[789]P. 779 = 356: “Dum liberum arbitrium statuis, Christum evacuas.”[790]Ibid.: “De libero arbitrio nihil dicere poteris, nisi quæ contraria sunt Christo, scilicet quod error, mors, Satan et omnia mala in ipso regnent.”[791]Ibid., p. 625 = 143.[792]Ibid.[793]Ibid., p. 625 = 144.[794]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 719 = 268: “Ego ipse non semel offensus sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut optarem, nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam salutaris illa esset desperatio et quam gratiæ propinqua.”[795]Ibid., p. 633 = 154. To the reader of the present work it will also be familiar. Compare the passages previously quoted, vol. i., 218 f., 235, 238 ff., 259, 317 f., 379, 381.[796]Ibid., p. 783 = 362seq.[797]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 783 = 262 f.: “Ego sane me confiteor, si qua fieri posset, nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium, aut quippiam in manu mea relinqui, quo ad salutem conari possem,” etc.[798]Ibid., p. 787 = 368: “Ego vero hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui et assero, ac penes nullum volo esse iudicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut præstent obsequium.” The extraordinary self-confidence of these words is more easily explained if we consider them as aimed against the literary device of Erasmus. After the manner of the Humanists, at the beginning of his “Diatribe,” he had declared that he intended merely to enter upon an examination, acollatio(cp.διατριβή), and that he hated logical demonstrations, an exaggeration for which Luther soundly rated him in the very first pages, urging that he must be either a “frivolous orator” or a “godless writer,” if he could not take so important a question seriously (p. 120). The termination of Erasmus’s work, where he says: “Contuli, penes alios stet ultimum iudicium” (ed. J. v. Walter, p. 92), is played upon word for word in the conclusion of the “De servo arbitrio.”[799]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 641 = 162seq.[800]“Quod probat eius indignatio. Hoc non fieret, si esset libera vel haberet liberum arbitrium.” The effect of egotism in man depraved by original sin is here classed by him with the enslavement of the will; he was ever given to exaggerating the strength of concupiscence. Cp. vol. i., pp. 70 f., 110 ff.[801]P. 634 = 156.[802]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 720 = 269.[803]Ibid., p. 730 = 283. Here he is seeking to prove, “(Deum non) talem esse oportere, qui merita respiciat in damnandis.”[804]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.[805]Ibid., p. 673 = 204.[806]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.[807]“Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat.... Si possem ulla ratione comprehendere, quomodo is sit Deus misericors et iustus, qui tantam iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id comprehendi non potest, fit locus exercendæ fidei.”[808]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 602 = 119.[809]Ibid., p. 636 = 158.[810]Ibid., p. 638 = 160.[811]P. 605 = 123.[812]Ibid., p. 601 = 117.[813]P. 664 = 192. The Weimar editor remarks of a similar assertion of Luther’s on p. 664: “There is no doubt that Luther in this passage draws conclusions from the definition of Erasmus (viz. of free-will) which do not directly follow from it.” In confirmation of this Kattenbusch (p. 28) is quoted where he speaks of “Luther’s tactics in his controversy with Erasmus, the object of which was ... to convict Erasmus in one way or another, usually by distorting his words, of rendering grace, the Holy Ghost, or Christ, superfluous for the attainment of salvation.” Kattenbusch instances in support of this pp. 191seq., 193, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, etc., in the Erlangen ed.[814]P. 770 = 342. “And yet Erasmus, as against the Pelagians, always upheld the necessity of thegratia peculiaris.” Thus the Weim. ed., 18, p. 770, n. 2.[815]Ibid., p. 756 = 320.[816]Luther says in the passage quoted: “Exstant themata et problemata, in quibus perpetuo asserui usque in hanc horam, liberum arbitrium esse nihil et rem (eo verbo tum utebar) de solo titulo.” The last words refer to the 13th Thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation (see vol. i., p. 317). The Weimar editor quotes against the “perpetuo asserui,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 32, and 4, p. 295, with the remark: “These are exceptions of which Erasmus could not be aware.” It is not, however, a question of Erasmus, but whether Luther was telling the truth when he said: “It is false that I ever admitted free-will” (“antea non nihil illi tribuerim”).[817]P. 778 = 354.[818]Cp. vol. v., xxxii. 4.[819]Luther’s Works ed. by Buchwald, etc., 2. Supplementary volume, 1905, p. 530.[820]Cp. Melanchthon’s “Loci theologici” (1521), in the third edition by Plitt-Kolde, 1900, p. 87. In this work, in which “the fundamental ideas of Luther found a classical expression,” the theology is “strongly predestinarian in character, and even answers affirmatively the question: ‘utrum Deus mala faciat.’” Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, pp. 41, 43. The “Loci” Luther speaks of in “De servo arbitrio” (Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117) as an “invictus libellus, meo iudicio non solum immortalitate, sed canone quoque ecclesiastico dignus.”[821]Scheel,ibid.(above, p. 264, n. 3), p. 400.[822]“Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si præscivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor, nec erat in manu Judæ aut ullius creaturæ, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 263.[823]“Cur permisit (Deus) Adam ruere?... Deus est, cuius voluntatis nulla est causa nec ratio,” etc.Ibid., p. 712 = 260.[824]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 712 = 260.[825]Thus Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 22, who points out that, according to Luther, “Nothing takes place in the world without God.” He concludes (ibid.) that “On the whole nothing is gained” by Luther’s supposed attempts to relieve God of the responsibility for Adam’s Fall.[826]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 709; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 255.[827]Ibid.[828]Ibid., p. 730 = 284: “Quia incommodum sibi est, hoc iniquum, hoc intolerabile est, hic expostulatur, hic murmuratur, hic blasphematur.”[829]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 711, n. 1.[830]Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 15 f.[831]Ibid., p. 20. Cp. on the proposition “omnia necessario fiunt,” above, p. 265, n. 3.[832]P. 20 ff.[833]Scheel,ibid.(see above, p. 264, n. 3), pp. 211, 529 f., 532, 545. Kattenbusch,ibid.[834]Scheel,ibid., p. 540.[835]P. 211 f.[836]Of the more modern works we shall mention only the Catholic one by H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther,” 1910, and the Protestant one by K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” 1909. The latter, though on the whole supporting Luther, cannot help perceiving “the contradictions of the whole work ‘De servo arbitrio’” (p. 130), which led Ritschl, whom Kattenbusch follows, to call it an “unhappy piece of patchwork.” Although he characterises Luther’s ideas as “wholly the outcome of the Pauline spirit” (p. 134), yet he speaks of “Luther’s pantheistic determinism” (p. 197), and avers the “incompatibility” of the monistic pantheism which he finds here with the ethical dualism of his general train of thought (p. 168); the presence of “two contradictory theories” is, according to him, an undoubted “fact” (p. 141).[837]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 640; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 162: “Ex mea parte unus Vuicleff, et alter Laurentius Valla, quanquam et Augustinus quem præteris, meus totus est.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 101, 103, 107.[838]“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 66.[839]Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 619, n.[840]Zickendraht,ibid., p. 180 f.[841]“Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545,” edited for the first time by Paul Drews, Göttingen, 1895, p. 279 f.[842]Ibid., p. 75.[843]Ibid., p. 92, n. 29 ff. Drews points out (p. 90) that in the 1538 edition the whole of the thesesDe homine“are, strange to say, omitted.” Cp. also “Disputationen,” p. 11, n. 29: “Iustificati autem sic gratis tum facimus opera, imo Christus ipse in nobis facit omnia.” Also pp. 92, 94, 95, 266, 318, 481. On p. 160 we meet with the drastic expression: The depravation of human nature by original sin is so great, “ut suspirare ad Deum non possimus, nedum nos explicare aut bonum facere.” Hence there is an end to our “liberum arbitrium; sed restituetur nobis in resurrectione mortuorum, ubi rursum collocabimur in paradisum.”[844]Cp. Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector August of Saxony, which will be given in detail later, where he characterises as “stoica” and “manichæa deliria,” on the part of Luther, the view that “all works, good and bad, in all men, whether good or bad, happened by necessity.” Such mad fancies he had rejected “during Luther’s lifetime and afterwards,” “Corp. Ref.,” 9, p. 766. Likewise, in his “Responsiones ad articulos bavaricæ inquisitionis,” Melanchthon calls such doctrines “stoici et manichæi furores,” and adds: “Oro iuniores, ut fugiant has monstruosas opiniones, quæ sunt contumeliosæ contra Deum et perniciosæ moribus. Nam si omnia necessaria sunt, nihil opus est deliberatione et diligentia.... Saepe homines applaudunt monstruosis opinionibus tantum quia monstruosæ sunt et mirantur non intellectas.... Firmissima veritas est, Deum nec velle peccata nec impellere voluntates ad peccandum.” Melanchthon wrote this after Luther had already passed away; he was terrified by the moral results of these “monstrous” doctrines. “Opp.,” Witebergæ, 1562, 1, p. 369.[845]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 163, in the first and second set of notes on the sermon.[846]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 177 f., said between August 7 and 24, from notes taken by Mathesius himself.[847]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.[848]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.[849]Ibid., p. 224.[850]Ibid., p. 225.[851]Ibid., p. 222.[852]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 512 ff.[853]“Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 290-300. Cp. on this passage, from a lecture published from notes, Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 6 f., where he very aptly draws attention to the points which Luther here (as elsewhere) evades: (1) “Whether faith is rendered inwardly possible to every man by the will and action of God?” (2) “Why does God fail to instil faith into so many?” (3) “How is final perseverance assured in the elect?”[854]“The enigmas of predestination were in his case in the last instance inextricably bound up with deterministic ideas—a fact not unimportant for the fate of his predestinarian ideas, for instance, in the hands of Melanchthon.” F. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,” p. 763.Ibid., p. 757. “He was convinced that he was merely advocating Paul’s doctrine of grace. Yet what he expounds is a deterministic doctrine of predestination which shrinks from no consequences, not even from attributing the Fall directly to God.” Loofs points out, that, according to Luther, Adam fell because “the Spirit [of God] did not render him obedient,” and quotes the “De servo arbitrio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 207: “Non potuit velle bonum ... id est obedientiam, quia spiritus illam non addebat.” The same author shows (p. 766 f.) how the above ideas remain with Luther even at a later date, and cause him to represent the faith which, in man, is coincident with justification, as “effected by God simply in accordance with His Eternal Providence.” “We can, however, understand how Luther, in his sermons to the people, prefers to state the case as though faith were the condition demanded of man for the forgiveness of his sins and the receiving of the Spirit”; the fact is he “frequently leaves his predestinarian ideas on one side.”[855]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 427, no date.[856]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 80 f., where he states: “This contradicts all that we otherwise know of him.”[857]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664.[858]To Capito at Strasburg, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 47: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” In the “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 418, Luther says, that Erasmus had “not refuted” his work “De servo arbitrio,” and would “never be able to do so for all eternity.”[859]To Aquila, October 21, 1528 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 6. In the Schmalkalden Articles, 1537 (3, 1), Luther asserts that it is utterly erroneous to say “hominem habere liberum arbitrium faciendi bonum et omittendi malum, et contra omittendi bonum et faciendi malum.” After enumerating other errors on sin he concludes: “Talia et similia portenta orta sunt ex inscitia et ignorantia peccati et Christi Servatoris nostri, suntque vere et mere ethnica dogmata, quæ tolerare non possumus. Si enim ista approbantur, frustra Christus mortuus est,” etc. “Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 311.[860]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 124 and 82. In the last passage Köstlin attempts to base “Luther’s reticence” on a certain “conviction” which he does not describe more particularly and which it is difficult to recognise; he attributes to Luther “a purer, more resigned readiness to listen to the other side.” Yet he had remarked previously: “From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction; he simply discourages reflection on the subject.” M. Staube (“Das Verhältnis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und Zwingli,” Zürich, 1894) writes with less indulgence than Köstlin on Luther’s doctrine. This theologian, an admirer of Zwingli, says bluntly: Luther’s doctrine of predestination and the lack of free-will “leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter of man’s salvation” (p. 36). “What then is left of Luther’s Deity?” “A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His mood” (p. 37). “God appears and acts as a blind, naked force,fortuna, fatum,” because what He does is “beyond good and evil” (p. 38). “Why invent the fable of God’s justice and holiness?... We do nothing, God works all in all.... This religion, which is the logical outcome of Luther’s work ‘De servo arbitrio,’ is surely not Christianity but Materialism”; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become “foolish fancies” (p. 39). Diametrically opposed to this are the explanations of certain of Luther’s modern theological admirers, who not only pay homage to the author of “De servo arbitrio” on account of his true piety, but see in Erasmus’s vindication of free-will mere frivolous Pelagianism. Adolf Harnack, in the fourth edition of his “Dogmengeschichte,” 3, p. 841, says: “Rightly the ‘Diatribe’ is looked upon as the masterpiece of Erasmus, yet it is an altogether secular, and, at bottom, irreligious work. Luther, on the other hand, insists on the fundamental fact of Christian experience. On this rests his doctrine of predestination, which is simply the expression of the Omnipotence of the grace of God.” With his doctrine of predestination and the enslaved will, and his treatment of theDeus absconditus, he “gave back religion to religion.” In the Weimar ed. of Luther’s works (18, p. 593), Harnack’s opinion is accepted and (p. 595) we are told that Luther “refuted in a masterly fashion the obscure and unintelligible definition given by Erasmus [of free-will].” Luther’s work appears to the author of the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” in this edition, as “a real achievement” (p. 596), and he quotes with satisfaction A. Ritschl’s opinion, that Luther, its writer, in his sovereign certainty, did not shrink from thecontradictio in adiecto. In the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter” (p. 528, n. 1 [reprint, p. 14]), G. Kawerau states that Luther asserted “with relentless logic man’s inability to turn to God, and did not shrink from the harshest predestinarian expressions, phrases, indeed, which gave great trouble to Lutherans at a later date, and which they would gladly have seen expunged from his writings that Calvin’s followers might not appeal to them. And yet we agree with Harnack,” etc. (then follow Harnack’s words as given above). Köstlin concludes: “The death of all religion, as K. Müller (‘Kirchengesch.,’ 2, p. 307) rightly remarks, is to take our own works and doings into account.”[861]Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 28, where in proof of such perversions he refers to “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, pp. 191seq., 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, adding at the end an “etc.” which is full of meaning.[862]Luther, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236.[863]Ibid.[864]The theories of some theologians on the direct authority of the Church to interfere in secular matters do not here come into consideration.[865]Fr. v. Bezold says: “Luther claimed the merit of having exalted the true understanding of the secular power in a way that no one else had done since the time of the Apostles.... The indefensibility of this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated” (“Kultur der Gegenwart,” 2, 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 66).[866]Some of his reservations were, however, of doubtful practical value. K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911 (p. 1 ff.), shows how Luther urges the secular power to make an end of the “thievery” of the clerics, and how he ascribes to this power the right of summoning Councils, though only “when needful.”[867]This will be done in the present work as occasion arises. See more particularly vol. iii., xv. 2 and 3, and vol. v., xxxv. 1 and 2.[868]See vol. iv., xxviii.[869]For a Protestant criticism of them see Erich Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,” 1901 (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” Hft. 70), and Karl Müller, “Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.[870]“To the Christian nobility,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.[871]Ibid.[872]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 410 = 285.[873]“On the secular power,” 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268; Erl. ed., 22, p. 89.[874]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., pp. 83-6, 88, 89, 91-3.[875]Ibid., p. 69.[876]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., p. 94.[877]Ibid., p. 93. Whereas Luther’s other ideas to be described changed considerably in later years, this one of an “abrogated spiritual government” always remained, though with some modifications. According to the Preface to his “Instruction for Visitations” (1528) and the “Instruction” itself, “the visitors have of themselves no official public authority for holding the Visitation, but must be conversant with the Bible, find therein their qualification and be appointed by the Elector, in the name of the preachers, to hold the Visitation. In this quality they are unable to exercise any sort of force or compulsion, this being reserved to the Elector, but, as representing him, they also share in his secular power.” “It is part of the duty of the authorities” to “establish and regulate the Matrimonial Courts”; the secular authorities are bound where the work of the pastors has been of no avail, to take their “own means for the spiritual and temporal protection of the Christianity of the country, against scandal and false doctrine,” and to make God’s Word the only public and authorised code and authority. For the spiritual government consists exclusively “in the Word and the preaching-office, and can only penetrate into the heart by means of the Word and the work of the pastor.” Karl Müller thus sums up the teaching of the documents in question in “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 74 f.[878]“Werke,”ibid., p. 69.[879]“Werke,”ibid., p. 72 f.[880]Ibid., p. 73.[881]A Utopian idealism, certainly unknown in the earlier ages, is apparent in the following, taken from Luther’s writing referred to above: “A Christian must be ready to suffer all kinds of evil and injustice ... and not to defend himself before the law.... But in the case of others he may and ought to seek for revenge, justice, protection, and assistance, and do his best to this end according as he is able. The authorities, therefore, ought, either of their own initiative or at the instigation of others, to help and protect him without any complaining, appealing, or effort on his part. But where this is not done he must allow himself to be fleeced and oppressed and not offer any resistance, according to the words of Christ” (p. 78).[882]Cp.ibid., p. 87 ff.[883]Ibid., p. 89.[884]Ibid.[885]Ibid., p. 82.[886]Cp.ibid., p. 83.[887]Ibid., p.84 ff.[888]Ibid., p. 85.[889]Ibid., p.90 f.[890]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.[891]Ibid., p. 94 ff.[892]“The main work which Luther required of the Princes has always been regarded by Lutheran rulers as their first duty, viz. to be the guardians and protectors of the Evangel and the true faith in their lands, to repress all public evil and falsehood and to provide for the regular ministry of the Word.” Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81 f.[893]“Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 85.[894]P. Drews, as above, p. 193, n. 2, p. 74. Drews adds: “But it would be premature to conclude from the above that this thought, because not expressed here, is altogether excluded.” Yet it would appear to be excluded by the reference to the bishops, who alone were to trouble themselves concerning any danger to the Church through heresy (p. 301). How Luther, nevertheless, makes the duty of the Lutheran rulers to protect religion the foundation first of his practice, and then of his theory, is shown in the next section, also in vol. iii., xv. 2, and vol. v., xxxv. 2.[895]See above, p. 104 ff.[896]“Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1904, p. 36.[897]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” (“Theolog. Arbeiten aus dem rhein. wiss. Predigerverein,” N. F., Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, pp. 44-79, 54).[898]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 86seq.[899]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 92.[900]Ibid., p. 97.[901]Ibid., p. 90.[902]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293; Erl. ed., 24², p. 273.[903]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[904]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 359.[905]Ibid., p. 361.[906]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 357.[907]Ibid., p. 358.[908]Ibid., 17, 1, p. 478.[909]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, pp. 89, 90.[910]“Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 278.[911]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 93.[912]With regard to the peasants, compare the passages quoted above, p. 217.[913]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 140.[914]Cp. particularly vol. vi., xxxviii.[915]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 100 f.[916]In the “Sermon on Good Works,” to Duke Johann of Saxony, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198.[917]In a sermon of 1532 in the “Hauspostille,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 182.[918]“Kultur der Gegenwart,” p. 85, see above, p. 295, n. 1.[919]To the Elector Frederick, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 108 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).[920]See above, pp. 1-4, 20 f., 24, 101.[921]Cp. p. 190, n. 3.[922]N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 4. Cp. p. 327.[923]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 209.[924]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, May 8, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356).[925]To Spalatin, 1520, soon after February 18 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 328).[926]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 206; Weim. ed., 6, p. 265.[927]J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 274.[928]“Gutachten und Streitschriften über das ius reformandi des Rates vor und während der Einführung der offiziellen Kirchenreform in Augsburg, 1534-1537” (Augsburg, 1901, p. 73 f.).[929]“Luther, eine Skizze,” reprinted in Wetzer and Welte, “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 319 f.[930]On May 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 357.[931]On April 28, 1522,ibid., p. 347.[932]Above, p. 311. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.[933]Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 334, n. 2.[934]For text, see “Mitteilungen der Geschichts-und Altertumsgesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1886, p. 119 ff.[935]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 324 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 221).[936]See Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72.[937]For text, see “Mitteilungen ... des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 513 ff.[938]On February 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).[939]C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächs. Kirchenvisitationen, 1524-1545,” Leipzig, 1879, p. 44.[940]See above, p. 116 f.[941]On December 12, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 154 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 36).[942]On May 5, 1522, “ex arce Eylenburgensi,” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 351.[943]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 220; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 445.[944]Ibid., p. 215 = 437.[945]Ibid., p. 214 = 437.[946]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 245. According to the above new doctrine the Sacrament was not to be reserved in the tabernacle. For further particulars it may suffice to refer to the Memoranda which Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon addressed to the Council of the Margrave of Ansbach and to that of Nuremberg, August 1, 1532, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 319 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312).[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 228. A Mass in German was, however, also introduced by him because, as he said, many had requested it and “the secular authorities urged him to it.” See vol. v., xxix. 9.[948]“On the twofold species of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 29; Erl. ed., 28, p. 304.[949]Ibid., p. 29 = 305; cp. Erl. ed., 28, p. 215.[950]Ibid., p. 29 = 305.[951]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 31 = 307.[952]Ibid., p. 31 = 306. To Gregor Brück, Chancellor to the Elector of Saxony, beginning of April, 1541.[953]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.[954]Ibid.[955]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 842; cp. p. 845. In reply to Luther’s grievances against the celebration of Mass in earlier times, W. Köhler remarks (“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 46) that one might form a better opinion of the Mass from A. Franz’s book, “Die Messe im Mittelalter” (1902), than from Luther’s writings.[956]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 265, andibid., n. 83.[957]To Albert, Elector of Mayence, June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 35, p. 309 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).[958]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80. In parallel passages in other collections the words read “the priests at Zeitz and Meissen”; obviously the proper names are misprints for “Zeit” and “schmeissen.”[959]On April 14, 1512, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 335.[960]About the middle of March, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 119 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).[961]Luther to Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149: “Hartmannus Cronenbergius renuntiavit Cæsari stipendium 200 aureorum nummorum, nolens servire ei, qui impios istos (Luther’s princely foes) audiat ... Deus vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.”[962]H. Ulmann, “Franz von Sickingen,” Leipzig, 1872, p. 186.[963]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 251 f.[964]The passages quoted,ibid., p. 252.[965]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 525.[966]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 90. Cp. the contradiction between this and his statement given above, p. 295 (cp. p. 328, n. 3), on the right and duty of the authorities in regard to Divine worship.[967]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 176).[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649.[969]Very different are his words in the “Exhortation to abstain from revolt” of the end of 1521 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680): “Pay heed to the authorities. So long as they do not take up the matter and give orders, remain quiet. If they are against action, you must be so also. For if you do anything, you are unjust and much worse than the opposite party.”[970]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649 f.[971]The Elector’s Instructions to Hier. Schurf, Joh. Schwertfeger and Melanchthon re Luther, August 7, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 203.[972]Hier. Schurf, etc., to the Elector, August 13, 1523,ibid., p. 207.[973]The Elector pointed out that “he himself preached that the Word of God must be allowed to settle the question, and that this would in its own good time have the desired effect, so God willed” (November 24). See Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 55, n.[974]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 269 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 54).[975]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.[976]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.[977]Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” p. 34.[978]C. A. Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1866, p. 76.[979]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 550.[980]Cp. Spalatin to V. Warbeck, September 30, 1525, in Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222.[981]Kolde,ibid., p. 72.[982]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271seq.[983]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 524.[984]Reprinted in the “Mitteil. der Gesch. und Altertumsges. des Osterl.,” 6, 1886, p. 513. Cp. N. Paulus, “War Luther im Prinzip tolerant?” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 12, 13, p. 96).[985]Letters, ed. De Wette, 3, p. 88seq., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318). It is therefore incorrect to assert that Luther was thinking only of the peace which would be a result of uniform preaching, and not of the damnable nature of the worship to be prohibited. See the passages quoted here and above, p. 315 ff.
[789]P. 779 = 356: “Dum liberum arbitrium statuis, Christum evacuas.”[790]Ibid.: “De libero arbitrio nihil dicere poteris, nisi quæ contraria sunt Christo, scilicet quod error, mors, Satan et omnia mala in ipso regnent.”[791]Ibid., p. 625 = 143.[792]Ibid.[793]Ibid., p. 625 = 144.[794]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 719 = 268: “Ego ipse non semel offensus sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut optarem, nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam salutaris illa esset desperatio et quam gratiæ propinqua.”[795]Ibid., p. 633 = 154. To the reader of the present work it will also be familiar. Compare the passages previously quoted, vol. i., 218 f., 235, 238 ff., 259, 317 f., 379, 381.[796]Ibid., p. 783 = 362seq.[797]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 783 = 262 f.: “Ego sane me confiteor, si qua fieri posset, nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium, aut quippiam in manu mea relinqui, quo ad salutem conari possem,” etc.[798]Ibid., p. 787 = 368: “Ego vero hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui et assero, ac penes nullum volo esse iudicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut præstent obsequium.” The extraordinary self-confidence of these words is more easily explained if we consider them as aimed against the literary device of Erasmus. After the manner of the Humanists, at the beginning of his “Diatribe,” he had declared that he intended merely to enter upon an examination, acollatio(cp.διατριβή), and that he hated logical demonstrations, an exaggeration for which Luther soundly rated him in the very first pages, urging that he must be either a “frivolous orator” or a “godless writer,” if he could not take so important a question seriously (p. 120). The termination of Erasmus’s work, where he says: “Contuli, penes alios stet ultimum iudicium” (ed. J. v. Walter, p. 92), is played upon word for word in the conclusion of the “De servo arbitrio.”[799]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 641 = 162seq.[800]“Quod probat eius indignatio. Hoc non fieret, si esset libera vel haberet liberum arbitrium.” The effect of egotism in man depraved by original sin is here classed by him with the enslavement of the will; he was ever given to exaggerating the strength of concupiscence. Cp. vol. i., pp. 70 f., 110 ff.[801]P. 634 = 156.[802]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 720 = 269.[803]Ibid., p. 730 = 283. Here he is seeking to prove, “(Deum non) talem esse oportere, qui merita respiciat in damnandis.”[804]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.[805]Ibid., p. 673 = 204.[806]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.[807]“Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat.... Si possem ulla ratione comprehendere, quomodo is sit Deus misericors et iustus, qui tantam iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id comprehendi non potest, fit locus exercendæ fidei.”[808]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 602 = 119.[809]Ibid., p. 636 = 158.[810]Ibid., p. 638 = 160.[811]P. 605 = 123.[812]Ibid., p. 601 = 117.[813]P. 664 = 192. The Weimar editor remarks of a similar assertion of Luther’s on p. 664: “There is no doubt that Luther in this passage draws conclusions from the definition of Erasmus (viz. of free-will) which do not directly follow from it.” In confirmation of this Kattenbusch (p. 28) is quoted where he speaks of “Luther’s tactics in his controversy with Erasmus, the object of which was ... to convict Erasmus in one way or another, usually by distorting his words, of rendering grace, the Holy Ghost, or Christ, superfluous for the attainment of salvation.” Kattenbusch instances in support of this pp. 191seq., 193, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, etc., in the Erlangen ed.[814]P. 770 = 342. “And yet Erasmus, as against the Pelagians, always upheld the necessity of thegratia peculiaris.” Thus the Weim. ed., 18, p. 770, n. 2.[815]Ibid., p. 756 = 320.[816]Luther says in the passage quoted: “Exstant themata et problemata, in quibus perpetuo asserui usque in hanc horam, liberum arbitrium esse nihil et rem (eo verbo tum utebar) de solo titulo.” The last words refer to the 13th Thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation (see vol. i., p. 317). The Weimar editor quotes against the “perpetuo asserui,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 32, and 4, p. 295, with the remark: “These are exceptions of which Erasmus could not be aware.” It is not, however, a question of Erasmus, but whether Luther was telling the truth when he said: “It is false that I ever admitted free-will” (“antea non nihil illi tribuerim”).[817]P. 778 = 354.[818]Cp. vol. v., xxxii. 4.[819]Luther’s Works ed. by Buchwald, etc., 2. Supplementary volume, 1905, p. 530.[820]Cp. Melanchthon’s “Loci theologici” (1521), in the third edition by Plitt-Kolde, 1900, p. 87. In this work, in which “the fundamental ideas of Luther found a classical expression,” the theology is “strongly predestinarian in character, and even answers affirmatively the question: ‘utrum Deus mala faciat.’” Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, pp. 41, 43. The “Loci” Luther speaks of in “De servo arbitrio” (Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117) as an “invictus libellus, meo iudicio non solum immortalitate, sed canone quoque ecclesiastico dignus.”[821]Scheel,ibid.(above, p. 264, n. 3), p. 400.[822]“Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si præscivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor, nec erat in manu Judæ aut ullius creaturæ, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 263.[823]“Cur permisit (Deus) Adam ruere?... Deus est, cuius voluntatis nulla est causa nec ratio,” etc.Ibid., p. 712 = 260.[824]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 712 = 260.[825]Thus Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 22, who points out that, according to Luther, “Nothing takes place in the world without God.” He concludes (ibid.) that “On the whole nothing is gained” by Luther’s supposed attempts to relieve God of the responsibility for Adam’s Fall.[826]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 709; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 255.[827]Ibid.[828]Ibid., p. 730 = 284: “Quia incommodum sibi est, hoc iniquum, hoc intolerabile est, hic expostulatur, hic murmuratur, hic blasphematur.”[829]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 711, n. 1.[830]Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 15 f.[831]Ibid., p. 20. Cp. on the proposition “omnia necessario fiunt,” above, p. 265, n. 3.[832]P. 20 ff.[833]Scheel,ibid.(see above, p. 264, n. 3), pp. 211, 529 f., 532, 545. Kattenbusch,ibid.[834]Scheel,ibid., p. 540.[835]P. 211 f.[836]Of the more modern works we shall mention only the Catholic one by H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther,” 1910, and the Protestant one by K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” 1909. The latter, though on the whole supporting Luther, cannot help perceiving “the contradictions of the whole work ‘De servo arbitrio’” (p. 130), which led Ritschl, whom Kattenbusch follows, to call it an “unhappy piece of patchwork.” Although he characterises Luther’s ideas as “wholly the outcome of the Pauline spirit” (p. 134), yet he speaks of “Luther’s pantheistic determinism” (p. 197), and avers the “incompatibility” of the monistic pantheism which he finds here with the ethical dualism of his general train of thought (p. 168); the presence of “two contradictory theories” is, according to him, an undoubted “fact” (p. 141).[837]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 640; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 162: “Ex mea parte unus Vuicleff, et alter Laurentius Valla, quanquam et Augustinus quem præteris, meus totus est.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 101, 103, 107.[838]“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 66.[839]Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 619, n.[840]Zickendraht,ibid., p. 180 f.[841]“Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545,” edited for the first time by Paul Drews, Göttingen, 1895, p. 279 f.[842]Ibid., p. 75.[843]Ibid., p. 92, n. 29 ff. Drews points out (p. 90) that in the 1538 edition the whole of the thesesDe homine“are, strange to say, omitted.” Cp. also “Disputationen,” p. 11, n. 29: “Iustificati autem sic gratis tum facimus opera, imo Christus ipse in nobis facit omnia.” Also pp. 92, 94, 95, 266, 318, 481. On p. 160 we meet with the drastic expression: The depravation of human nature by original sin is so great, “ut suspirare ad Deum non possimus, nedum nos explicare aut bonum facere.” Hence there is an end to our “liberum arbitrium; sed restituetur nobis in resurrectione mortuorum, ubi rursum collocabimur in paradisum.”[844]Cp. Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector August of Saxony, which will be given in detail later, where he characterises as “stoica” and “manichæa deliria,” on the part of Luther, the view that “all works, good and bad, in all men, whether good or bad, happened by necessity.” Such mad fancies he had rejected “during Luther’s lifetime and afterwards,” “Corp. Ref.,” 9, p. 766. Likewise, in his “Responsiones ad articulos bavaricæ inquisitionis,” Melanchthon calls such doctrines “stoici et manichæi furores,” and adds: “Oro iuniores, ut fugiant has monstruosas opiniones, quæ sunt contumeliosæ contra Deum et perniciosæ moribus. Nam si omnia necessaria sunt, nihil opus est deliberatione et diligentia.... Saepe homines applaudunt monstruosis opinionibus tantum quia monstruosæ sunt et mirantur non intellectas.... Firmissima veritas est, Deum nec velle peccata nec impellere voluntates ad peccandum.” Melanchthon wrote this after Luther had already passed away; he was terrified by the moral results of these “monstrous” doctrines. “Opp.,” Witebergæ, 1562, 1, p. 369.[845]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 163, in the first and second set of notes on the sermon.[846]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 177 f., said between August 7 and 24, from notes taken by Mathesius himself.[847]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.[848]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.[849]Ibid., p. 224.[850]Ibid., p. 225.[851]Ibid., p. 222.[852]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 512 ff.[853]“Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 290-300. Cp. on this passage, from a lecture published from notes, Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 6 f., where he very aptly draws attention to the points which Luther here (as elsewhere) evades: (1) “Whether faith is rendered inwardly possible to every man by the will and action of God?” (2) “Why does God fail to instil faith into so many?” (3) “How is final perseverance assured in the elect?”[854]“The enigmas of predestination were in his case in the last instance inextricably bound up with deterministic ideas—a fact not unimportant for the fate of his predestinarian ideas, for instance, in the hands of Melanchthon.” F. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,” p. 763.Ibid., p. 757. “He was convinced that he was merely advocating Paul’s doctrine of grace. Yet what he expounds is a deterministic doctrine of predestination which shrinks from no consequences, not even from attributing the Fall directly to God.” Loofs points out, that, according to Luther, Adam fell because “the Spirit [of God] did not render him obedient,” and quotes the “De servo arbitrio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 207: “Non potuit velle bonum ... id est obedientiam, quia spiritus illam non addebat.” The same author shows (p. 766 f.) how the above ideas remain with Luther even at a later date, and cause him to represent the faith which, in man, is coincident with justification, as “effected by God simply in accordance with His Eternal Providence.” “We can, however, understand how Luther, in his sermons to the people, prefers to state the case as though faith were the condition demanded of man for the forgiveness of his sins and the receiving of the Spirit”; the fact is he “frequently leaves his predestinarian ideas on one side.”[855]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 427, no date.[856]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 80 f., where he states: “This contradicts all that we otherwise know of him.”[857]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664.[858]To Capito at Strasburg, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 47: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” In the “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 418, Luther says, that Erasmus had “not refuted” his work “De servo arbitrio,” and would “never be able to do so for all eternity.”[859]To Aquila, October 21, 1528 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 6. In the Schmalkalden Articles, 1537 (3, 1), Luther asserts that it is utterly erroneous to say “hominem habere liberum arbitrium faciendi bonum et omittendi malum, et contra omittendi bonum et faciendi malum.” After enumerating other errors on sin he concludes: “Talia et similia portenta orta sunt ex inscitia et ignorantia peccati et Christi Servatoris nostri, suntque vere et mere ethnica dogmata, quæ tolerare non possumus. Si enim ista approbantur, frustra Christus mortuus est,” etc. “Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 311.[860]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 124 and 82. In the last passage Köstlin attempts to base “Luther’s reticence” on a certain “conviction” which he does not describe more particularly and which it is difficult to recognise; he attributes to Luther “a purer, more resigned readiness to listen to the other side.” Yet he had remarked previously: “From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction; he simply discourages reflection on the subject.” M. Staube (“Das Verhältnis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und Zwingli,” Zürich, 1894) writes with less indulgence than Köstlin on Luther’s doctrine. This theologian, an admirer of Zwingli, says bluntly: Luther’s doctrine of predestination and the lack of free-will “leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter of man’s salvation” (p. 36). “What then is left of Luther’s Deity?” “A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His mood” (p. 37). “God appears and acts as a blind, naked force,fortuna, fatum,” because what He does is “beyond good and evil” (p. 38). “Why invent the fable of God’s justice and holiness?... We do nothing, God works all in all.... This religion, which is the logical outcome of Luther’s work ‘De servo arbitrio,’ is surely not Christianity but Materialism”; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become “foolish fancies” (p. 39). Diametrically opposed to this are the explanations of certain of Luther’s modern theological admirers, who not only pay homage to the author of “De servo arbitrio” on account of his true piety, but see in Erasmus’s vindication of free-will mere frivolous Pelagianism. Adolf Harnack, in the fourth edition of his “Dogmengeschichte,” 3, p. 841, says: “Rightly the ‘Diatribe’ is looked upon as the masterpiece of Erasmus, yet it is an altogether secular, and, at bottom, irreligious work. Luther, on the other hand, insists on the fundamental fact of Christian experience. On this rests his doctrine of predestination, which is simply the expression of the Omnipotence of the grace of God.” With his doctrine of predestination and the enslaved will, and his treatment of theDeus absconditus, he “gave back religion to religion.” In the Weimar ed. of Luther’s works (18, p. 593), Harnack’s opinion is accepted and (p. 595) we are told that Luther “refuted in a masterly fashion the obscure and unintelligible definition given by Erasmus [of free-will].” Luther’s work appears to the author of the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” in this edition, as “a real achievement” (p. 596), and he quotes with satisfaction A. Ritschl’s opinion, that Luther, its writer, in his sovereign certainty, did not shrink from thecontradictio in adiecto. In the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter” (p. 528, n. 1 [reprint, p. 14]), G. Kawerau states that Luther asserted “with relentless logic man’s inability to turn to God, and did not shrink from the harshest predestinarian expressions, phrases, indeed, which gave great trouble to Lutherans at a later date, and which they would gladly have seen expunged from his writings that Calvin’s followers might not appeal to them. And yet we agree with Harnack,” etc. (then follow Harnack’s words as given above). Köstlin concludes: “The death of all religion, as K. Müller (‘Kirchengesch.,’ 2, p. 307) rightly remarks, is to take our own works and doings into account.”[861]Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 28, where in proof of such perversions he refers to “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, pp. 191seq., 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, adding at the end an “etc.” which is full of meaning.[862]Luther, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236.[863]Ibid.[864]The theories of some theologians on the direct authority of the Church to interfere in secular matters do not here come into consideration.[865]Fr. v. Bezold says: “Luther claimed the merit of having exalted the true understanding of the secular power in a way that no one else had done since the time of the Apostles.... The indefensibility of this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated” (“Kultur der Gegenwart,” 2, 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 66).[866]Some of his reservations were, however, of doubtful practical value. K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911 (p. 1 ff.), shows how Luther urges the secular power to make an end of the “thievery” of the clerics, and how he ascribes to this power the right of summoning Councils, though only “when needful.”[867]This will be done in the present work as occasion arises. See more particularly vol. iii., xv. 2 and 3, and vol. v., xxxv. 1 and 2.[868]See vol. iv., xxviii.[869]For a Protestant criticism of them see Erich Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,” 1901 (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” Hft. 70), and Karl Müller, “Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.[870]“To the Christian nobility,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.[871]Ibid.[872]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 410 = 285.[873]“On the secular power,” 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268; Erl. ed., 22, p. 89.[874]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., pp. 83-6, 88, 89, 91-3.[875]Ibid., p. 69.[876]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., p. 94.[877]Ibid., p. 93. Whereas Luther’s other ideas to be described changed considerably in later years, this one of an “abrogated spiritual government” always remained, though with some modifications. According to the Preface to his “Instruction for Visitations” (1528) and the “Instruction” itself, “the visitors have of themselves no official public authority for holding the Visitation, but must be conversant with the Bible, find therein their qualification and be appointed by the Elector, in the name of the preachers, to hold the Visitation. In this quality they are unable to exercise any sort of force or compulsion, this being reserved to the Elector, but, as representing him, they also share in his secular power.” “It is part of the duty of the authorities” to “establish and regulate the Matrimonial Courts”; the secular authorities are bound where the work of the pastors has been of no avail, to take their “own means for the spiritual and temporal protection of the Christianity of the country, against scandal and false doctrine,” and to make God’s Word the only public and authorised code and authority. For the spiritual government consists exclusively “in the Word and the preaching-office, and can only penetrate into the heart by means of the Word and the work of the pastor.” Karl Müller thus sums up the teaching of the documents in question in “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 74 f.[878]“Werke,”ibid., p. 69.[879]“Werke,”ibid., p. 72 f.[880]Ibid., p. 73.[881]A Utopian idealism, certainly unknown in the earlier ages, is apparent in the following, taken from Luther’s writing referred to above: “A Christian must be ready to suffer all kinds of evil and injustice ... and not to defend himself before the law.... But in the case of others he may and ought to seek for revenge, justice, protection, and assistance, and do his best to this end according as he is able. The authorities, therefore, ought, either of their own initiative or at the instigation of others, to help and protect him without any complaining, appealing, or effort on his part. But where this is not done he must allow himself to be fleeced and oppressed and not offer any resistance, according to the words of Christ” (p. 78).[882]Cp.ibid., p. 87 ff.[883]Ibid., p. 89.[884]Ibid.[885]Ibid., p. 82.[886]Cp.ibid., p. 83.[887]Ibid., p.84 ff.[888]Ibid., p. 85.[889]Ibid., p.90 f.[890]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.[891]Ibid., p. 94 ff.[892]“The main work which Luther required of the Princes has always been regarded by Lutheran rulers as their first duty, viz. to be the guardians and protectors of the Evangel and the true faith in their lands, to repress all public evil and falsehood and to provide for the regular ministry of the Word.” Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81 f.[893]“Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 85.[894]P. Drews, as above, p. 193, n. 2, p. 74. Drews adds: “But it would be premature to conclude from the above that this thought, because not expressed here, is altogether excluded.” Yet it would appear to be excluded by the reference to the bishops, who alone were to trouble themselves concerning any danger to the Church through heresy (p. 301). How Luther, nevertheless, makes the duty of the Lutheran rulers to protect religion the foundation first of his practice, and then of his theory, is shown in the next section, also in vol. iii., xv. 2, and vol. v., xxxv. 2.[895]See above, p. 104 ff.[896]“Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1904, p. 36.[897]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” (“Theolog. Arbeiten aus dem rhein. wiss. Predigerverein,” N. F., Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, pp. 44-79, 54).[898]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 86seq.[899]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 92.[900]Ibid., p. 97.[901]Ibid., p. 90.[902]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293; Erl. ed., 24², p. 273.[903]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[904]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 359.[905]Ibid., p. 361.[906]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 357.[907]Ibid., p. 358.[908]Ibid., 17, 1, p. 478.[909]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, pp. 89, 90.[910]“Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 278.[911]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 93.[912]With regard to the peasants, compare the passages quoted above, p. 217.[913]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 140.[914]Cp. particularly vol. vi., xxxviii.[915]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 100 f.[916]In the “Sermon on Good Works,” to Duke Johann of Saxony, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198.[917]In a sermon of 1532 in the “Hauspostille,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 182.[918]“Kultur der Gegenwart,” p. 85, see above, p. 295, n. 1.[919]To the Elector Frederick, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 108 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).[920]See above, pp. 1-4, 20 f., 24, 101.[921]Cp. p. 190, n. 3.[922]N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 4. Cp. p. 327.[923]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 209.[924]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, May 8, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356).[925]To Spalatin, 1520, soon after February 18 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 328).[926]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 206; Weim. ed., 6, p. 265.[927]J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 274.[928]“Gutachten und Streitschriften über das ius reformandi des Rates vor und während der Einführung der offiziellen Kirchenreform in Augsburg, 1534-1537” (Augsburg, 1901, p. 73 f.).[929]“Luther, eine Skizze,” reprinted in Wetzer and Welte, “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 319 f.[930]On May 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 357.[931]On April 28, 1522,ibid., p. 347.[932]Above, p. 311. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.[933]Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 334, n. 2.[934]For text, see “Mitteilungen der Geschichts-und Altertumsgesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1886, p. 119 ff.[935]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 324 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 221).[936]See Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72.[937]For text, see “Mitteilungen ... des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 513 ff.[938]On February 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).[939]C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächs. Kirchenvisitationen, 1524-1545,” Leipzig, 1879, p. 44.[940]See above, p. 116 f.[941]On December 12, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 154 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 36).[942]On May 5, 1522, “ex arce Eylenburgensi,” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 351.[943]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 220; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 445.[944]Ibid., p. 215 = 437.[945]Ibid., p. 214 = 437.[946]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 245. According to the above new doctrine the Sacrament was not to be reserved in the tabernacle. For further particulars it may suffice to refer to the Memoranda which Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon addressed to the Council of the Margrave of Ansbach and to that of Nuremberg, August 1, 1532, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 319 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312).[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 228. A Mass in German was, however, also introduced by him because, as he said, many had requested it and “the secular authorities urged him to it.” See vol. v., xxix. 9.[948]“On the twofold species of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 29; Erl. ed., 28, p. 304.[949]Ibid., p. 29 = 305; cp. Erl. ed., 28, p. 215.[950]Ibid., p. 29 = 305.[951]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 31 = 307.[952]Ibid., p. 31 = 306. To Gregor Brück, Chancellor to the Elector of Saxony, beginning of April, 1541.[953]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.[954]Ibid.[955]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 842; cp. p. 845. In reply to Luther’s grievances against the celebration of Mass in earlier times, W. Köhler remarks (“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 46) that one might form a better opinion of the Mass from A. Franz’s book, “Die Messe im Mittelalter” (1902), than from Luther’s writings.[956]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 265, andibid., n. 83.[957]To Albert, Elector of Mayence, June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 35, p. 309 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).[958]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80. In parallel passages in other collections the words read “the priests at Zeitz and Meissen”; obviously the proper names are misprints for “Zeit” and “schmeissen.”[959]On April 14, 1512, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 335.[960]About the middle of March, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 119 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).[961]Luther to Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149: “Hartmannus Cronenbergius renuntiavit Cæsari stipendium 200 aureorum nummorum, nolens servire ei, qui impios istos (Luther’s princely foes) audiat ... Deus vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.”[962]H. Ulmann, “Franz von Sickingen,” Leipzig, 1872, p. 186.[963]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 251 f.[964]The passages quoted,ibid., p. 252.[965]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 525.[966]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 90. Cp. the contradiction between this and his statement given above, p. 295 (cp. p. 328, n. 3), on the right and duty of the authorities in regard to Divine worship.[967]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 176).[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649.[969]Very different are his words in the “Exhortation to abstain from revolt” of the end of 1521 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680): “Pay heed to the authorities. So long as they do not take up the matter and give orders, remain quiet. If they are against action, you must be so also. For if you do anything, you are unjust and much worse than the opposite party.”[970]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649 f.[971]The Elector’s Instructions to Hier. Schurf, Joh. Schwertfeger and Melanchthon re Luther, August 7, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 203.[972]Hier. Schurf, etc., to the Elector, August 13, 1523,ibid., p. 207.[973]The Elector pointed out that “he himself preached that the Word of God must be allowed to settle the question, and that this would in its own good time have the desired effect, so God willed” (November 24). See Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 55, n.[974]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 269 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 54).[975]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.[976]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.[977]Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” p. 34.[978]C. A. Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1866, p. 76.[979]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 550.[980]Cp. Spalatin to V. Warbeck, September 30, 1525, in Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222.[981]Kolde,ibid., p. 72.[982]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271seq.[983]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 524.[984]Reprinted in the “Mitteil. der Gesch. und Altertumsges. des Osterl.,” 6, 1886, p. 513. Cp. N. Paulus, “War Luther im Prinzip tolerant?” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 12, 13, p. 96).[985]Letters, ed. De Wette, 3, p. 88seq., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318). It is therefore incorrect to assert that Luther was thinking only of the peace which would be a result of uniform preaching, and not of the damnable nature of the worship to be prohibited. See the passages quoted here and above, p. 315 ff.
[789]P. 779 = 356: “Dum liberum arbitrium statuis, Christum evacuas.”[790]Ibid.: “De libero arbitrio nihil dicere poteris, nisi quæ contraria sunt Christo, scilicet quod error, mors, Satan et omnia mala in ipso regnent.”[791]Ibid., p. 625 = 143.[792]Ibid.[793]Ibid., p. 625 = 144.[794]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 719 = 268: “Ego ipse non semel offensus sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut optarem, nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam salutaris illa esset desperatio et quam gratiæ propinqua.”[795]Ibid., p. 633 = 154. To the reader of the present work it will also be familiar. Compare the passages previously quoted, vol. i., 218 f., 235, 238 ff., 259, 317 f., 379, 381.[796]Ibid., p. 783 = 362seq.[797]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 783 = 262 f.: “Ego sane me confiteor, si qua fieri posset, nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium, aut quippiam in manu mea relinqui, quo ad salutem conari possem,” etc.[798]Ibid., p. 787 = 368: “Ego vero hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui et assero, ac penes nullum volo esse iudicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut præstent obsequium.” The extraordinary self-confidence of these words is more easily explained if we consider them as aimed against the literary device of Erasmus. After the manner of the Humanists, at the beginning of his “Diatribe,” he had declared that he intended merely to enter upon an examination, acollatio(cp.διατριβή), and that he hated logical demonstrations, an exaggeration for which Luther soundly rated him in the very first pages, urging that he must be either a “frivolous orator” or a “godless writer,” if he could not take so important a question seriously (p. 120). The termination of Erasmus’s work, where he says: “Contuli, penes alios stet ultimum iudicium” (ed. J. v. Walter, p. 92), is played upon word for word in the conclusion of the “De servo arbitrio.”[799]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 641 = 162seq.[800]“Quod probat eius indignatio. Hoc non fieret, si esset libera vel haberet liberum arbitrium.” The effect of egotism in man depraved by original sin is here classed by him with the enslavement of the will; he was ever given to exaggerating the strength of concupiscence. Cp. vol. i., pp. 70 f., 110 ff.[801]P. 634 = 156.[802]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 720 = 269.[803]Ibid., p. 730 = 283. Here he is seeking to prove, “(Deum non) talem esse oportere, qui merita respiciat in damnandis.”[804]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.[805]Ibid., p. 673 = 204.[806]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.[807]“Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat.... Si possem ulla ratione comprehendere, quomodo is sit Deus misericors et iustus, qui tantam iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id comprehendi non potest, fit locus exercendæ fidei.”[808]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 602 = 119.[809]Ibid., p. 636 = 158.[810]Ibid., p. 638 = 160.[811]P. 605 = 123.[812]Ibid., p. 601 = 117.[813]P. 664 = 192. The Weimar editor remarks of a similar assertion of Luther’s on p. 664: “There is no doubt that Luther in this passage draws conclusions from the definition of Erasmus (viz. of free-will) which do not directly follow from it.” In confirmation of this Kattenbusch (p. 28) is quoted where he speaks of “Luther’s tactics in his controversy with Erasmus, the object of which was ... to convict Erasmus in one way or another, usually by distorting his words, of rendering grace, the Holy Ghost, or Christ, superfluous for the attainment of salvation.” Kattenbusch instances in support of this pp. 191seq., 193, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, etc., in the Erlangen ed.[814]P. 770 = 342. “And yet Erasmus, as against the Pelagians, always upheld the necessity of thegratia peculiaris.” Thus the Weim. ed., 18, p. 770, n. 2.[815]Ibid., p. 756 = 320.[816]Luther says in the passage quoted: “Exstant themata et problemata, in quibus perpetuo asserui usque in hanc horam, liberum arbitrium esse nihil et rem (eo verbo tum utebar) de solo titulo.” The last words refer to the 13th Thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation (see vol. i., p. 317). The Weimar editor quotes against the “perpetuo asserui,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 32, and 4, p. 295, with the remark: “These are exceptions of which Erasmus could not be aware.” It is not, however, a question of Erasmus, but whether Luther was telling the truth when he said: “It is false that I ever admitted free-will” (“antea non nihil illi tribuerim”).[817]P. 778 = 354.[818]Cp. vol. v., xxxii. 4.[819]Luther’s Works ed. by Buchwald, etc., 2. Supplementary volume, 1905, p. 530.[820]Cp. Melanchthon’s “Loci theologici” (1521), in the third edition by Plitt-Kolde, 1900, p. 87. In this work, in which “the fundamental ideas of Luther found a classical expression,” the theology is “strongly predestinarian in character, and even answers affirmatively the question: ‘utrum Deus mala faciat.’” Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, pp. 41, 43. The “Loci” Luther speaks of in “De servo arbitrio” (Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117) as an “invictus libellus, meo iudicio non solum immortalitate, sed canone quoque ecclesiastico dignus.”[821]Scheel,ibid.(above, p. 264, n. 3), p. 400.[822]“Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si præscivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor, nec erat in manu Judæ aut ullius creaturæ, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 263.[823]“Cur permisit (Deus) Adam ruere?... Deus est, cuius voluntatis nulla est causa nec ratio,” etc.Ibid., p. 712 = 260.[824]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 712 = 260.[825]Thus Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 22, who points out that, according to Luther, “Nothing takes place in the world without God.” He concludes (ibid.) that “On the whole nothing is gained” by Luther’s supposed attempts to relieve God of the responsibility for Adam’s Fall.[826]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 709; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 255.[827]Ibid.[828]Ibid., p. 730 = 284: “Quia incommodum sibi est, hoc iniquum, hoc intolerabile est, hic expostulatur, hic murmuratur, hic blasphematur.”[829]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 711, n. 1.[830]Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 15 f.[831]Ibid., p. 20. Cp. on the proposition “omnia necessario fiunt,” above, p. 265, n. 3.[832]P. 20 ff.[833]Scheel,ibid.(see above, p. 264, n. 3), pp. 211, 529 f., 532, 545. Kattenbusch,ibid.[834]Scheel,ibid., p. 540.[835]P. 211 f.[836]Of the more modern works we shall mention only the Catholic one by H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther,” 1910, and the Protestant one by K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” 1909. The latter, though on the whole supporting Luther, cannot help perceiving “the contradictions of the whole work ‘De servo arbitrio’” (p. 130), which led Ritschl, whom Kattenbusch follows, to call it an “unhappy piece of patchwork.” Although he characterises Luther’s ideas as “wholly the outcome of the Pauline spirit” (p. 134), yet he speaks of “Luther’s pantheistic determinism” (p. 197), and avers the “incompatibility” of the monistic pantheism which he finds here with the ethical dualism of his general train of thought (p. 168); the presence of “two contradictory theories” is, according to him, an undoubted “fact” (p. 141).[837]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 640; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 162: “Ex mea parte unus Vuicleff, et alter Laurentius Valla, quanquam et Augustinus quem præteris, meus totus est.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 101, 103, 107.[838]“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 66.[839]Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 619, n.[840]Zickendraht,ibid., p. 180 f.[841]“Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545,” edited for the first time by Paul Drews, Göttingen, 1895, p. 279 f.[842]Ibid., p. 75.[843]Ibid., p. 92, n. 29 ff. Drews points out (p. 90) that in the 1538 edition the whole of the thesesDe homine“are, strange to say, omitted.” Cp. also “Disputationen,” p. 11, n. 29: “Iustificati autem sic gratis tum facimus opera, imo Christus ipse in nobis facit omnia.” Also pp. 92, 94, 95, 266, 318, 481. On p. 160 we meet with the drastic expression: The depravation of human nature by original sin is so great, “ut suspirare ad Deum non possimus, nedum nos explicare aut bonum facere.” Hence there is an end to our “liberum arbitrium; sed restituetur nobis in resurrectione mortuorum, ubi rursum collocabimur in paradisum.”[844]Cp. Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector August of Saxony, which will be given in detail later, where he characterises as “stoica” and “manichæa deliria,” on the part of Luther, the view that “all works, good and bad, in all men, whether good or bad, happened by necessity.” Such mad fancies he had rejected “during Luther’s lifetime and afterwards,” “Corp. Ref.,” 9, p. 766. Likewise, in his “Responsiones ad articulos bavaricæ inquisitionis,” Melanchthon calls such doctrines “stoici et manichæi furores,” and adds: “Oro iuniores, ut fugiant has monstruosas opiniones, quæ sunt contumeliosæ contra Deum et perniciosæ moribus. Nam si omnia necessaria sunt, nihil opus est deliberatione et diligentia.... Saepe homines applaudunt monstruosis opinionibus tantum quia monstruosæ sunt et mirantur non intellectas.... Firmissima veritas est, Deum nec velle peccata nec impellere voluntates ad peccandum.” Melanchthon wrote this after Luther had already passed away; he was terrified by the moral results of these “monstrous” doctrines. “Opp.,” Witebergæ, 1562, 1, p. 369.[845]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 163, in the first and second set of notes on the sermon.[846]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 177 f., said between August 7 and 24, from notes taken by Mathesius himself.[847]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.[848]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.[849]Ibid., p. 224.[850]Ibid., p. 225.[851]Ibid., p. 222.[852]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 512 ff.[853]“Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 290-300. Cp. on this passage, from a lecture published from notes, Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 6 f., where he very aptly draws attention to the points which Luther here (as elsewhere) evades: (1) “Whether faith is rendered inwardly possible to every man by the will and action of God?” (2) “Why does God fail to instil faith into so many?” (3) “How is final perseverance assured in the elect?”[854]“The enigmas of predestination were in his case in the last instance inextricably bound up with deterministic ideas—a fact not unimportant for the fate of his predestinarian ideas, for instance, in the hands of Melanchthon.” F. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,” p. 763.Ibid., p. 757. “He was convinced that he was merely advocating Paul’s doctrine of grace. Yet what he expounds is a deterministic doctrine of predestination which shrinks from no consequences, not even from attributing the Fall directly to God.” Loofs points out, that, according to Luther, Adam fell because “the Spirit [of God] did not render him obedient,” and quotes the “De servo arbitrio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 207: “Non potuit velle bonum ... id est obedientiam, quia spiritus illam non addebat.” The same author shows (p. 766 f.) how the above ideas remain with Luther even at a later date, and cause him to represent the faith which, in man, is coincident with justification, as “effected by God simply in accordance with His Eternal Providence.” “We can, however, understand how Luther, in his sermons to the people, prefers to state the case as though faith were the condition demanded of man for the forgiveness of his sins and the receiving of the Spirit”; the fact is he “frequently leaves his predestinarian ideas on one side.”[855]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 427, no date.[856]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 80 f., where he states: “This contradicts all that we otherwise know of him.”[857]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664.[858]To Capito at Strasburg, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 47: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” In the “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 418, Luther says, that Erasmus had “not refuted” his work “De servo arbitrio,” and would “never be able to do so for all eternity.”[859]To Aquila, October 21, 1528 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 6. In the Schmalkalden Articles, 1537 (3, 1), Luther asserts that it is utterly erroneous to say “hominem habere liberum arbitrium faciendi bonum et omittendi malum, et contra omittendi bonum et faciendi malum.” After enumerating other errors on sin he concludes: “Talia et similia portenta orta sunt ex inscitia et ignorantia peccati et Christi Servatoris nostri, suntque vere et mere ethnica dogmata, quæ tolerare non possumus. Si enim ista approbantur, frustra Christus mortuus est,” etc. “Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 311.[860]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 124 and 82. In the last passage Köstlin attempts to base “Luther’s reticence” on a certain “conviction” which he does not describe more particularly and which it is difficult to recognise; he attributes to Luther “a purer, more resigned readiness to listen to the other side.” Yet he had remarked previously: “From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction; he simply discourages reflection on the subject.” M. Staube (“Das Verhältnis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und Zwingli,” Zürich, 1894) writes with less indulgence than Köstlin on Luther’s doctrine. This theologian, an admirer of Zwingli, says bluntly: Luther’s doctrine of predestination and the lack of free-will “leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter of man’s salvation” (p. 36). “What then is left of Luther’s Deity?” “A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His mood” (p. 37). “God appears and acts as a blind, naked force,fortuna, fatum,” because what He does is “beyond good and evil” (p. 38). “Why invent the fable of God’s justice and holiness?... We do nothing, God works all in all.... This religion, which is the logical outcome of Luther’s work ‘De servo arbitrio,’ is surely not Christianity but Materialism”; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become “foolish fancies” (p. 39). Diametrically opposed to this are the explanations of certain of Luther’s modern theological admirers, who not only pay homage to the author of “De servo arbitrio” on account of his true piety, but see in Erasmus’s vindication of free-will mere frivolous Pelagianism. Adolf Harnack, in the fourth edition of his “Dogmengeschichte,” 3, p. 841, says: “Rightly the ‘Diatribe’ is looked upon as the masterpiece of Erasmus, yet it is an altogether secular, and, at bottom, irreligious work. Luther, on the other hand, insists on the fundamental fact of Christian experience. On this rests his doctrine of predestination, which is simply the expression of the Omnipotence of the grace of God.” With his doctrine of predestination and the enslaved will, and his treatment of theDeus absconditus, he “gave back religion to religion.” In the Weimar ed. of Luther’s works (18, p. 593), Harnack’s opinion is accepted and (p. 595) we are told that Luther “refuted in a masterly fashion the obscure and unintelligible definition given by Erasmus [of free-will].” Luther’s work appears to the author of the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” in this edition, as “a real achievement” (p. 596), and he quotes with satisfaction A. Ritschl’s opinion, that Luther, its writer, in his sovereign certainty, did not shrink from thecontradictio in adiecto. In the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter” (p. 528, n. 1 [reprint, p. 14]), G. Kawerau states that Luther asserted “with relentless logic man’s inability to turn to God, and did not shrink from the harshest predestinarian expressions, phrases, indeed, which gave great trouble to Lutherans at a later date, and which they would gladly have seen expunged from his writings that Calvin’s followers might not appeal to them. And yet we agree with Harnack,” etc. (then follow Harnack’s words as given above). Köstlin concludes: “The death of all religion, as K. Müller (‘Kirchengesch.,’ 2, p. 307) rightly remarks, is to take our own works and doings into account.”[861]Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 28, where in proof of such perversions he refers to “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, pp. 191seq., 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, adding at the end an “etc.” which is full of meaning.[862]Luther, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236.[863]Ibid.[864]The theories of some theologians on the direct authority of the Church to interfere in secular matters do not here come into consideration.[865]Fr. v. Bezold says: “Luther claimed the merit of having exalted the true understanding of the secular power in a way that no one else had done since the time of the Apostles.... The indefensibility of this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated” (“Kultur der Gegenwart,” 2, 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 66).[866]Some of his reservations were, however, of doubtful practical value. K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911 (p. 1 ff.), shows how Luther urges the secular power to make an end of the “thievery” of the clerics, and how he ascribes to this power the right of summoning Councils, though only “when needful.”[867]This will be done in the present work as occasion arises. See more particularly vol. iii., xv. 2 and 3, and vol. v., xxxv. 1 and 2.[868]See vol. iv., xxviii.[869]For a Protestant criticism of them see Erich Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,” 1901 (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” Hft. 70), and Karl Müller, “Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.[870]“To the Christian nobility,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.[871]Ibid.[872]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 410 = 285.[873]“On the secular power,” 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268; Erl. ed., 22, p. 89.[874]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., pp. 83-6, 88, 89, 91-3.[875]Ibid., p. 69.[876]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., p. 94.[877]Ibid., p. 93. Whereas Luther’s other ideas to be described changed considerably in later years, this one of an “abrogated spiritual government” always remained, though with some modifications. According to the Preface to his “Instruction for Visitations” (1528) and the “Instruction” itself, “the visitors have of themselves no official public authority for holding the Visitation, but must be conversant with the Bible, find therein their qualification and be appointed by the Elector, in the name of the preachers, to hold the Visitation. In this quality they are unable to exercise any sort of force or compulsion, this being reserved to the Elector, but, as representing him, they also share in his secular power.” “It is part of the duty of the authorities” to “establish and regulate the Matrimonial Courts”; the secular authorities are bound where the work of the pastors has been of no avail, to take their “own means for the spiritual and temporal protection of the Christianity of the country, against scandal and false doctrine,” and to make God’s Word the only public and authorised code and authority. For the spiritual government consists exclusively “in the Word and the preaching-office, and can only penetrate into the heart by means of the Word and the work of the pastor.” Karl Müller thus sums up the teaching of the documents in question in “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 74 f.[878]“Werke,”ibid., p. 69.[879]“Werke,”ibid., p. 72 f.[880]Ibid., p. 73.[881]A Utopian idealism, certainly unknown in the earlier ages, is apparent in the following, taken from Luther’s writing referred to above: “A Christian must be ready to suffer all kinds of evil and injustice ... and not to defend himself before the law.... But in the case of others he may and ought to seek for revenge, justice, protection, and assistance, and do his best to this end according as he is able. The authorities, therefore, ought, either of their own initiative or at the instigation of others, to help and protect him without any complaining, appealing, or effort on his part. But where this is not done he must allow himself to be fleeced and oppressed and not offer any resistance, according to the words of Christ” (p. 78).[882]Cp.ibid., p. 87 ff.[883]Ibid., p. 89.[884]Ibid.[885]Ibid., p. 82.[886]Cp.ibid., p. 83.[887]Ibid., p.84 ff.[888]Ibid., p. 85.[889]Ibid., p.90 f.[890]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.[891]Ibid., p. 94 ff.[892]“The main work which Luther required of the Princes has always been regarded by Lutheran rulers as their first duty, viz. to be the guardians and protectors of the Evangel and the true faith in their lands, to repress all public evil and falsehood and to provide for the regular ministry of the Word.” Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81 f.[893]“Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 85.[894]P. Drews, as above, p. 193, n. 2, p. 74. Drews adds: “But it would be premature to conclude from the above that this thought, because not expressed here, is altogether excluded.” Yet it would appear to be excluded by the reference to the bishops, who alone were to trouble themselves concerning any danger to the Church through heresy (p. 301). How Luther, nevertheless, makes the duty of the Lutheran rulers to protect religion the foundation first of his practice, and then of his theory, is shown in the next section, also in vol. iii., xv. 2, and vol. v., xxxv. 2.[895]See above, p. 104 ff.[896]“Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1904, p. 36.[897]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” (“Theolog. Arbeiten aus dem rhein. wiss. Predigerverein,” N. F., Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, pp. 44-79, 54).[898]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 86seq.[899]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 92.[900]Ibid., p. 97.[901]Ibid., p. 90.[902]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293; Erl. ed., 24², p. 273.[903]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[904]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 359.[905]Ibid., p. 361.[906]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 357.[907]Ibid., p. 358.[908]Ibid., 17, 1, p. 478.[909]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, pp. 89, 90.[910]“Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 278.[911]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 93.[912]With regard to the peasants, compare the passages quoted above, p. 217.[913]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 140.[914]Cp. particularly vol. vi., xxxviii.[915]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 100 f.[916]In the “Sermon on Good Works,” to Duke Johann of Saxony, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198.[917]In a sermon of 1532 in the “Hauspostille,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 182.[918]“Kultur der Gegenwart,” p. 85, see above, p. 295, n. 1.[919]To the Elector Frederick, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 108 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).[920]See above, pp. 1-4, 20 f., 24, 101.[921]Cp. p. 190, n. 3.[922]N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 4. Cp. p. 327.[923]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 209.[924]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, May 8, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356).[925]To Spalatin, 1520, soon after February 18 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 328).[926]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 206; Weim. ed., 6, p. 265.[927]J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 274.[928]“Gutachten und Streitschriften über das ius reformandi des Rates vor und während der Einführung der offiziellen Kirchenreform in Augsburg, 1534-1537” (Augsburg, 1901, p. 73 f.).[929]“Luther, eine Skizze,” reprinted in Wetzer and Welte, “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 319 f.[930]On May 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 357.[931]On April 28, 1522,ibid., p. 347.[932]Above, p. 311. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.[933]Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 334, n. 2.[934]For text, see “Mitteilungen der Geschichts-und Altertumsgesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1886, p. 119 ff.[935]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 324 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 221).[936]See Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72.[937]For text, see “Mitteilungen ... des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 513 ff.[938]On February 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).[939]C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächs. Kirchenvisitationen, 1524-1545,” Leipzig, 1879, p. 44.[940]See above, p. 116 f.[941]On December 12, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 154 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 36).[942]On May 5, 1522, “ex arce Eylenburgensi,” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 351.[943]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 220; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 445.[944]Ibid., p. 215 = 437.[945]Ibid., p. 214 = 437.[946]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 245. According to the above new doctrine the Sacrament was not to be reserved in the tabernacle. For further particulars it may suffice to refer to the Memoranda which Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon addressed to the Council of the Margrave of Ansbach and to that of Nuremberg, August 1, 1532, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 319 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312).[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 228. A Mass in German was, however, also introduced by him because, as he said, many had requested it and “the secular authorities urged him to it.” See vol. v., xxix. 9.[948]“On the twofold species of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 29; Erl. ed., 28, p. 304.[949]Ibid., p. 29 = 305; cp. Erl. ed., 28, p. 215.[950]Ibid., p. 29 = 305.[951]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 31 = 307.[952]Ibid., p. 31 = 306. To Gregor Brück, Chancellor to the Elector of Saxony, beginning of April, 1541.[953]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.[954]Ibid.[955]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 842; cp. p. 845. In reply to Luther’s grievances against the celebration of Mass in earlier times, W. Köhler remarks (“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 46) that one might form a better opinion of the Mass from A. Franz’s book, “Die Messe im Mittelalter” (1902), than from Luther’s writings.[956]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 265, andibid., n. 83.[957]To Albert, Elector of Mayence, June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 35, p. 309 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).[958]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80. In parallel passages in other collections the words read “the priests at Zeitz and Meissen”; obviously the proper names are misprints for “Zeit” and “schmeissen.”[959]On April 14, 1512, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 335.[960]About the middle of March, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 119 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).[961]Luther to Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149: “Hartmannus Cronenbergius renuntiavit Cæsari stipendium 200 aureorum nummorum, nolens servire ei, qui impios istos (Luther’s princely foes) audiat ... Deus vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.”[962]H. Ulmann, “Franz von Sickingen,” Leipzig, 1872, p. 186.[963]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 251 f.[964]The passages quoted,ibid., p. 252.[965]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 525.[966]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 90. Cp. the contradiction between this and his statement given above, p. 295 (cp. p. 328, n. 3), on the right and duty of the authorities in regard to Divine worship.[967]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 176).[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649.[969]Very different are his words in the “Exhortation to abstain from revolt” of the end of 1521 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680): “Pay heed to the authorities. So long as they do not take up the matter and give orders, remain quiet. If they are against action, you must be so also. For if you do anything, you are unjust and much worse than the opposite party.”[970]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649 f.[971]The Elector’s Instructions to Hier. Schurf, Joh. Schwertfeger and Melanchthon re Luther, August 7, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 203.[972]Hier. Schurf, etc., to the Elector, August 13, 1523,ibid., p. 207.[973]The Elector pointed out that “he himself preached that the Word of God must be allowed to settle the question, and that this would in its own good time have the desired effect, so God willed” (November 24). See Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 55, n.[974]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 269 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 54).[975]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.[976]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.[977]Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” p. 34.[978]C. A. Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1866, p. 76.[979]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 550.[980]Cp. Spalatin to V. Warbeck, September 30, 1525, in Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222.[981]Kolde,ibid., p. 72.[982]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271seq.[983]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 524.[984]Reprinted in the “Mitteil. der Gesch. und Altertumsges. des Osterl.,” 6, 1886, p. 513. Cp. N. Paulus, “War Luther im Prinzip tolerant?” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 12, 13, p. 96).[985]Letters, ed. De Wette, 3, p. 88seq., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318). It is therefore incorrect to assert that Luther was thinking only of the peace which would be a result of uniform preaching, and not of the damnable nature of the worship to be prohibited. See the passages quoted here and above, p. 315 ff.
[789]P. 779 = 356: “Dum liberum arbitrium statuis, Christum evacuas.”
[790]Ibid.: “De libero arbitrio nihil dicere poteris, nisi quæ contraria sunt Christo, scilicet quod error, mors, Satan et omnia mala in ipso regnent.”
[791]Ibid., p. 625 = 143.
[792]Ibid.
[793]Ibid., p. 625 = 144.
[794]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 719 = 268: “Ego ipse non semel offensus sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut optarem, nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam salutaris illa esset desperatio et quam gratiæ propinqua.”
[795]Ibid., p. 633 = 154. To the reader of the present work it will also be familiar. Compare the passages previously quoted, vol. i., 218 f., 235, 238 ff., 259, 317 f., 379, 381.
[796]Ibid., p. 783 = 362seq.
[797]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 783 = 262 f.: “Ego sane me confiteor, si qua fieri posset, nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium, aut quippiam in manu mea relinqui, quo ad salutem conari possem,” etc.
[798]Ibid., p. 787 = 368: “Ego vero hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui et assero, ac penes nullum volo esse iudicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut præstent obsequium.” The extraordinary self-confidence of these words is more easily explained if we consider them as aimed against the literary device of Erasmus. After the manner of the Humanists, at the beginning of his “Diatribe,” he had declared that he intended merely to enter upon an examination, acollatio(cp.διατριβή), and that he hated logical demonstrations, an exaggeration for which Luther soundly rated him in the very first pages, urging that he must be either a “frivolous orator” or a “godless writer,” if he could not take so important a question seriously (p. 120). The termination of Erasmus’s work, where he says: “Contuli, penes alios stet ultimum iudicium” (ed. J. v. Walter, p. 92), is played upon word for word in the conclusion of the “De servo arbitrio.”
[799]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 641 = 162seq.
[800]“Quod probat eius indignatio. Hoc non fieret, si esset libera vel haberet liberum arbitrium.” The effect of egotism in man depraved by original sin is here classed by him with the enslavement of the will; he was ever given to exaggerating the strength of concupiscence. Cp. vol. i., pp. 70 f., 110 ff.
[801]P. 634 = 156.
[802]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 720 = 269.
[803]Ibid., p. 730 = 283. Here he is seeking to prove, “(Deum non) talem esse oportere, qui merita respiciat in damnandis.”
[804]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.
[805]Ibid., p. 673 = 204.
[806]Ibid., p. 633 = 154.
[807]“Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat.... Si possem ulla ratione comprehendere, quomodo is sit Deus misericors et iustus, qui tantam iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id comprehendi non potest, fit locus exercendæ fidei.”
[808]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 602 = 119.
[809]Ibid., p. 636 = 158.
[810]Ibid., p. 638 = 160.
[811]P. 605 = 123.
[812]Ibid., p. 601 = 117.
[813]P. 664 = 192. The Weimar editor remarks of a similar assertion of Luther’s on p. 664: “There is no doubt that Luther in this passage draws conclusions from the definition of Erasmus (viz. of free-will) which do not directly follow from it.” In confirmation of this Kattenbusch (p. 28) is quoted where he speaks of “Luther’s tactics in his controversy with Erasmus, the object of which was ... to convict Erasmus in one way or another, usually by distorting his words, of rendering grace, the Holy Ghost, or Christ, superfluous for the attainment of salvation.” Kattenbusch instances in support of this pp. 191seq., 193, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, etc., in the Erlangen ed.
[814]P. 770 = 342. “And yet Erasmus, as against the Pelagians, always upheld the necessity of thegratia peculiaris.” Thus the Weim. ed., 18, p. 770, n. 2.
[815]Ibid., p. 756 = 320.
[816]Luther says in the passage quoted: “Exstant themata et problemata, in quibus perpetuo asserui usque in hanc horam, liberum arbitrium esse nihil et rem (eo verbo tum utebar) de solo titulo.” The last words refer to the 13th Thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation (see vol. i., p. 317). The Weimar editor quotes against the “perpetuo asserui,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 32, and 4, p. 295, with the remark: “These are exceptions of which Erasmus could not be aware.” It is not, however, a question of Erasmus, but whether Luther was telling the truth when he said: “It is false that I ever admitted free-will” (“antea non nihil illi tribuerim”).
[817]P. 778 = 354.
[818]Cp. vol. v., xxxii. 4.
[819]Luther’s Works ed. by Buchwald, etc., 2. Supplementary volume, 1905, p. 530.
[820]Cp. Melanchthon’s “Loci theologici” (1521), in the third edition by Plitt-Kolde, 1900, p. 87. In this work, in which “the fundamental ideas of Luther found a classical expression,” the theology is “strongly predestinarian in character, and even answers affirmatively the question: ‘utrum Deus mala faciat.’” Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, pp. 41, 43. The “Loci” Luther speaks of in “De servo arbitrio” (Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117) as an “invictus libellus, meo iudicio non solum immortalitate, sed canone quoque ecclesiastico dignus.”
[821]Scheel,ibid.(above, p. 264, n. 3), p. 400.
[822]“Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si præscivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor, nec erat in manu Judæ aut ullius creaturæ, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 263.
[823]“Cur permisit (Deus) Adam ruere?... Deus est, cuius voluntatis nulla est causa nec ratio,” etc.Ibid., p. 712 = 260.
[824]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 712 = 260.
[825]Thus Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 22, who points out that, according to Luther, “Nothing takes place in the world without God.” He concludes (ibid.) that “On the whole nothing is gained” by Luther’s supposed attempts to relieve God of the responsibility for Adam’s Fall.
[826]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 709; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 255.
[827]Ibid.
[828]Ibid., p. 730 = 284: “Quia incommodum sibi est, hoc iniquum, hoc intolerabile est, hic expostulatur, hic murmuratur, hic blasphematur.”
[829]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 711, n. 1.
[830]Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 15 f.
[831]Ibid., p. 20. Cp. on the proposition “omnia necessario fiunt,” above, p. 265, n. 3.
[832]P. 20 ff.
[833]Scheel,ibid.(see above, p. 264, n. 3), pp. 211, 529 f., 532, 545. Kattenbusch,ibid.
[834]Scheel,ibid., p. 540.
[835]P. 211 f.
[836]Of the more modern works we shall mention only the Catholic one by H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther,” 1910, and the Protestant one by K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” 1909. The latter, though on the whole supporting Luther, cannot help perceiving “the contradictions of the whole work ‘De servo arbitrio’” (p. 130), which led Ritschl, whom Kattenbusch follows, to call it an “unhappy piece of patchwork.” Although he characterises Luther’s ideas as “wholly the outcome of the Pauline spirit” (p. 134), yet he speaks of “Luther’s pantheistic determinism” (p. 197), and avers the “incompatibility” of the monistic pantheism which he finds here with the ethical dualism of his general train of thought (p. 168); the presence of “two contradictory theories” is, according to him, an undoubted “fact” (p. 141).
[837]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 640; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 162: “Ex mea parte unus Vuicleff, et alter Laurentius Valla, quanquam et Augustinus quem præteris, meus totus est.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 101, 103, 107.
[838]“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 66.
[839]Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 619, n.
[840]Zickendraht,ibid., p. 180 f.
[841]“Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545,” edited for the first time by Paul Drews, Göttingen, 1895, p. 279 f.
[842]Ibid., p. 75.
[843]Ibid., p. 92, n. 29 ff. Drews points out (p. 90) that in the 1538 edition the whole of the thesesDe homine“are, strange to say, omitted.” Cp. also “Disputationen,” p. 11, n. 29: “Iustificati autem sic gratis tum facimus opera, imo Christus ipse in nobis facit omnia.” Also pp. 92, 94, 95, 266, 318, 481. On p. 160 we meet with the drastic expression: The depravation of human nature by original sin is so great, “ut suspirare ad Deum non possimus, nedum nos explicare aut bonum facere.” Hence there is an end to our “liberum arbitrium; sed restituetur nobis in resurrectione mortuorum, ubi rursum collocabimur in paradisum.”
[844]Cp. Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector August of Saxony, which will be given in detail later, where he characterises as “stoica” and “manichæa deliria,” on the part of Luther, the view that “all works, good and bad, in all men, whether good or bad, happened by necessity.” Such mad fancies he had rejected “during Luther’s lifetime and afterwards,” “Corp. Ref.,” 9, p. 766. Likewise, in his “Responsiones ad articulos bavaricæ inquisitionis,” Melanchthon calls such doctrines “stoici et manichæi furores,” and adds: “Oro iuniores, ut fugiant has monstruosas opiniones, quæ sunt contumeliosæ contra Deum et perniciosæ moribus. Nam si omnia necessaria sunt, nihil opus est deliberatione et diligentia.... Saepe homines applaudunt monstruosis opinionibus tantum quia monstruosæ sunt et mirantur non intellectas.... Firmissima veritas est, Deum nec velle peccata nec impellere voluntates ad peccandum.” Melanchthon wrote this after Luther had already passed away; he was terrified by the moral results of these “monstrous” doctrines. “Opp.,” Witebergæ, 1562, 1, p. 369.
[845]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 163, in the first and second set of notes on the sermon.
[846]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 177 f., said between August 7 and 24, from notes taken by Mathesius himself.
[847]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.
[848]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.
[849]Ibid., p. 224.
[850]Ibid., p. 225.
[851]Ibid., p. 222.
[852]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 512 ff.
[853]“Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 290-300. Cp. on this passage, from a lecture published from notes, Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 6 f., where he very aptly draws attention to the points which Luther here (as elsewhere) evades: (1) “Whether faith is rendered inwardly possible to every man by the will and action of God?” (2) “Why does God fail to instil faith into so many?” (3) “How is final perseverance assured in the elect?”
[854]“The enigmas of predestination were in his case in the last instance inextricably bound up with deterministic ideas—a fact not unimportant for the fate of his predestinarian ideas, for instance, in the hands of Melanchthon.” F. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,” p. 763.Ibid., p. 757. “He was convinced that he was merely advocating Paul’s doctrine of grace. Yet what he expounds is a deterministic doctrine of predestination which shrinks from no consequences, not even from attributing the Fall directly to God.” Loofs points out, that, according to Luther, Adam fell because “the Spirit [of God] did not render him obedient,” and quotes the “De servo arbitrio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 207: “Non potuit velle bonum ... id est obedientiam, quia spiritus illam non addebat.” The same author shows (p. 766 f.) how the above ideas remain with Luther even at a later date, and cause him to represent the faith which, in man, is coincident with justification, as “effected by God simply in accordance with His Eternal Providence.” “We can, however, understand how Luther, in his sermons to the people, prefers to state the case as though faith were the condition demanded of man for the forgiveness of his sins and the receiving of the Spirit”; the fact is he “frequently leaves his predestinarian ideas on one side.”
[855]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 427, no date.
[856]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 80 f., where he states: “This contradicts all that we otherwise know of him.”
[857]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664.
[858]To Capito at Strasburg, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 47: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” In the “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 418, Luther says, that Erasmus had “not refuted” his work “De servo arbitrio,” and would “never be able to do so for all eternity.”
[859]To Aquila, October 21, 1528 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 6. In the Schmalkalden Articles, 1537 (3, 1), Luther asserts that it is utterly erroneous to say “hominem habere liberum arbitrium faciendi bonum et omittendi malum, et contra omittendi bonum et faciendi malum.” After enumerating other errors on sin he concludes: “Talia et similia portenta orta sunt ex inscitia et ignorantia peccati et Christi Servatoris nostri, suntque vere et mere ethnica dogmata, quæ tolerare non possumus. Si enim ista approbantur, frustra Christus mortuus est,” etc. “Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 311.
[860]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 124 and 82. In the last passage Köstlin attempts to base “Luther’s reticence” on a certain “conviction” which he does not describe more particularly and which it is difficult to recognise; he attributes to Luther “a purer, more resigned readiness to listen to the other side.” Yet he had remarked previously: “From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction; he simply discourages reflection on the subject.” M. Staube (“Das Verhältnis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und Zwingli,” Zürich, 1894) writes with less indulgence than Köstlin on Luther’s doctrine. This theologian, an admirer of Zwingli, says bluntly: Luther’s doctrine of predestination and the lack of free-will “leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter of man’s salvation” (p. 36). “What then is left of Luther’s Deity?” “A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His mood” (p. 37). “God appears and acts as a blind, naked force,fortuna, fatum,” because what He does is “beyond good and evil” (p. 38). “Why invent the fable of God’s justice and holiness?... We do nothing, God works all in all.... This religion, which is the logical outcome of Luther’s work ‘De servo arbitrio,’ is surely not Christianity but Materialism”; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become “foolish fancies” (p. 39). Diametrically opposed to this are the explanations of certain of Luther’s modern theological admirers, who not only pay homage to the author of “De servo arbitrio” on account of his true piety, but see in Erasmus’s vindication of free-will mere frivolous Pelagianism. Adolf Harnack, in the fourth edition of his “Dogmengeschichte,” 3, p. 841, says: “Rightly the ‘Diatribe’ is looked upon as the masterpiece of Erasmus, yet it is an altogether secular, and, at bottom, irreligious work. Luther, on the other hand, insists on the fundamental fact of Christian experience. On this rests his doctrine of predestination, which is simply the expression of the Omnipotence of the grace of God.” With his doctrine of predestination and the enslaved will, and his treatment of theDeus absconditus, he “gave back religion to religion.” In the Weimar ed. of Luther’s works (18, p. 593), Harnack’s opinion is accepted and (p. 595) we are told that Luther “refuted in a masterly fashion the obscure and unintelligible definition given by Erasmus [of free-will].” Luther’s work appears to the author of the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” in this edition, as “a real achievement” (p. 596), and he quotes with satisfaction A. Ritschl’s opinion, that Luther, its writer, in his sovereign certainty, did not shrink from thecontradictio in adiecto. In the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter” (p. 528, n. 1 [reprint, p. 14]), G. Kawerau states that Luther asserted “with relentless logic man’s inability to turn to God, and did not shrink from the harshest predestinarian expressions, phrases, indeed, which gave great trouble to Lutherans at a later date, and which they would gladly have seen expunged from his writings that Calvin’s followers might not appeal to them. And yet we agree with Harnack,” etc. (then follow Harnack’s words as given above). Köstlin concludes: “The death of all religion, as K. Müller (‘Kirchengesch.,’ 2, p. 307) rightly remarks, is to take our own works and doings into account.”
[861]Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 28, where in proof of such perversions he refers to “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, pp. 191seq., 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, adding at the end an “etc.” which is full of meaning.
[862]Luther, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236.
[863]Ibid.
[864]The theories of some theologians on the direct authority of the Church to interfere in secular matters do not here come into consideration.
[865]Fr. v. Bezold says: “Luther claimed the merit of having exalted the true understanding of the secular power in a way that no one else had done since the time of the Apostles.... The indefensibility of this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated” (“Kultur der Gegenwart,” 2, 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 66).
[866]Some of his reservations were, however, of doubtful practical value. K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911 (p. 1 ff.), shows how Luther urges the secular power to make an end of the “thievery” of the clerics, and how he ascribes to this power the right of summoning Councils, though only “when needful.”
[867]This will be done in the present work as occasion arises. See more particularly vol. iii., xv. 2 and 3, and vol. v., xxxv. 1 and 2.
[868]See vol. iv., xxviii.
[869]For a Protestant criticism of them see Erich Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,” 1901 (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” Hft. 70), and Karl Müller, “Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.
[870]“To the Christian nobility,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.
[871]Ibid.
[872]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 410 = 285.
[873]“On the secular power,” 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268; Erl. ed., 22, p. 89.
[874]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., pp. 83-6, 88, 89, 91-3.
[875]Ibid., p. 69.
[876]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., p. 94.
[877]Ibid., p. 93. Whereas Luther’s other ideas to be described changed considerably in later years, this one of an “abrogated spiritual government” always remained, though with some modifications. According to the Preface to his “Instruction for Visitations” (1528) and the “Instruction” itself, “the visitors have of themselves no official public authority for holding the Visitation, but must be conversant with the Bible, find therein their qualification and be appointed by the Elector, in the name of the preachers, to hold the Visitation. In this quality they are unable to exercise any sort of force or compulsion, this being reserved to the Elector, but, as representing him, they also share in his secular power.” “It is part of the duty of the authorities” to “establish and regulate the Matrimonial Courts”; the secular authorities are bound where the work of the pastors has been of no avail, to take their “own means for the spiritual and temporal protection of the Christianity of the country, against scandal and false doctrine,” and to make God’s Word the only public and authorised code and authority. For the spiritual government consists exclusively “in the Word and the preaching-office, and can only penetrate into the heart by means of the Word and the work of the pastor.” Karl Müller thus sums up the teaching of the documents in question in “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910, p. 74 f.
[878]“Werke,”ibid., p. 69.
[879]“Werke,”ibid., p. 72 f.
[880]Ibid., p. 73.
[881]A Utopian idealism, certainly unknown in the earlier ages, is apparent in the following, taken from Luther’s writing referred to above: “A Christian must be ready to suffer all kinds of evil and injustice ... and not to defend himself before the law.... But in the case of others he may and ought to seek for revenge, justice, protection, and assistance, and do his best to this end according as he is able. The authorities, therefore, ought, either of their own initiative or at the instigation of others, to help and protect him without any complaining, appealing, or effort on his part. But where this is not done he must allow himself to be fleeced and oppressed and not offer any resistance, according to the words of Christ” (p. 78).
[882]Cp.ibid., p. 87 ff.
[883]Ibid., p. 89.
[884]Ibid.
[885]Ibid., p. 82.
[886]Cp.ibid., p. 83.
[887]Ibid., p.84 ff.
[888]Ibid., p. 85.
[889]Ibid., p.90 f.
[890]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.
[891]Ibid., p. 94 ff.
[892]“The main work which Luther required of the Princes has always been regarded by Lutheran rulers as their first duty, viz. to be the guardians and protectors of the Evangel and the true faith in their lands, to repress all public evil and falsehood and to provide for the regular ministry of the Word.” Karl Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81 f.
[893]“Werke,” Erl. ed., p. 85.
[894]P. Drews, as above, p. 193, n. 2, p. 74. Drews adds: “But it would be premature to conclude from the above that this thought, because not expressed here, is altogether excluded.” Yet it would appear to be excluded by the reference to the bishops, who alone were to trouble themselves concerning any danger to the Church through heresy (p. 301). How Luther, nevertheless, makes the duty of the Lutheran rulers to protect religion the foundation first of his practice, and then of his theory, is shown in the next section, also in vol. iii., xv. 2, and vol. v., xxxv. 2.
[895]See above, p. 104 ff.
[896]“Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1904, p. 36.
[897]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” (“Theolog. Arbeiten aus dem rhein. wiss. Predigerverein,” N. F., Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, pp. 44-79, 54).
[898]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 86seq.
[899]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 92.
[900]Ibid., p. 97.
[901]Ibid., p. 90.
[902]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 293; Erl. ed., 24², p. 273.
[903]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[904]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 359.
[905]Ibid., p. 361.
[906]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 357.
[907]Ibid., p. 358.
[908]Ibid., 17, 1, p. 478.
[909]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, pp. 89, 90.
[910]“Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 278.
[911]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 93.
[912]With regard to the peasants, compare the passages quoted above, p. 217.
[913]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 140.
[914]Cp. particularly vol. vi., xxxviii.
[915]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 100 f.
[916]In the “Sermon on Good Works,” to Duke Johann of Saxony, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198.
[917]In a sermon of 1532 in the “Hauspostille,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 182.
[918]“Kultur der Gegenwart,” p. 85, see above, p. 295, n. 1.
[919]To the Elector Frederick, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 108 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).
[920]See above, pp. 1-4, 20 f., 24, 101.
[921]Cp. p. 190, n. 3.
[922]N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 4. Cp. p. 327.
[923]“Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 209.
[924]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, May 8, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356).
[925]To Spalatin, 1520, soon after February 18 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 328).
[926]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 206; Weim. ed., 6, p. 265.
[927]J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 274.
[928]“Gutachten und Streitschriften über das ius reformandi des Rates vor und während der Einführung der offiziellen Kirchenreform in Augsburg, 1534-1537” (Augsburg, 1901, p. 73 f.).
[929]“Luther, eine Skizze,” reprinted in Wetzer and Welte, “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 319 f.
[930]On May 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 357.
[931]On April 28, 1522,ibid., p. 347.
[932]Above, p. 311. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 349.
[933]Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 334, n. 2.
[934]For text, see “Mitteilungen der Geschichts-und Altertumsgesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1886, p. 119 ff.
[935]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 324 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 221).
[936]See Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72.
[937]For text, see “Mitteilungen ... des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 513 ff.
[938]On February 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).
[939]C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächs. Kirchenvisitationen, 1524-1545,” Leipzig, 1879, p. 44.
[940]See above, p. 116 f.
[941]On December 12, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 154 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 36).
[942]On May 5, 1522, “ex arce Eylenburgensi,” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 351.
[943]“Contra Henricum regem Angliæ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 220; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 445.
[944]Ibid., p. 215 = 437.
[945]Ibid., p. 214 = 437.
[946]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 245. According to the above new doctrine the Sacrament was not to be reserved in the tabernacle. For further particulars it may suffice to refer to the Memoranda which Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon addressed to the Council of the Margrave of Ansbach and to that of Nuremberg, August 1, 1532, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 319 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312).
[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 228. A Mass in German was, however, also introduced by him because, as he said, many had requested it and “the secular authorities urged him to it.” See vol. v., xxix. 9.
[948]“On the twofold species of the Sacrament,” 1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 29; Erl. ed., 28, p. 304.
[949]Ibid., p. 29 = 305; cp. Erl. ed., 28, p. 215.
[950]Ibid., p. 29 = 305.
[951]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 31 = 307.
[952]Ibid., p. 31 = 306. To Gregor Brück, Chancellor to the Elector of Saxony, beginning of April, 1541.
[953]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.
[954]Ibid.
[955]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 842; cp. p. 845. In reply to Luther’s grievances against the celebration of Mass in earlier times, W. Köhler remarks (“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 46) that one might form a better opinion of the Mass from A. Franz’s book, “Die Messe im Mittelalter” (1902), than from Luther’s writings.
[956]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 265, andibid., n. 83.
[957]To Albert, Elector of Mayence, June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 35, p. 309 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186).
[958]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80. In parallel passages in other collections the words read “the priests at Zeitz and Meissen”; obviously the proper names are misprints for “Zeit” and “schmeissen.”
[959]On April 14, 1512, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 335.
[960]About the middle of March, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 119 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 308).
[961]Luther to Melanchthon, May 12, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 149: “Hartmannus Cronenbergius renuntiavit Cæsari stipendium 200 aureorum nummorum, nolens servire ei, qui impios istos (Luther’s princely foes) audiat ... Deus vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.”
[962]H. Ulmann, “Franz von Sickingen,” Leipzig, 1872, p. 186.
[963]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 251 f.
[964]The passages quoted,ibid., p. 252.
[965]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 525.
[966]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 90. Cp. the contradiction between this and his statement given above, p. 295 (cp. p. 328, n. 3), on the right and duty of the authorities in regard to Divine worship.
[967]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 176).
[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649.
[969]Very different are his words in the “Exhortation to abstain from revolt” of the end of 1521 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680): “Pay heed to the authorities. So long as they do not take up the matter and give orders, remain quiet. If they are against action, you must be so also. For if you do anything, you are unjust and much worse than the opposite party.”
[970]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 649 f.
[971]The Elector’s Instructions to Hier. Schurf, Joh. Schwertfeger and Melanchthon re Luther, August 7, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 203.
[972]Hier. Schurf, etc., to the Elector, August 13, 1523,ibid., p. 207.
[973]The Elector pointed out that “he himself preached that the Word of God must be allowed to settle the question, and that this would in its own good time have the desired effect, so God willed” (November 24). See Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 55, n.
[974]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 269 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 54).
[975]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.
[976]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527, with the texts, p. 780.
[977]Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” p. 34.
[978]C. A. Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1866, p. 76.
[979]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 550.
[980]Cp. Spalatin to V. Warbeck, September 30, 1525, in Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222.
[981]Kolde,ibid., p. 72.
[982]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271seq.
[983]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 524.
[984]Reprinted in the “Mitteil. der Gesch. und Altertumsges. des Osterl.,” 6, 1886, p. 513. Cp. N. Paulus, “War Luther im Prinzip tolerant?” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 12, 13, p. 96).
[985]Letters, ed. De Wette, 3, p. 88seq., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318). It is therefore incorrect to assert that Luther was thinking only of the peace which would be a result of uniform preaching, and not of the damnable nature of the worship to be prohibited. See the passages quoted here and above, p. 315 ff.