[1015]Ibid., pp. 294, 296.[1016]Ibid., p. 297; cp. p. 292.[1017]Ibid., p. 293.[1018]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 295.[1019]Ibid., 39, p. 353.[1020]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.[1021]“Vita Lutheri” (“Vitæ quatuor reformatorum,” ed. A. T. Neander-n. 5, p. 5).[1022]“Historien,” 1566, p. 151. Then follows the passage referred to on p. 305 concerning Luther and the Elector.[1023]See Loesche’s Introduction to the edition mentioned in the following note.[1024]G. Mathesius, “Hochzeitspredigten,” ed. Loesche, Prague, 1897 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” Bd. 6). The sermon in question was delivered in a castle in 1553 (pp. 311-335). Loesche says of the same: “It is not necessary to be a rabid teetotaller to feel that Urbanus—from the title of the sermon—treads dangerous ground, and would to-day be considered quite scandalously lax.” Cp. N. P[aulus] in the Köln. Volksztng., 1904, No. 623: on Luther’s admission “I also tipple.”[1025]Letter of February 20, 1510, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “expositus et involutus ... crapulae.” Cp. our vol. i., p. 368. Luther uses the word “crapulatus” in the sense of “ebrius,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 559 and 596. In the larger Commentary on Galatians, however, a distinction is made between “ebrietas” and “crapula,” 3, pp. 47 and 53; cp. the smaller Commentary (1519), Weim. ed., 2, p. 591: “Commessatio, quaeLc. xxi. 34 [crapula]dicitur; sicut ebrietas nimium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat corda.”[1026]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82, 87, 94.[1027]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 497.[1028]See above, p. 219.[1029]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337 (“Tischreden”): “A glass with three ridges ... down to the first the Ten Commandments, down to the second the Creed, the third with the [Our Father of the] Catechism in full.”[1030]S. Keil, “Des seligen Zeugen Gottes Dr. M. Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” 3, Leipzig, 1764, p. 156 f. He considers that the latter statements in the text were “inventions”; at any rate “there was no harm in the matter itself,” and the “conclusion of the Papists that Luther was a drunkard” were therefore false. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510. On the famous but almost legendary “Luther-beakers,” F, Küchenmeister has an article with interesting sketches in the “Ill. Zeitung,” 1879, November 1.[1031]Letter of May 12, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 359: “Fateor culpam meam et conscius mihi sum, effudisse me verba,” etc.[1032]Cp. “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” ed. Lenz, 1, pp. 326, 336, 362 f., 389.[1033]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” Berlin, 1904, p. 70 f.[1034]“Farrago,” etc., cod. chart. Goth., 402, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 681, n. 498.[1035]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,”ibid.[1036]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[1037]Cod. Ottobon., n. 3029.[1038]“Luther in rationalistischer und christl. Beleuchtung,” p. 77, n. 3.[1039]“Christl. Welt,” 1904, No. 6, p. 128.[1040]“Martin Luther,” 1, Beilage. Cp.ibid., p. v. Evers was the first to read “Doctor plenus.”[1041]W. Walther (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1906, p. 473), on the strength of a photograph, now declares “Johannes” to be “the most likely” reading, and rightly excludes “plenus” on p. 586 of his book, “Für Luther.” H. Böhmer (“Luther,”², p. 116) is also in favour of “Johannes.” G. Kawerau for his part thought, judging from the photograph, that “plures” might be read instead of “plenus,” in which N. Müller agrees with him; he could not, however, understand what “plures” meant here. “Studien und Kritiken,” 1908, p. 603. On re-examination of the original I was forced to decide against “plures.” K. Löffler (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 317) proposes “Doctor parvus,” but this is excluded by the characters, though the sense would be reasonable enough. “Johannes” may quite well be the reading, since from 1527 Luther was in the habit of adding greetings from Katey and Hans in his letters.[1042]To Link at Nuremberg, January 15, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 345.[1043]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 649, n. 195.[1044]Ibid.[1045]To Hans Honold at Augsburg, October 2, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).[1046]To Agricola. Letter published by Kawerau in the “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 67 ff.[1047]Cp. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (see above, p. 299, n. 1), p. 308 ff.[1048]To Gabriel Zwilling at Torgau, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 11.[1049]In the letter quoted above.[1050]To Melanchthon, August 24, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204 f.[1051]To Justus Jonas, August 28, 1530,ibid., p. 237.[1052]Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 784.[1053]Ibid., p. 470.[1054]G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (reprinted from “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1-3), p. 31.[1055]“Loci Communes Phil. Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt,” ed. (with commentaries) Th. Kolde, 3rd ed., 1900.[1056]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, more particularly 343. Cp. F. Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 186 f. Further particulars of the work will be found amongst the statements concerning Luther’s relations with the schools (vol. v., xxxv. 3).[1057]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 322.[1058]Ibid., 4, p. 230.[1059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 68; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 493.[1060]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15, 18.[1061]To Spalatin, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 417.[1062]Cp.ibid., pp. 448 and 451, where he again calls Luther Elias in letters written in 1521 to Spalatin.[1063]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 763. To the Elector of Saxony.[1064]Ibid.[1065]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 821, memorandum for the Landgrave of Hesse.[1066]Ibid., p. 995. To Balth. During, about September, 1528.[1067]Ibid., p. 981. To Fr. Myconius, June 5, 1528: “Ego sic angor, ut nihil supra vel cogitari possit, quum considero horum temporum conditionem.” Similar statements of Melanchthon’s in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 366 ff.[1068]Ibid., p. 938. Letter of September 13, 1528.[1069]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1013. To Myconius, December 1, 1528: “Meum scriptum ostendas consulibus ut permittant nubere mulierculæ.”[1070]Cp.ibid., p. 839. “Iudicium” of 1526.[1071]“Apologia confess. August.,” art. 23. “Symbolische Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 242.[1072]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 979. Cp. “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274.[1073]See below, xx. 4, his Preface to his new edition of Luther’s “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.”[1074]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 113 f.[1075]Ibid.[1076]“Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 1 ff.). The appended exposition of Psalm vii. probably told greatly on many, more particularly on pious readers.[1077]On January 9, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1023. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 115.[1078]To his friend Camerarius from Spires, April 21, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1060, “Habes rem horribilem.”[1079]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1070.[1080]To Justus Jonas, June 14, 1529, p. 1076; “Una res nocuit nobis, quam diutius procrastinati sumus, cum postularetur a nobis, ut damnaremus Zinglianos. Hinc ego in tantam incidi perturbationem, ut mortem oppetere malim, quam has miserias ferre. Omnes dolores interni(readinferni)oppresserunt me. Sed tamen spero Christum remedia his rebus ostensurum esse.”[1081]To Philip of Hesse, June 22, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1078. Cp. p. 1075seq.[1082]On November 14, 1529.[1083]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 262 f.[1084]See Luther’s own doctrine, vol. ii., pp. 223 ff., 265 ff., 291 ff.[1085]Cp. Kolde in J. J. Müller, “Symbolische Bücher”10, Introduction, p. ix.: “There was no mention therein of the Papal power and it was left to the ‘pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, should he see any reason, to attack the Papacy’”—thus the Strasburg envoys in 1537 in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 297; for, as Melanchthon openly admitted to Luther, the Articles must be accommodated to the needs of the moment.[1086]Kolde,ibid.(“Symbol. Bücher”), p. viii. f. Luther to the Elector of Saxony, May 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 145 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 335): “I see nothing I can improve upon or alter, nor would this be fitting seeing that I am unable to proceed so softly and quietly.”[1087]On the “Gospel-proviso,” our vol. ii., p. 385 ff.[1088]Cp. Kolde,ibid., p. xxiv. ff. K. Müller, “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889, p. 121 ff.), points out why Luther looked askance at any Symbolic Books; the fact is he did not recognise any Church having “a legal and ordered constitution and laws such as would call for Symbolic Books.” G. Krüger says (“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1906, p. 18 f.): “The Confession and its Apology were wrongly interpreted by the narrow-minded orthodoxy of later years as laws binding on faith. And yet why did Melanchthon go on improving and polishing them if he did not regard them as his own personal books, which he was free to alter just as every author may when he publishes a new edition of his work?” Yet they were “the genuine charter of evangelical belief as understood by our Reformers.”[1089]Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,” Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “Confutatio” is reprinted in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the ‘Augustana’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on the ‘Confutatio.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.” Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”10, p. 47): “Hæc fere summa est doctrinæ apud nos[Harnack:suos]in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” On p. 684 Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in theAugustanaI cannot admit. TheAugustanawas the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him.”As regards the position of theAugustanain the history of Protestantism, Harnack remarks on the same page, that the free teaching of the Reformation then began to develop into a “Rule of Faith.” “When to this was added the pressure from without, and when, under the storms which were gathering (fanatics, Anabaptists), courage to say anythingquod discrepet ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est, faded away, then the movement terminated in the Confession of Augsburg, which while not actually denying the principle of evangelical freedom, nevertheless begins to pour the new wine into old vessels (cp. even the Articles of Marburg). Did the Reformation (of the sixteenth century) do away with the old dogma? It is safer to answer this question in the negative than in the affirmative. But if we admit that it attacked its foundations, as our Catholic opponents rightly accuse us of doing, and that it was a mighty principle rather than a new system of doctrine, then it must also be admitted that the altogether conservative attitude of the Reformation towards ancient dogma, inclusive of its premisses, for instance, Original Sin and the Fall, belongs, not to its principle, but simply to its history.”[1090]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 280 ff., with a more detailed appreciation of theApologia.[1091]Reprinted in the “Symb. Bücher,” p. 73 ff. Cp. Kolde’s Introduction, p. xl. f.[1092]Döllinger,ibid., p. 281.[1093]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 9, p. 18 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 501.[1094]Kolde,ibid., p. xxi., on the Latin edition which appeared at the end of April or the beginning of May, being followed by the German edition (probably) in the autumn.[1095]“Symb. Bücher,” p. 45. The Latin text runs: “Tota hæc causa habet testimonia patrum. Nam Augustinus multis voluminibus defendit gratiam et iustitiam fidei contra merita operum. Et similia docet Ambrosius.... Quamquam autem haec doctrina (iustificationis) contemnitur ab imperitis, tamen experiuntur piæ ac pavidæ conscientiæ plurimam eam consolationis afferre.”[1096]In the letter to Brenz mentioned above.[1097]Cp. the passages, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 92, 104, 151, 218. On p. 104 in the articleDe iustificationehe quotes Augustine,De spir. et litt., in support of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. On p. 218 he foists this assertion on the Catholics, “homines sine Spiritu Sancto posse ... mereri gratiam et iustificationem operibus,” and says, that this was refuted by Augustine, “cuius sententiam supra in articulo de iustificatione recitavimus.”[1098]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 173; cp. p. 169.[1099]G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xix. 3.[1100]On January 28, 1538. Kawerau,ibid., p. 44. Cp. G. Ellinger, “Philipp Melanchthon,” Berlin, 1902, pp. 362 ff., 598.[1101]To Veit Dietrich, July 8, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 174.[1102]To Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola at Augsburg, July 15, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 113.[1103]To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45.[1104]On August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233. “Obsecro te, ut Amsdorfice respondeas in aliquem angulum: ‘Dass uns der Papst und Legat wollten im Ars lecken.’”[1105]From Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35; “tuas miserrimas curas, quibus te scribis consumi.” This was really due to the “greatness of our want of faith.”[1106]He writes to Melanchthon on June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51: “Si nos ruemus, ruet Christus una! Esto ruat, malo ego cum Christo ruere quam cum Cæsare stare.” His cause was without “temeritas” and quite pure, “quod testatur mihi Spiritus ipse.”Ibid.: “Ego pro te oro, oravi et orabo nec dubito, quin sim exauditus; sentio illud Amen in corde meo.” The entire letter mirrors his frame of mind during his stay at the Castle of Coburg.[1107]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 280.[1108]To Spengler, September 15, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 372.[1109]In his “spes transactionis” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 261) Melanchthon even described the previous tampering with the Church as “temerarii motus” (ibid., p. 246seq.). Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 112.[1110]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 297.[1111]Luther to Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45: “Sicuti semper scripsi, omnia sis concedere paratus, tantum solo evangelio nobis libere permisso.”[1112]August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235: “dolos ac lapsus nostros facile emendabimus,” etc. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386. For proof that “mendacia” should be read after “dolos” see Grisar, “Stimmen aus M.L.,” 1913, p. 286 ff.[1113]To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.[1114]“Ubique enim et semper excipimus libertatem et puritatem doctrinæ, qua obtenta tune dominationem episcoporum detrectares?”[1115]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 362.[1116]Cp. Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, August 26, 1530, and previous ones to Melanchthon, July 13; to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola, July 15; to Melanchthon, July 27. “Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 219, 100, 112, 136.[1117]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.[1118]“Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 5, p. 282. Spoken at the termination of the historic Diet of Augsburg the words of the theologians gain added interest, though this was not the first time similar language was heard. Cp. G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” p. 14 f. Even in 1527 the Visitations had been “arranged by the Elector for the amendment of the conditions” which Luther had exposed “to his sovereign with a heavy heart, viz. ‘how the parsonages are in a state of misery, no one giving or paying anything’; the common man heeds neither preacher nor parson, so that, unless some strong measures are taken by Your Electoral Highness for State maintenance of pastors and preachers, there will soon be neither parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, and so God’s Word and service will come to an end.”[1119]Janssen,ibid., p. 282: “neither were they at all impressed by the declaration of the Emperor that ‘the Word of God, the Gospel and every law, civil and canonical, forbade a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.’”[1120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 342.[1121]Letter of August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233.[1122]Luther to the Landgrave, September 11, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxvii. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 253): “I heartily thank H.R.H. for his gracious and consoling offer to afford me shelter.”[1123]Janssen,ibid., p. 319 ff.[1124]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, pp. 283 f., 286, 287.[1125]Ibid., p. 596.[1126]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 251.[1127]Ibid., p. 343.[1128]“Ph. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xiv. 3), p. 90 f. Campeggio, in H. Laemmer, “Monumenta Vaticana,” p. 51.[1129]Third ed. Art. “Melanchthon,” by († Landerer, † Herrlinger and) Kirn, pp. 518, 529.[1130]“Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358 ff. The page-heading reads: “Melanchthons absichtliche und öffentliche Unwahrheit.”[1131]Sell,ibid., p. 98.[1132]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51.[1133]On August 26, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 219. Cp. his letters of July 13 to Melanchthon, of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin and Melanchthon.[1134]On September 11, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 252: “Utinam episcopi eam (iurisdictionem) accepissent sub istis conditionibus! Sed ipsi habent nares in suam rem.”[1135]To Camerarius, November 2, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1126.[1136]Cp. his “Apologia” of the Augsburg Confession, Art. iv., “Symb. Bücher,” p. 87, where, on the doctrine of Justification, the old German translation runs: “Because the gainsayers know not nor understand what the words of Scripture mean, what forgiveness of sins, or grace, or faith, or justice is ... they have miserably robbed poor souls, to whom it was a matter of life and death, of their eternal consolation.” Page 90: “They do not know what the fear of death or the assaults of the devil are ... when the heart feels the anger of God or the conscience is troubled ... but the affrighted conscience knows well that it is impossible to merit eitherde condignoorde congruo, and therefore soon sinks into distrust and despair,” etc. Page 95: The new teaching alone was able “to raise up our hearts even amidst the terrors of sin and death,” etc. Hence Melanchthon insists in his “Brevis discendæ theologiæ ratio” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 458), that Bible study served “ad usum et ad tentationes superandas comparanda cognitio.”[1137]See Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung,” etc. (above p. 319, n. 1), p. 32. Cp. Kawerau, “Studien und Kritiken,” 1897, p. 678 f.[1138]Plitt-Kolde,³, 1900.[1139]Melanchthon to Spalatin, September, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 674, after the publication of the “Diatribe”: “Diu optavi Luthero prudentem aliquem de hoc negotio antagonistam contingere.” “His own testimony (in 1536) is decisive as to the effect of Erasmus on his opinion regarding free-will.” Ellinger,ibid., p. 199. On the “Diatribe,” see our vol. ii., p. 261 ff.[1140]Ellinger,ibid., p. 202. In this he was of course inconsequent, for, as Ellinger says, where it is a question of the religious life, he traces everything back to the action of God. “It is easy to see, that, here, as in Luther’s case (where theDeus absconditusplays a part), we have merely an expedient.”Ibid.[1141]Ellinger,ibid., p. 175 f.[1142]Above, p. 324. He was being attacked on account of the stress he laid on good works, so he wrote to Camerarius in December, 1536, but though so many preachers were now shouting in stentorian tones that it was erroneous to demand works, “posterity will be astonished that an age so mad could ever have been, when such folly met with applause.” Cp. “Pezelii Obiectiones et resp. Melanchthonis,” 5, p. 289, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.[1143]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383.[1144]To the Landgrave of Hesse in 1524, under the title “Epitome renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ” (“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 704): “Iustitia vere christiana est, cum confusa conscientia per fidem in Christum erigitur et sentit, se accipere remissionem peccatorum propter Christum.” In the same “Epitome,” p. 706: “Ipsissimam iustitiam esse, credere quod per Christum remittantur peccata sine nostra satisfactione, sine nostris meritis.”[1145]Cp. the passages in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 291.[1146]Letter of August or September, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 158.[1147]Even in his “Discendæ theologiæ ratio” of 1530 (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 457), Melanchthon had said: “Multa sunt in illis (Locis) adhuc rudiora, quæ decrevi mutare.”[1148]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Scio, re ipsa Lutherum sentire eadem.”[1149]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”4, 1906, p. 857. He says, that Melanchthon “was deceiving himself” in asserting that Luther’s teaching was the same.[1150]“Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 3.[1151]Loofs,ibid., p. 837 f.[1152]Ibid., p. 838. He had even ceased to be a true interpreter since 1527, so we read on p. 842.[1153]Loofs, p. 842.[1154]Ibid., p. 844.[1155]Ibid.[1156]Ibid., p. 845.[1157]Ibid., p. 845 ff.[1158]Ibid., p. 853 f.[1159]J. Haussleiter, “Aus der Schule Melanchthons, Theologische Disputationen usw., 1546 bis 1560,” Greifswald, 1897, p. 35.[1160]Ibid., p. 39.[1161]Cp. Loofs,loc. cit., p. 855.[1162]Haussleiter,loc. cit., p. v. Also Loofs,loc. cit.Cp. above, p. 332, n.[1163]“Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889), p. 121 ff.[1164]Cp. above, p. 3 ff. It should be pointed out in order to supplement the above statements of Haussleiter and Müller that Luther nevertheless looks on faith as the acceptance of certain dogmas (cp. above, p. 14, and vol. v., xxxiv. 1), and thus in some sense recognises a “rule of faith,” and that not seldom in the most peremptory fashion he demands obedience to the “injunctions of faith.”[1165]Page vi.[1166]Karl Müller (“Symbole,” p. 127 f.) points out very truly that Melanchthon was in the habit of appealing to Luther’s authority, who, for his part, “claimed immutability for his own view of the Gospel”; and further that later followers of Luther, for instance, Flacius, thanks to this very principle, reverted to the real Luther, and furiously assailed Melanchthon for his deformation of the Reformer. According to G. Krüger, “Melanchthon,” p. 12, Melanchthon “in his revisions (of the ‘Loci’) cut himself more and more adrift from Luther, not always happily, but rather to the detriment of the cause.” Page 25: “Many are of opinion that the glorious seed of the German Reformation would have borne much richer fruit had Melanchthon been different from what he was.” Yet Krüger also says: “Should the Luther for whom we long ever come, then let us hope that a Melanchthon will be his right-hand man, that, with the advent of the Titan who overthrows the old and founds the new, the spirit of peace and kindliness may still prevail to the blessing to our Fatherland and Church.” What the aims of the new Luther and new Melanchthon are to be, the author fails to state.[1167]Above, p. 8 ff.[1168]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 69.[1169]Krüger, “Ph. Melanchthon,” p. 12: “Although Melanchthon, the academician, did not look upon himself as a born theologian, although he likened himself to the donkey in the mystery-play, yet he became the father of evangelical theology.”[1170]To Camerarius, January 10, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 822: “meam sententiam noli nunc requirere fui enim nuncius alienæ causæ.”[1171]Loofs,ibid., p. 865.[1172]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358. He gives no references.[1173]Above, p. 150 ff.[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 378; Erl. ed., 29, p. 5.[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.[1176]Vol. v., xxxi. 1 and 4.[1177]“Anal. Lutherana et Melanchthoniana. Tischreden Luthers und Aussprüche Melanchthons,” 1892 (usually quoted here as “Mathesius, Aufzeichnungen”).[1178]Page 178.[1179]Page 158.[1180]Page 143.[1181]Page 178.[1182]Page 186. On Melanchthon’a belief in devils and witches see K. Hartfelder, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 1889, p. 252 ff. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, pp. 27, 41, 121.[1183]Page 184.[1184]Page 160.[1185]Page 161.[1186]“Vita Melanchthonis,” c. 22.[1187]Page 177.[1188]Page 19.[1189]Page 159.[1190]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400.[1191]“Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 133, in a work against Thamer. Cp. N. Paulus, “Servets Hinrichtung im lutherischen Urteil,” “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 161 ff., and “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1905, pp. 40-53; likewise “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911.[1192]“Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 362.[1193]Ibid., p. 524.[1194]Ibid., p. 852.[1195]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 602.[1196]Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” p. 47 ff. Paulus quotes from a pamphlet of Melanchthon’s—which escaped the notice of the editors of his works—entitled “Prozess, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Wiedertäufern,” and dated 1557. Here we read that even the Anabaptist articles which did not concern the secular government were to be punished as blasphemies, as for instance the rejection of infant baptism and the denial of the Trinity. Such articles were not to be regarded as of no account, “for the Jewish fallacy that Christ did not exist previous to His Incarnation is plainly blasphemous, and so is the denial of original sin,” etc. Then follows the list of penalties. The memorandum is signed by the theologians Melanchthon, J. Brenz, J. Marbach, J. Andreae, G. Karg, P. Eber, J. Pistorius and J. Rungius.[1197]Paulus,ibid., p. 45: “No less than nine reasons are alleged to prove that Christian rulers, like the Jewish kings, are bound by Divine law to root out idolatry.”[1198]Letter to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 538.[1199]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 154. Paulus,loc. cit., p. 5.[1200]Ellinger,ibid., p. 615.[1201]Ellinger,ibid., p. 157.[1202]“Von der Freyheit eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 34 f., 29; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 195 f., 187.[1203]Cp. above, p. 324 ff.[1204]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 604, 608.[1205]To Bishop Andreas Cricius, October 27, 1532, in Kawerau, “Die Versuche, Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” p. 13, from T. Wierzbowski, “Materialy,” etc., Warsaw, 1900.[1206]To Camerarius, November 27, 1539, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 840: “dolores animi acerbissimi et continui.”[1207]To Bucer, August 28, 1544, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 474. In the same letter: “noster Pericles[Luther]rursus tonare cœpit vehementissime”; Amsdorf was inciting him against the writer on account of the question of the Sacrament.[1208]To Camerarius, October 31, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 683.[1209]To the same, March 23, 1525,ibid., p. 729: “Reliqui vulgus sunt.”[1210]To the same, July 4, 1526,ibid., p. 804. See his letter on Luther’s marriage in our vol. ii., p. 176.[1211]Ellinger,ibid., p. 619, p. 188, n. Melanchthon reminds Camerarius that they had “often censured” Luther’s [Greek: bômoloch’ia]. Cp. vol. ii., p. 178. Camerarius altered not only this letter in the printed edition, but also others; for instance, that mentioned above, p. 364, note 4, about the “vulgus.”
[1015]Ibid., pp. 294, 296.[1016]Ibid., p. 297; cp. p. 292.[1017]Ibid., p. 293.[1018]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 295.[1019]Ibid., 39, p. 353.[1020]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.[1021]“Vita Lutheri” (“Vitæ quatuor reformatorum,” ed. A. T. Neander-n. 5, p. 5).[1022]“Historien,” 1566, p. 151. Then follows the passage referred to on p. 305 concerning Luther and the Elector.[1023]See Loesche’s Introduction to the edition mentioned in the following note.[1024]G. Mathesius, “Hochzeitspredigten,” ed. Loesche, Prague, 1897 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” Bd. 6). The sermon in question was delivered in a castle in 1553 (pp. 311-335). Loesche says of the same: “It is not necessary to be a rabid teetotaller to feel that Urbanus—from the title of the sermon—treads dangerous ground, and would to-day be considered quite scandalously lax.” Cp. N. P[aulus] in the Köln. Volksztng., 1904, No. 623: on Luther’s admission “I also tipple.”[1025]Letter of February 20, 1510, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “expositus et involutus ... crapulae.” Cp. our vol. i., p. 368. Luther uses the word “crapulatus” in the sense of “ebrius,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 559 and 596. In the larger Commentary on Galatians, however, a distinction is made between “ebrietas” and “crapula,” 3, pp. 47 and 53; cp. the smaller Commentary (1519), Weim. ed., 2, p. 591: “Commessatio, quaeLc. xxi. 34 [crapula]dicitur; sicut ebrietas nimium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat corda.”[1026]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82, 87, 94.[1027]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 497.[1028]See above, p. 219.[1029]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337 (“Tischreden”): “A glass with three ridges ... down to the first the Ten Commandments, down to the second the Creed, the third with the [Our Father of the] Catechism in full.”[1030]S. Keil, “Des seligen Zeugen Gottes Dr. M. Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” 3, Leipzig, 1764, p. 156 f. He considers that the latter statements in the text were “inventions”; at any rate “there was no harm in the matter itself,” and the “conclusion of the Papists that Luther was a drunkard” were therefore false. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510. On the famous but almost legendary “Luther-beakers,” F, Küchenmeister has an article with interesting sketches in the “Ill. Zeitung,” 1879, November 1.[1031]Letter of May 12, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 359: “Fateor culpam meam et conscius mihi sum, effudisse me verba,” etc.[1032]Cp. “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” ed. Lenz, 1, pp. 326, 336, 362 f., 389.[1033]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” Berlin, 1904, p. 70 f.[1034]“Farrago,” etc., cod. chart. Goth., 402, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 681, n. 498.[1035]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,”ibid.[1036]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[1037]Cod. Ottobon., n. 3029.[1038]“Luther in rationalistischer und christl. Beleuchtung,” p. 77, n. 3.[1039]“Christl. Welt,” 1904, No. 6, p. 128.[1040]“Martin Luther,” 1, Beilage. Cp.ibid., p. v. Evers was the first to read “Doctor plenus.”[1041]W. Walther (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1906, p. 473), on the strength of a photograph, now declares “Johannes” to be “the most likely” reading, and rightly excludes “plenus” on p. 586 of his book, “Für Luther.” H. Böhmer (“Luther,”², p. 116) is also in favour of “Johannes.” G. Kawerau for his part thought, judging from the photograph, that “plures” might be read instead of “plenus,” in which N. Müller agrees with him; he could not, however, understand what “plures” meant here. “Studien und Kritiken,” 1908, p. 603. On re-examination of the original I was forced to decide against “plures.” K. Löffler (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 317) proposes “Doctor parvus,” but this is excluded by the characters, though the sense would be reasonable enough. “Johannes” may quite well be the reading, since from 1527 Luther was in the habit of adding greetings from Katey and Hans in his letters.[1042]To Link at Nuremberg, January 15, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 345.[1043]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 649, n. 195.[1044]Ibid.[1045]To Hans Honold at Augsburg, October 2, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).[1046]To Agricola. Letter published by Kawerau in the “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 67 ff.[1047]Cp. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (see above, p. 299, n. 1), p. 308 ff.[1048]To Gabriel Zwilling at Torgau, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 11.[1049]In the letter quoted above.[1050]To Melanchthon, August 24, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204 f.[1051]To Justus Jonas, August 28, 1530,ibid., p. 237.[1052]Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 784.[1053]Ibid., p. 470.[1054]G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (reprinted from “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1-3), p. 31.[1055]“Loci Communes Phil. Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt,” ed. (with commentaries) Th. Kolde, 3rd ed., 1900.[1056]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, more particularly 343. Cp. F. Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 186 f. Further particulars of the work will be found amongst the statements concerning Luther’s relations with the schools (vol. v., xxxv. 3).[1057]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 322.[1058]Ibid., 4, p. 230.[1059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 68; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 493.[1060]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15, 18.[1061]To Spalatin, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 417.[1062]Cp.ibid., pp. 448 and 451, where he again calls Luther Elias in letters written in 1521 to Spalatin.[1063]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 763. To the Elector of Saxony.[1064]Ibid.[1065]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 821, memorandum for the Landgrave of Hesse.[1066]Ibid., p. 995. To Balth. During, about September, 1528.[1067]Ibid., p. 981. To Fr. Myconius, June 5, 1528: “Ego sic angor, ut nihil supra vel cogitari possit, quum considero horum temporum conditionem.” Similar statements of Melanchthon’s in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 366 ff.[1068]Ibid., p. 938. Letter of September 13, 1528.[1069]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1013. To Myconius, December 1, 1528: “Meum scriptum ostendas consulibus ut permittant nubere mulierculæ.”[1070]Cp.ibid., p. 839. “Iudicium” of 1526.[1071]“Apologia confess. August.,” art. 23. “Symbolische Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 242.[1072]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 979. Cp. “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274.[1073]See below, xx. 4, his Preface to his new edition of Luther’s “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.”[1074]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 113 f.[1075]Ibid.[1076]“Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 1 ff.). The appended exposition of Psalm vii. probably told greatly on many, more particularly on pious readers.[1077]On January 9, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1023. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 115.[1078]To his friend Camerarius from Spires, April 21, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1060, “Habes rem horribilem.”[1079]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1070.[1080]To Justus Jonas, June 14, 1529, p. 1076; “Una res nocuit nobis, quam diutius procrastinati sumus, cum postularetur a nobis, ut damnaremus Zinglianos. Hinc ego in tantam incidi perturbationem, ut mortem oppetere malim, quam has miserias ferre. Omnes dolores interni(readinferni)oppresserunt me. Sed tamen spero Christum remedia his rebus ostensurum esse.”[1081]To Philip of Hesse, June 22, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1078. Cp. p. 1075seq.[1082]On November 14, 1529.[1083]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 262 f.[1084]See Luther’s own doctrine, vol. ii., pp. 223 ff., 265 ff., 291 ff.[1085]Cp. Kolde in J. J. Müller, “Symbolische Bücher”10, Introduction, p. ix.: “There was no mention therein of the Papal power and it was left to the ‘pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, should he see any reason, to attack the Papacy’”—thus the Strasburg envoys in 1537 in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 297; for, as Melanchthon openly admitted to Luther, the Articles must be accommodated to the needs of the moment.[1086]Kolde,ibid.(“Symbol. Bücher”), p. viii. f. Luther to the Elector of Saxony, May 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 145 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 335): “I see nothing I can improve upon or alter, nor would this be fitting seeing that I am unable to proceed so softly and quietly.”[1087]On the “Gospel-proviso,” our vol. ii., p. 385 ff.[1088]Cp. Kolde,ibid., p. xxiv. ff. K. Müller, “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889, p. 121 ff.), points out why Luther looked askance at any Symbolic Books; the fact is he did not recognise any Church having “a legal and ordered constitution and laws such as would call for Symbolic Books.” G. Krüger says (“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1906, p. 18 f.): “The Confession and its Apology were wrongly interpreted by the narrow-minded orthodoxy of later years as laws binding on faith. And yet why did Melanchthon go on improving and polishing them if he did not regard them as his own personal books, which he was free to alter just as every author may when he publishes a new edition of his work?” Yet they were “the genuine charter of evangelical belief as understood by our Reformers.”[1089]Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,” Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “Confutatio” is reprinted in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the ‘Augustana’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on the ‘Confutatio.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.” Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”10, p. 47): “Hæc fere summa est doctrinæ apud nos[Harnack:suos]in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” On p. 684 Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in theAugustanaI cannot admit. TheAugustanawas the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him.”As regards the position of theAugustanain the history of Protestantism, Harnack remarks on the same page, that the free teaching of the Reformation then began to develop into a “Rule of Faith.” “When to this was added the pressure from without, and when, under the storms which were gathering (fanatics, Anabaptists), courage to say anythingquod discrepet ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est, faded away, then the movement terminated in the Confession of Augsburg, which while not actually denying the principle of evangelical freedom, nevertheless begins to pour the new wine into old vessels (cp. even the Articles of Marburg). Did the Reformation (of the sixteenth century) do away with the old dogma? It is safer to answer this question in the negative than in the affirmative. But if we admit that it attacked its foundations, as our Catholic opponents rightly accuse us of doing, and that it was a mighty principle rather than a new system of doctrine, then it must also be admitted that the altogether conservative attitude of the Reformation towards ancient dogma, inclusive of its premisses, for instance, Original Sin and the Fall, belongs, not to its principle, but simply to its history.”[1090]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 280 ff., with a more detailed appreciation of theApologia.[1091]Reprinted in the “Symb. Bücher,” p. 73 ff. Cp. Kolde’s Introduction, p. xl. f.[1092]Döllinger,ibid., p. 281.[1093]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 9, p. 18 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 501.[1094]Kolde,ibid., p. xxi., on the Latin edition which appeared at the end of April or the beginning of May, being followed by the German edition (probably) in the autumn.[1095]“Symb. Bücher,” p. 45. The Latin text runs: “Tota hæc causa habet testimonia patrum. Nam Augustinus multis voluminibus defendit gratiam et iustitiam fidei contra merita operum. Et similia docet Ambrosius.... Quamquam autem haec doctrina (iustificationis) contemnitur ab imperitis, tamen experiuntur piæ ac pavidæ conscientiæ plurimam eam consolationis afferre.”[1096]In the letter to Brenz mentioned above.[1097]Cp. the passages, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 92, 104, 151, 218. On p. 104 in the articleDe iustificationehe quotes Augustine,De spir. et litt., in support of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. On p. 218 he foists this assertion on the Catholics, “homines sine Spiritu Sancto posse ... mereri gratiam et iustificationem operibus,” and says, that this was refuted by Augustine, “cuius sententiam supra in articulo de iustificatione recitavimus.”[1098]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 173; cp. p. 169.[1099]G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xix. 3.[1100]On January 28, 1538. Kawerau,ibid., p. 44. Cp. G. Ellinger, “Philipp Melanchthon,” Berlin, 1902, pp. 362 ff., 598.[1101]To Veit Dietrich, July 8, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 174.[1102]To Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola at Augsburg, July 15, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 113.[1103]To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45.[1104]On August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233. “Obsecro te, ut Amsdorfice respondeas in aliquem angulum: ‘Dass uns der Papst und Legat wollten im Ars lecken.’”[1105]From Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35; “tuas miserrimas curas, quibus te scribis consumi.” This was really due to the “greatness of our want of faith.”[1106]He writes to Melanchthon on June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51: “Si nos ruemus, ruet Christus una! Esto ruat, malo ego cum Christo ruere quam cum Cæsare stare.” His cause was without “temeritas” and quite pure, “quod testatur mihi Spiritus ipse.”Ibid.: “Ego pro te oro, oravi et orabo nec dubito, quin sim exauditus; sentio illud Amen in corde meo.” The entire letter mirrors his frame of mind during his stay at the Castle of Coburg.[1107]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 280.[1108]To Spengler, September 15, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 372.[1109]In his “spes transactionis” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 261) Melanchthon even described the previous tampering with the Church as “temerarii motus” (ibid., p. 246seq.). Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 112.[1110]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 297.[1111]Luther to Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45: “Sicuti semper scripsi, omnia sis concedere paratus, tantum solo evangelio nobis libere permisso.”[1112]August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235: “dolos ac lapsus nostros facile emendabimus,” etc. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386. For proof that “mendacia” should be read after “dolos” see Grisar, “Stimmen aus M.L.,” 1913, p. 286 ff.[1113]To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.[1114]“Ubique enim et semper excipimus libertatem et puritatem doctrinæ, qua obtenta tune dominationem episcoporum detrectares?”[1115]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 362.[1116]Cp. Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, August 26, 1530, and previous ones to Melanchthon, July 13; to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola, July 15; to Melanchthon, July 27. “Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 219, 100, 112, 136.[1117]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.[1118]“Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 5, p. 282. Spoken at the termination of the historic Diet of Augsburg the words of the theologians gain added interest, though this was not the first time similar language was heard. Cp. G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” p. 14 f. Even in 1527 the Visitations had been “arranged by the Elector for the amendment of the conditions” which Luther had exposed “to his sovereign with a heavy heart, viz. ‘how the parsonages are in a state of misery, no one giving or paying anything’; the common man heeds neither preacher nor parson, so that, unless some strong measures are taken by Your Electoral Highness for State maintenance of pastors and preachers, there will soon be neither parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, and so God’s Word and service will come to an end.”[1119]Janssen,ibid., p. 282: “neither were they at all impressed by the declaration of the Emperor that ‘the Word of God, the Gospel and every law, civil and canonical, forbade a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.’”[1120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 342.[1121]Letter of August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233.[1122]Luther to the Landgrave, September 11, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxvii. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 253): “I heartily thank H.R.H. for his gracious and consoling offer to afford me shelter.”[1123]Janssen,ibid., p. 319 ff.[1124]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, pp. 283 f., 286, 287.[1125]Ibid., p. 596.[1126]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 251.[1127]Ibid., p. 343.[1128]“Ph. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xiv. 3), p. 90 f. Campeggio, in H. Laemmer, “Monumenta Vaticana,” p. 51.[1129]Third ed. Art. “Melanchthon,” by († Landerer, † Herrlinger and) Kirn, pp. 518, 529.[1130]“Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358 ff. The page-heading reads: “Melanchthons absichtliche und öffentliche Unwahrheit.”[1131]Sell,ibid., p. 98.[1132]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51.[1133]On August 26, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 219. Cp. his letters of July 13 to Melanchthon, of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin and Melanchthon.[1134]On September 11, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 252: “Utinam episcopi eam (iurisdictionem) accepissent sub istis conditionibus! Sed ipsi habent nares in suam rem.”[1135]To Camerarius, November 2, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1126.[1136]Cp. his “Apologia” of the Augsburg Confession, Art. iv., “Symb. Bücher,” p. 87, where, on the doctrine of Justification, the old German translation runs: “Because the gainsayers know not nor understand what the words of Scripture mean, what forgiveness of sins, or grace, or faith, or justice is ... they have miserably robbed poor souls, to whom it was a matter of life and death, of their eternal consolation.” Page 90: “They do not know what the fear of death or the assaults of the devil are ... when the heart feels the anger of God or the conscience is troubled ... but the affrighted conscience knows well that it is impossible to merit eitherde condignoorde congruo, and therefore soon sinks into distrust and despair,” etc. Page 95: The new teaching alone was able “to raise up our hearts even amidst the terrors of sin and death,” etc. Hence Melanchthon insists in his “Brevis discendæ theologiæ ratio” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 458), that Bible study served “ad usum et ad tentationes superandas comparanda cognitio.”[1137]See Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung,” etc. (above p. 319, n. 1), p. 32. Cp. Kawerau, “Studien und Kritiken,” 1897, p. 678 f.[1138]Plitt-Kolde,³, 1900.[1139]Melanchthon to Spalatin, September, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 674, after the publication of the “Diatribe”: “Diu optavi Luthero prudentem aliquem de hoc negotio antagonistam contingere.” “His own testimony (in 1536) is decisive as to the effect of Erasmus on his opinion regarding free-will.” Ellinger,ibid., p. 199. On the “Diatribe,” see our vol. ii., p. 261 ff.[1140]Ellinger,ibid., p. 202. In this he was of course inconsequent, for, as Ellinger says, where it is a question of the religious life, he traces everything back to the action of God. “It is easy to see, that, here, as in Luther’s case (where theDeus absconditusplays a part), we have merely an expedient.”Ibid.[1141]Ellinger,ibid., p. 175 f.[1142]Above, p. 324. He was being attacked on account of the stress he laid on good works, so he wrote to Camerarius in December, 1536, but though so many preachers were now shouting in stentorian tones that it was erroneous to demand works, “posterity will be astonished that an age so mad could ever have been, when such folly met with applause.” Cp. “Pezelii Obiectiones et resp. Melanchthonis,” 5, p. 289, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.[1143]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383.[1144]To the Landgrave of Hesse in 1524, under the title “Epitome renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ” (“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 704): “Iustitia vere christiana est, cum confusa conscientia per fidem in Christum erigitur et sentit, se accipere remissionem peccatorum propter Christum.” In the same “Epitome,” p. 706: “Ipsissimam iustitiam esse, credere quod per Christum remittantur peccata sine nostra satisfactione, sine nostris meritis.”[1145]Cp. the passages in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 291.[1146]Letter of August or September, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 158.[1147]Even in his “Discendæ theologiæ ratio” of 1530 (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 457), Melanchthon had said: “Multa sunt in illis (Locis) adhuc rudiora, quæ decrevi mutare.”[1148]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Scio, re ipsa Lutherum sentire eadem.”[1149]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”4, 1906, p. 857. He says, that Melanchthon “was deceiving himself” in asserting that Luther’s teaching was the same.[1150]“Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 3.[1151]Loofs,ibid., p. 837 f.[1152]Ibid., p. 838. He had even ceased to be a true interpreter since 1527, so we read on p. 842.[1153]Loofs, p. 842.[1154]Ibid., p. 844.[1155]Ibid.[1156]Ibid., p. 845.[1157]Ibid., p. 845 ff.[1158]Ibid., p. 853 f.[1159]J. Haussleiter, “Aus der Schule Melanchthons, Theologische Disputationen usw., 1546 bis 1560,” Greifswald, 1897, p. 35.[1160]Ibid., p. 39.[1161]Cp. Loofs,loc. cit., p. 855.[1162]Haussleiter,loc. cit., p. v. Also Loofs,loc. cit.Cp. above, p. 332, n.[1163]“Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889), p. 121 ff.[1164]Cp. above, p. 3 ff. It should be pointed out in order to supplement the above statements of Haussleiter and Müller that Luther nevertheless looks on faith as the acceptance of certain dogmas (cp. above, p. 14, and vol. v., xxxiv. 1), and thus in some sense recognises a “rule of faith,” and that not seldom in the most peremptory fashion he demands obedience to the “injunctions of faith.”[1165]Page vi.[1166]Karl Müller (“Symbole,” p. 127 f.) points out very truly that Melanchthon was in the habit of appealing to Luther’s authority, who, for his part, “claimed immutability for his own view of the Gospel”; and further that later followers of Luther, for instance, Flacius, thanks to this very principle, reverted to the real Luther, and furiously assailed Melanchthon for his deformation of the Reformer. According to G. Krüger, “Melanchthon,” p. 12, Melanchthon “in his revisions (of the ‘Loci’) cut himself more and more adrift from Luther, not always happily, but rather to the detriment of the cause.” Page 25: “Many are of opinion that the glorious seed of the German Reformation would have borne much richer fruit had Melanchthon been different from what he was.” Yet Krüger also says: “Should the Luther for whom we long ever come, then let us hope that a Melanchthon will be his right-hand man, that, with the advent of the Titan who overthrows the old and founds the new, the spirit of peace and kindliness may still prevail to the blessing to our Fatherland and Church.” What the aims of the new Luther and new Melanchthon are to be, the author fails to state.[1167]Above, p. 8 ff.[1168]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 69.[1169]Krüger, “Ph. Melanchthon,” p. 12: “Although Melanchthon, the academician, did not look upon himself as a born theologian, although he likened himself to the donkey in the mystery-play, yet he became the father of evangelical theology.”[1170]To Camerarius, January 10, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 822: “meam sententiam noli nunc requirere fui enim nuncius alienæ causæ.”[1171]Loofs,ibid., p. 865.[1172]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358. He gives no references.[1173]Above, p. 150 ff.[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 378; Erl. ed., 29, p. 5.[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.[1176]Vol. v., xxxi. 1 and 4.[1177]“Anal. Lutherana et Melanchthoniana. Tischreden Luthers und Aussprüche Melanchthons,” 1892 (usually quoted here as “Mathesius, Aufzeichnungen”).[1178]Page 178.[1179]Page 158.[1180]Page 143.[1181]Page 178.[1182]Page 186. On Melanchthon’a belief in devils and witches see K. Hartfelder, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 1889, p. 252 ff. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, pp. 27, 41, 121.[1183]Page 184.[1184]Page 160.[1185]Page 161.[1186]“Vita Melanchthonis,” c. 22.[1187]Page 177.[1188]Page 19.[1189]Page 159.[1190]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400.[1191]“Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 133, in a work against Thamer. Cp. N. Paulus, “Servets Hinrichtung im lutherischen Urteil,” “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 161 ff., and “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1905, pp. 40-53; likewise “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911.[1192]“Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 362.[1193]Ibid., p. 524.[1194]Ibid., p. 852.[1195]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 602.[1196]Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” p. 47 ff. Paulus quotes from a pamphlet of Melanchthon’s—which escaped the notice of the editors of his works—entitled “Prozess, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Wiedertäufern,” and dated 1557. Here we read that even the Anabaptist articles which did not concern the secular government were to be punished as blasphemies, as for instance the rejection of infant baptism and the denial of the Trinity. Such articles were not to be regarded as of no account, “for the Jewish fallacy that Christ did not exist previous to His Incarnation is plainly blasphemous, and so is the denial of original sin,” etc. Then follows the list of penalties. The memorandum is signed by the theologians Melanchthon, J. Brenz, J. Marbach, J. Andreae, G. Karg, P. Eber, J. Pistorius and J. Rungius.[1197]Paulus,ibid., p. 45: “No less than nine reasons are alleged to prove that Christian rulers, like the Jewish kings, are bound by Divine law to root out idolatry.”[1198]Letter to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 538.[1199]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 154. Paulus,loc. cit., p. 5.[1200]Ellinger,ibid., p. 615.[1201]Ellinger,ibid., p. 157.[1202]“Von der Freyheit eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 34 f., 29; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 195 f., 187.[1203]Cp. above, p. 324 ff.[1204]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 604, 608.[1205]To Bishop Andreas Cricius, October 27, 1532, in Kawerau, “Die Versuche, Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” p. 13, from T. Wierzbowski, “Materialy,” etc., Warsaw, 1900.[1206]To Camerarius, November 27, 1539, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 840: “dolores animi acerbissimi et continui.”[1207]To Bucer, August 28, 1544, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 474. In the same letter: “noster Pericles[Luther]rursus tonare cœpit vehementissime”; Amsdorf was inciting him against the writer on account of the question of the Sacrament.[1208]To Camerarius, October 31, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 683.[1209]To the same, March 23, 1525,ibid., p. 729: “Reliqui vulgus sunt.”[1210]To the same, July 4, 1526,ibid., p. 804. See his letter on Luther’s marriage in our vol. ii., p. 176.[1211]Ellinger,ibid., p. 619, p. 188, n. Melanchthon reminds Camerarius that they had “often censured” Luther’s [Greek: bômoloch’ia]. Cp. vol. ii., p. 178. Camerarius altered not only this letter in the printed edition, but also others; for instance, that mentioned above, p. 364, note 4, about the “vulgus.”
[1015]Ibid., pp. 294, 296.[1016]Ibid., p. 297; cp. p. 292.[1017]Ibid., p. 293.[1018]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 295.[1019]Ibid., 39, p. 353.[1020]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.[1021]“Vita Lutheri” (“Vitæ quatuor reformatorum,” ed. A. T. Neander-n. 5, p. 5).[1022]“Historien,” 1566, p. 151. Then follows the passage referred to on p. 305 concerning Luther and the Elector.[1023]See Loesche’s Introduction to the edition mentioned in the following note.[1024]G. Mathesius, “Hochzeitspredigten,” ed. Loesche, Prague, 1897 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” Bd. 6). The sermon in question was delivered in a castle in 1553 (pp. 311-335). Loesche says of the same: “It is not necessary to be a rabid teetotaller to feel that Urbanus—from the title of the sermon—treads dangerous ground, and would to-day be considered quite scandalously lax.” Cp. N. P[aulus] in the Köln. Volksztng., 1904, No. 623: on Luther’s admission “I also tipple.”[1025]Letter of February 20, 1510, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “expositus et involutus ... crapulae.” Cp. our vol. i., p. 368. Luther uses the word “crapulatus” in the sense of “ebrius,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 559 and 596. In the larger Commentary on Galatians, however, a distinction is made between “ebrietas” and “crapula,” 3, pp. 47 and 53; cp. the smaller Commentary (1519), Weim. ed., 2, p. 591: “Commessatio, quaeLc. xxi. 34 [crapula]dicitur; sicut ebrietas nimium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat corda.”[1026]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82, 87, 94.[1027]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 497.[1028]See above, p. 219.[1029]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337 (“Tischreden”): “A glass with three ridges ... down to the first the Ten Commandments, down to the second the Creed, the third with the [Our Father of the] Catechism in full.”[1030]S. Keil, “Des seligen Zeugen Gottes Dr. M. Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” 3, Leipzig, 1764, p. 156 f. He considers that the latter statements in the text were “inventions”; at any rate “there was no harm in the matter itself,” and the “conclusion of the Papists that Luther was a drunkard” were therefore false. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510. On the famous but almost legendary “Luther-beakers,” F, Küchenmeister has an article with interesting sketches in the “Ill. Zeitung,” 1879, November 1.[1031]Letter of May 12, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 359: “Fateor culpam meam et conscius mihi sum, effudisse me verba,” etc.[1032]Cp. “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” ed. Lenz, 1, pp. 326, 336, 362 f., 389.[1033]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” Berlin, 1904, p. 70 f.[1034]“Farrago,” etc., cod. chart. Goth., 402, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 681, n. 498.[1035]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,”ibid.[1036]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[1037]Cod. Ottobon., n. 3029.[1038]“Luther in rationalistischer und christl. Beleuchtung,” p. 77, n. 3.[1039]“Christl. Welt,” 1904, No. 6, p. 128.[1040]“Martin Luther,” 1, Beilage. Cp.ibid., p. v. Evers was the first to read “Doctor plenus.”[1041]W. Walther (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1906, p. 473), on the strength of a photograph, now declares “Johannes” to be “the most likely” reading, and rightly excludes “plenus” on p. 586 of his book, “Für Luther.” H. Böhmer (“Luther,”², p. 116) is also in favour of “Johannes.” G. Kawerau for his part thought, judging from the photograph, that “plures” might be read instead of “plenus,” in which N. Müller agrees with him; he could not, however, understand what “plures” meant here. “Studien und Kritiken,” 1908, p. 603. On re-examination of the original I was forced to decide against “plures.” K. Löffler (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 317) proposes “Doctor parvus,” but this is excluded by the characters, though the sense would be reasonable enough. “Johannes” may quite well be the reading, since from 1527 Luther was in the habit of adding greetings from Katey and Hans in his letters.[1042]To Link at Nuremberg, January 15, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 345.[1043]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 649, n. 195.[1044]Ibid.[1045]To Hans Honold at Augsburg, October 2, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).[1046]To Agricola. Letter published by Kawerau in the “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 67 ff.[1047]Cp. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (see above, p. 299, n. 1), p. 308 ff.[1048]To Gabriel Zwilling at Torgau, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 11.[1049]In the letter quoted above.[1050]To Melanchthon, August 24, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204 f.[1051]To Justus Jonas, August 28, 1530,ibid., p. 237.[1052]Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 784.[1053]Ibid., p. 470.[1054]G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (reprinted from “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1-3), p. 31.[1055]“Loci Communes Phil. Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt,” ed. (with commentaries) Th. Kolde, 3rd ed., 1900.[1056]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, more particularly 343. Cp. F. Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 186 f. Further particulars of the work will be found amongst the statements concerning Luther’s relations with the schools (vol. v., xxxv. 3).[1057]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 322.[1058]Ibid., 4, p. 230.[1059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 68; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 493.[1060]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15, 18.[1061]To Spalatin, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 417.[1062]Cp.ibid., pp. 448 and 451, where he again calls Luther Elias in letters written in 1521 to Spalatin.[1063]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 763. To the Elector of Saxony.[1064]Ibid.[1065]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 821, memorandum for the Landgrave of Hesse.[1066]Ibid., p. 995. To Balth. During, about September, 1528.[1067]Ibid., p. 981. To Fr. Myconius, June 5, 1528: “Ego sic angor, ut nihil supra vel cogitari possit, quum considero horum temporum conditionem.” Similar statements of Melanchthon’s in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 366 ff.[1068]Ibid., p. 938. Letter of September 13, 1528.[1069]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1013. To Myconius, December 1, 1528: “Meum scriptum ostendas consulibus ut permittant nubere mulierculæ.”[1070]Cp.ibid., p. 839. “Iudicium” of 1526.[1071]“Apologia confess. August.,” art. 23. “Symbolische Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 242.[1072]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 979. Cp. “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274.[1073]See below, xx. 4, his Preface to his new edition of Luther’s “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.”[1074]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 113 f.[1075]Ibid.[1076]“Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 1 ff.). The appended exposition of Psalm vii. probably told greatly on many, more particularly on pious readers.[1077]On January 9, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1023. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 115.[1078]To his friend Camerarius from Spires, April 21, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1060, “Habes rem horribilem.”[1079]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1070.[1080]To Justus Jonas, June 14, 1529, p. 1076; “Una res nocuit nobis, quam diutius procrastinati sumus, cum postularetur a nobis, ut damnaremus Zinglianos. Hinc ego in tantam incidi perturbationem, ut mortem oppetere malim, quam has miserias ferre. Omnes dolores interni(readinferni)oppresserunt me. Sed tamen spero Christum remedia his rebus ostensurum esse.”[1081]To Philip of Hesse, June 22, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1078. Cp. p. 1075seq.[1082]On November 14, 1529.[1083]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 262 f.[1084]See Luther’s own doctrine, vol. ii., pp. 223 ff., 265 ff., 291 ff.[1085]Cp. Kolde in J. J. Müller, “Symbolische Bücher”10, Introduction, p. ix.: “There was no mention therein of the Papal power and it was left to the ‘pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, should he see any reason, to attack the Papacy’”—thus the Strasburg envoys in 1537 in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 297; for, as Melanchthon openly admitted to Luther, the Articles must be accommodated to the needs of the moment.[1086]Kolde,ibid.(“Symbol. Bücher”), p. viii. f. Luther to the Elector of Saxony, May 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 145 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 335): “I see nothing I can improve upon or alter, nor would this be fitting seeing that I am unable to proceed so softly and quietly.”[1087]On the “Gospel-proviso,” our vol. ii., p. 385 ff.[1088]Cp. Kolde,ibid., p. xxiv. ff. K. Müller, “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889, p. 121 ff.), points out why Luther looked askance at any Symbolic Books; the fact is he did not recognise any Church having “a legal and ordered constitution and laws such as would call for Symbolic Books.” G. Krüger says (“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1906, p. 18 f.): “The Confession and its Apology were wrongly interpreted by the narrow-minded orthodoxy of later years as laws binding on faith. And yet why did Melanchthon go on improving and polishing them if he did not regard them as his own personal books, which he was free to alter just as every author may when he publishes a new edition of his work?” Yet they were “the genuine charter of evangelical belief as understood by our Reformers.”[1089]Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,” Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “Confutatio” is reprinted in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the ‘Augustana’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on the ‘Confutatio.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.” Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”10, p. 47): “Hæc fere summa est doctrinæ apud nos[Harnack:suos]in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” On p. 684 Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in theAugustanaI cannot admit. TheAugustanawas the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him.”As regards the position of theAugustanain the history of Protestantism, Harnack remarks on the same page, that the free teaching of the Reformation then began to develop into a “Rule of Faith.” “When to this was added the pressure from without, and when, under the storms which were gathering (fanatics, Anabaptists), courage to say anythingquod discrepet ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est, faded away, then the movement terminated in the Confession of Augsburg, which while not actually denying the principle of evangelical freedom, nevertheless begins to pour the new wine into old vessels (cp. even the Articles of Marburg). Did the Reformation (of the sixteenth century) do away with the old dogma? It is safer to answer this question in the negative than in the affirmative. But if we admit that it attacked its foundations, as our Catholic opponents rightly accuse us of doing, and that it was a mighty principle rather than a new system of doctrine, then it must also be admitted that the altogether conservative attitude of the Reformation towards ancient dogma, inclusive of its premisses, for instance, Original Sin and the Fall, belongs, not to its principle, but simply to its history.”[1090]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 280 ff., with a more detailed appreciation of theApologia.[1091]Reprinted in the “Symb. Bücher,” p. 73 ff. Cp. Kolde’s Introduction, p. xl. f.[1092]Döllinger,ibid., p. 281.[1093]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 9, p. 18 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 501.[1094]Kolde,ibid., p. xxi., on the Latin edition which appeared at the end of April or the beginning of May, being followed by the German edition (probably) in the autumn.[1095]“Symb. Bücher,” p. 45. The Latin text runs: “Tota hæc causa habet testimonia patrum. Nam Augustinus multis voluminibus defendit gratiam et iustitiam fidei contra merita operum. Et similia docet Ambrosius.... Quamquam autem haec doctrina (iustificationis) contemnitur ab imperitis, tamen experiuntur piæ ac pavidæ conscientiæ plurimam eam consolationis afferre.”[1096]In the letter to Brenz mentioned above.[1097]Cp. the passages, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 92, 104, 151, 218. On p. 104 in the articleDe iustificationehe quotes Augustine,De spir. et litt., in support of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. On p. 218 he foists this assertion on the Catholics, “homines sine Spiritu Sancto posse ... mereri gratiam et iustificationem operibus,” and says, that this was refuted by Augustine, “cuius sententiam supra in articulo de iustificatione recitavimus.”[1098]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 173; cp. p. 169.[1099]G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xix. 3.[1100]On January 28, 1538. Kawerau,ibid., p. 44. Cp. G. Ellinger, “Philipp Melanchthon,” Berlin, 1902, pp. 362 ff., 598.[1101]To Veit Dietrich, July 8, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 174.[1102]To Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola at Augsburg, July 15, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 113.[1103]To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45.[1104]On August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233. “Obsecro te, ut Amsdorfice respondeas in aliquem angulum: ‘Dass uns der Papst und Legat wollten im Ars lecken.’”[1105]From Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35; “tuas miserrimas curas, quibus te scribis consumi.” This was really due to the “greatness of our want of faith.”[1106]He writes to Melanchthon on June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51: “Si nos ruemus, ruet Christus una! Esto ruat, malo ego cum Christo ruere quam cum Cæsare stare.” His cause was without “temeritas” and quite pure, “quod testatur mihi Spiritus ipse.”Ibid.: “Ego pro te oro, oravi et orabo nec dubito, quin sim exauditus; sentio illud Amen in corde meo.” The entire letter mirrors his frame of mind during his stay at the Castle of Coburg.[1107]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 280.[1108]To Spengler, September 15, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 372.[1109]In his “spes transactionis” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 261) Melanchthon even described the previous tampering with the Church as “temerarii motus” (ibid., p. 246seq.). Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 112.[1110]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 297.[1111]Luther to Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45: “Sicuti semper scripsi, omnia sis concedere paratus, tantum solo evangelio nobis libere permisso.”[1112]August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235: “dolos ac lapsus nostros facile emendabimus,” etc. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386. For proof that “mendacia” should be read after “dolos” see Grisar, “Stimmen aus M.L.,” 1913, p. 286 ff.[1113]To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.[1114]“Ubique enim et semper excipimus libertatem et puritatem doctrinæ, qua obtenta tune dominationem episcoporum detrectares?”[1115]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 362.[1116]Cp. Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, August 26, 1530, and previous ones to Melanchthon, July 13; to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola, July 15; to Melanchthon, July 27. “Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 219, 100, 112, 136.[1117]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.[1118]“Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 5, p. 282. Spoken at the termination of the historic Diet of Augsburg the words of the theologians gain added interest, though this was not the first time similar language was heard. Cp. G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” p. 14 f. Even in 1527 the Visitations had been “arranged by the Elector for the amendment of the conditions” which Luther had exposed “to his sovereign with a heavy heart, viz. ‘how the parsonages are in a state of misery, no one giving or paying anything’; the common man heeds neither preacher nor parson, so that, unless some strong measures are taken by Your Electoral Highness for State maintenance of pastors and preachers, there will soon be neither parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, and so God’s Word and service will come to an end.”[1119]Janssen,ibid., p. 282: “neither were they at all impressed by the declaration of the Emperor that ‘the Word of God, the Gospel and every law, civil and canonical, forbade a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.’”[1120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 342.[1121]Letter of August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233.[1122]Luther to the Landgrave, September 11, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxvii. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 253): “I heartily thank H.R.H. for his gracious and consoling offer to afford me shelter.”[1123]Janssen,ibid., p. 319 ff.[1124]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, pp. 283 f., 286, 287.[1125]Ibid., p. 596.[1126]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 251.[1127]Ibid., p. 343.[1128]“Ph. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xiv. 3), p. 90 f. Campeggio, in H. Laemmer, “Monumenta Vaticana,” p. 51.[1129]Third ed. Art. “Melanchthon,” by († Landerer, † Herrlinger and) Kirn, pp. 518, 529.[1130]“Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358 ff. The page-heading reads: “Melanchthons absichtliche und öffentliche Unwahrheit.”[1131]Sell,ibid., p. 98.[1132]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51.[1133]On August 26, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 219. Cp. his letters of July 13 to Melanchthon, of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin and Melanchthon.[1134]On September 11, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 252: “Utinam episcopi eam (iurisdictionem) accepissent sub istis conditionibus! Sed ipsi habent nares in suam rem.”[1135]To Camerarius, November 2, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1126.[1136]Cp. his “Apologia” of the Augsburg Confession, Art. iv., “Symb. Bücher,” p. 87, where, on the doctrine of Justification, the old German translation runs: “Because the gainsayers know not nor understand what the words of Scripture mean, what forgiveness of sins, or grace, or faith, or justice is ... they have miserably robbed poor souls, to whom it was a matter of life and death, of their eternal consolation.” Page 90: “They do not know what the fear of death or the assaults of the devil are ... when the heart feels the anger of God or the conscience is troubled ... but the affrighted conscience knows well that it is impossible to merit eitherde condignoorde congruo, and therefore soon sinks into distrust and despair,” etc. Page 95: The new teaching alone was able “to raise up our hearts even amidst the terrors of sin and death,” etc. Hence Melanchthon insists in his “Brevis discendæ theologiæ ratio” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 458), that Bible study served “ad usum et ad tentationes superandas comparanda cognitio.”[1137]See Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung,” etc. (above p. 319, n. 1), p. 32. Cp. Kawerau, “Studien und Kritiken,” 1897, p. 678 f.[1138]Plitt-Kolde,³, 1900.[1139]Melanchthon to Spalatin, September, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 674, after the publication of the “Diatribe”: “Diu optavi Luthero prudentem aliquem de hoc negotio antagonistam contingere.” “His own testimony (in 1536) is decisive as to the effect of Erasmus on his opinion regarding free-will.” Ellinger,ibid., p. 199. On the “Diatribe,” see our vol. ii., p. 261 ff.[1140]Ellinger,ibid., p. 202. In this he was of course inconsequent, for, as Ellinger says, where it is a question of the religious life, he traces everything back to the action of God. “It is easy to see, that, here, as in Luther’s case (where theDeus absconditusplays a part), we have merely an expedient.”Ibid.[1141]Ellinger,ibid., p. 175 f.[1142]Above, p. 324. He was being attacked on account of the stress he laid on good works, so he wrote to Camerarius in December, 1536, but though so many preachers were now shouting in stentorian tones that it was erroneous to demand works, “posterity will be astonished that an age so mad could ever have been, when such folly met with applause.” Cp. “Pezelii Obiectiones et resp. Melanchthonis,” 5, p. 289, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.[1143]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383.[1144]To the Landgrave of Hesse in 1524, under the title “Epitome renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ” (“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 704): “Iustitia vere christiana est, cum confusa conscientia per fidem in Christum erigitur et sentit, se accipere remissionem peccatorum propter Christum.” In the same “Epitome,” p. 706: “Ipsissimam iustitiam esse, credere quod per Christum remittantur peccata sine nostra satisfactione, sine nostris meritis.”[1145]Cp. the passages in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 291.[1146]Letter of August or September, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 158.[1147]Even in his “Discendæ theologiæ ratio” of 1530 (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 457), Melanchthon had said: “Multa sunt in illis (Locis) adhuc rudiora, quæ decrevi mutare.”[1148]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Scio, re ipsa Lutherum sentire eadem.”[1149]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”4, 1906, p. 857. He says, that Melanchthon “was deceiving himself” in asserting that Luther’s teaching was the same.[1150]“Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 3.[1151]Loofs,ibid., p. 837 f.[1152]Ibid., p. 838. He had even ceased to be a true interpreter since 1527, so we read on p. 842.[1153]Loofs, p. 842.[1154]Ibid., p. 844.[1155]Ibid.[1156]Ibid., p. 845.[1157]Ibid., p. 845 ff.[1158]Ibid., p. 853 f.[1159]J. Haussleiter, “Aus der Schule Melanchthons, Theologische Disputationen usw., 1546 bis 1560,” Greifswald, 1897, p. 35.[1160]Ibid., p. 39.[1161]Cp. Loofs,loc. cit., p. 855.[1162]Haussleiter,loc. cit., p. v. Also Loofs,loc. cit.Cp. above, p. 332, n.[1163]“Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889), p. 121 ff.[1164]Cp. above, p. 3 ff. It should be pointed out in order to supplement the above statements of Haussleiter and Müller that Luther nevertheless looks on faith as the acceptance of certain dogmas (cp. above, p. 14, and vol. v., xxxiv. 1), and thus in some sense recognises a “rule of faith,” and that not seldom in the most peremptory fashion he demands obedience to the “injunctions of faith.”[1165]Page vi.[1166]Karl Müller (“Symbole,” p. 127 f.) points out very truly that Melanchthon was in the habit of appealing to Luther’s authority, who, for his part, “claimed immutability for his own view of the Gospel”; and further that later followers of Luther, for instance, Flacius, thanks to this very principle, reverted to the real Luther, and furiously assailed Melanchthon for his deformation of the Reformer. According to G. Krüger, “Melanchthon,” p. 12, Melanchthon “in his revisions (of the ‘Loci’) cut himself more and more adrift from Luther, not always happily, but rather to the detriment of the cause.” Page 25: “Many are of opinion that the glorious seed of the German Reformation would have borne much richer fruit had Melanchthon been different from what he was.” Yet Krüger also says: “Should the Luther for whom we long ever come, then let us hope that a Melanchthon will be his right-hand man, that, with the advent of the Titan who overthrows the old and founds the new, the spirit of peace and kindliness may still prevail to the blessing to our Fatherland and Church.” What the aims of the new Luther and new Melanchthon are to be, the author fails to state.[1167]Above, p. 8 ff.[1168]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 69.[1169]Krüger, “Ph. Melanchthon,” p. 12: “Although Melanchthon, the academician, did not look upon himself as a born theologian, although he likened himself to the donkey in the mystery-play, yet he became the father of evangelical theology.”[1170]To Camerarius, January 10, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 822: “meam sententiam noli nunc requirere fui enim nuncius alienæ causæ.”[1171]Loofs,ibid., p. 865.[1172]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358. He gives no references.[1173]Above, p. 150 ff.[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 378; Erl. ed., 29, p. 5.[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.[1176]Vol. v., xxxi. 1 and 4.[1177]“Anal. Lutherana et Melanchthoniana. Tischreden Luthers und Aussprüche Melanchthons,” 1892 (usually quoted here as “Mathesius, Aufzeichnungen”).[1178]Page 178.[1179]Page 158.[1180]Page 143.[1181]Page 178.[1182]Page 186. On Melanchthon’a belief in devils and witches see K. Hartfelder, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 1889, p. 252 ff. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, pp. 27, 41, 121.[1183]Page 184.[1184]Page 160.[1185]Page 161.[1186]“Vita Melanchthonis,” c. 22.[1187]Page 177.[1188]Page 19.[1189]Page 159.[1190]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400.[1191]“Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 133, in a work against Thamer. Cp. N. Paulus, “Servets Hinrichtung im lutherischen Urteil,” “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 161 ff., and “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1905, pp. 40-53; likewise “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911.[1192]“Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 362.[1193]Ibid., p. 524.[1194]Ibid., p. 852.[1195]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 602.[1196]Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” p. 47 ff. Paulus quotes from a pamphlet of Melanchthon’s—which escaped the notice of the editors of his works—entitled “Prozess, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Wiedertäufern,” and dated 1557. Here we read that even the Anabaptist articles which did not concern the secular government were to be punished as blasphemies, as for instance the rejection of infant baptism and the denial of the Trinity. Such articles were not to be regarded as of no account, “for the Jewish fallacy that Christ did not exist previous to His Incarnation is plainly blasphemous, and so is the denial of original sin,” etc. Then follows the list of penalties. The memorandum is signed by the theologians Melanchthon, J. Brenz, J. Marbach, J. Andreae, G. Karg, P. Eber, J. Pistorius and J. Rungius.[1197]Paulus,ibid., p. 45: “No less than nine reasons are alleged to prove that Christian rulers, like the Jewish kings, are bound by Divine law to root out idolatry.”[1198]Letter to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 538.[1199]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 154. Paulus,loc. cit., p. 5.[1200]Ellinger,ibid., p. 615.[1201]Ellinger,ibid., p. 157.[1202]“Von der Freyheit eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 34 f., 29; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 195 f., 187.[1203]Cp. above, p. 324 ff.[1204]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 604, 608.[1205]To Bishop Andreas Cricius, October 27, 1532, in Kawerau, “Die Versuche, Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” p. 13, from T. Wierzbowski, “Materialy,” etc., Warsaw, 1900.[1206]To Camerarius, November 27, 1539, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 840: “dolores animi acerbissimi et continui.”[1207]To Bucer, August 28, 1544, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 474. In the same letter: “noster Pericles[Luther]rursus tonare cœpit vehementissime”; Amsdorf was inciting him against the writer on account of the question of the Sacrament.[1208]To Camerarius, October 31, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 683.[1209]To the same, March 23, 1525,ibid., p. 729: “Reliqui vulgus sunt.”[1210]To the same, July 4, 1526,ibid., p. 804. See his letter on Luther’s marriage in our vol. ii., p. 176.[1211]Ellinger,ibid., p. 619, p. 188, n. Melanchthon reminds Camerarius that they had “often censured” Luther’s [Greek: bômoloch’ia]. Cp. vol. ii., p. 178. Camerarius altered not only this letter in the printed edition, but also others; for instance, that mentioned above, p. 364, note 4, about the “vulgus.”
[1015]Ibid., pp. 294, 296.
[1016]Ibid., p. 297; cp. p. 292.
[1017]Ibid., p. 293.
[1018]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 295.
[1019]Ibid., 39, p. 353.
[1020]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.
[1021]“Vita Lutheri” (“Vitæ quatuor reformatorum,” ed. A. T. Neander-n. 5, p. 5).
[1022]“Historien,” 1566, p. 151. Then follows the passage referred to on p. 305 concerning Luther and the Elector.
[1023]See Loesche’s Introduction to the edition mentioned in the following note.
[1024]G. Mathesius, “Hochzeitspredigten,” ed. Loesche, Prague, 1897 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” Bd. 6). The sermon in question was delivered in a castle in 1553 (pp. 311-335). Loesche says of the same: “It is not necessary to be a rabid teetotaller to feel that Urbanus—from the title of the sermon—treads dangerous ground, and would to-day be considered quite scandalously lax.” Cp. N. P[aulus] in the Köln. Volksztng., 1904, No. 623: on Luther’s admission “I also tipple.”
[1025]Letter of February 20, 1510, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “expositus et involutus ... crapulae.” Cp. our vol. i., p. 368. Luther uses the word “crapulatus” in the sense of “ebrius,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 559 and 596. In the larger Commentary on Galatians, however, a distinction is made between “ebrietas” and “crapula,” 3, pp. 47 and 53; cp. the smaller Commentary (1519), Weim. ed., 2, p. 591: “Commessatio, quaeLc. xxi. 34 [crapula]dicitur; sicut ebrietas nimium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat corda.”
[1026]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82, 87, 94.
[1027]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 497.
[1028]See above, p. 219.
[1029]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337 (“Tischreden”): “A glass with three ridges ... down to the first the Ten Commandments, down to the second the Creed, the third with the [Our Father of the] Catechism in full.”
[1030]S. Keil, “Des seligen Zeugen Gottes Dr. M. Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” 3, Leipzig, 1764, p. 156 f. He considers that the latter statements in the text were “inventions”; at any rate “there was no harm in the matter itself,” and the “conclusion of the Papists that Luther was a drunkard” were therefore false. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510. On the famous but almost legendary “Luther-beakers,” F, Küchenmeister has an article with interesting sketches in the “Ill. Zeitung,” 1879, November 1.
[1031]Letter of May 12, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 359: “Fateor culpam meam et conscius mihi sum, effudisse me verba,” etc.
[1032]Cp. “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” ed. Lenz, 1, pp. 326, 336, 362 f., 389.
[1033]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” Berlin, 1904, p. 70 f.
[1034]“Farrago,” etc., cod. chart. Goth., 402, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 681, n. 498.
[1035]“Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,”ibid.
[1036]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.
[1037]Cod. Ottobon., n. 3029.
[1038]“Luther in rationalistischer und christl. Beleuchtung,” p. 77, n. 3.
[1039]“Christl. Welt,” 1904, No. 6, p. 128.
[1040]“Martin Luther,” 1, Beilage. Cp.ibid., p. v. Evers was the first to read “Doctor plenus.”
[1041]W. Walther (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1906, p. 473), on the strength of a photograph, now declares “Johannes” to be “the most likely” reading, and rightly excludes “plenus” on p. 586 of his book, “Für Luther.” H. Böhmer (“Luther,”², p. 116) is also in favour of “Johannes.” G. Kawerau for his part thought, judging from the photograph, that “plures” might be read instead of “plenus,” in which N. Müller agrees with him; he could not, however, understand what “plures” meant here. “Studien und Kritiken,” 1908, p. 603. On re-examination of the original I was forced to decide against “plures.” K. Löffler (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 317) proposes “Doctor parvus,” but this is excluded by the characters, though the sense would be reasonable enough. “Johannes” may quite well be the reading, since from 1527 Luther was in the habit of adding greetings from Katey and Hans in his letters.
[1042]To Link at Nuremberg, January 15, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 345.
[1043]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 649, n. 195.
[1044]Ibid.
[1045]To Hans Honold at Augsburg, October 2, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).
[1046]To Agricola. Letter published by Kawerau in the “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 67 ff.
[1047]Cp. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (see above, p. 299, n. 1), p. 308 ff.
[1048]To Gabriel Zwilling at Torgau, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 11.
[1049]In the letter quoted above.
[1050]To Melanchthon, August 24, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204 f.
[1051]To Justus Jonas, August 28, 1530,ibid., p. 237.
[1052]Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 784.
[1053]Ibid., p. 470.
[1054]G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (reprinted from “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1-3), p. 31.
[1055]“Loci Communes Phil. Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt,” ed. (with commentaries) Th. Kolde, 3rd ed., 1900.
[1056]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, more particularly 343. Cp. F. Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 186 f. Further particulars of the work will be found amongst the statements concerning Luther’s relations with the schools (vol. v., xxxv. 3).
[1057]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 322.
[1058]Ibid., 4, p. 230.
[1059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 68; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 493.
[1060]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15, 18.
[1061]To Spalatin, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 417.
[1062]Cp.ibid., pp. 448 and 451, where he again calls Luther Elias in letters written in 1521 to Spalatin.
[1063]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 763. To the Elector of Saxony.
[1064]Ibid.
[1065]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 821, memorandum for the Landgrave of Hesse.
[1066]Ibid., p. 995. To Balth. During, about September, 1528.
[1067]Ibid., p. 981. To Fr. Myconius, June 5, 1528: “Ego sic angor, ut nihil supra vel cogitari possit, quum considero horum temporum conditionem.” Similar statements of Melanchthon’s in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 366 ff.
[1068]Ibid., p. 938. Letter of September 13, 1528.
[1069]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1013. To Myconius, December 1, 1528: “Meum scriptum ostendas consulibus ut permittant nubere mulierculæ.”
[1070]Cp.ibid., p. 839. “Iudicium” of 1526.
[1071]“Apologia confess. August.,” art. 23. “Symbolische Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 242.
[1072]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 979. Cp. “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274.
[1073]See below, xx. 4, his Preface to his new edition of Luther’s “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.”
[1074]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 113 f.
[1075]Ibid.
[1076]“Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 1 ff.). The appended exposition of Psalm vii. probably told greatly on many, more particularly on pious readers.
[1077]On January 9, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1023. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 115.
[1078]To his friend Camerarius from Spires, April 21, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1060, “Habes rem horribilem.”
[1079]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1070.
[1080]To Justus Jonas, June 14, 1529, p. 1076; “Una res nocuit nobis, quam diutius procrastinati sumus, cum postularetur a nobis, ut damnaremus Zinglianos. Hinc ego in tantam incidi perturbationem, ut mortem oppetere malim, quam has miserias ferre. Omnes dolores interni(readinferni)oppresserunt me. Sed tamen spero Christum remedia his rebus ostensurum esse.”
[1081]To Philip of Hesse, June 22, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1078. Cp. p. 1075seq.
[1082]On November 14, 1529.
[1083]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 262 f.
[1084]See Luther’s own doctrine, vol. ii., pp. 223 ff., 265 ff., 291 ff.
[1085]Cp. Kolde in J. J. Müller, “Symbolische Bücher”10, Introduction, p. ix.: “There was no mention therein of the Papal power and it was left to the ‘pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, should he see any reason, to attack the Papacy’”—thus the Strasburg envoys in 1537 in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 297; for, as Melanchthon openly admitted to Luther, the Articles must be accommodated to the needs of the moment.
[1086]Kolde,ibid.(“Symbol. Bücher”), p. viii. f. Luther to the Elector of Saxony, May 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 145 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 335): “I see nothing I can improve upon or alter, nor would this be fitting seeing that I am unable to proceed so softly and quietly.”
[1087]On the “Gospel-proviso,” our vol. ii., p. 385 ff.
[1088]Cp. Kolde,ibid., p. xxiv. ff. K. Müller, “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889, p. 121 ff.), points out why Luther looked askance at any Symbolic Books; the fact is he did not recognise any Church having “a legal and ordered constitution and laws such as would call for Symbolic Books.” G. Krüger says (“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1906, p. 18 f.): “The Confession and its Apology were wrongly interpreted by the narrow-minded orthodoxy of later years as laws binding on faith. And yet why did Melanchthon go on improving and polishing them if he did not regard them as his own personal books, which he was free to alter just as every author may when he publishes a new edition of his work?” Yet they were “the genuine charter of evangelical belief as understood by our Reformers.”
[1089]Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,” Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “Confutatio” is reprinted in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the ‘Augustana’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on the ‘Confutatio.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.” Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”10, p. 47): “Hæc fere summa est doctrinæ apud nos[Harnack:suos]in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” On p. 684 Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in theAugustanaI cannot admit. TheAugustanawas the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him.”
As regards the position of theAugustanain the history of Protestantism, Harnack remarks on the same page, that the free teaching of the Reformation then began to develop into a “Rule of Faith.” “When to this was added the pressure from without, and when, under the storms which were gathering (fanatics, Anabaptists), courage to say anythingquod discrepet ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est, faded away, then the movement terminated in the Confession of Augsburg, which while not actually denying the principle of evangelical freedom, nevertheless begins to pour the new wine into old vessels (cp. even the Articles of Marburg). Did the Reformation (of the sixteenth century) do away with the old dogma? It is safer to answer this question in the negative than in the affirmative. But if we admit that it attacked its foundations, as our Catholic opponents rightly accuse us of doing, and that it was a mighty principle rather than a new system of doctrine, then it must also be admitted that the altogether conservative attitude of the Reformation towards ancient dogma, inclusive of its premisses, for instance, Original Sin and the Fall, belongs, not to its principle, but simply to its history.”
[1090]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 280 ff., with a more detailed appreciation of theApologia.
[1091]Reprinted in the “Symb. Bücher,” p. 73 ff. Cp. Kolde’s Introduction, p. xl. f.
[1092]Döllinger,ibid., p. 281.
[1093]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 9, p. 18 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 501.
[1094]Kolde,ibid., p. xxi., on the Latin edition which appeared at the end of April or the beginning of May, being followed by the German edition (probably) in the autumn.
[1095]“Symb. Bücher,” p. 45. The Latin text runs: “Tota hæc causa habet testimonia patrum. Nam Augustinus multis voluminibus defendit gratiam et iustitiam fidei contra merita operum. Et similia docet Ambrosius.... Quamquam autem haec doctrina (iustificationis) contemnitur ab imperitis, tamen experiuntur piæ ac pavidæ conscientiæ plurimam eam consolationis afferre.”
[1096]In the letter to Brenz mentioned above.
[1097]Cp. the passages, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 92, 104, 151, 218. On p. 104 in the articleDe iustificationehe quotes Augustine,De spir. et litt., in support of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. On p. 218 he foists this assertion on the Catholics, “homines sine Spiritu Sancto posse ... mereri gratiam et iustificationem operibus,” and says, that this was refuted by Augustine, “cuius sententiam supra in articulo de iustificatione recitavimus.”
[1098]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 173; cp. p. 169.
[1099]G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xix. 3.
[1100]On January 28, 1538. Kawerau,ibid., p. 44. Cp. G. Ellinger, “Philipp Melanchthon,” Berlin, 1902, pp. 362 ff., 598.
[1101]To Veit Dietrich, July 8, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 174.
[1102]To Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola at Augsburg, July 15, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 113.
[1103]To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45.
[1104]On August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233. “Obsecro te, ut Amsdorfice respondeas in aliquem angulum: ‘Dass uns der Papst und Legat wollten im Ars lecken.’”
[1105]From Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35; “tuas miserrimas curas, quibus te scribis consumi.” This was really due to the “greatness of our want of faith.”
[1106]He writes to Melanchthon on June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51: “Si nos ruemus, ruet Christus una! Esto ruat, malo ego cum Christo ruere quam cum Cæsare stare.” His cause was without “temeritas” and quite pure, “quod testatur mihi Spiritus ipse.”Ibid.: “Ego pro te oro, oravi et orabo nec dubito, quin sim exauditus; sentio illud Amen in corde meo.” The entire letter mirrors his frame of mind during his stay at the Castle of Coburg.
[1107]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 280.
[1108]To Spengler, September 15, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 372.
[1109]In his “spes transactionis” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 261) Melanchthon even described the previous tampering with the Church as “temerarii motus” (ibid., p. 246seq.). Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 112.
[1110]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 297.
[1111]Luther to Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45: “Sicuti semper scripsi, omnia sis concedere paratus, tantum solo evangelio nobis libere permisso.”
[1112]August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235: “dolos ac lapsus nostros facile emendabimus,” etc. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386. For proof that “mendacia” should be read after “dolos” see Grisar, “Stimmen aus M.L.,” 1913, p. 286 ff.
[1113]To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.
[1114]“Ubique enim et semper excipimus libertatem et puritatem doctrinæ, qua obtenta tune dominationem episcoporum detrectares?”
[1115]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 362.
[1116]Cp. Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, August 26, 1530, and previous ones to Melanchthon, July 13; to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola, July 15; to Melanchthon, July 27. “Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 219, 100, 112, 136.
[1117]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.
[1118]“Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 5, p. 282. Spoken at the termination of the historic Diet of Augsburg the words of the theologians gain added interest, though this was not the first time similar language was heard. Cp. G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” p. 14 f. Even in 1527 the Visitations had been “arranged by the Elector for the amendment of the conditions” which Luther had exposed “to his sovereign with a heavy heart, viz. ‘how the parsonages are in a state of misery, no one giving or paying anything’; the common man heeds neither preacher nor parson, so that, unless some strong measures are taken by Your Electoral Highness for State maintenance of pastors and preachers, there will soon be neither parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, and so God’s Word and service will come to an end.”
[1119]Janssen,ibid., p. 282: “neither were they at all impressed by the declaration of the Emperor that ‘the Word of God, the Gospel and every law, civil and canonical, forbade a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.’”
[1120]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 342.
[1121]Letter of August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233.
[1122]Luther to the Landgrave, September 11, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxvii. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 253): “I heartily thank H.R.H. for his gracious and consoling offer to afford me shelter.”
[1123]Janssen,ibid., p. 319 ff.
[1124]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, pp. 283 f., 286, 287.
[1125]Ibid., p. 596.
[1126]“Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 251.
[1127]Ibid., p. 343.
[1128]“Ph. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xiv. 3), p. 90 f. Campeggio, in H. Laemmer, “Monumenta Vaticana,” p. 51.
[1129]Third ed. Art. “Melanchthon,” by († Landerer, † Herrlinger and) Kirn, pp. 518, 529.
[1130]“Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358 ff. The page-heading reads: “Melanchthons absichtliche und öffentliche Unwahrheit.”
[1131]Sell,ibid., p. 98.
[1132]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51.
[1133]On August 26, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 219. Cp. his letters of July 13 to Melanchthon, of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin and Melanchthon.
[1134]On September 11, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 252: “Utinam episcopi eam (iurisdictionem) accepissent sub istis conditionibus! Sed ipsi habent nares in suam rem.”
[1135]To Camerarius, November 2, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1126.
[1136]Cp. his “Apologia” of the Augsburg Confession, Art. iv., “Symb. Bücher,” p. 87, where, on the doctrine of Justification, the old German translation runs: “Because the gainsayers know not nor understand what the words of Scripture mean, what forgiveness of sins, or grace, or faith, or justice is ... they have miserably robbed poor souls, to whom it was a matter of life and death, of their eternal consolation.” Page 90: “They do not know what the fear of death or the assaults of the devil are ... when the heart feels the anger of God or the conscience is troubled ... but the affrighted conscience knows well that it is impossible to merit eitherde condignoorde congruo, and therefore soon sinks into distrust and despair,” etc. Page 95: The new teaching alone was able “to raise up our hearts even amidst the terrors of sin and death,” etc. Hence Melanchthon insists in his “Brevis discendæ theologiæ ratio” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 458), that Bible study served “ad usum et ad tentationes superandas comparanda cognitio.”
[1137]See Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung,” etc. (above p. 319, n. 1), p. 32. Cp. Kawerau, “Studien und Kritiken,” 1897, p. 678 f.
[1138]Plitt-Kolde,³, 1900.
[1139]Melanchthon to Spalatin, September, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 674, after the publication of the “Diatribe”: “Diu optavi Luthero prudentem aliquem de hoc negotio antagonistam contingere.” “His own testimony (in 1536) is decisive as to the effect of Erasmus on his opinion regarding free-will.” Ellinger,ibid., p. 199. On the “Diatribe,” see our vol. ii., p. 261 ff.
[1140]Ellinger,ibid., p. 202. In this he was of course inconsequent, for, as Ellinger says, where it is a question of the religious life, he traces everything back to the action of God. “It is easy to see, that, here, as in Luther’s case (where theDeus absconditusplays a part), we have merely an expedient.”Ibid.
[1141]Ellinger,ibid., p. 175 f.
[1142]Above, p. 324. He was being attacked on account of the stress he laid on good works, so he wrote to Camerarius in December, 1536, but though so many preachers were now shouting in stentorian tones that it was erroneous to demand works, “posterity will be astonished that an age so mad could ever have been, when such folly met with applause.” Cp. “Pezelii Obiectiones et resp. Melanchthonis,” 5, p. 289, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.
[1143]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383.
[1144]To the Landgrave of Hesse in 1524, under the title “Epitome renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ” (“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 704): “Iustitia vere christiana est, cum confusa conscientia per fidem in Christum erigitur et sentit, se accipere remissionem peccatorum propter Christum.” In the same “Epitome,” p. 706: “Ipsissimam iustitiam esse, credere quod per Christum remittantur peccata sine nostra satisfactione, sine nostris meritis.”
[1145]Cp. the passages in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 291.
[1146]Letter of August or September, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 158.
[1147]Even in his “Discendæ theologiæ ratio” of 1530 (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 457), Melanchthon had said: “Multa sunt in illis (Locis) adhuc rudiora, quæ decrevi mutare.”
[1148]To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Scio, re ipsa Lutherum sentire eadem.”
[1149]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”4, 1906, p. 857. He says, that Melanchthon “was deceiving himself” in asserting that Luther’s teaching was the same.
[1150]“Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 3.
[1151]Loofs,ibid., p. 837 f.
[1152]Ibid., p. 838. He had even ceased to be a true interpreter since 1527, so we read on p. 842.
[1153]Loofs, p. 842.
[1154]Ibid., p. 844.
[1155]Ibid.
[1156]Ibid., p. 845.
[1157]Ibid., p. 845 ff.
[1158]Ibid., p. 853 f.
[1159]J. Haussleiter, “Aus der Schule Melanchthons, Theologische Disputationen usw., 1546 bis 1560,” Greifswald, 1897, p. 35.
[1160]Ibid., p. 39.
[1161]Cp. Loofs,loc. cit., p. 855.
[1162]Haussleiter,loc. cit., p. v. Also Loofs,loc. cit.Cp. above, p. 332, n.
[1163]“Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889), p. 121 ff.
[1164]Cp. above, p. 3 ff. It should be pointed out in order to supplement the above statements of Haussleiter and Müller that Luther nevertheless looks on faith as the acceptance of certain dogmas (cp. above, p. 14, and vol. v., xxxiv. 1), and thus in some sense recognises a “rule of faith,” and that not seldom in the most peremptory fashion he demands obedience to the “injunctions of faith.”
[1165]Page vi.
[1166]Karl Müller (“Symbole,” p. 127 f.) points out very truly that Melanchthon was in the habit of appealing to Luther’s authority, who, for his part, “claimed immutability for his own view of the Gospel”; and further that later followers of Luther, for instance, Flacius, thanks to this very principle, reverted to the real Luther, and furiously assailed Melanchthon for his deformation of the Reformer. According to G. Krüger, “Melanchthon,” p. 12, Melanchthon “in his revisions (of the ‘Loci’) cut himself more and more adrift from Luther, not always happily, but rather to the detriment of the cause.” Page 25: “Many are of opinion that the glorious seed of the German Reformation would have borne much richer fruit had Melanchthon been different from what he was.” Yet Krüger also says: “Should the Luther for whom we long ever come, then let us hope that a Melanchthon will be his right-hand man, that, with the advent of the Titan who overthrows the old and founds the new, the spirit of peace and kindliness may still prevail to the blessing to our Fatherland and Church.” What the aims of the new Luther and new Melanchthon are to be, the author fails to state.
[1167]Above, p. 8 ff.
[1168]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 69.
[1169]Krüger, “Ph. Melanchthon,” p. 12: “Although Melanchthon, the academician, did not look upon himself as a born theologian, although he likened himself to the donkey in the mystery-play, yet he became the father of evangelical theology.”
[1170]To Camerarius, January 10, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 822: “meam sententiam noli nunc requirere fui enim nuncius alienæ causæ.”
[1171]Loofs,ibid., p. 865.
[1172]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358. He gives no references.
[1173]Above, p. 150 ff.
[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 378; Erl. ed., 29, p. 5.
[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.
[1176]Vol. v., xxxi. 1 and 4.
[1177]“Anal. Lutherana et Melanchthoniana. Tischreden Luthers und Aussprüche Melanchthons,” 1892 (usually quoted here as “Mathesius, Aufzeichnungen”).
[1178]Page 178.
[1179]Page 158.
[1180]Page 143.
[1181]Page 178.
[1182]Page 186. On Melanchthon’a belief in devils and witches see K. Hartfelder, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 1889, p. 252 ff. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, pp. 27, 41, 121.
[1183]Page 184.
[1184]Page 160.
[1185]Page 161.
[1186]“Vita Melanchthonis,” c. 22.
[1187]Page 177.
[1188]Page 19.
[1189]Page 159.
[1190]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400.
[1191]“Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 133, in a work against Thamer. Cp. N. Paulus, “Servets Hinrichtung im lutherischen Urteil,” “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 161 ff., and “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1905, pp. 40-53; likewise “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911.
[1192]“Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 362.
[1193]Ibid., p. 524.
[1194]Ibid., p. 852.
[1195]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 602.
[1196]Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” p. 47 ff. Paulus quotes from a pamphlet of Melanchthon’s—which escaped the notice of the editors of his works—entitled “Prozess, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Wiedertäufern,” and dated 1557. Here we read that even the Anabaptist articles which did not concern the secular government were to be punished as blasphemies, as for instance the rejection of infant baptism and the denial of the Trinity. Such articles were not to be regarded as of no account, “for the Jewish fallacy that Christ did not exist previous to His Incarnation is plainly blasphemous, and so is the denial of original sin,” etc. Then follows the list of penalties. The memorandum is signed by the theologians Melanchthon, J. Brenz, J. Marbach, J. Andreae, G. Karg, P. Eber, J. Pistorius and J. Rungius.
[1197]Paulus,ibid., p. 45: “No less than nine reasons are alleged to prove that Christian rulers, like the Jewish kings, are bound by Divine law to root out idolatry.”
[1198]Letter to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 538.
[1199]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 154. Paulus,loc. cit., p. 5.
[1200]Ellinger,ibid., p. 615.
[1201]Ellinger,ibid., p. 157.
[1202]“Von der Freyheit eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 34 f., 29; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 195 f., 187.
[1203]Cp. above, p. 324 ff.
[1204]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 604, 608.
[1205]To Bishop Andreas Cricius, October 27, 1532, in Kawerau, “Die Versuche, Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” p. 13, from T. Wierzbowski, “Materialy,” etc., Warsaw, 1900.
[1206]To Camerarius, November 27, 1539, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 840: “dolores animi acerbissimi et continui.”
[1207]To Bucer, August 28, 1544, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 474. In the same letter: “noster Pericles[Luther]rursus tonare cœpit vehementissime”; Amsdorf was inciting him against the writer on account of the question of the Sacrament.
[1208]To Camerarius, October 31, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 683.
[1209]To the same, March 23, 1525,ibid., p. 729: “Reliqui vulgus sunt.”
[1210]To the same, July 4, 1526,ibid., p. 804. See his letter on Luther’s marriage in our vol. ii., p. 176.
[1211]Ellinger,ibid., p. 619, p. 188, n. Melanchthon reminds Camerarius that they had “often censured” Luther’s [Greek: bômoloch’ia]. Cp. vol. ii., p. 178. Camerarius altered not only this letter in the printed edition, but also others; for instance, that mentioned above, p. 364, note 4, about the “vulgus.”