calls for revision: “The commandments are given _only_ in order that man may be made aware of his inability to do what is good and thus learn to despair of himself.”

[1997] Döllinger, _ib._, p. 144.

[1998] Many other passages could be given where the sense is weakened owing to Luther’s want of accuracy. For instance, John vi. 56: “My flesh is the true meat and my blood is the true drink,” whereas Christ says: “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς) and my blood is drink indeed.”

[1999] Riehm, “Luther als Bibelübersetzer,” “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 57, 1884, p. 306; cp. p. 312 f. On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 401 ff.

[2000] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 103 ff.; the accompanying letter to Link dated Sept. 12, 1530, in “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 257.

[2001] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 637; Erl. ed., 65, p. 110.

[2002] P. 640 ff.=115-117.

[2003] P. 643=118 f.

[2004] P. 638=112.

[2005] P. 634=106.

[2006] P. 633=104 f.

[2007] Pp. 636, 639=108, 109, 113 f.

[2008] P. 635=107. The passage was given verbally above, vol. iv., p. 345 f. The words of St. Paul which he plays upon occur in 2 Cor. xi. 18 ff.: “They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are the seed of Abraham, so am I.”

[2009] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 197.

[2010] _Ib._, p. 194.

[2011] “Auss was Grund uund Ursach Luthers Dolmatschung über das Newe Testament dem gemeinen Man billich verbotten worden sey,” Leipzig, 1523, Bl. 3.—In Bl. 2´ Emser, having instanced the formal theological decision, goes on to remark, that Luther declared the secular authorities had no right to forbid books concerning the faith, although he and his preachers were in the habit of teaching that all were subject to the secular power. “Thus the man can never handle a matter with moderation, but either goes too far or else not far enough”; the authorities had a perfect right to punish, in life and property, “those whom the Church publicly proclaimed to be heretics.” He vainly urged the German bishops at the end of the book, “to summon one, or ten, learned, experienced and God-fearing men and to see that a trustworthy, reliable and uniform German Bible was made from the old and new [Lutheran] translation.”

[2012] Soffner, “Ein Lutherspiel aus alter Zeit,” 1889, p. 16. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783. On Hasenberg see vol. iv., p. 173 f.

[2013] G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 61), 1898, p. 65.

[2014] In the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f. Luther’s charge against Emser, the “Dresen Scribbler,” in which he says: He “wrote his _name_, a preface and glosses to it and thus sold my New Testament under his own name,” is not grounded on fact. Still more unjust and insulting to the deceased was the statement he made later to some of his friends: The miscreant “knew the truth better than he wrote it”; “he altered a word here and there against his conscience” in order to retain the favour of the Duke. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 79. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 149.

[2015] _Ib._, p. 72.

[2016] L. Lemmens, O.F.M., “Aus ungedruckten Franziskanerbriefen des 16. Jahrh.” (“RGl. Studien,” ed. H. Greving, Hft. 20), 1911, p. 38.

[2017] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 429 f.

[2018] Janssen, _ib._

[2019] _Ib._

[2020] Dec. 28, 1534, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 2, p. 224: “_Fatetur se parum syncere biblia vertisse et eam interpretationem tantum non revocat_.”

[2021] A. Räss, “Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation,” 7, p. 99 f., with the list.

[2022] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 145 f.

[2023] In the Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 153.

[2024] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” _ib._, p. 169.

[2025] Preface of 1545, _ib._, p. 159. This preface replaced the former one, but, in it, he still leaves it “doubtful” whether the Apocalypse was to be taken as one of the books of the Bible or not.

[2026] Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² Leipzig, 1900, p. 84.

[2027] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 158.

[2028] Preface of 1522, _ib._, p. 156.

[2029] _Ib._

[2030] “Truly an Epistle of straw as compared with them” (the Gospel and 1st Epistle of John, the epistles of Paul, particularly to the Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter). These were the “best” books of the New Testament because in them “faith in Christ” is “painted in a masterly manner.” _Ib._, 114 f.—The conclusion of the preface in question was omitted in Luther’s own later editions but was often reintroduced later.

[2031] M. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Zeugnis seiner Anhänger” (“Bibl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1905), p. 273 ff. Cp. the same author, “Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Überlieferung” (“Bibl. Studien”), 10, Hft. 1-3, 1905.

[2032] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 227, on Gen. xxii. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik,” etc., _ib._

[2033] “Werke,” Walchs ed., 9, p. 2774 ff. Cp. Walther, “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 66, 1, 1893, p. 595 ff. Meinertz, _ib._

[2034] Meinertz, _ib._, p. 278.

[2035] H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 1, p. 197 f. Carlstadt himself was doubtful as to who was the author.

[2036] Meinertz, _ib._, p. 276.

[2037] Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² p. 84.

[2038] Barge, _ib._, p. 197 f.

[2039] His mediæval predecessors, however, usually had behind them tradition and the authority of the Church.

[2040] W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, No. 16.

[2041] Nestle, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche” in “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ p. 73.

[2042] In the article on the “revised” Luther Bible of 1883, in “Göttinger Gel. Anziegen,” 1885, Hft. 2, reprinted in De Lagarde’s “Mitteilungen,” 3, 1889, 335 ff. Cp. above, p. 512.

[2043] Oettli, “Die revidierte Lutherbibel,” 1908.

[2044] P. lix.

[2045] _Ib._

[2046] De Lagarde, art. quoted, p. 524, n. 2.

[2047] _Ib._

[2048] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 3.

[2049] _Ib._, p. 5.

[2050] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 633; Erl. ed., 65, p. 104.

[2051] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 108.

[2052] _Ib._, p. 112 f.

[2053] _Ib._, p. 9.

[2054] Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 141.

[2055] In the preface to the work “Auss was Grund,” etc. Above, p. 519, n. 1. G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser,” p. 60.

[2056] Kawerau, _ib._, p. 66.

[2057] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 95 f.

[2058] _Ib._, p. 137.

[2059] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349.

[2060] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 123.

[2061] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 6.

[2062] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 136.

[2063] “Comment. de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 55. Cochlæus laments in this passage the disputations which the common people entered upon with the clergy, and describes the universal Bible reading of the unlearned as one of the causes of the spread of the apostasy. Nor does he conceal the fact that some of the laity were able in controversy to quote Scripture with greater fluency than the Catholic priests and monks.

[2064] “Christenliche Underrichtung Dr. Johann Fabri,” etc., Dresden, 1528. Bl. Biij., Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783.

[2065] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256.

[2066] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.

[2067] _Ib._, p. 640=115.

[2068] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 63, p. 24 f. Preface to the Old Testament.

[2069] _Ib._, p. 25.

[2070] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 265.

[2071] _Ib._, p. 265 f.

[2072] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f.

[2073] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 213.

[2074] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 4, Table-Talk.

[2075] To Nic. Hausmann, Jan. 21, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 349: “_Recudimus iam psalterium germanicum pro calumniatoribus irritandis_.” Cp. to the same, Feb. 25, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 232, on the fresh edition of the New Testament then undertaken with Melanchthon: “_Novam furiam concitaturi contra nos apud papistas_,” and to Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 15, 1531, _ib._, 8, p. 345: “_Dabimus operam ... ut (David) purius Germanum sonet, multam occasionem calumniatoribus dantes, ut habeant, quo in translationem nostram suam rabidam invidiam exerceant et acuant, nec tamen exsaturent_.”

[2076] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 121.

[2077] _Ib._, p. 121 f.

[2078] _Ib._, p. 175.

[2079] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.

[2080] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 115.

[2081] Cp. Preface of 1539, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 405.

[2082] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 384.

[2083] Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 291.

[2084] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 240. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.

[2085] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 273.

[2086] Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.

[2087] _Ib._, p. 281.

[2088] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 145, 1540.

[2089] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 4.

[2090] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 569.

[2091] _Ib._

[2092] _Ib._

[2093] “_Dignissimum opus gratitudine, qua me hactenus excepit barbara hæc et vere bestialis natio._”

[2094] See the next section.

[2095] See below, p. 541, his statement against Emser.

[2096] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.”

[2097] The saying appears in this shape in Reisch’s “Margarita philosophica,” Argentorati, 1508. See Nestle, “Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.,” 1877, p. 668. In fact it is there described as a common “_proverbium inter theologos_.” Another later form ran: “_Si Lyra non lyrasset, totus mundus delyrasset_.”

[2098] Kropatscheck, “Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,” 1, 1904, p. 163.—On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.

[2099] F. Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung,” Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.

[2100] Falk, _ib._, p. 27 ff.

[2101] Cp. Moureck, “SB. der kgl. Böhm. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch., Phil. Kl.,” 1892, p. 176 ff.

[2102] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 141.

[2103] E. v. Dobschütz, “Deutsche Rundschau,” 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk, _ib._, p. 86.

[2104] E. Schröder, “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, p. 253.

[2105] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 606; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,” p. 61.

[2106] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.

[2107] _Ib._, 63, pp. 401, 402.

[2108] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270; “_Annis 30 ante biblia erant incognita, prophetæ innominati_,” etc.

[2109] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous “bench” cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.

[2110] “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 32.

[2111] Walther, p. 742. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 303. Walther also observes: “Thus it was not from the Church that the translations emanated; it was not the Church that recommended the study of the Bible to the laity. This would indeed have been contrary to her principles. But neither did the Church show herself hostile at the outset to every translation. So long as it contained nothing to promote ‘divisions’ or to undermine reverence for the Church and her doctrines she permitted this movement, as she did every other that did not infringe her authority.” _Ib._

[2112] Cp. Franz Falk, _ib._, pp. 33-66.

[2113] Janssen, _ib._, 1, p. 60.

[2114] Paues, “A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version,” Cambridge, 1902. Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” 1900, and in the “Dublin Review,” 1894. Cp. “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 66, 1904, p. 349 ff.—Mandonnet, “Dict. de la Bible,” 2, Art. Dominicains. Cp. “Katholik,” 1902, 2, p. 289 ff.

[2115] W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 13.

[2116] “Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,” etc., 1521, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 641; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.

[2117] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p. 376 ff.

[2118] Cochlæus wrote (“Commentarius de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 54): “_Quis satis enarrare queat, quantus dissidiorum turbationumque et ruinarum fomes et occasio fuerit ea novi Testamenti translatio. In qua vir iurgiorum data opera contra veterem et probatam ccclesiæ lectionem multa immutavit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit et in alium sensum detorsit, multas adiecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque cavillosas, et in præfationibus nihil malignitatis omisit, ut in partes suas traheret lectorem._” He concludes by saying that many persons had collected more than a thousand errors in the translation.

[2119] Second ed., 1875, p. 529.

[2120] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 659 (N. 3, p. 282).

[2121] Franz Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 90. Earlier than this we find five Latin Bibles printed at Mayence, Strasburg, and, perhaps, Bamberg.

[2122] Falk, “Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche,” 1879, pp. 29 and 80. Do., “Die Bibel,” etc., pp. 32, 61.

[2123] _Ib._, p. 33.

[2124] “Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des MA.,” 1889-92.

[2125] “Die Waldenserbibeln und Meister Johannes Rellach” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 771 ff.), p. 792. On the other side see W. Walther in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1896, Hft. 3, p. 194 ff. Cp. also Nestle in the “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche,” and the work of R. Schellhorn there mentioned.

[2126] G. Grupp gave a critical account of the results of Walther’s researches in the “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 115, 1895, p. 931, which amongst other things considerably raises Walther’s estimate of the number of manuscript and printed copies.

[2127] See above, p. 495.

[2128] P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,” p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in “Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.

[2129] “Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther, _ib._, p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.

[2130] _Ib._, p. 1.

[2131] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.

[2132] “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.

[2133] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “_Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut tale, quid possem quale vellem_.”

[2134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.

[2135] _Ib._, 62, p. 311.

[2136] Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical character of his chronology.

[2137] Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258), and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows himself a true poet.”

[2138] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 311. Table-Talk.

[2139] Above, p. 342 ff.

[2140] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, pp. 155, 158.

[2141] Ph. Wackernagel, “Das deutsche Kirchenleid von der ältesten Zeit bis zum 17. Jahr.,” 3, 1870, p. 20. Cp. ‘“Form und Ordnung gaystlicher Gesang,” etc., Augsburg, 1529. Cp. Wackernagel, _ib._, p. 20, the text of the first High German reproduction of the Wittenberg Hymnbook, and the less accurate reprint, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., and Nelle, “Gesch. des deut. ev. Kirchenliedes,”¹ 1904, p. 24 (2nd ed., 1909).

[2142] In an advertisement of Will Vesper, “Luthers Dichtungen,” Munich, 1905.

[2143] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 26. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 354.

[2144] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.

[2145] At the beginning of the “Geistliche Gesangbüchlein” of Johann Walther. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 538.

[2146] Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 167.

[2147] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541.

[2148] G. Gervinus, “Gesch. der deutschen Dichtung,” 3^5, 1871, p. 20.

[2149] Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg,” p. 372. W. Bäumker, “Das kathol. Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen,” 1, 1886, p. 32, makes a similar distinction. Cp. p. 16 ff.

[2150] On the above see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 536 ff.

[2151] In Luther’s hymns for public worship modelled on the Psalms “no poetic enthusiasm is apparent.” Spitta, _ib._, p. 355. He also assigns the lowest place to the translations of the Latin hymns.

[2152] In the Preface to the new edition of his hymnbook (1529). Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.

[2153] Migne, “P.L.,” 185, p. 391. E. Michael (“Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des MA.”, 4³, 1906, p. 327 ff.) shows not only that German psalmody existed in the 13th century, but also that it can be traced back with certainty to the 11th and 12th centuries. Cp. also Bäumker, “KL.,” art. “Kirchenlied,” 7², p. 602.

[2154] Bäumker, _ib._, p. 604.

[2155] _Ib._, p. 605.

[2156] “Confess. Aug.,” art. 24 de missa.—Cp. for the foregoing, Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 264 ff.

[2157] According to Heinr. v. Stephan, “Luther als Musiker,” Bielefeld (1899), p. 16, he was even “the reformer of German music.”

[2158] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541 f. Cp. Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 242 ff.

[2159]

“Vil falscher Meister itzt Lieder dichten Siehe dich für und lern sie recht richten. Wo Gott hinbawet sein Kirch und sein Wort, Da wil der Teuffel sein mit Trug und Mord.”

[2160] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 30.

[2161] Loesch, “Mathesius,” 2, p. 214 ff. “Historien,” Bl. 179: “I brought him the song with which the children (in the Joachimsthal) drive out the Pope in Mid-Lent.... This song he published and himself wrote the title: ‘_Ex montibus et vallibus, ex sylvis et campestribus_.’” The broadsheet of 1541 mentioned by Schamelius in his “Lieder-Commentarius,” 1757, p. 57, if it ever existed, must have preceded Luther’s publication, and be by some unknown author.

[2162] Cp., for instance, the May-song in the Baden Collection, by A. Barner, Hft. 2, No. 14, p. 15.

[2163] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 31.

[2164] Wackernagel, _ib._, p. 30. Cp. Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 286.

[2165] Cp., for instance, L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff., more particularly p. 179 f. (The 2nd art. is quoted below as II.) With regard to the Protestant theologians (G. Uhlhorn and others) Feuchtwanger says, p. 180: “In their hands the question of the care for the poor since 1500 has degenerated into a sectarian controversy on priority, and thus the way to the solution of the problem has been blocked by a falsification of the true question.” He regards Uhlhorn’s work as written from an “extreme sectarian” standpoint. To Feuchtwanger, as it had been to Strindberg, it is a marvel, how, “as soon as you begin to speak of God and charity, your voice grows hard and your eyes become filled with hate.”

[2166] “Gesch. der sozialen Politik,” etc., II., p. 207.

[2167] _Ib._, p. 221.

[2168] (Munich and Berlin, 1906), pp. 13, 41, 49, reprinted from “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 97, 1906, p. 1 ff., republished in 1911 in an enlarged form.

[2169] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 644; Erl. ed., 22, p. 169. “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc., 1526.

[2170] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 138=31, p. 67 f.

[2171] _Ib._, 19, p. 634=22, p. 258. Those who emigrate become “faithless and break their oath to their rulers”; “they do not bear in mind the divine command, that they are bound to remain obedient until they are prevented by force or are put to death”; they are “robbing their sovereign of his rights and authority” over them. On such general grounds Luther concludes that it was not lawful to desert and join the Turks.

[2172] Pages 17, 26.

[2173] “Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 1. Cp. “M. Luthers Werke,” “revised and edited for the German people,” by Julius Boehmer, Stuttgart, 1907, Introd., p. ix, where the theological editor says: “With Luther a new era begins. He has been and is considered the author of a new civilisation, different from that of the Middle Ages and of antiquity.... The emancipation of the human intellect began in the domain of religion and has gradually extended thence into other spheres in spite of obstacles and difficulties.”

[2174] See, for instance, above, pp. 45 f., 476 f., and vol. iv., p. 472 ff.

[2175] See above, vol. i., p. 49 f.

[2176] H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 133, however, calls it a “great exaggeration” when Eberlin of Günzburg, the former Franciscan who afterwards became a follower of Luther, asserts that in Germany only one man in fifteen did any work. He has also the best of reasons for disbelieving Agricola’s statement, that the monks and nuns in Germany then numbered over 1,400,000 souls.

[2177] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff), particularly p. 746 ff.

[2178] Cp. above, pp. 49-60.

[2179] E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers,”² 1875, where the above and other texts are quoted.

[2180] _Ib._, pp. 81, 88.

[2181] For the passages see Luthardt, _ib._

[2182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 94.

[2183] F. M. Schiele, “Christliche Welt,” 1908, No. 37.

[2184] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.

[2185] Above, vol. iii., p. 22 ff.

[2186] Second ed., p. 124.

[2187] Luthardt refers here to Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f., where the latter says in his exposition of Psalm lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 1530: “Because the rulers, besides their other duties, must promote God’s Word and its preachers,” “they must punish public blasphemers”; among these were the false teachers and those who teach that each one must himself make satisfaction for his sins (he means the Catholics). “Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else they must go,” i.e. the rulers must compel those Catholics who were living amongst Protestants to emigrate. “The offender was acting contrary to the Gospel and the common article of the creed which we recite: ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ Such articles held by the whole of Christendom have already been sufficiently examined, proved and decided by Scripture and the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles and sealed with the blood of the martyrs.”

[2188] In the continuation of the above passage Luther says of such controversies: “Let the rulers step in and examine the case and whichever party is not in agreement with Scripture, let him be commanded to be silent.... For it is not good for the people to hear contradictory preaching in the parish or district,” etc. Luther, however, not only demands, as Luthardt says, that these “heretics” should be banished, but also that they should be punished as public blasphemers. Cp. below, p. 578.

[2189] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 97.

[2190] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 538; Erl. ed., 17², p. 392. Luther, however, emphasises the true preaching office so much that he represents his pure Gospel teaching as alone capable of preserving peace, a fact which is usually passed over. “No University, institution or monastery” had been able to accomplish what the preaching office was now able to do; the “blind bloodhounds abandoned the preaching office and gave themselves up to lies.”

[2191] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 555=402.

[2192] _Ib._, p. 537 f.=392.

[2193] Reference is made here to the passage in the Home-Postils, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 450. Here we read, p. 449, that the “rulers must promote matrimony and the management of the home, and see that the young are properly educated”; for this reason theirs was “a divine and holy state.”

[2194] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 388, in the Home-Postils.

[2195] Cp. the passages in Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 321.

[2196] Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 153; Erl. ed., 21, p. 60.

[2197] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 294.

[2198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10. See below, p. 577, n. 1.

[2199] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 240.

[2200] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” Jena, 1898, No. 22 (“Sammlung nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen,” 21.)

[2201] See above, vol. ii., pp. 297 ff., 307 f.

[2202] _Ib._, p. 302 f.

[2203] Above, p. 58 f.

[2204] P. 15.

[2205] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73.

[2206] _Ib._, p. 262 f. = 82 ff. Cp. p. 269 ff. = 92 ff.

[2207] _Ib._, p. 271 = p. 94.

[2208] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 281. Cp. Weim. ed., 18, p. 307; Erl. ed., 24², p. 282.

[2209] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 259; Erl. ed., 22, p. 78 f. In order to understand the phrase “let himself be fleeced” it should be noted that those Lutherans who lived under the rule of Catholic princes were unable to escape the action of the Edict of Worms.

[2210] He here says: “God hangs, breaks on the wheel, strangles and makes war; all this is His work.” _Ib._, 19, p. 626 = 22, p. 250.

[2211] Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg, “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,” 1909 (“Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft,” 24), p. 168.

[2212] _Ib._, p. 57.

[2213] _Ib._, 166.

[2214] E. Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauungen vom Staate,” 1901, p. 13 f. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 258; Erl. ed., 22, p. 77 f.: “His kingdom [Christ’s] is not made up of ploughmen, princes, hangmen or jailers, nor does it include the sword or secular law, but only the Word of God and His Spirit; by it His subjects are governed in their hearts inwardly.” All the successors of the Apostles and “spiritual rulers” were to be satisfied with the Word.—Erl. ed., 39, p. 330: “The secular government has only to rule over bodily and temporal possessions.”—P. 331: “Whoever wishes to become learned and wise in secular government let him study the heathen books and writings, these have indeed described and painted it most beautifully and fully.”

[2215] K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 20.

[2216] See above, vol. ii., p. 301: The bishops must “restrain heretics.”

[2217] Holl, _ib._, p. 20 f. Luther’s words are from “De capt, babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 533; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 64. Cp “_Nisi hæc adsit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus imo obest, non solum tum cum suscipitur, sed toto post tempore vitæ_.” _Ib._, p. 527 f.=57. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487.

[2218] “He protests against the war with the Turks being carried on under the pretext of Christianity, ‘as though our people could be termed an army of Christians fighting the Turks,’ when in ‘the whole army there are perhaps barely five Christians [real Lutheran believers].’ ... Thus he deliberately calls into question the Christianity of the German people and hence demands that the war should be undertaken as a merely secular thing.” Holl, _ib._, p. 22, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 37, and to a letter to Spalatin, Dec. 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333. Cp. above, p. 402, and vol. iii., p. 77 ff.

[2219] Above, vol. ii., p. 108.

[2220] See our examination of the “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” in vol. ii., pp. 297-306.

[2221] The passages are cited below, p. 577, n. 2.

[2222] Luther’s answer to the question he raises, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 207, in the Table-Talk: “Whether it be lawful to kill a tyrant, who at his own pleasure acts contrary to right and justice” is aimed at absolutism. He replies confidently: Yes, where the latter really oppresses his subjects by crying deeds of wrong and where the “citizens and subjects unite together” to make an end of him as they would of any “other murderer or highwayman.” In his “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526, Luther does not sanction private revenge nor any disorderly or violent action on the part of the mob, “whereby the people rise and depose their lord or strangle him.” He emphasises in this passage as the reason the absence of legal proceedings: “It does not do to pipe too much to the mob, or it will only too readily lose its head.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259.

[2223] To the Elector Johann, Feb. 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 368 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318), on the introduction of Lutheranism into Altenburg. Cp. vol. ii., p. 315 f.; the principal reason why the ruler was to intervene was, that he might not deliberately tolerate “idolatry.”

[2224] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Luther’s preface to the Instructions of the Visitors, 1528.

[2225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48. “Eyn trew Vormanung ... sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung,” 1522. In connection with this the author says: It is not lawful for the individual to rebel against “Endchrist,” i.e. the Papacy, and to make use of force, but the secular authorities and the nobles “ought from a sense of duty to use their regular authority for this purpose, each prince and ruler in his own land,” etc. This he wrote on the eve of composing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” according to which the prince was not to trouble at all about the religion of his country.

[2226] Above, vol. ii., p. 88 f.; vol. iv., p. 510 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 7 ff.

[2227] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.

[2228] _Ib._, p. 252.

[2229] Paul Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. für Theol. and Kirche,” 1908, Ergänzungsheft), p. 99. Cp. p. 90.

[2230] Cp. Luther’s statements, in Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 25 ff.

[2231] Drews, _ib._, p. 100.

[2232] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 313 ff.

[2233] _Ib._, p. 320.

[2234] P. 323.

[2235] P. 324 f.

[2236] P. 327 f.

[2237] P. 358 f.

[2238] The expression is H. Boehmer’s (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹) 1906, p. 135.

[2239] To the Elector Johann, Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.387 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[2240] P. 17.

[2241] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 164.

[2242] _Ib._, p. 166; 1st ed., p. 135.

[2243] 1st ed., p. 135.

[2244] Frank Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” p. 15. On p. 17, he says that according to Luther “all ecclesiastical functions and relations, in so far as they concern external things, are subject to the State.”

[2245] “Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” in “Theol. Arbeiten aus dem rhein.—wissensch. Predigerverein, N.F.,” Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, p. 47 f.

[2246] “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 504.

[2247] “Joh. Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorie,”² Breslau, 1902, p. 64 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 349.

[2248] _Ib._

[2249] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f.

[2250] See vol. ii., p. 297 f., from the writing, “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”

[2251] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. Cp. letter to the Elector Frederick, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[2252] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. “_Ipsos principes vincemus et contemnemus._”

[2253] Words of P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 28.

[2254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 35.

[2255] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 31, p. 236, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” See vol. ii., p. 294. Cp. _ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 625; Erl. ed., 22, p. 248, where he says, already in 1526, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc.: “So that I should like to boast that, since the time of the Apostles, the secular sword and authority has never been so clearly and grandly described and extolled as by me, as even my foes must admit.”

[2256] See vol. ii., p. 295, n. 1.

[2257] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 284 f.

[2258] “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 63.

[2259] Above, p. 140 ff.; vol. ii., p. 332 f.

[2260] To Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 10, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10: “_constitutis ecclesiis ... laceris autem ita rebus_,” etc. Only after the Churches had been constituted could the ban be introduced as his friend wished.—For earlier Visitations see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 176 ff.

[2261] See above, p. 140 ff., and vol. iii., p. 28 ff.

[2262] Printed in E. Sehling, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff., and, before this, by A. E. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 77 ff.

[2263] Both in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 26, p. 195 ff., and Erl. ed., 23, p. 1 ff.

[2264] Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). Enders says of this work: “Almost all the proposals Luther makes here with the object of stimulating the project of a Visitation which had come to a standstill are again found in the Instructions to the Visitors.” From Luther’s previous letters Müller proves that he approved the Instructions, _ib._, p. 69 ff.

[2265] Thus the Weimar editors in their Introduction to the “Instructions of the Visitors,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 179.

[2266] _Ib._, p. 177.

[2267] In the Preface to the reader: “_Visitator nova mitra infulatur, novum ambiens papatum_,” etc.

[2268] Aug. 10, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 337.

[2269] Words of K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 71 f. He also gives a survey of the Instructions.

[2270] For the text see Sehling, _ib._, p. 143.

[2271] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 197; Erl. ed., 23, p. 5.

[2272] Müller, _ib._, p. 67. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 14.

[2273] _Ib._

[2274] See Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 69 f.

[2275] _Ib._, p. 38.

[2276] Carl Holl, “Luther und das Landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“1 Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche”), Tübingen, 1911, p. 54, against C. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther.” Holl says: “The two documents cannot be reconciled, for each attempts not merely to describe or emphasise one side of the matter, but to set forth the whole, and this they do from totally different points of view. One seeks to represent the Visitation as the outcome of the paternal care of the Elector, the other as an act of self-help on the part of the Church. It is impossible to harmonise these two points of view.”

[2277] Reference to the title of his writing, “Deuttung ... des Munchkalbs zu Freyberg,” 1523. See above, vol. iii., p. 149 f.

[2278] The latter saying occurs in the “Unterricht,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 212; Erl. ed., 23, p. 28.

[2279] There is no call to lay so much stress on the Preface as to be obliged to say with Holl, _ib._, 54: It “necessarily assumes the significance of a silent protest.... Luther is defending the Church’s independence of the State by painting the Visitation in its true light.” Holl also says, p. 59, that Luther, here, entered upon “a struggle for the integrity of his whole work.” “To him it was of vital importance whether the ruler of the land was obeyed as the highest member of the congregation, or as a Christian Prince.” P. 60: “All the efforts directed to-day towards greater independence of the Church and larger liberty within the Church have a good right to appeal to Luther on this question.”

[2280] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). See above, p. 581. The other passages mentioned here are quoted by P. Drews, _ib._, pp. 95 ff., 98.

[2281] See above, vol. iv., pp. 413 and 418 f., for the corroborative statements of Scheel and Seeberg.

[2282] Vol. iii., pp. 48 ff. and 58 ff.

[2283] See Holl, _ib._, p. 9, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 289 (Weim. ed., 6, p. 413), on the Christian who, according to Mt. xviii., summons the culprit before the congregation: “If I am to accuse him before the congregation, I must first assemble the congregation.”

[2284] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413; Erl. ed., 21, p. 290.

[2285] _Ib._, p. 440 = 322. Holl, _ib._, p. 16. It is to Holl’s credit that he so strongly emphasises this tendency of Luther’s in favour of the independent rights of the congregation.

[2286] Cp. his letter to Spalatin, May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 378 f.: “_Faciat princeps et aula hac in re quod voluerint, ego Spiritui sancto non resistam ipsi viderint_.” See also “Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 381 and 561.

[2287] C. Muller, _ib._, p. 54, who emphasises Luther’s bias towards the State government of the Church with as much reason as Holl (see above, p. 596, n. 3) does his ideas on the independence of the Church.

[2288] Müller, _ib._, p. 61.

[2289] P. 79.

[2290] Vol. ii., p. 358.

[2291] Cp. above, pp. 135 f., 139 f.

[2292] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68. “De capt. babylonica.”

[2293] Cp. Holl, _ib._, p. 19 f. Müller, _ib._, p. 74 ff. See above, 55 f.

[2294] See below, p. 602 f.

[2295] P. 77.

[2296] See above, vol. ii., p. 329.

[2297] Cp. above, p. 181 ff.

[2298] See above, p. 191.

[2299] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 184.

[2300] To Tileman Schnabel, etc., June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317.

[2301] P. Drews, _ib._, p. 101 f.

[2302] P. 580.

[2303] Wilhelm Hans, quoted in full, vol. ii., p. 312. What he says is corroborated by Emil Friedberg, the authority of law, who, speaking of the work of Carl Müller so often quoted above, says, that it is a “difficult business to determine Luther’s views,” since they are not always the same in his various writings, and since, under stress of circumstances, Luther sometimes said things that went directly against the principles elsewhere advocated by him. “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 20, 1911, p. 414.

[2304] The vacillation which characterised Luther’s attitude towards the State-Church system and which came from his early ideas concerning the true Christians who had no need of any authority over them, has recently been set forth as follows by the Protestant lawyer and historian Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg: “Luther’s true Christians were Utopian persons and hence his Church was the same. In his idealistic confidence in God he had expected too much from them. And thus there came for his Reformation an era of hesitancy and groping, which refused for a while to make way for more stable conditions. The Church which Luther had characterised as a necessary expedient for furthering the kingdom of God on earth now itself needed to be assisted and supported from without, if it was to suffice for its task. To achieve this we find Luther leaving no means untried. But his schemes were not very satisfactory. He put a patch here and another one there, appealed to the princes and then to the peasants, seeking to curry favour of one and the other simply for the sake of some small concession and in order to interest them in his Church.... At last Luther thought he had found a remedy: this was that the Church should seek support in the secular power. When quite at the end of his resources he had begun to remind the princes of their duties as rulers. From mere occasional allusions he soon passed on to energetic admonitions addressed to the ‘great ones,’ accompanied by his customary threats and abuse. It had indeed gone against the grain to summon the authorities to carry out his wishes, hence, at every opportunity, he insists on his independence of them.... Luther had in the event to submit to reproaches which he could not always honestly shift on to the shoulders of the ‘false priestlings and factious spirits.’”

Of Luther’s later years Schulthess-Rechberg says: “An era dawns when Luther can no longer see an ounce of good in the State; when he even tells the unworthy servant of God [the prince] to mind his own business. It is then that we find Luther declaring that the secular authorities have no power to watch over souls or to exercise the teaching office, that they have no authority over the clergy, etc. Here we see plainly how he, more than any other reformer, was driven by force of circumstances, and this again is a proof that Luther’s work was really more than he had bargained for. Luther ... never succeeded in viewing the relations between Church and State objectively. This and his constant efforts to disengage himself from Rome frequently gave an unexpected turn to his views. For instance, when he insists at times that heresy and unbelief do not concern the authorities (Erl. ed., 22, pp. 90, 93). Hardly has he said this than he finds himself compelled to hedge and practically to eat his words.” “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin,” etc (above, p. 573, n. 4), pp. 170-172.

[2305] In an article against P. Drews (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 478 ff.), p. 488. Hermelink adds: (p. 489) “It is true that the system of an established Church did not correspond with Luther’s ideal, but it was a political necessity and therefore seemed to him willed by God.” Hermelink’s reference to the false ideals and eschatology which influenced Luther’s theory of Church and State may be admitted as in

## part correct. He is also right when he says: Luther, according to his

frequent statement, wished to assemble the Christians from the kingdom of Antichrist before the end of the world. _Ib._, p. 313.

[2306] “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81.