[986]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 321.[987]E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff.[988]Luther to Levin Metzsch, August 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149); to Thomas Löscher of same date, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 150; to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[989]W. Friedensburg, “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 50.[990]“Charitas Pirkheimers Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Reformationszeitalter,” ed. C. Höfler, 1852, p. 130. Cp. Franz Binder, “Charitas Pirkheimer”², 1878.[991]On September 8, 1541, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 398 f. The nature of the complaints made by Link are inferred from this letter.[992]Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 378 f.[993]Ibid.[994]Cp. Kolde, “Das religiöse Leben in Erfurt beim Ausgang des Mittelalters,” 1898, p. 3, and the work of the Erfurt expert, Georg Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” 1899, p. 42.[995]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 808 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 251.[996]Ibid., p. 810 = 254.[997]Cp. G. Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” Hft. 15, Erfurt, 1892, p. 85 ff., who points out certain errors of Kampschulte in his “Gesch. der Erfurter Universität.”[998]On May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 153.[999]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.[1000]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” 3, p. 246 ff.[1001]Janssen, “Hist. of German People,” 3, p. 248.[1002]To Lang, December 18, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256).[1003]On March 28, 1522,ibid., p. 323.[1004]Cp. above, p. 123 ff., and Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 218, p. 565, where reference is made to the letters of Eobanus Hessus: “He speaks of the increase of crime and the executions which took place almost daily; for instance, that of a father who had dishonoured his own daughter; the prisons did not suffice for the number of criminals.” Nossenus remained with Lang.[1005]In letter last referred to, p. 323 f.[1006]N. Paulus, “Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 92, n. 2-4.[1007]Ibid., pp. 90, 91, n. 1.[1008]Ibid.[1009]Ibid., p. 90, n. 2.[1010]“Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 16, 54 f. Cp. Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 132.[1011]Paulus,ibid., p. 100, n. 1.[1012]Ibid., p. 93 f.[1013]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 403.[1014]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 164 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 139 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 431).[1015]Ibid., p. 167 = 143.[1016]Ibid., p. 168 = 144.[1017]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 358-61, 362 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 445, 446, 447, 451, 454, 460, 461.[1018]p. 354 = 439.[1019]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 359 = 445 f.[1020]Ibid., p. 359 f. = 446.[1021]Ibid., p. 354 = 440.[1022]Ibid., p. 364 f. = 453.[1023]On March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323.[1024]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 167; Erl. ed., 53, p. 143.[1025]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 361 = 16², p. 452.[1026]Ibid., p. 365 f. = 452-4.[1027]Ibid., p. 370 = 461.[1028]Ibid.[1029]Ibid., p. 356 = 442.[1030]Ibid., p. 357 = 443.[1031]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, pp. 363, 366 f. = 455 f.[1032]Ibid., p. 368 = 458.[1033]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 94, n. 2.[1034]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 100, n. 2.[1035]Ibid., p. 91, n. 4.[1036]In the first half of November, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 27: “Unsingen insanire lubens audio,” etc.[1037]Paulus,ibid., p. 102, n. 2.[1038]Ibid., p. 102, n. 4.[1039]Ibid., p. 101, n. 2.[1040]Paulus,ibid., p. 35.[1041]See Th. Eitner, “Erfurt und die Bauernaufstände im 16. Jahrhundert,” Halle, 1903, p. 58 f. This writing, which is also printed in the “Mitteilungen des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” 24, 1903, p. 3-108, is founded on detailed studies of the archives and local history, and has been made the basis of the following account.[1042]Present work, vol. v., xxx. 6.[1043]Eitner,ibid., p. 57-60.[1044]Cp. also Janssen.Ibid., 4, p. 301 f.: “The Erfurt preachers had for years long been among the most violent agitators in town and country.... On the news of the insurrection in Swabia and Franconia several gatherings of peasants were held in the Erfurt district in the spring, 1525,” etc.[1045]Eitner, p. 33 f., pp. 43, 48.[1046]Eitner, p. 68. According to Eitner we learn from local sources, “that, in view of the state of affairs, the council thought it the most prudent course to do as in 1521, and to set the peasants and the citizens against the common foe, the clergy of Mayence, in order thus to satisfy the coarser instincts of the mob and to divert their thoughts from dangerous projects.”[1047]Ibid., p. 98.[1048]Ibid., p. 70, n. 1.[1049]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 304.[1050]Eitner, p. 85 f.[1051]“The peasant rising in the neighbourhood of Erfurt did nothing but harm [from the material point of view]. A phase in the business decay of the once flourishing community, a desperate attempt to mend what was wrong by what was worse, it merely sapped the strength of the town and so prepared the way for the event which some hundred and forty years later robbed her for ever of her political independence” (Eitner,ibid., p. 108).[1052]It is thus that Melanchthon describes the object of the invitation in a letter to Camerarius of May 19, 1525, “Corp. reform.,” 1, p. 744.[1053]It is true that the council declared on this occasion “that it was by no means its mind, desire or intention to oppress the people without necessity, contrary to evangelical equity and right, or to refuse them anything which it was its duty to permit or tolerate.” Eitner,ibid., 2, p. 93, where he remarks: “It will probably be best not to attribute any duplicity to the councillors.”[1054]Eitner,ibid., p. 94.[1055]On September 19 (according to Enders), 1525, in “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 59, and Erl. ed., 56, p. xii. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243). The first sentences quoted are contained in the letter itself, the others in the marginal notes to the various articles, which in De Wette’s collection are printed together with the articles themselves after the letter.[1056]This is Luther’s disdainful note to Art. 7, in itself a quite reasonable one, viz. “That the present councillors shall give an account of all expenditure and receipts.” His dislike for the “rabble” here made Luther unjust, and not here alone. His question concerning Art. 6 (on the protection of the “wards and trades”) is not to the point: “If councillors are not trusted, why appoint them?”[1057]Eitner,ibid., pp. 102, 104.[1058]Ibid., p. 107.[1059]Eitner,ibid., p. 107.[1060]Matthias Flacius, “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” 1549 (Vienna Court Library), in showing “Holiness” as a mark sufficiently discernible in Luther’s church and person. According to O. Clemen, the Erfurt monastery dragged on a miserable existence until 1525. On July 31 of that year, Adam Horn, the Prior, received from the Vicar-General of the Congregation, Johann von Spangenberg, permission to leave the monastery since he was no longer safe in it. “Aus den letzten Tagen des Erfurter Augustinerklosters,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1899, p. 278 ff. It may be that Usingen quitted Erfurt at that time for the same reason (above, p. 337). The last trace of Nathin is found at the Chapter of the Order at Leipzig in 1523, at which he represented the Erfurt priory.[1061]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 353; Erl. ed., 16², p. 438.[1062]We may here mention what K. A. Meissinger, of Strasburg, says: “The period previous to 1517 has been looked upon as Luther’s age of immaturity and shyness, and his own numerous statements on the subject have contributed not a little to this fiction. The legend of Martin, the zealous young Papist, seeking to get to heaven by his monkish practices and wasting away in utter despair, gives (a fact which has become apparent only of recent years) quite a false picture of that decisive and truly momentous period in the inward growth of the great Reformer” (“Der junge Luther,” Frankfurter Ztng., 1910, No. 300).[1063]Ed. E. L. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Halle, 1893, No. 118, p. 3 ff.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 ff. Erl. ed., 53, p. 256 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).[1064]“Neudrucke,” p. 7; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 214.[1065]“Neudrucke,” p. 9 = 215.[1066]In “Neudrucke,” this work also is edited by Enders (p. 19 ff.). The passage will be found on p. 37 f.[1067]In vol. vi., xxxviii. l, it will be shown that the ground of his demand for the execution of the Anabaptists was not merely the revolutionary character of the sect, but also the crime of religion involved in their error.[1068]Matthew xxviii. 19, Luke x. 16, Acts i. 8, Matthew xxviii. 20.[1069]Passages quoted by Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 373, n. 3.[1070]“Neudrucke,” p. 35.[1071]Letter of August 3, 1524, to the Elector of Saxony, in Förstemann’s “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” p. 248. Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.[1072]In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375, n. 8.[1073]Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.[1074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 265 f.[1075]The proofs for this wonderful enlightenment of children will be quoted below in another connection. To the opposition between faith and reason, Luther appeals in the question of infant baptism, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 53, where he says (in the “Table Talk”) that “reason is of no avail in the matter of faith. And for this very reason children should be baptised when they are without reason.... Because reason is the greatest hindrance to faith.”Ibid., he proves from the fact that the Christian Church still existed in early ages that infant baptism is lawful, for it would have ceased to exist had infant baptism, which was universally upheld by tradition, been invalid.[1076]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. See above, p. 206 f., where some quotations from this writing have already been given.[1077]Ibid., p. 373 = 20.[1078]Ibid., 23, p. 280-3 = 30, p. 150.[1079]Erl. ed., 19¹, p. 237.[1080]Ibid., 63, p. 272. In 1528.[1081]See vol. iv., xxv. 4.[1082]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55.[1083]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 684; Erl. ed., 61, p. 91.[1084]Ibid.[1085]Ibid., p. 1.[1086]Ibid., p. 19.[1087]To Justus Menius, January 10, 1542, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426.[1088]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.[1089]To Schwenckfeld’s messengers, 1543, De Wette, 5, p. 614.[1090]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 295.[1091]See vol. iii., xix. 1.[1092]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.[1093]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 372.[1094]P. 364, cp. 130.[1095]Enders’ ed. in “Neudrucke” (see above, p. 126, n. 5), No. 118, p. 19.[1096]Ibid., pp. 29-39.[1097]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., in Enders’ “Neudrucke,” pp. 44, 54.[1098]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 38, p. 177.[1099]Ibid., 53, p. 276 f.[1100]Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.[1102]Ibid., 63, p. 405.[1103]Erl. ed., 39, p. 109.[1104]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.[1105]“Comm. in. Epist. ad Gal.” (ed. Irmischer), 1, p. 279.[1106]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 335.[1107]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 220 ff.[1108]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 40.[1109]Ibid., p. 44 f.[1110]W. Friedensburg, “Der Reichstag zu Speyer, 1526,” Berlin, 1887, p. 482, and in the “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 93 ff. Th. Brieger (“Der Speierer Reichstag und die religiöse Frage,” Leipzig, 1909) disagrees.[1111]The text of the Edict of 1529 taken from the Frankfurt Reichstagsakten, 43, Fol. 61´ ff. Janssen,ibid., 5, 209 ff.; also in Luther’s Works, ed. Walch, 16, p. 328 ff.[1112]December, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 63 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 209).[1113]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 1059, “Articuli ibi facti non gravant nos, imo plus tuentur nos quam superioris conventus (1526) decretum.”[1114]Wilh. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 330 f. The author characterises the resolution against which the protest was raised as a “horrible demand,” even when the Edict simply enacts, “that no one be prohibited, hindered, or prevented from hearing Mass in those places where the other [Lutheran] teaching had sprung up.” He sees in the Edict an outrage on conscience, a “deadly blow,” and the forcing of the Lutheran Princes and Estates to “comply with the frightful Edict of Worms.”[1115]See vol. iii., xviii. 1, where more details are given of the Augsburg Confession and Diet.[1116]Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 434.[1117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 193 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 237).[1118]On the interpretation of “dolos, mendacia ac lapsus,” see Enders on this passage, p. 235, n. 3, and further on, vol. iv., xxii., and vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.[1119]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 236.[1120]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 270.[1121]October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.[1122]F. W. Hassenkamp, 1, 1852, p. 297.[1123]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 277; Erl. ed., 25², p. 4.[1124]Fr. W. Schirrmacher, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des Religionsgesprächs zu Marburg und des Reichstags zu Augsburg,” 1876; “These reports were communicated to H.I.M.” etc. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 186, n. 9.[1125]To Luther, August 8, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 185: “plane significat horribilem tumultum.”[1126]See vol. iii., xix. 1.[1127]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 202.[1128]Ibid.[1129]Ibid., p. 219.[1130]On September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.[1131]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 270 ff.; Erl. ed., 25, p. 1 ff.[1132]Reprinted,ibid., p. 331 ff., 49 ff.[1133]Reprinted,ibid., p. 424=88.[1134]Ibid., p. 424 ff. = 89.[1135]Ibid., p. 425 = 91.[1136]Compare Luther’s quotations and statements, p. 84, with the text of the Decretals given by Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici,” 2, pp. 172, 196. In the latter passage we have the words, “in spiritualibus antecellit (pontifex),” with which every canonist is acquainted.[1137]See vol. iii., xv. 3.[1138]On October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.[1139]To the Elector, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).[1140]Ibid., 54, p. 225.[1141]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 416 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 9 ff.[1142]Reprinted,ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 446 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. He calls the Duke an assassin because he had attacked him anonymously, as from an ambush, p. 447 = 111.[1143]In the pamphlet entitled, “Auf das Schmähbuchlein ‘Wider den Meuchler,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.), written by Duke George, but published under Arnoldi’s name (p. 129).[1144]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 457 = 118.[1145]Ibid., p. 460 = 120.[1146]Ibid., p. 470 = 127.[1147]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 148 f.[1148]In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “Contra Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum,” which he then reedited for the people as “Göttlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One of his propositions was: “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a devilish liar” (Köstlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323).[1149]To George Wicel (then on Luther’s side) and Anton Hermann, April 1, 1530, (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 238).[1150]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 323.[1151]The preface in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 523; in the form of a letter to Bugenhagen in 1532 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).
[986]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 321.[987]E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff.[988]Luther to Levin Metzsch, August 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149); to Thomas Löscher of same date, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 150; to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[989]W. Friedensburg, “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 50.[990]“Charitas Pirkheimers Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Reformationszeitalter,” ed. C. Höfler, 1852, p. 130. Cp. Franz Binder, “Charitas Pirkheimer”², 1878.[991]On September 8, 1541, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 398 f. The nature of the complaints made by Link are inferred from this letter.[992]Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 378 f.[993]Ibid.[994]Cp. Kolde, “Das religiöse Leben in Erfurt beim Ausgang des Mittelalters,” 1898, p. 3, and the work of the Erfurt expert, Georg Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” 1899, p. 42.[995]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 808 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 251.[996]Ibid., p. 810 = 254.[997]Cp. G. Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” Hft. 15, Erfurt, 1892, p. 85 ff., who points out certain errors of Kampschulte in his “Gesch. der Erfurter Universität.”[998]On May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 153.[999]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.[1000]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” 3, p. 246 ff.[1001]Janssen, “Hist. of German People,” 3, p. 248.[1002]To Lang, December 18, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256).[1003]On March 28, 1522,ibid., p. 323.[1004]Cp. above, p. 123 ff., and Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 218, p. 565, where reference is made to the letters of Eobanus Hessus: “He speaks of the increase of crime and the executions which took place almost daily; for instance, that of a father who had dishonoured his own daughter; the prisons did not suffice for the number of criminals.” Nossenus remained with Lang.[1005]In letter last referred to, p. 323 f.[1006]N. Paulus, “Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 92, n. 2-4.[1007]Ibid., pp. 90, 91, n. 1.[1008]Ibid.[1009]Ibid., p. 90, n. 2.[1010]“Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 16, 54 f. Cp. Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 132.[1011]Paulus,ibid., p. 100, n. 1.[1012]Ibid., p. 93 f.[1013]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 403.[1014]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 164 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 139 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 431).[1015]Ibid., p. 167 = 143.[1016]Ibid., p. 168 = 144.[1017]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 358-61, 362 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 445, 446, 447, 451, 454, 460, 461.[1018]p. 354 = 439.[1019]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 359 = 445 f.[1020]Ibid., p. 359 f. = 446.[1021]Ibid., p. 354 = 440.[1022]Ibid., p. 364 f. = 453.[1023]On March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323.[1024]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 167; Erl. ed., 53, p. 143.[1025]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 361 = 16², p. 452.[1026]Ibid., p. 365 f. = 452-4.[1027]Ibid., p. 370 = 461.[1028]Ibid.[1029]Ibid., p. 356 = 442.[1030]Ibid., p. 357 = 443.[1031]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, pp. 363, 366 f. = 455 f.[1032]Ibid., p. 368 = 458.[1033]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 94, n. 2.[1034]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 100, n. 2.[1035]Ibid., p. 91, n. 4.[1036]In the first half of November, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 27: “Unsingen insanire lubens audio,” etc.[1037]Paulus,ibid., p. 102, n. 2.[1038]Ibid., p. 102, n. 4.[1039]Ibid., p. 101, n. 2.[1040]Paulus,ibid., p. 35.[1041]See Th. Eitner, “Erfurt und die Bauernaufstände im 16. Jahrhundert,” Halle, 1903, p. 58 f. This writing, which is also printed in the “Mitteilungen des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” 24, 1903, p. 3-108, is founded on detailed studies of the archives and local history, and has been made the basis of the following account.[1042]Present work, vol. v., xxx. 6.[1043]Eitner,ibid., p. 57-60.[1044]Cp. also Janssen.Ibid., 4, p. 301 f.: “The Erfurt preachers had for years long been among the most violent agitators in town and country.... On the news of the insurrection in Swabia and Franconia several gatherings of peasants were held in the Erfurt district in the spring, 1525,” etc.[1045]Eitner, p. 33 f., pp. 43, 48.[1046]Eitner, p. 68. According to Eitner we learn from local sources, “that, in view of the state of affairs, the council thought it the most prudent course to do as in 1521, and to set the peasants and the citizens against the common foe, the clergy of Mayence, in order thus to satisfy the coarser instincts of the mob and to divert their thoughts from dangerous projects.”[1047]Ibid., p. 98.[1048]Ibid., p. 70, n. 1.[1049]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 304.[1050]Eitner, p. 85 f.[1051]“The peasant rising in the neighbourhood of Erfurt did nothing but harm [from the material point of view]. A phase in the business decay of the once flourishing community, a desperate attempt to mend what was wrong by what was worse, it merely sapped the strength of the town and so prepared the way for the event which some hundred and forty years later robbed her for ever of her political independence” (Eitner,ibid., p. 108).[1052]It is thus that Melanchthon describes the object of the invitation in a letter to Camerarius of May 19, 1525, “Corp. reform.,” 1, p. 744.[1053]It is true that the council declared on this occasion “that it was by no means its mind, desire or intention to oppress the people without necessity, contrary to evangelical equity and right, or to refuse them anything which it was its duty to permit or tolerate.” Eitner,ibid., 2, p. 93, where he remarks: “It will probably be best not to attribute any duplicity to the councillors.”[1054]Eitner,ibid., p. 94.[1055]On September 19 (according to Enders), 1525, in “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 59, and Erl. ed., 56, p. xii. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243). The first sentences quoted are contained in the letter itself, the others in the marginal notes to the various articles, which in De Wette’s collection are printed together with the articles themselves after the letter.[1056]This is Luther’s disdainful note to Art. 7, in itself a quite reasonable one, viz. “That the present councillors shall give an account of all expenditure and receipts.” His dislike for the “rabble” here made Luther unjust, and not here alone. His question concerning Art. 6 (on the protection of the “wards and trades”) is not to the point: “If councillors are not trusted, why appoint them?”[1057]Eitner,ibid., pp. 102, 104.[1058]Ibid., p. 107.[1059]Eitner,ibid., p. 107.[1060]Matthias Flacius, “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” 1549 (Vienna Court Library), in showing “Holiness” as a mark sufficiently discernible in Luther’s church and person. According to O. Clemen, the Erfurt monastery dragged on a miserable existence until 1525. On July 31 of that year, Adam Horn, the Prior, received from the Vicar-General of the Congregation, Johann von Spangenberg, permission to leave the monastery since he was no longer safe in it. “Aus den letzten Tagen des Erfurter Augustinerklosters,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1899, p. 278 ff. It may be that Usingen quitted Erfurt at that time for the same reason (above, p. 337). The last trace of Nathin is found at the Chapter of the Order at Leipzig in 1523, at which he represented the Erfurt priory.[1061]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 353; Erl. ed., 16², p. 438.[1062]We may here mention what K. A. Meissinger, of Strasburg, says: “The period previous to 1517 has been looked upon as Luther’s age of immaturity and shyness, and his own numerous statements on the subject have contributed not a little to this fiction. The legend of Martin, the zealous young Papist, seeking to get to heaven by his monkish practices and wasting away in utter despair, gives (a fact which has become apparent only of recent years) quite a false picture of that decisive and truly momentous period in the inward growth of the great Reformer” (“Der junge Luther,” Frankfurter Ztng., 1910, No. 300).[1063]Ed. E. L. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Halle, 1893, No. 118, p. 3 ff.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 ff. Erl. ed., 53, p. 256 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).[1064]“Neudrucke,” p. 7; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 214.[1065]“Neudrucke,” p. 9 = 215.[1066]In “Neudrucke,” this work also is edited by Enders (p. 19 ff.). The passage will be found on p. 37 f.[1067]In vol. vi., xxxviii. l, it will be shown that the ground of his demand for the execution of the Anabaptists was not merely the revolutionary character of the sect, but also the crime of religion involved in their error.[1068]Matthew xxviii. 19, Luke x. 16, Acts i. 8, Matthew xxviii. 20.[1069]Passages quoted by Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 373, n. 3.[1070]“Neudrucke,” p. 35.[1071]Letter of August 3, 1524, to the Elector of Saxony, in Förstemann’s “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” p. 248. Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.[1072]In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375, n. 8.[1073]Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.[1074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 265 f.[1075]The proofs for this wonderful enlightenment of children will be quoted below in another connection. To the opposition between faith and reason, Luther appeals in the question of infant baptism, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 53, where he says (in the “Table Talk”) that “reason is of no avail in the matter of faith. And for this very reason children should be baptised when they are without reason.... Because reason is the greatest hindrance to faith.”Ibid., he proves from the fact that the Christian Church still existed in early ages that infant baptism is lawful, for it would have ceased to exist had infant baptism, which was universally upheld by tradition, been invalid.[1076]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. See above, p. 206 f., where some quotations from this writing have already been given.[1077]Ibid., p. 373 = 20.[1078]Ibid., 23, p. 280-3 = 30, p. 150.[1079]Erl. ed., 19¹, p. 237.[1080]Ibid., 63, p. 272. In 1528.[1081]See vol. iv., xxv. 4.[1082]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55.[1083]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 684; Erl. ed., 61, p. 91.[1084]Ibid.[1085]Ibid., p. 1.[1086]Ibid., p. 19.[1087]To Justus Menius, January 10, 1542, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426.[1088]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.[1089]To Schwenckfeld’s messengers, 1543, De Wette, 5, p. 614.[1090]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 295.[1091]See vol. iii., xix. 1.[1092]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.[1093]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 372.[1094]P. 364, cp. 130.[1095]Enders’ ed. in “Neudrucke” (see above, p. 126, n. 5), No. 118, p. 19.[1096]Ibid., pp. 29-39.[1097]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., in Enders’ “Neudrucke,” pp. 44, 54.[1098]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 38, p. 177.[1099]Ibid., 53, p. 276 f.[1100]Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.[1102]Ibid., 63, p. 405.[1103]Erl. ed., 39, p. 109.[1104]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.[1105]“Comm. in. Epist. ad Gal.” (ed. Irmischer), 1, p. 279.[1106]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 335.[1107]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 220 ff.[1108]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 40.[1109]Ibid., p. 44 f.[1110]W. Friedensburg, “Der Reichstag zu Speyer, 1526,” Berlin, 1887, p. 482, and in the “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 93 ff. Th. Brieger (“Der Speierer Reichstag und die religiöse Frage,” Leipzig, 1909) disagrees.[1111]The text of the Edict of 1529 taken from the Frankfurt Reichstagsakten, 43, Fol. 61´ ff. Janssen,ibid., 5, 209 ff.; also in Luther’s Works, ed. Walch, 16, p. 328 ff.[1112]December, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 63 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 209).[1113]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 1059, “Articuli ibi facti non gravant nos, imo plus tuentur nos quam superioris conventus (1526) decretum.”[1114]Wilh. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 330 f. The author characterises the resolution against which the protest was raised as a “horrible demand,” even when the Edict simply enacts, “that no one be prohibited, hindered, or prevented from hearing Mass in those places where the other [Lutheran] teaching had sprung up.” He sees in the Edict an outrage on conscience, a “deadly blow,” and the forcing of the Lutheran Princes and Estates to “comply with the frightful Edict of Worms.”[1115]See vol. iii., xviii. 1, where more details are given of the Augsburg Confession and Diet.[1116]Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 434.[1117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 193 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 237).[1118]On the interpretation of “dolos, mendacia ac lapsus,” see Enders on this passage, p. 235, n. 3, and further on, vol. iv., xxii., and vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.[1119]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 236.[1120]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 270.[1121]October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.[1122]F. W. Hassenkamp, 1, 1852, p. 297.[1123]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 277; Erl. ed., 25², p. 4.[1124]Fr. W. Schirrmacher, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des Religionsgesprächs zu Marburg und des Reichstags zu Augsburg,” 1876; “These reports were communicated to H.I.M.” etc. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 186, n. 9.[1125]To Luther, August 8, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 185: “plane significat horribilem tumultum.”[1126]See vol. iii., xix. 1.[1127]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 202.[1128]Ibid.[1129]Ibid., p. 219.[1130]On September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.[1131]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 270 ff.; Erl. ed., 25, p. 1 ff.[1132]Reprinted,ibid., p. 331 ff., 49 ff.[1133]Reprinted,ibid., p. 424=88.[1134]Ibid., p. 424 ff. = 89.[1135]Ibid., p. 425 = 91.[1136]Compare Luther’s quotations and statements, p. 84, with the text of the Decretals given by Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici,” 2, pp. 172, 196. In the latter passage we have the words, “in spiritualibus antecellit (pontifex),” with which every canonist is acquainted.[1137]See vol. iii., xv. 3.[1138]On October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.[1139]To the Elector, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).[1140]Ibid., 54, p. 225.[1141]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 416 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 9 ff.[1142]Reprinted,ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 446 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. He calls the Duke an assassin because he had attacked him anonymously, as from an ambush, p. 447 = 111.[1143]In the pamphlet entitled, “Auf das Schmähbuchlein ‘Wider den Meuchler,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.), written by Duke George, but published under Arnoldi’s name (p. 129).[1144]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 457 = 118.[1145]Ibid., p. 460 = 120.[1146]Ibid., p. 470 = 127.[1147]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 148 f.[1148]In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “Contra Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum,” which he then reedited for the people as “Göttlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One of his propositions was: “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a devilish liar” (Köstlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323).[1149]To George Wicel (then on Luther’s side) and Anton Hermann, April 1, 1530, (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 238).[1150]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 323.[1151]The preface in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 523; in the form of a letter to Bugenhagen in 1532 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).
[986]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 321.[987]E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff.[988]Luther to Levin Metzsch, August 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149); to Thomas Löscher of same date, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 150; to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[989]W. Friedensburg, “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 50.[990]“Charitas Pirkheimers Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Reformationszeitalter,” ed. C. Höfler, 1852, p. 130. Cp. Franz Binder, “Charitas Pirkheimer”², 1878.[991]On September 8, 1541, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 398 f. The nature of the complaints made by Link are inferred from this letter.[992]Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 378 f.[993]Ibid.[994]Cp. Kolde, “Das religiöse Leben in Erfurt beim Ausgang des Mittelalters,” 1898, p. 3, and the work of the Erfurt expert, Georg Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” 1899, p. 42.[995]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 808 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 251.[996]Ibid., p. 810 = 254.[997]Cp. G. Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” Hft. 15, Erfurt, 1892, p. 85 ff., who points out certain errors of Kampschulte in his “Gesch. der Erfurter Universität.”[998]On May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 153.[999]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.[1000]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” 3, p. 246 ff.[1001]Janssen, “Hist. of German People,” 3, p. 248.[1002]To Lang, December 18, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256).[1003]On March 28, 1522,ibid., p. 323.[1004]Cp. above, p. 123 ff., and Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 218, p. 565, where reference is made to the letters of Eobanus Hessus: “He speaks of the increase of crime and the executions which took place almost daily; for instance, that of a father who had dishonoured his own daughter; the prisons did not suffice for the number of criminals.” Nossenus remained with Lang.[1005]In letter last referred to, p. 323 f.[1006]N. Paulus, “Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 92, n. 2-4.[1007]Ibid., pp. 90, 91, n. 1.[1008]Ibid.[1009]Ibid., p. 90, n. 2.[1010]“Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 16, 54 f. Cp. Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 132.[1011]Paulus,ibid., p. 100, n. 1.[1012]Ibid., p. 93 f.[1013]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 403.[1014]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 164 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 139 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 431).[1015]Ibid., p. 167 = 143.[1016]Ibid., p. 168 = 144.[1017]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 358-61, 362 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 445, 446, 447, 451, 454, 460, 461.[1018]p. 354 = 439.[1019]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 359 = 445 f.[1020]Ibid., p. 359 f. = 446.[1021]Ibid., p. 354 = 440.[1022]Ibid., p. 364 f. = 453.[1023]On March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323.[1024]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 167; Erl. ed., 53, p. 143.[1025]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 361 = 16², p. 452.[1026]Ibid., p. 365 f. = 452-4.[1027]Ibid., p. 370 = 461.[1028]Ibid.[1029]Ibid., p. 356 = 442.[1030]Ibid., p. 357 = 443.[1031]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, pp. 363, 366 f. = 455 f.[1032]Ibid., p. 368 = 458.[1033]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 94, n. 2.[1034]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 100, n. 2.[1035]Ibid., p. 91, n. 4.[1036]In the first half of November, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 27: “Unsingen insanire lubens audio,” etc.[1037]Paulus,ibid., p. 102, n. 2.[1038]Ibid., p. 102, n. 4.[1039]Ibid., p. 101, n. 2.[1040]Paulus,ibid., p. 35.[1041]See Th. Eitner, “Erfurt und die Bauernaufstände im 16. Jahrhundert,” Halle, 1903, p. 58 f. This writing, which is also printed in the “Mitteilungen des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” 24, 1903, p. 3-108, is founded on detailed studies of the archives and local history, and has been made the basis of the following account.[1042]Present work, vol. v., xxx. 6.[1043]Eitner,ibid., p. 57-60.[1044]Cp. also Janssen.Ibid., 4, p. 301 f.: “The Erfurt preachers had for years long been among the most violent agitators in town and country.... On the news of the insurrection in Swabia and Franconia several gatherings of peasants were held in the Erfurt district in the spring, 1525,” etc.[1045]Eitner, p. 33 f., pp. 43, 48.[1046]Eitner, p. 68. According to Eitner we learn from local sources, “that, in view of the state of affairs, the council thought it the most prudent course to do as in 1521, and to set the peasants and the citizens against the common foe, the clergy of Mayence, in order thus to satisfy the coarser instincts of the mob and to divert their thoughts from dangerous projects.”[1047]Ibid., p. 98.[1048]Ibid., p. 70, n. 1.[1049]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 304.[1050]Eitner, p. 85 f.[1051]“The peasant rising in the neighbourhood of Erfurt did nothing but harm [from the material point of view]. A phase in the business decay of the once flourishing community, a desperate attempt to mend what was wrong by what was worse, it merely sapped the strength of the town and so prepared the way for the event which some hundred and forty years later robbed her for ever of her political independence” (Eitner,ibid., p. 108).[1052]It is thus that Melanchthon describes the object of the invitation in a letter to Camerarius of May 19, 1525, “Corp. reform.,” 1, p. 744.[1053]It is true that the council declared on this occasion “that it was by no means its mind, desire or intention to oppress the people without necessity, contrary to evangelical equity and right, or to refuse them anything which it was its duty to permit or tolerate.” Eitner,ibid., 2, p. 93, where he remarks: “It will probably be best not to attribute any duplicity to the councillors.”[1054]Eitner,ibid., p. 94.[1055]On September 19 (according to Enders), 1525, in “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 59, and Erl. ed., 56, p. xii. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243). The first sentences quoted are contained in the letter itself, the others in the marginal notes to the various articles, which in De Wette’s collection are printed together with the articles themselves after the letter.[1056]This is Luther’s disdainful note to Art. 7, in itself a quite reasonable one, viz. “That the present councillors shall give an account of all expenditure and receipts.” His dislike for the “rabble” here made Luther unjust, and not here alone. His question concerning Art. 6 (on the protection of the “wards and trades”) is not to the point: “If councillors are not trusted, why appoint them?”[1057]Eitner,ibid., pp. 102, 104.[1058]Ibid., p. 107.[1059]Eitner,ibid., p. 107.[1060]Matthias Flacius, “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” 1549 (Vienna Court Library), in showing “Holiness” as a mark sufficiently discernible in Luther’s church and person. According to O. Clemen, the Erfurt monastery dragged on a miserable existence until 1525. On July 31 of that year, Adam Horn, the Prior, received from the Vicar-General of the Congregation, Johann von Spangenberg, permission to leave the monastery since he was no longer safe in it. “Aus den letzten Tagen des Erfurter Augustinerklosters,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1899, p. 278 ff. It may be that Usingen quitted Erfurt at that time for the same reason (above, p. 337). The last trace of Nathin is found at the Chapter of the Order at Leipzig in 1523, at which he represented the Erfurt priory.[1061]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 353; Erl. ed., 16², p. 438.[1062]We may here mention what K. A. Meissinger, of Strasburg, says: “The period previous to 1517 has been looked upon as Luther’s age of immaturity and shyness, and his own numerous statements on the subject have contributed not a little to this fiction. The legend of Martin, the zealous young Papist, seeking to get to heaven by his monkish practices and wasting away in utter despair, gives (a fact which has become apparent only of recent years) quite a false picture of that decisive and truly momentous period in the inward growth of the great Reformer” (“Der junge Luther,” Frankfurter Ztng., 1910, No. 300).[1063]Ed. E. L. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Halle, 1893, No. 118, p. 3 ff.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 ff. Erl. ed., 53, p. 256 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).[1064]“Neudrucke,” p. 7; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 214.[1065]“Neudrucke,” p. 9 = 215.[1066]In “Neudrucke,” this work also is edited by Enders (p. 19 ff.). The passage will be found on p. 37 f.[1067]In vol. vi., xxxviii. l, it will be shown that the ground of his demand for the execution of the Anabaptists was not merely the revolutionary character of the sect, but also the crime of religion involved in their error.[1068]Matthew xxviii. 19, Luke x. 16, Acts i. 8, Matthew xxviii. 20.[1069]Passages quoted by Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 373, n. 3.[1070]“Neudrucke,” p. 35.[1071]Letter of August 3, 1524, to the Elector of Saxony, in Förstemann’s “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” p. 248. Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.[1072]In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375, n. 8.[1073]Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.[1074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 265 f.[1075]The proofs for this wonderful enlightenment of children will be quoted below in another connection. To the opposition between faith and reason, Luther appeals in the question of infant baptism, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 53, where he says (in the “Table Talk”) that “reason is of no avail in the matter of faith. And for this very reason children should be baptised when they are without reason.... Because reason is the greatest hindrance to faith.”Ibid., he proves from the fact that the Christian Church still existed in early ages that infant baptism is lawful, for it would have ceased to exist had infant baptism, which was universally upheld by tradition, been invalid.[1076]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. See above, p. 206 f., where some quotations from this writing have already been given.[1077]Ibid., p. 373 = 20.[1078]Ibid., 23, p. 280-3 = 30, p. 150.[1079]Erl. ed., 19¹, p. 237.[1080]Ibid., 63, p. 272. In 1528.[1081]See vol. iv., xxv. 4.[1082]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55.[1083]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 684; Erl. ed., 61, p. 91.[1084]Ibid.[1085]Ibid., p. 1.[1086]Ibid., p. 19.[1087]To Justus Menius, January 10, 1542, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426.[1088]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.[1089]To Schwenckfeld’s messengers, 1543, De Wette, 5, p. 614.[1090]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 295.[1091]See vol. iii., xix. 1.[1092]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.[1093]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 372.[1094]P. 364, cp. 130.[1095]Enders’ ed. in “Neudrucke” (see above, p. 126, n. 5), No. 118, p. 19.[1096]Ibid., pp. 29-39.[1097]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., in Enders’ “Neudrucke,” pp. 44, 54.[1098]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 38, p. 177.[1099]Ibid., 53, p. 276 f.[1100]Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.[1102]Ibid., 63, p. 405.[1103]Erl. ed., 39, p. 109.[1104]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.[1105]“Comm. in. Epist. ad Gal.” (ed. Irmischer), 1, p. 279.[1106]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 335.[1107]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 220 ff.[1108]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 40.[1109]Ibid., p. 44 f.[1110]W. Friedensburg, “Der Reichstag zu Speyer, 1526,” Berlin, 1887, p. 482, and in the “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 93 ff. Th. Brieger (“Der Speierer Reichstag und die religiöse Frage,” Leipzig, 1909) disagrees.[1111]The text of the Edict of 1529 taken from the Frankfurt Reichstagsakten, 43, Fol. 61´ ff. Janssen,ibid., 5, 209 ff.; also in Luther’s Works, ed. Walch, 16, p. 328 ff.[1112]December, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 63 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 209).[1113]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 1059, “Articuli ibi facti non gravant nos, imo plus tuentur nos quam superioris conventus (1526) decretum.”[1114]Wilh. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 330 f. The author characterises the resolution against which the protest was raised as a “horrible demand,” even when the Edict simply enacts, “that no one be prohibited, hindered, or prevented from hearing Mass in those places where the other [Lutheran] teaching had sprung up.” He sees in the Edict an outrage on conscience, a “deadly blow,” and the forcing of the Lutheran Princes and Estates to “comply with the frightful Edict of Worms.”[1115]See vol. iii., xviii. 1, where more details are given of the Augsburg Confession and Diet.[1116]Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 434.[1117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 193 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 237).[1118]On the interpretation of “dolos, mendacia ac lapsus,” see Enders on this passage, p. 235, n. 3, and further on, vol. iv., xxii., and vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.[1119]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 236.[1120]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 270.[1121]October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.[1122]F. W. Hassenkamp, 1, 1852, p. 297.[1123]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 277; Erl. ed., 25², p. 4.[1124]Fr. W. Schirrmacher, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des Religionsgesprächs zu Marburg und des Reichstags zu Augsburg,” 1876; “These reports were communicated to H.I.M.” etc. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 186, n. 9.[1125]To Luther, August 8, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 185: “plane significat horribilem tumultum.”[1126]See vol. iii., xix. 1.[1127]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 202.[1128]Ibid.[1129]Ibid., p. 219.[1130]On September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.[1131]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 270 ff.; Erl. ed., 25, p. 1 ff.[1132]Reprinted,ibid., p. 331 ff., 49 ff.[1133]Reprinted,ibid., p. 424=88.[1134]Ibid., p. 424 ff. = 89.[1135]Ibid., p. 425 = 91.[1136]Compare Luther’s quotations and statements, p. 84, with the text of the Decretals given by Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici,” 2, pp. 172, 196. In the latter passage we have the words, “in spiritualibus antecellit (pontifex),” with which every canonist is acquainted.[1137]See vol. iii., xv. 3.[1138]On October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.[1139]To the Elector, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).[1140]Ibid., 54, p. 225.[1141]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 416 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 9 ff.[1142]Reprinted,ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 446 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. He calls the Duke an assassin because he had attacked him anonymously, as from an ambush, p. 447 = 111.[1143]In the pamphlet entitled, “Auf das Schmähbuchlein ‘Wider den Meuchler,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.), written by Duke George, but published under Arnoldi’s name (p. 129).[1144]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 457 = 118.[1145]Ibid., p. 460 = 120.[1146]Ibid., p. 470 = 127.[1147]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 148 f.[1148]In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “Contra Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum,” which he then reedited for the people as “Göttlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One of his propositions was: “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a devilish liar” (Köstlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323).[1149]To George Wicel (then on Luther’s side) and Anton Hermann, April 1, 1530, (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 238).[1150]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 323.[1151]The preface in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 523; in the form of a letter to Bugenhagen in 1532 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).
[986]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 321.
[987]E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff.
[988]Luther to Levin Metzsch, August 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149); to Thomas Löscher of same date, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 150; to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).
[989]W. Friedensburg, “Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 50.
[990]“Charitas Pirkheimers Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Reformationszeitalter,” ed. C. Höfler, 1852, p. 130. Cp. Franz Binder, “Charitas Pirkheimer”², 1878.
[991]On September 8, 1541, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 398 f. The nature of the complaints made by Link are inferred from this letter.
[992]Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 378 f.
[993]Ibid.
[994]Cp. Kolde, “Das religiöse Leben in Erfurt beim Ausgang des Mittelalters,” 1898, p. 3, and the work of the Erfurt expert, Georg Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” 1899, p. 42.
[995]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 808 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 251.
[996]Ibid., p. 810 = 254.
[997]Cp. G. Oergel, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Erfurter Humanismus,” in “Mitt. des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” Hft. 15, Erfurt, 1892, p. 85 ff., who points out certain errors of Kampschulte in his “Gesch. der Erfurter Universität.”
[998]On May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 153.
[999]About the middle of May, 1521,ibid., p. 158.
[1000]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” 3, p. 246 ff.
[1001]Janssen, “Hist. of German People,” 3, p. 248.
[1002]To Lang, December 18, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256).
[1003]On March 28, 1522,ibid., p. 323.
[1004]Cp. above, p. 123 ff., and Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 218, p. 565, where reference is made to the letters of Eobanus Hessus: “He speaks of the increase of crime and the executions which took place almost daily; for instance, that of a father who had dishonoured his own daughter; the prisons did not suffice for the number of criminals.” Nossenus remained with Lang.
[1005]In letter last referred to, p. 323 f.
[1006]N. Paulus, “Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 92, n. 2-4.
[1007]Ibid., pp. 90, 91, n. 1.
[1008]Ibid.
[1009]Ibid., p. 90, n. 2.
[1010]“Bartholomäus von Usingen,” p. 16, 54 f. Cp. Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 132.
[1011]Paulus,ibid., p. 100, n. 1.
[1012]Ibid., p. 93 f.
[1013]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 403.
[1014]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 164 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 139 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 431).
[1015]Ibid., p. 167 = 143.
[1016]Ibid., p. 168 = 144.
[1017]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 358-61, 362 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 445, 446, 447, 451, 454, 460, 461.
[1018]p. 354 = 439.
[1019]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 359 = 445 f.
[1020]Ibid., p. 359 f. = 446.
[1021]Ibid., p. 354 = 440.
[1022]Ibid., p. 364 f. = 453.
[1023]On March 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 323.
[1024]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 167; Erl. ed., 53, p. 143.
[1025]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, p. 361 = 16², p. 452.
[1026]Ibid., p. 365 f. = 452-4.
[1027]Ibid., p. 370 = 461.
[1028]Ibid.
[1029]Ibid., p. 356 = 442.
[1030]Ibid., p. 357 = 443.
[1031]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 13, 3, pp. 363, 366 f. = 455 f.
[1032]Ibid., p. 368 = 458.
[1033]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 94, n. 2.
[1034]Cp. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 100, n. 2.
[1035]Ibid., p. 91, n. 4.
[1036]In the first half of November, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 27: “Unsingen insanire lubens audio,” etc.
[1037]Paulus,ibid., p. 102, n. 2.
[1038]Ibid., p. 102, n. 4.
[1039]Ibid., p. 101, n. 2.
[1040]Paulus,ibid., p. 35.
[1041]See Th. Eitner, “Erfurt und die Bauernaufstände im 16. Jahrhundert,” Halle, 1903, p. 58 f. This writing, which is also printed in the “Mitteilungen des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde von Erfurt,” 24, 1903, p. 3-108, is founded on detailed studies of the archives and local history, and has been made the basis of the following account.
[1042]Present work, vol. v., xxx. 6.
[1043]Eitner,ibid., p. 57-60.
[1044]Cp. also Janssen.Ibid., 4, p. 301 f.: “The Erfurt preachers had for years long been among the most violent agitators in town and country.... On the news of the insurrection in Swabia and Franconia several gatherings of peasants were held in the Erfurt district in the spring, 1525,” etc.
[1045]Eitner, p. 33 f., pp. 43, 48.
[1046]Eitner, p. 68. According to Eitner we learn from local sources, “that, in view of the state of affairs, the council thought it the most prudent course to do as in 1521, and to set the peasants and the citizens against the common foe, the clergy of Mayence, in order thus to satisfy the coarser instincts of the mob and to divert their thoughts from dangerous projects.”
[1047]Ibid., p. 98.
[1048]Ibid., p. 70, n. 1.
[1049]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 304.
[1050]Eitner, p. 85 f.
[1051]“The peasant rising in the neighbourhood of Erfurt did nothing but harm [from the material point of view]. A phase in the business decay of the once flourishing community, a desperate attempt to mend what was wrong by what was worse, it merely sapped the strength of the town and so prepared the way for the event which some hundred and forty years later robbed her for ever of her political independence” (Eitner,ibid., p. 108).
[1052]It is thus that Melanchthon describes the object of the invitation in a letter to Camerarius of May 19, 1525, “Corp. reform.,” 1, p. 744.
[1053]It is true that the council declared on this occasion “that it was by no means its mind, desire or intention to oppress the people without necessity, contrary to evangelical equity and right, or to refuse them anything which it was its duty to permit or tolerate.” Eitner,ibid., 2, p. 93, where he remarks: “It will probably be best not to attribute any duplicity to the councillors.”
[1054]Eitner,ibid., p. 94.
[1055]On September 19 (according to Enders), 1525, in “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 59, and Erl. ed., 56, p. xii. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243). The first sentences quoted are contained in the letter itself, the others in the marginal notes to the various articles, which in De Wette’s collection are printed together with the articles themselves after the letter.
[1056]This is Luther’s disdainful note to Art. 7, in itself a quite reasonable one, viz. “That the present councillors shall give an account of all expenditure and receipts.” His dislike for the “rabble” here made Luther unjust, and not here alone. His question concerning Art. 6 (on the protection of the “wards and trades”) is not to the point: “If councillors are not trusted, why appoint them?”
[1057]Eitner,ibid., pp. 102, 104.
[1058]Ibid., p. 107.
[1059]Eitner,ibid., p. 107.
[1060]Matthias Flacius, “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” 1549 (Vienna Court Library), in showing “Holiness” as a mark sufficiently discernible in Luther’s church and person. According to O. Clemen, the Erfurt monastery dragged on a miserable existence until 1525. On July 31 of that year, Adam Horn, the Prior, received from the Vicar-General of the Congregation, Johann von Spangenberg, permission to leave the monastery since he was no longer safe in it. “Aus den letzten Tagen des Erfurter Augustinerklosters,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1899, p. 278 ff. It may be that Usingen quitted Erfurt at that time for the same reason (above, p. 337). The last trace of Nathin is found at the Chapter of the Order at Leipzig in 1523, at which he represented the Erfurt priory.
[1061]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 353; Erl. ed., 16², p. 438.
[1062]We may here mention what K. A. Meissinger, of Strasburg, says: “The period previous to 1517 has been looked upon as Luther’s age of immaturity and shyness, and his own numerous statements on the subject have contributed not a little to this fiction. The legend of Martin, the zealous young Papist, seeking to get to heaven by his monkish practices and wasting away in utter despair, gives (a fact which has become apparent only of recent years) quite a false picture of that decisive and truly momentous period in the inward growth of the great Reformer” (“Der junge Luther,” Frankfurter Ztng., 1910, No. 300).
[1063]Ed. E. L. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Halle, 1893, No. 118, p. 3 ff.; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 ff. Erl. ed., 53, p. 256 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).
[1064]“Neudrucke,” p. 7; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 214.
[1065]“Neudrucke,” p. 9 = 215.
[1066]In “Neudrucke,” this work also is edited by Enders (p. 19 ff.). The passage will be found on p. 37 f.
[1067]In vol. vi., xxxviii. l, it will be shown that the ground of his demand for the execution of the Anabaptists was not merely the revolutionary character of the sect, but also the crime of religion involved in their error.
[1068]Matthew xxviii. 19, Luke x. 16, Acts i. 8, Matthew xxviii. 20.
[1069]Passages quoted by Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 4, p. 373, n. 3.
[1070]“Neudrucke,” p. 35.
[1071]Letter of August 3, 1524, to the Elector of Saxony, in Förstemann’s “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” p. 248. Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.
[1072]In Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375, n. 8.
[1073]Enders, “Neudrucke,” p. v.
[1074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 265 f.
[1075]The proofs for this wonderful enlightenment of children will be quoted below in another connection. To the opposition between faith and reason, Luther appeals in the question of infant baptism, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 53, where he says (in the “Table Talk”) that “reason is of no avail in the matter of faith. And for this very reason children should be baptised when they are without reason.... Because reason is the greatest hindrance to faith.”Ibid., he proves from the fact that the Christian Church still existed in early ages that infant baptism is lawful, for it would have ceased to exist had infant baptism, which was universally upheld by tradition, been invalid.
[1076]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 367 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 12 ff. See above, p. 206 f., where some quotations from this writing have already been given.
[1077]Ibid., p. 373 = 20.
[1078]Ibid., 23, p. 280-3 = 30, p. 150.
[1079]Erl. ed., 19¹, p. 237.
[1080]Ibid., 63, p. 272. In 1528.
[1081]See vol. iv., xxv. 4.
[1082]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55.
[1083]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 684; Erl. ed., 61, p. 91.
[1084]Ibid.
[1085]Ibid., p. 1.
[1086]Ibid., p. 19.
[1087]To Justus Menius, January 10, 1542, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426.
[1088]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.
[1089]To Schwenckfeld’s messengers, 1543, De Wette, 5, p. 614.
[1090]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 295.
[1091]See vol. iii., xix. 1.
[1092]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.
[1093]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 372.
[1094]P. 364, cp. 130.
[1095]Enders’ ed. in “Neudrucke” (see above, p. 126, n. 5), No. 118, p. 19.
[1096]Ibid., pp. 29-39.
[1097]“Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., in Enders’ “Neudrucke,” pp. 44, 54.
[1098]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 38, p. 177.
[1099]Ibid., 53, p. 276 f.
[1100]Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.
[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.
[1102]Ibid., 63, p. 405.
[1103]Erl. ed., 39, p. 109.
[1104]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.
[1105]“Comm. in. Epist. ad Gal.” (ed. Irmischer), 1, p. 279.
[1106]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 335.
[1107]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 220 ff.
[1108]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 4, p. 40.
[1109]Ibid., p. 44 f.
[1110]W. Friedensburg, “Der Reichstag zu Speyer, 1526,” Berlin, 1887, p. 482, and in the “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 93 ff. Th. Brieger (“Der Speierer Reichstag und die religiöse Frage,” Leipzig, 1909) disagrees.
[1111]The text of the Edict of 1529 taken from the Frankfurt Reichstagsakten, 43, Fol. 61´ ff. Janssen,ibid., 5, 209 ff.; also in Luther’s Works, ed. Walch, 16, p. 328 ff.
[1112]December, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 63 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 209).
[1113]“Corp. Reform.,” 1, p. 1059, “Articuli ibi facti non gravant nos, imo plus tuentur nos quam superioris conventus (1526) decretum.”
[1114]Wilh. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 330 f. The author characterises the resolution against which the protest was raised as a “horrible demand,” even when the Edict simply enacts, “that no one be prohibited, hindered, or prevented from hearing Mass in those places where the other [Lutheran] teaching had sprung up.” He sees in the Edict an outrage on conscience, a “deadly blow,” and the forcing of the Lutheran Princes and Estates to “comply with the frightful Edict of Worms.”
[1115]See vol. iii., xviii. 1, where more details are given of the Augsburg Confession and Diet.
[1116]Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 434.
[1117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 193 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 237).
[1118]On the interpretation of “dolos, mendacia ac lapsus,” see Enders on this passage, p. 235, n. 3, and further on, vol. iv., xxii., and vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.
[1119]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 236.
[1120]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 270.
[1121]October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.
[1122]F. W. Hassenkamp, 1, 1852, p. 297.
[1123]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 277; Erl. ed., 25², p. 4.
[1124]Fr. W. Schirrmacher, “Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des Religionsgesprächs zu Marburg und des Reichstags zu Augsburg,” 1876; “These reports were communicated to H.I.M.” etc. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 186, n. 9.
[1125]To Luther, August 8, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 185: “plane significat horribilem tumultum.”
[1126]See vol. iii., xix. 1.
[1127]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 202.
[1128]Ibid.
[1129]Ibid., p. 219.
[1130]On September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.
[1131]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 270 ff.; Erl. ed., 25, p. 1 ff.
[1132]Reprinted,ibid., p. 331 ff., 49 ff.
[1133]Reprinted,ibid., p. 424=88.
[1134]Ibid., p. 424 ff. = 89.
[1135]Ibid., p. 425 = 91.
[1136]Compare Luther’s quotations and statements, p. 84, with the text of the Decretals given by Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici,” 2, pp. 172, 196. In the latter passage we have the words, “in spiritualibus antecellit (pontifex),” with which every canonist is acquainted.
[1137]See vol. iii., xv. 3.
[1138]On October 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.
[1139]To the Elector, April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 223 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).
[1140]Ibid., 54, p. 225.
[1141]Reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 416 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 9 ff.
[1142]Reprinted,ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 446 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. He calls the Duke an assassin because he had attacked him anonymously, as from an ambush, p. 447 = 111.
[1143]In the pamphlet entitled, “Auf das Schmähbuchlein ‘Wider den Meuchler,’” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.), written by Duke George, but published under Arnoldi’s name (p. 129).
[1144]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 457 = 118.
[1145]Ibid., p. 460 = 120.
[1146]Ibid., p. 470 = 127.
[1147]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 148 f.
[1148]In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “Contra Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum,” which he then reedited for the people as “Göttlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One of his propositions was: “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a devilish liar” (Köstlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323).
[1149]To George Wicel (then on Luther’s side) and Anton Hermann, April 1, 1530, (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 238).
[1150]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 323.
[1151]The preface in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 523; in the form of a letter to Bugenhagen in 1532 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).