[1]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 433.[2]Ibid., 1, p. 320seq.[3]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 320seq.[4]“Vidimus certe cruentas eius litteras ad Huttenum.” C. Otto, “Joh. Cochläus,” 1874, p. 121, note. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 116.[5]Schauenberg’s letter of June 11, 1520, in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders 2, p. 415.[6]On June 17, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 443.[7]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1520, Letters, ed. de Wette, 1, p. 470 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444).[8]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, p. 267; Weim. ed., 6, p. 258. The “insignis turbula” which Luther announces in a letter to Spalatin of February, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344), is not the “revolution of the nobility which Hutten planned,” but the ecclesiastical and political storm to be roused by Luther’s own action.[9]Text in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 409 (better than in Böcking, 1, p. 355). At the head of the letter are the words, “Vive libertas.” The phrase, “Iubet ad se venire N. te, si tutus istic satis non sis,” must refer to Sickingen. Before this, Hutten says: “Si vi ingruent, vires erunt adversum, non tantum pares, sed, ut spero, superiores etiam.”[10]“Se iam et litteris et armis in tyrannidem sacerdotalem ruere.” Luther writes thus to Spalatin on September 11, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 478. Cp.ibid., p. 488: “Armis et ingenio rem tentans.”[11]Cp. Enders, 2, p. 480, note 5.[12]“Iungam Hutteno et spiritum meum,” etc. Letter of September 11, 1520, quoted above.[13]To Spalatin, November 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 523. The “attack” was supposed to have taken place in the beginning of November. But Aleander, in the letters he sent to Rome in the middle of December, does not speak of an actual attack, but merely of threats addressed by Hutten to the Archbishop of Treves, and reported by the latter to Aleander. Cp. A. Wrede, “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” Bd. 2, Gotha, 1896, p. 460 f., and P. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,”² Halle, 1897, pp. 32, 46.[14]Letter of December 4, 1520, in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 5 f. The able politician Capito served Luther well also at a later date. It was chiefly owing to him that the carrying out of the Worms proscription was prevented.[15]Letter of December 9, 1520, Böcking, 1, p. 435 ff.[16]Luther to Spalatin, December 15, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 20. If the Papacy be not overthrown, the alternative is “aut ultima dies instat.”[17]“Nollem vi et caede pro evangelio certari,” etc. To Spalatin, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.[18]“Princeps noster ut prudenter et fideliter ita et constanter agit,” etc., February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85. Luther was then engaged on the “Assertio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 156. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 55.[19]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 64.[20]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 85 ff.[21]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 103; Erl. ed., 21, p. 191.[22]Ibid., pp. 91 and 173.[23]See, for instance, Oldecop’s statements, vol. 1, pp. 24, 280.[24]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.[25]Ibid., pp. 322, 136.[26]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 246.[27]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.[28]To Johann Staupitz, March 31, 1518,ibid., p. 176.[29]“Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, p. 138; Weim. ed., 16, p. 323.[30]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, 80.[31]Ibid., p. 347 = p. 107. We shall come back later to the harsh exclamation which occurs in the course of this outburst: “Cur non magis hos magistros perditionis ... omnibus armis impetimus et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus?” and to the mitigating additions introduced into the Jena edition of Luther’s works, see below, p. 55, n. 1.[32]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 384 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 294seq.[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.[34]To Wenceslaus Link, July 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.[35]“An den Stier von Wittenberg,” Bl. A.[36]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl. n. 3.[37]To Johann Lang, November 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 124.[38]In 1520, soon after February 18,ibid., 2, p. 329.[39]To Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518,ibid., 1, p. 174.[40]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 148. On the date see Kalkoff, “Z. für KG.,” 31, 1910, p. 411.[41]Knaake, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 522. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 170, 177.[42]On May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200.[43]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 442.[44]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 224, 355.[45]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 3 ff., 39 ff., Erl. ed., 53, p. 41, after the German original; “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 210, in Latin (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 496).[46]P. Kalkoff, “Die Miltitziade, eine kritische Nachlese zur Gesch. des Ablassstreites,” 1911. Miltitz—a man whose ability was by no means equal to his vanity, and who owed whatever influence he possessed to his noble Saxon descent—was chosen to bring the Golden Rose to the Elector of Saxony. His instructions were to induce Frederick to abandon Luther’s cause and to hand him over to the ecclesiastical judges. Though Miltitz was a mere “nuntius et commissarius” with very restricted powers, he assumed great airs. The Elector, who knew his man, soon found means to use him for his own political aims. In September, 1519, when the Golden Rose had duly been handed over, Miltitz’s mission was at an end, and he was thereupon engaged for three years by Frederick himself (Kalkoff, p. 33). His further doings revealed more and more both his untrustworthiness and his light-hearted optimism.[47]To the Elector of Saxony,October 14, 1520, in extract, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.[48]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 468.[49]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 474 ff., “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 5.[50]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 338.[51]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 339.[52]To Spalatin, August 23 and 31, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, pp. 464, 471.[53]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 329seq.[54]Sermon of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 260 (2nd impression); cp.ibid., p. 220 (1st impression), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18.[55]Colloquia, ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178seq.[56]Ibid., p. 170.[57]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 446: “Bis monuisti, mi Spalatine, ut de fide et operibus tum de obedientia ecclesiæ Romanæ in apologia mea vernacula mentionem facerem.”[58]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 433, where he begins, on an enclosed slip; “Quod si Princeps etiam hoc adiiciat, esse Lutheranam doctrinam,” etc. (a hint for the Elector’s reply to Cardinal Petrucci). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 430, n. 1.[59]Ibid., p. 429.[60]July 10, 1520, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 351.[61]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 464.[62]Ibid., p. 432: “A me quidem iacta est alea, contemptus est Romanus furor et favor, nolo eis reconciliari nec communicare in perpetuum,” etc.[63]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 432.[64]To Conrad Saum, one of his followers, October 1, 1520,ibid., p. 484.[65]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 381 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 274 ff.[66]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 256.[67]Ibid., p. 267.[68]Letter of July 20, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444.[69]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 484 ff.; Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 13seq.[70]Printed in Latin, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39 ff. In German, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 12 ff. Erl. ed., 27, p. 173 ff.[71]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 274.[72]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 23.[73]Ibid., p. 25.[74]Ibid., p. 27.[75]Ibid., p. 29 f.[76]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29.[77]Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.”, 1, p. 42.[78]The true character of such utterances of Luther can be best judged from the results they produced. “The effect not merely of the radical tendencies, but of Luther’s sermons, was chiefly to make the people believe that the freedom of a Christian was to be found in the utmost contempt for all law, whether human or Divine,” G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 14.[79]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 412; Erl. ed., 21, p. 288.[80]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 411 (287).[81]“Preussische Jahrbücher,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 35. In his review of Denifle-Weiss, vol. ii., P. Albert Weiss, in many passages, describes the consequences alluded to above.[82]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 561. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349.[83]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 350. “With the nature and extent of the Christian liberty which he [here] claimed he might have shocked even libertines. Nor did he shrink from advocating it elsewhere in the same work.”Ibid., p. 345.[84]“Dico itaque: Neque papa neque episcopus neque ullus hominum habet ius unius syllabæ constituendæ super christianum hominem, nisi id fiat eiusdem consensu; quidquid aliter fit, tyrannico spiritu fit” (p. 536 [68]). Cp. p. 554 [93], concerning the superfluousness of laws: “Hoc scio, nullam rempublicam legibus feliciter administrari.... Quod si adsit eruditio divina cum prudentia naturali, plane superfluum et noxium est scriptas leges habere; super omnia autem caritas nullis prorsus legibus indiget” (p. 555 [94]). “Christianis per Christum libertas donata est super omnes leges hominum.” On p. 558 [98], with regard to the alleged corruption of the marriage law: “Ut nulla remedii spes sit, nisi, revocato libertatis evangelio, secundum ipsum, exstinctis semel omnibus omnium hominum legibus, omnia iudicemus et regamus. Amen.” This latter declaration of war, and other things too, are not found in the Jena and Wittenberg editions. In all these utterances we see the excessive zeal of a theorist devoid of experience whose eyes are blind to the consequences. Many, indeed, are those who in the course of history have been equally precipitate in pronouncing on questions of moment, regardless of the number of their readers.[85]p. 555 [100]: “Digamiam malim quam divortium, sed an liceat, ipse non audeo definire.”[86]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 348.[87]p. 558 [99]: “Consulam, ut cum consensu viri—cum iam non sit maritus, sed simplex et solutus cohabitator—misceatur alteri vel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, et proles imputetur putativo, ut dicunt, patri.” Cp. his disgusting language regarding the ecclesiastical impediments of marriage, p. 554, [93]: “Quid vendunt [Romanenses]? Vulvas et veretra. Merx scilicet dignissima mercatoribus istis, præ avaritia et impietate plus quam sordidissimis et obscoenissimis ... ut in ecclesia Dei loco sancto [sit] abominatio ista, quæ venderet hominibus publice utriusque sexus pudibunda, seu, ut scriptura vocat, ignominias et turpitudines, quas tamen antea per vim legum suarum rapuissent.”[88]p. 560 [101].[89]Cp. the Latin edition, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.[90]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 58. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 233.[91]“Opp. Lat. var,” 4, 233. Some preach, “Ut affectus humanos moveant ad condolendum Christo ad indignandum Iudæis et id genus alia puerilia et muliebria deliramenta.” One must preach, “eo fine, quo fides in eum promoveatur”; this preaching is in agreement with the teaching according to which in Christ, “omnium domini sumus, et quidquid egerimus, coram Deo placitum et acceptum esse confidimus.”[92]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 405; Erl. ed., 21, p. 278 f.[93]Ibid., p. 414 [291].[94]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 468 f. [360 f.].[95]Ibid., 500 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 20.[96]Ibid., p. 173 f. [= 118].[97]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 162.[98]Ibid., p. 165.[99]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1², p. 586 f. Cp. 169 ff., 1, p. xv. Also J. Schlecht, “K. Leib’s Briefwechsel und Diarien,” Münster, 1909, p. 12.[100]Friedr. Roth, “Wilh. Pirkheimer,” Halle, 1887 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch., v. 4). The author says, Pirkheimer’s final opinion on Lutheranism is summed up in the words: “God keep all pious men, countries and peoples from such teaching, for where it is there is no peace, quiet or unity.” Though Pirkheimer confessed “with energy that he was once more a member of the olden Catholic Church,” he nevertheless remained as much a Humanist as a Catholic as he had been as a Protestant. Yet that he still saw some good in Luther’s cause is clear from what Melanchthon writes of him as late as April, 1530. “Fuimus apud Pirchamerum hodie, ego et Ionas, qui de te et causa honorifice sentit.” To Luther, April 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 7, p. 310. P. Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1887, is more sceptical regarding his return to Catholicism, though he brings forward no definite proofs to the contrary. He himself mentions how Cochlæus, in a letter of March 10, 1529, invited Pirkheimer (“Pirkheimer Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 396) to write a satire in verse on Luther after the model of his own “Lutherus septiceps.”[101]Döllinger,ibid., p. 168.[102]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 514.[103]His father Albert came from Eptas in Hungary; he was a goldsmith.[104]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.[105]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.[106]On his adhesion to Protestantism, see M. Zucker, “Albrecht Dürer,” 1900, chap. xvi., and Lange in the “Grenzbote,” vol. lv. 1, with reasons which are, however, open to criticism. E. Heidrich (“Dürer und die Reformation,” 1909) makes Dürer die a Lutheran. For his final profession of Catholicism see more particularly Ant. Weber, “Albrecht Dürer,” 3rd ed., 1903. Cp. “Hochland,” 3, 2, 1906, p. 206 ff. W. Köhler remarks in the “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 1908, vol. xxviii., p. 244: “Dürer was more a follower of Erasmus than a Lutheran.” See also G. Stuhlfauth in the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1907, p. 835 ff., and “Histor. Jahrb.,” 1910, p. 456 ff.[107]April or May, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 255.[108]Enders,ibid., p. 257, n. 3.[109]Hagelstange, in “Hochland,” 1906, p. 314.[110]“Bulla contra errores M. Lutheri,” Romæ, 1520. Printed also in “Bullar. Rom.,” ed. Taurin., 5, p. 748seq., and in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1520, n. 51; and with a bitter commentary by Luther, in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 264seq.[111]K. Müller, in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 24, 1903, p. 46 ff. A. Schulte, in “Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 6, 1903, p. 32 ff., 174 ff. P. Kalkoff, “Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, p. 372 ff.; 32, 1911, p. 1 ff.; p. 199 ff., 408 ff., 572 ff.; 33, 1912, p. 1 ff. He deals fully with the part taken by the Dominicans in the Indulgence controversy. Kalkoff’s researches have since been published apart (“Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” Gotha, 1912). A good general view of the question in Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes,” Engl. Trans., 7, p. 361 ff.[112]P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” etc., p. 133.[113]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” see above p. 45, n. 2, p. 35. The statement of K. Müller that from the very outset there had been a difficulty in proving Luther’s writing, rests, as Schulte shows (p. 43), merely on a misapprehended passage in one of the letters of the Venetian Orator at Rome.[114]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” p. 45.[115]In Schulte (ibid., p. 49) this circumstance, on which theology must necessarily lay great stress, is passed over. Not all Luther’s propositions were branded as “heretical.”[116]Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 543 ff.[117]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 576 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 17 ff.[118]Ibid., p. 595 ff. [38 f.]. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 132seq.[119]Ibid., p. 603; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142.[120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 46.[121]Ibid., p. 41.[122]For the accounts of the burning, see M. Perlbach and J. Luther, “Ein neuer Bericht über Luthers Verbrennung der Bannbulle” (“SB. der preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft.,” and also apart), Berlin, 1907, and Kawerau, in “Theol. Studien,” 1908, p. 587. Luther’s words, quoted in the new account, run as follows: “Quia tu conturbasti veritatem Dei, conturbat et te hodie in ignem istum(instead of ‘igni isto’).Amen”; whereupon all those present answered, “Amen.” The form given before this ran: “Quia tu conturbasti sanctum Dei, ideoque te conturbet ignis æternus.” Were this correct, “sanctum Dei” would refer to Christ as the “Holy One of God,” according to the biblical expression, but we should scarcely be justified in taking it to mean Luther himself, as some Catholics have done, as though he had arrogated to himself this title. With regard to the books burnt, see also Luther’s letter to Spalatin, on December 10, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 18. On Thomas and Scotus see the source quoted above.[123]On February 17, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 87. For the printed verses, Enders, like Köstlin, refers to Selneccer, “Vita Lutheri,” Witteb., 1687, p. 133.[124]To Conrad Pellican, at the end of February, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 93.[125]On February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83.[126]He praises the Prince, saying that he walks “prudenter, fideliter,” and “constanter.” Cp. above p. 8.[127]January 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 70[128]Both sentences,ibid.[129]Above, p. 49. Epitome of Prierias with Preface and Postscript (Latin). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 347. The commencement of the passage is quoted above, p. 13.[130]On the falsification of Luther’s works in the early editions, see G. Arnold, “Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, 1727, p. 419 ff.; Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,”[131]To Spalatin at Worms, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.[132]In the same month he wrote to Hutten to the same effect: “Nollem vi et cæde pro evangelio certari.” The letter, however, did not reach its destination. Enders, 3, p. 74, n. 8.[133]Letter to Spalatin in Worms, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90: The wrath of the Papists was being stayed by a Divine decree.[134]See volume i., p. 359. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im Mittelalter,” 1909, gives instances of writers who anticipated Luther in seeing Antichrist in the Pope. He looks upon Luther’s controversial writings on the subject of Antichrist as justified. “All Lutheran Christendom at the Reformation period,” according to him, shared “its master’s” views and expectation of the approaching end of the world (p. 196); he thinks it quite in order that the article regarding Antichrist “should have been incorporated in the Lutheran Confession of Faith” (p. 181).[135]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 698 ff.[136]Ibid., 11, p. 357-373; Erl. ed., 29, p. 1-16.[137]To Staupitz in Salzburg, February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85: “Princeps noster, cuius iussu assertiones istas utraque lingua edo.”[138]Reprinted “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 284 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 206 ff.[139]“Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 616; Erl. ed., 24², p. 40.[140]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 395, where this contradiction is pointed out.[141]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 212.[142]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297; Erl. ed., 24, p. 212.[143]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 165. “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 178.[144]Letter to Spalatin, April 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 121. “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.[145]Spalatin’s “Annals,” ed. Cyprian, 1718, p. 38. Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 122, n. 5; “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.[146]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 174, Engl. Trans., 3, 189.[147]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 249 ff.[148]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 175, Engl. Trans., 3, 190.[149]Ibid., Enders, p. 156, n. 4.[150]Previous to May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 147.[151]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.[152]“Ratzebergers Geschichte,” ed. Neudecker, p. 30.[153]Janssen-Pastor, 2, p. 177, n. 3. According to the evidence of an eye-witness, Sixtus Œlhafen.[154]The report of the whole proceedings at Worms relating to Luther has been collected in volume ii. of the German “Reichstagsakten,” new series, 1896, ed. A. Wrede; see particularly Sections VII. (Negotiations with Luther, etc.) and XI. (Correspondence, with Aleander’s reports). Cp. H. v. Schubert, “Quellen und Forschungen über Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms,” 1899.[155]See below, p. 75 f.[156]In Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 124. The translation of “Equidem atrocissima omnia concipio,” by “I will dare even the worst,” is wrong, and the above, “My fancy paints things black,” i.e. Luther’s treatment at the Diet, is better. Cp. S. Merkle, “ Reformations-geschichtl. Streitfragen,” 1904, p. 56 ff.[157]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 126.[158]On May 1, 1521, Janssen-Pastor, p. 184, from Böcking’s edition of Hutten’s works, 2, p. 59 ff.[159]Janssen-Pastor, pp. 178, 184 f. The placard was known before, but a new rendering is found in the Mayence “Katholik,” 1902, vol. lxxxii., p. 96, from a letter-Codex of the sixteenth century belonging to the Hamburg city library, No. 469. We give J. Beyl’s translation: “This protest against Luther’s condemnation is nailed to the Mint [at Worms]. Whereas we, to the number of IIC simple-minded sworn noblemen have agreed and pledged ourselves not to forsake that just man Luther, we hereby advise the Princes, gentlemen, Romanists, and, above all, the Bishop of Mayence, of our inveterate enmity, because honour and righteous justice have been oppressed by them; we do not mention other names [of those threatened] or describe the deeds of violence against the parsons and their supporters. Bundschuh.” The numbers given vary, and IIC is perhaps a mistake of the copyist of the illegible placard. See “Freie Bayer. Schulzeitung,” 1911, No. 6; but cp. also, Kalkoff, “Reformationsgesch.,” 1911, p. 361 ff.[160]Spalatin’s “Annales,” p. 50.[161]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, from the Wartburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154.[162]Ibid., p. 153.[163]Thus Aleander, in the passage quoted below. Janssen-Pastor, p. 184.[164]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 168).[165]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 175 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).[166]Ibid., Erl. ed., 58, p. 412 f. (“Table-Talk”).[167]Ibid., 63, p. 276.[168]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 825 ff.[169]Cp. Thomas Morus, “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (“Opp.” Lovanii, 1566), p. 60.[170]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474 f.[171]“Reichstagsakten,” 2, p. 825, n. 1. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Luth.” (1883seq.), p. 85. J. Paquier, “Jérôme Aléandre,” Paris, 1900, p. 243.[172]Paquier, p. 242.[173]Letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg, a friend of Sickingen (middle of March, 1522). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 125. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).[174]Ibid., p. 126 f.[175]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 349.[176]“Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 810 f.[177]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 213 f.[178]Ibid., p. 173.[179]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 212 f.[180]Thus A. Wrede, who, in his edition of the “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” 2, p. 555, has dealt anew with the question. Cp. N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1903, No. 320.[181]Thus Karl Müller, who treats the subject exhaustively in “Luthers Schlussworte in Worms, 1521,” in “Philotesia,” dedicated to P. Kleinert, Berlin, 1907, pp. 269, 289. Cp. the review by N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1908, No. 1000.[182]“Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,” 1897, p. 174, n. 2.[183]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung²,” p. 25.[184]“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, p. 26.[185]Cp. above, p. 62, n. 2, the quotation from the “Table-Talk.”[186]The Frankfort delegate, in Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 191.[187]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474.[188]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 409, 771.[189]In the Diary of Marino Sanuto, “R. deputaz. Veneta di Storia Patria,” t. 30, Venezia, 1891, 212. At the end of the passage Denifle (in “Luther,” 1², p. 589, n. 1) proposed that “impudentiam” should be read in place of “imprudentiam” (i.e. “impudenza” in place of “imprudenza”), as the want of “prudence” had already been blamed. When Contarini speaks of Luther as “assai incontinente,” the “incontinence” is that of temper.[190]Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, 191.[191]Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,”² p. 169, n. 1; p. 172, n. 1.[192]Passages in Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” 1884, p. 170. Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,” p. 170. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Lutheranæ,” pp. 109, 205.[193]Preface to the tract, “On the abuse of the Mass,” indited as a letter to the Wittenberg Augustinians, Latin Works, Weim. ed., 8, p. 411seq.“Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 116. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243.[194]In the Latin text,ibid., p. 412 = 116.[195]To Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148.[196]To Spalatin, September 9, 1521,ibid., p. 229.[197]Cp. letter to Melanchthon of May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149.[198]Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 54.[199]On July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189.[200]To his intimate friend Johann Lang, December 18, 1521,ibid., p. 256.[201]On November 1, 1521,ibid., p. 240.[202]Ibid., p. 241.[203]On August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.[204]On August 3, 1521,ibid., p. 213. The above is the real translation of the words made use of, “quantis urgear æstibus,” according to the context.[205]On September 9, 1521,ibid., 3, p. 224.[206]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 247.[207]The Latin work will be found in Weim. ed., 8, p. 564 ff.; in Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 234seq.The MS. was sent to Spalatin on November 22, and was published at the end of February, 1522. Denifle has carefully analysed the contents and pointed out the fallacies contained in the book and certain other things not at all to Luther’s credit. See “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 29, 348. Cp. N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Scrift über die Mönchsgelübde” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, pp. 487, 517), an article rich in matter, called forth by O. Scheel’s attack on Denifle. Paulus therein shows once more that Luther was wrong in ascribing to the Church the teaching that perfection is to be attained only in the religious state, and by the observance of vows (cp. present work, vol. iv., xxiv. 4), or in claiming that the Church has a “twofold ideal of life,” and conception of religion, a lower one for the laity and a higher one for religious (p. 496 ff.). He proves, at length, the falsehood of the view cherished among Protestants, in spite of Denifle’s refutation, that all, or nearly all, entered the religious life in order to obtain justification (p. 506 ff.), and fully explains the late mediæval expression which compares religious profession to Baptism (p. 510 ff.).[208]Caspar Schatzgeyer, in a polemic against Luther wrote: “One is almost tempted to think that this book, so brimful of ire, was written by a drunken man, or by the infernal spirit himself” (“Replica” [sine loc. et an.], Augsburg, 1522, fol. E1). The opinion of the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtoveus (“Antilutherus,” Parisiis, 1524, fol. 124´), was very similar. As for Johann Dietenberger, he declared that the book bristled with lies, calumnies, and insults (“De votis monasticis,” lib. secundus, Colon., 1524, fol. T5´).
[1]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 433.[2]Ibid., 1, p. 320seq.[3]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 320seq.[4]“Vidimus certe cruentas eius litteras ad Huttenum.” C. Otto, “Joh. Cochläus,” 1874, p. 121, note. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 116.[5]Schauenberg’s letter of June 11, 1520, in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders 2, p. 415.[6]On June 17, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 443.[7]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1520, Letters, ed. de Wette, 1, p. 470 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444).[8]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, p. 267; Weim. ed., 6, p. 258. The “insignis turbula” which Luther announces in a letter to Spalatin of February, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344), is not the “revolution of the nobility which Hutten planned,” but the ecclesiastical and political storm to be roused by Luther’s own action.[9]Text in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 409 (better than in Böcking, 1, p. 355). At the head of the letter are the words, “Vive libertas.” The phrase, “Iubet ad se venire N. te, si tutus istic satis non sis,” must refer to Sickingen. Before this, Hutten says: “Si vi ingruent, vires erunt adversum, non tantum pares, sed, ut spero, superiores etiam.”[10]“Se iam et litteris et armis in tyrannidem sacerdotalem ruere.” Luther writes thus to Spalatin on September 11, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 478. Cp.ibid., p. 488: “Armis et ingenio rem tentans.”[11]Cp. Enders, 2, p. 480, note 5.[12]“Iungam Hutteno et spiritum meum,” etc. Letter of September 11, 1520, quoted above.[13]To Spalatin, November 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 523. The “attack” was supposed to have taken place in the beginning of November. But Aleander, in the letters he sent to Rome in the middle of December, does not speak of an actual attack, but merely of threats addressed by Hutten to the Archbishop of Treves, and reported by the latter to Aleander. Cp. A. Wrede, “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” Bd. 2, Gotha, 1896, p. 460 f., and P. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,”² Halle, 1897, pp. 32, 46.[14]Letter of December 4, 1520, in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 5 f. The able politician Capito served Luther well also at a later date. It was chiefly owing to him that the carrying out of the Worms proscription was prevented.[15]Letter of December 9, 1520, Böcking, 1, p. 435 ff.[16]Luther to Spalatin, December 15, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 20. If the Papacy be not overthrown, the alternative is “aut ultima dies instat.”[17]“Nollem vi et caede pro evangelio certari,” etc. To Spalatin, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.[18]“Princeps noster ut prudenter et fideliter ita et constanter agit,” etc., February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85. Luther was then engaged on the “Assertio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 156. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 55.[19]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 64.[20]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 85 ff.[21]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 103; Erl. ed., 21, p. 191.[22]Ibid., pp. 91 and 173.[23]See, for instance, Oldecop’s statements, vol. 1, pp. 24, 280.[24]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.[25]Ibid., pp. 322, 136.[26]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 246.[27]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.[28]To Johann Staupitz, March 31, 1518,ibid., p. 176.[29]“Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, p. 138; Weim. ed., 16, p. 323.[30]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, 80.[31]Ibid., p. 347 = p. 107. We shall come back later to the harsh exclamation which occurs in the course of this outburst: “Cur non magis hos magistros perditionis ... omnibus armis impetimus et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus?” and to the mitigating additions introduced into the Jena edition of Luther’s works, see below, p. 55, n. 1.[32]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 384 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 294seq.[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.[34]To Wenceslaus Link, July 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.[35]“An den Stier von Wittenberg,” Bl. A.[36]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl. n. 3.[37]To Johann Lang, November 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 124.[38]In 1520, soon after February 18,ibid., 2, p. 329.[39]To Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518,ibid., 1, p. 174.[40]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 148. On the date see Kalkoff, “Z. für KG.,” 31, 1910, p. 411.[41]Knaake, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 522. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 170, 177.[42]On May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200.[43]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 442.[44]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 224, 355.[45]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 3 ff., 39 ff., Erl. ed., 53, p. 41, after the German original; “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 210, in Latin (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 496).[46]P. Kalkoff, “Die Miltitziade, eine kritische Nachlese zur Gesch. des Ablassstreites,” 1911. Miltitz—a man whose ability was by no means equal to his vanity, and who owed whatever influence he possessed to his noble Saxon descent—was chosen to bring the Golden Rose to the Elector of Saxony. His instructions were to induce Frederick to abandon Luther’s cause and to hand him over to the ecclesiastical judges. Though Miltitz was a mere “nuntius et commissarius” with very restricted powers, he assumed great airs. The Elector, who knew his man, soon found means to use him for his own political aims. In September, 1519, when the Golden Rose had duly been handed over, Miltitz’s mission was at an end, and he was thereupon engaged for three years by Frederick himself (Kalkoff, p. 33). His further doings revealed more and more both his untrustworthiness and his light-hearted optimism.[47]To the Elector of Saxony,October 14, 1520, in extract, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.[48]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 468.[49]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 474 ff., “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 5.[50]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 338.[51]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 339.[52]To Spalatin, August 23 and 31, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, pp. 464, 471.[53]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 329seq.[54]Sermon of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 260 (2nd impression); cp.ibid., p. 220 (1st impression), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18.[55]Colloquia, ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178seq.[56]Ibid., p. 170.[57]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 446: “Bis monuisti, mi Spalatine, ut de fide et operibus tum de obedientia ecclesiæ Romanæ in apologia mea vernacula mentionem facerem.”[58]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 433, where he begins, on an enclosed slip; “Quod si Princeps etiam hoc adiiciat, esse Lutheranam doctrinam,” etc. (a hint for the Elector’s reply to Cardinal Petrucci). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 430, n. 1.[59]Ibid., p. 429.[60]July 10, 1520, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 351.[61]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 464.[62]Ibid., p. 432: “A me quidem iacta est alea, contemptus est Romanus furor et favor, nolo eis reconciliari nec communicare in perpetuum,” etc.[63]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 432.[64]To Conrad Saum, one of his followers, October 1, 1520,ibid., p. 484.[65]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 381 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 274 ff.[66]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 256.[67]Ibid., p. 267.[68]Letter of July 20, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444.[69]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 484 ff.; Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 13seq.[70]Printed in Latin, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39 ff. In German, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 12 ff. Erl. ed., 27, p. 173 ff.[71]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 274.[72]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 23.[73]Ibid., p. 25.[74]Ibid., p. 27.[75]Ibid., p. 29 f.[76]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29.[77]Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.”, 1, p. 42.[78]The true character of such utterances of Luther can be best judged from the results they produced. “The effect not merely of the radical tendencies, but of Luther’s sermons, was chiefly to make the people believe that the freedom of a Christian was to be found in the utmost contempt for all law, whether human or Divine,” G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 14.[79]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 412; Erl. ed., 21, p. 288.[80]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 411 (287).[81]“Preussische Jahrbücher,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 35. In his review of Denifle-Weiss, vol. ii., P. Albert Weiss, in many passages, describes the consequences alluded to above.[82]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 561. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349.[83]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 350. “With the nature and extent of the Christian liberty which he [here] claimed he might have shocked even libertines. Nor did he shrink from advocating it elsewhere in the same work.”Ibid., p. 345.[84]“Dico itaque: Neque papa neque episcopus neque ullus hominum habet ius unius syllabæ constituendæ super christianum hominem, nisi id fiat eiusdem consensu; quidquid aliter fit, tyrannico spiritu fit” (p. 536 [68]). Cp. p. 554 [93], concerning the superfluousness of laws: “Hoc scio, nullam rempublicam legibus feliciter administrari.... Quod si adsit eruditio divina cum prudentia naturali, plane superfluum et noxium est scriptas leges habere; super omnia autem caritas nullis prorsus legibus indiget” (p. 555 [94]). “Christianis per Christum libertas donata est super omnes leges hominum.” On p. 558 [98], with regard to the alleged corruption of the marriage law: “Ut nulla remedii spes sit, nisi, revocato libertatis evangelio, secundum ipsum, exstinctis semel omnibus omnium hominum legibus, omnia iudicemus et regamus. Amen.” This latter declaration of war, and other things too, are not found in the Jena and Wittenberg editions. In all these utterances we see the excessive zeal of a theorist devoid of experience whose eyes are blind to the consequences. Many, indeed, are those who in the course of history have been equally precipitate in pronouncing on questions of moment, regardless of the number of their readers.[85]p. 555 [100]: “Digamiam malim quam divortium, sed an liceat, ipse non audeo definire.”[86]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 348.[87]p. 558 [99]: “Consulam, ut cum consensu viri—cum iam non sit maritus, sed simplex et solutus cohabitator—misceatur alteri vel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, et proles imputetur putativo, ut dicunt, patri.” Cp. his disgusting language regarding the ecclesiastical impediments of marriage, p. 554, [93]: “Quid vendunt [Romanenses]? Vulvas et veretra. Merx scilicet dignissima mercatoribus istis, præ avaritia et impietate plus quam sordidissimis et obscoenissimis ... ut in ecclesia Dei loco sancto [sit] abominatio ista, quæ venderet hominibus publice utriusque sexus pudibunda, seu, ut scriptura vocat, ignominias et turpitudines, quas tamen antea per vim legum suarum rapuissent.”[88]p. 560 [101].[89]Cp. the Latin edition, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.[90]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 58. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 233.[91]“Opp. Lat. var,” 4, 233. Some preach, “Ut affectus humanos moveant ad condolendum Christo ad indignandum Iudæis et id genus alia puerilia et muliebria deliramenta.” One must preach, “eo fine, quo fides in eum promoveatur”; this preaching is in agreement with the teaching according to which in Christ, “omnium domini sumus, et quidquid egerimus, coram Deo placitum et acceptum esse confidimus.”[92]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 405; Erl. ed., 21, p. 278 f.[93]Ibid., p. 414 [291].[94]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 468 f. [360 f.].[95]Ibid., 500 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 20.[96]Ibid., p. 173 f. [= 118].[97]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 162.[98]Ibid., p. 165.[99]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1², p. 586 f. Cp. 169 ff., 1, p. xv. Also J. Schlecht, “K. Leib’s Briefwechsel und Diarien,” Münster, 1909, p. 12.[100]Friedr. Roth, “Wilh. Pirkheimer,” Halle, 1887 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch., v. 4). The author says, Pirkheimer’s final opinion on Lutheranism is summed up in the words: “God keep all pious men, countries and peoples from such teaching, for where it is there is no peace, quiet or unity.” Though Pirkheimer confessed “with energy that he was once more a member of the olden Catholic Church,” he nevertheless remained as much a Humanist as a Catholic as he had been as a Protestant. Yet that he still saw some good in Luther’s cause is clear from what Melanchthon writes of him as late as April, 1530. “Fuimus apud Pirchamerum hodie, ego et Ionas, qui de te et causa honorifice sentit.” To Luther, April 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 7, p. 310. P. Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1887, is more sceptical regarding his return to Catholicism, though he brings forward no definite proofs to the contrary. He himself mentions how Cochlæus, in a letter of March 10, 1529, invited Pirkheimer (“Pirkheimer Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 396) to write a satire in verse on Luther after the model of his own “Lutherus septiceps.”[101]Döllinger,ibid., p. 168.[102]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 514.[103]His father Albert came from Eptas in Hungary; he was a goldsmith.[104]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.[105]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.[106]On his adhesion to Protestantism, see M. Zucker, “Albrecht Dürer,” 1900, chap. xvi., and Lange in the “Grenzbote,” vol. lv. 1, with reasons which are, however, open to criticism. E. Heidrich (“Dürer und die Reformation,” 1909) makes Dürer die a Lutheran. For his final profession of Catholicism see more particularly Ant. Weber, “Albrecht Dürer,” 3rd ed., 1903. Cp. “Hochland,” 3, 2, 1906, p. 206 ff. W. Köhler remarks in the “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 1908, vol. xxviii., p. 244: “Dürer was more a follower of Erasmus than a Lutheran.” See also G. Stuhlfauth in the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1907, p. 835 ff., and “Histor. Jahrb.,” 1910, p. 456 ff.[107]April or May, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 255.[108]Enders,ibid., p. 257, n. 3.[109]Hagelstange, in “Hochland,” 1906, p. 314.[110]“Bulla contra errores M. Lutheri,” Romæ, 1520. Printed also in “Bullar. Rom.,” ed. Taurin., 5, p. 748seq., and in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1520, n. 51; and with a bitter commentary by Luther, in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 264seq.[111]K. Müller, in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 24, 1903, p. 46 ff. A. Schulte, in “Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 6, 1903, p. 32 ff., 174 ff. P. Kalkoff, “Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, p. 372 ff.; 32, 1911, p. 1 ff.; p. 199 ff., 408 ff., 572 ff.; 33, 1912, p. 1 ff. He deals fully with the part taken by the Dominicans in the Indulgence controversy. Kalkoff’s researches have since been published apart (“Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” Gotha, 1912). A good general view of the question in Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes,” Engl. Trans., 7, p. 361 ff.[112]P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” etc., p. 133.[113]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” see above p. 45, n. 2, p. 35. The statement of K. Müller that from the very outset there had been a difficulty in proving Luther’s writing, rests, as Schulte shows (p. 43), merely on a misapprehended passage in one of the letters of the Venetian Orator at Rome.[114]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” p. 45.[115]In Schulte (ibid., p. 49) this circumstance, on which theology must necessarily lay great stress, is passed over. Not all Luther’s propositions were branded as “heretical.”[116]Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 543 ff.[117]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 576 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 17 ff.[118]Ibid., p. 595 ff. [38 f.]. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 132seq.[119]Ibid., p. 603; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142.[120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 46.[121]Ibid., p. 41.[122]For the accounts of the burning, see M. Perlbach and J. Luther, “Ein neuer Bericht über Luthers Verbrennung der Bannbulle” (“SB. der preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft.,” and also apart), Berlin, 1907, and Kawerau, in “Theol. Studien,” 1908, p. 587. Luther’s words, quoted in the new account, run as follows: “Quia tu conturbasti veritatem Dei, conturbat et te hodie in ignem istum(instead of ‘igni isto’).Amen”; whereupon all those present answered, “Amen.” The form given before this ran: “Quia tu conturbasti sanctum Dei, ideoque te conturbet ignis æternus.” Were this correct, “sanctum Dei” would refer to Christ as the “Holy One of God,” according to the biblical expression, but we should scarcely be justified in taking it to mean Luther himself, as some Catholics have done, as though he had arrogated to himself this title. With regard to the books burnt, see also Luther’s letter to Spalatin, on December 10, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 18. On Thomas and Scotus see the source quoted above.[123]On February 17, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 87. For the printed verses, Enders, like Köstlin, refers to Selneccer, “Vita Lutheri,” Witteb., 1687, p. 133.[124]To Conrad Pellican, at the end of February, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 93.[125]On February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83.[126]He praises the Prince, saying that he walks “prudenter, fideliter,” and “constanter.” Cp. above p. 8.[127]January 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 70[128]Both sentences,ibid.[129]Above, p. 49. Epitome of Prierias with Preface and Postscript (Latin). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 347. The commencement of the passage is quoted above, p. 13.[130]On the falsification of Luther’s works in the early editions, see G. Arnold, “Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, 1727, p. 419 ff.; Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,”[131]To Spalatin at Worms, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.[132]In the same month he wrote to Hutten to the same effect: “Nollem vi et cæde pro evangelio certari.” The letter, however, did not reach its destination. Enders, 3, p. 74, n. 8.[133]Letter to Spalatin in Worms, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90: The wrath of the Papists was being stayed by a Divine decree.[134]See volume i., p. 359. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im Mittelalter,” 1909, gives instances of writers who anticipated Luther in seeing Antichrist in the Pope. He looks upon Luther’s controversial writings on the subject of Antichrist as justified. “All Lutheran Christendom at the Reformation period,” according to him, shared “its master’s” views and expectation of the approaching end of the world (p. 196); he thinks it quite in order that the article regarding Antichrist “should have been incorporated in the Lutheran Confession of Faith” (p. 181).[135]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 698 ff.[136]Ibid., 11, p. 357-373; Erl. ed., 29, p. 1-16.[137]To Staupitz in Salzburg, February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85: “Princeps noster, cuius iussu assertiones istas utraque lingua edo.”[138]Reprinted “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 284 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 206 ff.[139]“Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 616; Erl. ed., 24², p. 40.[140]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 395, where this contradiction is pointed out.[141]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 212.[142]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297; Erl. ed., 24, p. 212.[143]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 165. “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 178.[144]Letter to Spalatin, April 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 121. “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.[145]Spalatin’s “Annals,” ed. Cyprian, 1718, p. 38. Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 122, n. 5; “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.[146]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 174, Engl. Trans., 3, 189.[147]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 249 ff.[148]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 175, Engl. Trans., 3, 190.[149]Ibid., Enders, p. 156, n. 4.[150]Previous to May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 147.[151]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.[152]“Ratzebergers Geschichte,” ed. Neudecker, p. 30.[153]Janssen-Pastor, 2, p. 177, n. 3. According to the evidence of an eye-witness, Sixtus Œlhafen.[154]The report of the whole proceedings at Worms relating to Luther has been collected in volume ii. of the German “Reichstagsakten,” new series, 1896, ed. A. Wrede; see particularly Sections VII. (Negotiations with Luther, etc.) and XI. (Correspondence, with Aleander’s reports). Cp. H. v. Schubert, “Quellen und Forschungen über Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms,” 1899.[155]See below, p. 75 f.[156]In Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 124. The translation of “Equidem atrocissima omnia concipio,” by “I will dare even the worst,” is wrong, and the above, “My fancy paints things black,” i.e. Luther’s treatment at the Diet, is better. Cp. S. Merkle, “ Reformations-geschichtl. Streitfragen,” 1904, p. 56 ff.[157]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 126.[158]On May 1, 1521, Janssen-Pastor, p. 184, from Böcking’s edition of Hutten’s works, 2, p. 59 ff.[159]Janssen-Pastor, pp. 178, 184 f. The placard was known before, but a new rendering is found in the Mayence “Katholik,” 1902, vol. lxxxii., p. 96, from a letter-Codex of the sixteenth century belonging to the Hamburg city library, No. 469. We give J. Beyl’s translation: “This protest against Luther’s condemnation is nailed to the Mint [at Worms]. Whereas we, to the number of IIC simple-minded sworn noblemen have agreed and pledged ourselves not to forsake that just man Luther, we hereby advise the Princes, gentlemen, Romanists, and, above all, the Bishop of Mayence, of our inveterate enmity, because honour and righteous justice have been oppressed by them; we do not mention other names [of those threatened] or describe the deeds of violence against the parsons and their supporters. Bundschuh.” The numbers given vary, and IIC is perhaps a mistake of the copyist of the illegible placard. See “Freie Bayer. Schulzeitung,” 1911, No. 6; but cp. also, Kalkoff, “Reformationsgesch.,” 1911, p. 361 ff.[160]Spalatin’s “Annales,” p. 50.[161]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, from the Wartburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154.[162]Ibid., p. 153.[163]Thus Aleander, in the passage quoted below. Janssen-Pastor, p. 184.[164]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 168).[165]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 175 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).[166]Ibid., Erl. ed., 58, p. 412 f. (“Table-Talk”).[167]Ibid., 63, p. 276.[168]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 825 ff.[169]Cp. Thomas Morus, “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (“Opp.” Lovanii, 1566), p. 60.[170]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474 f.[171]“Reichstagsakten,” 2, p. 825, n. 1. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Luth.” (1883seq.), p. 85. J. Paquier, “Jérôme Aléandre,” Paris, 1900, p. 243.[172]Paquier, p. 242.[173]Letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg, a friend of Sickingen (middle of March, 1522). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 125. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).[174]Ibid., p. 126 f.[175]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 349.[176]“Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 810 f.[177]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 213 f.[178]Ibid., p. 173.[179]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 212 f.[180]Thus A. Wrede, who, in his edition of the “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” 2, p. 555, has dealt anew with the question. Cp. N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1903, No. 320.[181]Thus Karl Müller, who treats the subject exhaustively in “Luthers Schlussworte in Worms, 1521,” in “Philotesia,” dedicated to P. Kleinert, Berlin, 1907, pp. 269, 289. Cp. the review by N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1908, No. 1000.[182]“Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,” 1897, p. 174, n. 2.[183]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung²,” p. 25.[184]“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, p. 26.[185]Cp. above, p. 62, n. 2, the quotation from the “Table-Talk.”[186]The Frankfort delegate, in Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 191.[187]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474.[188]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 409, 771.[189]In the Diary of Marino Sanuto, “R. deputaz. Veneta di Storia Patria,” t. 30, Venezia, 1891, 212. At the end of the passage Denifle (in “Luther,” 1², p. 589, n. 1) proposed that “impudentiam” should be read in place of “imprudentiam” (i.e. “impudenza” in place of “imprudenza”), as the want of “prudence” had already been blamed. When Contarini speaks of Luther as “assai incontinente,” the “incontinence” is that of temper.[190]Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, 191.[191]Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,”² p. 169, n. 1; p. 172, n. 1.[192]Passages in Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” 1884, p. 170. Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,” p. 170. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Lutheranæ,” pp. 109, 205.[193]Preface to the tract, “On the abuse of the Mass,” indited as a letter to the Wittenberg Augustinians, Latin Works, Weim. ed., 8, p. 411seq.“Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 116. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243.[194]In the Latin text,ibid., p. 412 = 116.[195]To Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148.[196]To Spalatin, September 9, 1521,ibid., p. 229.[197]Cp. letter to Melanchthon of May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149.[198]Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 54.[199]On July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189.[200]To his intimate friend Johann Lang, December 18, 1521,ibid., p. 256.[201]On November 1, 1521,ibid., p. 240.[202]Ibid., p. 241.[203]On August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.[204]On August 3, 1521,ibid., p. 213. The above is the real translation of the words made use of, “quantis urgear æstibus,” according to the context.[205]On September 9, 1521,ibid., 3, p. 224.[206]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 247.[207]The Latin work will be found in Weim. ed., 8, p. 564 ff.; in Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 234seq.The MS. was sent to Spalatin on November 22, and was published at the end of February, 1522. Denifle has carefully analysed the contents and pointed out the fallacies contained in the book and certain other things not at all to Luther’s credit. See “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 29, 348. Cp. N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Scrift über die Mönchsgelübde” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, pp. 487, 517), an article rich in matter, called forth by O. Scheel’s attack on Denifle. Paulus therein shows once more that Luther was wrong in ascribing to the Church the teaching that perfection is to be attained only in the religious state, and by the observance of vows (cp. present work, vol. iv., xxiv. 4), or in claiming that the Church has a “twofold ideal of life,” and conception of religion, a lower one for the laity and a higher one for religious (p. 496 ff.). He proves, at length, the falsehood of the view cherished among Protestants, in spite of Denifle’s refutation, that all, or nearly all, entered the religious life in order to obtain justification (p. 506 ff.), and fully explains the late mediæval expression which compares religious profession to Baptism (p. 510 ff.).[208]Caspar Schatzgeyer, in a polemic against Luther wrote: “One is almost tempted to think that this book, so brimful of ire, was written by a drunken man, or by the infernal spirit himself” (“Replica” [sine loc. et an.], Augsburg, 1522, fol. E1). The opinion of the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtoveus (“Antilutherus,” Parisiis, 1524, fol. 124´), was very similar. As for Johann Dietenberger, he declared that the book bristled with lies, calumnies, and insults (“De votis monasticis,” lib. secundus, Colon., 1524, fol. T5´).
[1]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 433.[2]Ibid., 1, p. 320seq.[3]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 320seq.[4]“Vidimus certe cruentas eius litteras ad Huttenum.” C. Otto, “Joh. Cochläus,” 1874, p. 121, note. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 116.[5]Schauenberg’s letter of June 11, 1520, in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders 2, p. 415.[6]On June 17, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 443.[7]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1520, Letters, ed. de Wette, 1, p. 470 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444).[8]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, p. 267; Weim. ed., 6, p. 258. The “insignis turbula” which Luther announces in a letter to Spalatin of February, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344), is not the “revolution of the nobility which Hutten planned,” but the ecclesiastical and political storm to be roused by Luther’s own action.[9]Text in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 409 (better than in Böcking, 1, p. 355). At the head of the letter are the words, “Vive libertas.” The phrase, “Iubet ad se venire N. te, si tutus istic satis non sis,” must refer to Sickingen. Before this, Hutten says: “Si vi ingruent, vires erunt adversum, non tantum pares, sed, ut spero, superiores etiam.”[10]“Se iam et litteris et armis in tyrannidem sacerdotalem ruere.” Luther writes thus to Spalatin on September 11, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 478. Cp.ibid., p. 488: “Armis et ingenio rem tentans.”[11]Cp. Enders, 2, p. 480, note 5.[12]“Iungam Hutteno et spiritum meum,” etc. Letter of September 11, 1520, quoted above.[13]To Spalatin, November 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 523. The “attack” was supposed to have taken place in the beginning of November. But Aleander, in the letters he sent to Rome in the middle of December, does not speak of an actual attack, but merely of threats addressed by Hutten to the Archbishop of Treves, and reported by the latter to Aleander. Cp. A. Wrede, “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” Bd. 2, Gotha, 1896, p. 460 f., and P. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,”² Halle, 1897, pp. 32, 46.[14]Letter of December 4, 1520, in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 5 f. The able politician Capito served Luther well also at a later date. It was chiefly owing to him that the carrying out of the Worms proscription was prevented.[15]Letter of December 9, 1520, Böcking, 1, p. 435 ff.[16]Luther to Spalatin, December 15, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 20. If the Papacy be not overthrown, the alternative is “aut ultima dies instat.”[17]“Nollem vi et caede pro evangelio certari,” etc. To Spalatin, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.[18]“Princeps noster ut prudenter et fideliter ita et constanter agit,” etc., February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85. Luther was then engaged on the “Assertio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 156. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 55.[19]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 64.[20]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 85 ff.[21]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 103; Erl. ed., 21, p. 191.[22]Ibid., pp. 91 and 173.[23]See, for instance, Oldecop’s statements, vol. 1, pp. 24, 280.[24]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.[25]Ibid., pp. 322, 136.[26]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 246.[27]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.[28]To Johann Staupitz, March 31, 1518,ibid., p. 176.[29]“Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, p. 138; Weim. ed., 16, p. 323.[30]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, 80.[31]Ibid., p. 347 = p. 107. We shall come back later to the harsh exclamation which occurs in the course of this outburst: “Cur non magis hos magistros perditionis ... omnibus armis impetimus et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus?” and to the mitigating additions introduced into the Jena edition of Luther’s works, see below, p. 55, n. 1.[32]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 384 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 294seq.[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.[34]To Wenceslaus Link, July 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.[35]“An den Stier von Wittenberg,” Bl. A.[36]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl. n. 3.[37]To Johann Lang, November 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 124.[38]In 1520, soon after February 18,ibid., 2, p. 329.[39]To Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518,ibid., 1, p. 174.[40]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 148. On the date see Kalkoff, “Z. für KG.,” 31, 1910, p. 411.[41]Knaake, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 522. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 170, 177.[42]On May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200.[43]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 442.[44]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 224, 355.[45]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 3 ff., 39 ff., Erl. ed., 53, p. 41, after the German original; “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 210, in Latin (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 496).[46]P. Kalkoff, “Die Miltitziade, eine kritische Nachlese zur Gesch. des Ablassstreites,” 1911. Miltitz—a man whose ability was by no means equal to his vanity, and who owed whatever influence he possessed to his noble Saxon descent—was chosen to bring the Golden Rose to the Elector of Saxony. His instructions were to induce Frederick to abandon Luther’s cause and to hand him over to the ecclesiastical judges. Though Miltitz was a mere “nuntius et commissarius” with very restricted powers, he assumed great airs. The Elector, who knew his man, soon found means to use him for his own political aims. In September, 1519, when the Golden Rose had duly been handed over, Miltitz’s mission was at an end, and he was thereupon engaged for three years by Frederick himself (Kalkoff, p. 33). His further doings revealed more and more both his untrustworthiness and his light-hearted optimism.[47]To the Elector of Saxony,October 14, 1520, in extract, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.[48]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 468.[49]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 474 ff., “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 5.[50]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 338.[51]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 339.[52]To Spalatin, August 23 and 31, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, pp. 464, 471.[53]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 329seq.[54]Sermon of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 260 (2nd impression); cp.ibid., p. 220 (1st impression), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18.[55]Colloquia, ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178seq.[56]Ibid., p. 170.[57]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 446: “Bis monuisti, mi Spalatine, ut de fide et operibus tum de obedientia ecclesiæ Romanæ in apologia mea vernacula mentionem facerem.”[58]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 433, where he begins, on an enclosed slip; “Quod si Princeps etiam hoc adiiciat, esse Lutheranam doctrinam,” etc. (a hint for the Elector’s reply to Cardinal Petrucci). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 430, n. 1.[59]Ibid., p. 429.[60]July 10, 1520, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 351.[61]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 464.[62]Ibid., p. 432: “A me quidem iacta est alea, contemptus est Romanus furor et favor, nolo eis reconciliari nec communicare in perpetuum,” etc.[63]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 432.[64]To Conrad Saum, one of his followers, October 1, 1520,ibid., p. 484.[65]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 381 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 274 ff.[66]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 256.[67]Ibid., p. 267.[68]Letter of July 20, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444.[69]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 484 ff.; Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 13seq.[70]Printed in Latin, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39 ff. In German, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 12 ff. Erl. ed., 27, p. 173 ff.[71]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 274.[72]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 23.[73]Ibid., p. 25.[74]Ibid., p. 27.[75]Ibid., p. 29 f.[76]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29.[77]Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.”, 1, p. 42.[78]The true character of such utterances of Luther can be best judged from the results they produced. “The effect not merely of the radical tendencies, but of Luther’s sermons, was chiefly to make the people believe that the freedom of a Christian was to be found in the utmost contempt for all law, whether human or Divine,” G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 14.[79]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 412; Erl. ed., 21, p. 288.[80]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 411 (287).[81]“Preussische Jahrbücher,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 35. In his review of Denifle-Weiss, vol. ii., P. Albert Weiss, in many passages, describes the consequences alluded to above.[82]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 561. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349.[83]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 350. “With the nature and extent of the Christian liberty which he [here] claimed he might have shocked even libertines. Nor did he shrink from advocating it elsewhere in the same work.”Ibid., p. 345.[84]“Dico itaque: Neque papa neque episcopus neque ullus hominum habet ius unius syllabæ constituendæ super christianum hominem, nisi id fiat eiusdem consensu; quidquid aliter fit, tyrannico spiritu fit” (p. 536 [68]). Cp. p. 554 [93], concerning the superfluousness of laws: “Hoc scio, nullam rempublicam legibus feliciter administrari.... Quod si adsit eruditio divina cum prudentia naturali, plane superfluum et noxium est scriptas leges habere; super omnia autem caritas nullis prorsus legibus indiget” (p. 555 [94]). “Christianis per Christum libertas donata est super omnes leges hominum.” On p. 558 [98], with regard to the alleged corruption of the marriage law: “Ut nulla remedii spes sit, nisi, revocato libertatis evangelio, secundum ipsum, exstinctis semel omnibus omnium hominum legibus, omnia iudicemus et regamus. Amen.” This latter declaration of war, and other things too, are not found in the Jena and Wittenberg editions. In all these utterances we see the excessive zeal of a theorist devoid of experience whose eyes are blind to the consequences. Many, indeed, are those who in the course of history have been equally precipitate in pronouncing on questions of moment, regardless of the number of their readers.[85]p. 555 [100]: “Digamiam malim quam divortium, sed an liceat, ipse non audeo definire.”[86]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 348.[87]p. 558 [99]: “Consulam, ut cum consensu viri—cum iam non sit maritus, sed simplex et solutus cohabitator—misceatur alteri vel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, et proles imputetur putativo, ut dicunt, patri.” Cp. his disgusting language regarding the ecclesiastical impediments of marriage, p. 554, [93]: “Quid vendunt [Romanenses]? Vulvas et veretra. Merx scilicet dignissima mercatoribus istis, præ avaritia et impietate plus quam sordidissimis et obscoenissimis ... ut in ecclesia Dei loco sancto [sit] abominatio ista, quæ venderet hominibus publice utriusque sexus pudibunda, seu, ut scriptura vocat, ignominias et turpitudines, quas tamen antea per vim legum suarum rapuissent.”[88]p. 560 [101].[89]Cp. the Latin edition, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.[90]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 58. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 233.[91]“Opp. Lat. var,” 4, 233. Some preach, “Ut affectus humanos moveant ad condolendum Christo ad indignandum Iudæis et id genus alia puerilia et muliebria deliramenta.” One must preach, “eo fine, quo fides in eum promoveatur”; this preaching is in agreement with the teaching according to which in Christ, “omnium domini sumus, et quidquid egerimus, coram Deo placitum et acceptum esse confidimus.”[92]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 405; Erl. ed., 21, p. 278 f.[93]Ibid., p. 414 [291].[94]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 468 f. [360 f.].[95]Ibid., 500 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 20.[96]Ibid., p. 173 f. [= 118].[97]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 162.[98]Ibid., p. 165.[99]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1², p. 586 f. Cp. 169 ff., 1, p. xv. Also J. Schlecht, “K. Leib’s Briefwechsel und Diarien,” Münster, 1909, p. 12.[100]Friedr. Roth, “Wilh. Pirkheimer,” Halle, 1887 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch., v. 4). The author says, Pirkheimer’s final opinion on Lutheranism is summed up in the words: “God keep all pious men, countries and peoples from such teaching, for where it is there is no peace, quiet or unity.” Though Pirkheimer confessed “with energy that he was once more a member of the olden Catholic Church,” he nevertheless remained as much a Humanist as a Catholic as he had been as a Protestant. Yet that he still saw some good in Luther’s cause is clear from what Melanchthon writes of him as late as April, 1530. “Fuimus apud Pirchamerum hodie, ego et Ionas, qui de te et causa honorifice sentit.” To Luther, April 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 7, p. 310. P. Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1887, is more sceptical regarding his return to Catholicism, though he brings forward no definite proofs to the contrary. He himself mentions how Cochlæus, in a letter of March 10, 1529, invited Pirkheimer (“Pirkheimer Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 396) to write a satire in verse on Luther after the model of his own “Lutherus septiceps.”[101]Döllinger,ibid., p. 168.[102]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 514.[103]His father Albert came from Eptas in Hungary; he was a goldsmith.[104]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.[105]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.[106]On his adhesion to Protestantism, see M. Zucker, “Albrecht Dürer,” 1900, chap. xvi., and Lange in the “Grenzbote,” vol. lv. 1, with reasons which are, however, open to criticism. E. Heidrich (“Dürer und die Reformation,” 1909) makes Dürer die a Lutheran. For his final profession of Catholicism see more particularly Ant. Weber, “Albrecht Dürer,” 3rd ed., 1903. Cp. “Hochland,” 3, 2, 1906, p. 206 ff. W. Köhler remarks in the “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 1908, vol. xxviii., p. 244: “Dürer was more a follower of Erasmus than a Lutheran.” See also G. Stuhlfauth in the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1907, p. 835 ff., and “Histor. Jahrb.,” 1910, p. 456 ff.[107]April or May, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 255.[108]Enders,ibid., p. 257, n. 3.[109]Hagelstange, in “Hochland,” 1906, p. 314.[110]“Bulla contra errores M. Lutheri,” Romæ, 1520. Printed also in “Bullar. Rom.,” ed. Taurin., 5, p. 748seq., and in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1520, n. 51; and with a bitter commentary by Luther, in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 264seq.[111]K. Müller, in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 24, 1903, p. 46 ff. A. Schulte, in “Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 6, 1903, p. 32 ff., 174 ff. P. Kalkoff, “Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, p. 372 ff.; 32, 1911, p. 1 ff.; p. 199 ff., 408 ff., 572 ff.; 33, 1912, p. 1 ff. He deals fully with the part taken by the Dominicans in the Indulgence controversy. Kalkoff’s researches have since been published apart (“Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” Gotha, 1912). A good general view of the question in Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes,” Engl. Trans., 7, p. 361 ff.[112]P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” etc., p. 133.[113]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” see above p. 45, n. 2, p. 35. The statement of K. Müller that from the very outset there had been a difficulty in proving Luther’s writing, rests, as Schulte shows (p. 43), merely on a misapprehended passage in one of the letters of the Venetian Orator at Rome.[114]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” p. 45.[115]In Schulte (ibid., p. 49) this circumstance, on which theology must necessarily lay great stress, is passed over. Not all Luther’s propositions were branded as “heretical.”[116]Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 543 ff.[117]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 576 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 17 ff.[118]Ibid., p. 595 ff. [38 f.]. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 132seq.[119]Ibid., p. 603; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142.[120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 46.[121]Ibid., p. 41.[122]For the accounts of the burning, see M. Perlbach and J. Luther, “Ein neuer Bericht über Luthers Verbrennung der Bannbulle” (“SB. der preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft.,” and also apart), Berlin, 1907, and Kawerau, in “Theol. Studien,” 1908, p. 587. Luther’s words, quoted in the new account, run as follows: “Quia tu conturbasti veritatem Dei, conturbat et te hodie in ignem istum(instead of ‘igni isto’).Amen”; whereupon all those present answered, “Amen.” The form given before this ran: “Quia tu conturbasti sanctum Dei, ideoque te conturbet ignis æternus.” Were this correct, “sanctum Dei” would refer to Christ as the “Holy One of God,” according to the biblical expression, but we should scarcely be justified in taking it to mean Luther himself, as some Catholics have done, as though he had arrogated to himself this title. With regard to the books burnt, see also Luther’s letter to Spalatin, on December 10, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 18. On Thomas and Scotus see the source quoted above.[123]On February 17, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 87. For the printed verses, Enders, like Köstlin, refers to Selneccer, “Vita Lutheri,” Witteb., 1687, p. 133.[124]To Conrad Pellican, at the end of February, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 93.[125]On February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83.[126]He praises the Prince, saying that he walks “prudenter, fideliter,” and “constanter.” Cp. above p. 8.[127]January 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 70[128]Both sentences,ibid.[129]Above, p. 49. Epitome of Prierias with Preface and Postscript (Latin). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 347. The commencement of the passage is quoted above, p. 13.[130]On the falsification of Luther’s works in the early editions, see G. Arnold, “Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, 1727, p. 419 ff.; Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,”[131]To Spalatin at Worms, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.[132]In the same month he wrote to Hutten to the same effect: “Nollem vi et cæde pro evangelio certari.” The letter, however, did not reach its destination. Enders, 3, p. 74, n. 8.[133]Letter to Spalatin in Worms, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90: The wrath of the Papists was being stayed by a Divine decree.[134]See volume i., p. 359. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im Mittelalter,” 1909, gives instances of writers who anticipated Luther in seeing Antichrist in the Pope. He looks upon Luther’s controversial writings on the subject of Antichrist as justified. “All Lutheran Christendom at the Reformation period,” according to him, shared “its master’s” views and expectation of the approaching end of the world (p. 196); he thinks it quite in order that the article regarding Antichrist “should have been incorporated in the Lutheran Confession of Faith” (p. 181).[135]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 698 ff.[136]Ibid., 11, p. 357-373; Erl. ed., 29, p. 1-16.[137]To Staupitz in Salzburg, February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85: “Princeps noster, cuius iussu assertiones istas utraque lingua edo.”[138]Reprinted “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 284 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 206 ff.[139]“Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 616; Erl. ed., 24², p. 40.[140]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 395, where this contradiction is pointed out.[141]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 212.[142]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297; Erl. ed., 24, p. 212.[143]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 165. “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 178.[144]Letter to Spalatin, April 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 121. “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.[145]Spalatin’s “Annals,” ed. Cyprian, 1718, p. 38. Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 122, n. 5; “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.[146]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 174, Engl. Trans., 3, 189.[147]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 249 ff.[148]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 175, Engl. Trans., 3, 190.[149]Ibid., Enders, p. 156, n. 4.[150]Previous to May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 147.[151]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.[152]“Ratzebergers Geschichte,” ed. Neudecker, p. 30.[153]Janssen-Pastor, 2, p. 177, n. 3. According to the evidence of an eye-witness, Sixtus Œlhafen.[154]The report of the whole proceedings at Worms relating to Luther has been collected in volume ii. of the German “Reichstagsakten,” new series, 1896, ed. A. Wrede; see particularly Sections VII. (Negotiations with Luther, etc.) and XI. (Correspondence, with Aleander’s reports). Cp. H. v. Schubert, “Quellen und Forschungen über Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms,” 1899.[155]See below, p. 75 f.[156]In Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 124. The translation of “Equidem atrocissima omnia concipio,” by “I will dare even the worst,” is wrong, and the above, “My fancy paints things black,” i.e. Luther’s treatment at the Diet, is better. Cp. S. Merkle, “ Reformations-geschichtl. Streitfragen,” 1904, p. 56 ff.[157]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 126.[158]On May 1, 1521, Janssen-Pastor, p. 184, from Böcking’s edition of Hutten’s works, 2, p. 59 ff.[159]Janssen-Pastor, pp. 178, 184 f. The placard was known before, but a new rendering is found in the Mayence “Katholik,” 1902, vol. lxxxii., p. 96, from a letter-Codex of the sixteenth century belonging to the Hamburg city library, No. 469. We give J. Beyl’s translation: “This protest against Luther’s condemnation is nailed to the Mint [at Worms]. Whereas we, to the number of IIC simple-minded sworn noblemen have agreed and pledged ourselves not to forsake that just man Luther, we hereby advise the Princes, gentlemen, Romanists, and, above all, the Bishop of Mayence, of our inveterate enmity, because honour and righteous justice have been oppressed by them; we do not mention other names [of those threatened] or describe the deeds of violence against the parsons and their supporters. Bundschuh.” The numbers given vary, and IIC is perhaps a mistake of the copyist of the illegible placard. See “Freie Bayer. Schulzeitung,” 1911, No. 6; but cp. also, Kalkoff, “Reformationsgesch.,” 1911, p. 361 ff.[160]Spalatin’s “Annales,” p. 50.[161]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, from the Wartburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154.[162]Ibid., p. 153.[163]Thus Aleander, in the passage quoted below. Janssen-Pastor, p. 184.[164]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 168).[165]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 175 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).[166]Ibid., Erl. ed., 58, p. 412 f. (“Table-Talk”).[167]Ibid., 63, p. 276.[168]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 825 ff.[169]Cp. Thomas Morus, “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (“Opp.” Lovanii, 1566), p. 60.[170]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474 f.[171]“Reichstagsakten,” 2, p. 825, n. 1. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Luth.” (1883seq.), p. 85. J. Paquier, “Jérôme Aléandre,” Paris, 1900, p. 243.[172]Paquier, p. 242.[173]Letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg, a friend of Sickingen (middle of March, 1522). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 125. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).[174]Ibid., p. 126 f.[175]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 349.[176]“Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 810 f.[177]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 213 f.[178]Ibid., p. 173.[179]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 212 f.[180]Thus A. Wrede, who, in his edition of the “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” 2, p. 555, has dealt anew with the question. Cp. N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1903, No. 320.[181]Thus Karl Müller, who treats the subject exhaustively in “Luthers Schlussworte in Worms, 1521,” in “Philotesia,” dedicated to P. Kleinert, Berlin, 1907, pp. 269, 289. Cp. the review by N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1908, No. 1000.[182]“Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,” 1897, p. 174, n. 2.[183]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung²,” p. 25.[184]“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, p. 26.[185]Cp. above, p. 62, n. 2, the quotation from the “Table-Talk.”[186]The Frankfort delegate, in Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 191.[187]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474.[188]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 409, 771.[189]In the Diary of Marino Sanuto, “R. deputaz. Veneta di Storia Patria,” t. 30, Venezia, 1891, 212. At the end of the passage Denifle (in “Luther,” 1², p. 589, n. 1) proposed that “impudentiam” should be read in place of “imprudentiam” (i.e. “impudenza” in place of “imprudenza”), as the want of “prudence” had already been blamed. When Contarini speaks of Luther as “assai incontinente,” the “incontinence” is that of temper.[190]Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, 191.[191]Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,”² p. 169, n. 1; p. 172, n. 1.[192]Passages in Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” 1884, p. 170. Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,” p. 170. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Lutheranæ,” pp. 109, 205.[193]Preface to the tract, “On the abuse of the Mass,” indited as a letter to the Wittenberg Augustinians, Latin Works, Weim. ed., 8, p. 411seq.“Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 116. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243.[194]In the Latin text,ibid., p. 412 = 116.[195]To Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148.[196]To Spalatin, September 9, 1521,ibid., p. 229.[197]Cp. letter to Melanchthon of May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149.[198]Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 54.[199]On July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189.[200]To his intimate friend Johann Lang, December 18, 1521,ibid., p. 256.[201]On November 1, 1521,ibid., p. 240.[202]Ibid., p. 241.[203]On August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.[204]On August 3, 1521,ibid., p. 213. The above is the real translation of the words made use of, “quantis urgear æstibus,” according to the context.[205]On September 9, 1521,ibid., 3, p. 224.[206]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 247.[207]The Latin work will be found in Weim. ed., 8, p. 564 ff.; in Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 234seq.The MS. was sent to Spalatin on November 22, and was published at the end of February, 1522. Denifle has carefully analysed the contents and pointed out the fallacies contained in the book and certain other things not at all to Luther’s credit. See “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 29, 348. Cp. N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Scrift über die Mönchsgelübde” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, pp. 487, 517), an article rich in matter, called forth by O. Scheel’s attack on Denifle. Paulus therein shows once more that Luther was wrong in ascribing to the Church the teaching that perfection is to be attained only in the religious state, and by the observance of vows (cp. present work, vol. iv., xxiv. 4), or in claiming that the Church has a “twofold ideal of life,” and conception of religion, a lower one for the laity and a higher one for religious (p. 496 ff.). He proves, at length, the falsehood of the view cherished among Protestants, in spite of Denifle’s refutation, that all, or nearly all, entered the religious life in order to obtain justification (p. 506 ff.), and fully explains the late mediæval expression which compares religious profession to Baptism (p. 510 ff.).[208]Caspar Schatzgeyer, in a polemic against Luther wrote: “One is almost tempted to think that this book, so brimful of ire, was written by a drunken man, or by the infernal spirit himself” (“Replica” [sine loc. et an.], Augsburg, 1522, fol. E1). The opinion of the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtoveus (“Antilutherus,” Parisiis, 1524, fol. 124´), was very similar. As for Johann Dietenberger, he declared that the book bristled with lies, calumnies, and insults (“De votis monasticis,” lib. secundus, Colon., 1524, fol. T5´).
[1]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 433.
[2]Ibid., 1, p. 320seq.
[3]“Hutteni opp.,” ed. Böcking (Lipsiæ, 1859,seq.), 1, p. 320seq.
[4]“Vidimus certe cruentas eius litteras ad Huttenum.” C. Otto, “Joh. Cochläus,” 1874, p. 121, note. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 116.
[5]Schauenberg’s letter of June 11, 1520, in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders 2, p. 415.
[6]On June 17, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 443.
[7]To Wenceslaus Link, July 20, 1520, Letters, ed. de Wette, 1, p. 470 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444).
[8]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, p. 267; Weim. ed., 6, p. 258. The “insignis turbula” which Luther announces in a letter to Spalatin of February, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344), is not the “revolution of the nobility which Hutten planned,” but the ecclesiastical and political storm to be roused by Luther’s own action.
[9]Text in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 409 (better than in Böcking, 1, p. 355). At the head of the letter are the words, “Vive libertas.” The phrase, “Iubet ad se venire N. te, si tutus istic satis non sis,” must refer to Sickingen. Before this, Hutten says: “Si vi ingruent, vires erunt adversum, non tantum pares, sed, ut spero, superiores etiam.”
[10]“Se iam et litteris et armis in tyrannidem sacerdotalem ruere.” Luther writes thus to Spalatin on September 11, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 478. Cp.ibid., p. 488: “Armis et ingenio rem tentans.”
[11]Cp. Enders, 2, p. 480, note 5.
[12]“Iungam Hutteno et spiritum meum,” etc. Letter of September 11, 1520, quoted above.
[13]To Spalatin, November 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 523. The “attack” was supposed to have taken place in the beginning of November. But Aleander, in the letters he sent to Rome in the middle of December, does not speak of an actual attack, but merely of threats addressed by Hutten to the Archbishop of Treves, and reported by the latter to Aleander. Cp. A. Wrede, “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” Bd. 2, Gotha, 1896, p. 460 f., and P. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,”² Halle, 1897, pp. 32, 46.
[14]Letter of December 4, 1520, in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 5 f. The able politician Capito served Luther well also at a later date. It was chiefly owing to him that the carrying out of the Worms proscription was prevented.
[15]Letter of December 9, 1520, Böcking, 1, p. 435 ff.
[16]Luther to Spalatin, December 15, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 20. If the Papacy be not overthrown, the alternative is “aut ultima dies instat.”
[17]“Nollem vi et caede pro evangelio certari,” etc. To Spalatin, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.
[18]“Princeps noster ut prudenter et fideliter ita et constanter agit,” etc., February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85. Luther was then engaged on the “Assertio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 156. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 55.
[19]Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 64.
[20]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 277 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 85 ff.
[21]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 103; Erl. ed., 21, p. 191.
[22]Ibid., pp. 91 and 173.
[23]See, for instance, Oldecop’s statements, vol. 1, pp. 24, 280.
[24]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 323; Erl. ed., 27, p. 138.
[25]Ibid., pp. 322, 136.
[26]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 246.
[27]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.
[28]To Johann Staupitz, March 31, 1518,ibid., p. 176.
[29]“Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, p. 138; Weim. ed., 16, p. 323.
[30]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, 80.
[31]Ibid., p. 347 = p. 107. We shall come back later to the harsh exclamation which occurs in the course of this outburst: “Cur non magis hos magistros perditionis ... omnibus armis impetimus et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus?” and to the mitigating additions introduced into the Jena edition of Luther’s works, see below, p. 55, n. 1.
[32]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 384 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 294seq.
[33]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.
[34]To Wenceslaus Link, July 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 211.
[35]“An den Stier von Wittenberg,” Bl. A.
[36]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl. n. 3.
[37]To Johann Lang, November 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 124.
[38]In 1520, soon after February 18,ibid., 2, p. 329.
[39]To Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518,ibid., 1, p. 174.
[40]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 148. On the date see Kalkoff, “Z. für KG.,” 31, 1910, p. 411.
[41]Knaake, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 522. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 170, 177.
[42]On May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200.
[43]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 442.
[44]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 224, 355.
[45]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 3 ff., 39 ff., Erl. ed., 53, p. 41, after the German original; “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 210, in Latin (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 496).
[46]P. Kalkoff, “Die Miltitziade, eine kritische Nachlese zur Gesch. des Ablassstreites,” 1911. Miltitz—a man whose ability was by no means equal to his vanity, and who owed whatever influence he possessed to his noble Saxon descent—was chosen to bring the Golden Rose to the Elector of Saxony. His instructions were to induce Frederick to abandon Luther’s cause and to hand him over to the ecclesiastical judges. Though Miltitz was a mere “nuntius et commissarius” with very restricted powers, he assumed great airs. The Elector, who knew his man, soon found means to use him for his own political aims. In September, 1519, when the Golden Rose had duly been handed over, Miltitz’s mission was at an end, and he was thereupon engaged for three years by Frederick himself (Kalkoff, p. 33). His further doings revealed more and more both his untrustworthiness and his light-hearted optimism.
[47]To the Elector of Saxony,October 14, 1520, in extract, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.
[48]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 468.
[49]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 474 ff., “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 5.
[50]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 338.
[51]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 339.
[52]To Spalatin, August 23 and 31, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, pp. 464, 471.
[53]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 329seq.
[54]Sermon of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 260 (2nd impression); cp.ibid., p. 220 (1st impression), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 18.
[55]Colloquia, ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178seq.
[56]Ibid., p. 170.
[57]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 446: “Bis monuisti, mi Spalatine, ut de fide et operibus tum de obedientia ecclesiæ Romanæ in apologia mea vernacula mentionem facerem.”
[58]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 433, where he begins, on an enclosed slip; “Quod si Princeps etiam hoc adiiciat, esse Lutheranam doctrinam,” etc. (a hint for the Elector’s reply to Cardinal Petrucci). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 430, n. 1.
[59]Ibid., p. 429.
[60]July 10, 1520, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 351.
[61]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 464.
[62]Ibid., p. 432: “A me quidem iacta est alea, contemptus est Romanus furor et favor, nolo eis reconciliari nec communicare in perpetuum,” etc.
[63]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 432.
[64]To Conrad Saum, one of his followers, October 1, 1520,ibid., p. 484.
[65]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 381 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 274 ff.
[66]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 256.
[67]Ibid., p. 267.
[68]Letter of July 20, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 444.
[69]Printed in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 484 ff.; Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 13seq.
[70]Printed in Latin, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39 ff. In German, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 12 ff. Erl. ed., 27, p. 173 ff.
[71]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 274.
[72]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 23.
[73]Ibid., p. 25.
[74]Ibid., p. 27.
[75]Ibid., p. 29 f.
[76]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29.
[77]Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.”, 1, p. 42.
[78]The true character of such utterances of Luther can be best judged from the results they produced. “The effect not merely of the radical tendencies, but of Luther’s sermons, was chiefly to make the people believe that the freedom of a Christian was to be found in the utmost contempt for all law, whether human or Divine,” G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 14.
[79]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 412; Erl. ed., 21, p. 288.
[80]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 411 (287).
[81]“Preussische Jahrbücher,” 1909, Hft. 1, p. 35. In his review of Denifle-Weiss, vol. ii., P. Albert Weiss, in many passages, describes the consequences alluded to above.
[82]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 561. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349.
[83]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 350. “With the nature and extent of the Christian liberty which he [here] claimed he might have shocked even libertines. Nor did he shrink from advocating it elsewhere in the same work.”Ibid., p. 345.
[84]“Dico itaque: Neque papa neque episcopus neque ullus hominum habet ius unius syllabæ constituendæ super christianum hominem, nisi id fiat eiusdem consensu; quidquid aliter fit, tyrannico spiritu fit” (p. 536 [68]). Cp. p. 554 [93], concerning the superfluousness of laws: “Hoc scio, nullam rempublicam legibus feliciter administrari.... Quod si adsit eruditio divina cum prudentia naturali, plane superfluum et noxium est scriptas leges habere; super omnia autem caritas nullis prorsus legibus indiget” (p. 555 [94]). “Christianis per Christum libertas donata est super omnes leges hominum.” On p. 558 [98], with regard to the alleged corruption of the marriage law: “Ut nulla remedii spes sit, nisi, revocato libertatis evangelio, secundum ipsum, exstinctis semel omnibus omnium hominum legibus, omnia iudicemus et regamus. Amen.” This latter declaration of war, and other things too, are not found in the Jena and Wittenberg editions. In all these utterances we see the excessive zeal of a theorist devoid of experience whose eyes are blind to the consequences. Many, indeed, are those who in the course of history have been equally precipitate in pronouncing on questions of moment, regardless of the number of their readers.
[85]p. 555 [100]: “Digamiam malim quam divortium, sed an liceat, ipse non audeo definire.”
[86]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 348.
[87]p. 558 [99]: “Consulam, ut cum consensu viri—cum iam non sit maritus, sed simplex et solutus cohabitator—misceatur alteri vel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, et proles imputetur putativo, ut dicunt, patri.” Cp. his disgusting language regarding the ecclesiastical impediments of marriage, p. 554, [93]: “Quid vendunt [Romanenses]? Vulvas et veretra. Merx scilicet dignissima mercatoribus istis, præ avaritia et impietate plus quam sordidissimis et obscoenissimis ... ut in ecclesia Dei loco sancto [sit] abominatio ista, quæ venderet hominibus publice utriusque sexus pudibunda, seu, ut scriptura vocat, ignominias et turpitudines, quas tamen antea per vim legum suarum rapuissent.”
[88]p. 560 [101].
[89]Cp. the Latin edition, “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 206seq.The summary is from Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.
[90]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 58. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, 233.
[91]“Opp. Lat. var,” 4, 233. Some preach, “Ut affectus humanos moveant ad condolendum Christo ad indignandum Iudæis et id genus alia puerilia et muliebria deliramenta.” One must preach, “eo fine, quo fides in eum promoveatur”; this preaching is in agreement with the teaching according to which in Christ, “omnium domini sumus, et quidquid egerimus, coram Deo placitum et acceptum esse confidimus.”
[92]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 405; Erl. ed., 21, p. 278 f.
[93]Ibid., p. 414 [291]
[94]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 468 f. [360 f.].
[95]Ibid., 500 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 20.
[96]Ibid., p. 173 f. [= 118].
[97]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 162.
[98]Ibid., p. 165.
[99]See Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1², p. 586 f. Cp. 169 ff., 1, p. xv. Also J. Schlecht, “K. Leib’s Briefwechsel und Diarien,” Münster, 1909, p. 12.
[100]Friedr. Roth, “Wilh. Pirkheimer,” Halle, 1887 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch., v. 4). The author says, Pirkheimer’s final opinion on Lutheranism is summed up in the words: “God keep all pious men, countries and peoples from such teaching, for where it is there is no peace, quiet or unity.” Though Pirkheimer confessed “with energy that he was once more a member of the olden Catholic Church,” he nevertheless remained as much a Humanist as a Catholic as he had been as a Protestant. Yet that he still saw some good in Luther’s cause is clear from what Melanchthon writes of him as late as April, 1530. “Fuimus apud Pirchamerum hodie, ego et Ionas, qui de te et causa honorifice sentit.” To Luther, April 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 7, p. 310. P. Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1887, is more sceptical regarding his return to Catholicism, though he brings forward no definite proofs to the contrary. He himself mentions how Cochlæus, in a letter of March 10, 1529, invited Pirkheimer (“Pirkheimer Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 396) to write a satire in verse on Luther after the model of his own “Lutherus septiceps.”
[101]Döllinger,ibid., p. 168.
[102]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 514.
[103]His father Albert came from Eptas in Hungary; he was a goldsmith.
[104]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.
[105]A. Dürer’s “Schriftlicher Nachlass,” ed. Lange and Fuchse, 1893, p. 161 ff.
[106]On his adhesion to Protestantism, see M. Zucker, “Albrecht Dürer,” 1900, chap. xvi., and Lange in the “Grenzbote,” vol. lv. 1, with reasons which are, however, open to criticism. E. Heidrich (“Dürer und die Reformation,” 1909) makes Dürer die a Lutheran. For his final profession of Catholicism see more particularly Ant. Weber, “Albrecht Dürer,” 3rd ed., 1903. Cp. “Hochland,” 3, 2, 1906, p. 206 ff. W. Köhler remarks in the “Theol. Jahresbericht,” 1908, vol. xxviii., p. 244: “Dürer was more a follower of Erasmus than a Lutheran.” See also G. Stuhlfauth in the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1907, p. 835 ff., and “Histor. Jahrb.,” 1910, p. 456 ff.
[107]April or May, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 255.
[108]Enders,ibid., p. 257, n. 3.
[109]Hagelstange, in “Hochland,” 1906, p. 314.
[110]“Bulla contra errores M. Lutheri,” Romæ, 1520. Printed also in “Bullar. Rom.,” ed. Taurin., 5, p. 748seq., and in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1520, n. 51; and with a bitter commentary by Luther, in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 264seq.
[111]K. Müller, in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 24, 1903, p. 46 ff. A. Schulte, in “Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 6, 1903, p. 32 ff., 174 ff. P. Kalkoff, “Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, p. 372 ff.; 32, 1911, p. 1 ff.; p. 199 ff., 408 ff., 572 ff.; 33, 1912, p. 1 ff. He deals fully with the part taken by the Dominicans in the Indulgence controversy. Kalkoff’s researches have since been published apart (“Zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” Gotha, 1912). A good general view of the question in Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes,” Engl. Trans., 7, p. 361 ff.
[112]P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” etc., p. 133.
[113]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” see above p. 45, n. 2, p. 35. The statement of K. Müller that from the very outset there had been a difficulty in proving Luther’s writing, rests, as Schulte shows (p. 43), merely on a misapprehended passage in one of the letters of the Venetian Orator at Rome.
[114]Schulte, “Quellen und Forschungen,” p. 45.
[115]In Schulte (ibid., p. 49) this circumstance, on which theology must necessarily lay great stress, is passed over. Not all Luther’s propositions were branded as “heretical.”
[116]Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 543 ff.
[117]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 576 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 17 ff.
[118]Ibid., p. 595 ff. [38 f.]. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 132seq.
[119]Ibid., p. 603; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142.
[120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 46.
[121]Ibid., p. 41.
[122]For the accounts of the burning, see M. Perlbach and J. Luther, “Ein neuer Bericht über Luthers Verbrennung der Bannbulle” (“SB. der preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft.,” and also apart), Berlin, 1907, and Kawerau, in “Theol. Studien,” 1908, p. 587. Luther’s words, quoted in the new account, run as follows: “Quia tu conturbasti veritatem Dei, conturbat et te hodie in ignem istum(instead of ‘igni isto’).Amen”; whereupon all those present answered, “Amen.” The form given before this ran: “Quia tu conturbasti sanctum Dei, ideoque te conturbet ignis æternus.” Were this correct, “sanctum Dei” would refer to Christ as the “Holy One of God,” according to the biblical expression, but we should scarcely be justified in taking it to mean Luther himself, as some Catholics have done, as though he had arrogated to himself this title. With regard to the books burnt, see also Luther’s letter to Spalatin, on December 10, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 18. On Thomas and Scotus see the source quoted above.
[123]On February 17, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 87. For the printed verses, Enders, like Köstlin, refers to Selneccer, “Vita Lutheri,” Witteb., 1687, p. 133.
[124]To Conrad Pellican, at the end of February, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 93.
[125]On February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83.
[126]He praises the Prince, saying that he walks “prudenter, fideliter,” and “constanter.” Cp. above p. 8.
[127]January 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 70
[128]Both sentences,ibid.
[129]Above, p. 49. Epitome of Prierias with Preface and Postscript (Latin). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 347. The commencement of the passage is quoted above, p. 13.
[130]On the falsification of Luther’s works in the early editions, see G. Arnold, “Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, 1727, p. 419 ff.; Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,”
[131]To Spalatin at Worms, January 16, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 73.
[132]In the same month he wrote to Hutten to the same effect: “Nollem vi et cæde pro evangelio certari.” The letter, however, did not reach its destination. Enders, 3, p. 74, n. 8.
[133]Letter to Spalatin in Worms, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90: The wrath of the Papists was being stayed by a Divine decree.
[134]See volume i., p. 359. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im Mittelalter,” 1909, gives instances of writers who anticipated Luther in seeing Antichrist in the Pope. He looks upon Luther’s controversial writings on the subject of Antichrist as justified. “All Lutheran Christendom at the Reformation period,” according to him, shared “its master’s” views and expectation of the approaching end of the world (p. 196); he thinks it quite in order that the article regarding Antichrist “should have been incorporated in the Lutheran Confession of Faith” (p. 181).
[135]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 698 ff.
[136]Ibid., 11, p. 357-373; Erl. ed., 29, p. 1-16.
[137]To Staupitz in Salzburg, February 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 85: “Princeps noster, cuius iussu assertiones istas utraque lingua edo.”
[138]Reprinted “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 284 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 206 ff.
[139]“Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 616; Erl. ed., 24², p. 40.
[140]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 395, where this contradiction is pointed out.
[141]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 212.
[142]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 297; Erl. ed., 24, p. 212.
[143]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 165. “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 178.
[144]Letter to Spalatin, April 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 121. “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.
[145]Spalatin’s “Annals,” ed. Cyprian, 1718, p. 38. Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 122, n. 5; “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 75.
[146]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 174, Engl. Trans., 3, 189.
[147]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 249 ff.
[148]Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 175, Engl. Trans., 3, 190.
[149]Ibid., Enders, p. 156, n. 4.
[150]Previous to May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 147.
[151]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.
[152]“Ratzebergers Geschichte,” ed. Neudecker, p. 30.
[153]Janssen-Pastor, 2, p. 177, n. 3. According to the evidence of an eye-witness, Sixtus Œlhafen.
[154]The report of the whole proceedings at Worms relating to Luther has been collected in volume ii. of the German “Reichstagsakten,” new series, 1896, ed. A. Wrede; see particularly Sections VII. (Negotiations with Luther, etc.) and XI. (Correspondence, with Aleander’s reports). Cp. H. v. Schubert, “Quellen und Forschungen über Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms,” 1899.
[155]See below, p. 75 f.
[156]In Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 124. The translation of “Equidem atrocissima omnia concipio,” by “I will dare even the worst,” is wrong, and the above, “My fancy paints things black,” i.e. Luther’s treatment at the Diet, is better. Cp. S. Merkle, “ Reformations-geschichtl. Streitfragen,” 1904, p. 56 ff.
[157]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 126.
[158]On May 1, 1521, Janssen-Pastor, p. 184, from Böcking’s edition of Hutten’s works, 2, p. 59 ff.
[159]Janssen-Pastor, pp. 178, 184 f. The placard was known before, but a new rendering is found in the Mayence “Katholik,” 1902, vol. lxxxii., p. 96, from a letter-Codex of the sixteenth century belonging to the Hamburg city library, No. 469. We give J. Beyl’s translation: “This protest against Luther’s condemnation is nailed to the Mint [at Worms]. Whereas we, to the number of IIC simple-minded sworn noblemen have agreed and pledged ourselves not to forsake that just man Luther, we hereby advise the Princes, gentlemen, Romanists, and, above all, the Bishop of Mayence, of our inveterate enmity, because honour and righteous justice have been oppressed by them; we do not mention other names [of those threatened] or describe the deeds of violence against the parsons and their supporters. Bundschuh.” The numbers given vary, and IIC is perhaps a mistake of the copyist of the illegible placard. See “Freie Bayer. Schulzeitung,” 1911, No. 6; but cp. also, Kalkoff, “Reformationsgesch.,” 1911, p. 361 ff.
[160]Spalatin’s “Annales,” p. 50.
[161]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, from the Wartburg, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154.
[162]Ibid., p. 153.
[163]Thus Aleander, in the passage quoted below. Janssen-Pastor, p. 184.
[164]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 75 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 168).
[165]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 175 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).
[166]Ibid., Erl. ed., 58, p. 412 f. (“Table-Talk”).
[167]Ibid., 63, p. 276.
[168]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 825 ff.
[169]Cp. Thomas Morus, “Responsio ad convitia Lutheri” (“Opp.” Lovanii, 1566), p. 60.
[170]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474 f.
[171]“Reichstagsakten,” 2, p. 825, n. 1. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Luth.” (1883seq.), p. 85. J. Paquier, “Jérôme Aléandre,” Paris, 1900, p. 243.
[172]Paquier, p. 242.
[173]Letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg, a friend of Sickingen (middle of March, 1522). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 125. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).
[174]Ibid., p. 126 f.
[175]Kolde, “Luther,” 1, p. 349.
[176]“Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 810 f.
[177]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 213 f.
[178]Ibid., p. 173.
[179]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts vom Ausgang des MA. bis zur Gegenwart,” 1², 1896, p. 212 f.
[180]Thus A. Wrede, who, in his edition of the “Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Karl V,” 2, p. 555, has dealt anew with the question. Cp. N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1903, No. 320.
[181]Thus Karl Müller, who treats the subject exhaustively in “Luthers Schlussworte in Worms, 1521,” in “Philotesia,” dedicated to P. Kleinert, Berlin, 1907, pp. 269, 289. Cp. the review by N. Paulus, “Kölnische Volksztg.,” 1908, No. 1000.
[182]“Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander vom Wormser Reichstag,” 1897, p. 174, n. 2.
[183]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung²,” p. 25.
[184]“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, p. 26.
[185]Cp. above, p. 62, n. 2, the quotation from the “Table-Talk.”
[186]The Frankfort delegate, in Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, p. 191.
[187]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 474.
[188]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 409, 771.
[189]In the Diary of Marino Sanuto, “R. deputaz. Veneta di Storia Patria,” t. 30, Venezia, 1891, 212. At the end of the passage Denifle (in “Luther,” 1², p. 589, n. 1) proposed that “impudentiam” should be read in place of “imprudentiam” (i.e. “impudenza” in place of “imprudenza”), as the want of “prudence” had already been blamed. When Contarini speaks of Luther as “assai incontinente,” the “incontinence” is that of temper.
[190]Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 3, 191.
[191]Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,”² p. 169, n. 1; p. 172, n. 1.
[192]Passages in Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” 1884, p. 170. Cp. Kalkoff, “Depeschen,” p. 170. Balan, “Monumenta reform. Lutheranæ,” pp. 109, 205.
[193]Preface to the tract, “On the abuse of the Mass,” indited as a letter to the Wittenberg Augustinians, Latin Works, Weim. ed., 8, p. 411seq.“Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 116. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 243.
[194]In the Latin text,ibid., p. 412 = 116.
[195]To Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148.
[196]To Spalatin, September 9, 1521,ibid., p. 229.
[197]Cp. letter to Melanchthon of May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149.
[198]Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” ed. Neudecker, p. 54.
[199]On July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189.
[200]To his intimate friend Johann Lang, December 18, 1521,ibid., p. 256.
[201]On November 1, 1521,ibid., p. 240.
[202]Ibid., p. 241.
[203]On August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.
[204]On August 3, 1521,ibid., p. 213. The above is the real translation of the words made use of, “quantis urgear æstibus,” according to the context.
[205]On September 9, 1521,ibid., 3, p. 224.
[206]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 247.
[207]The Latin work will be found in Weim. ed., 8, p. 564 ff.; in Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 234seq.The MS. was sent to Spalatin on November 22, and was published at the end of February, 1522. Denifle has carefully analysed the contents and pointed out the fallacies contained in the book and certain other things not at all to Luther’s credit. See “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 29, 348. Cp. N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Scrift über die Mönchsgelübde” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, pp. 487, 517), an article rich in matter, called forth by O. Scheel’s attack on Denifle. Paulus therein shows once more that Luther was wrong in ascribing to the Church the teaching that perfection is to be attained only in the religious state, and by the observance of vows (cp. present work, vol. iv., xxiv. 4), or in claiming that the Church has a “twofold ideal of life,” and conception of religion, a lower one for the laity and a higher one for religious (p. 496 ff.). He proves, at length, the falsehood of the view cherished among Protestants, in spite of Denifle’s refutation, that all, or nearly all, entered the religious life in order to obtain justification (p. 506 ff.), and fully explains the late mediæval expression which compares religious profession to Baptism (p. 510 ff.).
[208]Caspar Schatzgeyer, in a polemic against Luther wrote: “One is almost tempted to think that this book, so brimful of ire, was written by a drunken man, or by the infernal spirit himself” (“Replica” [sine loc. et an.], Augsburg, 1522, fol. E1). The opinion of the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtoveus (“Antilutherus,” Parisiis, 1524, fol. 124´), was very similar. As for Johann Dietenberger, he declared that the book bristled with lies, calumnies, and insults (“De votis monasticis,” lib. secundus, Colon., 1524, fol. T5´).