[1212]Cruciger to Veit Dietrich, August 4, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 398: “Cum alia multa, tum maxime obstat[Greek: ê gunaikoturann’is].” K. Sell, “Phil. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation,” 1898, p. 57: “The wives do not seem to have got on so well.”[1213]“Many of the people,” he writes in 1524, “attach themselves to Luther as the champion of freedom; they are weary of the good old customs ... many of them think that Luther merely teaches contempt of human traditions.” (In theEpitomeaddressed to the Landgrave of Hesse [above, p. 348, n. 1].) Cp. Döllinger,loc. cit., 3, p. 301. He laments in similar fashion the results of Luther’s behaviour in 1527, complaining that the people had become “over-confident and had lost the sense of fear” because they heard nothing about penance. This one-sided preaching of the Gospel resulted “in greater errors and sins than had ever existed before.” Döllinger,ibid., 3, p. 302. Melanchthon regarded the writings of his friend, particularly on account of their exaggeration, with “ever-increasing distrust.” “The great man’s boisterousness began to alarm him.... There is no doubt that it was from this quarter that the misgivings first arose which nipped and caused to wither the blossoms of their previous so intimate relationship.” Thus Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 187.[1214]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.[1215]May 12, 1536.Ibid., 3, p. 68seq.[1216]Caspar Aquila, as early as 1527, accused him of abandoning Christianity and of being a Papist. Cp. Melanchthon to Aquila, November 17, 1527. “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 961. Cp. the letter to the same of the middle of November, 1527,ibid., p. 959.[1217]To the Saxon minister Carlowitz, April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879seq.[1218]To Justus Jonas, November 25, 1527, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 913: “quam si vivus in eiusmodi miserias incideret.”[1219]See above, p. 321.[1220]Ellinger,ibid., p. 241.[1221]On June 13, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.[1222]On June 30, 1530, p. 50.[1223]“Die Versuche,” p. 65.[1224]Ibid., p. 10.[1225]This proposition stands at the head of the 1535 edition of the “Loci.” He had intended in this work, so he says, “colligere doctrinam catholicam ecclesiae Christi,” as taught by those witnesses. “Corp. ref.,” 21, p. 333. In 1540 he declared further that the Churches accepting the Augsburg Confession held fast to the “perpetuus consensus veræ ecclesiæ omnium temporum,” as to that of the Prophets and Apostles; Ambrose, Augustine, etc., agreed with them—if only they were rightly understood. “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 494.[1226]Paolo Vergerio, January 13, 1541, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 22.[1227]Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 66 f.[1228]Ibid., p. 33. Cordatus to Cruciger, August 20, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 159. In a letter to the latter of September 17, 1536, he bases his blame of Melanchthon on his praise of Luther (“Præceptor noster, qui est doctor doctorum theologiæ. Amen.”), to whose doctrine it was necessary to hold fast.[1229]“Vita Erasmi,” ed. Lugd. Batav., 1615, p. 259. Kawerau,ibid., p. 17.[1230]Kawerau,ibid., p. 31.[1231]“In plerisque controversiis iudicandis meam opinionem ad tuam sententiam libenter adiungo.” Letter of May 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68seq.[1232]His theses on the Primacy and his other polemical statements (see below, xx. 4) are scarcely “better-sounding.” A good resolution here made runs as follows: “Ad has materias tractandas afferam aliquanto plus curæ ac studii quam antea.”[1233]Kawerau’s opinion, p. 33.[1234]To Camerarius, November 30, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 193. After mentioning the report Melanchthon adds: “Nihil mihi obicitur, nisi quod dicor plusculum laudare bona opera”; all the truth in this was that “quædam minus horride dico quam ipsi,” i.e. than Luther and his more enthusiastic followers.[1235]With the expression “unhappy fate” we may compare his lament over the “rixæ religionum, in quas meo quodam fato incidi” (To the Imperial Secretary Obernburger, June 23, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 602). Kawerau remarks (p. 15): “It is indeed sad to find Luther’s greatest friend speaking of his having been involved in the ecclesiastical struggles of his time as a misfortune.”[1236]Ellinger,ibid., p. 313: “He probably made use here of an intentionally ambiguous phrase in order to curry favour with the Bishop, for it is clear that he never meant to promote a restoration of the hierarchical order, though Cricius may well have supposed this from his letter. Hence we see that in the execution of his plans, Melanchthon was not above having recourse to craft.”[1237]Letter of October 27, 1532. For its publication by T. Wierzbowski see Kawerau, p. 78, n. 17. Kawerau rightly emphasises the fact that, according to the text of the letter, Melanchthon refuses to break with Luther merely “on the weak ground that he, as a right-minded man (vir bonus), could not make up his mind to approve, let alone admire, the cruel and bloodthirsty plans of the Romanists.... Should the ‘moderata consilia’ prevail amongst the Catholic bishops, then he would be quite willing to come to terms.... We cannot but see how gladly he would have taken refuge in a haven where he would be safe from the theological storm. This letter shows him as a moderate, and, at the same time, as a true representative of Humanist interests.” For the further efforts of Cricius, who wrote in 1535, that he was acting on behalf of, or at least with the express sanction of, the Pope and the Cardinals, see Kawerau, p. 18 ff. Melanchthon’s writing of August, 1532, to the Elector-Cardinal Albert of Mayence, in which, in the most respectful terms, he begs the Primate of Germany, so hated by Luther, “to procure a milder remedy (cp. ‘moderata consilia’) for the dissensions in the Churches,” is also of importance; all right-minded men in Europe (boni omnes) were looking to him. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 611seq.In these letters we see his earnest efforts “to bring about peace and avert civil war,” as he writes to Erasmus.[1238]On January 31, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 567.[1239]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 353.[1240]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445seq.[1241]Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 266.[1242]Ellinger,ibid., p. 349.[1243]Ibid., p. 351 f.[1244]Ellinger, p. 414. The exclamation was called forth by his sad experience over the Naumburg bishopric (see below, p. 375, and vol. v., xxx. 4).[1245]This tendency is also manifest in Melanchthon’s many labours for the promotion of education. In place of the old, independent Universities of the Middle Ages, enjoying ecclesiastical freedom and partaking of a quasi-international character, there sprang up, wherever Melanchthon’s influence prevailed, High Schools with a more limited horizon destined to supply the sovereign of the land with servants for the State, officials and preachers, but, above all, to safeguard the true Evangel. “All the reformed Universities established at Melanchthon’s instance,” remarks Carl Sell, a Protestant theologian, “Marburg, Tübingen, Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Leipzig, Königsberg, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Rostock, Jena, and finally Helmstädt, were State Universities, and, like Wittenberg, intended as citadels of the pure faith. Hence their professors were all bound by the new Confession.... The old, unfettered liberty of the Church’s Universities was now subordinated to the ends and needs of the State.” “Philip Melanchthon als Lehrmeister des protest. Deutschland,” 1897, p. 19.Ibid., p. 11, Sell thus characterises the State-Church promoted by Melanchthon and by Luther likewise: “The German Reformation never succeeded in producing a new ecclesiasticism. What grew up beneath its sway was rather a confessional State, which declared itself at one with that form of the Christian religion which the head of the State regarded as right.”[1246]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 281. “Symbol. Bücher,10” p. 339 (in the Articles of Schmalkalden, “Tractatus de potestate papæ”).[1247]Thus Kolde in the Introduction to his edition of the “Symbol. Bücher10” just referred to, p. xxv., n. 2, adding: “A preliminary to this is possibly to be found in ‘Corp. ref.,’ 3, p. 240seq.”[1248]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 354, 364.[1249]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 422.[1250]Ellinger,ibid., p. 377.[1251]On this “miracle,” see above, p. 162.[1252]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578seq.“Zeitschr. für die hist. Theol.,” 28, 1858, 606 f. On Melanchthon’s insincerity cp. also O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch.,” 1, 1908, p. 232.[1253]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 411.[1254]Ibid., p. 26.[1255]Ibid., p. 16.[1256]To Julius Pflug, August 20, 1531, “Erasmi Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1412. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.[1257]“B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ,” etc., ed. O. Braunsberger, 1, p. 359seq.[1258]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Equidem studeo omni officio tueri concordiam nostræ academiæ, et scis me etiam hoc genere artis aliquid adhibere solere,” etc. It is possible that the above reference to a “plaga,” or some other similar passage, gave rise to the singular misapprehension of certain polemics, viz. that Luther had been in the habit of coercing Melanchthon by striking him and boxing his ears, surely one of the most curious, and at the same time baseless, of all the legends concerning Luther.[1259]On November 4, 1543, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 218.[1260]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 433. Cp. Melanchthon to Johann Sturm, August 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917: The Court had prevailed on him not to leave Wittenberg, chiefly because it regarded his presence as indispensable owing to his power for mediating: “me putant aliquanto minus vehementem aut pertinacem esse quam sunt alii.” He regrets, with a hint at the Luther-enthusiasts, the “democratia aut tyrannis indoctorum” prevalent in both Catholic and Lutheran camps.... “Non dissimulo evectos etiam esse nostros interdum [Greek: hyper ta eskammena], et multa mitigavi.”[1261]“Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili,” he says in the letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879.[1262]See n. 3 of last page.[1263]Hipler, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Humanismus,” p. 45. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.[1264]Explanation of Article xviii., “Werke,” 2, 1908, p. 147.[1265]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 34 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 11. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 310. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 63.[1266]See below, p. 409.[1267]“Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister,” 1527, “Werke,”ibid., 38 ff.=14 ff.[1268]Fragment in Migne’s “P.L.,” 5, col. 348seq.[1269]“De Trinitate,” 18, c. 14. “P.L.,” 10, col. 247.[1270]“Ep. ad Smyrnæos,” 7. Migne, “P.G.,” 5, col. 714. Instead of the passages here quoted, certain others were preferred in that controversy.[1271]We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u. K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation. Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation as any obstacle to joining his party (“nihil morati si quis eam alibi credat vel non”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.[1272]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.[1273]Ibid., p. 130.[1274]Ibid., p. 108.[1275]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.[1276]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.[1277]“Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.[1278]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.[1279]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.[1280]See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.[1281]To Prior Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907 (with a discussion of G. Barge’s “Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt”), and “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.[1282]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 340; Erl. ed., 64, p. 394 f., from the “Report” on their meeting.[1283]“Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 165.[1284]Ibid., p. 86=162: He points out why Andrew Carlstadt, “so far as my prayers may avail, shall not be permitted to come in again, but shall again depart should he secure admittance, unless he becomes a new Andrew, to which may God help him.” He had not interpreted the law of Moses aright nor applied it to the authorities, but to the common people. The authorities ought to forbid the country to such preachers as did not teach quietly but drew the mob to them, pulled down images and destroyed churches at their pleasure behind the backs of the authorities. Carlstadt’s spirit and that of his followers was a “spirit of murder and revolt.” Here he does not refer to the difference on the doctrine of the Sacrament. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” pp. 175-178. For the circumstances attending his banishment, see below, p. 391 f.[1285]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 676.[1286]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 125; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205. The first part was in print at the end of 1524, the second part about the end of January, 1525. Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 685.[1287]Luther to the Elector of Saxony, September 12, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 327 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 240).[1288]Carlstadt to Luther, previous to September 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 239: “Fui olim frater (tuus) fortasse non nimium commodus sed posthac mancipium ero et obsequibile et suspiciens.” He describes to Luther the poverty to which he, with his wife and child, were reduced.[1289]See passage from Alberus, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 240, n. 1.[1290]K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 194.[1291]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.[1292]Ibid., p. 161.[1293]Ibid., p. 144.[1294]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 88.[1295]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 124.[1296]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 37.[1297]On September 13, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 23.[1298]To Jacob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 452.[1299]To Amsdorf, April 13, 1542,ibid., p. 463.[1300]To Probst, as above.[1301]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 213; Erl. ed., 29, 296.[1302]Ibid., p. 134=206.[1303]In “Thomas Zweifels Rothenburg im Bauernkrieg,” ed. Baumann (“Bibl. des Litt. Vereins in Stuttgart,” 139), p. 20.[1304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, pp. 271, 273.[1305]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 112 ff.; Erl. ed., p. 29, p. 190 ff.[1306]Ibid., p. 114=193.[1307]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 116; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.[1308]Ickelsamer, “Clag,” etc. (ed. Enders, “Neudrucke,” No. 118, 1893). Cp. for instance “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 209; 53, p. 274.[1309]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 687.[1310]“Summa theol.,” 1-2, q. C. a. 3.[1311]In a letter to Spalatin as early as May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377.[1312]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 164; Erl. ed., 29, p. 241.[1313]Ibid., p. 182 f.=261.[1314]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 115; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.[1315]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” p. 53. For the Prophecy see above, p. 165 f.[1316]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 134; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205.[1317]Ibid., 15, p. 394=53, p. 274.[1318]Sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 80.[1319]Ibid., p. 287.[1320]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 391; Erl. ed., 53, p. 271 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).[1321]Ibid., 18, p. 214=29, p. 297.[1322]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 390 f.=53, p. 276 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).[1323]Sermon of March 25, 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 76seq.[1324]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” pp. 43, 44, 45.[1325]Glatz to Luther, January 18, 1525, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 107.[1326]To Link at Altenburg on February 7, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 122.[1327]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 376. Cp.ibid., p. 372 ff.[1328]Förstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” 1, p. 322.[1329]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.[1330]Ibid., p. 138.[1331]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.[1332]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.[1333]O. Clemen, “Johann Sylvius Egranus” (“Mitt. des Altertumsvereins für Zwickau und Umgegend,” 1899, Hft. 6 and 7; Sonderabd., 1 and 2), 1, p. 28.[1334]“Historien,” p. 222.[1335]Ibid., p. 79.[1336]M. J. Weller, “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” Chemnitz, 1760 ff., 2, p. 783. Weller, 1, p. 177, gives one of Egranus’s letters of 1523, in which he says: “propter Lutherum neque evangelium neque Christum ... nominare tutum est.”[1337]Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 11 f.[1338]Bl. A. 3a. Döllinger,ibid., p. 135.[1339]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 488.[1340]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343 (in 1544).[1341]Ibid., p. 90.[1342]Ibid., p. 207.[1343]To Wolfgang Wiebel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 208 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 367).[1344]Clemen,ibid., p. 16, with a reference to Loesche’s “Leben des Mathesius,” 1, 1895, p. 88.[1345]Plentiful proofs in N. Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” p. 1 ff.[1346]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.[1347]For these passages and some others, see Döllinger,ibid., p, 136 f. Cp. Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 14.[1348]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 267.[1349]Ibid., p. 266seq.[1350]Ibid., p. 267.[1351]L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.[1352]Reprint of Luther’sPraefatioin “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502seq.[1353]First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener Staatsbibl.).[1354]p. 2.[1355]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter, which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538 (illo die).[1356]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.[1357]Ibid., p. 412.[1358]“Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1359]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).[1360]Ibid., p. 381.[1361]H. Kawerau, “RE. für prot. Theol.,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1362]See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 528, where the “contravention of the rights of the Chapter” is admitted.[1363]To Bugenhagen, November 24, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 127.[1364]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 147 f. See above, p. 204.[1365]Mathesius,ibid., p. 274.[1366]In the work called “Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi” (end of August, 1525). See “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 447. Zwingli replied to Bugenhagen in a writing of October, 1525. In the “Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmal Christi,” which Zwingli published in February, 1526, in vindication of his denial of the Real Presence, he, as in his previous writings, avoided naming Luther. Since at Basle in September, 1525, [Œcolampadius also advocated the figurative sense of the words of institution in his writing, “De genuina verborum Domini expositione,” and Caspar Schwenckfeld and Valentine Krautwald sought to propagate the same in Silesia, while Carlstadt was winning adherents by his attacks upon the Sacrament, Bugenhagen’s work was all the more timely. Johann Brenz espoused his cause, in opposition to the figurative interpretation, in his “Syngramma” of October, 1525, and so did Jacob Strauss. The “Sacramentarian” movement had grown before Luther followed up his vigorous refutation of Carlstadt’s denial of the Sacrament (in his book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” and in his sermon of 1526 on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the fanatics) by his polemical Tractate against Zwingli and [Œcolampadius on the words of Christ, “This is My Body” (1527). See above, p. 379 f.][1367]Spengler to Veit Dietrich, in Mayer’s “Spengleriana,” p. 153. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 141.[1368]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 25.[1369]Ibid., p. 89.[1370]E. Hörigk, “Joh. Bugenhagen und die Protestantisierung Pommerns,” Mainz, 1895, p. 19 f.[1371]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. Cp. p. 220. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 10, where Luther relates how Bugenhagen calmed him when the devil almost choked him with the passage 1 Timothy v. 11, and drove him “fromgratia in disputationem legis.”[1372]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.[1373]Bugenhagen to Luther, Jonas and Melanchthon (beginning of November, 1530), “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 304 ff.: “The words [of the devil] Acts xxix.[15] came to my mind: ‘Jesus I know and Paul I know,’ etc. He has often troubled me ... I have not yet forgotten what he sought to do through the Sacramentarians of Silesia (see p. 409, n. 3). In the matter of other sins he may have seemed to triumph over me, but, thanks be to Christ, he may indeed have come to me, but has not been able to remain. I again exhort you herewith that you pray for me,” etc.[1374]In the letter, p. 307.[1375]“Zwo wunderbarliche Hystorien zu Bestettigung der Lere des Evangelii, Johann Pomer, Philipp Melanchthon.” According to Enders, 8, p. 304, probably published at Nuremberg (by Luther’s friend, W. Link) in 1530 or the beginning of 1531.[1376]Cp. B. Heyne, “Uber Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 52 ff.[1377]To Wenceslaus Link, December, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.[1378]Wolfgang Musculus (“Itinerar.,” May 25, 1536), in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 220.[1379]On July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” p. 245.[1380]July 26, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 183 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 250).[1381]Saxo to Bugenhagen, July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 151: “actum esse de Pauli collo,” etc.[1382]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 181.[1383]Ibid., p. 380. See above, p. 230.[1384]Ibid., p. 385.[1385]Voigt, “Herzog Albrecht,” in Raumer, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 2, p. 314. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 142.[1386]Bugenhagen, “Wahrhaftige Historie,” Wittenberg, 1547, Conclusion. P. Knittel in “KL.”², Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1387]Döllinger,ibid., p. 142.[1388]On February 4, 1538, from Copenhagen, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 329.[1389]The Superintendent of Zealand, Peter Palladius, who had betaken himself to Denmark with Bugenhagen from Wittenberg, writes: “The thieves [monks] have now been driven out of the land, and some of them hanged.” L. Schmitt, “Der Karmeliter Paulus Heliä, Vorkämpfer der kathol. Kirche gegen die sog. Reformation in Dänemark,” Freiburg, 1893, p. 160 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 19.[1390]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 300 f.[1391]On November 21, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” p. 162 ff. Hörigk,loc. cit., p. 35 f.[1392]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219.[1393]Ibid., p. 114.[1394]Ibid., p. 178.[1395]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 83, in 1540.[1396]Ibid., p. 84.[1397]Ibid., p. 106.[1398]H. Weller to the Councillors at Halle, April 18, 1567, “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 343.[1399]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 26, where he states that Luther also found fault with Katey’s many words, “quibus ipsa perpetuo optima verba eius interturbabat. Et D. Ionas eadem erat virtute.”[1400]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 317seq.[1401]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219. See above, p. 110 f.[1402]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313, in 1543.[1403]Ibid., p. 79.[1404]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175: “tantum unum habere rusticum ex tot pagis,” etc.[1405]See vol. iv., xxiv. 4.[1406]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. lv. f., and also in “RE. für prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Jonas.”[1407]Kawerau, in “RE.,”ibid.Concerning his polemics with Wicel, Kawerau admits (in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. xxxviii.) that “Georg Witzels historia” by Jonas is no “reliable source,” and of the attack on the Emperor he declares (p. xlix.) that, during the Schmalkalden War, Jonas caused him to be prayed against as “Antichrist.”[1408]On February 9, 1534, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 204. For other similar passages see above, p. 277 f.[1409]To Bullinger, April 9, 1534,ibid., p. 205: “furit et debacchatur in quoslibet ... sicque devovet viros sanctissimos,” etc.[1410]Letter of December 8, 1543. Cp. Hess, “Leben Bullingers,” 1, p. 404seq.[1411]See vol. ii., p. 363 ff.[1412]F. X. Funk in “KL.,”² Art. “Wiedertäufer,” col. 1491, 1483.[1413]G. Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 92.[1414]“Comment. in Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 8.[1415]So at least says Luther in the Preface to a work of Urban Regius against the Anabaptists of Münster, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 332: “They write: That there are,” etc. Luther strongly urges the contrary.[1416]In the Preface to the “Neue Zeitung von Münster,”ibid., p. 336. Cp. Luther’s letter to Frederick Myconius on July 5, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 62: “De anabaptistis Monasteriensibus parum curo. Satan furit, sed stat Scriptura.”[1417]To Jacob Probst at Bremen, August 23, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 197 f.[1418]Cp. Bucer to Luther, August 25, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 209 ff. Nicholas Gerbel to Luther, from Strasburg, October 21, 1530, ibid., p. 292; Luther to Joh. Brismann at Riga, November 7, 1530, ibid., p. 312: “Sacramentarios, saltem Strassburgenses, nobiscum in gratiam redire spes est”; he adds, however, a doubt as to Bucer’s sincerity: “Si non fallit quod dicit; admonui enim, ne simularet.”[1419]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 75seq.
[1212]Cruciger to Veit Dietrich, August 4, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 398: “Cum alia multa, tum maxime obstat[Greek: ê gunaikoturann’is].” K. Sell, “Phil. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation,” 1898, p. 57: “The wives do not seem to have got on so well.”[1213]“Many of the people,” he writes in 1524, “attach themselves to Luther as the champion of freedom; they are weary of the good old customs ... many of them think that Luther merely teaches contempt of human traditions.” (In theEpitomeaddressed to the Landgrave of Hesse [above, p. 348, n. 1].) Cp. Döllinger,loc. cit., 3, p. 301. He laments in similar fashion the results of Luther’s behaviour in 1527, complaining that the people had become “over-confident and had lost the sense of fear” because they heard nothing about penance. This one-sided preaching of the Gospel resulted “in greater errors and sins than had ever existed before.” Döllinger,ibid., 3, p. 302. Melanchthon regarded the writings of his friend, particularly on account of their exaggeration, with “ever-increasing distrust.” “The great man’s boisterousness began to alarm him.... There is no doubt that it was from this quarter that the misgivings first arose which nipped and caused to wither the blossoms of their previous so intimate relationship.” Thus Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 187.[1214]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.[1215]May 12, 1536.Ibid., 3, p. 68seq.[1216]Caspar Aquila, as early as 1527, accused him of abandoning Christianity and of being a Papist. Cp. Melanchthon to Aquila, November 17, 1527. “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 961. Cp. the letter to the same of the middle of November, 1527,ibid., p. 959.[1217]To the Saxon minister Carlowitz, April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879seq.[1218]To Justus Jonas, November 25, 1527, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 913: “quam si vivus in eiusmodi miserias incideret.”[1219]See above, p. 321.[1220]Ellinger,ibid., p. 241.[1221]On June 13, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.[1222]On June 30, 1530, p. 50.[1223]“Die Versuche,” p. 65.[1224]Ibid., p. 10.[1225]This proposition stands at the head of the 1535 edition of the “Loci.” He had intended in this work, so he says, “colligere doctrinam catholicam ecclesiae Christi,” as taught by those witnesses. “Corp. ref.,” 21, p. 333. In 1540 he declared further that the Churches accepting the Augsburg Confession held fast to the “perpetuus consensus veræ ecclesiæ omnium temporum,” as to that of the Prophets and Apostles; Ambrose, Augustine, etc., agreed with them—if only they were rightly understood. “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 494.[1226]Paolo Vergerio, January 13, 1541, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 22.[1227]Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 66 f.[1228]Ibid., p. 33. Cordatus to Cruciger, August 20, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 159. In a letter to the latter of September 17, 1536, he bases his blame of Melanchthon on his praise of Luther (“Præceptor noster, qui est doctor doctorum theologiæ. Amen.”), to whose doctrine it was necessary to hold fast.[1229]“Vita Erasmi,” ed. Lugd. Batav., 1615, p. 259. Kawerau,ibid., p. 17.[1230]Kawerau,ibid., p. 31.[1231]“In plerisque controversiis iudicandis meam opinionem ad tuam sententiam libenter adiungo.” Letter of May 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68seq.[1232]His theses on the Primacy and his other polemical statements (see below, xx. 4) are scarcely “better-sounding.” A good resolution here made runs as follows: “Ad has materias tractandas afferam aliquanto plus curæ ac studii quam antea.”[1233]Kawerau’s opinion, p. 33.[1234]To Camerarius, November 30, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 193. After mentioning the report Melanchthon adds: “Nihil mihi obicitur, nisi quod dicor plusculum laudare bona opera”; all the truth in this was that “quædam minus horride dico quam ipsi,” i.e. than Luther and his more enthusiastic followers.[1235]With the expression “unhappy fate” we may compare his lament over the “rixæ religionum, in quas meo quodam fato incidi” (To the Imperial Secretary Obernburger, June 23, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 602). Kawerau remarks (p. 15): “It is indeed sad to find Luther’s greatest friend speaking of his having been involved in the ecclesiastical struggles of his time as a misfortune.”[1236]Ellinger,ibid., p. 313: “He probably made use here of an intentionally ambiguous phrase in order to curry favour with the Bishop, for it is clear that he never meant to promote a restoration of the hierarchical order, though Cricius may well have supposed this from his letter. Hence we see that in the execution of his plans, Melanchthon was not above having recourse to craft.”[1237]Letter of October 27, 1532. For its publication by T. Wierzbowski see Kawerau, p. 78, n. 17. Kawerau rightly emphasises the fact that, according to the text of the letter, Melanchthon refuses to break with Luther merely “on the weak ground that he, as a right-minded man (vir bonus), could not make up his mind to approve, let alone admire, the cruel and bloodthirsty plans of the Romanists.... Should the ‘moderata consilia’ prevail amongst the Catholic bishops, then he would be quite willing to come to terms.... We cannot but see how gladly he would have taken refuge in a haven where he would be safe from the theological storm. This letter shows him as a moderate, and, at the same time, as a true representative of Humanist interests.” For the further efforts of Cricius, who wrote in 1535, that he was acting on behalf of, or at least with the express sanction of, the Pope and the Cardinals, see Kawerau, p. 18 ff. Melanchthon’s writing of August, 1532, to the Elector-Cardinal Albert of Mayence, in which, in the most respectful terms, he begs the Primate of Germany, so hated by Luther, “to procure a milder remedy (cp. ‘moderata consilia’) for the dissensions in the Churches,” is also of importance; all right-minded men in Europe (boni omnes) were looking to him. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 611seq.In these letters we see his earnest efforts “to bring about peace and avert civil war,” as he writes to Erasmus.[1238]On January 31, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 567.[1239]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 353.[1240]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445seq.[1241]Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 266.[1242]Ellinger,ibid., p. 349.[1243]Ibid., p. 351 f.[1244]Ellinger, p. 414. The exclamation was called forth by his sad experience over the Naumburg bishopric (see below, p. 375, and vol. v., xxx. 4).[1245]This tendency is also manifest in Melanchthon’s many labours for the promotion of education. In place of the old, independent Universities of the Middle Ages, enjoying ecclesiastical freedom and partaking of a quasi-international character, there sprang up, wherever Melanchthon’s influence prevailed, High Schools with a more limited horizon destined to supply the sovereign of the land with servants for the State, officials and preachers, but, above all, to safeguard the true Evangel. “All the reformed Universities established at Melanchthon’s instance,” remarks Carl Sell, a Protestant theologian, “Marburg, Tübingen, Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Leipzig, Königsberg, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Rostock, Jena, and finally Helmstädt, were State Universities, and, like Wittenberg, intended as citadels of the pure faith. Hence their professors were all bound by the new Confession.... The old, unfettered liberty of the Church’s Universities was now subordinated to the ends and needs of the State.” “Philip Melanchthon als Lehrmeister des protest. Deutschland,” 1897, p. 19.Ibid., p. 11, Sell thus characterises the State-Church promoted by Melanchthon and by Luther likewise: “The German Reformation never succeeded in producing a new ecclesiasticism. What grew up beneath its sway was rather a confessional State, which declared itself at one with that form of the Christian religion which the head of the State regarded as right.”[1246]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 281. “Symbol. Bücher,10” p. 339 (in the Articles of Schmalkalden, “Tractatus de potestate papæ”).[1247]Thus Kolde in the Introduction to his edition of the “Symbol. Bücher10” just referred to, p. xxv., n. 2, adding: “A preliminary to this is possibly to be found in ‘Corp. ref.,’ 3, p. 240seq.”[1248]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 354, 364.[1249]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 422.[1250]Ellinger,ibid., p. 377.[1251]On this “miracle,” see above, p. 162.[1252]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578seq.“Zeitschr. für die hist. Theol.,” 28, 1858, 606 f. On Melanchthon’s insincerity cp. also O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch.,” 1, 1908, p. 232.[1253]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 411.[1254]Ibid., p. 26.[1255]Ibid., p. 16.[1256]To Julius Pflug, August 20, 1531, “Erasmi Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1412. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.[1257]“B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ,” etc., ed. O. Braunsberger, 1, p. 359seq.[1258]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Equidem studeo omni officio tueri concordiam nostræ academiæ, et scis me etiam hoc genere artis aliquid adhibere solere,” etc. It is possible that the above reference to a “plaga,” or some other similar passage, gave rise to the singular misapprehension of certain polemics, viz. that Luther had been in the habit of coercing Melanchthon by striking him and boxing his ears, surely one of the most curious, and at the same time baseless, of all the legends concerning Luther.[1259]On November 4, 1543, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 218.[1260]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 433. Cp. Melanchthon to Johann Sturm, August 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917: The Court had prevailed on him not to leave Wittenberg, chiefly because it regarded his presence as indispensable owing to his power for mediating: “me putant aliquanto minus vehementem aut pertinacem esse quam sunt alii.” He regrets, with a hint at the Luther-enthusiasts, the “democratia aut tyrannis indoctorum” prevalent in both Catholic and Lutheran camps.... “Non dissimulo evectos etiam esse nostros interdum [Greek: hyper ta eskammena], et multa mitigavi.”[1261]“Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili,” he says in the letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879.[1262]See n. 3 of last page.[1263]Hipler, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Humanismus,” p. 45. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.[1264]Explanation of Article xviii., “Werke,” 2, 1908, p. 147.[1265]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 34 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 11. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 310. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 63.[1266]See below, p. 409.[1267]“Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister,” 1527, “Werke,”ibid., 38 ff.=14 ff.[1268]Fragment in Migne’s “P.L.,” 5, col. 348seq.[1269]“De Trinitate,” 18, c. 14. “P.L.,” 10, col. 247.[1270]“Ep. ad Smyrnæos,” 7. Migne, “P.G.,” 5, col. 714. Instead of the passages here quoted, certain others were preferred in that controversy.[1271]We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u. K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation. Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation as any obstacle to joining his party (“nihil morati si quis eam alibi credat vel non”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.[1272]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.[1273]Ibid., p. 130.[1274]Ibid., p. 108.[1275]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.[1276]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.[1277]“Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.[1278]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.[1279]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.[1280]See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.[1281]To Prior Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907 (with a discussion of G. Barge’s “Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt”), and “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.[1282]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 340; Erl. ed., 64, p. 394 f., from the “Report” on their meeting.[1283]“Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 165.[1284]Ibid., p. 86=162: He points out why Andrew Carlstadt, “so far as my prayers may avail, shall not be permitted to come in again, but shall again depart should he secure admittance, unless he becomes a new Andrew, to which may God help him.” He had not interpreted the law of Moses aright nor applied it to the authorities, but to the common people. The authorities ought to forbid the country to such preachers as did not teach quietly but drew the mob to them, pulled down images and destroyed churches at their pleasure behind the backs of the authorities. Carlstadt’s spirit and that of his followers was a “spirit of murder and revolt.” Here he does not refer to the difference on the doctrine of the Sacrament. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” pp. 175-178. For the circumstances attending his banishment, see below, p. 391 f.[1285]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 676.[1286]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 125; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205. The first part was in print at the end of 1524, the second part about the end of January, 1525. Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 685.[1287]Luther to the Elector of Saxony, September 12, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 327 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 240).[1288]Carlstadt to Luther, previous to September 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 239: “Fui olim frater (tuus) fortasse non nimium commodus sed posthac mancipium ero et obsequibile et suspiciens.” He describes to Luther the poverty to which he, with his wife and child, were reduced.[1289]See passage from Alberus, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 240, n. 1.[1290]K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 194.[1291]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.[1292]Ibid., p. 161.[1293]Ibid., p. 144.[1294]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 88.[1295]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 124.[1296]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 37.[1297]On September 13, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 23.[1298]To Jacob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 452.[1299]To Amsdorf, April 13, 1542,ibid., p. 463.[1300]To Probst, as above.[1301]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 213; Erl. ed., 29, 296.[1302]Ibid., p. 134=206.[1303]In “Thomas Zweifels Rothenburg im Bauernkrieg,” ed. Baumann (“Bibl. des Litt. Vereins in Stuttgart,” 139), p. 20.[1304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, pp. 271, 273.[1305]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 112 ff.; Erl. ed., p. 29, p. 190 ff.[1306]Ibid., p. 114=193.[1307]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 116; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.[1308]Ickelsamer, “Clag,” etc. (ed. Enders, “Neudrucke,” No. 118, 1893). Cp. for instance “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 209; 53, p. 274.[1309]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 687.[1310]“Summa theol.,” 1-2, q. C. a. 3.[1311]In a letter to Spalatin as early as May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377.[1312]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 164; Erl. ed., 29, p. 241.[1313]Ibid., p. 182 f.=261.[1314]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 115; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.[1315]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” p. 53. For the Prophecy see above, p. 165 f.[1316]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 134; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205.[1317]Ibid., 15, p. 394=53, p. 274.[1318]Sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 80.[1319]Ibid., p. 287.[1320]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 391; Erl. ed., 53, p. 271 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).[1321]Ibid., 18, p. 214=29, p. 297.[1322]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 390 f.=53, p. 276 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).[1323]Sermon of March 25, 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 76seq.[1324]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” pp. 43, 44, 45.[1325]Glatz to Luther, January 18, 1525, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 107.[1326]To Link at Altenburg on February 7, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 122.[1327]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 376. Cp.ibid., p. 372 ff.[1328]Förstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” 1, p. 322.[1329]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.[1330]Ibid., p. 138.[1331]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.[1332]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.[1333]O. Clemen, “Johann Sylvius Egranus” (“Mitt. des Altertumsvereins für Zwickau und Umgegend,” 1899, Hft. 6 and 7; Sonderabd., 1 and 2), 1, p. 28.[1334]“Historien,” p. 222.[1335]Ibid., p. 79.[1336]M. J. Weller, “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” Chemnitz, 1760 ff., 2, p. 783. Weller, 1, p. 177, gives one of Egranus’s letters of 1523, in which he says: “propter Lutherum neque evangelium neque Christum ... nominare tutum est.”[1337]Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 11 f.[1338]Bl. A. 3a. Döllinger,ibid., p. 135.[1339]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 488.[1340]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343 (in 1544).[1341]Ibid., p. 90.[1342]Ibid., p. 207.[1343]To Wolfgang Wiebel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 208 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 367).[1344]Clemen,ibid., p. 16, with a reference to Loesche’s “Leben des Mathesius,” 1, 1895, p. 88.[1345]Plentiful proofs in N. Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” p. 1 ff.[1346]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.[1347]For these passages and some others, see Döllinger,ibid., p, 136 f. Cp. Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 14.[1348]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 267.[1349]Ibid., p. 266seq.[1350]Ibid., p. 267.[1351]L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.[1352]Reprint of Luther’sPraefatioin “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502seq.[1353]First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener Staatsbibl.).[1354]p. 2.[1355]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter, which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538 (illo die).[1356]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.[1357]Ibid., p. 412.[1358]“Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1359]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).[1360]Ibid., p. 381.[1361]H. Kawerau, “RE. für prot. Theol.,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1362]See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 528, where the “contravention of the rights of the Chapter” is admitted.[1363]To Bugenhagen, November 24, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 127.[1364]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 147 f. See above, p. 204.[1365]Mathesius,ibid., p. 274.[1366]In the work called “Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi” (end of August, 1525). See “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 447. Zwingli replied to Bugenhagen in a writing of October, 1525. In the “Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmal Christi,” which Zwingli published in February, 1526, in vindication of his denial of the Real Presence, he, as in his previous writings, avoided naming Luther. Since at Basle in September, 1525, [Œcolampadius also advocated the figurative sense of the words of institution in his writing, “De genuina verborum Domini expositione,” and Caspar Schwenckfeld and Valentine Krautwald sought to propagate the same in Silesia, while Carlstadt was winning adherents by his attacks upon the Sacrament, Bugenhagen’s work was all the more timely. Johann Brenz espoused his cause, in opposition to the figurative interpretation, in his “Syngramma” of October, 1525, and so did Jacob Strauss. The “Sacramentarian” movement had grown before Luther followed up his vigorous refutation of Carlstadt’s denial of the Sacrament (in his book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” and in his sermon of 1526 on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the fanatics) by his polemical Tractate against Zwingli and [Œcolampadius on the words of Christ, “This is My Body” (1527). See above, p. 379 f.][1367]Spengler to Veit Dietrich, in Mayer’s “Spengleriana,” p. 153. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 141.[1368]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 25.[1369]Ibid., p. 89.[1370]E. Hörigk, “Joh. Bugenhagen und die Protestantisierung Pommerns,” Mainz, 1895, p. 19 f.[1371]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. Cp. p. 220. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 10, where Luther relates how Bugenhagen calmed him when the devil almost choked him with the passage 1 Timothy v. 11, and drove him “fromgratia in disputationem legis.”[1372]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.[1373]Bugenhagen to Luther, Jonas and Melanchthon (beginning of November, 1530), “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 304 ff.: “The words [of the devil] Acts xxix.[15] came to my mind: ‘Jesus I know and Paul I know,’ etc. He has often troubled me ... I have not yet forgotten what he sought to do through the Sacramentarians of Silesia (see p. 409, n. 3). In the matter of other sins he may have seemed to triumph over me, but, thanks be to Christ, he may indeed have come to me, but has not been able to remain. I again exhort you herewith that you pray for me,” etc.[1374]In the letter, p. 307.[1375]“Zwo wunderbarliche Hystorien zu Bestettigung der Lere des Evangelii, Johann Pomer, Philipp Melanchthon.” According to Enders, 8, p. 304, probably published at Nuremberg (by Luther’s friend, W. Link) in 1530 or the beginning of 1531.[1376]Cp. B. Heyne, “Uber Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 52 ff.[1377]To Wenceslaus Link, December, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.[1378]Wolfgang Musculus (“Itinerar.,” May 25, 1536), in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 220.[1379]On July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” p. 245.[1380]July 26, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 183 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 250).[1381]Saxo to Bugenhagen, July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 151: “actum esse de Pauli collo,” etc.[1382]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 181.[1383]Ibid., p. 380. See above, p. 230.[1384]Ibid., p. 385.[1385]Voigt, “Herzog Albrecht,” in Raumer, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 2, p. 314. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 142.[1386]Bugenhagen, “Wahrhaftige Historie,” Wittenberg, 1547, Conclusion. P. Knittel in “KL.”², Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1387]Döllinger,ibid., p. 142.[1388]On February 4, 1538, from Copenhagen, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 329.[1389]The Superintendent of Zealand, Peter Palladius, who had betaken himself to Denmark with Bugenhagen from Wittenberg, writes: “The thieves [monks] have now been driven out of the land, and some of them hanged.” L. Schmitt, “Der Karmeliter Paulus Heliä, Vorkämpfer der kathol. Kirche gegen die sog. Reformation in Dänemark,” Freiburg, 1893, p. 160 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 19.[1390]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 300 f.[1391]On November 21, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” p. 162 ff. Hörigk,loc. cit., p. 35 f.[1392]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219.[1393]Ibid., p. 114.[1394]Ibid., p. 178.[1395]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 83, in 1540.[1396]Ibid., p. 84.[1397]Ibid., p. 106.[1398]H. Weller to the Councillors at Halle, April 18, 1567, “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 343.[1399]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 26, where he states that Luther also found fault with Katey’s many words, “quibus ipsa perpetuo optima verba eius interturbabat. Et D. Ionas eadem erat virtute.”[1400]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 317seq.[1401]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219. See above, p. 110 f.[1402]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313, in 1543.[1403]Ibid., p. 79.[1404]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175: “tantum unum habere rusticum ex tot pagis,” etc.[1405]See vol. iv., xxiv. 4.[1406]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. lv. f., and also in “RE. für prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Jonas.”[1407]Kawerau, in “RE.,”ibid.Concerning his polemics with Wicel, Kawerau admits (in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. xxxviii.) that “Georg Witzels historia” by Jonas is no “reliable source,” and of the attack on the Emperor he declares (p. xlix.) that, during the Schmalkalden War, Jonas caused him to be prayed against as “Antichrist.”[1408]On February 9, 1534, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 204. For other similar passages see above, p. 277 f.[1409]To Bullinger, April 9, 1534,ibid., p. 205: “furit et debacchatur in quoslibet ... sicque devovet viros sanctissimos,” etc.[1410]Letter of December 8, 1543. Cp. Hess, “Leben Bullingers,” 1, p. 404seq.[1411]See vol. ii., p. 363 ff.[1412]F. X. Funk in “KL.,”² Art. “Wiedertäufer,” col. 1491, 1483.[1413]G. Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 92.[1414]“Comment. in Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 8.[1415]So at least says Luther in the Preface to a work of Urban Regius against the Anabaptists of Münster, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 332: “They write: That there are,” etc. Luther strongly urges the contrary.[1416]In the Preface to the “Neue Zeitung von Münster,”ibid., p. 336. Cp. Luther’s letter to Frederick Myconius on July 5, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 62: “De anabaptistis Monasteriensibus parum curo. Satan furit, sed stat Scriptura.”[1417]To Jacob Probst at Bremen, August 23, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 197 f.[1418]Cp. Bucer to Luther, August 25, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 209 ff. Nicholas Gerbel to Luther, from Strasburg, October 21, 1530, ibid., p. 292; Luther to Joh. Brismann at Riga, November 7, 1530, ibid., p. 312: “Sacramentarios, saltem Strassburgenses, nobiscum in gratiam redire spes est”; he adds, however, a doubt as to Bucer’s sincerity: “Si non fallit quod dicit; admonui enim, ne simularet.”[1419]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 75seq.
[1212]Cruciger to Veit Dietrich, August 4, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 398: “Cum alia multa, tum maxime obstat[Greek: ê gunaikoturann’is].” K. Sell, “Phil. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation,” 1898, p. 57: “The wives do not seem to have got on so well.”[1213]“Many of the people,” he writes in 1524, “attach themselves to Luther as the champion of freedom; they are weary of the good old customs ... many of them think that Luther merely teaches contempt of human traditions.” (In theEpitomeaddressed to the Landgrave of Hesse [above, p. 348, n. 1].) Cp. Döllinger,loc. cit., 3, p. 301. He laments in similar fashion the results of Luther’s behaviour in 1527, complaining that the people had become “over-confident and had lost the sense of fear” because they heard nothing about penance. This one-sided preaching of the Gospel resulted “in greater errors and sins than had ever existed before.” Döllinger,ibid., 3, p. 302. Melanchthon regarded the writings of his friend, particularly on account of their exaggeration, with “ever-increasing distrust.” “The great man’s boisterousness began to alarm him.... There is no doubt that it was from this quarter that the misgivings first arose which nipped and caused to wither the blossoms of their previous so intimate relationship.” Thus Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 187.[1214]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.[1215]May 12, 1536.Ibid., 3, p. 68seq.[1216]Caspar Aquila, as early as 1527, accused him of abandoning Christianity and of being a Papist. Cp. Melanchthon to Aquila, November 17, 1527. “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 961. Cp. the letter to the same of the middle of November, 1527,ibid., p. 959.[1217]To the Saxon minister Carlowitz, April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879seq.[1218]To Justus Jonas, November 25, 1527, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 913: “quam si vivus in eiusmodi miserias incideret.”[1219]See above, p. 321.[1220]Ellinger,ibid., p. 241.[1221]On June 13, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.[1222]On June 30, 1530, p. 50.[1223]“Die Versuche,” p. 65.[1224]Ibid., p. 10.[1225]This proposition stands at the head of the 1535 edition of the “Loci.” He had intended in this work, so he says, “colligere doctrinam catholicam ecclesiae Christi,” as taught by those witnesses. “Corp. ref.,” 21, p. 333. In 1540 he declared further that the Churches accepting the Augsburg Confession held fast to the “perpetuus consensus veræ ecclesiæ omnium temporum,” as to that of the Prophets and Apostles; Ambrose, Augustine, etc., agreed with them—if only they were rightly understood. “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 494.[1226]Paolo Vergerio, January 13, 1541, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 22.[1227]Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 66 f.[1228]Ibid., p. 33. Cordatus to Cruciger, August 20, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 159. In a letter to the latter of September 17, 1536, he bases his blame of Melanchthon on his praise of Luther (“Præceptor noster, qui est doctor doctorum theologiæ. Amen.”), to whose doctrine it was necessary to hold fast.[1229]“Vita Erasmi,” ed. Lugd. Batav., 1615, p. 259. Kawerau,ibid., p. 17.[1230]Kawerau,ibid., p. 31.[1231]“In plerisque controversiis iudicandis meam opinionem ad tuam sententiam libenter adiungo.” Letter of May 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68seq.[1232]His theses on the Primacy and his other polemical statements (see below, xx. 4) are scarcely “better-sounding.” A good resolution here made runs as follows: “Ad has materias tractandas afferam aliquanto plus curæ ac studii quam antea.”[1233]Kawerau’s opinion, p. 33.[1234]To Camerarius, November 30, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 193. After mentioning the report Melanchthon adds: “Nihil mihi obicitur, nisi quod dicor plusculum laudare bona opera”; all the truth in this was that “quædam minus horride dico quam ipsi,” i.e. than Luther and his more enthusiastic followers.[1235]With the expression “unhappy fate” we may compare his lament over the “rixæ religionum, in quas meo quodam fato incidi” (To the Imperial Secretary Obernburger, June 23, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 602). Kawerau remarks (p. 15): “It is indeed sad to find Luther’s greatest friend speaking of his having been involved in the ecclesiastical struggles of his time as a misfortune.”[1236]Ellinger,ibid., p. 313: “He probably made use here of an intentionally ambiguous phrase in order to curry favour with the Bishop, for it is clear that he never meant to promote a restoration of the hierarchical order, though Cricius may well have supposed this from his letter. Hence we see that in the execution of his plans, Melanchthon was not above having recourse to craft.”[1237]Letter of October 27, 1532. For its publication by T. Wierzbowski see Kawerau, p. 78, n. 17. Kawerau rightly emphasises the fact that, according to the text of the letter, Melanchthon refuses to break with Luther merely “on the weak ground that he, as a right-minded man (vir bonus), could not make up his mind to approve, let alone admire, the cruel and bloodthirsty plans of the Romanists.... Should the ‘moderata consilia’ prevail amongst the Catholic bishops, then he would be quite willing to come to terms.... We cannot but see how gladly he would have taken refuge in a haven where he would be safe from the theological storm. This letter shows him as a moderate, and, at the same time, as a true representative of Humanist interests.” For the further efforts of Cricius, who wrote in 1535, that he was acting on behalf of, or at least with the express sanction of, the Pope and the Cardinals, see Kawerau, p. 18 ff. Melanchthon’s writing of August, 1532, to the Elector-Cardinal Albert of Mayence, in which, in the most respectful terms, he begs the Primate of Germany, so hated by Luther, “to procure a milder remedy (cp. ‘moderata consilia’) for the dissensions in the Churches,” is also of importance; all right-minded men in Europe (boni omnes) were looking to him. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 611seq.In these letters we see his earnest efforts “to bring about peace and avert civil war,” as he writes to Erasmus.[1238]On January 31, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 567.[1239]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 353.[1240]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445seq.[1241]Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 266.[1242]Ellinger,ibid., p. 349.[1243]Ibid., p. 351 f.[1244]Ellinger, p. 414. The exclamation was called forth by his sad experience over the Naumburg bishopric (see below, p. 375, and vol. v., xxx. 4).[1245]This tendency is also manifest in Melanchthon’s many labours for the promotion of education. In place of the old, independent Universities of the Middle Ages, enjoying ecclesiastical freedom and partaking of a quasi-international character, there sprang up, wherever Melanchthon’s influence prevailed, High Schools with a more limited horizon destined to supply the sovereign of the land with servants for the State, officials and preachers, but, above all, to safeguard the true Evangel. “All the reformed Universities established at Melanchthon’s instance,” remarks Carl Sell, a Protestant theologian, “Marburg, Tübingen, Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Leipzig, Königsberg, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Rostock, Jena, and finally Helmstädt, were State Universities, and, like Wittenberg, intended as citadels of the pure faith. Hence their professors were all bound by the new Confession.... The old, unfettered liberty of the Church’s Universities was now subordinated to the ends and needs of the State.” “Philip Melanchthon als Lehrmeister des protest. Deutschland,” 1897, p. 19.Ibid., p. 11, Sell thus characterises the State-Church promoted by Melanchthon and by Luther likewise: “The German Reformation never succeeded in producing a new ecclesiasticism. What grew up beneath its sway was rather a confessional State, which declared itself at one with that form of the Christian religion which the head of the State regarded as right.”[1246]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 281. “Symbol. Bücher,10” p. 339 (in the Articles of Schmalkalden, “Tractatus de potestate papæ”).[1247]Thus Kolde in the Introduction to his edition of the “Symbol. Bücher10” just referred to, p. xxv., n. 2, adding: “A preliminary to this is possibly to be found in ‘Corp. ref.,’ 3, p. 240seq.”[1248]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 354, 364.[1249]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 422.[1250]Ellinger,ibid., p. 377.[1251]On this “miracle,” see above, p. 162.[1252]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578seq.“Zeitschr. für die hist. Theol.,” 28, 1858, 606 f. On Melanchthon’s insincerity cp. also O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch.,” 1, 1908, p. 232.[1253]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 411.[1254]Ibid., p. 26.[1255]Ibid., p. 16.[1256]To Julius Pflug, August 20, 1531, “Erasmi Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1412. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.[1257]“B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ,” etc., ed. O. Braunsberger, 1, p. 359seq.[1258]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Equidem studeo omni officio tueri concordiam nostræ academiæ, et scis me etiam hoc genere artis aliquid adhibere solere,” etc. It is possible that the above reference to a “plaga,” or some other similar passage, gave rise to the singular misapprehension of certain polemics, viz. that Luther had been in the habit of coercing Melanchthon by striking him and boxing his ears, surely one of the most curious, and at the same time baseless, of all the legends concerning Luther.[1259]On November 4, 1543, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 218.[1260]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 433. Cp. Melanchthon to Johann Sturm, August 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917: The Court had prevailed on him not to leave Wittenberg, chiefly because it regarded his presence as indispensable owing to his power for mediating: “me putant aliquanto minus vehementem aut pertinacem esse quam sunt alii.” He regrets, with a hint at the Luther-enthusiasts, the “democratia aut tyrannis indoctorum” prevalent in both Catholic and Lutheran camps.... “Non dissimulo evectos etiam esse nostros interdum [Greek: hyper ta eskammena], et multa mitigavi.”[1261]“Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili,” he says in the letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879.[1262]See n. 3 of last page.[1263]Hipler, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Humanismus,” p. 45. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.[1264]Explanation of Article xviii., “Werke,” 2, 1908, p. 147.[1265]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 34 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 11. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 310. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 63.[1266]See below, p. 409.[1267]“Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister,” 1527, “Werke,”ibid., 38 ff.=14 ff.[1268]Fragment in Migne’s “P.L.,” 5, col. 348seq.[1269]“De Trinitate,” 18, c. 14. “P.L.,” 10, col. 247.[1270]“Ep. ad Smyrnæos,” 7. Migne, “P.G.,” 5, col. 714. Instead of the passages here quoted, certain others were preferred in that controversy.[1271]We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u. K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation. Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation as any obstacle to joining his party (“nihil morati si quis eam alibi credat vel non”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.[1272]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.[1273]Ibid., p. 130.[1274]Ibid., p. 108.[1275]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.[1276]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.[1277]“Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.[1278]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.[1279]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.[1280]See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.[1281]To Prior Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907 (with a discussion of G. Barge’s “Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt”), and “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.[1282]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 340; Erl. ed., 64, p. 394 f., from the “Report” on their meeting.[1283]“Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 165.[1284]Ibid., p. 86=162: He points out why Andrew Carlstadt, “so far as my prayers may avail, shall not be permitted to come in again, but shall again depart should he secure admittance, unless he becomes a new Andrew, to which may God help him.” He had not interpreted the law of Moses aright nor applied it to the authorities, but to the common people. The authorities ought to forbid the country to such preachers as did not teach quietly but drew the mob to them, pulled down images and destroyed churches at their pleasure behind the backs of the authorities. Carlstadt’s spirit and that of his followers was a “spirit of murder and revolt.” Here he does not refer to the difference on the doctrine of the Sacrament. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” pp. 175-178. For the circumstances attending his banishment, see below, p. 391 f.[1285]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 676.[1286]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 125; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205. The first part was in print at the end of 1524, the second part about the end of January, 1525. Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 685.[1287]Luther to the Elector of Saxony, September 12, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 327 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 240).[1288]Carlstadt to Luther, previous to September 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 239: “Fui olim frater (tuus) fortasse non nimium commodus sed posthac mancipium ero et obsequibile et suspiciens.” He describes to Luther the poverty to which he, with his wife and child, were reduced.[1289]See passage from Alberus, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 240, n. 1.[1290]K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 194.[1291]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.[1292]Ibid., p. 161.[1293]Ibid., p. 144.[1294]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 88.[1295]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 124.[1296]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 37.[1297]On September 13, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 23.[1298]To Jacob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 452.[1299]To Amsdorf, April 13, 1542,ibid., p. 463.[1300]To Probst, as above.[1301]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 213; Erl. ed., 29, 296.[1302]Ibid., p. 134=206.[1303]In “Thomas Zweifels Rothenburg im Bauernkrieg,” ed. Baumann (“Bibl. des Litt. Vereins in Stuttgart,” 139), p. 20.[1304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, pp. 271, 273.[1305]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 112 ff.; Erl. ed., p. 29, p. 190 ff.[1306]Ibid., p. 114=193.[1307]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 116; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.[1308]Ickelsamer, “Clag,” etc. (ed. Enders, “Neudrucke,” No. 118, 1893). Cp. for instance “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 209; 53, p. 274.[1309]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 687.[1310]“Summa theol.,” 1-2, q. C. a. 3.[1311]In a letter to Spalatin as early as May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377.[1312]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 164; Erl. ed., 29, p. 241.[1313]Ibid., p. 182 f.=261.[1314]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 115; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.[1315]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” p. 53. For the Prophecy see above, p. 165 f.[1316]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 134; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205.[1317]Ibid., 15, p. 394=53, p. 274.[1318]Sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 80.[1319]Ibid., p. 287.[1320]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 391; Erl. ed., 53, p. 271 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).[1321]Ibid., 18, p. 214=29, p. 297.[1322]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 390 f.=53, p. 276 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).[1323]Sermon of March 25, 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 76seq.[1324]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” pp. 43, 44, 45.[1325]Glatz to Luther, January 18, 1525, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 107.[1326]To Link at Altenburg on February 7, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 122.[1327]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 376. Cp.ibid., p. 372 ff.[1328]Förstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” 1, p. 322.[1329]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.[1330]Ibid., p. 138.[1331]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.[1332]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.[1333]O. Clemen, “Johann Sylvius Egranus” (“Mitt. des Altertumsvereins für Zwickau und Umgegend,” 1899, Hft. 6 and 7; Sonderabd., 1 and 2), 1, p. 28.[1334]“Historien,” p. 222.[1335]Ibid., p. 79.[1336]M. J. Weller, “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” Chemnitz, 1760 ff., 2, p. 783. Weller, 1, p. 177, gives one of Egranus’s letters of 1523, in which he says: “propter Lutherum neque evangelium neque Christum ... nominare tutum est.”[1337]Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 11 f.[1338]Bl. A. 3a. Döllinger,ibid., p. 135.[1339]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 488.[1340]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343 (in 1544).[1341]Ibid., p. 90.[1342]Ibid., p. 207.[1343]To Wolfgang Wiebel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 208 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 367).[1344]Clemen,ibid., p. 16, with a reference to Loesche’s “Leben des Mathesius,” 1, 1895, p. 88.[1345]Plentiful proofs in N. Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” p. 1 ff.[1346]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.[1347]For these passages and some others, see Döllinger,ibid., p, 136 f. Cp. Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 14.[1348]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 267.[1349]Ibid., p. 266seq.[1350]Ibid., p. 267.[1351]L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.[1352]Reprint of Luther’sPraefatioin “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502seq.[1353]First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener Staatsbibl.).[1354]p. 2.[1355]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter, which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538 (illo die).[1356]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.[1357]Ibid., p. 412.[1358]“Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1359]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).[1360]Ibid., p. 381.[1361]H. Kawerau, “RE. für prot. Theol.,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1362]See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 528, where the “contravention of the rights of the Chapter” is admitted.[1363]To Bugenhagen, November 24, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 127.[1364]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 147 f. See above, p. 204.[1365]Mathesius,ibid., p. 274.[1366]In the work called “Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi” (end of August, 1525). See “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 447. Zwingli replied to Bugenhagen in a writing of October, 1525. In the “Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmal Christi,” which Zwingli published in February, 1526, in vindication of his denial of the Real Presence, he, as in his previous writings, avoided naming Luther. Since at Basle in September, 1525, [Œcolampadius also advocated the figurative sense of the words of institution in his writing, “De genuina verborum Domini expositione,” and Caspar Schwenckfeld and Valentine Krautwald sought to propagate the same in Silesia, while Carlstadt was winning adherents by his attacks upon the Sacrament, Bugenhagen’s work was all the more timely. Johann Brenz espoused his cause, in opposition to the figurative interpretation, in his “Syngramma” of October, 1525, and so did Jacob Strauss. The “Sacramentarian” movement had grown before Luther followed up his vigorous refutation of Carlstadt’s denial of the Sacrament (in his book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” and in his sermon of 1526 on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the fanatics) by his polemical Tractate against Zwingli and [Œcolampadius on the words of Christ, “This is My Body” (1527). See above, p. 379 f.][1367]Spengler to Veit Dietrich, in Mayer’s “Spengleriana,” p. 153. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 141.[1368]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 25.[1369]Ibid., p. 89.[1370]E. Hörigk, “Joh. Bugenhagen und die Protestantisierung Pommerns,” Mainz, 1895, p. 19 f.[1371]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. Cp. p. 220. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 10, where Luther relates how Bugenhagen calmed him when the devil almost choked him with the passage 1 Timothy v. 11, and drove him “fromgratia in disputationem legis.”[1372]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.[1373]Bugenhagen to Luther, Jonas and Melanchthon (beginning of November, 1530), “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 304 ff.: “The words [of the devil] Acts xxix.[15] came to my mind: ‘Jesus I know and Paul I know,’ etc. He has often troubled me ... I have not yet forgotten what he sought to do through the Sacramentarians of Silesia (see p. 409, n. 3). In the matter of other sins he may have seemed to triumph over me, but, thanks be to Christ, he may indeed have come to me, but has not been able to remain. I again exhort you herewith that you pray for me,” etc.[1374]In the letter, p. 307.[1375]“Zwo wunderbarliche Hystorien zu Bestettigung der Lere des Evangelii, Johann Pomer, Philipp Melanchthon.” According to Enders, 8, p. 304, probably published at Nuremberg (by Luther’s friend, W. Link) in 1530 or the beginning of 1531.[1376]Cp. B. Heyne, “Uber Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 52 ff.[1377]To Wenceslaus Link, December, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.[1378]Wolfgang Musculus (“Itinerar.,” May 25, 1536), in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 220.[1379]On July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” p. 245.[1380]July 26, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 183 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 250).[1381]Saxo to Bugenhagen, July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 151: “actum esse de Pauli collo,” etc.[1382]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 181.[1383]Ibid., p. 380. See above, p. 230.[1384]Ibid., p. 385.[1385]Voigt, “Herzog Albrecht,” in Raumer, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 2, p. 314. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 142.[1386]Bugenhagen, “Wahrhaftige Historie,” Wittenberg, 1547, Conclusion. P. Knittel in “KL.”², Art. “Bugenhagen.”[1387]Döllinger,ibid., p. 142.[1388]On February 4, 1538, from Copenhagen, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 329.[1389]The Superintendent of Zealand, Peter Palladius, who had betaken himself to Denmark with Bugenhagen from Wittenberg, writes: “The thieves [monks] have now been driven out of the land, and some of them hanged.” L. Schmitt, “Der Karmeliter Paulus Heliä, Vorkämpfer der kathol. Kirche gegen die sog. Reformation in Dänemark,” Freiburg, 1893, p. 160 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 19.[1390]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 300 f.[1391]On November 21, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” p. 162 ff. Hörigk,loc. cit., p. 35 f.[1392]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219.[1393]Ibid., p. 114.[1394]Ibid., p. 178.[1395]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 83, in 1540.[1396]Ibid., p. 84.[1397]Ibid., p. 106.[1398]H. Weller to the Councillors at Halle, April 18, 1567, “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 343.[1399]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 26, where he states that Luther also found fault with Katey’s many words, “quibus ipsa perpetuo optima verba eius interturbabat. Et D. Ionas eadem erat virtute.”[1400]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 317seq.[1401]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219. See above, p. 110 f.[1402]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313, in 1543.[1403]Ibid., p. 79.[1404]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175: “tantum unum habere rusticum ex tot pagis,” etc.[1405]See vol. iv., xxiv. 4.[1406]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. lv. f., and also in “RE. für prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Jonas.”[1407]Kawerau, in “RE.,”ibid.Concerning his polemics with Wicel, Kawerau admits (in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. xxxviii.) that “Georg Witzels historia” by Jonas is no “reliable source,” and of the attack on the Emperor he declares (p. xlix.) that, during the Schmalkalden War, Jonas caused him to be prayed against as “Antichrist.”[1408]On February 9, 1534, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 204. For other similar passages see above, p. 277 f.[1409]To Bullinger, April 9, 1534,ibid., p. 205: “furit et debacchatur in quoslibet ... sicque devovet viros sanctissimos,” etc.[1410]Letter of December 8, 1543. Cp. Hess, “Leben Bullingers,” 1, p. 404seq.[1411]See vol. ii., p. 363 ff.[1412]F. X. Funk in “KL.,”² Art. “Wiedertäufer,” col. 1491, 1483.[1413]G. Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 92.[1414]“Comment. in Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 8.[1415]So at least says Luther in the Preface to a work of Urban Regius against the Anabaptists of Münster, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 332: “They write: That there are,” etc. Luther strongly urges the contrary.[1416]In the Preface to the “Neue Zeitung von Münster,”ibid., p. 336. Cp. Luther’s letter to Frederick Myconius on July 5, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 62: “De anabaptistis Monasteriensibus parum curo. Satan furit, sed stat Scriptura.”[1417]To Jacob Probst at Bremen, August 23, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 197 f.[1418]Cp. Bucer to Luther, August 25, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 209 ff. Nicholas Gerbel to Luther, from Strasburg, October 21, 1530, ibid., p. 292; Luther to Joh. Brismann at Riga, November 7, 1530, ibid., p. 312: “Sacramentarios, saltem Strassburgenses, nobiscum in gratiam redire spes est”; he adds, however, a doubt as to Bucer’s sincerity: “Si non fallit quod dicit; admonui enim, ne simularet.”[1419]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 75seq.
[1212]Cruciger to Veit Dietrich, August 4, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 398: “Cum alia multa, tum maxime obstat[Greek: ê gunaikoturann’is].” K. Sell, “Phil. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation,” 1898, p. 57: “The wives do not seem to have got on so well.”
[1213]“Many of the people,” he writes in 1524, “attach themselves to Luther as the champion of freedom; they are weary of the good old customs ... many of them think that Luther merely teaches contempt of human traditions.” (In theEpitomeaddressed to the Landgrave of Hesse [above, p. 348, n. 1].) Cp. Döllinger,loc. cit., 3, p. 301. He laments in similar fashion the results of Luther’s behaviour in 1527, complaining that the people had become “over-confident and had lost the sense of fear” because they heard nothing about penance. This one-sided preaching of the Gospel resulted “in greater errors and sins than had ever existed before.” Döllinger,ibid., 3, p. 302. Melanchthon regarded the writings of his friend, particularly on account of their exaggeration, with “ever-increasing distrust.” “The great man’s boisterousness began to alarm him.... There is no doubt that it was from this quarter that the misgivings first arose which nipped and caused to wither the blossoms of their previous so intimate relationship.” Thus Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 187.
[1214]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.
[1215]May 12, 1536.Ibid., 3, p. 68seq.
[1216]Caspar Aquila, as early as 1527, accused him of abandoning Christianity and of being a Papist. Cp. Melanchthon to Aquila, November 17, 1527. “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 961. Cp. the letter to the same of the middle of November, 1527,ibid., p. 959.
[1217]To the Saxon minister Carlowitz, April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879seq.
[1218]To Justus Jonas, November 25, 1527, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 913: “quam si vivus in eiusmodi miserias incideret.”
[1219]See above, p. 321.
[1220]Ellinger,ibid., p. 241.
[1221]On June 13, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.
[1222]On June 30, 1530, p. 50.
[1223]“Die Versuche,” p. 65.
[1224]Ibid., p. 10.
[1225]This proposition stands at the head of the 1535 edition of the “Loci.” He had intended in this work, so he says, “colligere doctrinam catholicam ecclesiae Christi,” as taught by those witnesses. “Corp. ref.,” 21, p. 333. In 1540 he declared further that the Churches accepting the Augsburg Confession held fast to the “perpetuus consensus veræ ecclesiæ omnium temporum,” as to that of the Prophets and Apostles; Ambrose, Augustine, etc., agreed with them—if only they were rightly understood. “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 494.
[1226]Paolo Vergerio, January 13, 1541, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 22.
[1227]Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 66 f.
[1228]Ibid., p. 33. Cordatus to Cruciger, August 20, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 159. In a letter to the latter of September 17, 1536, he bases his blame of Melanchthon on his praise of Luther (“Præceptor noster, qui est doctor doctorum theologiæ. Amen.”), to whose doctrine it was necessary to hold fast.
[1229]“Vita Erasmi,” ed. Lugd. Batav., 1615, p. 259. Kawerau,ibid., p. 17.
[1230]Kawerau,ibid., p. 31.
[1231]“In plerisque controversiis iudicandis meam opinionem ad tuam sententiam libenter adiungo.” Letter of May 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68seq.
[1232]His theses on the Primacy and his other polemical statements (see below, xx. 4) are scarcely “better-sounding.” A good resolution here made runs as follows: “Ad has materias tractandas afferam aliquanto plus curæ ac studii quam antea.”
[1233]Kawerau’s opinion, p. 33.
[1234]To Camerarius, November 30, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 193. After mentioning the report Melanchthon adds: “Nihil mihi obicitur, nisi quod dicor plusculum laudare bona opera”; all the truth in this was that “quædam minus horride dico quam ipsi,” i.e. than Luther and his more enthusiastic followers.
[1235]With the expression “unhappy fate” we may compare his lament over the “rixæ religionum, in quas meo quodam fato incidi” (To the Imperial Secretary Obernburger, June 23, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 602). Kawerau remarks (p. 15): “It is indeed sad to find Luther’s greatest friend speaking of his having been involved in the ecclesiastical struggles of his time as a misfortune.”
[1236]Ellinger,ibid., p. 313: “He probably made use here of an intentionally ambiguous phrase in order to curry favour with the Bishop, for it is clear that he never meant to promote a restoration of the hierarchical order, though Cricius may well have supposed this from his letter. Hence we see that in the execution of his plans, Melanchthon was not above having recourse to craft.”
[1237]Letter of October 27, 1532. For its publication by T. Wierzbowski see Kawerau, p. 78, n. 17. Kawerau rightly emphasises the fact that, according to the text of the letter, Melanchthon refuses to break with Luther merely “on the weak ground that he, as a right-minded man (vir bonus), could not make up his mind to approve, let alone admire, the cruel and bloodthirsty plans of the Romanists.... Should the ‘moderata consilia’ prevail amongst the Catholic bishops, then he would be quite willing to come to terms.... We cannot but see how gladly he would have taken refuge in a haven where he would be safe from the theological storm. This letter shows him as a moderate, and, at the same time, as a true representative of Humanist interests.” For the further efforts of Cricius, who wrote in 1535, that he was acting on behalf of, or at least with the express sanction of, the Pope and the Cardinals, see Kawerau, p. 18 ff. Melanchthon’s writing of August, 1532, to the Elector-Cardinal Albert of Mayence, in which, in the most respectful terms, he begs the Primate of Germany, so hated by Luther, “to procure a milder remedy (cp. ‘moderata consilia’) for the dissensions in the Churches,” is also of importance; all right-minded men in Europe (boni omnes) were looking to him. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 611seq.In these letters we see his earnest efforts “to bring about peace and avert civil war,” as he writes to Erasmus.
[1238]On January 31, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 567.
[1239]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 353.
[1240]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445seq.
[1241]Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 266.
[1242]Ellinger,ibid., p. 349.
[1243]Ibid., p. 351 f.
[1244]Ellinger, p. 414. The exclamation was called forth by his sad experience over the Naumburg bishopric (see below, p. 375, and vol. v., xxx. 4).
[1245]This tendency is also manifest in Melanchthon’s many labours for the promotion of education. In place of the old, independent Universities of the Middle Ages, enjoying ecclesiastical freedom and partaking of a quasi-international character, there sprang up, wherever Melanchthon’s influence prevailed, High Schools with a more limited horizon destined to supply the sovereign of the land with servants for the State, officials and preachers, but, above all, to safeguard the true Evangel. “All the reformed Universities established at Melanchthon’s instance,” remarks Carl Sell, a Protestant theologian, “Marburg, Tübingen, Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Leipzig, Königsberg, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Rostock, Jena, and finally Helmstädt, were State Universities, and, like Wittenberg, intended as citadels of the pure faith. Hence their professors were all bound by the new Confession.... The old, unfettered liberty of the Church’s Universities was now subordinated to the ends and needs of the State.” “Philip Melanchthon als Lehrmeister des protest. Deutschland,” 1897, p. 19.Ibid., p. 11, Sell thus characterises the State-Church promoted by Melanchthon and by Luther likewise: “The German Reformation never succeeded in producing a new ecclesiasticism. What grew up beneath its sway was rather a confessional State, which declared itself at one with that form of the Christian religion which the head of the State regarded as right.”
[1246]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 281. “Symbol. Bücher,10” p. 339 (in the Articles of Schmalkalden, “Tractatus de potestate papæ”).
[1247]Thus Kolde in the Introduction to his edition of the “Symbol. Bücher10” just referred to, p. xxv., n. 2, adding: “A preliminary to this is possibly to be found in ‘Corp. ref.,’ 3, p. 240seq.”
[1248]Ellinger,loc. cit., pp. 354, 364.
[1249]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 422.
[1250]Ellinger,ibid., p. 377.
[1251]On this “miracle,” see above, p. 162.
[1252]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578seq.“Zeitschr. für die hist. Theol.,” 28, 1858, 606 f. On Melanchthon’s insincerity cp. also O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch.,” 1, 1908, p. 232.
[1253]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 411.
[1254]Ibid., p. 26.
[1255]Ibid., p. 16.
[1256]To Julius Pflug, August 20, 1531, “Erasmi Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1412. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.
[1257]“B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ,” etc., ed. O. Braunsberger, 1, p. 359seq.
[1258]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “Equidem studeo omni officio tueri concordiam nostræ academiæ, et scis me etiam hoc genere artis aliquid adhibere solere,” etc. It is possible that the above reference to a “plaga,” or some other similar passage, gave rise to the singular misapprehension of certain polemics, viz. that Luther had been in the habit of coercing Melanchthon by striking him and boxing his ears, surely one of the most curious, and at the same time baseless, of all the legends concerning Luther.
[1259]On November 4, 1543, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 218.
[1260]Ellinger,loc. cit., p. 433. Cp. Melanchthon to Johann Sturm, August 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917: The Court had prevailed on him not to leave Wittenberg, chiefly because it regarded his presence as indispensable owing to his power for mediating: “me putant aliquanto minus vehementem aut pertinacem esse quam sunt alii.” He regrets, with a hint at the Luther-enthusiasts, the “democratia aut tyrannis indoctorum” prevalent in both Catholic and Lutheran camps.... “Non dissimulo evectos etiam esse nostros interdum [Greek: hyper ta eskammena], et multa mitigavi.”
[1261]“Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili,” he says in the letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879.
[1262]See n. 3 of last page.
[1263]Hipler, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Humanismus,” p. 45. Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 31.
[1264]Explanation of Article xviii., “Werke,” 2, 1908, p. 147.
[1265]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 34 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 11. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 310. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 63.
[1266]See below, p. 409.
[1267]“Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister,” 1527, “Werke,”ibid., 38 ff.=14 ff.
[1268]Fragment in Migne’s “P.L.,” 5, col. 348seq.
[1269]“De Trinitate,” 18, c. 14. “P.L.,” 10, col. 247.
[1270]“Ep. ad Smyrnæos,” 7. Migne, “P.G.,” 5, col. 714. Instead of the passages here quoted, certain others were preferred in that controversy.
[1271]We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u. K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation. Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation as any obstacle to joining his party (“nihil morati si quis eam alibi credat vel non”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.
[1272]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.
[1273]Ibid., p. 130.
[1274]Ibid., p. 108.
[1275]“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.
[1276]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.
[1277]“Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.
[1278]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.
[1279]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.
[1280]See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.
[1281]To Prior Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907 (with a discussion of G. Barge’s “Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt”), and “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.
[1282]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 340; Erl. ed., 64, p. 394 f., from the “Report” on their meeting.
[1283]“Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 165.
[1284]Ibid., p. 86=162: He points out why Andrew Carlstadt, “so far as my prayers may avail, shall not be permitted to come in again, but shall again depart should he secure admittance, unless he becomes a new Andrew, to which may God help him.” He had not interpreted the law of Moses aright nor applied it to the authorities, but to the common people. The authorities ought to forbid the country to such preachers as did not teach quietly but drew the mob to them, pulled down images and destroyed churches at their pleasure behind the backs of the authorities. Carlstadt’s spirit and that of his followers was a “spirit of murder and revolt.” Here he does not refer to the difference on the doctrine of the Sacrament. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” pp. 175-178. For the circumstances attending his banishment, see below, p. 391 f.
[1285]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 676.
[1286]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 125; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205. The first part was in print at the end of 1524, the second part about the end of January, 1525. Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 685.
[1287]Luther to the Elector of Saxony, September 12, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 327 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 240).
[1288]Carlstadt to Luther, previous to September 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 239: “Fui olim frater (tuus) fortasse non nimium commodus sed posthac mancipium ero et obsequibile et suspiciens.” He describes to Luther the poverty to which he, with his wife and child, were reduced.
[1289]See passage from Alberus, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 240, n. 1.
[1290]K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 194.
[1291]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.
[1292]Ibid., p. 161.
[1293]Ibid., p. 144.
[1294]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 88.
[1295]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 124.
[1296]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 37.
[1297]On September 13, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 23.
[1298]To Jacob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 452.
[1299]To Amsdorf, April 13, 1542,ibid., p. 463.
[1300]To Probst, as above.
[1301]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 213; Erl. ed., 29, 296.
[1302]Ibid., p. 134=206.
[1303]In “Thomas Zweifels Rothenburg im Bauernkrieg,” ed. Baumann (“Bibl. des Litt. Vereins in Stuttgart,” 139), p. 20.
[1304]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, pp. 271, 273.
[1305]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 112 ff.; Erl. ed., p. 29, p. 190 ff.
[1306]Ibid., p. 114=193.
[1307]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 116; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.
[1308]Ickelsamer, “Clag,” etc. (ed. Enders, “Neudrucke,” No. 118, 1893). Cp. for instance “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 209; 53, p. 274.
[1309]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 687.
[1310]“Summa theol.,” 1-2, q. C. a. 3.
[1311]In a letter to Spalatin as early as May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377.
[1312]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 164; Erl. ed., 29, p. 241.
[1313]Ibid., p. 182 f.=261.
[1314]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 115; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.
[1315]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” p. 53. For the Prophecy see above, p. 165 f.
[1316]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 134; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205.
[1317]Ibid., 15, p. 394=53, p. 274.
[1318]Sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 80.
[1319]Ibid., p. 287.
[1320]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 391; Erl. ed., 53, p. 271 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).
[1321]Ibid., 18, p. 214=29, p. 297.
[1322]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 390 f.=53, p. 276 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).
[1323]Sermon of March 25, 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 76seq.
[1324]Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” pp. 43, 44, 45.
[1325]Glatz to Luther, January 18, 1525, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 107.
[1326]To Link at Altenburg on February 7, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 122.
[1327]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 376. Cp.ibid., p. 372 ff.
[1328]Förstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” 1, p. 322.
[1329]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.
[1330]Ibid., p. 138.
[1331]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.
[1332]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.
[1333]O. Clemen, “Johann Sylvius Egranus” (“Mitt. des Altertumsvereins für Zwickau und Umgegend,” 1899, Hft. 6 and 7; Sonderabd., 1 and 2), 1, p. 28.
[1334]“Historien,” p. 222.
[1335]Ibid., p. 79.
[1336]M. J. Weller, “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” Chemnitz, 1760 ff., 2, p. 783. Weller, 1, p. 177, gives one of Egranus’s letters of 1523, in which he says: “propter Lutherum neque evangelium neque Christum ... nominare tutum est.”
[1337]Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 11 f.
[1338]Bl. A. 3a. Döllinger,ibid., p. 135.
[1339]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 488.
[1340]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343 (in 1544).
[1341]Ibid., p. 90.
[1342]Ibid., p. 207.
[1343]To Wolfgang Wiebel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 208 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 367).
[1344]Clemen,ibid., p. 16, with a reference to Loesche’s “Leben des Mathesius,” 1, 1895, p. 88.
[1345]Plentiful proofs in N. Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” p. 1 ff.
[1346]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.
[1347]For these passages and some others, see Döllinger,ibid., p, 136 f. Cp. Clemen,ibid., 2, p. 14.
[1348]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 267.
[1349]Ibid., p. 266seq.
[1350]Ibid., p. 267.
[1351]L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.
[1352]Reprint of Luther’sPraefatioin “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502seq.
[1353]First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener Staatsbibl.).
[1354]p. 2.
[1355]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter, which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538 (illo die).
[1356]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.
[1357]Ibid., p. 412.
[1358]“Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”
[1359]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).
[1360]Ibid., p. 381.
[1361]H. Kawerau, “RE. für prot. Theol.,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”
[1362]See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 528, where the “contravention of the rights of the Chapter” is admitted.
[1363]To Bugenhagen, November 24, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 127.
[1364]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 147 f. See above, p. 204.
[1365]Mathesius,ibid., p. 274.
[1366]In the work called “Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi” (end of August, 1525). See “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 447. Zwingli replied to Bugenhagen in a writing of October, 1525. In the “Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmal Christi,” which Zwingli published in February, 1526, in vindication of his denial of the Real Presence, he, as in his previous writings, avoided naming Luther. Since at Basle in September, 1525, [Œcolampadius also advocated the figurative sense of the words of institution in his writing, “De genuina verborum Domini expositione,” and Caspar Schwenckfeld and Valentine Krautwald sought to propagate the same in Silesia, while Carlstadt was winning adherents by his attacks upon the Sacrament, Bugenhagen’s work was all the more timely. Johann Brenz espoused his cause, in opposition to the figurative interpretation, in his “Syngramma” of October, 1525, and so did Jacob Strauss. The “Sacramentarian” movement had grown before Luther followed up his vigorous refutation of Carlstadt’s denial of the Sacrament (in his book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” and in his sermon of 1526 on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the fanatics) by his polemical Tractate against Zwingli and [Œcolampadius on the words of Christ, “This is My Body” (1527). See above, p. 379 f.]
[1367]Spengler to Veit Dietrich, in Mayer’s “Spengleriana,” p. 153. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 141.
[1368]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 25.
[1369]Ibid., p. 89.
[1370]E. Hörigk, “Joh. Bugenhagen und die Protestantisierung Pommerns,” Mainz, 1895, p. 19 f.
[1371]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. Cp. p. 220. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 10, where Luther relates how Bugenhagen calmed him when the devil almost choked him with the passage 1 Timothy v. 11, and drove him “fromgratia in disputationem legis.”
[1372]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.
[1373]Bugenhagen to Luther, Jonas and Melanchthon (beginning of November, 1530), “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 304 ff.: “The words [of the devil] Acts xxix.[15] came to my mind: ‘Jesus I know and Paul I know,’ etc. He has often troubled me ... I have not yet forgotten what he sought to do through the Sacramentarians of Silesia (see p. 409, n. 3). In the matter of other sins he may have seemed to triumph over me, but, thanks be to Christ, he may indeed have come to me, but has not been able to remain. I again exhort you herewith that you pray for me,” etc.
[1374]In the letter, p. 307.
[1375]“Zwo wunderbarliche Hystorien zu Bestettigung der Lere des Evangelii, Johann Pomer, Philipp Melanchthon.” According to Enders, 8, p. 304, probably published at Nuremberg (by Luther’s friend, W. Link) in 1530 or the beginning of 1531.
[1376]Cp. B. Heyne, “Uber Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 52 ff.
[1377]To Wenceslaus Link, December, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.
[1378]Wolfgang Musculus (“Itinerar.,” May 25, 1536), in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 220.
[1379]On July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” p. 245.
[1380]July 26, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 183 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 250).
[1381]Saxo to Bugenhagen, July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 151: “actum esse de Pauli collo,” etc.
[1382]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 181.
[1383]Ibid., p. 380. See above, p. 230.
[1384]Ibid., p. 385.
[1385]Voigt, “Herzog Albrecht,” in Raumer, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 2, p. 314. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 142.
[1386]Bugenhagen, “Wahrhaftige Historie,” Wittenberg, 1547, Conclusion. P. Knittel in “KL.”², Art. “Bugenhagen.”
[1387]Döllinger,ibid., p. 142.
[1388]On February 4, 1538, from Copenhagen, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 329.
[1389]The Superintendent of Zealand, Peter Palladius, who had betaken himself to Denmark with Bugenhagen from Wittenberg, writes: “The thieves [monks] have now been driven out of the land, and some of them hanged.” L. Schmitt, “Der Karmeliter Paulus Heliä, Vorkämpfer der kathol. Kirche gegen die sog. Reformation in Dänemark,” Freiburg, 1893, p. 160 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 19.
[1390]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 300 f.
[1391]On November 21, 1537, “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” p. 162 ff. Hörigk,loc. cit., p. 35 f.
[1392]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219.
[1393]Ibid., p. 114.
[1394]Ibid., p. 178.
[1395]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 83, in 1540.
[1396]Ibid., p. 84.
[1397]Ibid., p. 106.
[1398]H. Weller to the Councillors at Halle, April 18, 1567, “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 343.
[1399]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 26, where he states that Luther also found fault with Katey’s many words, “quibus ipsa perpetuo optima verba eius interturbabat. Et D. Ionas eadem erat virtute.”
[1400]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 317seq.
[1401]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 219. See above, p. 110 f.
[1402]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 313, in 1543.
[1403]Ibid., p. 79.
[1404]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175: “tantum unum habere rusticum ex tot pagis,” etc.
[1405]See vol. iv., xxiv. 4.
[1406]Cp. G. Kawerau, “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. lv. f., and also in “RE. für prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Jonas.”
[1407]Kawerau, in “RE.,”ibid.Concerning his polemics with Wicel, Kawerau admits (in “Jonas’ Briefwechsel,” 2, p. xxxviii.) that “Georg Witzels historia” by Jonas is no “reliable source,” and of the attack on the Emperor he declares (p. xlix.) that, during the Schmalkalden War, Jonas caused him to be prayed against as “Antichrist.”
[1408]On February 9, 1534, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 204. For other similar passages see above, p. 277 f.
[1409]To Bullinger, April 9, 1534,ibid., p. 205: “furit et debacchatur in quoslibet ... sicque devovet viros sanctissimos,” etc.
[1410]Letter of December 8, 1543. Cp. Hess, “Leben Bullingers,” 1, p. 404seq.
[1411]See vol. ii., p. 363 ff.
[1412]F. X. Funk in “KL.,”² Art. “Wiedertäufer,” col. 1491, 1483.
[1413]G. Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 92.
[1414]“Comment. in Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. 8.
[1415]So at least says Luther in the Preface to a work of Urban Regius against the Anabaptists of Münster, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 332: “They write: That there are,” etc. Luther strongly urges the contrary.
[1416]In the Preface to the “Neue Zeitung von Münster,”ibid., p. 336. Cp. Luther’s letter to Frederick Myconius on July 5, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 62: “De anabaptistis Monasteriensibus parum curo. Satan furit, sed stat Scriptura.”
[1417]To Jacob Probst at Bremen, August 23, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 197 f.
[1418]Cp. Bucer to Luther, August 25, 1530, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 209 ff. Nicholas Gerbel to Luther, from Strasburg, October 21, 1530, ibid., p. 292; Luther to Joh. Brismann at Riga, November 7, 1530, ibid., p. 312: “Sacramentarios, saltem Strassburgenses, nobiscum in gratiam redire spes est”; he adds, however, a doubt as to Bucer’s sincerity: “Si non fallit quod dicit; admonui enim, ne simularet.”
[1419]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 75seq.