[209]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225.[210]Sermon of 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148: “I have myself had it [the gift of chastity], although with many evil thoughts and dreams.”[211]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. 102, p. 464.[212]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. ed., 10², p. 464.[213]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Otiosus et crapulosus.”[214]On February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo expositus crapulæ.”[215]Cp. Paul de Lagarde, “Mitteilungen,” 3, Göttingen, 1889, p. 336.[216]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 5 ff.[217]Dedication of the German edition, 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 482; Erl. ed., 53, p. 93. The work in Latin in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 398 ff. German,ibid., p. 477 ff, and in Erl. ed., 28, p. 28. The German dedication agrees with the Latin. See above, p. 80, n. 1.[218]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 483; Erl. ed., 28, p. 30.[219]Ibid., p. 488 = 36.[220]Ibid., p. 488 f. = 37 f.[221]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 510 = 68.[222]Ibid., p. 538, 539, 540 = 106, 107, 109.[223]Ibid., p. 549 = 121.[224]Cp. volume iv., xxvii.[225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 559, 560; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 135, 137.[226]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561 = 138.[227]Ibid., p. 562 = 139 f.[228]On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).[229]In Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 62, n. (from Khummer’s Notes).[230]To Jodocus Trutfetter, Professor at Erfurt, May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188: “Uno ore dicunt, sese prius non novisse nec audivisse Christum et Evangelium,” etc.[231]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.[232]To Spalatin, January 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.[233]See vol. i., p. 369, n. 1.[234]“Carnis meæ indomitæ uror magnis ignibus,” in the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, where he also employs the expression, “tentationes carnis.” In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo sum expositus et involutus societati,crapulæ,titillationi,negligentiæ aliisque molestiis.” “Titillatio” is generally used by Luther for sensual temptation, e.g. in the Commentary on Romans (“Schol. Rom.,” p. 133): “Luxuriosus, dum titillatio venit,” etc.; also in the tract on the Ten Commandments, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 485, 491, 497. In the German version he translates the word by “Kitzel”; see, for instance, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 34, p. 139.[235]See references below, xiii. 4. The “molestiæ” in the passage from the letter to Staupitz (see previous note) are probably of the same character.[236]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.[237]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773.[238]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773[239]C. F. Jäger, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1856, p. 273. Cp. H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, 1905, p. 355 ff.[240]Karl Müller, “Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 29.[241]Idem, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 15.[242]On January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 271 f. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 218.[243]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211 f.[244]Ibid., p. 8 = 212.[245]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 1, p. 405; cp. 402 f.[246]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 670 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 43 ff.[247]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 93 ff. = 28, p. 141 ff.[248]Ibid., p. 111 = 148 f.[249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 140 = 178. It has been asserted, strangely enough, that these words were spoken by Luther hypothetically, i.e. in the event of the Romanists refusing to be converted, and that the word he uses, and which we have rendered as “destroying,” really means something slightly less drastic.[250]H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 29, 1908, p. 489; cp. p. 479 ff.[251]H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” 1906, p. 146.[252]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69: “Der jüngste Tag, welchen sie [die Constellation] gewisslich bedeutet.”[253]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683, in the “True Admonition,” published early in December, 1521.[255]Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 84.[256]Cp. K. Müller,ibid., and the authors quoted in the above-mentioned studies of P. Drews and H. Hermelink.[257]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 683, 678.[258]Hermelink (p. 297). He thinks the “states of excitement may be easily accounted for.”[259]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680.[260]Hermelink, p. 488; cp. p. 322.[261]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 251 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 68: “The spiritual government which makes people Christians and holy,” etc.[262]“Kirchenrecht,” 1892, pp. 528, 633 f.[263]Hermelink, p. 322.[264]Cp. Luther’s Memorandum for the Town Council of Altenburg (April 28, 1522), “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347 ff. “For Scripture does not give to a council but to each individual Christian the authority to decide on doctrine and discern the wolves,” etc.[265]Hermelink, p. 309.[266]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.[267]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 721.[268]Ibid., p. 720.[269]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, 10, 2, p. 33.[270]Cp. the addresses, “To the Christians at Wittenberg,” “To the Christians at Augsburg,” and similar ones to those at Dorpat, in Flanders, in Holland, in Livonia, at Miltenberg, at Reval, at Riga, at Worms, at Antwerp, at Bremen, at Reutlingen, at Strasburg, etc.[271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685.[272]Hermelink, p. 298.[273]In this Confession we read that in their teaching there was nothing, “Quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” “Corp. Ref.,” 26, p. 290. So runs the address presented to the Emperor, which Melanchthon afterwards toned down in the 2nd edition. Cp. Kolde, “Die Confessio Augustana,” p. 11. Kawerau (Möller’s “Kirchengeschichte,” 3, vol. iii., 1907, p. 108) also quotes the Protestant declaration of 1546 (“Corp. Ref.,” 6, p. 35): “Nostri affirmant ... confessionis Augustanæ doctrinam ... esse consensum catholicæ ecclesiæ Dei,” and the Wittenberg Ordination-papers that the person in question “tenet puram doctrinam evangelii quam catholica ecclesia Christi profitetur et nos in ecclesia nostra docemus” (“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, 278; October 7, 1537).[274]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140, 143, 144, 139, 110.[275]Hermelink, p. 302.[276]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 33, n. 3, where stress is rightly laid on the testimony of Sebastian Fröschel.[277]Cp. Müller,ibid., p. 34.[278]See below, xiv. 5, and vol. iv., xxviii. 6.[279]“De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ, senatui populoque Pragensi,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 194 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 530seq.It follows from the context of the passage quoted above that Luther’s assurance is intended to be their guarantee that they are acting in God’s name, and are not themselves taking the initiative, but submitting to be led. Cp. letter to the Bohemian Estates (1522), Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 144 ff.[280]Paul Drews (“Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 36), in the examination of the instruction mentioned in the previous note.[281]Thus Hermelink (p. 483), though he does not find the congregational principle so decidedly expressed in Luther’s writings as Drews does. Luther’s statements in the years 1522-1525 concerning the establishment of new congregations are certainly not at all clear, as Karl Müller admits (“Luther und Karlstadt,” “Luthers Gedanken über den Aufbau der neuen Gemeinden,” p. 121). Cp. concerning the existence of Luther’s congregational ideal, “Kirche, Gemeinde,” usw., p. 40 ff.[282]Above, p. 111, n. 2. The writing is addressed to the Council and the inhabitants collectively (“senatus populusque”). Yet in certain passages the Council alone is addressed.[283]In the Preface: “Nequaquam esse possum autor quidquam tentandi, nisi per consilium et exhortationem.”[284]The title of the work describes it well: “The Scriptural ground and reason why a Christian congregation or assembly has the right and power to pass judgment on all doctrines, to call, appoint, or remove pastors,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.[285]Ibid., p. 412 = 147.[286]Ibid.[287]Ibid., pp. 412, 413, 414 = 147, 148, 149.[288]Ibid., p. 408 = 142.[289]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 415 f. = 151.[290]Ibid., p. 410 = 145.[291]Ibid., p. 409 f. = 143 f.[292]Ibid., p. 408 f. = 142.[293]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 228 = 28, p. 346, in his reply to King Henry VIII “of Engelland” (1522).[294]To Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 272 f.: “Veniam ad prophetas.... Explores etiam, num experti sint spirituales illas angustias et nativitates divinas, mortes infernosque.”[295]Ibid., 3, p. 273.[296]To Wolfgang Reissenbusch, Preceptor at Lichtenberg, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p.. 270-9; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537 f.[298]Ibid., p. 302 = 539.[299]In the letter to Reissenbusch; see above, p. 116, n. 1.[300]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 127; Erl. ed., 28, p. 165. Against the clerical state falsely so called.[301]Ibid., p. 130 = 165seq.[302]Ibid., p. 279 = 16², p. 514 f. “Sermon on the married life,” 1522.[303]Ibid., 10, 1, 1, pp. 693, 708 = 12, p. 451, 465, “Postils.”[304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 71.[305]Letter of April or June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony, quoted by J. K. Seidemann in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” 1872, p. 198.[306]See below.[307]Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 266 f.[308]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 556.[309]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 315, 364; 3, p. 149.[310]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262.[311]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315.[312]To Johann Lang at Erfurt, March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323seq.[313]Ibid., p. 323.[314]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.[315]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311, in the tract “Concerning the Sacrament under both kinds.”[316]Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, 11. Sermon 136´.[317]“Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 13.[318]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 72 f.[319]Kampschulte, “Universität Erfurt,” 2, p. 173, quoted from a publication which is not by the Erfurt preacher Mechler, as he thinks, but by Eberlin. Cp. N. Paulus in Janssen, 218, p. 240, n. 3.[320]“Helii Eobani Hessi et amicorum ipsius epistolarum familiarium libri 12,” Marpurgi, 1543, p. 87. Phyllis, the beloved of Demophon, became the type of sensual passion.[321]Ibid., p. 90. For date see Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für die Gesch. von Erfurt,” part 15, 1892, p. 107.[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372, July, 1524): “I know that we ... as St. Paul says, Romans viii. 23, have the first fruits of the Spirit,primitias spiritus, although we have not yet received the fulness of the Spirit.”[323]Letter to W. Pirkheimer, 1528, “Opp.,” Lugduni Batavorum, 1702seq., t. 3, p. 1139.[324]“Opp.,” 3, p. 1030. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 12.[325]Ibid., 10, p. 1578seq.Döllinger, p. 15.[326]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.[327]“Clag etlicher Brüder” (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 47.[328]“Wider die falsch scheynende, usw.” No place, 1524. A³b. A4ab. In N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (“3. Vereinsschrift der Görresgesellschaft für 1893”), p. 3 f.[329]See below, p. 134, n. 4, and p. 163.[330]Clag (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 48.[331]Ibid.[332]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders (see above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 29 ff.[333]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders, p. 31.[334]Ibid., p. 30.[335]In an anonymous review, important on account of its original matter, of Burkhardt’s “Briefwechsel Luthers” (“Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1867, Beilage, No. 18). Unfortunately, the learned expert, who takes Luther’s part, does not mention the source whence the above passage is taken. It appears to occur in some unprinted MS.[336]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 278: “Quod scortis, aleis, tabernis vacarem.... Mendaciis satis sum assuetus.”[337]“Summa sententia erat, scortatorem eum esse et compotorem, qualibus viciis fere laborarent Germani.” “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.”, 3, 1905, p. 79.[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 774.[339]To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218: “Orbis theatrum sumus,” etc. Cp. 1 Corinthians iv. 9: “Spectaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis et hominibus.”[340]To Amsdorf, February 12, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 434.[341]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.[342]“Historien,” 1566, p. 154. Cp. “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 121, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420.[343]“Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 273, 275; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 208, 210, 211. For the manner in which his pupils at Wittenberg praised him, see below, p. 157 f. Erasmus’s eulogy on his manner of life is also an echo from the circle of his enthusiastic friends; see xiv. 3.[344]“Opus adv. nova quædam et a christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata M. Lutheri,” Romæ, Q 3a. R 2b.: “Ponis cervicalia sub capita eorum, qui stertunt,” etc.[345]Letter of May 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144; Gal. iii. 3.[346]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 559. See the text in the work mentioned, p. 137, n. 1.[347]See proofs given in the “Katholik,” 1892, 2, p. 421 f., in the article by P. A. Kirsch.[348]Cp. E. Kroker, “Katharina v. Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 36 f., where the legends are ably criticised.[349]In the writing, “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen,” which Luther sent on April 10, 1523, in the form of a circular letter to Leonard Koppe. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 394 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 132).[350]Kolde, “Analecta Luth.,” p. 443.[351]On June 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 169.[352]To Johann Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523,ibid., p. 164: “Moniales et monachi egressi mihi multas horas furantur, ut omnium necessitati serviam.”[353]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 560.[354]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 177 f.[355]To Spalatin, September 19, 1523,ibid., p. 233.[356]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 728 ff.[357]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77.[358]On April 16, 1525,ibid., p. 157.[359]June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 402 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). Albert made no reply. On June 2, the very same day, the peasants were victorious at Königshofen.[360]Letter of June 3, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 313 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189).[361]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 400; Erl. ed., 29, p. 41, in “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.”[362]Ibid., 10, 1, p. 692; Erl. ed., 10², p. 450, in the Tract against the state of chastity, embodied in the “Postils.”[363]“Luther und seine Gegner, Vortrag,” 1903, p. 14. Here it is true the cynicism is regarded as an “expression of his moral annoyance” with the supporters of celibacy, who themselves led immoral lives.[364]On March 8, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.[365]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 123, on Jonas and his writing materials (“schedas natales, hoc est de natibus purgatis”).[366]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 93; Erl. ed., 29, p. 169. According to these foes of his, it is, he says, “die rechten evangelischen Prediger, die der Braut von Orlamünde das Hembd und dem Bräutigam zu Naschhausen die Hosen ausziehen.”Ibid., p. 84 = 160: “Wie aber, wenn Braut und Bräutigam so züchtig wären, und behielten Hembd und Rock an? Es solle freilich nicht fast hindern, wenn sie sonst Lust zusammen hätten.” Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 681.[367]The explanation is Köstlin’s, and is retained in the most recent edition by Kawerau, 1, p. 736.[368]See the whole Greek letter below, p. 176. The passageαἱ μοναχαὶ πάσῃ ἐμηχαν πιβουλευομέναι προσέσπασαν αὐτόν, according to our opinion, conveys the sense attributed to it above. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 736.[369]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 81seq.[370]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 83.[371]Conclusion of the Tract “De Purgatorio,” “Opp.,” Pars II, Ingolst., 1531, pp. 95´, 96. Cp. volume iv., xxii.: “Luther and Lying.”[372]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560 ff.[373]See above, p. 87.[374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667.[375]Ibid., pp. 431, 437.[376]“The 7th chapter,” etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 92 ff.[377]In the dedication to Hans Loser zu Pretzsch, Hereditary Marshal of Saxony (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 199).[378]On April 10, 1519, to Amsdorf; see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 16, n. 33.[379]To Johann Lang, April 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12.[380]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 162 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 49 ff., 77 ff. In the Preface we read: “There is a great difference between bringing something to light by means of the living voice or by the dead letter” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 166). Of the marriages which were concluded secretly (see below) and which were then [previous to the Council of Trent] regarded as valid by the Church, he says here: “After one has secretly pledged his word to a woman and thereafter takes another, either publicly or secretly, I do not yet know whether all that is said and written on the subject is to be accepted or not.”[381]“De duplici iustitia.” Pastor Knaake remarks of the first edition of this sermon, that it is plain “what careful notes of the reformer’s sermons were made even then.” See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 144.[382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526. For the explanation of the phrase, “If the wife will not, let the maid come,” see volume iii., xvii. 6.[383]Ibid., p. 280 = 515.[384]Ibid., p. 309 = 537 f.[385]Ibid., p. 304 = 541.[386]“Commentaria,” etc. Magunt., 1549, p. 61: “Fœdissime contra naturalem pudorem loquitur de commixtione maris et fœminæ.”[387]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 146 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 186 ff.[388]Luther to Staupitz, repeating his words, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.[389]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 226.[390]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 704 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 166 ff.[391]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385seq.The German edition published by Luther later (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 344 ff.) is abbreviated.[392]“Contra Henricum,” p. 220 = 445, etc.[393]Ibid., p. 184 = 391.[394]“Schutzschrift an den Rath in Costnitz,” in L. Hundeshagen, “Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgesch.,” 1864, 1, p. 423.[395]Röhrich, “Gesch. der Reformation im Elsass,” 1, 1855, p. 294.[396]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, pp. 223, 275, 445.[397]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Basil., 9, pp. 1066, 1096. Cp. Erasmus in “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 689.[398]“An den grossmechtigsten ... Adel tütscher Nation,” Strasburg, 1520 (no name), Bl. K. 1.[399]“Adversus caninas Martini Lutheri nuptias,” Coloniæ, 1530. By Luther’s “canine marriages,” the author does not refer to Luther’s union with Catherine Bora, as is usually inferred, but, according to the preface, to the numerous marriages rendered possible by Luther’s removal of the matrimonial impediments, so that it might happen that one man could marry ten times even in the lifetime of the ten women concerned. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 126.[400]N. Paulus,ibid.He refers to Luther’s “Correspondence,” 1, p. 20; 2, p. 362; 6, p. 280.[401]“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1905, p. 16, 4.[402]“Correspondence of the brothers Ambrose and Thomas Blaurer,” ed. Schiess, 1, 1908, pp. 329, 476; Bucer to A. Blaurer, March 5, 1532, and March 3, 1534.[403]Wilhelm Walther, “Für Luther Wider Rom,” 1906, p. 232 ff.[404]“Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, Preface, pp. x., xiii.[405]“Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1904, col. 1613.[406]To an anonymous correspondent, August 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 149, answering the question, “Why I replied so harshly to the King of Engelland.” Principal reason: “My method is not one of compromise, yielding, giving in, or leaving anything undone.” “Do not be astonished that so many are scandalised by my writings. This is intended to be so and must be so, that even the few may hold fast to the Gospel.” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447.[407]Cp. Luther to the Elector Johann, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388), concerning his two pamphlets, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” and “Auff das vermeint keiserlich Edict”: “I am only sorry that [the style] is not stronger and more violent.” The Elector will “readily perceive that my writing is far, far, too dull and soft towards such dry bones and dead branches [as the Papists].” But I was “neither drunk nor asleep when I wrote.”[408]“Für Luther Wider Rom,” p. 231.[409]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.[410]Letter of Burer, March 27, 1522, in Baum, “Capito und Butzer,” 1860, p. 83, and in “Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus,” ed. Horawitz and Hartfelder, 1866, p. 303.[411]Thomas Blaurer, in a letter to his brother Ambrose, dated February 15, 1521, calls Luther “Pater pientissimus”; previously, on January 4, he speaks of him as “christianissimus et sapientissimus vir,” and extols the fact that “omnia contempsit præter Christum; præter Christum nihil metuit nec sperat et id tamen ita humiliter, ut clare sentias nullos esse his fucos.” “Correspondence of the Brothers Blaurer,” 1, 1908, pp. 33, 29 f.[412]Cp. vol. i., p. 279, the “Dicta Melanchthonia” on Luther’s eyes. Catholic contemporaries called them diabolical. Seee.g.Aleander in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 500.[413]Cp. for what follows H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1910, p. 4 f. Some of the matter contained in the first edition is omitted in the second.[414]See Denifle-Weiss, 1², Pl. IX[415]The latter are shown in Böhmer, p. 2. Cp.ibid., p. 37.[416]None but an expert can have any idea of the “speed with which Luther wrote. He was a born stenographer.” It should be noted “that the haste with which he wrote is far less noticeable in the manuscripts which have been preserved than in the writings themselves with their countless defects. Outside a small circle there are but few to-day who could fall under the magical influence of Luther’s writings, and not weary of listening to the monotonous song of the ‘Wittenberg nightingale’” (K. A. Meissinger, in a review of Ficker’s edition of the Commentary on Romans, “Frankfurter Ztng.,” 1910, No. 300). The expression “Wittenberg nightingale” occurs, as is well known, in a poem by Luther’s Nuremberg admirer, Hans Sachs.[417]“Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 122. “Commentar ad Gal.,” 1531, 1, p. 107. In this passage quoted by Denifle, 1², p. 391, Luther speaks of his great zeal in doing penance in the monastery, and adds a little further on (p. 109): “So long as I was a Popish monk,externe non eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem,” which, of course, only means: “I was a good religious.”[418]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38.[419]In the interpretation of Genesis iii. 17; “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 263. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38, 481, where Luther makes use of the usual word “Franzos” for the malady. In the latter passage Luther declares himself ready to exchange his very painful gout for this malady, or even for the plague, were that God’s will. Hence he was then, i.e. in his later years, free from it.[420]German translation of the “Chronicle” in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 14; the passage,ibid., p. 1277.[421]“Analecta Lutherana,” p. 50.[422]To Spalatin, April 25, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 137.[423]Melanchthon to Hammelberg, April 29, 1523, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 615.[424]To Nic. Hausmann, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144: “Corpore satis bene valeo.”[425]See Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 87, 88 n.[426]Luther sent him a copy of his “Chronicle,” above mentioned, as a present on May 15, 1544 (Seidemann, “Lutherbriefe,” p. 68).
[209]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225.[210]Sermon of 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148: “I have myself had it [the gift of chastity], although with many evil thoughts and dreams.”[211]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. 102, p. 464.[212]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. ed., 10², p. 464.[213]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Otiosus et crapulosus.”[214]On February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo expositus crapulæ.”[215]Cp. Paul de Lagarde, “Mitteilungen,” 3, Göttingen, 1889, p. 336.[216]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 5 ff.[217]Dedication of the German edition, 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 482; Erl. ed., 53, p. 93. The work in Latin in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 398 ff. German,ibid., p. 477 ff, and in Erl. ed., 28, p. 28. The German dedication agrees with the Latin. See above, p. 80, n. 1.[218]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 483; Erl. ed., 28, p. 30.[219]Ibid., p. 488 = 36.[220]Ibid., p. 488 f. = 37 f.[221]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 510 = 68.[222]Ibid., p. 538, 539, 540 = 106, 107, 109.[223]Ibid., p. 549 = 121.[224]Cp. volume iv., xxvii.[225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 559, 560; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 135, 137.[226]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561 = 138.[227]Ibid., p. 562 = 139 f.[228]On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).[229]In Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 62, n. (from Khummer’s Notes).[230]To Jodocus Trutfetter, Professor at Erfurt, May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188: “Uno ore dicunt, sese prius non novisse nec audivisse Christum et Evangelium,” etc.[231]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.[232]To Spalatin, January 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.[233]See vol. i., p. 369, n. 1.[234]“Carnis meæ indomitæ uror magnis ignibus,” in the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, where he also employs the expression, “tentationes carnis.” In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo sum expositus et involutus societati,crapulæ,titillationi,negligentiæ aliisque molestiis.” “Titillatio” is generally used by Luther for sensual temptation, e.g. in the Commentary on Romans (“Schol. Rom.,” p. 133): “Luxuriosus, dum titillatio venit,” etc.; also in the tract on the Ten Commandments, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 485, 491, 497. In the German version he translates the word by “Kitzel”; see, for instance, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 34, p. 139.[235]See references below, xiii. 4. The “molestiæ” in the passage from the letter to Staupitz (see previous note) are probably of the same character.[236]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.[237]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773.[238]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773[239]C. F. Jäger, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1856, p. 273. Cp. H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, 1905, p. 355 ff.[240]Karl Müller, “Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 29.[241]Idem, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 15.[242]On January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 271 f. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 218.[243]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211 f.[244]Ibid., p. 8 = 212.[245]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 1, p. 405; cp. 402 f.[246]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 670 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 43 ff.[247]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 93 ff. = 28, p. 141 ff.[248]Ibid., p. 111 = 148 f.[249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 140 = 178. It has been asserted, strangely enough, that these words were spoken by Luther hypothetically, i.e. in the event of the Romanists refusing to be converted, and that the word he uses, and which we have rendered as “destroying,” really means something slightly less drastic.[250]H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 29, 1908, p. 489; cp. p. 479 ff.[251]H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” 1906, p. 146.[252]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69: “Der jüngste Tag, welchen sie [die Constellation] gewisslich bedeutet.”[253]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683, in the “True Admonition,” published early in December, 1521.[255]Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 84.[256]Cp. K. Müller,ibid., and the authors quoted in the above-mentioned studies of P. Drews and H. Hermelink.[257]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 683, 678.[258]Hermelink (p. 297). He thinks the “states of excitement may be easily accounted for.”[259]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680.[260]Hermelink, p. 488; cp. p. 322.[261]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 251 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 68: “The spiritual government which makes people Christians and holy,” etc.[262]“Kirchenrecht,” 1892, pp. 528, 633 f.[263]Hermelink, p. 322.[264]Cp. Luther’s Memorandum for the Town Council of Altenburg (April 28, 1522), “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347 ff. “For Scripture does not give to a council but to each individual Christian the authority to decide on doctrine and discern the wolves,” etc.[265]Hermelink, p. 309.[266]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.[267]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 721.[268]Ibid., p. 720.[269]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, 10, 2, p. 33.[270]Cp. the addresses, “To the Christians at Wittenberg,” “To the Christians at Augsburg,” and similar ones to those at Dorpat, in Flanders, in Holland, in Livonia, at Miltenberg, at Reval, at Riga, at Worms, at Antwerp, at Bremen, at Reutlingen, at Strasburg, etc.[271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685.[272]Hermelink, p. 298.[273]In this Confession we read that in their teaching there was nothing, “Quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” “Corp. Ref.,” 26, p. 290. So runs the address presented to the Emperor, which Melanchthon afterwards toned down in the 2nd edition. Cp. Kolde, “Die Confessio Augustana,” p. 11. Kawerau (Möller’s “Kirchengeschichte,” 3, vol. iii., 1907, p. 108) also quotes the Protestant declaration of 1546 (“Corp. Ref.,” 6, p. 35): “Nostri affirmant ... confessionis Augustanæ doctrinam ... esse consensum catholicæ ecclesiæ Dei,” and the Wittenberg Ordination-papers that the person in question “tenet puram doctrinam evangelii quam catholica ecclesia Christi profitetur et nos in ecclesia nostra docemus” (“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, 278; October 7, 1537).[274]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140, 143, 144, 139, 110.[275]Hermelink, p. 302.[276]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 33, n. 3, where stress is rightly laid on the testimony of Sebastian Fröschel.[277]Cp. Müller,ibid., p. 34.[278]See below, xiv. 5, and vol. iv., xxviii. 6.[279]“De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ, senatui populoque Pragensi,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 194 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 530seq.It follows from the context of the passage quoted above that Luther’s assurance is intended to be their guarantee that they are acting in God’s name, and are not themselves taking the initiative, but submitting to be led. Cp. letter to the Bohemian Estates (1522), Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 144 ff.[280]Paul Drews (“Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 36), in the examination of the instruction mentioned in the previous note.[281]Thus Hermelink (p. 483), though he does not find the congregational principle so decidedly expressed in Luther’s writings as Drews does. Luther’s statements in the years 1522-1525 concerning the establishment of new congregations are certainly not at all clear, as Karl Müller admits (“Luther und Karlstadt,” “Luthers Gedanken über den Aufbau der neuen Gemeinden,” p. 121). Cp. concerning the existence of Luther’s congregational ideal, “Kirche, Gemeinde,” usw., p. 40 ff.[282]Above, p. 111, n. 2. The writing is addressed to the Council and the inhabitants collectively (“senatus populusque”). Yet in certain passages the Council alone is addressed.[283]In the Preface: “Nequaquam esse possum autor quidquam tentandi, nisi per consilium et exhortationem.”[284]The title of the work describes it well: “The Scriptural ground and reason why a Christian congregation or assembly has the right and power to pass judgment on all doctrines, to call, appoint, or remove pastors,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.[285]Ibid., p. 412 = 147.[286]Ibid.[287]Ibid., pp. 412, 413, 414 = 147, 148, 149.[288]Ibid., p. 408 = 142.[289]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 415 f. = 151.[290]Ibid., p. 410 = 145.[291]Ibid., p. 409 f. = 143 f.[292]Ibid., p. 408 f. = 142.[293]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 228 = 28, p. 346, in his reply to King Henry VIII “of Engelland” (1522).[294]To Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 272 f.: “Veniam ad prophetas.... Explores etiam, num experti sint spirituales illas angustias et nativitates divinas, mortes infernosque.”[295]Ibid., 3, p. 273.[296]To Wolfgang Reissenbusch, Preceptor at Lichtenberg, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p.. 270-9; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537 f.[298]Ibid., p. 302 = 539.[299]In the letter to Reissenbusch; see above, p. 116, n. 1.[300]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 127; Erl. ed., 28, p. 165. Against the clerical state falsely so called.[301]Ibid., p. 130 = 165seq.[302]Ibid., p. 279 = 16², p. 514 f. “Sermon on the married life,” 1522.[303]Ibid., 10, 1, 1, pp. 693, 708 = 12, p. 451, 465, “Postils.”[304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 71.[305]Letter of April or June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony, quoted by J. K. Seidemann in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” 1872, p. 198.[306]See below.[307]Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 266 f.[308]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 556.[309]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 315, 364; 3, p. 149.[310]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262.[311]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315.[312]To Johann Lang at Erfurt, March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323seq.[313]Ibid., p. 323.[314]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.[315]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311, in the tract “Concerning the Sacrament under both kinds.”[316]Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, 11. Sermon 136´.[317]“Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 13.[318]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 72 f.[319]Kampschulte, “Universität Erfurt,” 2, p. 173, quoted from a publication which is not by the Erfurt preacher Mechler, as he thinks, but by Eberlin. Cp. N. Paulus in Janssen, 218, p. 240, n. 3.[320]“Helii Eobani Hessi et amicorum ipsius epistolarum familiarium libri 12,” Marpurgi, 1543, p. 87. Phyllis, the beloved of Demophon, became the type of sensual passion.[321]Ibid., p. 90. For date see Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für die Gesch. von Erfurt,” part 15, 1892, p. 107.[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372, July, 1524): “I know that we ... as St. Paul says, Romans viii. 23, have the first fruits of the Spirit,primitias spiritus, although we have not yet received the fulness of the Spirit.”[323]Letter to W. Pirkheimer, 1528, “Opp.,” Lugduni Batavorum, 1702seq., t. 3, p. 1139.[324]“Opp.,” 3, p. 1030. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 12.[325]Ibid., 10, p. 1578seq.Döllinger, p. 15.[326]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.[327]“Clag etlicher Brüder” (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 47.[328]“Wider die falsch scheynende, usw.” No place, 1524. A³b. A4ab. In N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (“3. Vereinsschrift der Görresgesellschaft für 1893”), p. 3 f.[329]See below, p. 134, n. 4, and p. 163.[330]Clag (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 48.[331]Ibid.[332]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders (see above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 29 ff.[333]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders, p. 31.[334]Ibid., p. 30.[335]In an anonymous review, important on account of its original matter, of Burkhardt’s “Briefwechsel Luthers” (“Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1867, Beilage, No. 18). Unfortunately, the learned expert, who takes Luther’s part, does not mention the source whence the above passage is taken. It appears to occur in some unprinted MS.[336]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 278: “Quod scortis, aleis, tabernis vacarem.... Mendaciis satis sum assuetus.”[337]“Summa sententia erat, scortatorem eum esse et compotorem, qualibus viciis fere laborarent Germani.” “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.”, 3, 1905, p. 79.[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 774.[339]To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218: “Orbis theatrum sumus,” etc. Cp. 1 Corinthians iv. 9: “Spectaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis et hominibus.”[340]To Amsdorf, February 12, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 434.[341]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.[342]“Historien,” 1566, p. 154. Cp. “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 121, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420.[343]“Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 273, 275; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 208, 210, 211. For the manner in which his pupils at Wittenberg praised him, see below, p. 157 f. Erasmus’s eulogy on his manner of life is also an echo from the circle of his enthusiastic friends; see xiv. 3.[344]“Opus adv. nova quædam et a christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata M. Lutheri,” Romæ, Q 3a. R 2b.: “Ponis cervicalia sub capita eorum, qui stertunt,” etc.[345]Letter of May 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144; Gal. iii. 3.[346]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 559. See the text in the work mentioned, p. 137, n. 1.[347]See proofs given in the “Katholik,” 1892, 2, p. 421 f., in the article by P. A. Kirsch.[348]Cp. E. Kroker, “Katharina v. Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 36 f., where the legends are ably criticised.[349]In the writing, “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen,” which Luther sent on April 10, 1523, in the form of a circular letter to Leonard Koppe. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 394 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 132).[350]Kolde, “Analecta Luth.,” p. 443.[351]On June 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 169.[352]To Johann Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523,ibid., p. 164: “Moniales et monachi egressi mihi multas horas furantur, ut omnium necessitati serviam.”[353]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 560.[354]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 177 f.[355]To Spalatin, September 19, 1523,ibid., p. 233.[356]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 728 ff.[357]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77.[358]On April 16, 1525,ibid., p. 157.[359]June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 402 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). Albert made no reply. On June 2, the very same day, the peasants were victorious at Königshofen.[360]Letter of June 3, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 313 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189).[361]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 400; Erl. ed., 29, p. 41, in “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.”[362]Ibid., 10, 1, p. 692; Erl. ed., 10², p. 450, in the Tract against the state of chastity, embodied in the “Postils.”[363]“Luther und seine Gegner, Vortrag,” 1903, p. 14. Here it is true the cynicism is regarded as an “expression of his moral annoyance” with the supporters of celibacy, who themselves led immoral lives.[364]On March 8, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.[365]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 123, on Jonas and his writing materials (“schedas natales, hoc est de natibus purgatis”).[366]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 93; Erl. ed., 29, p. 169. According to these foes of his, it is, he says, “die rechten evangelischen Prediger, die der Braut von Orlamünde das Hembd und dem Bräutigam zu Naschhausen die Hosen ausziehen.”Ibid., p. 84 = 160: “Wie aber, wenn Braut und Bräutigam so züchtig wären, und behielten Hembd und Rock an? Es solle freilich nicht fast hindern, wenn sie sonst Lust zusammen hätten.” Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 681.[367]The explanation is Köstlin’s, and is retained in the most recent edition by Kawerau, 1, p. 736.[368]See the whole Greek letter below, p. 176. The passageαἱ μοναχαὶ πάσῃ ἐμηχαν πιβουλευομέναι προσέσπασαν αὐτόν, according to our opinion, conveys the sense attributed to it above. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 736.[369]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 81seq.[370]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 83.[371]Conclusion of the Tract “De Purgatorio,” “Opp.,” Pars II, Ingolst., 1531, pp. 95´, 96. Cp. volume iv., xxii.: “Luther and Lying.”[372]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560 ff.[373]See above, p. 87.[374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667.[375]Ibid., pp. 431, 437.[376]“The 7th chapter,” etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 92 ff.[377]In the dedication to Hans Loser zu Pretzsch, Hereditary Marshal of Saxony (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 199).[378]On April 10, 1519, to Amsdorf; see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 16, n. 33.[379]To Johann Lang, April 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12.[380]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 162 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 49 ff., 77 ff. In the Preface we read: “There is a great difference between bringing something to light by means of the living voice or by the dead letter” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 166). Of the marriages which were concluded secretly (see below) and which were then [previous to the Council of Trent] regarded as valid by the Church, he says here: “After one has secretly pledged his word to a woman and thereafter takes another, either publicly or secretly, I do not yet know whether all that is said and written on the subject is to be accepted or not.”[381]“De duplici iustitia.” Pastor Knaake remarks of the first edition of this sermon, that it is plain “what careful notes of the reformer’s sermons were made even then.” See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 144.[382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526. For the explanation of the phrase, “If the wife will not, let the maid come,” see volume iii., xvii. 6.[383]Ibid., p. 280 = 515.[384]Ibid., p. 309 = 537 f.[385]Ibid., p. 304 = 541.[386]“Commentaria,” etc. Magunt., 1549, p. 61: “Fœdissime contra naturalem pudorem loquitur de commixtione maris et fœminæ.”[387]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 146 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 186 ff.[388]Luther to Staupitz, repeating his words, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.[389]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 226.[390]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 704 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 166 ff.[391]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385seq.The German edition published by Luther later (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 344 ff.) is abbreviated.[392]“Contra Henricum,” p. 220 = 445, etc.[393]Ibid., p. 184 = 391.[394]“Schutzschrift an den Rath in Costnitz,” in L. Hundeshagen, “Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgesch.,” 1864, 1, p. 423.[395]Röhrich, “Gesch. der Reformation im Elsass,” 1, 1855, p. 294.[396]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, pp. 223, 275, 445.[397]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Basil., 9, pp. 1066, 1096. Cp. Erasmus in “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 689.[398]“An den grossmechtigsten ... Adel tütscher Nation,” Strasburg, 1520 (no name), Bl. K. 1.[399]“Adversus caninas Martini Lutheri nuptias,” Coloniæ, 1530. By Luther’s “canine marriages,” the author does not refer to Luther’s union with Catherine Bora, as is usually inferred, but, according to the preface, to the numerous marriages rendered possible by Luther’s removal of the matrimonial impediments, so that it might happen that one man could marry ten times even in the lifetime of the ten women concerned. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 126.[400]N. Paulus,ibid.He refers to Luther’s “Correspondence,” 1, p. 20; 2, p. 362; 6, p. 280.[401]“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1905, p. 16, 4.[402]“Correspondence of the brothers Ambrose and Thomas Blaurer,” ed. Schiess, 1, 1908, pp. 329, 476; Bucer to A. Blaurer, March 5, 1532, and March 3, 1534.[403]Wilhelm Walther, “Für Luther Wider Rom,” 1906, p. 232 ff.[404]“Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, Preface, pp. x., xiii.[405]“Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1904, col. 1613.[406]To an anonymous correspondent, August 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 149, answering the question, “Why I replied so harshly to the King of Engelland.” Principal reason: “My method is not one of compromise, yielding, giving in, or leaving anything undone.” “Do not be astonished that so many are scandalised by my writings. This is intended to be so and must be so, that even the few may hold fast to the Gospel.” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447.[407]Cp. Luther to the Elector Johann, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388), concerning his two pamphlets, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” and “Auff das vermeint keiserlich Edict”: “I am only sorry that [the style] is not stronger and more violent.” The Elector will “readily perceive that my writing is far, far, too dull and soft towards such dry bones and dead branches [as the Papists].” But I was “neither drunk nor asleep when I wrote.”[408]“Für Luther Wider Rom,” p. 231.[409]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.[410]Letter of Burer, March 27, 1522, in Baum, “Capito und Butzer,” 1860, p. 83, and in “Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus,” ed. Horawitz and Hartfelder, 1866, p. 303.[411]Thomas Blaurer, in a letter to his brother Ambrose, dated February 15, 1521, calls Luther “Pater pientissimus”; previously, on January 4, he speaks of him as “christianissimus et sapientissimus vir,” and extols the fact that “omnia contempsit præter Christum; præter Christum nihil metuit nec sperat et id tamen ita humiliter, ut clare sentias nullos esse his fucos.” “Correspondence of the Brothers Blaurer,” 1, 1908, pp. 33, 29 f.[412]Cp. vol. i., p. 279, the “Dicta Melanchthonia” on Luther’s eyes. Catholic contemporaries called them diabolical. Seee.g.Aleander in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 500.[413]Cp. for what follows H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1910, p. 4 f. Some of the matter contained in the first edition is omitted in the second.[414]See Denifle-Weiss, 1², Pl. IX[415]The latter are shown in Böhmer, p. 2. Cp.ibid., p. 37.[416]None but an expert can have any idea of the “speed with which Luther wrote. He was a born stenographer.” It should be noted “that the haste with which he wrote is far less noticeable in the manuscripts which have been preserved than in the writings themselves with their countless defects. Outside a small circle there are but few to-day who could fall under the magical influence of Luther’s writings, and not weary of listening to the monotonous song of the ‘Wittenberg nightingale’” (K. A. Meissinger, in a review of Ficker’s edition of the Commentary on Romans, “Frankfurter Ztng.,” 1910, No. 300). The expression “Wittenberg nightingale” occurs, as is well known, in a poem by Luther’s Nuremberg admirer, Hans Sachs.[417]“Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 122. “Commentar ad Gal.,” 1531, 1, p. 107. In this passage quoted by Denifle, 1², p. 391, Luther speaks of his great zeal in doing penance in the monastery, and adds a little further on (p. 109): “So long as I was a Popish monk,externe non eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem,” which, of course, only means: “I was a good religious.”[418]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38.[419]In the interpretation of Genesis iii. 17; “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 263. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38, 481, where Luther makes use of the usual word “Franzos” for the malady. In the latter passage Luther declares himself ready to exchange his very painful gout for this malady, or even for the plague, were that God’s will. Hence he was then, i.e. in his later years, free from it.[420]German translation of the “Chronicle” in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 14; the passage,ibid., p. 1277.[421]“Analecta Lutherana,” p. 50.[422]To Spalatin, April 25, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 137.[423]Melanchthon to Hammelberg, April 29, 1523, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 615.[424]To Nic. Hausmann, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144: “Corpore satis bene valeo.”[425]See Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 87, 88 n.[426]Luther sent him a copy of his “Chronicle,” above mentioned, as a present on May 15, 1544 (Seidemann, “Lutherbriefe,” p. 68).
[209]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225.[210]Sermon of 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148: “I have myself had it [the gift of chastity], although with many evil thoughts and dreams.”[211]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. 102, p. 464.[212]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. ed., 10², p. 464.[213]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Otiosus et crapulosus.”[214]On February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo expositus crapulæ.”[215]Cp. Paul de Lagarde, “Mitteilungen,” 3, Göttingen, 1889, p. 336.[216]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 5 ff.[217]Dedication of the German edition, 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 482; Erl. ed., 53, p. 93. The work in Latin in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 398 ff. German,ibid., p. 477 ff, and in Erl. ed., 28, p. 28. The German dedication agrees with the Latin. See above, p. 80, n. 1.[218]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 483; Erl. ed., 28, p. 30.[219]Ibid., p. 488 = 36.[220]Ibid., p. 488 f. = 37 f.[221]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 510 = 68.[222]Ibid., p. 538, 539, 540 = 106, 107, 109.[223]Ibid., p. 549 = 121.[224]Cp. volume iv., xxvii.[225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 559, 560; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 135, 137.[226]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561 = 138.[227]Ibid., p. 562 = 139 f.[228]On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).[229]In Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 62, n. (from Khummer’s Notes).[230]To Jodocus Trutfetter, Professor at Erfurt, May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188: “Uno ore dicunt, sese prius non novisse nec audivisse Christum et Evangelium,” etc.[231]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.[232]To Spalatin, January 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.[233]See vol. i., p. 369, n. 1.[234]“Carnis meæ indomitæ uror magnis ignibus,” in the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, where he also employs the expression, “tentationes carnis.” In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo sum expositus et involutus societati,crapulæ,titillationi,negligentiæ aliisque molestiis.” “Titillatio” is generally used by Luther for sensual temptation, e.g. in the Commentary on Romans (“Schol. Rom.,” p. 133): “Luxuriosus, dum titillatio venit,” etc.; also in the tract on the Ten Commandments, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 485, 491, 497. In the German version he translates the word by “Kitzel”; see, for instance, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 34, p. 139.[235]See references below, xiii. 4. The “molestiæ” in the passage from the letter to Staupitz (see previous note) are probably of the same character.[236]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.[237]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773.[238]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773[239]C. F. Jäger, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1856, p. 273. Cp. H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, 1905, p. 355 ff.[240]Karl Müller, “Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 29.[241]Idem, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 15.[242]On January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 271 f. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 218.[243]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211 f.[244]Ibid., p. 8 = 212.[245]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 1, p. 405; cp. 402 f.[246]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 670 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 43 ff.[247]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 93 ff. = 28, p. 141 ff.[248]Ibid., p. 111 = 148 f.[249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 140 = 178. It has been asserted, strangely enough, that these words were spoken by Luther hypothetically, i.e. in the event of the Romanists refusing to be converted, and that the word he uses, and which we have rendered as “destroying,” really means something slightly less drastic.[250]H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 29, 1908, p. 489; cp. p. 479 ff.[251]H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” 1906, p. 146.[252]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69: “Der jüngste Tag, welchen sie [die Constellation] gewisslich bedeutet.”[253]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683, in the “True Admonition,” published early in December, 1521.[255]Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 84.[256]Cp. K. Müller,ibid., and the authors quoted in the above-mentioned studies of P. Drews and H. Hermelink.[257]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 683, 678.[258]Hermelink (p. 297). He thinks the “states of excitement may be easily accounted for.”[259]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680.[260]Hermelink, p. 488; cp. p. 322.[261]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 251 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 68: “The spiritual government which makes people Christians and holy,” etc.[262]“Kirchenrecht,” 1892, pp. 528, 633 f.[263]Hermelink, p. 322.[264]Cp. Luther’s Memorandum for the Town Council of Altenburg (April 28, 1522), “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347 ff. “For Scripture does not give to a council but to each individual Christian the authority to decide on doctrine and discern the wolves,” etc.[265]Hermelink, p. 309.[266]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.[267]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 721.[268]Ibid., p. 720.[269]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, 10, 2, p. 33.[270]Cp. the addresses, “To the Christians at Wittenberg,” “To the Christians at Augsburg,” and similar ones to those at Dorpat, in Flanders, in Holland, in Livonia, at Miltenberg, at Reval, at Riga, at Worms, at Antwerp, at Bremen, at Reutlingen, at Strasburg, etc.[271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685.[272]Hermelink, p. 298.[273]In this Confession we read that in their teaching there was nothing, “Quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” “Corp. Ref.,” 26, p. 290. So runs the address presented to the Emperor, which Melanchthon afterwards toned down in the 2nd edition. Cp. Kolde, “Die Confessio Augustana,” p. 11. Kawerau (Möller’s “Kirchengeschichte,” 3, vol. iii., 1907, p. 108) also quotes the Protestant declaration of 1546 (“Corp. Ref.,” 6, p. 35): “Nostri affirmant ... confessionis Augustanæ doctrinam ... esse consensum catholicæ ecclesiæ Dei,” and the Wittenberg Ordination-papers that the person in question “tenet puram doctrinam evangelii quam catholica ecclesia Christi profitetur et nos in ecclesia nostra docemus” (“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, 278; October 7, 1537).[274]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140, 143, 144, 139, 110.[275]Hermelink, p. 302.[276]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 33, n. 3, where stress is rightly laid on the testimony of Sebastian Fröschel.[277]Cp. Müller,ibid., p. 34.[278]See below, xiv. 5, and vol. iv., xxviii. 6.[279]“De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ, senatui populoque Pragensi,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 194 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 530seq.It follows from the context of the passage quoted above that Luther’s assurance is intended to be their guarantee that they are acting in God’s name, and are not themselves taking the initiative, but submitting to be led. Cp. letter to the Bohemian Estates (1522), Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 144 ff.[280]Paul Drews (“Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 36), in the examination of the instruction mentioned in the previous note.[281]Thus Hermelink (p. 483), though he does not find the congregational principle so decidedly expressed in Luther’s writings as Drews does. Luther’s statements in the years 1522-1525 concerning the establishment of new congregations are certainly not at all clear, as Karl Müller admits (“Luther und Karlstadt,” “Luthers Gedanken über den Aufbau der neuen Gemeinden,” p. 121). Cp. concerning the existence of Luther’s congregational ideal, “Kirche, Gemeinde,” usw., p. 40 ff.[282]Above, p. 111, n. 2. The writing is addressed to the Council and the inhabitants collectively (“senatus populusque”). Yet in certain passages the Council alone is addressed.[283]In the Preface: “Nequaquam esse possum autor quidquam tentandi, nisi per consilium et exhortationem.”[284]The title of the work describes it well: “The Scriptural ground and reason why a Christian congregation or assembly has the right and power to pass judgment on all doctrines, to call, appoint, or remove pastors,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.[285]Ibid., p. 412 = 147.[286]Ibid.[287]Ibid., pp. 412, 413, 414 = 147, 148, 149.[288]Ibid., p. 408 = 142.[289]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 415 f. = 151.[290]Ibid., p. 410 = 145.[291]Ibid., p. 409 f. = 143 f.[292]Ibid., p. 408 f. = 142.[293]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 228 = 28, p. 346, in his reply to King Henry VIII “of Engelland” (1522).[294]To Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 272 f.: “Veniam ad prophetas.... Explores etiam, num experti sint spirituales illas angustias et nativitates divinas, mortes infernosque.”[295]Ibid., 3, p. 273.[296]To Wolfgang Reissenbusch, Preceptor at Lichtenberg, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p.. 270-9; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537 f.[298]Ibid., p. 302 = 539.[299]In the letter to Reissenbusch; see above, p. 116, n. 1.[300]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 127; Erl. ed., 28, p. 165. Against the clerical state falsely so called.[301]Ibid., p. 130 = 165seq.[302]Ibid., p. 279 = 16², p. 514 f. “Sermon on the married life,” 1522.[303]Ibid., 10, 1, 1, pp. 693, 708 = 12, p. 451, 465, “Postils.”[304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 71.[305]Letter of April or June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony, quoted by J. K. Seidemann in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” 1872, p. 198.[306]See below.[307]Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 266 f.[308]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 556.[309]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 315, 364; 3, p. 149.[310]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262.[311]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315.[312]To Johann Lang at Erfurt, March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323seq.[313]Ibid., p. 323.[314]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.[315]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311, in the tract “Concerning the Sacrament under both kinds.”[316]Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, 11. Sermon 136´.[317]“Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 13.[318]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 72 f.[319]Kampschulte, “Universität Erfurt,” 2, p. 173, quoted from a publication which is not by the Erfurt preacher Mechler, as he thinks, but by Eberlin. Cp. N. Paulus in Janssen, 218, p. 240, n. 3.[320]“Helii Eobani Hessi et amicorum ipsius epistolarum familiarium libri 12,” Marpurgi, 1543, p. 87. Phyllis, the beloved of Demophon, became the type of sensual passion.[321]Ibid., p. 90. For date see Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für die Gesch. von Erfurt,” part 15, 1892, p. 107.[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372, July, 1524): “I know that we ... as St. Paul says, Romans viii. 23, have the first fruits of the Spirit,primitias spiritus, although we have not yet received the fulness of the Spirit.”[323]Letter to W. Pirkheimer, 1528, “Opp.,” Lugduni Batavorum, 1702seq., t. 3, p. 1139.[324]“Opp.,” 3, p. 1030. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 12.[325]Ibid., 10, p. 1578seq.Döllinger, p. 15.[326]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.[327]“Clag etlicher Brüder” (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 47.[328]“Wider die falsch scheynende, usw.” No place, 1524. A³b. A4ab. In N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (“3. Vereinsschrift der Görresgesellschaft für 1893”), p. 3 f.[329]See below, p. 134, n. 4, and p. 163.[330]Clag (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 48.[331]Ibid.[332]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders (see above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 29 ff.[333]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders, p. 31.[334]Ibid., p. 30.[335]In an anonymous review, important on account of its original matter, of Burkhardt’s “Briefwechsel Luthers” (“Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1867, Beilage, No. 18). Unfortunately, the learned expert, who takes Luther’s part, does not mention the source whence the above passage is taken. It appears to occur in some unprinted MS.[336]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 278: “Quod scortis, aleis, tabernis vacarem.... Mendaciis satis sum assuetus.”[337]“Summa sententia erat, scortatorem eum esse et compotorem, qualibus viciis fere laborarent Germani.” “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.”, 3, 1905, p. 79.[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 774.[339]To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218: “Orbis theatrum sumus,” etc. Cp. 1 Corinthians iv. 9: “Spectaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis et hominibus.”[340]To Amsdorf, February 12, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 434.[341]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.[342]“Historien,” 1566, p. 154. Cp. “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 121, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420.[343]“Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 273, 275; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 208, 210, 211. For the manner in which his pupils at Wittenberg praised him, see below, p. 157 f. Erasmus’s eulogy on his manner of life is also an echo from the circle of his enthusiastic friends; see xiv. 3.[344]“Opus adv. nova quædam et a christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata M. Lutheri,” Romæ, Q 3a. R 2b.: “Ponis cervicalia sub capita eorum, qui stertunt,” etc.[345]Letter of May 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144; Gal. iii. 3.[346]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 559. See the text in the work mentioned, p. 137, n. 1.[347]See proofs given in the “Katholik,” 1892, 2, p. 421 f., in the article by P. A. Kirsch.[348]Cp. E. Kroker, “Katharina v. Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 36 f., where the legends are ably criticised.[349]In the writing, “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen,” which Luther sent on April 10, 1523, in the form of a circular letter to Leonard Koppe. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 394 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 132).[350]Kolde, “Analecta Luth.,” p. 443.[351]On June 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 169.[352]To Johann Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523,ibid., p. 164: “Moniales et monachi egressi mihi multas horas furantur, ut omnium necessitati serviam.”[353]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 560.[354]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 177 f.[355]To Spalatin, September 19, 1523,ibid., p. 233.[356]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 728 ff.[357]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77.[358]On April 16, 1525,ibid., p. 157.[359]June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 402 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). Albert made no reply. On June 2, the very same day, the peasants were victorious at Königshofen.[360]Letter of June 3, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 313 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189).[361]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 400; Erl. ed., 29, p. 41, in “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.”[362]Ibid., 10, 1, p. 692; Erl. ed., 10², p. 450, in the Tract against the state of chastity, embodied in the “Postils.”[363]“Luther und seine Gegner, Vortrag,” 1903, p. 14. Here it is true the cynicism is regarded as an “expression of his moral annoyance” with the supporters of celibacy, who themselves led immoral lives.[364]On March 8, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.[365]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 123, on Jonas and his writing materials (“schedas natales, hoc est de natibus purgatis”).[366]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 93; Erl. ed., 29, p. 169. According to these foes of his, it is, he says, “die rechten evangelischen Prediger, die der Braut von Orlamünde das Hembd und dem Bräutigam zu Naschhausen die Hosen ausziehen.”Ibid., p. 84 = 160: “Wie aber, wenn Braut und Bräutigam so züchtig wären, und behielten Hembd und Rock an? Es solle freilich nicht fast hindern, wenn sie sonst Lust zusammen hätten.” Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 681.[367]The explanation is Köstlin’s, and is retained in the most recent edition by Kawerau, 1, p. 736.[368]See the whole Greek letter below, p. 176. The passageαἱ μοναχαὶ πάσῃ ἐμηχαν πιβουλευομέναι προσέσπασαν αὐτόν, according to our opinion, conveys the sense attributed to it above. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 736.[369]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 81seq.[370]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 83.[371]Conclusion of the Tract “De Purgatorio,” “Opp.,” Pars II, Ingolst., 1531, pp. 95´, 96. Cp. volume iv., xxii.: “Luther and Lying.”[372]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560 ff.[373]See above, p. 87.[374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667.[375]Ibid., pp. 431, 437.[376]“The 7th chapter,” etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 92 ff.[377]In the dedication to Hans Loser zu Pretzsch, Hereditary Marshal of Saxony (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 199).[378]On April 10, 1519, to Amsdorf; see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 16, n. 33.[379]To Johann Lang, April 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12.[380]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 162 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 49 ff., 77 ff. In the Preface we read: “There is a great difference between bringing something to light by means of the living voice or by the dead letter” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 166). Of the marriages which were concluded secretly (see below) and which were then [previous to the Council of Trent] regarded as valid by the Church, he says here: “After one has secretly pledged his word to a woman and thereafter takes another, either publicly or secretly, I do not yet know whether all that is said and written on the subject is to be accepted or not.”[381]“De duplici iustitia.” Pastor Knaake remarks of the first edition of this sermon, that it is plain “what careful notes of the reformer’s sermons were made even then.” See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 144.[382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526. For the explanation of the phrase, “If the wife will not, let the maid come,” see volume iii., xvii. 6.[383]Ibid., p. 280 = 515.[384]Ibid., p. 309 = 537 f.[385]Ibid., p. 304 = 541.[386]“Commentaria,” etc. Magunt., 1549, p. 61: “Fœdissime contra naturalem pudorem loquitur de commixtione maris et fœminæ.”[387]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 146 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 186 ff.[388]Luther to Staupitz, repeating his words, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.[389]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 226.[390]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 704 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 166 ff.[391]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385seq.The German edition published by Luther later (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 344 ff.) is abbreviated.[392]“Contra Henricum,” p. 220 = 445, etc.[393]Ibid., p. 184 = 391.[394]“Schutzschrift an den Rath in Costnitz,” in L. Hundeshagen, “Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgesch.,” 1864, 1, p. 423.[395]Röhrich, “Gesch. der Reformation im Elsass,” 1, 1855, p. 294.[396]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, pp. 223, 275, 445.[397]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Basil., 9, pp. 1066, 1096. Cp. Erasmus in “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 689.[398]“An den grossmechtigsten ... Adel tütscher Nation,” Strasburg, 1520 (no name), Bl. K. 1.[399]“Adversus caninas Martini Lutheri nuptias,” Coloniæ, 1530. By Luther’s “canine marriages,” the author does not refer to Luther’s union with Catherine Bora, as is usually inferred, but, according to the preface, to the numerous marriages rendered possible by Luther’s removal of the matrimonial impediments, so that it might happen that one man could marry ten times even in the lifetime of the ten women concerned. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 126.[400]N. Paulus,ibid.He refers to Luther’s “Correspondence,” 1, p. 20; 2, p. 362; 6, p. 280.[401]“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1905, p. 16, 4.[402]“Correspondence of the brothers Ambrose and Thomas Blaurer,” ed. Schiess, 1, 1908, pp. 329, 476; Bucer to A. Blaurer, March 5, 1532, and March 3, 1534.[403]Wilhelm Walther, “Für Luther Wider Rom,” 1906, p. 232 ff.[404]“Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, Preface, pp. x., xiii.[405]“Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1904, col. 1613.[406]To an anonymous correspondent, August 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 149, answering the question, “Why I replied so harshly to the King of Engelland.” Principal reason: “My method is not one of compromise, yielding, giving in, or leaving anything undone.” “Do not be astonished that so many are scandalised by my writings. This is intended to be so and must be so, that even the few may hold fast to the Gospel.” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447.[407]Cp. Luther to the Elector Johann, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388), concerning his two pamphlets, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” and “Auff das vermeint keiserlich Edict”: “I am only sorry that [the style] is not stronger and more violent.” The Elector will “readily perceive that my writing is far, far, too dull and soft towards such dry bones and dead branches [as the Papists].” But I was “neither drunk nor asleep when I wrote.”[408]“Für Luther Wider Rom,” p. 231.[409]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.[410]Letter of Burer, March 27, 1522, in Baum, “Capito und Butzer,” 1860, p. 83, and in “Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus,” ed. Horawitz and Hartfelder, 1866, p. 303.[411]Thomas Blaurer, in a letter to his brother Ambrose, dated February 15, 1521, calls Luther “Pater pientissimus”; previously, on January 4, he speaks of him as “christianissimus et sapientissimus vir,” and extols the fact that “omnia contempsit præter Christum; præter Christum nihil metuit nec sperat et id tamen ita humiliter, ut clare sentias nullos esse his fucos.” “Correspondence of the Brothers Blaurer,” 1, 1908, pp. 33, 29 f.[412]Cp. vol. i., p. 279, the “Dicta Melanchthonia” on Luther’s eyes. Catholic contemporaries called them diabolical. Seee.g.Aleander in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 500.[413]Cp. for what follows H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1910, p. 4 f. Some of the matter contained in the first edition is omitted in the second.[414]See Denifle-Weiss, 1², Pl. IX[415]The latter are shown in Böhmer, p. 2. Cp.ibid., p. 37.[416]None but an expert can have any idea of the “speed with which Luther wrote. He was a born stenographer.” It should be noted “that the haste with which he wrote is far less noticeable in the manuscripts which have been preserved than in the writings themselves with their countless defects. Outside a small circle there are but few to-day who could fall under the magical influence of Luther’s writings, and not weary of listening to the monotonous song of the ‘Wittenberg nightingale’” (K. A. Meissinger, in a review of Ficker’s edition of the Commentary on Romans, “Frankfurter Ztng.,” 1910, No. 300). The expression “Wittenberg nightingale” occurs, as is well known, in a poem by Luther’s Nuremberg admirer, Hans Sachs.[417]“Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 122. “Commentar ad Gal.,” 1531, 1, p. 107. In this passage quoted by Denifle, 1², p. 391, Luther speaks of his great zeal in doing penance in the monastery, and adds a little further on (p. 109): “So long as I was a Popish monk,externe non eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem,” which, of course, only means: “I was a good religious.”[418]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38.[419]In the interpretation of Genesis iii. 17; “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 263. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38, 481, where Luther makes use of the usual word “Franzos” for the malady. In the latter passage Luther declares himself ready to exchange his very painful gout for this malady, or even for the plague, were that God’s will. Hence he was then, i.e. in his later years, free from it.[420]German translation of the “Chronicle” in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 14; the passage,ibid., p. 1277.[421]“Analecta Lutherana,” p. 50.[422]To Spalatin, April 25, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 137.[423]Melanchthon to Hammelberg, April 29, 1523, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 615.[424]To Nic. Hausmann, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144: “Corpore satis bene valeo.”[425]See Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 87, 88 n.[426]Luther sent him a copy of his “Chronicle,” above mentioned, as a present on May 15, 1544 (Seidemann, “Lutherbriefe,” p. 68).
[209]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225.
[210]Sermon of 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 148: “I have myself had it [the gift of chastity], although with many evil thoughts and dreams.”
[211]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. 102, p. 464.
[212]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 708; Erl. ed., 10², p. 464.
[213]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Otiosus et crapulosus.”
[214]On February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo expositus crapulæ.”
[215]Cp. Paul de Lagarde, “Mitteilungen,” 3, Göttingen, 1889, p. 336.
[216]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 5 ff.
[217]Dedication of the German edition, 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 482; Erl. ed., 53, p. 93. The work in Latin in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 398 ff. German,ibid., p. 477 ff, and in Erl. ed., 28, p. 28. The German dedication agrees with the Latin. See above, p. 80, n. 1.
[218]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 483; Erl. ed., 28, p. 30.
[219]Ibid., p. 488 = 36.
[220]Ibid., p. 488 f. = 37 f.
[221]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 510 = 68.
[222]Ibid., p. 538, 539, 540 = 106, 107, 109.
[223]Ibid., p. 549 = 121.
[224]Cp. volume iv., xxvii.
[225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 559, 560; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 135, 137.
[226]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561 = 138.
[227]Ibid., p. 562 = 139 f.
[228]On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).
[229]In Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 62, n. (from Khummer’s Notes).
[230]To Jodocus Trutfetter, Professor at Erfurt, May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188: “Uno ore dicunt, sese prius non novisse nec audivisse Christum et Evangelium,” etc.
[231]To Sylvius Egranus, preacher at Zwickau, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173.
[232]To Spalatin, January 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.
[233]See vol. i., p. 369, n. 1.
[234]“Carnis meæ indomitæ uror magnis ignibus,” in the letter to Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189, where he also employs the expression, “tentationes carnis.” In a letter to Staupitz, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “Homo sum expositus et involutus societati,crapulæ,titillationi,negligentiæ aliisque molestiis.” “Titillatio” is generally used by Luther for sensual temptation, e.g. in the Commentary on Romans (“Schol. Rom.,” p. 133): “Luxuriosus, dum titillatio venit,” etc.; also in the tract on the Ten Commandments, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 485, 491, 497. In the German version he translates the word by “Kitzel”; see, for instance, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 34, p. 139.
[235]See references below, xiii. 4. The “molestiæ” in the passage from the letter to Staupitz (see previous note) are probably of the same character.
[236]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.
[237]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773.
[238]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 440, 773
[239]C. F. Jäger, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1856, p. 273. Cp. H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, 1905, p. 355 ff.
[240]Karl Müller, “Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 29.
[241]Idem, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907, p. 15.
[242]On January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 271 f. Cp. K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 218.
[243]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211 f.
[244]Ibid., p. 8 = 212.
[245]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 1, p. 405; cp. 402 f.
[246]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 670 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 43 ff.
[247]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 93 ff. = 28, p. 141 ff.
[248]Ibid., p. 111 = 148 f.
[249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 140 = 178. It has been asserted, strangely enough, that these words were spoken by Luther hypothetically, i.e. in the event of the Romanists refusing to be converted, and that the word he uses, and which we have rendered as “destroying,” really means something slightly less drastic.
[250]H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” 29, 1908, p. 489; cp. p. 479 ff.
[251]H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” 1906, p. 146.
[252]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 69: “Der jüngste Tag, welchen sie [die Constellation] gewisslich bedeutet.”
[253]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 683, in the “True Admonition,” published early in December, 1521.
[255]Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 84.
[256]Cp. K. Müller,ibid., and the authors quoted in the above-mentioned studies of P. Drews and H. Hermelink.
[257]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 683, 678.
[258]Hermelink (p. 297). He thinks the “states of excitement may be easily accounted for.”
[259]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680.
[260]Hermelink, p. 488; cp. p. 322.
[261]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 251 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 68: “The spiritual government which makes people Christians and holy,” etc.
[262]“Kirchenrecht,” 1892, pp. 528, 633 f.
[263]Hermelink, p. 322.
[264]Cp. Luther’s Memorandum for the Town Council of Altenburg (April 28, 1522), “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 347 ff. “For Scripture does not give to a council but to each individual Christian the authority to decide on doctrine and discern the wolves,” etc.
[265]Hermelink, p. 309.
[266]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.
[267]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 721.
[268]Ibid., p. 720.
[269]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, 10, 2, p. 33.
[270]Cp. the addresses, “To the Christians at Wittenberg,” “To the Christians at Augsburg,” and similar ones to those at Dorpat, in Flanders, in Holland, in Livonia, at Miltenberg, at Reval, at Riga, at Worms, at Antwerp, at Bremen, at Reutlingen, at Strasburg, etc.
[271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685.
[272]Hermelink, p. 298.
[273]In this Confession we read that in their teaching there was nothing, “Quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” “Corp. Ref.,” 26, p. 290. So runs the address presented to the Emperor, which Melanchthon afterwards toned down in the 2nd edition. Cp. Kolde, “Die Confessio Augustana,” p. 11. Kawerau (Möller’s “Kirchengeschichte,” 3, vol. iii., 1907, p. 108) also quotes the Protestant declaration of 1546 (“Corp. Ref.,” 6, p. 35): “Nostri affirmant ... confessionis Augustanæ doctrinam ... esse consensum catholicæ ecclesiæ Dei,” and the Wittenberg Ordination-papers that the person in question “tenet puram doctrinam evangelii quam catholica ecclesia Christi profitetur et nos in ecclesia nostra docemus” (“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, 278; October 7, 1537).
[274]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140, 143, 144, 139, 110.
[275]Hermelink, p. 302.
[276]K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 33, n. 3, where stress is rightly laid on the testimony of Sebastian Fröschel.
[277]Cp. Müller,ibid., p. 34.
[278]See below, xiv. 5, and vol. iv., xxviii. 6.
[279]“De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ, senatui populoque Pragensi,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 194 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 530seq.It follows from the context of the passage quoted above that Luther’s assurance is intended to be their guarantee that they are acting in God’s name, and are not themselves taking the initiative, but submitting to be led. Cp. letter to the Bohemian Estates (1522), Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 144 ff.
[280]Paul Drews (“Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 36), in the examination of the instruction mentioned in the previous note.
[281]Thus Hermelink (p. 483), though he does not find the congregational principle so decidedly expressed in Luther’s writings as Drews does. Luther’s statements in the years 1522-1525 concerning the establishment of new congregations are certainly not at all clear, as Karl Müller admits (“Luther und Karlstadt,” “Luthers Gedanken über den Aufbau der neuen Gemeinden,” p. 121). Cp. concerning the existence of Luther’s congregational ideal, “Kirche, Gemeinde,” usw., p. 40 ff.
[282]Above, p. 111, n. 2. The writing is addressed to the Council and the inhabitants collectively (“senatus populusque”). Yet in certain passages the Council alone is addressed.
[283]In the Preface: “Nequaquam esse possum autor quidquam tentandi, nisi per consilium et exhortationem.”
[284]The title of the work describes it well: “The Scriptural ground and reason why a Christian congregation or assembly has the right and power to pass judgment on all doctrines, to call, appoint, or remove pastors,” 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.
[285]Ibid., p. 412 = 147.
[286]Ibid.
[287]Ibid., pp. 412, 413, 414 = 147, 148, 149.
[288]Ibid., p. 408 = 142.
[289]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 415 f. = 151.
[290]Ibid., p. 410 = 145.
[291]Ibid., p. 409 f. = 143 f.
[292]Ibid., p. 408 f. = 142.
[293]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 228 = 28, p. 346, in his reply to King Henry VIII “of Engelland” (1522).
[294]To Melanchthon, January 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 272 f.: “Veniam ad prophetas.... Explores etiam, num experti sint spirituales illas angustias et nativitates divinas, mortes infernosque.”
[295]Ibid., 3, p. 273.
[296]To Wolfgang Reissenbusch, Preceptor at Lichtenberg, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p.. 270-9; Erl. ed., 53, p. 286 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).
[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 300; Erl. ed., 16², p. 537 f.
[298]Ibid., p. 302 = 539.
[299]In the letter to Reissenbusch; see above, p. 116, n. 1.
[300]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 127; Erl. ed., 28, p. 165. Against the clerical state falsely so called.
[301]Ibid., p. 130 = 165seq.
[302]Ibid., p. 279 = 16², p. 514 f. “Sermon on the married life,” 1522.
[303]Ibid., 10, 1, 1, pp. 693, 708 = 12, p. 451, 465, “Postils.”
[304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 71.
[305]Letter of April or June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony, quoted by J. K. Seidemann in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” 1872, p. 198.
[306]See below.
[307]Cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 266 f.
[308]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 556.
[309]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262 (“Tischreden”). Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 315, 364; 3, p. 149.
[310]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 262.
[311]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315.
[312]To Johann Lang at Erfurt, March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323seq.
[313]Ibid., p. 323.
[314]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.
[315]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 35; Erl. ed., 28, p. 311, in the tract “Concerning the Sacrament under both kinds.”
[316]Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, 11. Sermon 136´.
[317]“Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 13.
[318]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 72 f.
[319]Kampschulte, “Universität Erfurt,” 2, p. 173, quoted from a publication which is not by the Erfurt preacher Mechler, as he thinks, but by Eberlin. Cp. N. Paulus in Janssen, 218, p. 240, n. 3.
[320]“Helii Eobani Hessi et amicorum ipsius epistolarum familiarium libri 12,” Marpurgi, 1543, p. 87. Phyllis, the beloved of Demophon, became the type of sensual passion.
[321]Ibid., p. 90. For date see Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für die Gesch. von Erfurt,” part 15, 1892, p. 107.
[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372, July, 1524): “I know that we ... as St. Paul says, Romans viii. 23, have the first fruits of the Spirit,primitias spiritus, although we have not yet received the fulness of the Spirit.”
[323]Letter to W. Pirkheimer, 1528, “Opp.,” Lugduni Batavorum, 1702seq., t. 3, p. 1139.
[324]“Opp.,” 3, p. 1030. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 12.
[325]Ibid., 10, p. 1578seq.Döllinger, p. 15.
[326]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.
[327]“Clag etlicher Brüder” (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 47.
[328]“Wider die falsch scheynende, usw.” No place, 1524. A³b. A4ab. In N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (“3. Vereinsschrift der Görresgesellschaft für 1893”), p. 3 f.
[329]See below, p. 134, n. 4, and p. 163.
[330]Clag (above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 48.
[331]Ibid.
[332]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders (see above, p. 126, n. 5), p. 29 ff.
[333]“Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders, p. 31.
[334]Ibid., p. 30.
[335]In an anonymous review, important on account of its original matter, of Burkhardt’s “Briefwechsel Luthers” (“Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1867, Beilage, No. 18). Unfortunately, the learned expert, who takes Luther’s part, does not mention the source whence the above passage is taken. It appears to occur in some unprinted MS.
[336]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 278: “Quod scortis, aleis, tabernis vacarem.... Mendaciis satis sum assuetus.”
[337]“Summa sententia erat, scortatorem eum esse et compotorem, qualibus viciis fere laborarent Germani.” “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.”, 3, 1905, p. 79.
[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 774.
[339]To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218: “Orbis theatrum sumus,” etc. Cp. 1 Corinthians iv. 9: “Spectaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis et hominibus.”
[340]To Amsdorf, February 12, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 434.
[341]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.
[342]“Historien,” 1566, p. 154. Cp. “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 121, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420.
[343]“Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 273, 275; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 208, 210, 211. For the manner in which his pupils at Wittenberg praised him, see below, p. 157 f. Erasmus’s eulogy on his manner of life is also an echo from the circle of his enthusiastic friends; see xiv. 3.
[344]“Opus adv. nova quædam et a christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata M. Lutheri,” Romæ, Q 3a. R 2b.: “Ponis cervicalia sub capita eorum, qui stertunt,” etc.
[345]Letter of May 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144; Gal. iii. 3.
[346]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 559. See the text in the work mentioned, p. 137, n. 1.
[347]See proofs given in the “Katholik,” 1892, 2, p. 421 f., in the article by P. A. Kirsch.
[348]Cp. E. Kroker, “Katharina v. Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 36 f., where the legends are ably criticised.
[349]In the writing, “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen,” which Luther sent on April 10, 1523, in the form of a circular letter to Leonard Koppe. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 394 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 132).
[350]Kolde, “Analecta Luth.,” p. 443.
[351]On June 24, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 169.
[352]To Johann Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523,ibid., p. 164: “Moniales et monachi egressi mihi multas horas furantur, ut omnium necessitati serviam.”
[353]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 560.
[354]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 177 f.
[355]To Spalatin, September 19, 1523,ibid., p. 233.
[356]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 728 ff.
[357]To Spalatin, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 77.
[358]On April 16, 1525,ibid., p. 157.
[359]June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 402 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). Albert made no reply. On June 2, the very same day, the peasants were victorious at Königshofen.
[360]Letter of June 3, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 313 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189).
[361]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 400; Erl. ed., 29, p. 41, in “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.”
[362]Ibid., 10, 1, p. 692; Erl. ed., 10², p. 450, in the Tract against the state of chastity, embodied in the “Postils.”
[363]“Luther und seine Gegner, Vortrag,” 1903, p. 14. Here it is true the cynicism is regarded as an “expression of his moral annoyance” with the supporters of celibacy, who themselves led immoral lives.
[364]On March 8, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.
[365]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 123, on Jonas and his writing materials (“schedas natales, hoc est de natibus purgatis”).
[366]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 93; Erl. ed., 29, p. 169. According to these foes of his, it is, he says, “die rechten evangelischen Prediger, die der Braut von Orlamünde das Hembd und dem Bräutigam zu Naschhausen die Hosen ausziehen.”Ibid., p. 84 = 160: “Wie aber, wenn Braut und Bräutigam so züchtig wären, und behielten Hembd und Rock an? Es solle freilich nicht fast hindern, wenn sie sonst Lust zusammen hätten.” Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 681.
[367]The explanation is Köstlin’s, and is retained in the most recent edition by Kawerau, 1, p. 736.
[368]See the whole Greek letter below, p. 176. The passageαἱ μοναχαὶ πάσῃ ἐμηχαν πιβουλευομέναι προσέσπασαν αὐτόν, according to our opinion, conveys the sense attributed to it above. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 736.
[369]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 81seq.
[370]Articuli sive libelli triginta, etc., art. 17, p. 83.
[371]Conclusion of the Tract “De Purgatorio,” “Opp.,” Pars II, Ingolst., 1531, pp. 95´, 96. Cp. volume iv., xxii.: “Luther and Lying.”
[372]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560 ff.
[373]See above, p. 87.
[374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 667.
[375]Ibid., pp. 431, 437.
[376]“The 7th chapter,” etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 92 ff.
[377]In the dedication to Hans Loser zu Pretzsch, Hereditary Marshal of Saxony (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 199).
[378]On April 10, 1519, to Amsdorf; see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 16, n. 33.
[379]To Johann Lang, April 13, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12.
[380]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 162 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 49 ff., 77 ff. In the Preface we read: “There is a great difference between bringing something to light by means of the living voice or by the dead letter” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 166). Of the marriages which were concluded secretly (see below) and which were then [previous to the Council of Trent] regarded as valid by the Church, he says here: “After one has secretly pledged his word to a woman and thereafter takes another, either publicly or secretly, I do not yet know whether all that is said and written on the subject is to be accepted or not.”
[381]“De duplici iustitia.” Pastor Knaake remarks of the first edition of this sermon, that it is plain “what careful notes of the reformer’s sermons were made even then.” See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 144.
[382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 290; Erl. ed., 16², p. 526. For the explanation of the phrase, “If the wife will not, let the maid come,” see volume iii., xvii. 6.
[383]Ibid., p. 280 = 515.
[384]Ibid., p. 309 = 537 f.
[385]Ibid., p. 304 = 541.
[386]“Commentaria,” etc. Magunt., 1549, p. 61: “Fœdissime contra naturalem pudorem loquitur de commixtione maris et fœminæ.”
[387]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 146 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 186 ff.
[388]Luther to Staupitz, repeating his words, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.
[389]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 226.
[390]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 704 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 166 ff.
[391]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” 1522. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 172 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 385seq.The German edition published by Luther later (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, p. 344 ff.) is abbreviated.
[392]“Contra Henricum,” p. 220 = 445, etc.
[393]Ibid., p. 184 = 391.
[394]“Schutzschrift an den Rath in Costnitz,” in L. Hundeshagen, “Beiträge zur Kirchenverfassungsgesch.,” 1864, 1, p. 423.
[395]Röhrich, “Gesch. der Reformation im Elsass,” 1, 1855, p. 294.
[396]Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, pp. 223, 275, 445.
[397]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Basil., 9, pp. 1066, 1096. Cp. Erasmus in “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 689.
[398]“An den grossmechtigsten ... Adel tütscher Nation,” Strasburg, 1520 (no name), Bl. K. 1.
[399]“Adversus caninas Martini Lutheri nuptias,” Coloniæ, 1530. By Luther’s “canine marriages,” the author does not refer to Luther’s union with Catherine Bora, as is usually inferred, but, according to the preface, to the numerous marriages rendered possible by Luther’s removal of the matrimonial impediments, so that it might happen that one man could marry ten times even in the lifetime of the ten women concerned. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 126.
[400]N. Paulus,ibid.He refers to Luther’s “Correspondence,” 1, p. 20; 2, p. 362; 6, p. 280.
[401]“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1905, p. 16, 4.
[402]“Correspondence of the brothers Ambrose and Thomas Blaurer,” ed. Schiess, 1, 1908, pp. 329, 476; Bucer to A. Blaurer, March 5, 1532, and March 3, 1534.
[403]Wilhelm Walther, “Für Luther Wider Rom,” 1906, p. 232 ff.
[404]“Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, Preface, pp. x., xiii.
[405]“Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1904, col. 1613.
[406]To an anonymous correspondent, August 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 149, answering the question, “Why I replied so harshly to the King of Engelland.” Principal reason: “My method is not one of compromise, yielding, giving in, or leaving anything undone.” “Do not be astonished that so many are scandalised by my writings. This is intended to be so and must be so, that even the few may hold fast to the Gospel.” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447.
[407]Cp. Luther to the Elector Johann, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388), concerning his two pamphlets, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” and “Auff das vermeint keiserlich Edict”: “I am only sorry that [the style] is not stronger and more violent.” The Elector will “readily perceive that my writing is far, far, too dull and soft towards such dry bones and dead branches [as the Papists].” But I was “neither drunk nor asleep when I wrote.”
[408]“Für Luther Wider Rom,” p. 231.
[409]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.
[410]Letter of Burer, March 27, 1522, in Baum, “Capito und Butzer,” 1860, p. 83, and in “Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus,” ed. Horawitz and Hartfelder, 1866, p. 303.
[411]Thomas Blaurer, in a letter to his brother Ambrose, dated February 15, 1521, calls Luther “Pater pientissimus”; previously, on January 4, he speaks of him as “christianissimus et sapientissimus vir,” and extols the fact that “omnia contempsit præter Christum; præter Christum nihil metuit nec sperat et id tamen ita humiliter, ut clare sentias nullos esse his fucos.” “Correspondence of the Brothers Blaurer,” 1, 1908, pp. 33, 29 f.
[412]Cp. vol. i., p. 279, the “Dicta Melanchthonia” on Luther’s eyes. Catholic contemporaries called them diabolical. Seee.g.Aleander in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 500.
[413]Cp. for what follows H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1910, p. 4 f. Some of the matter contained in the first edition is omitted in the second.
[414]See Denifle-Weiss, 1², Pl. IX
[415]The latter are shown in Böhmer, p. 2. Cp.ibid., p. 37.
[416]None but an expert can have any idea of the “speed with which Luther wrote. He was a born stenographer.” It should be noted “that the haste with which he wrote is far less noticeable in the manuscripts which have been preserved than in the writings themselves with their countless defects. Outside a small circle there are but few to-day who could fall under the magical influence of Luther’s writings, and not weary of listening to the monotonous song of the ‘Wittenberg nightingale’” (K. A. Meissinger, in a review of Ficker’s edition of the Commentary on Romans, “Frankfurter Ztng.,” 1910, No. 300). The expression “Wittenberg nightingale” occurs, as is well known, in a poem by Luther’s Nuremberg admirer, Hans Sachs.
[417]“Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 122. “Commentar ad Gal.,” 1531, 1, p. 107. In this passage quoted by Denifle, 1², p. 391, Luther speaks of his great zeal in doing penance in the monastery, and adds a little further on (p. 109): “So long as I was a Popish monk,externe non eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem,” which, of course, only means: “I was a good religious.”
[418]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38.
[419]In the interpretation of Genesis iii. 17; “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 263. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 38, 481, where Luther makes use of the usual word “Franzos” for the malady. In the latter passage Luther declares himself ready to exchange his very painful gout for this malady, or even for the plague, were that God’s will. Hence he was then, i.e. in his later years, free from it.
[420]German translation of the “Chronicle” in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 14; the passage,ibid., p. 1277.
[421]“Analecta Lutherana,” p. 50.
[422]To Spalatin, April 25, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 137.
[423]Melanchthon to Hammelberg, April 29, 1523, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 615.
[424]To Nic. Hausmann, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 144: “Corpore satis bene valeo.”
[425]See Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 87, 88 n.
[426]Luther sent him a copy of his “Chronicle,” above mentioned, as a present on May 15, 1544 (Seidemann, “Lutherbriefe,” p. 68).