Chapter 33

[1]According to Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” p. 235, Luther “fell back from the position he had assumed from 1519 to the beginning of 1521 owing to the subjective, and also objective, impossibility [of proceeding in so radical a way as previously.]” H. Lang, a Protestant, whose “M. Luther, ein religiöses Charakterbild,” 1870, he quotes, goes still further, and ascribes to Luther the entire abandonment of his own principles; he is also of opinion that Luther does not disguise the fact that [in the Anabaptist business] he would have considered all in order had the reforms been carried out by himself. “That he was vexed to see others reap where he had sown, is only human nature,” says Lang; thus he “sided with the reactionaries,” though he had really taught what the fanatics were putting in practice; from that time forward he advocated a “mediæval ecclesiasticism,” deprived the Congregations of the management of the reform, which they had set about so vigorously, and transferred it to the rulers. Such a view is widely held among Protestant historians to-day.[2]Cp. vol. ii., p. 398 f.[3]J. Schmidlin, in the article “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” in the “Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1909, Nos. 14-16, p. 117. The writer even speaks of the “Klotz-Abhängigkeit” on God which was Luther’s ideal.[4]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 436 ff.; Erl. ed., “Comment. in Galat.,” 1, p. iii. ff.; 3, p. 121 f.[5]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275 f.[6]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche, p. 75 ff.).[7]Cp. Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott, etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 214; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15: “Faith is divided into three principal parts, according to the three persons of the Holy Trinity,” etc.[8]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 41 ff., 143 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 322seq., 329seq.[9]Ibid., pp. 686, 689; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 259, 261. In the latter passage he refers to the “sign of Grace,” which is “Christ on the Cross and all His dear Saints.”[10]In “Bull. de littér. ecclésiast.,” 1909, p. 198 f.[11]O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus” (“Prolegomena. Biblicismus und Traditionalismus in der altprotest. Theol.”), 1908, p. 98.[12]Ibid., pp. 102, 103, 105.[13]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 63. Cp.ibid., p. 7 and p. 100 and other passages where similar phrases occur. He says, for instance, of belief: “The Articles of Faith are contrary to all philosophy, geometry, arithmetic and indeed to all reason. It is a question of ‘est,’ ‘non,’ yes and no. This no one can reconcile.” For this reason he would not come to any “agreement” with Zwingli, who thought otherwise.[14]Ritschl,ibid., p. 79.[15]“Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 136, 1909, p. 35, in dealing with Luther’s “thisworldliness.”[16]“De captivitate babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68.[17]From the writing “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 23, 27 f.; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 179, 185 f.[18]“De capt. bab.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 70.[19]Ibid., p. 536 f.=68, 70.[20]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 258 ff.; Erl. ed., 13², p. 228 f.[21]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 157; Erl. ed., 27, p. 343.[22]“Since Christ never commanded that the Sacrament should be received by everyone, it is permissible not only to receive only under one kind, but under neither.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 79; Erl. ed., 27, p. 72. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 507: “Cum Christus non praecepisset ulla (specie) uti”.[23]The Larger Catechism of 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 129: “Here (in Scripture) we have God’s command and institution”; hence it is “seriously and strictly commanded that we be baptised on pain of not being saved.”[24]To Haupold and others on September 17, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 257, andibid., 53, p. 77 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 236).[25]The editor of the Weimar ed., 8, p. 132.[26]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 127 (omitted in the 2nd edition). In 1524 Luther, when engaged with Münzer, still held that “all should preach stoutly and freely as they were able and against whomsoever they pleased.... Let the spirits fall upon one another and fight it out. Should some be led astray, so much the worse.” True doctrine being the fittest would nevertheless survive and prevail. To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 265 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). The contradiction involved in the freedom which Luther apparently concedes to him was pointed out by Münzer in his “Schutzrede,” Fol. C. III., “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375. Hence when Luther counselled that the revolt should be put down by force of arms, those who considered the war unjust, for instance because they happened to hold Anabaptist views, could well appeal to Luther and refuse to lend their assistance. (See present work, vol. ii., p. 311 f.)[27]A. Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum,” Denifle, vol. ii., 1909, p. 251 f.[28]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.[29]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 12², p. 221.[30]Though it might be urged that he subordinates the first too much to the second even in his earlier period. In the “Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott,” etc. (1520), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 215; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15, he teaches: “that there are two ways of believing: First, concerning God, when I believe what is said of God to be true, just as I believe that to be true which is said of the Turks, of the devil, or of hell; this faith is more a sort of knowledge, or observation, than real faith. According to the other we believeinGod (Credo in Deum), i.e. when I not only believe that to be true which is said of God, but place my trust in Him.... It is only such a faith which hazards all on God ... which makes a Christian.... This is a living faith ... and this none can give but God alone.” The Catholic Church, however, had always required a “living faith,” one working by charity (fides caritate formata). It is remarkable how much, in the above passage, Luther allows the formal principle of historical faith, viz. the authority of the Revealing God, to recede into the background.[31]O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus,” 1, p. 81.[32]“Histor. Zeitschrift,” 97, p. 1 ff. Art.: “Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt,” p. 28: “It is evident that Protestantism cannot be regarded as directly paving the way for the modern world. On the contrary, it appears rather as an entire reversion to mediæval fashions of thought. It is shown that Protestantism was and yet is, at least to some extent, a hindrance to the development of the modern world.”[33]“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 830, n.[34]Letter of December, 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266). There we read: “God is older than all the Councils and the Fathers.” “Are we to send God to school and prune the feathers (quill pens) of the Holy Ghost?” “We hazard all on the Word ... against all the Churches.”Ibid., p. 235-238=21-25.[35]“Theolog. Literaturztg.,” 1884, p. 37seq.[36]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 228. Church postils.[37]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.[38]Ibid., 6, p. 540=5, p. 74.[39]Through the “Reformer sent by God,” the Father had “revealed” the mystery of His Son. Thus Bugenhagen, on February 22, 1546. Cp. vol. vi., XL., 2.[40]“Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16 Jahrh.,” 1904, p. 30 ff.[41]“Die christliche Religion” in “Kultur der Gegenwart,” 1, p. 4, 397.Ibid.: “The final result is the recognition by Protestantism of an internal antinomy of religion and Church, which are unable to subsist without each other nor yet to suffer each other, from which conflict there can only spring a fresh presentment of the purer, churchless, Christian idea.”[42]“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 689 (1², p. 723).[43]“Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, p. 74seq., 147seq.[44]“Christliche Welt,” 1904, No. 26.[45]“Monatskorr. des Evangel. Bundes,” 1908, No. 9.[46]“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. vii. f.[47]“An den christlichen Adel,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 428; Erl. ed., 21, p. 307.[48]Ibid., 429=308.[49]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 258; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 197 f.: “Seeing that Bishops and Prelates remain quiescent, do not resist, care but little and so leave Christendom to go to destruction, we must humbly implore God’s help to oppose the evil, and after that put our own hands to the job.... It is not right that we should support the servants and menials of the Pope and even his court fools and harlots to the harm and injury of our souls.... These, surely, are the real Turks whom the King, the Princes and the Nobles ought to attack first,” just as a father of a family who has gone out of his mind “must be placed under restraint and controlled.... The best and only thing to do was, for the King, Princes, Nobles, townships and parishes to put their hands to the business and make an end of it themselves, so that the bishops and clergy, who are so timorous, may be able to follow.... Nor must any attention be paid to the ban and the threats by means of which they fancy they can save their skins.”[50]In strange contrast, to the last passage quoted, he goes on to inculcate the most respectful obedience to the secular authorities: “Even though they do what is wrong, still God wills that they should be obeyed without subterfuge or danger” (p. 259=198). They have “nothing to do with the preaching and the faith.” “They must not be resisted even though they do what is unjust” (ibid.). “There are many abuses prevalent amongst the secular authorities,” etc. (p. 260=199). He is accordingly very anxious for their improvement.[51]To Spalatin, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90.[52]Preface to the writing “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt wie weytt man yhr Gehorsam schuldig sey” (1523). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.[53]“Vom Missbrauch der Messen,” 1521-1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139. To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 219: “Principem esse et non aliqua parte latronem esse, aut non aut vix possibile est, eoque maiorem, quo maior princeps fuerit.” This he says in excuse of his acceptance of the hospitality of the Wartburg offered him by the Elector.[54]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”[55]To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 f.; Erl. ed., 55, p. 256 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). Cp. for above passages P. Drews “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” in “Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, Ergänzungsheft, p. 31 ff.[56]Drews,ibid., p. 34.[57]Cp. vol. ii., p. 113.[58]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Church Postils. Sermon for Easter Monday, published in 1523. Order and instruction [how henceforward the sacrament is to be received]. Cp.ibid., p. 197. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 298, where Luther says: “Those who do not believe do not belong to the kingdom of Christ, but to the kingdom of the world.”[59]“Troubled consciences” alone would appreciate the consolation in his chief doctrine, viz. that of Justification, for which reason Melanchthon in the apology of the Augsburg Confession (“Symbol. Bücher10,” pp. 87, 90, 118, 120, 174) is fond of representing Justification by faith alone under the aspect of a solace and consolation amidst the terrors of conscience caused by the consciousness of sin. Whoever had not experienced such fears could have no real understanding of Justification. Such a view of Justification, K. Holl, a Protestant theologian, remarks had its value while it was still a question of winning over Catholics to the new teaching, since, according to Luther, the Catholic trust in works necessarily led to “despair.” But, in the new generation, who had grown up as Lutherans, “consciences were already comforted before ever they experienced any terrors”; nor did Luther make it at all plain how often, i.e. whether “once only or more frequently,” it was necessary to experience the consoling power of the Gospel amidst terrors of conscience in order to arrive at the full assurance of Justification. “Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906, p. 14.[60]“Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne ... Macht habe alle Lere zu urteylen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.[61]We have indicated in the above our own position with respect to two opposing views recently put forward concerning the development of the early Lutheran Church, viz. P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (see above, p. 24, n. 4), and H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., with epilogue on Drews. See also vol. v., xxx., 2, on State and State Church according to Luther’s views and complaints. While Drews emphasises the “congregations of true believers” as “Luther’s ideal” (p. 103), Hermelink lays stress on the fact that Luther always believed that in the last instance the Christian authorities would be forced to introduce and see to the uniformity of worship in their lands. The disagreement on so vital an historical question only emphasises anew the want of consistency in Luther and the contradictions contained in his statements. See vol. ii., p. 112, n. 1. Cp. p. 294 ff., and the quotation (from W. Hans): “The contradictions in the theory [Luther’s] and between his theory and practice can never be explained.”[62]Cp. Melanchthon’s tract “De potestate papæ” added to the Schmalkalden Articles in “Die symbolischen Bücher,”101907, ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 339: “Imprimis autem oportet præcipua membra ecclesiæ, reges et principes, consulere ecclesiæ.... Prima enim cura regum esse debet, ut ornent gloriam Dei.” Above all, he says, referring to the Papacy, they must not make use of their power “ad confirmandam idolatriam et cetera infinita flagitia et ad faciendas cædes sanctorum.”[63]R. Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 561, who appeals to passages in Luther’s “Von guten Wercken,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198 f. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 299.[64]Sohm,ibid., p. 579.[65]Melanchthon even describes it as the first duty of the principal member of the Church: “curare, ut errores tollantur et conscientiæ sanentur.” “Symbolische Bücher,”ibid.[66]Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 579.[67]Ibid., p. 615, where the passages from Jonas’s writings are given.[68]Ibid., pp. 630, 618; for further details on the Consistories and Luther’s relations to them, see our vol. v., xxx., 3; cp. xxxv., 2.[69]Wilhelm Hans, a Protestant theologian, quoted in our vol. ii., p. 312.[70]First edition, p. 127. In the second edition the passage commencing with the words “The so-called” has been altered.[71]“Luthers Anschauung vom Staate und der Gesellschaft” (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.”), 1901, p. 25. Elsewhere Luther speaks otherwise. We must remember that in the above writing he has in mind chiefly the Catholic authorities who were opposing the new Evangel.[72]Ibid.[73]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 183.[74]Ibid., p. 185.[75]Brandenburg, p. 24, from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 257. Commentary on Psalm lxxxii.[76]“Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., 479 ff.[77]“Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 344 f.[78]On the development of Luther’s idea of the Church, see vol. vi., xxxviii., 3 and 4. On the shaping of the relations between Church and State by Luther, see vol. v., xxxv., 2.[79]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 259).[80]On November 30, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 337 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 277 ff.).[81]C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächsischen Kirchen-und Schulvisitation von 1524 bis 1545,” 1879, p. 16.[82]To Johann, Elector of Saxony, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).[83]To the Elector Johann in the letter quoted above.[84]To Spalatin, on March 19, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 263).[85]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).[86]Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 114.[87]In the work “An den christlichen Adel” of 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 285. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 296.[88]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413=290.[89]To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).[90]To the Elector Johann, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).[91]To Spalatin at Altenburg, January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 2 ff. Spalatin had resigned the Court Chaplaincy on the death of the Elector Frederick and become pastor of Altenburg. From this time Luther’s letters to him assume a different character, the consideration for the Court and the desire to work on it through Spalatin being no longer apparent. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 23.[92]To Amsdorf, January 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 532.[93]See below, xvii., 5, and vol. iv., xxii., 5.[94]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 205; Erl. ed., 23, p. 93. “Von Ehesachen,” 1530.[95]“Symbol. Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 204, art. 13.[96]Ibid., p. 343.[97]On January 7, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 6.[98]Ibid., pp. 6, 7.[99]“Werke,” Wittenberg ed., 9, p. 244. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 8, n. 1.[100]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 240. “Table-Talk.”[101]On January 18, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716 f.[102]On January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 4.[103]Will of January 6, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422.[104]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 469; Erl. ed., 25², p. 126. Dating from the commencement of 1531.[105]Ibid., p. 447=111.[106]See vol. ii., p. 391.[107]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332seq.“Table-Talk.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 133 of the year 1540.[108]On May 8, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 5 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274).[109]On same date,ibid., p. 6 (“Briefwechsel,”ibid.).[110]On March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[111]In the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8. It is true that this and the following statement belong to the period subsequent to the Diet of Augsburg, but they also throw light on the earlier period.[112]In a Latin memorandum which Enders with some probability assigns to the latter half of August, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76: “Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus; pacem enim ad ima tartara relegandam esse dico, quæ cum evangelii iactura redimitur.” There are no grounds for doubting Luther’s authorship, but the original was probably written in German.[113]W. Walther, “Luthers Waffen,” 1886, p. 158, and his “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 246 ff., 278 ff.[114]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of the Gospel of St. John, 1530-1532. Cp. Walther,ibid.[115]Walther,ibid., p. 170.[116]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.[117]Ibid., p. 224.[118]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 621; Erl. ed., 24², p. 46, in the work “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” 1520.[119]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 330 in the “Kirchenpostille.”[120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121, “Kirchenpostille.”[121]An earlier explanation of Luther’s as to the way in which he understood destruction only shows that then, in 1522, he was averse to the carrying out of such a project: “This destruction and annihilation I would not have understood as meaning the use of violence and the sword. For they are not worthy of such chastisement nor would anything be gained by it—but as Daniel viii. teaches: Antichrist shall be destroyed without hands, when everyone teaches, speaks and holds God’s Word against him.... This is a true Christian destruction.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178. Even H. Preuss recognises in his “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” p. 115, that, in Luther’s replies to Alveld and in his epitome of Silvester Prierias, “there smoulders such anger as shows that recourse to arms was imminent.” Cp. passages from Luther’s writings referred to in vol. ii., p. 190, n. 3.[122]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 180 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 105), in a “Memorandum on the abolition of the Mass and monastic life, etc.,” dated July 13, and assigned by Enders to the year 1530.[123]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. trans.), 5, p. 288.[124]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 76seq., where will be found the opinions of Link, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and Amsdorf, given at the same time as to “whether a ruler may protect his subjects against religious persecution by the Emperor or other Princes by engaging in war?” Cp. the printed form of Luther’s opinion given in G. Berbig, “Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” Hft. 5, Leipzig, 1908, p. 98 f.[125]“(Oportet) ut id vocante aliquo singulari spiritu et fide faciat; alias omnino cedere debet et ipse gladio superiori et cum christianis, quos patitur, mori.” Instead of “patitur,” as Enders has it, Berbig has “fatetur,” which is certainly better.[126]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, pp. 1 and 55, p. 264 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231) (March 28, 1528).[127]To Chancellor Brück, March 28, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 266 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231).[128]v. Schubert, “Beiträge zur Gesch. der evangel. Bekenntnis-und Bündnisbildung, 1529-1530,” “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 273 f., an article giving interesting details concerning the earlier history of the League of Schmalkalden.[129]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxiii., and, still better, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette (Seidemann), 6, p. 105 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 192). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 647 f.[130]v. Schubert,ibid., p. 306 f.[131]Cp. Melanchthon in the letter to Bugenhagen, Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 248.[132]v. Schubert,ibid., p. 313.[133]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 138 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 239).[134]Ibid., p. 142.[135]Ibid., p. 140 f. On the memorandum destined to become famous, cp. O. Clemen’s article in “Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.[136]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 20.[137]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.[138]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 284.[139]Reprinted by Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 286. Written on October 21, 1530.[140]Luther to Lazarus Spengler, February 15, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361): “It happened that they disputed sharply with us at Torgau.”[141]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.[142]See vol. ii., p. 391 ff.[143]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 265.[144]Ibid., p. 266 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296, dated “end of October, 1530”).[145]Cp. Enders “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 299 f.[146]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.[147]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344. See below, p. 60.[148]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 225. Enders (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298) gave reasons for dating it at the “end of October, 1530.”[149]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.[150]Text in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296 f. For above date see also O. Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 1530-1532, und der Nürnberger Religionsfriede,” 1892, p. 271.[151]Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298, from M. M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 78.[152]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22; Mayer,ibid., p. 73.[153]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 469.[154]Ibid., p. 471.[155]Enders, 8, p. 322.[156]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344.[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 290, in the “Hauspostille,” Second Sermon for the 5th Sunday after Epiphany (c.1532).[158]To Lazarus Spengler, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361). Cp. Ludw. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volks im Luthertum und im Calvinismus des 16. Jahrhunderts, Diss.,” 1903, pp. 6-18.[159]To a Nuremberg burgher, March 18, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 221 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 378).[160]Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund,” p. 91. Cp. Enders, 8, p. 361, n. 2.[161]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22.[162]From the Gotha Cod., 399, fol. 139, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 242.[163]Sammelschrift ohne Gesamttitel, Dresden, 1532. Vorne: Innhalt dieses Büchleins. 1. Ein Auszug usw.; 2. Rathschlag M. Luthers an den Churfürsten von Sachsen; 3. Erklärung usw.[164]For further particulars of the criticism of Cochlæus, see Enders, 7, p. 242 ff.[165]Cp. the extract given by Enders,ibid., 244.[166]See vol. ii., p. 171 f. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 277.[167]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. Enders refers it to the “latter half of August, 1531.”[168]On December 12, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 204 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 331).[169]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 318, p. 292 ff.[170]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332 and Mathesius “Tischreden,” p. 133. Account given in his own words.[171]“Werke,”ibid., p. 334seq.[172]On July 14, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 63.[173]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 134.[174]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 362.[175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 334, “Tischreden.”[176]Ibid.[177]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 363seq.[178]Ibid., p. 366seq.: “Ita ut nos habeamus gladium traditum possessorium. Cæsar vero tantum in nobis habet gladium petitorium, these are not timesut tempore martyrum, ubi Diocletianus solus regebat.”[179]The passage from “indeed if one” to “as a tyrant” was omitted by Rebenstock in his Table-Talk and is differently worded in the German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 194 f.[180]“Colloquia,” l.c., pp. 365, 367: “Papæ adimo gladium, non cæsari, quia papa non debet esse magistratus neque tyrannus.”[181]In the “Tischreden” of Mathesius (p. 80), Luther says: “We shall never be successful against them [the Turks] unless we fall upon them and the priests at the right moment and smite them dead.” The editor remarks: “By this he can only mean the priests in general, not those only of the two small bishoprics.” See vol. ii., p. 324. Cp. vol. ii., p. 325, and N. Paulus, “Luther über die Tötung katholischer Geistlichen” (Histor.-polit. Blätter 147, 1911), p. 92 ff.[182]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 402.[183]Commencement of December, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ qui illos occiderent.”[184]See xv., 4. For reply see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.[185]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78, and Letters ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 223.[186]Thus the editor of the memorandum, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 80 f., with a reference to the document in question in the Weimar Archives, and to Seckendorf, 3, pp. 200, 252.[187]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” p. 6, 60 f.[188]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87; “Briefe,” 5, p. 159.[189]“That given under the Elector Johann,” says Luther, i.e. that of March, 1530 (above, p. 52), in which Luther had declared that armed resistance against the Emperor “can in no way be reconciled with Scripture.”[190]“Briefe,” 5, p. 188. The passage concludes with a translation of the Latin text appended by a later hand.[191]On June 11, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 165; “Briefe,” 5, p. 188.[192]On December 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 313; “Briefe,” 5, p. 233.[193]Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 245 ff., where he gives extracts from the publication in question. According to him, Luther’s friend, J. Menius, also introduces the memorandum with the words: “An old writingsaid to beby the Reverend D. M. L.” “On self-defence,” 1547.[194]The tract is printed by Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges,” 2, Gotha, 1645, p. 39 ff., and the passage in question (p. 50) runs: “D. Pommer and Melanchthon have repudiated D. Martin’s counsels to the Elector Johann ... in a public writing, and not only declare that they are not D. Martin’s but have condemned them as false, and contrary to the plain truth of God’s Word.” P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 134, says: “Naturally the repudiation of this memorandum of Luther’s of March, 1530, on the part of theologians of the standing of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, who had actually sanctioned it themselves, was not of a nature to enhance the reputations of those theologians amongst such as had read Luther’s early writings on the behaviour to be observed towards the secular authority.” Cp. O. Clemen, “Bemerkungen zu Luthers Rathschlag an Kurfürst Johann von Sachsen vom 6. März 1530,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.[195]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 355 ff. The passage in question is also reprinted in Luther’s “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 273 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 241 f.[196]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 40 ff.[197]Ibid., p. 41. In Köstlin-Kawerau also (1, p. 600) it is pointed out that Luther “warns against any compliance with the [Emperor’s] call.”[198]Ibid.[199]“Ne susciperetur ullo modo bellum huiusmodi.” Cp. Luther to Spalatin, December 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333.[200]Ibid.[201]Propos., 34. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”9, p. 178. P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” 1905, seeks the actual source of the proposition condemned. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 352, merely quotes the passage from the Resolutions in which Luther incidentally speaks of the “Great lords in the Church,” “who dream of nothing but war against the Turks [for which purpose the Pope was at that time imposing taxes], and, instead of fighting sin, withstand God’s chastisement for sin and thus resist God Himself.”

[2]Cp. vol. ii., p. 398 f.

[3]J. Schmidlin, in the article “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” in the “Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1909, Nos. 14-16, p. 117. The writer even speaks of the “Klotz-Abhängigkeit” on God which was Luther’s ideal.

[4]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 436 ff.; Erl. ed., “Comment. in Galat.,” 1, p. iii. ff.; 3, p. 121 f.

[5]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275 f.

[6]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche, p. 75 ff.).

[7]Cp. Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott, etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 214; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15: “Faith is divided into three principal parts, according to the three persons of the Holy Trinity,” etc.

[8]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 41 ff., 143 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 322seq., 329seq.

[9]Ibid., pp. 686, 689; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 259, 261. In the latter passage he refers to the “sign of Grace,” which is “Christ on the Cross and all His dear Saints.”

[10]In “Bull. de littér. ecclésiast.,” 1909, p. 198 f.

[11]O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus” (“Prolegomena. Biblicismus und Traditionalismus in der altprotest. Theol.”), 1908, p. 98.

[12]Ibid., pp. 102, 103, 105.

[13]“Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 63. Cp.ibid., p. 7 and p. 100 and other passages where similar phrases occur. He says, for instance, of belief: “The Articles of Faith are contrary to all philosophy, geometry, arithmetic and indeed to all reason. It is a question of ‘est,’ ‘non,’ yes and no. This no one can reconcile.” For this reason he would not come to any “agreement” with Zwingli, who thought otherwise.

[14]Ritschl,ibid., p. 79.

[15]“Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 136, 1909, p. 35, in dealing with Luther’s “thisworldliness.”

[16]“De captivitate babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68.

[17]From the writing “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 23, 27 f.; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 179, 185 f.

[18]“De capt. bab.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 70.

[19]Ibid., p. 536 f.=68, 70.

[20]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 258 ff.; Erl. ed., 13², p. 228 f.

[21]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 157; Erl. ed., 27, p. 343.

[22]“Since Christ never commanded that the Sacrament should be received by everyone, it is permissible not only to receive only under one kind, but under neither.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 79; Erl. ed., 27, p. 72. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 507: “Cum Christus non praecepisset ulla (specie) uti”.

[23]The Larger Catechism of 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 129: “Here (in Scripture) we have God’s command and institution”; hence it is “seriously and strictly commanded that we be baptised on pain of not being saved.”

[24]To Haupold and others on September 17, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 257, andibid., 53, p. 77 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 236).

[25]The editor of the Weimar ed., 8, p. 132.

[26]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 127 (omitted in the 2nd edition). In 1524 Luther, when engaged with Münzer, still held that “all should preach stoutly and freely as they were able and against whomsoever they pleased.... Let the spirits fall upon one another and fight it out. Should some be led astray, so much the worse.” True doctrine being the fittest would nevertheless survive and prevail. To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 265 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). The contradiction involved in the freedom which Luther apparently concedes to him was pointed out by Münzer in his “Schutzrede,” Fol. C. III., “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375. Hence when Luther counselled that the revolt should be put down by force of arms, those who considered the war unjust, for instance because they happened to hold Anabaptist views, could well appeal to Luther and refuse to lend their assistance. (See present work, vol. ii., p. 311 f.)

[27]A. Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum,” Denifle, vol. ii., 1909, p. 251 f.

[28]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.

[29]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 12², p. 221.

[30]Though it might be urged that he subordinates the first too much to the second even in his earlier period. In the “Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott,” etc. (1520), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 215; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15, he teaches: “that there are two ways of believing: First, concerning God, when I believe what is said of God to be true, just as I believe that to be true which is said of the Turks, of the devil, or of hell; this faith is more a sort of knowledge, or observation, than real faith. According to the other we believeinGod (Credo in Deum), i.e. when I not only believe that to be true which is said of God, but place my trust in Him.... It is only such a faith which hazards all on God ... which makes a Christian.... This is a living faith ... and this none can give but God alone.” The Catholic Church, however, had always required a “living faith,” one working by charity (fides caritate formata). It is remarkable how much, in the above passage, Luther allows the formal principle of historical faith, viz. the authority of the Revealing God, to recede into the background.

[31]O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus,” 1, p. 81.

[32]“Histor. Zeitschrift,” 97, p. 1 ff. Art.: “Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt,” p. 28: “It is evident that Protestantism cannot be regarded as directly paving the way for the modern world. On the contrary, it appears rather as an entire reversion to mediæval fashions of thought. It is shown that Protestantism was and yet is, at least to some extent, a hindrance to the development of the modern world.”

[33]“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 830, n.

[34]Letter of December, 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266). There we read: “God is older than all the Councils and the Fathers.” “Are we to send God to school and prune the feathers (quill pens) of the Holy Ghost?” “We hazard all on the Word ... against all the Churches.”Ibid., p. 235-238=21-25.

[35]“Theolog. Literaturztg.,” 1884, p. 37seq.

[36]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 228. Church postils.

[37]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.

[38]Ibid., 6, p. 540=5, p. 74.

[39]Through the “Reformer sent by God,” the Father had “revealed” the mystery of His Son. Thus Bugenhagen, on February 22, 1546. Cp. vol. vi., XL., 2.

[40]“Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16 Jahrh.,” 1904, p. 30 ff.

[41]“Die christliche Religion” in “Kultur der Gegenwart,” 1, p. 4, 397.Ibid.: “The final result is the recognition by Protestantism of an internal antinomy of religion and Church, which are unable to subsist without each other nor yet to suffer each other, from which conflict there can only spring a fresh presentment of the purer, churchless, Christian idea.”

[42]“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 689 (1², p. 723).

[43]“Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, p. 74seq., 147seq.

[44]“Christliche Welt,” 1904, No. 26.

[45]“Monatskorr. des Evangel. Bundes,” 1908, No. 9.

[46]“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. vii. f.

[47]“An den christlichen Adel,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 428; Erl. ed., 21, p. 307.

[48]Ibid., 429=308.

[49]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 258; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 197 f.: “Seeing that Bishops and Prelates remain quiescent, do not resist, care but little and so leave Christendom to go to destruction, we must humbly implore God’s help to oppose the evil, and after that put our own hands to the job.... It is not right that we should support the servants and menials of the Pope and even his court fools and harlots to the harm and injury of our souls.... These, surely, are the real Turks whom the King, the Princes and the Nobles ought to attack first,” just as a father of a family who has gone out of his mind “must be placed under restraint and controlled.... The best and only thing to do was, for the King, Princes, Nobles, townships and parishes to put their hands to the business and make an end of it themselves, so that the bishops and clergy, who are so timorous, may be able to follow.... Nor must any attention be paid to the ban and the threats by means of which they fancy they can save their skins.”

[50]In strange contrast, to the last passage quoted, he goes on to inculcate the most respectful obedience to the secular authorities: “Even though they do what is wrong, still God wills that they should be obeyed without subterfuge or danger” (p. 259=198). They have “nothing to do with the preaching and the faith.” “They must not be resisted even though they do what is unjust” (ibid.). “There are many abuses prevalent amongst the secular authorities,” etc. (p. 260=199). He is accordingly very anxious for their improvement.

[51]To Spalatin, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90.

[52]Preface to the writing “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt wie weytt man yhr Gehorsam schuldig sey” (1523). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.

[53]“Vom Missbrauch der Messen,” 1521-1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139. To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 219: “Principem esse et non aliqua parte latronem esse, aut non aut vix possibile est, eoque maiorem, quo maior princeps fuerit.” This he says in excuse of his acceptance of the hospitality of the Wartburg offered him by the Elector.

[54]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”

[55]To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 f.; Erl. ed., 55, p. 256 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). Cp. for above passages P. Drews “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” in “Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, Ergänzungsheft, p. 31 ff.

[56]Drews,ibid., p. 34.

[57]Cp. vol. ii., p. 113.

[58]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Church Postils. Sermon for Easter Monday, published in 1523. Order and instruction [how henceforward the sacrament is to be received]. Cp.ibid., p. 197. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 298, where Luther says: “Those who do not believe do not belong to the kingdom of Christ, but to the kingdom of the world.”

[59]“Troubled consciences” alone would appreciate the consolation in his chief doctrine, viz. that of Justification, for which reason Melanchthon in the apology of the Augsburg Confession (“Symbol. Bücher10,” pp. 87, 90, 118, 120, 174) is fond of representing Justification by faith alone under the aspect of a solace and consolation amidst the terrors of conscience caused by the consciousness of sin. Whoever had not experienced such fears could have no real understanding of Justification. Such a view of Justification, K. Holl, a Protestant theologian, remarks had its value while it was still a question of winning over Catholics to the new teaching, since, according to Luther, the Catholic trust in works necessarily led to “despair.” But, in the new generation, who had grown up as Lutherans, “consciences were already comforted before ever they experienced any terrors”; nor did Luther make it at all plain how often, i.e. whether “once only or more frequently,” it was necessary to experience the consoling power of the Gospel amidst terrors of conscience in order to arrive at the full assurance of Justification. “Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906, p. 14.

[60]“Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne ... Macht habe alle Lere zu urteylen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.

[61]We have indicated in the above our own position with respect to two opposing views recently put forward concerning the development of the early Lutheran Church, viz. P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (see above, p. 24, n. 4), and H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., with epilogue on Drews. See also vol. v., xxx., 2, on State and State Church according to Luther’s views and complaints. While Drews emphasises the “congregations of true believers” as “Luther’s ideal” (p. 103), Hermelink lays stress on the fact that Luther always believed that in the last instance the Christian authorities would be forced to introduce and see to the uniformity of worship in their lands. The disagreement on so vital an historical question only emphasises anew the want of consistency in Luther and the contradictions contained in his statements. See vol. ii., p. 112, n. 1. Cp. p. 294 ff., and the quotation (from W. Hans): “The contradictions in the theory [Luther’s] and between his theory and practice can never be explained.”

[62]Cp. Melanchthon’s tract “De potestate papæ” added to the Schmalkalden Articles in “Die symbolischen Bücher,”101907, ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 339: “Imprimis autem oportet præcipua membra ecclesiæ, reges et principes, consulere ecclesiæ.... Prima enim cura regum esse debet, ut ornent gloriam Dei.” Above all, he says, referring to the Papacy, they must not make use of their power “ad confirmandam idolatriam et cetera infinita flagitia et ad faciendas cædes sanctorum.”

[63]R. Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 561, who appeals to passages in Luther’s “Von guten Wercken,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198 f. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 299.

[64]Sohm,ibid., p. 579.

[65]Melanchthon even describes it as the first duty of the principal member of the Church: “curare, ut errores tollantur et conscientiæ sanentur.” “Symbolische Bücher,”ibid.

[66]Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 579.

[67]Ibid., p. 615, where the passages from Jonas’s writings are given.

[68]Ibid., pp. 630, 618; for further details on the Consistories and Luther’s relations to them, see our vol. v., xxx., 3; cp. xxxv., 2.

[69]Wilhelm Hans, a Protestant theologian, quoted in our vol. ii., p. 312.

[70]First edition, p. 127. In the second edition the passage commencing with the words “The so-called” has been altered.

[71]“Luthers Anschauung vom Staate und der Gesellschaft” (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.”), 1901, p. 25. Elsewhere Luther speaks otherwise. We must remember that in the above writing he has in mind chiefly the Catholic authorities who were opposing the new Evangel.

[72]Ibid.

[73]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 183.

[74]Ibid., p. 185.

[75]Brandenburg, p. 24, from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 257. Commentary on Psalm lxxxii.

[76]“Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., 479 ff.

[77]“Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 344 f.

[78]On the development of Luther’s idea of the Church, see vol. vi., xxxviii., 3 and 4. On the shaping of the relations between Church and State by Luther, see vol. v., xxxv., 2.

[79]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 259).

[80]On November 30, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 337 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 277 ff.).

[81]C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächsischen Kirchen-und Schulvisitation von 1524 bis 1545,” 1879, p. 16.

[82]To Johann, Elector of Saxony, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[83]To the Elector Johann in the letter quoted above.

[84]To Spalatin, on March 19, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 263).

[85]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[86]Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 114.

[87]In the work “An den christlichen Adel” of 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 285. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 296.

[88]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413=290.

[89]To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).

[90]To the Elector Johann, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[91]To Spalatin at Altenburg, January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 2 ff. Spalatin had resigned the Court Chaplaincy on the death of the Elector Frederick and become pastor of Altenburg. From this time Luther’s letters to him assume a different character, the consideration for the Court and the desire to work on it through Spalatin being no longer apparent. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 23.

[92]To Amsdorf, January 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 532.

[93]See below, xvii., 5, and vol. iv., xxii., 5.

[94]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 205; Erl. ed., 23, p. 93. “Von Ehesachen,” 1530.

[95]“Symbol. Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 204, art. 13.

[96]Ibid., p. 343.

[97]On January 7, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 6.

[98]Ibid., pp. 6, 7.

[99]“Werke,” Wittenberg ed., 9, p. 244. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 8, n. 1.

[100]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 240. “Table-Talk.”

[101]On January 18, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716 f.

[102]On January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 4.

[103]Will of January 6, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422.

[104]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 469; Erl. ed., 25², p. 126. Dating from the commencement of 1531.

[105]Ibid., p. 447=111.

[106]See vol. ii., p. 391.

[107]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332seq.“Table-Talk.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 133 of the year 1540.

[108]On May 8, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 5 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274).

[109]On same date,ibid., p. 6 (“Briefwechsel,”ibid.).

[110]On March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[111]In the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8. It is true that this and the following statement belong to the period subsequent to the Diet of Augsburg, but they also throw light on the earlier period.

[112]In a Latin memorandum which Enders with some probability assigns to the latter half of August, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76: “Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus; pacem enim ad ima tartara relegandam esse dico, quæ cum evangelii iactura redimitur.” There are no grounds for doubting Luther’s authorship, but the original was probably written in German.

[113]W. Walther, “Luthers Waffen,” 1886, p. 158, and his “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 246 ff., 278 ff.

[114]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of the Gospel of St. John, 1530-1532. Cp. Walther,ibid.

[115]Walther,ibid., p. 170.

[116]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.

[117]Ibid., p. 224.

[118]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 621; Erl. ed., 24², p. 46, in the work “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” 1520.

[119]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 330 in the “Kirchenpostille.”

[120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121, “Kirchenpostille.”

[121]An earlier explanation of Luther’s as to the way in which he understood destruction only shows that then, in 1522, he was averse to the carrying out of such a project: “This destruction and annihilation I would not have understood as meaning the use of violence and the sword. For they are not worthy of such chastisement nor would anything be gained by it—but as Daniel viii. teaches: Antichrist shall be destroyed without hands, when everyone teaches, speaks and holds God’s Word against him.... This is a true Christian destruction.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178. Even H. Preuss recognises in his “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” p. 115, that, in Luther’s replies to Alveld and in his epitome of Silvester Prierias, “there smoulders such anger as shows that recourse to arms was imminent.” Cp. passages from Luther’s writings referred to in vol. ii., p. 190, n. 3.

[122]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 180 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 105), in a “Memorandum on the abolition of the Mass and monastic life, etc.,” dated July 13, and assigned by Enders to the year 1530.

[123]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. trans.), 5, p. 288.

[124]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 76seq., where will be found the opinions of Link, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and Amsdorf, given at the same time as to “whether a ruler may protect his subjects against religious persecution by the Emperor or other Princes by engaging in war?” Cp. the printed form of Luther’s opinion given in G. Berbig, “Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” Hft. 5, Leipzig, 1908, p. 98 f.

[125]“(Oportet) ut id vocante aliquo singulari spiritu et fide faciat; alias omnino cedere debet et ipse gladio superiori et cum christianis, quos patitur, mori.” Instead of “patitur,” as Enders has it, Berbig has “fatetur,” which is certainly better.

[126]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, pp. 1 and 55, p. 264 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231) (March 28, 1528).

[127]To Chancellor Brück, March 28, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 266 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231).

[128]v. Schubert, “Beiträge zur Gesch. der evangel. Bekenntnis-und Bündnisbildung, 1529-1530,” “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 273 f., an article giving interesting details concerning the earlier history of the League of Schmalkalden.

[129]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxiii., and, still better, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette (Seidemann), 6, p. 105 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 192). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 647 f.

[130]v. Schubert,ibid., p. 306 f.

[131]Cp. Melanchthon in the letter to Bugenhagen, Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 248.

[132]v. Schubert,ibid., p. 313.

[133]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 138 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 239).

[134]Ibid., p. 142.

[135]Ibid., p. 140 f. On the memorandum destined to become famous, cp. O. Clemen’s article in “Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.

[136]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 20.

[137]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[138]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 284.

[139]Reprinted by Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 286. Written on October 21, 1530.

[140]Luther to Lazarus Spengler, February 15, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361): “It happened that they disputed sharply with us at Torgau.”

[141]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.

[142]See vol. ii., p. 391 ff.

[143]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 265.

[144]Ibid., p. 266 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296, dated “end of October, 1530”).

[145]Cp. Enders “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 299 f.

[146]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[147]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344. See below, p. 60.

[148]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 225. Enders (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298) gave reasons for dating it at the “end of October, 1530.”

[149]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[150]Text in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296 f. For above date see also O. Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 1530-1532, und der Nürnberger Religionsfriede,” 1892, p. 271.

[151]Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298, from M. M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 78.

[152]Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22; Mayer,ibid., p. 73.

[153]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 469.

[154]Ibid., p. 471.

[155]Enders, 8, p. 322.

[156]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344.

[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 290, in the “Hauspostille,” Second Sermon for the 5th Sunday after Epiphany (c.1532).

[158]To Lazarus Spengler, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361). Cp. Ludw. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volks im Luthertum und im Calvinismus des 16. Jahrhunderts, Diss.,” 1903, pp. 6-18.

[159]To a Nuremberg burgher, March 18, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 221 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 378).

[160]Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund,” p. 91. Cp. Enders, 8, p. 361, n. 2.

[161]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22.

[162]From the Gotha Cod., 399, fol. 139, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 242.

[163]Sammelschrift ohne Gesamttitel, Dresden, 1532. Vorne: Innhalt dieses Büchleins. 1. Ein Auszug usw.; 2. Rathschlag M. Luthers an den Churfürsten von Sachsen; 3. Erklärung usw.

[164]For further particulars of the criticism of Cochlæus, see Enders, 7, p. 242 ff.

[165]Cp. the extract given by Enders,ibid., 244.

[166]See vol. ii., p. 171 f. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 277.

[167]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. Enders refers it to the “latter half of August, 1531.”

[168]On December 12, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 204 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 331).

[169]Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 318, p. 292 ff.

[170]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332 and Mathesius “Tischreden,” p. 133. Account given in his own words.

[171]“Werke,”ibid., p. 334seq.

[172]On July 14, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 63.

[173]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 134.

[174]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 362.

[175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 334, “Tischreden.”

[176]Ibid.

[177]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 363seq.

[178]Ibid., p. 366seq.: “Ita ut nos habeamus gladium traditum possessorium. Cæsar vero tantum in nobis habet gladium petitorium, these are not timesut tempore martyrum, ubi Diocletianus solus regebat.”

[179]The passage from “indeed if one” to “as a tyrant” was omitted by Rebenstock in his Table-Talk and is differently worded in the German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 194 f.

[180]“Colloquia,” l.c., pp. 365, 367: “Papæ adimo gladium, non cæsari, quia papa non debet esse magistratus neque tyrannus.”

[181]In the “Tischreden” of Mathesius (p. 80), Luther says: “We shall never be successful against them [the Turks] unless we fall upon them and the priests at the right moment and smite them dead.” The editor remarks: “By this he can only mean the priests in general, not those only of the two small bishoprics.” See vol. ii., p. 324. Cp. vol. ii., p. 325, and N. Paulus, “Luther über die Tötung katholischer Geistlichen” (Histor.-polit. Blätter 147, 1911), p. 92 ff.

[182]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 402.

[183]Commencement of December, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ qui illos occiderent.”

[184]See xv., 4. For reply see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.

[185]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78, and Letters ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 223.

[186]Thus the editor of the memorandum, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 80 f., with a reference to the document in question in the Weimar Archives, and to Seckendorf, 3, pp. 200, 252.

[187]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” p. 6, 60 f.

[188]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87; “Briefe,” 5, p. 159.

[189]“That given under the Elector Johann,” says Luther, i.e. that of March, 1530 (above, p. 52), in which Luther had declared that armed resistance against the Emperor “can in no way be reconciled with Scripture.”

[190]“Briefe,” 5, p. 188. The passage concludes with a translation of the Latin text appended by a later hand.

[191]On June 11, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 165; “Briefe,” 5, p. 188.

[192]On December 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 313; “Briefe,” 5, p. 233.

[193]Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 245 ff., where he gives extracts from the publication in question. According to him, Luther’s friend, J. Menius, also introduces the memorandum with the words: “An old writingsaid to beby the Reverend D. M. L.” “On self-defence,” 1547.

[194]The tract is printed by Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges,” 2, Gotha, 1645, p. 39 ff., and the passage in question (p. 50) runs: “D. Pommer and Melanchthon have repudiated D. Martin’s counsels to the Elector Johann ... in a public writing, and not only declare that they are not D. Martin’s but have condemned them as false, and contrary to the plain truth of God’s Word.” P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 134, says: “Naturally the repudiation of this memorandum of Luther’s of March, 1530, on the part of theologians of the standing of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, who had actually sanctioned it themselves, was not of a nature to enhance the reputations of those theologians amongst such as had read Luther’s early writings on the behaviour to be observed towards the secular authority.” Cp. O. Clemen, “Bemerkungen zu Luthers Rathschlag an Kurfürst Johann von Sachsen vom 6. März 1530,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.

[195]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, 218, p. 355 ff. The passage in question is also reprinted in Luther’s “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 273 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 241 f.

[196]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 40 ff.

[197]Ibid., p. 41. In Köstlin-Kawerau also (1, p. 600) it is pointed out that Luther “warns against any compliance with the [Emperor’s] call.”

[198]Ibid.

[199]“Ne susciperetur ullo modo bellum huiusmodi.” Cp. Luther to Spalatin, December 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333.

[200]Ibid.

[201]Propos., 34. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”9, p. 178. P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” 1905, seeks the actual source of the proposition condemned. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 352, merely quotes the passage from the Resolutions in which Luther incidentally speaks of the “Great lords in the Church,” “who dream of nothing but war against the Turks [for which purpose the Pope was at that time imposing taxes], and, instead of fighting sin, withstand God’s chastisement for sin and thus resist God Himself.”

Back to Index Next