Chapter 34

[202]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 108 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f. “On the Turkish War,” 1529.[203]Ibid., p. 110=35 f.[204]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 708 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 18; “Bul. of the Evening Feed of our most Holy Lord the Pope.”[205]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 f. “On the Turkish War.” “I fear that Germany will fall to the Turks. But I, poor Luther, am supposed to be to blame for everything; even the Peasant Revolt and the denial of the Sacrament are laid to my charge.” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 392, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.[206]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 ff.[207]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 160 ff.=80 ff. The Turk as a “Maker of Martyrs,” p. 175=96.[208]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 205 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 248 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 514seq.[209]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396 f. “Table-Talk.”[210]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.[211]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 397.[212]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 115; Erl. ed., 31, p. 40. “On the Turkish War.”[213]Ibid., p. 196=119. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 149: “Ego credo Turcicum regnum non posse vi opprimi” (a. 1540).[214]“Werke,”ibid., p. 197=121.[215]Ibid., p. 113=39. Even the taking of Rome in 1527 proves the proposition which the Pope had condemned. “Christ has determined to teach them to understand my Article, that Christians must not fight; the condemned Article is now avenged” (p. 115=41).[216]Ibid., p. 111=36.[217]Ibid., p. 148=79. At the Diet of Spires in 1529.[218]Ibid., p. 148=79.[219]“Werke,” p. 195=118. This he continued to assert to the very end of his life. In 1545 he writes: “The Turk also seduces the world, but he does not sit in the Temple of God, does not take the name of Christ and St. Peter ... but this destroyer in our midst pretends to be a friend, wants to be styled father, and is twice as bad as the Turk. This is the abomination of desolation,” etc. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 211. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom, vom Teuffel gestifft.”[220]Ibid., p. 195=119.[221]Ibid., p. 148=79. It is impossible to concur in the unconditional praise usually bestowed upon Luther by Protestants on account of his attitude in the midst of the Turkish peril. It was even said that he gave expression in powerful language, and without any thought of personal interest, to what God required “of every Christian and every German” in this emergency. Nor is it correct to state “that the contradiction with his later views was merely apparent” when he expressed himself at first as against the campaign. How real the contradiction is can be seen not only from the above and from what follows, but also from his later recommendations based on religious motives in favour of the war. Thus he says in the “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken” of the year 1541 (see vol. v., xxxiv. 2): “We are fighting to preserve God’s Word and His Church,” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 95 f.).[222]“Dialogue de bello contra Turcas, in antilogias Lutheri.”[223]On December 16, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 205. For Brück’s reply, cp. Hassencamp, “Hessische Kirchengesch.,” 1, p. 215, 1.[224]To Melanchthon, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 303. At the end are greetings to the two other friends referred to. The latter would inform the Elector of the anxieties and prayers of the writer.[225]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 396.[226]On Ezechiel xxxviii.-xxxix., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 219 ff., Erl. ed., 41, p. 220 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 200.[227]Cp. A. Westermann, “Die Türkenhilfe und die politischkirchlichen Parteien auf dem Reichstag zu Regensburg 1532,” Heidelberg, 1910.[228]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 389. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405, concerning the news of an impending attack by the Turks in 1538: “I look upon it as a fresh invention of Ferdinand’s; he is planning another tax such as he devised before.”[229]Ibid., p. 401.[230]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.[231]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 393.[232]Ibid., 55, p. 202 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 370).[233]On Ferdinand’s reason for not seeking the Elector’s help, see Enders on the letter referred to, p. 371.[234]Cp., for instance, Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 257: “Pray!Quia non est spes amplius in armis, sed in Deo.If anyone is to beat the Turk, it will surely be the little children, who say the Our Father,” etc. (1542).[235]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 394.[236]To Amsdorf, June 13, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 196.[237]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 406.[238]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 399.[239]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 113; Erl. ed., 31, p. 39. “On the Turkish War,” 1529. “The angels are arming themselves for the fight and are determined to overthrow the Turk, together with the Pope, and to cast them both into hell” (1540). Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 244.[240]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, p. 395seq.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 379. Other instances of the hatred which caused him to compare Pope with Turk are to be found in the “Table-Talk” ed. by Kroker, according to the collection of Mathesius: “Propter crudelitatem, Philippus [Melanchthon] is hostile to the Turk ... but Philippus is not yet sufficiently angry with the Pope,” p. 307 (1542-1543). “Deus hunc articulum (incarnationis) defendit hodie contra Turcam et papam semperque miraculis approbat,” p. 94 (1540).[241]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 401.[242]Ibid., 403.[243]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391.[244]This is the only possible explanation of the following prayer contained in the solemn service for the Ordination of Ministers which he had drafted: “That Thou wouldst at length restrain and put an end to the wicked atrocities of the Pope and Mahometh and other factious spirits, who blaspheme Thy Name, destroy Thy Kingdom and resist Thy Will” (ibid., 64, p. 292).[245]Ibid., 62, p. 389.[246]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 31, p. 33.[247]Ibid., 19, p. 631, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526.[248]Ibid., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.[249]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406 f. “Tischreden.”[250]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231. “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottisdiensts,” 1526. In connection with Luther’s favourite expression “We Germans,” we may here remark that Luther’s opponents at Leipzig spread the report that he was really of Bohemian origin. This they did when, in his Sermon on the Body of Christ, preached in 1519, he had demanded the general use of the chalice at communion, as did the Utraquists of Bohemia. As to this statement that “I was born in Bohemia, educated at Prague and instructed in Wiclif’s writings,” Luther replied in his writing: “Erklerung etlicher Artickel yn seynem Sermon von dem heyligen Sacrament,” 1520, that this was a “piece of folly.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 81 f.[251]Cp. “Tischreden.” c. 76: “Von Landen und Städten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 405 ff. Before this we read,ibid., p. 390: “Germany has always been the best land and nation; but what befell Troy will also befall her,” etc.[252]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406.[253]Cp. above p. 55, p. 71 f. and p. 77, the passages against the Emperor, who “boasts so shamelessly of being the true, chief protector of the Christian faith,” though he is but “a poor bag of worms,” and against his blind and hidden falsehoods. Other abuse of the Emperor, interspersed with praise, will be quoted below (p. 104 f.).[254]To Johann Ludicke, Pastor at Cottbus, on February 8, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87. Cp. above, p. 72 f.[255]To the Elector Johann Frederick in January, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78. Cp. above, p. 70 f.[256]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 281 f., 300 f.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 10 f., 30.[257]Ibid., p. 290=22.[258]Doctor Johann Mensing, O.P., a literary opponent of Luther’s, in dedicating a polemical tract of 1526, defends the Catholics’ sense of patriotism, speaking of Luther as the “destroyer of our fair German land” (see “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 478). Another Dominican, Thomas Rhadinus Todischus, in 1520, in the title of a work published at Rome, describes him as “violating the glory of the nation” (“nationis gloriam violans”). The latter work was attributed by Luther and Melanchthon to Emser, who, however, repudiated the authorship. Cp.ibid., 7, p. 259.[259]See vol. i., p. 403.[260]Ibid.[261]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 289; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 9 f.[262]“Luthers Stellung zu Concil und Kirche,” 1876, p. 69.[263]H. Meltzer, “Luther als deutscher Mann,” Tübingen, 1905, p. 56.[264]Cp. above, p. 45 f. “Let things take their course and do their worst, whether it be war or rebellion, as God’s anger may decree.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[265]On November 10, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 407: “Ego pæne de Germania desperavi,” etc. Of this passage we read in Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 572): “The exaltation which had been experienced by every grade of the nation during the first period of the Reformation had, as a matter of fact, largely died out, and now the lowest motives held sway.”[266]On March 7, 1543,ibid., p. 548: “Neque bene habebit Germania, sive regnet Turca sive nostrates,” etc.[267]See vol. v., xxxv., 6.[268]Ibid., xxxv., 3.[269]Ibid.[270]“Deutsche Literaturztg.,” 1905, No. 10, Scheel’s Review of H. Meltzer’s “Luther als deutscher Mann” (see above, p. 98, n. 1).[271]Meltzer,ibid., 56.[272]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57.[273]“Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat,” p. 10, 386 f.[274]“Vorträge über die Wiedervereinigung der chr. Kirchen,” authentic edition, 1888, p. 53 f. Cp. E. Michael, “Döllinger,³” p. 230 ff. Michael rightly quotes the following striking passage of the earlier Döllinger as descriptive of the attitude of the Church towards Luther: “May not the time come, nay, be already at hand, when [Protestant] preachers and theologians will take a calmer view of things and realise that the Catholic Church in Germany only did what she could not avoid doing? All the reproaches and charges made against this Church amount in fine to this, that she rejected the demand made of her in the name of the Reformation to break with her past, that she remained faithful to her traditions, that she persisted in developing along the lines originally laid down, and resolved to fulfil her task while holding fast to the uninterrupted continuity of her ecclesiastical life and her connection with the other portions of the Church” (“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 490).[275]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 14, p. 408 f.[276]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 77, in “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”[277]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222. “Zwey keyserliche ... Gepott,” 1524.[278]In the same way that he here abuses the Emperor, so he also knows how to bestow praise upon him; for instance, in the official writing referred to above (p. 89) to the Electoral Prince Joachim of Brandenburg and in his “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” where he declares, strangely enough, that “our beloved Emperor Carol” has shown himself hitherto, and last of all at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, such, that he has won the respect and love of the whole world and deserves that no trouble should befall him, and that our people should only speak in praise of his Imperial virtue (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23), and yet, even there, in consequence of his edict against the new faith at the Diet of Augsburg, he puts the Emperor with the Pope, as the originators of a resolution which “must prove an eternal blot upon all the Princes and the whole Empire, and make us Germans blush for shame before God and the whole world,” so that “even the Turk, the ‘Tattars’ and ‘Moscobites’ despise us.” “Who under the whole expanse of heaven will for the future fear us or think well of us when they hear that we allow ourselves to be hoaxed, mocked, treated as children, as fools, nay, even as clods and blocks by the cursed Pope and his tools [who hold the Emperor in leading strings]?... Every German may well regret that he was born a German and is called a German” (ibid., p. 285=15). On the strength of the words quoted above in praise of the Emperor we find Luther credited in Protestant works of history with “the old, loyal sentiments of a good, simple German for his Emperor,” nay, even with “the language of charity which according to Holy Scripture believes all things, hopes all things.” And yet Luther in his letters to his confidential friends spoke after this of Charles V. in the following terms: “The Emperor was, is, and shall ever remain a servant of the servants of the devil,” and the worst of it is, that he “lends the devil his services knowingly” (to Jonas, etc., March or April, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 275). “God’s wrath has come upon him and his friends.... We have prayed enough for him, if he does not want a blessing, then let him take our curse.” He accuses him of hypocrisy (“purus hypocrita”) and of breach of faith with the Turks after his stay at Vienna; he had swallowed up the Bishopric of Liège and intended to do the same with all the bishoprics along the Rhine (to Melanchthon, June 17, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 370). “I suspect the Emperor is a miscreant (‘quod sit nequam’) and his brother Ferdinand is an abominable bounder” (to Amsdorf, October 21, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 764).[279]Commencement of the work: “Zwey keyserliche Gepott,” 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 221.[280]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22 in the “Warnunge” referred to above.[281]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”[282]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 463 f; Erl. ed., 21, p. 352 f. “An den christl. Adel.”[283]It will not be possible to enter one by one into the somewhat remarkable reasons assigned in the popular Protestant biographies of Luther as to why Luther should be regarded as the type of the German character. We there read, that the stamp of the German character is to be found in the fact that he “always acted upon impulse”—which seems to be based on the correct view of Luther as a child of impulse, who allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. The following reason is less clear, viz. that he was “A German through and through because he sought for the roots of all life, of the family, the race, the State and civilisation, in personality as directly determined by feeling.” Reference is frequently made to Luther’s frank and upright character and to his undaunted love of truth. The facts bearing upon this point, already adduced, or to be dealt with in chapter xxii. of the present work (vol. iv.), dispense us from treating of this matter here. To base Luther’s claim to being a typical German on his manner of speech is to run the risk of bringing Germans into disrepute, if we recall the rude invective in which he often indulges and which he employs when, as he says, he is speaking plain German to his opponents. “This is the German way of speaking,” he constantly repeats after explosions of anger and vulgar abuse. This, for instance, is the way in which he gives the “Romans a German answer.” On one occasion he describes in a repulsive manner how the “strumpet church of the Pope” behaves: “She plays the whore with everyone,” is an “apostate, runaway, wedded whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore”; compared with her “light women are holy, for she is the devil’s own whore,” who makes of many of the faithful virgins of Christ, born in baptism, arch-whores. “This is what I call plain German speaking, and you and everyone can understand what I mean.” On the same page he continues: “It has happened to them [the Papists] according to the proverb: the dog has returned to his vomit and the sow that was washed to wallow in the mire. That is what you are, and what I once was. There you have your new, apostate, runaway churches described for you in plain German.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26² p. 46. “Wider Hans Worst,” 1541.[284]Cp. vol. i., p. 396 f., his statements concerning the incident in the Tower. See also vol. i., p. 166 ff., and p. 280 ff.[285]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. “Hanc doctrinam mihi (Deus) revelavit per gratiam suam.” In 1527.[286]Cochlæus in his account (June 12, 1521) of his conversation with Luther at Worms: “Est mihi revelatum,” etc. In Enders’ reprint, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 176; in the new edition by Greving (“Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit,” 4, 3, 1910), p. 19.[287]“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23 (a. 1523).[288]“Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 81, n.[289]Khummer in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 62, n.: “Doctor Martinus Lutherus indignus sum, sed dignus fui creari ... redimi ... doceri a filio Dei et Spiritu sancto, fui (dignus) cui ministerium verbi crederetur, fui qui pro eo tanta paterer, fui qui in tot malis servarer, fui cui præciperetur ista credere, fui cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem.” Cp. “Briefe,” 5, p. 324, and 6, p. 520, n. 6.[290]On March 5, 1522, at Borna, on the journey from the Wartburg to Wittenberg. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).[291]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379, in the work: “Antwort auff König Henrichs Buch,” 1522.[292]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 276. “Table-Talk.”[293]See vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.[294]See vol. v., xxxii.[295]See, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641: “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162seq.“De servo arbitrio,” 1525.[296]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 314. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 208.[297]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315.[298]See, for instance, iv., xxvi., 2.[299]Cp. for instance, his letter to Nicholas Amsdorf, about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 23.[300]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261, in the work “Widder den Radschlag der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.”[301]To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344: “Data est mihi notio futuræ alicuius insignis turbulæ.... Vidi cogitationes eius (Satanæ) artificiosissimas,” etc.[302]To Spalatin, July 9, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 429 f.[303]In 1519, after February 24,ibid., 2, p. 6.[304]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6.[305]To Wenceslaus Link on June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201.[306]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 185.[307]To Christoph Scheurl, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 433: “Dei consilium.”[308]To Staupitz, February 20, 1519,ibid., 1, p. 431.[309]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 109 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[310]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 280; Erl. ed., 27, p. 217. In 1521.[311]Ibid., p. 281=219.[312]Ibid., p. 281=218.[313]To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.[314]To the Archbishop of Mayence, December 1, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 251).[315]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.[316]See below, p. 153 ff.[317]Ibid.[318]To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, in July, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 f. He admits that he has not “thefulnessof the Spirit.”[319]Mathesius, “Historien,” pp. 195´, 196.[320]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 156.[321]P. 150.[322]See especially vol. v., xxxi. Many other proofs will be found scattered throughout our volumes.[323]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 348; 60, p. 31, 70; 53, p. 342 (Letter of the beginning of April, 1525, to the Christians at Antwerp, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151, and “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547).[324]His intention was to collect the “portenta Satanæ” in order to make the “salutaria miracula Evangelii quotidie inundantia” known everywhere. Thus to Justus Jonas on January 23, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 429.[325]Regarding his psychic troubles and hallucinations, see vol. vi., xxxvi.[326]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 99.[327]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. Link, as Staupitz’s successor in the Vicariate of the Order, had proclaimed at the commencement of the year in the Augustinian chapter at Wittenberg the freedom of religious to forsake their convents and the abolition of the so-called “Corner-Masses,” which Luther refers to in the letter in question as being a singular “deed of the Holy Ghost.”[328]To Staupitz at Salzburg, Wittenberg, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.[329]Beginning of April, “Letters,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 339. Cp. a similar statement made to the Elector on June 24, 1541,ibid., p. 373: “God, Who has begun it without our strength or reason, will carry it out as He sees best” (of the Ratisbon Interim).[330]Ibid., pp. 339, 340.[331]On April 12, 1541, “Briefe,”ibid., p. 341 f.[332]On March 26, 1542, to Jacob Probst, “Briefe,” 5, p. 451. Similarly on December 3, 1544, to Cordatus,ibid., p. 702.[333]From the letter to Justus Jonas of September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.[334]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 26², p. 8, in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[335]“Considerations on the proposed Conditions of Peace,” of August, 1531(?), “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. See above, p. 45, n. 5.[336]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of St. John’s Gospel, 1530-1532.[337]Ibid., p. 605seq.=342.[338]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 253; Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.[339]Ibid., 6, p. 621=24², p. 46.[340]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121.[341]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 298, 304).[342]Ibid., Weim. ed., 8, p. 691; Erl. ed., 24², p. 168.[343]Ibid., p. 709=189.[344]Ibid.[345]Thus it is that he excuses the blustering character of his writings against those who defended the Church.[346]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 176, 229, 242, in the work “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”[347]Ibid., p. 242.[348]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.[349]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 147.[350]Ibid., p. 163 f.[351]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 195 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 119.[352]Ibid., Erl. ed., 25², p. 283.[353]Ibid., 60, p. 180.[354]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 404seq.[355]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 288; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91.[356]Ibid., Erl. ed., 27, p. 77.[357]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 77.[358]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 263.[359]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 106.[360]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 260.[361]Ibid., p. 263.[362]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 155.[363]Ibid., 20², p. 233.[364]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 83.[365]Ibid., p. 404.[366]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432.[367]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 269.[368]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5, p. 346 f.[369]Ibid., 46, p. 10.[370]The passages quoted stand in the following order: pp. 77, 81, 82, 77, 78, 82. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 18 f.[371]P. 81.[372]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 8.[373]Letter in 1521 to “the poor little flock of Christ at Wittenberg,” before August 12, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 213; Erl. ed., 39, p. 128 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 217).[374]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14, p. 158.[375]Ibid., 26², p. 145.[376]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 307.[377]Cp. vol. iv., xxiii., 1, where Luther’s attitude to Erasmus subsequent to the publication of “De servo arbitrio” (1525) is treated of more fully.[378]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 301.[379]On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489 f.[380]Luther to Amsdorf about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 8 ff. The letter was published by Luther.[381]“Quodsi Martinus illud sibi proposuit, persuadere mundo Erasmum hoc agere callidis artibus et insidiosis cuniculis, ut omnes Christianos adducat in odium veræ religionis, frustra nititur. Citius enim persuaserit omnibus se aut odio lymphatum esse aut mentis morbo teneri, aut a sinistro quopiam agitari genio.” “Purgatio adversus Epistolam non sobriam Martini Lutheri.” “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., t. 10, col. 1557.[382]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff.[383]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 264.[384]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162.[385]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406 f.[386]To Spalatin, May 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 193.[387]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 527: “Christus viderit, suane sint an mea.”[388]Vol. ii., p. 41 f.[389]“Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, Frankfurt, 1699, p. 42 (with the epitaph quoted above), and p. 75.[390]“Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in vol. xxiv. of his edition of Luther, pp. 379, 376.[391]How little this view of Luther fits in with his own estimate of himself may be seen from the following statements which occur in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1531, vol. i., in Irmischer’s ed.): Heretics, owing to a delusion of Satan, consider their doctrines as absolutely certain; founders of sects, more particularly, will never allow themselves to be converted by our proofs from Scripture, as we see in the case of the fanatics; so well does the devil know how to assume the shape of Christ. “I, however, am persuaded by the Spirit of Christ, that my doctrine of Christian righteousness is true and certain (sum certus et persuasus per spiritum Christi, p. 288); therefore I cannot listen to anything to the contrary.” Hence “the Pope, the Cardinals, bishops, and monks and the whole synagogue of Satan, and in particular the founders of the Religious Orders (some of whom, nevertheless, God was able to save by a miracle), confuse men’s consciences and are worse than false apostles” (p. 83). Like St. Paul he pronounces anathema on all angels and men who rise up to destroy the Gospel preached by Paul; of such subverters the world is now, alas, full (p. 89). By the fanatics, he says (p. 90), he too was accounted such a one, though he only paid homage to pure Scripture as to his “Queen” (p. 93). “Like Paul I declare with the utmost certainty every doctrine to be anathema which differs from my own.... Its founder is the messenger of Satan, and is anathema.” “Sic nos cum Paulo securissime et certissime pronuntiamus, omnem doctrinam esse maledictam, quæ cum nostra dissonat.... Qui igitur aliud evangelium vel contrarium nostro docet, missum a diabolo et anathema esse confidenter dicimus” (p. 94).Just as in Paul’s day the Galatians had become inconstant, so “some, who at the outset had accepted the Word with joy and among whom were many excellent men, had now suddenly fallen away,” because the Lord had withdrawn His Grace (p. 99). They bring forward as objections against us the belief of the Church and of antiquity. But “should Peter and Paul themselves, or an angel from heaven, teach differently, yet I know for a certainty that my teaching is not human but Divine, i.e. that I ascribe all to God and nothing to man” (p. 102). “It is true that this very argument prejudices our cause to-day more than anything else. If we are to believe only him who teaches the pure Word of God, not the Pope, or the Fathers, or Luther, whom then are we to believe? Who is to reassure man’s conscience as to where the true Word of God is preached, whether amongst us or amongst our opponents? For the latter also boast of having and teaching the true Word of God. We do not believe the Papists because they do not and cannot teach the Word of God. They, on the other hand, declare us to be the greatest heretics. What then is to be done? Is every fanatic to be permitted to teach whatever comes into his head, while the world refuses to hear us or to endure our teaching?” In spite of our assurances of the certainty of our teaching, he complains, they call our boasting devilish; if we yield, then they, the Papists and the fanatics, grow proud and become still more settled in their error. “Therefore let each one see that he is convinced of the truth of his own calling and doctrine, so that, like Paul, he may venture to say with absolute certainty and conviction: ‘If an angel from heaven,’ etc.” The revelation of the Gospel is made to each one individually, and is “effected by God Himself, yet the outward Word must precede and then the inward Spirit will follow.... The Holy Ghost is given for the revealing of the Word, but the outward Word must first have been heard” (p. 114).In opposition to the fanatics Luther is fond of tracing back his own great illumination, which had brought salvation to the world, to the preliminary action, of the outward Word of Holy Scripture on his mind. Towards the end of his life he wrote (on May 7, 1545) to Amsdorf: “I glory in the certainty that the Son of God is seated at the right hand of the Father and most sweetly speaks to us here below by His Spirit even as He spoke to the Apostles, and that therefore we are His disciples, and hear the Word from His lips.... We hear the Divine Majesty speaking through the word of the Gospel. The angels and the whole creation of God congratulate us on this, while the Pope, that monster of the devil, wobbles in sadness and fear and all the gates of hell tremble with him” (“Briefe,” 5, p. 737). At an earlier date, in 1522, he had declared: “This is what you must say: Whether Luther is a saint or a scamp does not matter to me; his doctrine is not his, but Christ’s ... leave the man out of the question, but acknowledge the doctrine” (“Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40). “I don’t care in the very least whether a thousand Augustines or a thousand Harry-Churches are against me, but I am convinced that the true Church clings to the Word of God as I do” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379. “Against King Henry VIII.”) “I was he to whom God first revealed it” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8).J. A. Möhler rightly remarks: “Seeing that it was Luther’s design to break with the existing, visible Church, it was essential that he should give the first place to the invisible Church and look on himself as directly sent by God.” He points out that Calvin also appealed to a direct mission, and quotes from his answer to Sadolet’s letter to the inhabitants of Geneva: “ministerium meum, quod Dei vocatione fundatum ac sanctum fuisse non dubito”; “ministerium meum, quod quidem a Christo esse novi.” “Opusc.,” pp. 106, 107 (“Symbolik,” 49, n 1).[392]To Nicholas Amsdorf, November 7, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 600, Jer. li. 9.[393]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 477; Erl. ed., 24², p. 16 (in 1520). Here again we find the “she-ass that rebuked the prophet.” This enables us to understand his asseveration in the same year (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 277; Erl. ed., 27, p. 213), that he was ready to die for his doctrine. Döllinger says of such assurances as the above: “Such a tone of unshaken firmness was in Luther’s case largely due to the excitement caused by his polemics ... and to the sense of his natural superiority” (“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53; also “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 340). He points out that Luther had formed his peculiar views “during a period of painful confusion of mind and trouble of conscience,” and that at times when Holy Scripture did not entirely satisfy him he would even seemingly set Christ against Scripture, as in the following passage: “You Papist, you insist much on Scripture, but it is no more than a servant of Christ, and to it I will not listen. But I am strong in Christ, Who is the true Lord and Emperor over Scripture. I care nothing for any texts of Scripture, even though you should bring forward many more against me; for I have the Lord and Master of Scripture on my side,” etc. (ibid., p. 59=col. 344).

[202]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 108 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f. “On the Turkish War,” 1529.

[203]Ibid., p. 110=35 f.

[204]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 708 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 18; “Bul. of the Evening Feed of our most Holy Lord the Pope.”

[205]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 f. “On the Turkish War.” “I fear that Germany will fall to the Turks. But I, poor Luther, am supposed to be to blame for everything; even the Peasant Revolt and the denial of the Sacrament are laid to my charge.” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 392, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[206]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 ff.

[207]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 160 ff.=80 ff. The Turk as a “Maker of Martyrs,” p. 175=96.

[208]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 205 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 248 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 514seq.

[209]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396 f. “Table-Talk.”

[210]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.

[211]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 397.

[212]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 115; Erl. ed., 31, p. 40. “On the Turkish War.”

[213]Ibid., p. 196=119. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 149: “Ego credo Turcicum regnum non posse vi opprimi” (a. 1540).

[214]“Werke,”ibid., p. 197=121.

[215]Ibid., p. 113=39. Even the taking of Rome in 1527 proves the proposition which the Pope had condemned. “Christ has determined to teach them to understand my Article, that Christians must not fight; the condemned Article is now avenged” (p. 115=41).

[216]Ibid., p. 111=36.

[217]Ibid., p. 148=79. At the Diet of Spires in 1529.

[218]Ibid., p. 148=79.

[219]“Werke,” p. 195=118. This he continued to assert to the very end of his life. In 1545 he writes: “The Turk also seduces the world, but he does not sit in the Temple of God, does not take the name of Christ and St. Peter ... but this destroyer in our midst pretends to be a friend, wants to be styled father, and is twice as bad as the Turk. This is the abomination of desolation,” etc. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 211. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom, vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[220]Ibid., p. 195=119.

[221]Ibid., p. 148=79. It is impossible to concur in the unconditional praise usually bestowed upon Luther by Protestants on account of his attitude in the midst of the Turkish peril. It was even said that he gave expression in powerful language, and without any thought of personal interest, to what God required “of every Christian and every German” in this emergency. Nor is it correct to state “that the contradiction with his later views was merely apparent” when he expressed himself at first as against the campaign. How real the contradiction is can be seen not only from the above and from what follows, but also from his later recommendations based on religious motives in favour of the war. Thus he says in the “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken” of the year 1541 (see vol. v., xxxiv. 2): “We are fighting to preserve God’s Word and His Church,” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 95 f.).

[222]“Dialogue de bello contra Turcas, in antilogias Lutheri.”

[223]On December 16, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 205. For Brück’s reply, cp. Hassencamp, “Hessische Kirchengesch.,” 1, p. 215, 1.

[224]To Melanchthon, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 303. At the end are greetings to the two other friends referred to. The latter would inform the Elector of the anxieties and prayers of the writer.

[225]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 396.

[226]On Ezechiel xxxviii.-xxxix., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 219 ff., Erl. ed., 41, p. 220 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 200.

[227]Cp. A. Westermann, “Die Türkenhilfe und die politischkirchlichen Parteien auf dem Reichstag zu Regensburg 1532,” Heidelberg, 1910.

[228]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 389. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405, concerning the news of an impending attack by the Turks in 1538: “I look upon it as a fresh invention of Ferdinand’s; he is planning another tax such as he devised before.”

[229]Ibid., p. 401.

[230]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.

[231]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 393.

[232]Ibid., 55, p. 202 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 370).

[233]On Ferdinand’s reason for not seeking the Elector’s help, see Enders on the letter referred to, p. 371.

[234]Cp., for instance, Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 257: “Pray!Quia non est spes amplius in armis, sed in Deo.If anyone is to beat the Turk, it will surely be the little children, who say the Our Father,” etc. (1542).

[235]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 394.

[236]To Amsdorf, June 13, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 196.

[237]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 406.

[238]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 399.

[239]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 113; Erl. ed., 31, p. 39. “On the Turkish War,” 1529. “The angels are arming themselves for the fight and are determined to overthrow the Turk, together with the Pope, and to cast them both into hell” (1540). Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 244.

[240]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, p. 395seq.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 379. Other instances of the hatred which caused him to compare Pope with Turk are to be found in the “Table-Talk” ed. by Kroker, according to the collection of Mathesius: “Propter crudelitatem, Philippus [Melanchthon] is hostile to the Turk ... but Philippus is not yet sufficiently angry with the Pope,” p. 307 (1542-1543). “Deus hunc articulum (incarnationis) defendit hodie contra Turcam et papam semperque miraculis approbat,” p. 94 (1540).

[241]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 401.

[242]Ibid., 403.

[243]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391.

[244]This is the only possible explanation of the following prayer contained in the solemn service for the Ordination of Ministers which he had drafted: “That Thou wouldst at length restrain and put an end to the wicked atrocities of the Pope and Mahometh and other factious spirits, who blaspheme Thy Name, destroy Thy Kingdom and resist Thy Will” (ibid., 64, p. 292).

[245]Ibid., 62, p. 389.

[246]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 31, p. 33.

[247]Ibid., 19, p. 631, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526.

[248]Ibid., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[249]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406 f. “Tischreden.”

[250]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231. “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottisdiensts,” 1526. In connection with Luther’s favourite expression “We Germans,” we may here remark that Luther’s opponents at Leipzig spread the report that he was really of Bohemian origin. This they did when, in his Sermon on the Body of Christ, preached in 1519, he had demanded the general use of the chalice at communion, as did the Utraquists of Bohemia. As to this statement that “I was born in Bohemia, educated at Prague and instructed in Wiclif’s writings,” Luther replied in his writing: “Erklerung etlicher Artickel yn seynem Sermon von dem heyligen Sacrament,” 1520, that this was a “piece of folly.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 81 f.

[251]Cp. “Tischreden.” c. 76: “Von Landen und Städten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 405 ff. Before this we read,ibid., p. 390: “Germany has always been the best land and nation; but what befell Troy will also befall her,” etc.

[252]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406.

[253]Cp. above p. 55, p. 71 f. and p. 77, the passages against the Emperor, who “boasts so shamelessly of being the true, chief protector of the Christian faith,” though he is but “a poor bag of worms,” and against his blind and hidden falsehoods. Other abuse of the Emperor, interspersed with praise, will be quoted below (p. 104 f.).

[254]To Johann Ludicke, Pastor at Cottbus, on February 8, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87. Cp. above, p. 72 f.

[255]To the Elector Johann Frederick in January, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78. Cp. above, p. 70 f.

[256]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 281 f., 300 f.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 10 f., 30.

[257]Ibid., p. 290=22.

[258]Doctor Johann Mensing, O.P., a literary opponent of Luther’s, in dedicating a polemical tract of 1526, defends the Catholics’ sense of patriotism, speaking of Luther as the “destroyer of our fair German land” (see “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 478). Another Dominican, Thomas Rhadinus Todischus, in 1520, in the title of a work published at Rome, describes him as “violating the glory of the nation” (“nationis gloriam violans”). The latter work was attributed by Luther and Melanchthon to Emser, who, however, repudiated the authorship. Cp.ibid., 7, p. 259.

[259]See vol. i., p. 403.

[260]Ibid.

[261]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 289; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 9 f.

[262]“Luthers Stellung zu Concil und Kirche,” 1876, p. 69.

[263]H. Meltzer, “Luther als deutscher Mann,” Tübingen, 1905, p. 56.

[264]Cp. above, p. 45 f. “Let things take their course and do their worst, whether it be war or rebellion, as God’s anger may decree.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[265]On November 10, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 407: “Ego pæne de Germania desperavi,” etc. Of this passage we read in Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 572): “The exaltation which had been experienced by every grade of the nation during the first period of the Reformation had, as a matter of fact, largely died out, and now the lowest motives held sway.”

[266]On March 7, 1543,ibid., p. 548: “Neque bene habebit Germania, sive regnet Turca sive nostrates,” etc.

[267]See vol. v., xxxv., 6.

[268]Ibid., xxxv., 3.

[269]Ibid.

[270]“Deutsche Literaturztg.,” 1905, No. 10, Scheel’s Review of H. Meltzer’s “Luther als deutscher Mann” (see above, p. 98, n. 1).

[271]Meltzer,ibid., 56.

[272]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57.

[273]“Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat,” p. 10, 386 f.

[274]“Vorträge über die Wiedervereinigung der chr. Kirchen,” authentic edition, 1888, p. 53 f. Cp. E. Michael, “Döllinger,³” p. 230 ff. Michael rightly quotes the following striking passage of the earlier Döllinger as descriptive of the attitude of the Church towards Luther: “May not the time come, nay, be already at hand, when [Protestant] preachers and theologians will take a calmer view of things and realise that the Catholic Church in Germany only did what she could not avoid doing? All the reproaches and charges made against this Church amount in fine to this, that she rejected the demand made of her in the name of the Reformation to break with her past, that she remained faithful to her traditions, that she persisted in developing along the lines originally laid down, and resolved to fulfil her task while holding fast to the uninterrupted continuity of her ecclesiastical life and her connection with the other portions of the Church” (“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 490).

[275]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 14, p. 408 f.

[276]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 77, in “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”

[277]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222. “Zwey keyserliche ... Gepott,” 1524.

[278]In the same way that he here abuses the Emperor, so he also knows how to bestow praise upon him; for instance, in the official writing referred to above (p. 89) to the Electoral Prince Joachim of Brandenburg and in his “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” where he declares, strangely enough, that “our beloved Emperor Carol” has shown himself hitherto, and last of all at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, such, that he has won the respect and love of the whole world and deserves that no trouble should befall him, and that our people should only speak in praise of his Imperial virtue (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23), and yet, even there, in consequence of his edict against the new faith at the Diet of Augsburg, he puts the Emperor with the Pope, as the originators of a resolution which “must prove an eternal blot upon all the Princes and the whole Empire, and make us Germans blush for shame before God and the whole world,” so that “even the Turk, the ‘Tattars’ and ‘Moscobites’ despise us.” “Who under the whole expanse of heaven will for the future fear us or think well of us when they hear that we allow ourselves to be hoaxed, mocked, treated as children, as fools, nay, even as clods and blocks by the cursed Pope and his tools [who hold the Emperor in leading strings]?... Every German may well regret that he was born a German and is called a German” (ibid., p. 285=15). On the strength of the words quoted above in praise of the Emperor we find Luther credited in Protestant works of history with “the old, loyal sentiments of a good, simple German for his Emperor,” nay, even with “the language of charity which according to Holy Scripture believes all things, hopes all things.” And yet Luther in his letters to his confidential friends spoke after this of Charles V. in the following terms: “The Emperor was, is, and shall ever remain a servant of the servants of the devil,” and the worst of it is, that he “lends the devil his services knowingly” (to Jonas, etc., March or April, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 275). “God’s wrath has come upon him and his friends.... We have prayed enough for him, if he does not want a blessing, then let him take our curse.” He accuses him of hypocrisy (“purus hypocrita”) and of breach of faith with the Turks after his stay at Vienna; he had swallowed up the Bishopric of Liège and intended to do the same with all the bishoprics along the Rhine (to Melanchthon, June 17, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 370). “I suspect the Emperor is a miscreant (‘quod sit nequam’) and his brother Ferdinand is an abominable bounder” (to Amsdorf, October 21, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 764).

[279]Commencement of the work: “Zwey keyserliche Gepott,” 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 221.

[280]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22 in the “Warnunge” referred to above.

[281]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”

[282]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 463 f; Erl. ed., 21, p. 352 f. “An den christl. Adel.”

[283]It will not be possible to enter one by one into the somewhat remarkable reasons assigned in the popular Protestant biographies of Luther as to why Luther should be regarded as the type of the German character. We there read, that the stamp of the German character is to be found in the fact that he “always acted upon impulse”—which seems to be based on the correct view of Luther as a child of impulse, who allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. The following reason is less clear, viz. that he was “A German through and through because he sought for the roots of all life, of the family, the race, the State and civilisation, in personality as directly determined by feeling.” Reference is frequently made to Luther’s frank and upright character and to his undaunted love of truth. The facts bearing upon this point, already adduced, or to be dealt with in chapter xxii. of the present work (vol. iv.), dispense us from treating of this matter here. To base Luther’s claim to being a typical German on his manner of speech is to run the risk of bringing Germans into disrepute, if we recall the rude invective in which he often indulges and which he employs when, as he says, he is speaking plain German to his opponents. “This is the German way of speaking,” he constantly repeats after explosions of anger and vulgar abuse. This, for instance, is the way in which he gives the “Romans a German answer.” On one occasion he describes in a repulsive manner how the “strumpet church of the Pope” behaves: “She plays the whore with everyone,” is an “apostate, runaway, wedded whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore”; compared with her “light women are holy, for she is the devil’s own whore,” who makes of many of the faithful virgins of Christ, born in baptism, arch-whores. “This is what I call plain German speaking, and you and everyone can understand what I mean.” On the same page he continues: “It has happened to them [the Papists] according to the proverb: the dog has returned to his vomit and the sow that was washed to wallow in the mire. That is what you are, and what I once was. There you have your new, apostate, runaway churches described for you in plain German.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26² p. 46. “Wider Hans Worst,” 1541.

[284]Cp. vol. i., p. 396 f., his statements concerning the incident in the Tower. See also vol. i., p. 166 ff., and p. 280 ff.

[285]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. “Hanc doctrinam mihi (Deus) revelavit per gratiam suam.” In 1527.

[286]Cochlæus in his account (June 12, 1521) of his conversation with Luther at Worms: “Est mihi revelatum,” etc. In Enders’ reprint, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 176; in the new edition by Greving (“Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit,” 4, 3, 1910), p. 19.

[287]“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23 (a. 1523).

[288]“Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 81, n.

[289]Khummer in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 62, n.: “Doctor Martinus Lutherus indignus sum, sed dignus fui creari ... redimi ... doceri a filio Dei et Spiritu sancto, fui (dignus) cui ministerium verbi crederetur, fui qui pro eo tanta paterer, fui qui in tot malis servarer, fui cui præciperetur ista credere, fui cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem.” Cp. “Briefe,” 5, p. 324, and 6, p. 520, n. 6.

[290]On March 5, 1522, at Borna, on the journey from the Wartburg to Wittenberg. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[291]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379, in the work: “Antwort auff König Henrichs Buch,” 1522.

[292]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 276. “Table-Talk.”

[293]See vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.

[294]See vol. v., xxxii.

[295]See, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641: “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162seq.“De servo arbitrio,” 1525.

[296]Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 314. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 208.

[297]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315.

[298]See, for instance, iv., xxvi., 2.

[299]Cp. for instance, his letter to Nicholas Amsdorf, about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 23.

[300]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261, in the work “Widder den Radschlag der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.”

[301]To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344: “Data est mihi notio futuræ alicuius insignis turbulæ.... Vidi cogitationes eius (Satanæ) artificiosissimas,” etc.

[302]To Spalatin, July 9, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 429 f.

[303]In 1519, after February 24,ibid., 2, p. 6.

[304]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6.

[305]To Wenceslaus Link on June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201.

[306]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 185.

[307]To Christoph Scheurl, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 433: “Dei consilium.”

[308]To Staupitz, February 20, 1519,ibid., 1, p. 431.

[309]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 109 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[310]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 280; Erl. ed., 27, p. 217. In 1521.

[311]Ibid., p. 281=219.

[312]Ibid., p. 281=218.

[313]To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.

[314]To the Archbishop of Mayence, December 1, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 251).

[315]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.

[316]See below, p. 153 ff.

[317]Ibid.

[318]To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, in July, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 f. He admits that he has not “thefulnessof the Spirit.”

[319]Mathesius, “Historien,” pp. 195´, 196.

[320]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 156.

[321]P. 150.

[322]See especially vol. v., xxxi. Many other proofs will be found scattered throughout our volumes.

[323]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 348; 60, p. 31, 70; 53, p. 342 (Letter of the beginning of April, 1525, to the Christians at Antwerp, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151, and “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547).

[324]His intention was to collect the “portenta Satanæ” in order to make the “salutaria miracula Evangelii quotidie inundantia” known everywhere. Thus to Justus Jonas on January 23, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 429.

[325]Regarding his psychic troubles and hallucinations, see vol. vi., xxxvi.

[326]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 99.

[327]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. Link, as Staupitz’s successor in the Vicariate of the Order, had proclaimed at the commencement of the year in the Augustinian chapter at Wittenberg the freedom of religious to forsake their convents and the abolition of the so-called “Corner-Masses,” which Luther refers to in the letter in question as being a singular “deed of the Holy Ghost.”

[328]To Staupitz at Salzburg, Wittenberg, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.

[329]Beginning of April, “Letters,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 339. Cp. a similar statement made to the Elector on June 24, 1541,ibid., p. 373: “God, Who has begun it without our strength or reason, will carry it out as He sees best” (of the Ratisbon Interim).

[330]Ibid., pp. 339, 340.

[331]On April 12, 1541, “Briefe,”ibid., p. 341 f.

[332]On March 26, 1542, to Jacob Probst, “Briefe,” 5, p. 451. Similarly on December 3, 1544, to Cordatus,ibid., p. 702.

[333]From the letter to Justus Jonas of September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.

[334]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 26², p. 8, in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[335]“Considerations on the proposed Conditions of Peace,” of August, 1531(?), “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. See above, p. 45, n. 5.

[336]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of St. John’s Gospel, 1530-1532.

[337]Ibid., p. 605seq.=342.

[338]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 253; Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.

[339]Ibid., 6, p. 621=24², p. 46.

[340]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121.

[341]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 298, 304).

[342]Ibid., Weim. ed., 8, p. 691; Erl. ed., 24², p. 168.

[343]Ibid., p. 709=189.

[344]Ibid.

[345]Thus it is that he excuses the blustering character of his writings against those who defended the Church.

[346]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 176, 229, 242, in the work “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[347]Ibid., p. 242.

[348]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.

[349]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 147.

[350]Ibid., p. 163 f.

[351]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 195 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 119.

[352]Ibid., Erl. ed., 25², p. 283.

[353]Ibid., 60, p. 180.

[354]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 404seq.

[355]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 288; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91.

[356]Ibid., Erl. ed., 27, p. 77.

[357]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 77.

[358]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 263.

[359]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 106.

[360]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 260.

[361]Ibid., p. 263.

[362]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 155.

[363]Ibid., 20², p. 233.

[364]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 83.

[365]Ibid., p. 404.

[366]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432.

[367]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 269.

[368]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5, p. 346 f.

[369]Ibid., 46, p. 10.

[370]The passages quoted stand in the following order: pp. 77, 81, 82, 77, 78, 82. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 18 f.

[371]P. 81.

[372]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 8.

[373]Letter in 1521 to “the poor little flock of Christ at Wittenberg,” before August 12, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 213; Erl. ed., 39, p. 128 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 217).

[374]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14, p. 158.

[375]Ibid., 26², p. 145.

[376]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 307.

[377]Cp. vol. iv., xxiii., 1, where Luther’s attitude to Erasmus subsequent to the publication of “De servo arbitrio” (1525) is treated of more fully.

[378]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 301.

[379]On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489 f.

[380]Luther to Amsdorf about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 8 ff. The letter was published by Luther.

[381]“Quodsi Martinus illud sibi proposuit, persuadere mundo Erasmum hoc agere callidis artibus et insidiosis cuniculis, ut omnes Christianos adducat in odium veræ religionis, frustra nititur. Citius enim persuaserit omnibus se aut odio lymphatum esse aut mentis morbo teneri, aut a sinistro quopiam agitari genio.” “Purgatio adversus Epistolam non sobriam Martini Lutheri.” “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., t. 10, col. 1557.

[382]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff.

[383]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 264.

[384]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162.

[385]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406 f.

[386]To Spalatin, May 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 193.

[387]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 527: “Christus viderit, suane sint an mea.”

[388]Vol. ii., p. 41 f.

[389]“Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, Frankfurt, 1699, p. 42 (with the epitaph quoted above), and p. 75.

[390]“Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in vol. xxiv. of his edition of Luther, pp. 379, 376.

[391]How little this view of Luther fits in with his own estimate of himself may be seen from the following statements which occur in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1531, vol. i., in Irmischer’s ed.): Heretics, owing to a delusion of Satan, consider their doctrines as absolutely certain; founders of sects, more particularly, will never allow themselves to be converted by our proofs from Scripture, as we see in the case of the fanatics; so well does the devil know how to assume the shape of Christ. “I, however, am persuaded by the Spirit of Christ, that my doctrine of Christian righteousness is true and certain (sum certus et persuasus per spiritum Christi, p. 288); therefore I cannot listen to anything to the contrary.” Hence “the Pope, the Cardinals, bishops, and monks and the whole synagogue of Satan, and in particular the founders of the Religious Orders (some of whom, nevertheless, God was able to save by a miracle), confuse men’s consciences and are worse than false apostles” (p. 83). Like St. Paul he pronounces anathema on all angels and men who rise up to destroy the Gospel preached by Paul; of such subverters the world is now, alas, full (p. 89). By the fanatics, he says (p. 90), he too was accounted such a one, though he only paid homage to pure Scripture as to his “Queen” (p. 93). “Like Paul I declare with the utmost certainty every doctrine to be anathema which differs from my own.... Its founder is the messenger of Satan, and is anathema.” “Sic nos cum Paulo securissime et certissime pronuntiamus, omnem doctrinam esse maledictam, quæ cum nostra dissonat.... Qui igitur aliud evangelium vel contrarium nostro docet, missum a diabolo et anathema esse confidenter dicimus” (p. 94).

Just as in Paul’s day the Galatians had become inconstant, so “some, who at the outset had accepted the Word with joy and among whom were many excellent men, had now suddenly fallen away,” because the Lord had withdrawn His Grace (p. 99). They bring forward as objections against us the belief of the Church and of antiquity. But “should Peter and Paul themselves, or an angel from heaven, teach differently, yet I know for a certainty that my teaching is not human but Divine, i.e. that I ascribe all to God and nothing to man” (p. 102). “It is true that this very argument prejudices our cause to-day more than anything else. If we are to believe only him who teaches the pure Word of God, not the Pope, or the Fathers, or Luther, whom then are we to believe? Who is to reassure man’s conscience as to where the true Word of God is preached, whether amongst us or amongst our opponents? For the latter also boast of having and teaching the true Word of God. We do not believe the Papists because they do not and cannot teach the Word of God. They, on the other hand, declare us to be the greatest heretics. What then is to be done? Is every fanatic to be permitted to teach whatever comes into his head, while the world refuses to hear us or to endure our teaching?” In spite of our assurances of the certainty of our teaching, he complains, they call our boasting devilish; if we yield, then they, the Papists and the fanatics, grow proud and become still more settled in their error. “Therefore let each one see that he is convinced of the truth of his own calling and doctrine, so that, like Paul, he may venture to say with absolute certainty and conviction: ‘If an angel from heaven,’ etc.” The revelation of the Gospel is made to each one individually, and is “effected by God Himself, yet the outward Word must precede and then the inward Spirit will follow.... The Holy Ghost is given for the revealing of the Word, but the outward Word must first have been heard” (p. 114).

In opposition to the fanatics Luther is fond of tracing back his own great illumination, which had brought salvation to the world, to the preliminary action, of the outward Word of Holy Scripture on his mind. Towards the end of his life he wrote (on May 7, 1545) to Amsdorf: “I glory in the certainty that the Son of God is seated at the right hand of the Father and most sweetly speaks to us here below by His Spirit even as He spoke to the Apostles, and that therefore we are His disciples, and hear the Word from His lips.... We hear the Divine Majesty speaking through the word of the Gospel. The angels and the whole creation of God congratulate us on this, while the Pope, that monster of the devil, wobbles in sadness and fear and all the gates of hell tremble with him” (“Briefe,” 5, p. 737). At an earlier date, in 1522, he had declared: “This is what you must say: Whether Luther is a saint or a scamp does not matter to me; his doctrine is not his, but Christ’s ... leave the man out of the question, but acknowledge the doctrine” (“Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40). “I don’t care in the very least whether a thousand Augustines or a thousand Harry-Churches are against me, but I am convinced that the true Church clings to the Word of God as I do” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379. “Against King Henry VIII.”) “I was he to whom God first revealed it” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8).

J. A. Möhler rightly remarks: “Seeing that it was Luther’s design to break with the existing, visible Church, it was essential that he should give the first place to the invisible Church and look on himself as directly sent by God.” He points out that Calvin also appealed to a direct mission, and quotes from his answer to Sadolet’s letter to the inhabitants of Geneva: “ministerium meum, quod Dei vocatione fundatum ac sanctum fuisse non dubito”; “ministerium meum, quod quidem a Christo esse novi.” “Opusc.,” pp. 106, 107 (“Symbolik,” 49, n 1).

[392]To Nicholas Amsdorf, November 7, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 600, Jer. li. 9.

[393]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 477; Erl. ed., 24², p. 16 (in 1520). Here again we find the “she-ass that rebuked the prophet.” This enables us to understand his asseveration in the same year (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 277; Erl. ed., 27, p. 213), that he was ready to die for his doctrine. Döllinger says of such assurances as the above: “Such a tone of unshaken firmness was in Luther’s case largely due to the excitement caused by his polemics ... and to the sense of his natural superiority” (“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53; also “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 340). He points out that Luther had formed his peculiar views “during a period of painful confusion of mind and trouble of conscience,” and that at times when Holy Scripture did not entirely satisfy him he would even seemingly set Christ against Scripture, as in the following passage: “You Papist, you insist much on Scripture, but it is no more than a servant of Christ, and to it I will not listen. But I am strong in Christ, Who is the true Lord and Emperor over Scripture. I care nothing for any texts of Scripture, even though you should bring forward many more against me; for I have the Lord and Master of Scripture on my side,” etc. (ibid., p. 59=col. 344).

Back to Index Next