[394]Daniel viii. 17 ff.[395]2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ff.; 2 Peter ii. 1 ff.[396]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 392seq., at the end of the “Responsio ad librum Ambrosii Catharini.”[397]“Id quod hac Danielis explanatione arbitror me præstitisse egregie.”Ibid.Hence what he wrote was intended in all seriousness and in no sense as a joke.[398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p, 392. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 399, and our vol. ii., p. 56 f.[399]Cp. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik,” Leipzig, 1906. See our vol. ii., p. 56, n. 1.[400]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.[401]“Epitome” against Prierias, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 79.[402]To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 345.[403]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 262; cp.ibid., n. 3.[404]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332.[405]“Ne quid monstrosissimi monstri desit,” etc.[406]To Spalatin (previous to June 8), 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 414.[407]“Epitome” against Prierias,loc. cit.[408]To Spalatin, August 3, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 456.[409]To the same, August 5, 1520,ibid., p. 457.[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 498, 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 17, 70.[411]See vol. ii., p. 49. The Latin text appeared a little before the German.[412]“Symbolische Bücher,10” pp. 308, 324, 337, and in particular p. 336, No. 39.[413]In the so-called “Lufft Bible,” Luther applies Daniel xii. to the Papal Antichrist. Kawerau, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 269.[414]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, at the beginning of the work “Bulla Cœnæ Domini” of 1522. See other references in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 646, 696;ibid., 2, pp. 156, 283, 529, 586.[415]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278.[416]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1265 f.[417]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 397.[418]January 12, 1523,ibid., 4, p. 62.[419]Cp. “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 242, and the notes of Enders (in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 18) on the letter of the Frankfurt preacher Andreas Ebert to Luther, dealing with these phenomena. See also N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage” to the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, No. 30.[420]“Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg funden. Philippus Melanchthon. Doctor Martinus Luther.” Wittenberg, 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.[421]To Camerarius, April 16, 1525. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 738.[422]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.[423]Ibid., 10², p. 65.[424]“Oh, dear little Pope-Ass, don’t try to lick ... for you might fall and break a leg or do something else, and then all the world would laugh at you and say: For shame, look what a mess the Pope-Ass has got itself into.” “You are a rude ass, you Pope-Ass, and that you will ever remain.” “When I [the Pope-Ass] bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith ... but all is sealed with devil’s ordure—in the Decretals—and written in the Pope-Ass’s dung” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 148seq., 169). One word, used in this connection, and spelt by Luther “Fartz,” he employs in endless variations. Pope Paul III. he calls “Eselfartz-Bapst,” “Bapst Fartzesel,” “Fartzesel-Bapst” and “Eselbapstfartz.” “We see,” remarks Conrad Lange, “how the apparition of the Roman monstrosity continued to act upon his imagination, and how, even at the close of his life, it still appeared to him suited to excite the masses in the religious struggle.” “Der Papstesel, ein Beitrag zur Kultur-und Kunstgesch. des Reformationszeitalters.” With four illustrations, Göttingen, 1891, p. 88.[425]“Abbildung des Bapstum,” by Martin Luther, 1545. The verses run as follows:“Was Gott selbs von dem Bapstum helt,Zeigt dis schrecklich Bild hie gestellt.Dafur jederman grawen solt,Wenn ers zu Hertzen nemen wolt.”[426]Cp. Lange,ibid., p. 92 ff.[427]“Annali Veneti” (“Archivio storico italiano,” 7, p. 422). Lange,ibid., p. 18.[428]Picture in Lange,ibid., plate 2.[429]Ibid., plate 1.[430]P. 84seq.[431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724: “In malam rem abeat.” Cp. in general the Wittenberg sermons against Carlstadt and the fanatics which appeared under the title “Acht Sermone,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 202 ff.[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724.[433]To the Council and congregation of Mühlhausen, August 21, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 240; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377).[434]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 5.[435]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 205 ff.[436]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 248; Erl ed., 50, p. 292, in the exposition of John xviii.[437]Cp., for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict.”[438]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.[439]I. Andreæ, “Oratio de studio sacr. litt. in acad. Lipsiensi recitata,” Tübing., 1577, c. 2.[440]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 12, p. 218-221. Cp. Erl. ed., 12², p. 235-238; Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145.[441]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184: “All the world is astonished and is obliged to confess that we have the Gospel almost as pure and unchanged as in the time of the Apostles, in fact, in its primitive purity.”[442]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 141 ff. Cp.ibid., 15, p. 39 ff.=22, pp. 184, 186; 8, p. 117=27, p. 331; 15, p. 584 ff.=19, p. 186 ff. “Hence it is plain that the Councils are uncertain and not to be counted on. For not one was so pure that it did not add to or take away from the faith.... The Council of the Apostles, though the first and purest, left something to be desired, though it did no harm.”[443]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 36; Erl. ed., 35, p. 61.[444]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 386=25², p. 87.[445]Cp.ibid., 10, 2, p. 105seq.=28, p. 143. Cp.ibid., 28, p. 248=50, p. 292: “Because I am a doctor of Holy Scripture I have a right to do so [even to interfere in the office of the bishops]; for I have sworn to teach the truth.” Continuation of the passage quoted above, p. 154, n. 3. Thomas Münzer he reproaches with having no call. Of the necessity of a call he says: “If things went ill in my house and my next-door neighbour were to break in and claim a right to settle matters, surely I should have something to say.”[446]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 139 f.[447]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144, at the commencement of the work “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”[448]Ibid., 15, p. 86seq.=29, p. 103 ff.: “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawê ausgelffen hat.”[449]Ibid., p. 93=112.[450]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 87=104.[451]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 205 ff.[452]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 25, p. 120.[453]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145 f.; Erl. ed., 12², p. 201, in the Church-postils.[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724. See above, p. 153.[455]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 12; Erl. ed., 28, p. 288. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” 1522.[456]See vol. iv., xxi. 2, towards the end.[457]“Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in his edition of Luther, 24, p. 357.[458]Ibid., p. 359 f.[459]To Myconius, January 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.[460]P. 361, where he quotes Mathesius’s Sermons on Luther, 13, p. 148 (Nuremberg edition, 1566, p. 157). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 11, and what Weller says (vol. vi., xxxviii. 2) of the two dead people raised to life by Luther. In the German “Table-Talk” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 3) Luther says of prayer: “The prayer of the Church performs great miracles. In our own time it has restored three dead men to life; first me, for often I was sick unto death, then my housekeeper Katey, who was also sick unto death, finally Philip Melanchthon, who, anno 1540, lay sick unto death at Weimar. ThoughLiberatio a morbis et corporalibus periculisis not the best of miracles, yet it must not be allowed to pass unheededpropter infirmitatem in fide. To me it is a much greater miracle that God Almighty should every day bestow the grace of baptism, give Himself in the Sacrament of the altar and absolveet liberat a peccato, a morte et damnatione æterna. These are great miracles.” Cp. Förstemann’s notes, “Tischreden,” 2, p. 230.[461]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 169.[462]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 324, andibid., quotation from Rebenstock’s Latin Colloquies. Seidemann in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch” also quotes Khummer’s MS., p. 397.[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 362.[464]Ibid., 14², p. 399.[465]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Vaticinium Lutheri de seditione nobilium in Germania.”[466]“Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1718, p. 316, with quotation from “Church Agenda, p. 52.”[467]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 217.[468]Walch, 23, p. 1132.[469]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 186.[470]Walch, 23, p. 688 f.[471]Ibid., 14, p. 1360: “Vaticinium mense Augusto,a.1532.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 391 f.[472]Ibid., 7, p. 1353; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23, in the sermon of 1531 on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Walch’s edition under the heading: “Luther’s Prophecy concerning Germany,” “Luther’s Prophecy on Wittenberg and its magistrates.”[473]Ibid., 12, p. 1865, Sermon on the Gospel for the 8th Sunday after Trinity, Luke xix. 41. In his “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” Walch, however, expressly admits that Luther “had not the gift of predicting; if he has been spoken of as a prophet, this depended on the sense in which the word was used; he had rightly foreseen much of what would happen to the German Church,” etc. “Neither did God bestow on him the gift of working miracles,” but he did not need it, since he preached no new doctrine and what he taught he proved sufficiently from Holy Scripture; indeed, the Reformation as a whole was not miraculous, since God had not intervened in it in any extraordinary manner.[474]“Postilla,” pars. iii., Dom. 3, post Adv. “Corp. ref.,” 25, p. 916.[475]“Of the horrible monstrosities and many other similar signs of the wrath of God at this time, a veracious account by a minister of the Holy Evangel,” 1562, Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 616, p. 470.[476]In addition to the passage quoted, p. 155, n. 1, cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 83, at the end of Luther’s edition of “Etliche Briefe Johann Hussens,” 1537. See also Luther on the swan, xix. 2, and vol. iv., xxvi. 4.[477]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 438. “Tischreden,” Cp. Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tischreden,” p. 36, n., and Mathesius, “Historien,³” p. 199. Cp. p. 211´.[478]“Symbolische Bücher,”10, p. 270 f.[479]“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 171.[480]Reply of Myconius, December 2, 1529,ibid., p. 194.[481]Cp. the account of an apostate friar, who had been a comrade of Hilten’s and who was with him during his last days, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 198; cp. also the literature quoted by Enders. Hilten’s prophecy, and likewise that of the Roman Franciscan, was nevertheless, in 1872, quoted in Luther’s favour by C. F. Kahnis, Professor of Theology at the University of Leipzig, in his “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, p. 178. He says: “What the Spirit of God in him bore witness to in condemnation of the fallen Church of the Middle Ages, was attested by prophetic utterances.” “While Luther was at school at Eisenach, a monk named Hilten languished in the prison of the Franciscan convent,” etc. He appeals to Mathesius, “Historien,” Predigt, 15, p. 319; V. E. Löscher, “Vollständige Reformationsacta,” 1, 1720, p. 148, and K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassstreite,” 1, 1846, p. 295.[482]Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 250 ff. Lichtenberger’s book was re-translated in this edition by Stephen Roth.[483]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 145.[484]Preface, p. 253.[485]Ibid., p. 258.[486]Ibid., 2, p. 641, n. 1, to p. 145.[487]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139 f. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen.” The passage commences: “When a child I frequently heard a prophecy current in the country, viz. that an Emperor Frederick would rescue the Holy Sepulchre.” This had been misunderstood and applied to the tomb at Jerusalem; but it is “of the nature of prophecies to be fulfilled before being understood.” The passage on Frederick also occurs in the Latin text of this work, published previously under the title “De abroganda missa.” In “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 475, we there read: “Videtur mihi ista (prophetia) in hoc Fridrico nostro impleta.” Luther then proceeds to recount in a pleasant vein certain doubtful interpretations.[488]Bonaventura, “Expos. in cap. ix. Lucæ.”[489]To the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony, January 4, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 195; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323).[490]Reprinted in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 38seq.That the author was J. Findling has been proved by N. Paulus in his work “Kaspar Schatzgeyer,” 1898, p. 137 f. Cp. “Katholik,” 1900, ii., p. 90 ff. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 65, n. 1, should be corrected from this.[491]See Enders,ibid.[492]Ibid., p. 56.[493]See Enders, p. 52 f.[494]Ibid., p. 60.[495]Ibid., p. 49.[496]Cp. Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53 (“KL.,” 8², col. 340).[497]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 57.[498]Ibid., p. 55.[499]Ibid., p. 48.[500]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Ludg., 10, col. 1327.[501]Ibid., col. 1335.[502]Cp. col. 1334.[503]To Duke George of Saxony, June 30, 1530, “Opp.,” col. 1293.[504]“Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 374 ff., communicated by Joh. Fijalek.[505]“Gesch. des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 2, p. 135.[506]In July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, 159-161. In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date.[507]“Utinam possem aliquid insigne peccati designare modo ad eludendum diabolum!” “Designare” may mean “to paint.” According to Forcelli it also sometimes means “to perform,” “to do.” Cp. Horace, “Ep.,” 1, 5, 16: “Quid non ebrietas designat,” and Terence “Ad.,” 1, 2, 7: “Quid designavit? Fores effregit.”[508]Those, i.e., who are unwilling to feel that they are sinners. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 9.[509]Ibid., p. 20.[510]Ibid., p. 88. In May, 1532. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 308.[511]Schlaginhaufen, p. 88.[512]Ibid., p. 9. Here and in what follows, according to Preger, the MS. notes of Veit Dietrich agree with Schlaginhaufen’s account.[513]Ibid., p. 11.[514]Ibid.[515]Ibid., p. 88 f. “Papst und Bischof haben mir die Hände gesalbt, und ich habe sie beschissen im Dreck, do ich den Ars wuschet.”[516]Ibid., p. 89[517]“Tagebuch über M. Luther,” by C. Cordatus, ed. by H. Wrampelmeyer, 1883, p. 450: “Etiam in complexus veni coniugis, ut saltem ille pruritus auferret illas cogitationes satanæ.... Laborandum est omnibus modis, ut vehementiore aliquo affectu pellantur.”[518]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. The Halle MS. on which Bindseil bases his work really depends on the statements of Luther’s pupil Lauterbach. Here Luther’s words run: “Quoties meam uxorem complexus sum, nudam contrectavi, ut tantum sathanæ cogitationes illo pruritu pellerem.But all to no purpose,nolebat cedere,” etc.[519]“Colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, etc. M. Lutheri,” Francof., 1571, 2, p. 225´ (=125´).[520]As to this, Wrampelmeyer, a Protestant, remarks (p. 451) in his edition of Cordatus’s Diary, mentioned above: “The German ‘Table-Talk,’ which agrees almost entirely with the Latin version, does not, in Erl. ed., 60, p. 110, and Förstemann, 3, p. 122, contain these words, but replaces them by the following: ‘I have frequently made use of various means in order to drive away Satan, but it was of no use.’ It is clear that words so compromising gave offence and that others were substituted instead of those given in the Latin text, which formed the basis of the German ‘Table-Talk.’ According to the Notes of Cordatus, however, Luther’s words appear in quite a different light.” “The words of the Latin ‘Table-Talk’: ‘ut de puella pulchra, avaritia, ebrietate,’ have also been replaced in the German version by more harmless expressions.”[521]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 11.[522]“Opp.,” Antwerpiæ, 1706, 3, p. 242seq.; p. 589seq.Aug. Hardeland (“Gesch. der speziellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation,” Berlin, 1898, p. 261) remarks: “The idea that we must always do the exact opposite of what the devil suggests, is the leading one in Gerson’s Tractate ‘De remediis contra pusillanimitatem.’” He is of opinion that, in advising Weller to sin, Luther was “using this maxim of Gerson’s, and probably only meant: ‘Do not be afraid to do what, from the standpoint of your scrupulosity, appears to be sinful.’” Luther’s advice, however, was not intended for a scrupulous person predisposed to exaggeration or to narrowness of heart, but for all those who despaired of their salvation and were unable to believe in Luther’s doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and in his assurance of salvation. “Cogitationes immanissimæ,” Luther calls Weller’s ideas, “quando diabolus reos (nos) egerit mortis et inferni.... In æternum condemnaberis?” Weller, the disciple, has first to learn: “novi quendam, qui passus est pro me ac satisfecit,” etc.[523]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 254.[524]Ibid., 50, p. 248.[525]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 360.[526]Ibid., 51, p. 284.[527]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 367; Erl. ed., 33, p. 5.[528]Cp. vol. iv., xxviii. 3 and 4. Luther’s famous “pecca fortiter” is discussed at length below (p. 199 ff.), and all that might tend to explain the words is passed in review.[529]See J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², 1901, p. 215.[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.[531]Cp. passages quoted by Köstlin,ibid.[532]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.[533]Ibid., p. 59.[534]See above, p. 26.[535]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 73.[536]Ibid., 2, p. 156.[537]Ibid., p. 292.[538]Ibid., p. 430.[539]Ibid., 1, p. 213.[540]“Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck,” Freiburg, 1892, p. 24 f.[541]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 188. Luther does not admit the “timor servilis” of Catholic theology, and in his arbitrary fashion he represents it as equivalent to mere “fear of the gallows,” “timor serviliter servilis.”[542]Ibid., p. 190.[543]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 506; Erl. ed., 31, p. 181.[544]Köstlin,ibid., p. 189.[545]Council of Trent, Sess. VI., “decretum de iustificatione,” c. 6.[546]Ibid., c. 15.[547]Ibid., c. 14.[548]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 529; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 59, in the work “De captivitate babylonica.”[549]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 157, in the “Hauspostille.”[550]Ibid., 4, p. 131, “Hauspostille.” Cp. Weim. ed., 36, p. 187.[551]Ibid., p. 132, “Hauspostille.”[552]Ibid., 62, p. 267, “Tischreden.”[553]Cp. vol. i., p. 289 ff.[554]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 248.[555]Ibid.[556]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370.[557]Köstlin,ibid., p. 369.[558]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 691 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 231seq., “De servo arbitrio.”[559]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359.[560]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 263, “De servo arbitrio.”[561]Ibid., p. 711=p. 258.[562]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 355.[563]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359. Köstlin admits the “questionable character” of the doctrine, though in rather mild language, e.g. p. 370.[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.[565]“Prussia est plena dæmonibus,” etc. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.[566]“The devil is in the world,vel potius ipse mundus concretive vel abstractive.” Letter of January 3, 1534, to Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 376.[567]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.[568]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.[569]To Justus Jonas, December 29, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 163: “Christus infirmus per vestras orationes adhuc superat vel saltem pugnat fortiter.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 173.[570]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 165, “Table-Talk.”[571]Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 133. The passage will be given in detail later.[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; Erl. ed., 33, p. 374.[573]Ibid., p. 341=359.[574]Ibid., p. 342=360.[575]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 356 f.[576]Cp.,ibid., p. 279 ff.[577]Letter to Reissenbusch, March 27, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 277; Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[578]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.[579]Ibid.[580]See below, p. 196.[581]“Der rechte Weg. Welche Weg oder Strass der Glaubig wandeln soll,” etc. Dillingen, 1553. The passages are quoted by N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 252.[582]“Christl. Predigt. an S. Matthei Tag,” Mainz, 1557, in Paulus,ibid., p. 168.[583]“Predigten über die erste Canon. Epistel Johannis,” Cologne, 1571. Paulus,ibid., p. 173.[584]“Vormeldunge der Unwahrheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt a.d. Oder, 1532, Paulus,ibid., p. 33. The three writers above quoted were all Dominicans. Luther’s Catholic contemporaries cannot have been acquainted with his “Pecca fortiter,” otherwise their language would have been even stronger.[585]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. The letter no longer exists in its entirety. One portion, however, became known and was published by Joh. Aurifaber in 1556 in the first vol. of Luther’s letters (p. 343) and described as “Fragmentum epistolæ D.M. Lutheri ad Philippum Melanchthonem ex Pathmo scriptæ, a. MDXXI., repertum in bibliotheca Georgii Spalatini.” Melanchthon had possibly sent the extract to Spalatin when the latter was troubled regarding his own salvation.[586](See below.) “Vides quantis urgear æstibus,” etc. To Melanchthon, August 3, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 213.[587]See vol. ii., p. 82 f.[588]Passages tallying with the “Esto peccator” are to be found elsewhere in Luther’s writings. Cp. for instance his letter of 1516 (vol. i., p. 88 f.) to Spenlein, where he says: “Cave, ne aliquando ad tantam puritatem aspires, ut peccator tibi videri nolis, imo esse. Christus enim nonnisi in peccatoribus habitat.... Igitur nonnisi in illo pacem invenies.” In “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236seq., it is likewise explained why one must be a great sinner; he insists that “credenti omnia sunt auctore Christo possibilia” and condemns strongly “affectus propriæ iustitiæ,” until he arrives at the paradox, “Ideo est peccatum, ut in peccatis apti ad spem simus” (p. 239). In perfect harmony with such early statements is the letter he wrote towards the end of his life to Spalatin when the latter was sunk in melancholy; here he says: “Nimis tener hactenus fuisti peccator.... Iunge te nobis veris magnis et duris peccatoribus”; he must, so Christ speaking through Luther tells him, hold alone to faith in the Divine mercy. August 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.[589]“Symbolik,” § 16, p. 161.[590]1, p. 301. Other Protestant writers, such as Carové “Alleinseligmachende Kirche,” 2, p. 434 (see K. A. Hase, “Polemik,”4p. 267), declared it to be “a downright calumny to say that so shocking a doctrine occurred in a work of Luther’s.”[591]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 58.[592]“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” Tübingen, 1904, pp. 38-45.[593]Köhler here quotes Denifle (“Luther,” p. 442; ed. 2, p. 465), who gives these words in their full context from Luther’s MS. Commentary on Romans. We may point out that Denifle quotes an abundance of similar passages from Luther’s works, amongst which those taken from his early Commentary on Romans are particularly interesting.[594]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 27; Erl. ed., 27, p. 185; Köhler,ibid., p. 43 f.[595]Ibid., p. 25=181=44.[596]On June 29, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 44. Melanchthon had told Luther his fears and anxieties on account of the impending discussion of the point of faith before the Diet of Augsburg. Luther is encouraging him.[597]To Melanchthon, June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.[598]In the letter quoted above, n. 1 (p. 43): “carnificem illum spiritus.”[599]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 98.[600]Ibid., p. 79.[601]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19, p. 325.[602]Ibid., 58, p. 363 f.[603]Ibid., p. 374.[604]Ibid., p. 380.[605]Ibid., p. 26.[606]Ibid., p. 385.[607]Ibid., p. 402.[608]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 146.[609]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.[610]“Comment. in Gal.” (1531), ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 102. Cp. above, p. 139, n. 1.
[394]Daniel viii. 17 ff.[395]2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ff.; 2 Peter ii. 1 ff.[396]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 392seq., at the end of the “Responsio ad librum Ambrosii Catharini.”[397]“Id quod hac Danielis explanatione arbitror me præstitisse egregie.”Ibid.Hence what he wrote was intended in all seriousness and in no sense as a joke.[398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p, 392. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 399, and our vol. ii., p. 56 f.[399]Cp. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik,” Leipzig, 1906. See our vol. ii., p. 56, n. 1.[400]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.[401]“Epitome” against Prierias, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 79.[402]To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 345.[403]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 262; cp.ibid., n. 3.[404]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332.[405]“Ne quid monstrosissimi monstri desit,” etc.[406]To Spalatin (previous to June 8), 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 414.[407]“Epitome” against Prierias,loc. cit.[408]To Spalatin, August 3, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 456.[409]To the same, August 5, 1520,ibid., p. 457.[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 498, 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 17, 70.[411]See vol. ii., p. 49. The Latin text appeared a little before the German.[412]“Symbolische Bücher,10” pp. 308, 324, 337, and in particular p. 336, No. 39.[413]In the so-called “Lufft Bible,” Luther applies Daniel xii. to the Papal Antichrist. Kawerau, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 269.[414]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, at the beginning of the work “Bulla Cœnæ Domini” of 1522. See other references in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 646, 696;ibid., 2, pp. 156, 283, 529, 586.[415]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278.[416]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1265 f.[417]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 397.[418]January 12, 1523,ibid., 4, p. 62.[419]Cp. “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 242, and the notes of Enders (in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 18) on the letter of the Frankfurt preacher Andreas Ebert to Luther, dealing with these phenomena. See also N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage” to the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, No. 30.[420]“Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg funden. Philippus Melanchthon. Doctor Martinus Luther.” Wittenberg, 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.[421]To Camerarius, April 16, 1525. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 738.[422]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.[423]Ibid., 10², p. 65.[424]“Oh, dear little Pope-Ass, don’t try to lick ... for you might fall and break a leg or do something else, and then all the world would laugh at you and say: For shame, look what a mess the Pope-Ass has got itself into.” “You are a rude ass, you Pope-Ass, and that you will ever remain.” “When I [the Pope-Ass] bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith ... but all is sealed with devil’s ordure—in the Decretals—and written in the Pope-Ass’s dung” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 148seq., 169). One word, used in this connection, and spelt by Luther “Fartz,” he employs in endless variations. Pope Paul III. he calls “Eselfartz-Bapst,” “Bapst Fartzesel,” “Fartzesel-Bapst” and “Eselbapstfartz.” “We see,” remarks Conrad Lange, “how the apparition of the Roman monstrosity continued to act upon his imagination, and how, even at the close of his life, it still appeared to him suited to excite the masses in the religious struggle.” “Der Papstesel, ein Beitrag zur Kultur-und Kunstgesch. des Reformationszeitalters.” With four illustrations, Göttingen, 1891, p. 88.[425]“Abbildung des Bapstum,” by Martin Luther, 1545. The verses run as follows:“Was Gott selbs von dem Bapstum helt,Zeigt dis schrecklich Bild hie gestellt.Dafur jederman grawen solt,Wenn ers zu Hertzen nemen wolt.”[426]Cp. Lange,ibid., p. 92 ff.[427]“Annali Veneti” (“Archivio storico italiano,” 7, p. 422). Lange,ibid., p. 18.[428]Picture in Lange,ibid., plate 2.[429]Ibid., plate 1.[430]P. 84seq.[431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724: “In malam rem abeat.” Cp. in general the Wittenberg sermons against Carlstadt and the fanatics which appeared under the title “Acht Sermone,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 202 ff.[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724.[433]To the Council and congregation of Mühlhausen, August 21, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 240; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377).[434]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 5.[435]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 205 ff.[436]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 248; Erl ed., 50, p. 292, in the exposition of John xviii.[437]Cp., for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict.”[438]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.[439]I. Andreæ, “Oratio de studio sacr. litt. in acad. Lipsiensi recitata,” Tübing., 1577, c. 2.[440]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 12, p. 218-221. Cp. Erl. ed., 12², p. 235-238; Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145.[441]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184: “All the world is astonished and is obliged to confess that we have the Gospel almost as pure and unchanged as in the time of the Apostles, in fact, in its primitive purity.”[442]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 141 ff. Cp.ibid., 15, p. 39 ff.=22, pp. 184, 186; 8, p. 117=27, p. 331; 15, p. 584 ff.=19, p. 186 ff. “Hence it is plain that the Councils are uncertain and not to be counted on. For not one was so pure that it did not add to or take away from the faith.... The Council of the Apostles, though the first and purest, left something to be desired, though it did no harm.”[443]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 36; Erl. ed., 35, p. 61.[444]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 386=25², p. 87.[445]Cp.ibid., 10, 2, p. 105seq.=28, p. 143. Cp.ibid., 28, p. 248=50, p. 292: “Because I am a doctor of Holy Scripture I have a right to do so [even to interfere in the office of the bishops]; for I have sworn to teach the truth.” Continuation of the passage quoted above, p. 154, n. 3. Thomas Münzer he reproaches with having no call. Of the necessity of a call he says: “If things went ill in my house and my next-door neighbour were to break in and claim a right to settle matters, surely I should have something to say.”[446]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 139 f.[447]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144, at the commencement of the work “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”[448]Ibid., 15, p. 86seq.=29, p. 103 ff.: “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawê ausgelffen hat.”[449]Ibid., p. 93=112.[450]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 87=104.[451]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 205 ff.[452]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 25, p. 120.[453]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145 f.; Erl. ed., 12², p. 201, in the Church-postils.[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724. See above, p. 153.[455]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 12; Erl. ed., 28, p. 288. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” 1522.[456]See vol. iv., xxi. 2, towards the end.[457]“Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in his edition of Luther, 24, p. 357.[458]Ibid., p. 359 f.[459]To Myconius, January 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.[460]P. 361, where he quotes Mathesius’s Sermons on Luther, 13, p. 148 (Nuremberg edition, 1566, p. 157). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 11, and what Weller says (vol. vi., xxxviii. 2) of the two dead people raised to life by Luther. In the German “Table-Talk” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 3) Luther says of prayer: “The prayer of the Church performs great miracles. In our own time it has restored three dead men to life; first me, for often I was sick unto death, then my housekeeper Katey, who was also sick unto death, finally Philip Melanchthon, who, anno 1540, lay sick unto death at Weimar. ThoughLiberatio a morbis et corporalibus periculisis not the best of miracles, yet it must not be allowed to pass unheededpropter infirmitatem in fide. To me it is a much greater miracle that God Almighty should every day bestow the grace of baptism, give Himself in the Sacrament of the altar and absolveet liberat a peccato, a morte et damnatione æterna. These are great miracles.” Cp. Förstemann’s notes, “Tischreden,” 2, p. 230.[461]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 169.[462]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 324, andibid., quotation from Rebenstock’s Latin Colloquies. Seidemann in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch” also quotes Khummer’s MS., p. 397.[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 362.[464]Ibid., 14², p. 399.[465]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Vaticinium Lutheri de seditione nobilium in Germania.”[466]“Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1718, p. 316, with quotation from “Church Agenda, p. 52.”[467]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 217.[468]Walch, 23, p. 1132.[469]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 186.[470]Walch, 23, p. 688 f.[471]Ibid., 14, p. 1360: “Vaticinium mense Augusto,a.1532.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 391 f.[472]Ibid., 7, p. 1353; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23, in the sermon of 1531 on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Walch’s edition under the heading: “Luther’s Prophecy concerning Germany,” “Luther’s Prophecy on Wittenberg and its magistrates.”[473]Ibid., 12, p. 1865, Sermon on the Gospel for the 8th Sunday after Trinity, Luke xix. 41. In his “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” Walch, however, expressly admits that Luther “had not the gift of predicting; if he has been spoken of as a prophet, this depended on the sense in which the word was used; he had rightly foreseen much of what would happen to the German Church,” etc. “Neither did God bestow on him the gift of working miracles,” but he did not need it, since he preached no new doctrine and what he taught he proved sufficiently from Holy Scripture; indeed, the Reformation as a whole was not miraculous, since God had not intervened in it in any extraordinary manner.[474]“Postilla,” pars. iii., Dom. 3, post Adv. “Corp. ref.,” 25, p. 916.[475]“Of the horrible monstrosities and many other similar signs of the wrath of God at this time, a veracious account by a minister of the Holy Evangel,” 1562, Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 616, p. 470.[476]In addition to the passage quoted, p. 155, n. 1, cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 83, at the end of Luther’s edition of “Etliche Briefe Johann Hussens,” 1537. See also Luther on the swan, xix. 2, and vol. iv., xxvi. 4.[477]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 438. “Tischreden,” Cp. Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tischreden,” p. 36, n., and Mathesius, “Historien,³” p. 199. Cp. p. 211´.[478]“Symbolische Bücher,”10, p. 270 f.[479]“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 171.[480]Reply of Myconius, December 2, 1529,ibid., p. 194.[481]Cp. the account of an apostate friar, who had been a comrade of Hilten’s and who was with him during his last days, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 198; cp. also the literature quoted by Enders. Hilten’s prophecy, and likewise that of the Roman Franciscan, was nevertheless, in 1872, quoted in Luther’s favour by C. F. Kahnis, Professor of Theology at the University of Leipzig, in his “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, p. 178. He says: “What the Spirit of God in him bore witness to in condemnation of the fallen Church of the Middle Ages, was attested by prophetic utterances.” “While Luther was at school at Eisenach, a monk named Hilten languished in the prison of the Franciscan convent,” etc. He appeals to Mathesius, “Historien,” Predigt, 15, p. 319; V. E. Löscher, “Vollständige Reformationsacta,” 1, 1720, p. 148, and K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassstreite,” 1, 1846, p. 295.[482]Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 250 ff. Lichtenberger’s book was re-translated in this edition by Stephen Roth.[483]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 145.[484]Preface, p. 253.[485]Ibid., p. 258.[486]Ibid., 2, p. 641, n. 1, to p. 145.[487]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139 f. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen.” The passage commences: “When a child I frequently heard a prophecy current in the country, viz. that an Emperor Frederick would rescue the Holy Sepulchre.” This had been misunderstood and applied to the tomb at Jerusalem; but it is “of the nature of prophecies to be fulfilled before being understood.” The passage on Frederick also occurs in the Latin text of this work, published previously under the title “De abroganda missa.” In “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 475, we there read: “Videtur mihi ista (prophetia) in hoc Fridrico nostro impleta.” Luther then proceeds to recount in a pleasant vein certain doubtful interpretations.[488]Bonaventura, “Expos. in cap. ix. Lucæ.”[489]To the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony, January 4, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 195; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323).[490]Reprinted in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 38seq.That the author was J. Findling has been proved by N. Paulus in his work “Kaspar Schatzgeyer,” 1898, p. 137 f. Cp. “Katholik,” 1900, ii., p. 90 ff. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 65, n. 1, should be corrected from this.[491]See Enders,ibid.[492]Ibid., p. 56.[493]See Enders, p. 52 f.[494]Ibid., p. 60.[495]Ibid., p. 49.[496]Cp. Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53 (“KL.,” 8², col. 340).[497]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 57.[498]Ibid., p. 55.[499]Ibid., p. 48.[500]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Ludg., 10, col. 1327.[501]Ibid., col. 1335.[502]Cp. col. 1334.[503]To Duke George of Saxony, June 30, 1530, “Opp.,” col. 1293.[504]“Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 374 ff., communicated by Joh. Fijalek.[505]“Gesch. des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 2, p. 135.[506]In July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, 159-161. In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date.[507]“Utinam possem aliquid insigne peccati designare modo ad eludendum diabolum!” “Designare” may mean “to paint.” According to Forcelli it also sometimes means “to perform,” “to do.” Cp. Horace, “Ep.,” 1, 5, 16: “Quid non ebrietas designat,” and Terence “Ad.,” 1, 2, 7: “Quid designavit? Fores effregit.”[508]Those, i.e., who are unwilling to feel that they are sinners. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 9.[509]Ibid., p. 20.[510]Ibid., p. 88. In May, 1532. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 308.[511]Schlaginhaufen, p. 88.[512]Ibid., p. 9. Here and in what follows, according to Preger, the MS. notes of Veit Dietrich agree with Schlaginhaufen’s account.[513]Ibid., p. 11.[514]Ibid.[515]Ibid., p. 88 f. “Papst und Bischof haben mir die Hände gesalbt, und ich habe sie beschissen im Dreck, do ich den Ars wuschet.”[516]Ibid., p. 89[517]“Tagebuch über M. Luther,” by C. Cordatus, ed. by H. Wrampelmeyer, 1883, p. 450: “Etiam in complexus veni coniugis, ut saltem ille pruritus auferret illas cogitationes satanæ.... Laborandum est omnibus modis, ut vehementiore aliquo affectu pellantur.”[518]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. The Halle MS. on which Bindseil bases his work really depends on the statements of Luther’s pupil Lauterbach. Here Luther’s words run: “Quoties meam uxorem complexus sum, nudam contrectavi, ut tantum sathanæ cogitationes illo pruritu pellerem.But all to no purpose,nolebat cedere,” etc.[519]“Colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, etc. M. Lutheri,” Francof., 1571, 2, p. 225´ (=125´).[520]As to this, Wrampelmeyer, a Protestant, remarks (p. 451) in his edition of Cordatus’s Diary, mentioned above: “The German ‘Table-Talk,’ which agrees almost entirely with the Latin version, does not, in Erl. ed., 60, p. 110, and Förstemann, 3, p. 122, contain these words, but replaces them by the following: ‘I have frequently made use of various means in order to drive away Satan, but it was of no use.’ It is clear that words so compromising gave offence and that others were substituted instead of those given in the Latin text, which formed the basis of the German ‘Table-Talk.’ According to the Notes of Cordatus, however, Luther’s words appear in quite a different light.” “The words of the Latin ‘Table-Talk’: ‘ut de puella pulchra, avaritia, ebrietate,’ have also been replaced in the German version by more harmless expressions.”[521]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 11.[522]“Opp.,” Antwerpiæ, 1706, 3, p. 242seq.; p. 589seq.Aug. Hardeland (“Gesch. der speziellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation,” Berlin, 1898, p. 261) remarks: “The idea that we must always do the exact opposite of what the devil suggests, is the leading one in Gerson’s Tractate ‘De remediis contra pusillanimitatem.’” He is of opinion that, in advising Weller to sin, Luther was “using this maxim of Gerson’s, and probably only meant: ‘Do not be afraid to do what, from the standpoint of your scrupulosity, appears to be sinful.’” Luther’s advice, however, was not intended for a scrupulous person predisposed to exaggeration or to narrowness of heart, but for all those who despaired of their salvation and were unable to believe in Luther’s doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and in his assurance of salvation. “Cogitationes immanissimæ,” Luther calls Weller’s ideas, “quando diabolus reos (nos) egerit mortis et inferni.... In æternum condemnaberis?” Weller, the disciple, has first to learn: “novi quendam, qui passus est pro me ac satisfecit,” etc.[523]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 254.[524]Ibid., 50, p. 248.[525]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 360.[526]Ibid., 51, p. 284.[527]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 367; Erl. ed., 33, p. 5.[528]Cp. vol. iv., xxviii. 3 and 4. Luther’s famous “pecca fortiter” is discussed at length below (p. 199 ff.), and all that might tend to explain the words is passed in review.[529]See J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², 1901, p. 215.[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.[531]Cp. passages quoted by Köstlin,ibid.[532]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.[533]Ibid., p. 59.[534]See above, p. 26.[535]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 73.[536]Ibid., 2, p. 156.[537]Ibid., p. 292.[538]Ibid., p. 430.[539]Ibid., 1, p. 213.[540]“Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck,” Freiburg, 1892, p. 24 f.[541]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 188. Luther does not admit the “timor servilis” of Catholic theology, and in his arbitrary fashion he represents it as equivalent to mere “fear of the gallows,” “timor serviliter servilis.”[542]Ibid., p. 190.[543]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 506; Erl. ed., 31, p. 181.[544]Köstlin,ibid., p. 189.[545]Council of Trent, Sess. VI., “decretum de iustificatione,” c. 6.[546]Ibid., c. 15.[547]Ibid., c. 14.[548]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 529; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 59, in the work “De captivitate babylonica.”[549]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 157, in the “Hauspostille.”[550]Ibid., 4, p. 131, “Hauspostille.” Cp. Weim. ed., 36, p. 187.[551]Ibid., p. 132, “Hauspostille.”[552]Ibid., 62, p. 267, “Tischreden.”[553]Cp. vol. i., p. 289 ff.[554]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 248.[555]Ibid.[556]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370.[557]Köstlin,ibid., p. 369.[558]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 691 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 231seq., “De servo arbitrio.”[559]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359.[560]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 263, “De servo arbitrio.”[561]Ibid., p. 711=p. 258.[562]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 355.[563]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359. Köstlin admits the “questionable character” of the doctrine, though in rather mild language, e.g. p. 370.[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.[565]“Prussia est plena dæmonibus,” etc. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.[566]“The devil is in the world,vel potius ipse mundus concretive vel abstractive.” Letter of January 3, 1534, to Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 376.[567]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.[568]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.[569]To Justus Jonas, December 29, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 163: “Christus infirmus per vestras orationes adhuc superat vel saltem pugnat fortiter.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 173.[570]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 165, “Table-Talk.”[571]Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 133. The passage will be given in detail later.[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; Erl. ed., 33, p. 374.[573]Ibid., p. 341=359.[574]Ibid., p. 342=360.[575]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 356 f.[576]Cp.,ibid., p. 279 ff.[577]Letter to Reissenbusch, March 27, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 277; Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[578]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.[579]Ibid.[580]See below, p. 196.[581]“Der rechte Weg. Welche Weg oder Strass der Glaubig wandeln soll,” etc. Dillingen, 1553. The passages are quoted by N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 252.[582]“Christl. Predigt. an S. Matthei Tag,” Mainz, 1557, in Paulus,ibid., p. 168.[583]“Predigten über die erste Canon. Epistel Johannis,” Cologne, 1571. Paulus,ibid., p. 173.[584]“Vormeldunge der Unwahrheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt a.d. Oder, 1532, Paulus,ibid., p. 33. The three writers above quoted were all Dominicans. Luther’s Catholic contemporaries cannot have been acquainted with his “Pecca fortiter,” otherwise their language would have been even stronger.[585]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. The letter no longer exists in its entirety. One portion, however, became known and was published by Joh. Aurifaber in 1556 in the first vol. of Luther’s letters (p. 343) and described as “Fragmentum epistolæ D.M. Lutheri ad Philippum Melanchthonem ex Pathmo scriptæ, a. MDXXI., repertum in bibliotheca Georgii Spalatini.” Melanchthon had possibly sent the extract to Spalatin when the latter was troubled regarding his own salvation.[586](See below.) “Vides quantis urgear æstibus,” etc. To Melanchthon, August 3, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 213.[587]See vol. ii., p. 82 f.[588]Passages tallying with the “Esto peccator” are to be found elsewhere in Luther’s writings. Cp. for instance his letter of 1516 (vol. i., p. 88 f.) to Spenlein, where he says: “Cave, ne aliquando ad tantam puritatem aspires, ut peccator tibi videri nolis, imo esse. Christus enim nonnisi in peccatoribus habitat.... Igitur nonnisi in illo pacem invenies.” In “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236seq., it is likewise explained why one must be a great sinner; he insists that “credenti omnia sunt auctore Christo possibilia” and condemns strongly “affectus propriæ iustitiæ,” until he arrives at the paradox, “Ideo est peccatum, ut in peccatis apti ad spem simus” (p. 239). In perfect harmony with such early statements is the letter he wrote towards the end of his life to Spalatin when the latter was sunk in melancholy; here he says: “Nimis tener hactenus fuisti peccator.... Iunge te nobis veris magnis et duris peccatoribus”; he must, so Christ speaking through Luther tells him, hold alone to faith in the Divine mercy. August 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.[589]“Symbolik,” § 16, p. 161.[590]1, p. 301. Other Protestant writers, such as Carové “Alleinseligmachende Kirche,” 2, p. 434 (see K. A. Hase, “Polemik,”4p. 267), declared it to be “a downright calumny to say that so shocking a doctrine occurred in a work of Luther’s.”[591]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 58.[592]“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” Tübingen, 1904, pp. 38-45.[593]Köhler here quotes Denifle (“Luther,” p. 442; ed. 2, p. 465), who gives these words in their full context from Luther’s MS. Commentary on Romans. We may point out that Denifle quotes an abundance of similar passages from Luther’s works, amongst which those taken from his early Commentary on Romans are particularly interesting.[594]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 27; Erl. ed., 27, p. 185; Köhler,ibid., p. 43 f.[595]Ibid., p. 25=181=44.[596]On June 29, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 44. Melanchthon had told Luther his fears and anxieties on account of the impending discussion of the point of faith before the Diet of Augsburg. Luther is encouraging him.[597]To Melanchthon, June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.[598]In the letter quoted above, n. 1 (p. 43): “carnificem illum spiritus.”[599]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 98.[600]Ibid., p. 79.[601]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19, p. 325.[602]Ibid., 58, p. 363 f.[603]Ibid., p. 374.[604]Ibid., p. 380.[605]Ibid., p. 26.[606]Ibid., p. 385.[607]Ibid., p. 402.[608]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 146.[609]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.[610]“Comment. in Gal.” (1531), ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 102. Cp. above, p. 139, n. 1.
[394]Daniel viii. 17 ff.[395]2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ff.; 2 Peter ii. 1 ff.[396]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 392seq., at the end of the “Responsio ad librum Ambrosii Catharini.”[397]“Id quod hac Danielis explanatione arbitror me præstitisse egregie.”Ibid.Hence what he wrote was intended in all seriousness and in no sense as a joke.[398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p, 392. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 399, and our vol. ii., p. 56 f.[399]Cp. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik,” Leipzig, 1906. See our vol. ii., p. 56, n. 1.[400]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.[401]“Epitome” against Prierias, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 79.[402]To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 345.[403]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 262; cp.ibid., n. 3.[404]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332.[405]“Ne quid monstrosissimi monstri desit,” etc.[406]To Spalatin (previous to June 8), 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 414.[407]“Epitome” against Prierias,loc. cit.[408]To Spalatin, August 3, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 456.[409]To the same, August 5, 1520,ibid., p. 457.[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 498, 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 17, 70.[411]See vol. ii., p. 49. The Latin text appeared a little before the German.[412]“Symbolische Bücher,10” pp. 308, 324, 337, and in particular p. 336, No. 39.[413]In the so-called “Lufft Bible,” Luther applies Daniel xii. to the Papal Antichrist. Kawerau, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 269.[414]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, at the beginning of the work “Bulla Cœnæ Domini” of 1522. See other references in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 646, 696;ibid., 2, pp. 156, 283, 529, 586.[415]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278.[416]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1265 f.[417]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 397.[418]January 12, 1523,ibid., 4, p. 62.[419]Cp. “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 242, and the notes of Enders (in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 18) on the letter of the Frankfurt preacher Andreas Ebert to Luther, dealing with these phenomena. See also N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage” to the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, No. 30.[420]“Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg funden. Philippus Melanchthon. Doctor Martinus Luther.” Wittenberg, 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.[421]To Camerarius, April 16, 1525. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 738.[422]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.[423]Ibid., 10², p. 65.[424]“Oh, dear little Pope-Ass, don’t try to lick ... for you might fall and break a leg or do something else, and then all the world would laugh at you and say: For shame, look what a mess the Pope-Ass has got itself into.” “You are a rude ass, you Pope-Ass, and that you will ever remain.” “When I [the Pope-Ass] bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith ... but all is sealed with devil’s ordure—in the Decretals—and written in the Pope-Ass’s dung” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 148seq., 169). One word, used in this connection, and spelt by Luther “Fartz,” he employs in endless variations. Pope Paul III. he calls “Eselfartz-Bapst,” “Bapst Fartzesel,” “Fartzesel-Bapst” and “Eselbapstfartz.” “We see,” remarks Conrad Lange, “how the apparition of the Roman monstrosity continued to act upon his imagination, and how, even at the close of his life, it still appeared to him suited to excite the masses in the religious struggle.” “Der Papstesel, ein Beitrag zur Kultur-und Kunstgesch. des Reformationszeitalters.” With four illustrations, Göttingen, 1891, p. 88.[425]“Abbildung des Bapstum,” by Martin Luther, 1545. The verses run as follows:“Was Gott selbs von dem Bapstum helt,Zeigt dis schrecklich Bild hie gestellt.Dafur jederman grawen solt,Wenn ers zu Hertzen nemen wolt.”[426]Cp. Lange,ibid., p. 92 ff.[427]“Annali Veneti” (“Archivio storico italiano,” 7, p. 422). Lange,ibid., p. 18.[428]Picture in Lange,ibid., plate 2.[429]Ibid., plate 1.[430]P. 84seq.[431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724: “In malam rem abeat.” Cp. in general the Wittenberg sermons against Carlstadt and the fanatics which appeared under the title “Acht Sermone,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 202 ff.[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724.[433]To the Council and congregation of Mühlhausen, August 21, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 240; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377).[434]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 5.[435]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 205 ff.[436]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 248; Erl ed., 50, p. 292, in the exposition of John xviii.[437]Cp., for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict.”[438]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.[439]I. Andreæ, “Oratio de studio sacr. litt. in acad. Lipsiensi recitata,” Tübing., 1577, c. 2.[440]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 12, p. 218-221. Cp. Erl. ed., 12², p. 235-238; Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145.[441]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184: “All the world is astonished and is obliged to confess that we have the Gospel almost as pure and unchanged as in the time of the Apostles, in fact, in its primitive purity.”[442]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 141 ff. Cp.ibid., 15, p. 39 ff.=22, pp. 184, 186; 8, p. 117=27, p. 331; 15, p. 584 ff.=19, p. 186 ff. “Hence it is plain that the Councils are uncertain and not to be counted on. For not one was so pure that it did not add to or take away from the faith.... The Council of the Apostles, though the first and purest, left something to be desired, though it did no harm.”[443]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 36; Erl. ed., 35, p. 61.[444]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 386=25², p. 87.[445]Cp.ibid., 10, 2, p. 105seq.=28, p. 143. Cp.ibid., 28, p. 248=50, p. 292: “Because I am a doctor of Holy Scripture I have a right to do so [even to interfere in the office of the bishops]; for I have sworn to teach the truth.” Continuation of the passage quoted above, p. 154, n. 3. Thomas Münzer he reproaches with having no call. Of the necessity of a call he says: “If things went ill in my house and my next-door neighbour were to break in and claim a right to settle matters, surely I should have something to say.”[446]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 139 f.[447]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144, at the commencement of the work “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”[448]Ibid., 15, p. 86seq.=29, p. 103 ff.: “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawê ausgelffen hat.”[449]Ibid., p. 93=112.[450]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 87=104.[451]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 205 ff.[452]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 25, p. 120.[453]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145 f.; Erl. ed., 12², p. 201, in the Church-postils.[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724. See above, p. 153.[455]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 12; Erl. ed., 28, p. 288. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” 1522.[456]See vol. iv., xxi. 2, towards the end.[457]“Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in his edition of Luther, 24, p. 357.[458]Ibid., p. 359 f.[459]To Myconius, January 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.[460]P. 361, where he quotes Mathesius’s Sermons on Luther, 13, p. 148 (Nuremberg edition, 1566, p. 157). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 11, and what Weller says (vol. vi., xxxviii. 2) of the two dead people raised to life by Luther. In the German “Table-Talk” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 3) Luther says of prayer: “The prayer of the Church performs great miracles. In our own time it has restored three dead men to life; first me, for often I was sick unto death, then my housekeeper Katey, who was also sick unto death, finally Philip Melanchthon, who, anno 1540, lay sick unto death at Weimar. ThoughLiberatio a morbis et corporalibus periculisis not the best of miracles, yet it must not be allowed to pass unheededpropter infirmitatem in fide. To me it is a much greater miracle that God Almighty should every day bestow the grace of baptism, give Himself in the Sacrament of the altar and absolveet liberat a peccato, a morte et damnatione æterna. These are great miracles.” Cp. Förstemann’s notes, “Tischreden,” 2, p. 230.[461]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 169.[462]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 324, andibid., quotation from Rebenstock’s Latin Colloquies. Seidemann in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch” also quotes Khummer’s MS., p. 397.[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 362.[464]Ibid., 14², p. 399.[465]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Vaticinium Lutheri de seditione nobilium in Germania.”[466]“Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1718, p. 316, with quotation from “Church Agenda, p. 52.”[467]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 217.[468]Walch, 23, p. 1132.[469]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 186.[470]Walch, 23, p. 688 f.[471]Ibid., 14, p. 1360: “Vaticinium mense Augusto,a.1532.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 391 f.[472]Ibid., 7, p. 1353; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23, in the sermon of 1531 on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Walch’s edition under the heading: “Luther’s Prophecy concerning Germany,” “Luther’s Prophecy on Wittenberg and its magistrates.”[473]Ibid., 12, p. 1865, Sermon on the Gospel for the 8th Sunday after Trinity, Luke xix. 41. In his “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” Walch, however, expressly admits that Luther “had not the gift of predicting; if he has been spoken of as a prophet, this depended on the sense in which the word was used; he had rightly foreseen much of what would happen to the German Church,” etc. “Neither did God bestow on him the gift of working miracles,” but he did not need it, since he preached no new doctrine and what he taught he proved sufficiently from Holy Scripture; indeed, the Reformation as a whole was not miraculous, since God had not intervened in it in any extraordinary manner.[474]“Postilla,” pars. iii., Dom. 3, post Adv. “Corp. ref.,” 25, p. 916.[475]“Of the horrible monstrosities and many other similar signs of the wrath of God at this time, a veracious account by a minister of the Holy Evangel,” 1562, Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 616, p. 470.[476]In addition to the passage quoted, p. 155, n. 1, cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 83, at the end of Luther’s edition of “Etliche Briefe Johann Hussens,” 1537. See also Luther on the swan, xix. 2, and vol. iv., xxvi. 4.[477]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 438. “Tischreden,” Cp. Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tischreden,” p. 36, n., and Mathesius, “Historien,³” p. 199. Cp. p. 211´.[478]“Symbolische Bücher,”10, p. 270 f.[479]“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 171.[480]Reply of Myconius, December 2, 1529,ibid., p. 194.[481]Cp. the account of an apostate friar, who had been a comrade of Hilten’s and who was with him during his last days, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 198; cp. also the literature quoted by Enders. Hilten’s prophecy, and likewise that of the Roman Franciscan, was nevertheless, in 1872, quoted in Luther’s favour by C. F. Kahnis, Professor of Theology at the University of Leipzig, in his “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, p. 178. He says: “What the Spirit of God in him bore witness to in condemnation of the fallen Church of the Middle Ages, was attested by prophetic utterances.” “While Luther was at school at Eisenach, a monk named Hilten languished in the prison of the Franciscan convent,” etc. He appeals to Mathesius, “Historien,” Predigt, 15, p. 319; V. E. Löscher, “Vollständige Reformationsacta,” 1, 1720, p. 148, and K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassstreite,” 1, 1846, p. 295.[482]Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 250 ff. Lichtenberger’s book was re-translated in this edition by Stephen Roth.[483]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 145.[484]Preface, p. 253.[485]Ibid., p. 258.[486]Ibid., 2, p. 641, n. 1, to p. 145.[487]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139 f. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen.” The passage commences: “When a child I frequently heard a prophecy current in the country, viz. that an Emperor Frederick would rescue the Holy Sepulchre.” This had been misunderstood and applied to the tomb at Jerusalem; but it is “of the nature of prophecies to be fulfilled before being understood.” The passage on Frederick also occurs in the Latin text of this work, published previously under the title “De abroganda missa.” In “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 475, we there read: “Videtur mihi ista (prophetia) in hoc Fridrico nostro impleta.” Luther then proceeds to recount in a pleasant vein certain doubtful interpretations.[488]Bonaventura, “Expos. in cap. ix. Lucæ.”[489]To the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony, January 4, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 195; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323).[490]Reprinted in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 38seq.That the author was J. Findling has been proved by N. Paulus in his work “Kaspar Schatzgeyer,” 1898, p. 137 f. Cp. “Katholik,” 1900, ii., p. 90 ff. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 65, n. 1, should be corrected from this.[491]See Enders,ibid.[492]Ibid., p. 56.[493]See Enders, p. 52 f.[494]Ibid., p. 60.[495]Ibid., p. 49.[496]Cp. Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53 (“KL.,” 8², col. 340).[497]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 57.[498]Ibid., p. 55.[499]Ibid., p. 48.[500]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Ludg., 10, col. 1327.[501]Ibid., col. 1335.[502]Cp. col. 1334.[503]To Duke George of Saxony, June 30, 1530, “Opp.,” col. 1293.[504]“Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 374 ff., communicated by Joh. Fijalek.[505]“Gesch. des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 2, p. 135.[506]In July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, 159-161. In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date.[507]“Utinam possem aliquid insigne peccati designare modo ad eludendum diabolum!” “Designare” may mean “to paint.” According to Forcelli it also sometimes means “to perform,” “to do.” Cp. Horace, “Ep.,” 1, 5, 16: “Quid non ebrietas designat,” and Terence “Ad.,” 1, 2, 7: “Quid designavit? Fores effregit.”[508]Those, i.e., who are unwilling to feel that they are sinners. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 9.[509]Ibid., p. 20.[510]Ibid., p. 88. In May, 1532. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 308.[511]Schlaginhaufen, p. 88.[512]Ibid., p. 9. Here and in what follows, according to Preger, the MS. notes of Veit Dietrich agree with Schlaginhaufen’s account.[513]Ibid., p. 11.[514]Ibid.[515]Ibid., p. 88 f. “Papst und Bischof haben mir die Hände gesalbt, und ich habe sie beschissen im Dreck, do ich den Ars wuschet.”[516]Ibid., p. 89[517]“Tagebuch über M. Luther,” by C. Cordatus, ed. by H. Wrampelmeyer, 1883, p. 450: “Etiam in complexus veni coniugis, ut saltem ille pruritus auferret illas cogitationes satanæ.... Laborandum est omnibus modis, ut vehementiore aliquo affectu pellantur.”[518]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. The Halle MS. on which Bindseil bases his work really depends on the statements of Luther’s pupil Lauterbach. Here Luther’s words run: “Quoties meam uxorem complexus sum, nudam contrectavi, ut tantum sathanæ cogitationes illo pruritu pellerem.But all to no purpose,nolebat cedere,” etc.[519]“Colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, etc. M. Lutheri,” Francof., 1571, 2, p. 225´ (=125´).[520]As to this, Wrampelmeyer, a Protestant, remarks (p. 451) in his edition of Cordatus’s Diary, mentioned above: “The German ‘Table-Talk,’ which agrees almost entirely with the Latin version, does not, in Erl. ed., 60, p. 110, and Förstemann, 3, p. 122, contain these words, but replaces them by the following: ‘I have frequently made use of various means in order to drive away Satan, but it was of no use.’ It is clear that words so compromising gave offence and that others were substituted instead of those given in the Latin text, which formed the basis of the German ‘Table-Talk.’ According to the Notes of Cordatus, however, Luther’s words appear in quite a different light.” “The words of the Latin ‘Table-Talk’: ‘ut de puella pulchra, avaritia, ebrietate,’ have also been replaced in the German version by more harmless expressions.”[521]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 11.[522]“Opp.,” Antwerpiæ, 1706, 3, p. 242seq.; p. 589seq.Aug. Hardeland (“Gesch. der speziellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation,” Berlin, 1898, p. 261) remarks: “The idea that we must always do the exact opposite of what the devil suggests, is the leading one in Gerson’s Tractate ‘De remediis contra pusillanimitatem.’” He is of opinion that, in advising Weller to sin, Luther was “using this maxim of Gerson’s, and probably only meant: ‘Do not be afraid to do what, from the standpoint of your scrupulosity, appears to be sinful.’” Luther’s advice, however, was not intended for a scrupulous person predisposed to exaggeration or to narrowness of heart, but for all those who despaired of their salvation and were unable to believe in Luther’s doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and in his assurance of salvation. “Cogitationes immanissimæ,” Luther calls Weller’s ideas, “quando diabolus reos (nos) egerit mortis et inferni.... In æternum condemnaberis?” Weller, the disciple, has first to learn: “novi quendam, qui passus est pro me ac satisfecit,” etc.[523]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 254.[524]Ibid., 50, p. 248.[525]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 360.[526]Ibid., 51, p. 284.[527]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 367; Erl. ed., 33, p. 5.[528]Cp. vol. iv., xxviii. 3 and 4. Luther’s famous “pecca fortiter” is discussed at length below (p. 199 ff.), and all that might tend to explain the words is passed in review.[529]See J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², 1901, p. 215.[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.[531]Cp. passages quoted by Köstlin,ibid.[532]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.[533]Ibid., p. 59.[534]See above, p. 26.[535]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 73.[536]Ibid., 2, p. 156.[537]Ibid., p. 292.[538]Ibid., p. 430.[539]Ibid., 1, p. 213.[540]“Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck,” Freiburg, 1892, p. 24 f.[541]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 188. Luther does not admit the “timor servilis” of Catholic theology, and in his arbitrary fashion he represents it as equivalent to mere “fear of the gallows,” “timor serviliter servilis.”[542]Ibid., p. 190.[543]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 506; Erl. ed., 31, p. 181.[544]Köstlin,ibid., p. 189.[545]Council of Trent, Sess. VI., “decretum de iustificatione,” c. 6.[546]Ibid., c. 15.[547]Ibid., c. 14.[548]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 529; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 59, in the work “De captivitate babylonica.”[549]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 157, in the “Hauspostille.”[550]Ibid., 4, p. 131, “Hauspostille.” Cp. Weim. ed., 36, p. 187.[551]Ibid., p. 132, “Hauspostille.”[552]Ibid., 62, p. 267, “Tischreden.”[553]Cp. vol. i., p. 289 ff.[554]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 248.[555]Ibid.[556]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370.[557]Köstlin,ibid., p. 369.[558]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 691 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 231seq., “De servo arbitrio.”[559]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359.[560]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 263, “De servo arbitrio.”[561]Ibid., p. 711=p. 258.[562]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 355.[563]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359. Köstlin admits the “questionable character” of the doctrine, though in rather mild language, e.g. p. 370.[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.[565]“Prussia est plena dæmonibus,” etc. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.[566]“The devil is in the world,vel potius ipse mundus concretive vel abstractive.” Letter of January 3, 1534, to Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 376.[567]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.[568]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.[569]To Justus Jonas, December 29, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 163: “Christus infirmus per vestras orationes adhuc superat vel saltem pugnat fortiter.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 173.[570]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 165, “Table-Talk.”[571]Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 133. The passage will be given in detail later.[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; Erl. ed., 33, p. 374.[573]Ibid., p. 341=359.[574]Ibid., p. 342=360.[575]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 356 f.[576]Cp.,ibid., p. 279 ff.[577]Letter to Reissenbusch, March 27, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 277; Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).[578]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.[579]Ibid.[580]See below, p. 196.[581]“Der rechte Weg. Welche Weg oder Strass der Glaubig wandeln soll,” etc. Dillingen, 1553. The passages are quoted by N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 252.[582]“Christl. Predigt. an S. Matthei Tag,” Mainz, 1557, in Paulus,ibid., p. 168.[583]“Predigten über die erste Canon. Epistel Johannis,” Cologne, 1571. Paulus,ibid., p. 173.[584]“Vormeldunge der Unwahrheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt a.d. Oder, 1532, Paulus,ibid., p. 33. The three writers above quoted were all Dominicans. Luther’s Catholic contemporaries cannot have been acquainted with his “Pecca fortiter,” otherwise their language would have been even stronger.[585]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. The letter no longer exists in its entirety. One portion, however, became known and was published by Joh. Aurifaber in 1556 in the first vol. of Luther’s letters (p. 343) and described as “Fragmentum epistolæ D.M. Lutheri ad Philippum Melanchthonem ex Pathmo scriptæ, a. MDXXI., repertum in bibliotheca Georgii Spalatini.” Melanchthon had possibly sent the extract to Spalatin when the latter was troubled regarding his own salvation.[586](See below.) “Vides quantis urgear æstibus,” etc. To Melanchthon, August 3, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 213.[587]See vol. ii., p. 82 f.[588]Passages tallying with the “Esto peccator” are to be found elsewhere in Luther’s writings. Cp. for instance his letter of 1516 (vol. i., p. 88 f.) to Spenlein, where he says: “Cave, ne aliquando ad tantam puritatem aspires, ut peccator tibi videri nolis, imo esse. Christus enim nonnisi in peccatoribus habitat.... Igitur nonnisi in illo pacem invenies.” In “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236seq., it is likewise explained why one must be a great sinner; he insists that “credenti omnia sunt auctore Christo possibilia” and condemns strongly “affectus propriæ iustitiæ,” until he arrives at the paradox, “Ideo est peccatum, ut in peccatis apti ad spem simus” (p. 239). In perfect harmony with such early statements is the letter he wrote towards the end of his life to Spalatin when the latter was sunk in melancholy; here he says: “Nimis tener hactenus fuisti peccator.... Iunge te nobis veris magnis et duris peccatoribus”; he must, so Christ speaking through Luther tells him, hold alone to faith in the Divine mercy. August 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.[589]“Symbolik,” § 16, p. 161.[590]1, p. 301. Other Protestant writers, such as Carové “Alleinseligmachende Kirche,” 2, p. 434 (see K. A. Hase, “Polemik,”4p. 267), declared it to be “a downright calumny to say that so shocking a doctrine occurred in a work of Luther’s.”[591]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 58.[592]“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” Tübingen, 1904, pp. 38-45.[593]Köhler here quotes Denifle (“Luther,” p. 442; ed. 2, p. 465), who gives these words in their full context from Luther’s MS. Commentary on Romans. We may point out that Denifle quotes an abundance of similar passages from Luther’s works, amongst which those taken from his early Commentary on Romans are particularly interesting.[594]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 27; Erl. ed., 27, p. 185; Köhler,ibid., p. 43 f.[595]Ibid., p. 25=181=44.[596]On June 29, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 44. Melanchthon had told Luther his fears and anxieties on account of the impending discussion of the point of faith before the Diet of Augsburg. Luther is encouraging him.[597]To Melanchthon, June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.[598]In the letter quoted above, n. 1 (p. 43): “carnificem illum spiritus.”[599]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 98.[600]Ibid., p. 79.[601]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19, p. 325.[602]Ibid., 58, p. 363 f.[603]Ibid., p. 374.[604]Ibid., p. 380.[605]Ibid., p. 26.[606]Ibid., p. 385.[607]Ibid., p. 402.[608]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 146.[609]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.[610]“Comment. in Gal.” (1531), ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 102. Cp. above, p. 139, n. 1.
[394]Daniel viii. 17 ff.
[395]2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ff.; 2 Peter ii. 1 ff.
[396]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 392seq., at the end of the “Responsio ad librum Ambrosii Catharini.”
[397]“Id quod hac Danielis explanatione arbitror me præstitisse egregie.”Ibid.Hence what he wrote was intended in all seriousness and in no sense as a joke.
[398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p, 392. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 399, and our vol. ii., p. 56 f.
[399]Cp. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik,” Leipzig, 1906. See our vol. ii., p. 56, n. 1.
[400]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.
[401]“Epitome” against Prierias, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 79.
[402]To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 345.
[403]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 262; cp.ibid., n. 3.
[404]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332.
[405]“Ne quid monstrosissimi monstri desit,” etc.
[406]To Spalatin (previous to June 8), 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 414.
[407]“Epitome” against Prierias,loc. cit.
[408]To Spalatin, August 3, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 456.
[409]To the same, August 5, 1520,ibid., p. 457.
[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 498, 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 17, 70.
[411]See vol. ii., p. 49. The Latin text appeared a little before the German.
[412]“Symbolische Bücher,10” pp. 308, 324, 337, and in particular p. 336, No. 39.
[413]In the so-called “Lufft Bible,” Luther applies Daniel xii. to the Papal Antichrist. Kawerau, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 269.
[414]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, at the beginning of the work “Bulla Cœnæ Domini” of 1522. See other references in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 646, 696;ibid., 2, pp. 156, 283, 529, 586.
[415]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278.
[416]“Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1265 f.
[417]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 397.
[418]January 12, 1523,ibid., 4, p. 62.
[419]Cp. “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 242, and the notes of Enders (in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 18) on the letter of the Frankfurt preacher Andreas Ebert to Luther, dealing with these phenomena. See also N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage” to the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, No. 30.
[420]“Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg funden. Philippus Melanchthon. Doctor Martinus Luther.” Wittenberg, 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.
[421]To Camerarius, April 16, 1525. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 738.
[422]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.
[423]Ibid., 10², p. 65.
[424]“Oh, dear little Pope-Ass, don’t try to lick ... for you might fall and break a leg or do something else, and then all the world would laugh at you and say: For shame, look what a mess the Pope-Ass has got itself into.” “You are a rude ass, you Pope-Ass, and that you will ever remain.” “When I [the Pope-Ass] bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith ... but all is sealed with devil’s ordure—in the Decretals—and written in the Pope-Ass’s dung” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 148seq., 169). One word, used in this connection, and spelt by Luther “Fartz,” he employs in endless variations. Pope Paul III. he calls “Eselfartz-Bapst,” “Bapst Fartzesel,” “Fartzesel-Bapst” and “Eselbapstfartz.” “We see,” remarks Conrad Lange, “how the apparition of the Roman monstrosity continued to act upon his imagination, and how, even at the close of his life, it still appeared to him suited to excite the masses in the religious struggle.” “Der Papstesel, ein Beitrag zur Kultur-und Kunstgesch. des Reformationszeitalters.” With four illustrations, Göttingen, 1891, p. 88.
[425]“Abbildung des Bapstum,” by Martin Luther, 1545. The verses run as follows:
“Was Gott selbs von dem Bapstum helt,Zeigt dis schrecklich Bild hie gestellt.Dafur jederman grawen solt,Wenn ers zu Hertzen nemen wolt.”
[426]Cp. Lange,ibid., p. 92 ff.
[427]“Annali Veneti” (“Archivio storico italiano,” 7, p. 422). Lange,ibid., p. 18.
[428]Picture in Lange,ibid., plate 2.
[429]Ibid., plate 1.
[430]P. 84seq.
[431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724: “In malam rem abeat.” Cp. in general the Wittenberg sermons against Carlstadt and the fanatics which appeared under the title “Acht Sermone,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 202 ff.
[432]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724.
[433]To the Council and congregation of Mühlhausen, August 21, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 240; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377).
[434]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 5.
[435]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 205 ff.
[436]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 248; Erl ed., 50, p. 292, in the exposition of John xviii.
[437]Cp., for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict.”
[438]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.
[439]I. Andreæ, “Oratio de studio sacr. litt. in acad. Lipsiensi recitata,” Tübing., 1577, c. 2.
[440]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 12, p. 218-221. Cp. Erl. ed., 12², p. 235-238; Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145.
[441]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184: “All the world is astonished and is obliged to confess that we have the Gospel almost as pure and unchanged as in the time of the Apostles, in fact, in its primitive purity.”
[442]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 141 ff. Cp.ibid., 15, p. 39 ff.=22, pp. 184, 186; 8, p. 117=27, p. 331; 15, p. 584 ff.=19, p. 186 ff. “Hence it is plain that the Councils are uncertain and not to be counted on. For not one was so pure that it did not add to or take away from the faith.... The Council of the Apostles, though the first and purest, left something to be desired, though it did no harm.”
[443]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 36; Erl. ed., 35, p. 61.
[444]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 386=25², p. 87.
[445]Cp.ibid., 10, 2, p. 105seq.=28, p. 143. Cp.ibid., 28, p. 248=50, p. 292: “Because I am a doctor of Holy Scripture I have a right to do so [even to interfere in the office of the bishops]; for I have sworn to teach the truth.” Continuation of the passage quoted above, p. 154, n. 3. Thomas Münzer he reproaches with having no call. Of the necessity of a call he says: “If things went ill in my house and my next-door neighbour were to break in and claim a right to settle matters, surely I should have something to say.”
[446]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 139 f.
[447]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144, at the commencement of the work “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”
[448]Ibid., 15, p. 86seq.=29, p. 103 ff.: “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawê ausgelffen hat.”
[449]Ibid., p. 93=112.
[450]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 87=104.
[451]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 205 ff.
[452]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 25, p. 120.
[453]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145 f.; Erl. ed., 12², p. 201, in the Church-postils.
[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724. See above, p. 153.
[455]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 12; Erl. ed., 28, p. 288. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” 1522.
[456]See vol. iv., xxi. 2, towards the end.
[457]“Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in his edition of Luther, 24, p. 357.
[458]Ibid., p. 359 f.
[459]To Myconius, January 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.
[460]P. 361, where he quotes Mathesius’s Sermons on Luther, 13, p. 148 (Nuremberg edition, 1566, p. 157). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 11, and what Weller says (vol. vi., xxxviii. 2) of the two dead people raised to life by Luther. In the German “Table-Talk” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 3) Luther says of prayer: “The prayer of the Church performs great miracles. In our own time it has restored three dead men to life; first me, for often I was sick unto death, then my housekeeper Katey, who was also sick unto death, finally Philip Melanchthon, who, anno 1540, lay sick unto death at Weimar. ThoughLiberatio a morbis et corporalibus periculisis not the best of miracles, yet it must not be allowed to pass unheededpropter infirmitatem in fide. To me it is a much greater miracle that God Almighty should every day bestow the grace of baptism, give Himself in the Sacrament of the altar and absolveet liberat a peccato, a morte et damnatione æterna. These are great miracles.” Cp. Förstemann’s notes, “Tischreden,” 2, p. 230.
[461]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 169.
[462]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 324, andibid., quotation from Rebenstock’s Latin Colloquies. Seidemann in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch” also quotes Khummer’s MS., p. 397.
[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 362.
[464]Ibid., 14², p. 399.
[465]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “Vaticinium Lutheri de seditione nobilium in Germania.”
[466]“Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1718, p. 316, with quotation from “Church Agenda, p. 52.”
[467]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 217.
[468]Walch, 23, p. 1132.
[469]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 186.
[470]Walch, 23, p. 688 f.
[471]Ibid., 14, p. 1360: “Vaticinium mense Augusto,a.1532.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 391 f.
[472]Ibid., 7, p. 1353; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23, in the sermon of 1531 on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Walch’s edition under the heading: “Luther’s Prophecy concerning Germany,” “Luther’s Prophecy on Wittenberg and its magistrates.”
[473]Ibid., 12, p. 1865, Sermon on the Gospel for the 8th Sunday after Trinity, Luke xix. 41. In his “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” Walch, however, expressly admits that Luther “had not the gift of predicting; if he has been spoken of as a prophet, this depended on the sense in which the word was used; he had rightly foreseen much of what would happen to the German Church,” etc. “Neither did God bestow on him the gift of working miracles,” but he did not need it, since he preached no new doctrine and what he taught he proved sufficiently from Holy Scripture; indeed, the Reformation as a whole was not miraculous, since God had not intervened in it in any extraordinary manner.
[474]“Postilla,” pars. iii., Dom. 3, post Adv. “Corp. ref.,” 25, p. 916.
[475]“Of the horrible monstrosities and many other similar signs of the wrath of God at this time, a veracious account by a minister of the Holy Evangel,” 1562, Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 616, p. 470.
[476]In addition to the passage quoted, p. 155, n. 1, cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 83, at the end of Luther’s edition of “Etliche Briefe Johann Hussens,” 1537. See also Luther on the swan, xix. 2, and vol. iv., xxvi. 4.
[477]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 438. “Tischreden,” Cp. Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tischreden,” p. 36, n., and Mathesius, “Historien,³” p. 199. Cp. p. 211´.
[478]“Symbolische Bücher,”10, p. 270 f.
[479]“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 171.
[480]Reply of Myconius, December 2, 1529,ibid., p. 194.
[481]Cp. the account of an apostate friar, who had been a comrade of Hilten’s and who was with him during his last days, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 198; cp. also the literature quoted by Enders. Hilten’s prophecy, and likewise that of the Roman Franciscan, was nevertheless, in 1872, quoted in Luther’s favour by C. F. Kahnis, Professor of Theology at the University of Leipzig, in his “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, p. 178. He says: “What the Spirit of God in him bore witness to in condemnation of the fallen Church of the Middle Ages, was attested by prophetic utterances.” “While Luther was at school at Eisenach, a monk named Hilten languished in the prison of the Franciscan convent,” etc. He appeals to Mathesius, “Historien,” Predigt, 15, p. 319; V. E. Löscher, “Vollständige Reformationsacta,” 1, 1720, p. 148, and K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassstreite,” 1, 1846, p. 295.
[482]Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 250 ff. Lichtenberger’s book was re-translated in this edition by Stephen Roth.
[483]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 145.
[484]Preface, p. 253.
[485]Ibid., p. 258.
[486]Ibid., 2, p. 641, n. 1, to p. 145.
[487]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139 f. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen.” The passage commences: “When a child I frequently heard a prophecy current in the country, viz. that an Emperor Frederick would rescue the Holy Sepulchre.” This had been misunderstood and applied to the tomb at Jerusalem; but it is “of the nature of prophecies to be fulfilled before being understood.” The passage on Frederick also occurs in the Latin text of this work, published previously under the title “De abroganda missa.” In “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 475, we there read: “Videtur mihi ista (prophetia) in hoc Fridrico nostro impleta.” Luther then proceeds to recount in a pleasant vein certain doubtful interpretations.
[488]Bonaventura, “Expos. in cap. ix. Lucæ.”
[489]To the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony, January 4, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 195; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323).
[490]Reprinted in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 38seq.That the author was J. Findling has been proved by N. Paulus in his work “Kaspar Schatzgeyer,” 1898, p. 137 f. Cp. “Katholik,” 1900, ii., p. 90 ff. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 65, n. 1, should be corrected from this.
[491]See Enders,ibid.
[492]Ibid., p. 56.
[493]See Enders, p. 52 f.
[494]Ibid., p. 60.
[495]Ibid., p. 49.
[496]Cp. Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53 (“KL.,” 8², col. 340).
[497]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 57.
[498]Ibid., p. 55.
[499]Ibid., p. 48.
[500]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Ludg., 10, col. 1327.
[501]Ibid., col. 1335.
[502]Cp. col. 1334.
[503]To Duke George of Saxony, June 30, 1530, “Opp.,” col. 1293.
[504]“Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 374 ff., communicated by Joh. Fijalek.
[505]“Gesch. des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 2, p. 135.
[506]In July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, 159-161. In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date.
[507]“Utinam possem aliquid insigne peccati designare modo ad eludendum diabolum!” “Designare” may mean “to paint.” According to Forcelli it also sometimes means “to perform,” “to do.” Cp. Horace, “Ep.,” 1, 5, 16: “Quid non ebrietas designat,” and Terence “Ad.,” 1, 2, 7: “Quid designavit? Fores effregit.”
[508]Those, i.e., who are unwilling to feel that they are sinners. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 9.
[509]Ibid., p. 20.
[510]Ibid., p. 88. In May, 1532. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 308.
[511]Schlaginhaufen, p. 88.
[512]Ibid., p. 9. Here and in what follows, according to Preger, the MS. notes of Veit Dietrich agree with Schlaginhaufen’s account.
[513]Ibid., p. 11.
[514]Ibid.
[515]Ibid., p. 88 f. “Papst und Bischof haben mir die Hände gesalbt, und ich habe sie beschissen im Dreck, do ich den Ars wuschet.”
[516]Ibid., p. 89
[517]“Tagebuch über M. Luther,” by C. Cordatus, ed. by H. Wrampelmeyer, 1883, p. 450: “Etiam in complexus veni coniugis, ut saltem ille pruritus auferret illas cogitationes satanæ.... Laborandum est omnibus modis, ut vehementiore aliquo affectu pellantur.”
[518]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. The Halle MS. on which Bindseil bases his work really depends on the statements of Luther’s pupil Lauterbach. Here Luther’s words run: “Quoties meam uxorem complexus sum, nudam contrectavi, ut tantum sathanæ cogitationes illo pruritu pellerem.But all to no purpose,nolebat cedere,” etc.
[519]“Colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, etc. M. Lutheri,” Francof., 1571, 2, p. 225´ (=125´).
[520]As to this, Wrampelmeyer, a Protestant, remarks (p. 451) in his edition of Cordatus’s Diary, mentioned above: “The German ‘Table-Talk,’ which agrees almost entirely with the Latin version, does not, in Erl. ed., 60, p. 110, and Förstemann, 3, p. 122, contain these words, but replaces them by the following: ‘I have frequently made use of various means in order to drive away Satan, but it was of no use.’ It is clear that words so compromising gave offence and that others were substituted instead of those given in the Latin text, which formed the basis of the German ‘Table-Talk.’ According to the Notes of Cordatus, however, Luther’s words appear in quite a different light.” “The words of the Latin ‘Table-Talk’: ‘ut de puella pulchra, avaritia, ebrietate,’ have also been replaced in the German version by more harmless expressions.”
[521]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 11.
[522]“Opp.,” Antwerpiæ, 1706, 3, p. 242seq.; p. 589seq.Aug. Hardeland (“Gesch. der speziellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation,” Berlin, 1898, p. 261) remarks: “The idea that we must always do the exact opposite of what the devil suggests, is the leading one in Gerson’s Tractate ‘De remediis contra pusillanimitatem.’” He is of opinion that, in advising Weller to sin, Luther was “using this maxim of Gerson’s, and probably only meant: ‘Do not be afraid to do what, from the standpoint of your scrupulosity, appears to be sinful.’” Luther’s advice, however, was not intended for a scrupulous person predisposed to exaggeration or to narrowness of heart, but for all those who despaired of their salvation and were unable to believe in Luther’s doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and in his assurance of salvation. “Cogitationes immanissimæ,” Luther calls Weller’s ideas, “quando diabolus reos (nos) egerit mortis et inferni.... In æternum condemnaberis?” Weller, the disciple, has first to learn: “novi quendam, qui passus est pro me ac satisfecit,” etc.
[523]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 254.
[524]Ibid., 50, p. 248.
[525]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 360.
[526]Ibid., 51, p. 284.
[527]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 367; Erl. ed., 33, p. 5.
[528]Cp. vol. iv., xxviii. 3 and 4. Luther’s famous “pecca fortiter” is discussed at length below (p. 199 ff.), and all that might tend to explain the words is passed in review.
[529]See J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², 1901, p. 215.
[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.
[531]Cp. passages quoted by Köstlin,ibid.
[532]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.
[533]Ibid., p. 59.
[534]See above, p. 26.
[535]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 73.
[536]Ibid., 2, p. 156.
[537]Ibid., p. 292.
[538]Ibid., p. 430.
[539]Ibid., 1, p. 213.
[540]“Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck,” Freiburg, 1892, p. 24 f.
[541]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 188. Luther does not admit the “timor servilis” of Catholic theology, and in his arbitrary fashion he represents it as equivalent to mere “fear of the gallows,” “timor serviliter servilis.”
[542]Ibid., p. 190.
[543]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 506; Erl. ed., 31, p. 181.
[544]Köstlin,ibid., p. 189.
[545]Council of Trent, Sess. VI., “decretum de iustificatione,” c. 6.
[546]Ibid., c. 15.
[547]Ibid., c. 14.
[548]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 529; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 59, in the work “De captivitate babylonica.”
[549]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 157, in the “Hauspostille.”
[550]Ibid., 4, p. 131, “Hauspostille.” Cp. Weim. ed., 36, p. 187.
[551]Ibid., p. 132, “Hauspostille.”
[552]Ibid., 62, p. 267, “Tischreden.”
[553]Cp. vol. i., p. 289 ff.
[554]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 248.
[555]Ibid.
[556]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370.
[557]Köstlin,ibid., p. 369.
[558]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 691 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 231seq., “De servo arbitrio.”
[559]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359.
[560]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 263, “De servo arbitrio.”
[561]Ibid., p. 711=p. 258.
[562]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 355.
[563]Köstlin,ibid., p. 359. Köstlin admits the “questionable character” of the doctrine, though in rather mild language, e.g. p. 370.
[564]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.
[565]“Prussia est plena dæmonibus,” etc. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.
[566]“The devil is in the world,vel potius ipse mundus concretive vel abstractive.” Letter of January 3, 1534, to Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 376.
[567]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.
[568]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.
[569]To Justus Jonas, December 29, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 163: “Christus infirmus per vestras orationes adhuc superat vel saltem pugnat fortiter.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 173.
[570]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 165, “Table-Talk.”
[571]Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 133. The passage will be given in detail later.
[572]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; Erl. ed., 33, p. 374.
[573]Ibid., p. 341=359.
[574]Ibid., p. 342=360.
[575]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 356 f.
[576]Cp.,ibid., p. 279 ff.
[577]Letter to Reissenbusch, March 27, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 277; Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).
[578]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.
[579]Ibid.
[580]See below, p. 196.
[581]“Der rechte Weg. Welche Weg oder Strass der Glaubig wandeln soll,” etc. Dillingen, 1553. The passages are quoted by N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 252.
[582]“Christl. Predigt. an S. Matthei Tag,” Mainz, 1557, in Paulus,ibid., p. 168.
[583]“Predigten über die erste Canon. Epistel Johannis,” Cologne, 1571. Paulus,ibid., p. 173.
[584]“Vormeldunge der Unwahrheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt a.d. Oder, 1532, Paulus,ibid., p. 33. The three writers above quoted were all Dominicans. Luther’s Catholic contemporaries cannot have been acquainted with his “Pecca fortiter,” otherwise their language would have been even stronger.
[585]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. The letter no longer exists in its entirety. One portion, however, became known and was published by Joh. Aurifaber in 1556 in the first vol. of Luther’s letters (p. 343) and described as “Fragmentum epistolæ D.M. Lutheri ad Philippum Melanchthonem ex Pathmo scriptæ, a. MDXXI., repertum in bibliotheca Georgii Spalatini.” Melanchthon had possibly sent the extract to Spalatin when the latter was troubled regarding his own salvation.
[586](See below.) “Vides quantis urgear æstibus,” etc. To Melanchthon, August 3, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 213.
[587]See vol. ii., p. 82 f.
[588]Passages tallying with the “Esto peccator” are to be found elsewhere in Luther’s writings. Cp. for instance his letter of 1516 (vol. i., p. 88 f.) to Spenlein, where he says: “Cave, ne aliquando ad tantam puritatem aspires, ut peccator tibi videri nolis, imo esse. Christus enim nonnisi in peccatoribus habitat.... Igitur nonnisi in illo pacem invenies.” In “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236seq., it is likewise explained why one must be a great sinner; he insists that “credenti omnia sunt auctore Christo possibilia” and condemns strongly “affectus propriæ iustitiæ,” until he arrives at the paradox, “Ideo est peccatum, ut in peccatis apti ad spem simus” (p. 239). In perfect harmony with such early statements is the letter he wrote towards the end of his life to Spalatin when the latter was sunk in melancholy; here he says: “Nimis tener hactenus fuisti peccator.... Iunge te nobis veris magnis et duris peccatoribus”; he must, so Christ speaking through Luther tells him, hold alone to faith in the Divine mercy. August 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.
[589]“Symbolik,” § 16, p. 161.
[590]1, p. 301. Other Protestant writers, such as Carové “Alleinseligmachende Kirche,” 2, p. 434 (see K. A. Hase, “Polemik,”4p. 267), declared it to be “a downright calumny to say that so shocking a doctrine occurred in a work of Luther’s.”
[591]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 58.
[592]“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” Tübingen, 1904, pp. 38-45.
[593]Köhler here quotes Denifle (“Luther,” p. 442; ed. 2, p. 465), who gives these words in their full context from Luther’s MS. Commentary on Romans. We may point out that Denifle quotes an abundance of similar passages from Luther’s works, amongst which those taken from his early Commentary on Romans are particularly interesting.
[594]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 27; Erl. ed., 27, p. 185; Köhler,ibid., p. 43 f.
[595]Ibid., p. 25=181=44.
[596]On June 29, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 44. Melanchthon had told Luther his fears and anxieties on account of the impending discussion of the point of faith before the Diet of Augsburg. Luther is encouraging him.
[597]To Melanchthon, June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.
[598]In the letter quoted above, n. 1 (p. 43): “carnificem illum spiritus.”
[599]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 98.
[600]Ibid., p. 79.
[601]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19, p. 325.
[602]Ibid., 58, p. 363 f.
[603]Ibid., p. 374.
[604]Ibid., p. 380.
[605]Ibid., p. 26.
[606]Ibid., p. 385.
[607]Ibid., p. 402.
[608]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 146.
[609]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.
[610]“Comment. in Gal.” (1531), ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 102. Cp. above, p. 139, n. 1.