[210]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 393 ff.[211]O. Clemen, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 30, 1909, p. 389 f. Cp. the views of the Protestant historians, K. Wenck, H. Virck and W. Köhler, adduced by Paulus (loc. cit., p. 515), who all admit the working of political pressure.[212]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 382, 383.[213]Bd., 2, p. 488 f.[214]Page 736.[215]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 403.[216]The larger portion of the present chapter appeared as an article in the “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 29, 1905, p. 417 ff.[217]See above, p. 51.[218]W. Walther, “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1904, No. 35. Cp. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 425 ff.[219]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.[220]Ibid., 39, p. 356.[221]Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier volumes.[222]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.[223]Ibid., p. 316.[224]To Christoph Scheurl,ibid., p. 348.[225]To Johann Lang,ibid., p. 410.[226]To Willibald Pirkheimer,ibid., p. 436.[227]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204 f.[228]Strange to say, this document has not been taken into consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die Lüge, eine Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the “Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s behalf in his art. “Luther und die Lüge,” and in his “Für Luther.” See above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Doppelzüngigkeit” (“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.[229]On May 22, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 149.[230]On Feb. 15, 1518,ibid., p. 155.[231]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 469.[232]July 10, 1520,ibid., p. 432.[233]Ibid., Schauenburg’s letter,ibid., p. 415.[234]Ibid., p. 433.[235]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.[236]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 72.[237]Ibid., p. 70, 68 f.[238]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 284; Erl. ed., 24², p. 367. On indulgences for the departed, see our vol. i., p. 344.[239]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 432.[240]Historien (1566), p. 11.[241]Ed. Cyprian., p. 20.[242]“Reformationsgesch. von H. Bullinger,” ed. Hottinger u. Vögeli, 1, 1838, p. 19.[243]One such tale put in circulation by the Lutherans in the 16th century has been dealt with by N. Paulus in “Gibt es Ablässe für zukünftige Sünden?” (“Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1905, No. 43.) Here, in view of some modern misapprehensions of the so-called Confession and Indulgence letters, he says: “They referred to future sins, only inasmuch as they authorised those who obtained them to select a confessor at their own discretion for their subsequent sins, and promised an Indulgence later, provided the sins committed had been humbly confessed. In this sense even our modern Indulgences promised for the future may be said to refer to future sins.”[244]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.[245]To Count Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).[246]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, from Eisenach, May 9, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 74 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 144).[247]To Spalatin, (11) October, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 491: “credo veram et propriam esse bullam.”[248]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29 ff.[249]Ibid., p. 138=27, p. 80, in February, 1520.[250]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 214, 759.[251]The letter was written after Oct. 13, 1520, but is dated Sep. 6, the Excommunication having been published on Sep. 21. Cp. Miltitz to the Elector of Saxony, Oct. 14, 1520, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.[252]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 441 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 323 f.[253]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 279: “It was much better and safer to declare them damned than saved.”[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, 1906, p. 133, sermons here printed for the first time.[255]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 240.[256]Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, p. 223.[257]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 37 f.[258]Ibid., Weim. ed., 8, p. 658; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 360[259]Ibid., p. 601=p. 278.[260]Ibid., 1, p. 323=1, p. 338; 1, p. 534=2, p. 142.[261]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 44. Denifle has shown that the passage in question occurs in the form of a prayer in St. Bernard’s “Sermo XX in Cantica” “P.L.,” 183, col. 867: “De mea misera vita suscipe (Deus), obsecro, residuum annorum meorum; pro his vero (annis) quos vivendo perdidi, quia perdite vixi, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicias. Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt et præterierunt sine fructu. Impossibile est, ut revocem; placeat, ut recogitem tibi eos in amaritudine animæ meæ.” Denifle points out that the sermon in question was preached about 1136 or 1137, about sixteen years before Bernard’s death, thus certainly not in his last illness.[262]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 249.[263]Ibid., p. 145; cp. p. 204.[264]“Luther als Kirchenhistoriker,” Gütersloh, 1897, p. 391, referring to Sabellicus, “Rhapsod. hist. Ennead.,” 9, 8.[265]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 766, p. 350, n. 1. For the literature dealing with the Ulrich fable, see N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 253; and particularly J. Haussleiter, “Beiträge zur bayerischen KG.,” 6, p. 121 f.[266]Cp. Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 40, and Flacius Illyricus in his two separate editions of the letter. Flacius also incorporated the Ulrich letter in his “Catalogus testium veritatis” and repeatedly referred to it in his controversial writings. See J. Niemöller’s article on the mendacity of a certain class of historical literature in the 16th century, “Flacius und Flacianismus” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 12, 1888, pp. 75-115, particularly p. 107 f.).[267]Cp. Knaake, “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362.[268]Cp. Kolde on Luther’s “private print,” in Müller, “Bekenntnisschriften”[10], p. xxvi., n. 1.[269]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.[270]For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p. 226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.[271]“Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.[272]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.[273]Joh. Karl Seidemann, “Beiträge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.[274]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.[275]Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.[276]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.[277]K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of Luther’s assertions in the “De servo arbitrio,” that “he was led away by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p. 79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla, ‘De libero arbitrio’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p. 2).—H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polémique sur le libre arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done to Erasmus by Luther.[278]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii., p. 398 f.[279]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. our vol. i., p. 400 f.[280]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.[281]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391 (“Tischreden”).[282]Cp. e.g. the summarised teaching of an eminent theologian, Denis the Carthusian, in Krogh-Tonning, “Der letzte Scholastiker,” 1904.[283]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391.[284]From Kleindienst, “Ein recht catholisch Ermanung an seine lieben Teutschen,” Dillingen, 1560, Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., 1903, p. 276.[285]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461: “Nos hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi sedem, in cuius deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur.” This must not be translated “to their deceiving and destruction,” but, “against their trickery and malice.” The passage strictly refers to his passionate work “An den christlichen Adel,” but seems also to be intended generally.[286]To Melanchthon, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235. Cp. vol. ii., p. 386. Luther says: “dolos et lapsus nostros facile emendabimus”; thus assuming his part of the responsibility. The explanation that he is speaking merely of the mistakes which Melanchthon might make, and simply wished “to console and sympathise with him,” is too far-fetched to be true. In his edition of the “Briefwechsel” Enders has struck out the word “mendacia” after “dolos,” though wrongly, as we shall see in vol. vi., xxxvi., 4. According to Enders the handwriting is too faint for it to be accepted as genuine. As there is no original of the letter the question remains how it came into the old copies which were in Lutheran hands. In any case, such an interpolation would be more difficult to understand than its removal. Cp. also Luther’s own justification of suchmendaciain 1524 and 1528, given below on p. 109 ff.[287]To the apostate Franciscan Johann Briesmann, July 4, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 360. These instructions to the preacher who was to work for the apostasy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are characteristic of Luther’s diplomacy. Cp. the directions to Martin Weier (above, vol. ii., p. 323).[288]“Briefe,” 6, p. 386 ff.[289]Cp. v. Druffel in the “SB. der bayer. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl.,” 2, 1888, and “Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.,” 25, p. 71.[290]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 693, p. 612, n. 1.[291]Ibid., p. 612.[292]“Briefe,” 6, p. 401.[293]Ibid., p. 386.[294]Ibid.[295]Ibid., p. 387.[296]Ibid., p. 391.[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29.[298]Ibid., 26, p. 532 f. = 63, p. 276.[299]G. Buchwald, “Simon Wilde” (“Mitt. der deutschen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung vaterländ. Sprache und Altertums in Leipzig,” 9, 1894, p. 61 ff.), p. 95: “libellum calumniis refertissimum.”[300]“Zwinglii Opp.,” 8, p. 165: “calumniandi magister et sophistarum princeps.”[301]Letter to J. Vadian, April 14, 1528, “Die Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 4, p. 101. “Mitt. zur vaterl. Gesch. von St. Gallen,” 28, 1902.[302]“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Hft. 118, 1893, pp. 19, 29, etc.[303]Cp. Münzer in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 374, n. 6.Ibid., p. 373, n. 1, “the mendacious Luther.”[304]“Vergleichung D. Luthers und seines Gegenteiles vom Abendmahl Christi,” 1528, p. 23.[305]“Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 6, p. 16 (“Mitt. z. v. G. v. S.G.”, 30, 1, 1906): Pappus calls the book: “librum famosissimum, plaustra et carros convitiorum. Misereor huius tam felicissimi ingenii, quod tantis se immiscet sordibus; et profecto, ut est Lutherus vertendo et docendo inimitabilis, ita mihi iam quoque videtur calumniando non parem habere.” Letter of April 13, 1541. Pappus was Burgomaster of Lindau.[306]E. Thiele, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1907, p. 265 f.[307]“Ep.,” 1, 18; “Opp.,” 3, col. 1056.[308]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, 9, col. 1043.[309]Letter to George Agricola, in Buchwald, “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 5, Leipzig, 1884, p. 56.[310]“Antwort auf das Büchlein,” 1531. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89.[311]“De votis monasticis,” 1, 2, Colon., 1524, Bl. S 5´: “Omnium mendacissimus, qui sub cœlo vivunt, hominum.”[312]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. E 2´. The author was Abbot of Altzelle.[313]“Ein Maulstreich dem lutherischen lügenhaften, weit aufgesperrten Rachen,” Dresden, 1534.[314]See above, vol. ii., p. 147.[315]See vol. ii., p. 40: “Quum ita frontem perfricuerit, ut a nullo abstineat mendacio,” etc.[316]Letter of George, in Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges Karls V,” pp. 604, 606. Denifle, 1², p. 126, n. 3.[317]Vol. ii., p. 395 f.[318]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.[319]Ibid., p. 86.[320]Ibid., p. 210. The last three passages are from sermons preached by Luther at Wittenberg in 1528 when doing duty for Bugenhagen.[321]“Luther,” 1², p. 400 ff. We may discount the objection of Protestant controversialists who plead that Luther at least described correctly the popular notions of Catholics. The popular works then in use, handbooks and sermons for the instruction of the people, prayer-books, booklets for use in trials and at the hour of death, etc., give a picture of the then popular piety, and the best refutation of Luther’s statements.[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed.. 5², p. 378.[323]Cp. “Comment. in Gal.,” 2, p. 175. “Opp. lat, exeg.,” 16, p. 197seq.Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 218.[324]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 255.[325]Ibid.[326]Ibid., p. 256. “The Pope’s teaching and all the books and writings of his theologians and decretalists did nothing but revile Christ and His Baptism, so that no one was able to rejoice or comfort himself therewith”; this he knew, having been himself fifteen years a monk.Ibid., 19², p. 151, in a sermon of 1535, “On Holy Baptism.”Even in the learned disputations of his Wittenberg pupils similar assertions are found: The Papists have ever taught that the powers of man after the Fall still remained unimpaired (“adhuc integras”), and that therefore he could fulfil the whole law; doctrines no better than those of the Turks and Jews had been set up (“non secus apud Turcas et Iudæos,” etc.). “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 340.And so Luther goes on down to the last sermon he preached at Eisleben just before his death: The Pope destroyed Baptism and only left works, tonsures, etc., in the Church (ibid., 20², 2, p. 534); the “purest monks” had usually been the “worst lewdsters” (p. 542); the monks had done nothing for souls, but “merely hidden themselves in their cells” (p. 543); “the monks think if they keep their Rule they are veritable saints” (p. 532).In his accusations against the religious life we find him making statements which, from his own former experience, he must have known to be false. For instance, when he says, that, in their hypocritical holiness, they had regarded it as a mortal sin to leave their cell without the scapular (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 347; 38, p. 203; 60, p. 270). Denifle proves convincingly (1², p. 54), that all monks were well aware that such customs, prescribed by the Constitutions, were not binding under sin, but merely exposed transgressors to punishment by their superiors.—Luther also frequently declared, that in the Mass every mistake in the ceremonies was looked upon as a mortal sin, even the omission of an “enim” or an “æterni” in the Canon (ibid., 28, p. 65), and that the incorrect use of the frequently repeated sign of the cross had caused such apprehension, that they were “plagued beyond measure with the Mass” (ibid., 59, p. 98). And yet his own words (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 164) show he was aware that such involuntary mistakes were no sin: “cum casus quispiam nullum peccatum fuerit.”[327]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 221.[328]“Cinquante raisons,” Munich, 1736, 29, p. 37. Above, vol. iii., p. 273, n. 2.[329]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 395 ff.[330]Cp.ibid., 31, p. 279.[331]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 227.[332]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 430 f.: “Yet how few can ever have had such a thought, much less expressed it?” Denifle-Weiss, 17², p. 774. Speaking of this passage, Denifle rightly remarks: “I have frequently pointed out that it was Luther’s tactics to represent wicked Catholics as typical of all the rest.” Here again Denifle might have quoted Luther against Luther, as indeed he often does. In one passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 412) Luther points out quite correctly, that to make all or even a class responsible for the faults of a few is to be guilty of injustice.[333]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.[334]“There are passionate natures gifted with a strong imagination, who gradually, and sometimes even rapidly, come to take in good faith that for true, which their own spirit of contradiction, or the desire to vindicate themselves and to gain the day, suggests. Such a one was Luther.... It was possible for him to persuade himself of things which he had once regarded in quite a different light.” Thus Alb. M. Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 424. Ad. Hausrath rightly characterises much of what Luther says that he had learnt of Rome on his trip thither, as the “product of a self-deception which is readily understood” (“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 79). “During a quarrel,” aptly remarks Fénelon, “the imagination becomes heated and a man deceives himself.”[335]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 510 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 200seq.[336]In his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 241 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 152 ff.), he frequently asserts this principle.[337]“Si mentiris, etiam quod verum dicis mentiris.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 214 in “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.”[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 15; Erl. ed., 35, p. 18. The passage in vindication of the Egyptian midwives was not merely added later.[339]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 18.[340]Ibid., 3, p. 139seq.[341]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 85: “Mentiri et fallere differunt, nam mendacium est falsitas cum studio nocendi, fallacia vero est simplex.”[342]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 12, Sermon of Jan. 5, 1528.[343]“Summa theol.,” 2-2, Q. 111, a. 3.[344]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 288.[345]“Corp. iur. can.,” ed. Friedberg, 2, p. 812. Yet a champion of Luther’s “truthfulness” has attempted to prove of Alexander III, that “the objectivity of good was foreign to him,” and that he taught that the end justifies the means. As K. Hampe has pointed out in the “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 93, 1904, p. 415, the letter from the Pope to Thomas Becket (“P.L.,” 200, col. 290), here referred to, has been “quite misunderstood.” The same is the case with a letter of Gregory VII to Alphonsus of Castile, which has also been alleged to show that a Pope “had not unconditionally rejected lying, nay, had even made use of it.” Gregory on the contrary declares that even “a lie told for a pious object and for the sake of peace” was a sin (“illud peccatum esse non dubitaveris, in sacerdotibus quasi sacrilegium coniicias.” “P.L.,” 148, col. 604). Cp. Hampe,ibid., p. 385 ff.; N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 51.[346]“N. Lehrb. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1825, p. 354. Sodeur (“Luther und die Lüge”) says that in his teaching on lies Luther led the way to “a more profound understanding of the problem” (p. 2), he taught us “to act according to simple and fundamental principles”; “under certain conditions” it became “a duty to tell untruths, not merely on casuistic grounds as formerly [!], but on principle; Luther harked back to the all embracing duty of charity which constitutes the moral life of the Christian” (p. 30); he desired “falsehood to be used only to the advantage of our neighbour,” “referring our conduct in every instance to the underlying principle of charity” (p. 32 f.). Chr. Rogge, another Protestant, says of all this (“Türmer,” Jan., 1906, p. 491): “I wish Sodeur had adopted a more decided and less apologetic attitude.”W. Walther, in the article quoted above (p. 81, n. 1), admits that Luther taught “in the clearest possible manner that cases might occur where a departure from truth became the Christian’s duty.... It is probable that many Evangelicals will strongly repudiate this thesis, but, in our opinion, almost everybody follows it in practice”; if charity led to untruth then the latter was no evil act, and it could not be said that Luther accepted the principle that the end justifies the means. It was not necessary for Walther, having made Luther’s views on lying his own, to assure us, “that they were not shared by every Christian, not even by every Evangelical.” As regards the end justifying the means, Walther should prove that the principle does not really underlie much of what Luther says (cp. also above, p. 94 f.). Cp. what A. Baur says, with praiseworthy frankness, in a work entitled “Johann Calvin” (“Religionsgeschichtl. Volksb.,” Reihe 4, Hft. 9), p. 29, concerning the reformer of Geneva whom he extols: “Consciously, or unconsciously, the principle that the end justifies the means became necessarily more and more deeply rooted in Calvin’s mind, viz. the principle that the holy purpose willed by God justifies the use of means—the employment of which would otherwise appear altogether repugnant and reprehensible to a refined moral sense—at least when no other way presents itself for the attainment of the end. To renounce the end on account of the means appeared to Calvin a betrayal of God’s honour and cause.” And yet it is clear that only a theory which “transcends good and evil” can approve the principle that the end justifies the means.We may add that, according to Walther (“Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 11 f.), Luther, in view of the exalted end towards which the means he used were directed, “gradually resolved” to set the law of charity above that of truth; he did not, however, do this in his practical writings, fearing its abuse; yet Luther still contends that Abraham was permitted to tell an untruth in order “to prevent the frustration of God’s Will,” i.e. from love of God (ibid., p. 13).[347]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289.[348]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 139-144.[349]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, above, p. 95, n. 3.[350]See vol. ii., p. 384 ff.[351]“Corp. ref.,” 20, p. 573.[352]The document in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578.[353]“Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” Münster, 1910, p. 75.[354]Cp. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 320.[355]Loc. cit., p. 74 f.[356]“Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 156seq.N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 509.[357]“Quod defendam ipsum facinus, equidem nullum [scriptum] scripsi aut subscripsi.” Paulus,ibid., p. 511.[358]F. W. Hassenkamp, “Hessische KG.,” 1, p. 510. Paulus,ibid., p. 512.[359]H. Rocholl, in N. Paulus’s art. on the Catholic lawyer and writer, Conrad Braun († 1563), in “Hist. Jahrb.” (14, 1893, p. 517 ff.), p. 525.[360]Paulus, “Johann Hoffmeister,” 1891, p. 206, and in “Hist. Jahrb.,”loc. cit.[361]“Theol. Rev.,” 1908, p. 215.[362]Bd. 1, 1908, p. 66: “Nullis conviciis parcemus quantumvis turpibus et ignominiosis,” etc.[363]Luther’s friend Jonas also distinguished himself in controversy by the character of the charges he brings forward against his opponents as true “historia.” (See above, vol. iii., p. 416, n. 3.)[364]W. Köhler, “Luthers Werden” (“Prot. Monatshefte,” 1907, Hft. 8-9, p. 292 ff., p. 345 ff., p. 294).[365]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform.,” pp. 221, 220.[366]“Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der RG.” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16 f.). The author’s standpoint is expressed on p. 13: “It is self-evident that this does not in any way detract from Luther’s importance.... Luther merely stands out all the more as the last link of the previous evolution,” etc. On p. 17 he declares that the author of “Luther und Luthertum” lacked entirely the “sense of truth.” See the passage from Böhmer in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1901, p. 144.[367]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 581.[368]“Luther und die KG.,” 1, 1900, p. 363.[369]“Sermo 60 in Dom. 6 post. Trin.” (“Sermones de tempore,” Tubingæ, 1500).[370]“Sibend und Acht ader letzte Sermon,” Lipsie, 1533. On this work cp. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 66, n. 2.[371]“Reportata in quatuor S. Bonaventuræ sententiarum libros, Scoti subtilis secundi,” Basileæ, 1501. L. 2 d. 5 q. 6.[372]Bl. 2. On the work, see Hasak, “Der christl. Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des MA.,” 1868, p. 67 ff.[373]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales,” s. l. e. a. Bl. 51. N. Paulus quotes more of Herolt’s sayings in “Johann Herolt und seine Lehre, Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiösen Volksunterrichts am Ausgang des MA.” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 417 ff., particularly p. 429).[374]Paulus,ibid., pp. 429, 430.[375]“Evangelibuch,” Augsburg, 1560, Bl. 15. Cp. the Basle “Plenarium,” 1514, Bl. 25.[376]“Errettunge des christl. Bescheydts,” usw., 1528, 32, Bl. 4º, h. 2.[377]“De imitatione Christi,” 1, 15; and 3, 4.[378]Ibid., 1, 17, 19.[379]Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 143.[380]See the figures in Grisar, “Analecta Romana,” 1, tab. 10-12.[381]On the origin of the waxen “Agnus Dei” and its connection with the oldest baptismal rite, see my art. in the “Civiltà Cattolica,” June 2, 1907. From the beginning it was a memorial of the baptismal covenant and served as a constant stimulus to personal union with Christ.[382]“De imit. Christi,” 4, 1, 2.[383]Freiburg, i/B., 1902, p. 730 f.[384]Ibid., p. 737 f.[385]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 407.[386]N. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 961. Cp. Paulus “Der Katholik,” 1898, 2, p. 25: “Had Luther’s intention been merely to impress this fundamentally Catholic message on Christendom [the trustful relations between the individual and God] there would never have been a schism.”[387]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740.[388]Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297.[389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418.[390]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 184.[391]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 186.[392]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 230.[393]Ibid., p. 193.[394]Ibid., p. 323.[395]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”[396]“Sermo 55 de tempore.”[397]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales.” Sermo 15.[398]“Eine nutzliche Lere,” usw., Leipzig, 1502, c. 1.[399]In a “Novelle,” published by Ph. Strauch in the “Zeitschr. für deutsches Luthertum,” 29, 1885, p. 389.—For further particulars of the respect for worldly callings before Luther’s day, see N. Paulus, “Luther und der Beruf” (“Der Katholik,” 1902, 1, p. 327 ff.), and in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 20, p. 148; likewise Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 138 ff.[400]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”[401]“Cp. Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 496 ff. (N. Paulus on O. Scheel).[402]Basle, 1522, B. 1´.[403]“Von dem waren christl. Leben,” Bl. C. 3´.[404]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178.[405]Ibid.[406]What follows has, it is true, no close relation to “Luther and Lying”; the author has, however, thought it right to deal with the matter here because of the connection between Luther’s misrepresentations of the Middle Ages and his calumny against Catholic times, both of which were founded, not on the facts of the case, but on personal grounds. Cp. below, p. 147.[407]Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 71 ff., pp. 155, 238, 242.[408]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55.[409]Cp. Denifle,ibid., p. 239 f.[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 152; Erl. ed., 28, p. 194. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”[411]Ibid., Weim. ed., 14, p. 157.[412]Ibid., 24, p. 123 f.[413]Ibid., 27, p. 26.
[210]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 393 ff.[211]O. Clemen, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 30, 1909, p. 389 f. Cp. the views of the Protestant historians, K. Wenck, H. Virck and W. Köhler, adduced by Paulus (loc. cit., p. 515), who all admit the working of political pressure.[212]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 382, 383.[213]Bd., 2, p. 488 f.[214]Page 736.[215]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 403.[216]The larger portion of the present chapter appeared as an article in the “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 29, 1905, p. 417 ff.[217]See above, p. 51.[218]W. Walther, “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1904, No. 35. Cp. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 425 ff.[219]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.[220]Ibid., 39, p. 356.[221]Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier volumes.[222]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.[223]Ibid., p. 316.[224]To Christoph Scheurl,ibid., p. 348.[225]To Johann Lang,ibid., p. 410.[226]To Willibald Pirkheimer,ibid., p. 436.[227]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204 f.[228]Strange to say, this document has not been taken into consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die Lüge, eine Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the “Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s behalf in his art. “Luther und die Lüge,” and in his “Für Luther.” See above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Doppelzüngigkeit” (“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.[229]On May 22, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 149.[230]On Feb. 15, 1518,ibid., p. 155.[231]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 469.[232]July 10, 1520,ibid., p. 432.[233]Ibid., Schauenburg’s letter,ibid., p. 415.[234]Ibid., p. 433.[235]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.[236]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 72.[237]Ibid., p. 70, 68 f.[238]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 284; Erl. ed., 24², p. 367. On indulgences for the departed, see our vol. i., p. 344.[239]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 432.[240]Historien (1566), p. 11.[241]Ed. Cyprian., p. 20.[242]“Reformationsgesch. von H. Bullinger,” ed. Hottinger u. Vögeli, 1, 1838, p. 19.[243]One such tale put in circulation by the Lutherans in the 16th century has been dealt with by N. Paulus in “Gibt es Ablässe für zukünftige Sünden?” (“Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1905, No. 43.) Here, in view of some modern misapprehensions of the so-called Confession and Indulgence letters, he says: “They referred to future sins, only inasmuch as they authorised those who obtained them to select a confessor at their own discretion for their subsequent sins, and promised an Indulgence later, provided the sins committed had been humbly confessed. In this sense even our modern Indulgences promised for the future may be said to refer to future sins.”[244]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.[245]To Count Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).[246]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, from Eisenach, May 9, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 74 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 144).[247]To Spalatin, (11) October, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 491: “credo veram et propriam esse bullam.”[248]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29 ff.[249]Ibid., p. 138=27, p. 80, in February, 1520.[250]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 214, 759.[251]The letter was written after Oct. 13, 1520, but is dated Sep. 6, the Excommunication having been published on Sep. 21. Cp. Miltitz to the Elector of Saxony, Oct. 14, 1520, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.[252]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 441 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 323 f.[253]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 279: “It was much better and safer to declare them damned than saved.”[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, 1906, p. 133, sermons here printed for the first time.[255]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 240.[256]Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, p. 223.[257]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 37 f.[258]Ibid., Weim. ed., 8, p. 658; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 360[259]Ibid., p. 601=p. 278.[260]Ibid., 1, p. 323=1, p. 338; 1, p. 534=2, p. 142.[261]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 44. Denifle has shown that the passage in question occurs in the form of a prayer in St. Bernard’s “Sermo XX in Cantica” “P.L.,” 183, col. 867: “De mea misera vita suscipe (Deus), obsecro, residuum annorum meorum; pro his vero (annis) quos vivendo perdidi, quia perdite vixi, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicias. Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt et præterierunt sine fructu. Impossibile est, ut revocem; placeat, ut recogitem tibi eos in amaritudine animæ meæ.” Denifle points out that the sermon in question was preached about 1136 or 1137, about sixteen years before Bernard’s death, thus certainly not in his last illness.[262]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 249.[263]Ibid., p. 145; cp. p. 204.[264]“Luther als Kirchenhistoriker,” Gütersloh, 1897, p. 391, referring to Sabellicus, “Rhapsod. hist. Ennead.,” 9, 8.[265]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 766, p. 350, n. 1. For the literature dealing with the Ulrich fable, see N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 253; and particularly J. Haussleiter, “Beiträge zur bayerischen KG.,” 6, p. 121 f.[266]Cp. Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 40, and Flacius Illyricus in his two separate editions of the letter. Flacius also incorporated the Ulrich letter in his “Catalogus testium veritatis” and repeatedly referred to it in his controversial writings. See J. Niemöller’s article on the mendacity of a certain class of historical literature in the 16th century, “Flacius und Flacianismus” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 12, 1888, pp. 75-115, particularly p. 107 f.).[267]Cp. Knaake, “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362.[268]Cp. Kolde on Luther’s “private print,” in Müller, “Bekenntnisschriften”[10], p. xxvi., n. 1.[269]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.[270]For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p. 226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.[271]“Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.[272]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.[273]Joh. Karl Seidemann, “Beiträge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.[274]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.[275]Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.[276]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.[277]K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of Luther’s assertions in the “De servo arbitrio,” that “he was led away by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p. 79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla, ‘De libero arbitrio’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p. 2).—H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polémique sur le libre arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done to Erasmus by Luther.[278]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii., p. 398 f.[279]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. our vol. i., p. 400 f.[280]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.[281]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391 (“Tischreden”).[282]Cp. e.g. the summarised teaching of an eminent theologian, Denis the Carthusian, in Krogh-Tonning, “Der letzte Scholastiker,” 1904.[283]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391.[284]From Kleindienst, “Ein recht catholisch Ermanung an seine lieben Teutschen,” Dillingen, 1560, Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., 1903, p. 276.[285]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461: “Nos hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi sedem, in cuius deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur.” This must not be translated “to their deceiving and destruction,” but, “against their trickery and malice.” The passage strictly refers to his passionate work “An den christlichen Adel,” but seems also to be intended generally.[286]To Melanchthon, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235. Cp. vol. ii., p. 386. Luther says: “dolos et lapsus nostros facile emendabimus”; thus assuming his part of the responsibility. The explanation that he is speaking merely of the mistakes which Melanchthon might make, and simply wished “to console and sympathise with him,” is too far-fetched to be true. In his edition of the “Briefwechsel” Enders has struck out the word “mendacia” after “dolos,” though wrongly, as we shall see in vol. vi., xxxvi., 4. According to Enders the handwriting is too faint for it to be accepted as genuine. As there is no original of the letter the question remains how it came into the old copies which were in Lutheran hands. In any case, such an interpolation would be more difficult to understand than its removal. Cp. also Luther’s own justification of suchmendaciain 1524 and 1528, given below on p. 109 ff.[287]To the apostate Franciscan Johann Briesmann, July 4, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 360. These instructions to the preacher who was to work for the apostasy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are characteristic of Luther’s diplomacy. Cp. the directions to Martin Weier (above, vol. ii., p. 323).[288]“Briefe,” 6, p. 386 ff.[289]Cp. v. Druffel in the “SB. der bayer. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl.,” 2, 1888, and “Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.,” 25, p. 71.[290]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 693, p. 612, n. 1.[291]Ibid., p. 612.[292]“Briefe,” 6, p. 401.[293]Ibid., p. 386.[294]Ibid.[295]Ibid., p. 387.[296]Ibid., p. 391.[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29.[298]Ibid., 26, p. 532 f. = 63, p. 276.[299]G. Buchwald, “Simon Wilde” (“Mitt. der deutschen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung vaterländ. Sprache und Altertums in Leipzig,” 9, 1894, p. 61 ff.), p. 95: “libellum calumniis refertissimum.”[300]“Zwinglii Opp.,” 8, p. 165: “calumniandi magister et sophistarum princeps.”[301]Letter to J. Vadian, April 14, 1528, “Die Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 4, p. 101. “Mitt. zur vaterl. Gesch. von St. Gallen,” 28, 1902.[302]“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Hft. 118, 1893, pp. 19, 29, etc.[303]Cp. Münzer in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 374, n. 6.Ibid., p. 373, n. 1, “the mendacious Luther.”[304]“Vergleichung D. Luthers und seines Gegenteiles vom Abendmahl Christi,” 1528, p. 23.[305]“Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 6, p. 16 (“Mitt. z. v. G. v. S.G.”, 30, 1, 1906): Pappus calls the book: “librum famosissimum, plaustra et carros convitiorum. Misereor huius tam felicissimi ingenii, quod tantis se immiscet sordibus; et profecto, ut est Lutherus vertendo et docendo inimitabilis, ita mihi iam quoque videtur calumniando non parem habere.” Letter of April 13, 1541. Pappus was Burgomaster of Lindau.[306]E. Thiele, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1907, p. 265 f.[307]“Ep.,” 1, 18; “Opp.,” 3, col. 1056.[308]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, 9, col. 1043.[309]Letter to George Agricola, in Buchwald, “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 5, Leipzig, 1884, p. 56.[310]“Antwort auf das Büchlein,” 1531. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89.[311]“De votis monasticis,” 1, 2, Colon., 1524, Bl. S 5´: “Omnium mendacissimus, qui sub cœlo vivunt, hominum.”[312]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. E 2´. The author was Abbot of Altzelle.[313]“Ein Maulstreich dem lutherischen lügenhaften, weit aufgesperrten Rachen,” Dresden, 1534.[314]See above, vol. ii., p. 147.[315]See vol. ii., p. 40: “Quum ita frontem perfricuerit, ut a nullo abstineat mendacio,” etc.[316]Letter of George, in Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges Karls V,” pp. 604, 606. Denifle, 1², p. 126, n. 3.[317]Vol. ii., p. 395 f.[318]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.[319]Ibid., p. 86.[320]Ibid., p. 210. The last three passages are from sermons preached by Luther at Wittenberg in 1528 when doing duty for Bugenhagen.[321]“Luther,” 1², p. 400 ff. We may discount the objection of Protestant controversialists who plead that Luther at least described correctly the popular notions of Catholics. The popular works then in use, handbooks and sermons for the instruction of the people, prayer-books, booklets for use in trials and at the hour of death, etc., give a picture of the then popular piety, and the best refutation of Luther’s statements.[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed.. 5², p. 378.[323]Cp. “Comment. in Gal.,” 2, p. 175. “Opp. lat, exeg.,” 16, p. 197seq.Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 218.[324]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 255.[325]Ibid.[326]Ibid., p. 256. “The Pope’s teaching and all the books and writings of his theologians and decretalists did nothing but revile Christ and His Baptism, so that no one was able to rejoice or comfort himself therewith”; this he knew, having been himself fifteen years a monk.Ibid., 19², p. 151, in a sermon of 1535, “On Holy Baptism.”Even in the learned disputations of his Wittenberg pupils similar assertions are found: The Papists have ever taught that the powers of man after the Fall still remained unimpaired (“adhuc integras”), and that therefore he could fulfil the whole law; doctrines no better than those of the Turks and Jews had been set up (“non secus apud Turcas et Iudæos,” etc.). “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 340.And so Luther goes on down to the last sermon he preached at Eisleben just before his death: The Pope destroyed Baptism and only left works, tonsures, etc., in the Church (ibid., 20², 2, p. 534); the “purest monks” had usually been the “worst lewdsters” (p. 542); the monks had done nothing for souls, but “merely hidden themselves in their cells” (p. 543); “the monks think if they keep their Rule they are veritable saints” (p. 532).In his accusations against the religious life we find him making statements which, from his own former experience, he must have known to be false. For instance, when he says, that, in their hypocritical holiness, they had regarded it as a mortal sin to leave their cell without the scapular (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 347; 38, p. 203; 60, p. 270). Denifle proves convincingly (1², p. 54), that all monks were well aware that such customs, prescribed by the Constitutions, were not binding under sin, but merely exposed transgressors to punishment by their superiors.—Luther also frequently declared, that in the Mass every mistake in the ceremonies was looked upon as a mortal sin, even the omission of an “enim” or an “æterni” in the Canon (ibid., 28, p. 65), and that the incorrect use of the frequently repeated sign of the cross had caused such apprehension, that they were “plagued beyond measure with the Mass” (ibid., 59, p. 98). And yet his own words (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 164) show he was aware that such involuntary mistakes were no sin: “cum casus quispiam nullum peccatum fuerit.”[327]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 221.[328]“Cinquante raisons,” Munich, 1736, 29, p. 37. Above, vol. iii., p. 273, n. 2.[329]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 395 ff.[330]Cp.ibid., 31, p. 279.[331]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 227.[332]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 430 f.: “Yet how few can ever have had such a thought, much less expressed it?” Denifle-Weiss, 17², p. 774. Speaking of this passage, Denifle rightly remarks: “I have frequently pointed out that it was Luther’s tactics to represent wicked Catholics as typical of all the rest.” Here again Denifle might have quoted Luther against Luther, as indeed he often does. In one passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 412) Luther points out quite correctly, that to make all or even a class responsible for the faults of a few is to be guilty of injustice.[333]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.[334]“There are passionate natures gifted with a strong imagination, who gradually, and sometimes even rapidly, come to take in good faith that for true, which their own spirit of contradiction, or the desire to vindicate themselves and to gain the day, suggests. Such a one was Luther.... It was possible for him to persuade himself of things which he had once regarded in quite a different light.” Thus Alb. M. Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 424. Ad. Hausrath rightly characterises much of what Luther says that he had learnt of Rome on his trip thither, as the “product of a self-deception which is readily understood” (“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 79). “During a quarrel,” aptly remarks Fénelon, “the imagination becomes heated and a man deceives himself.”[335]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 510 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 200seq.[336]In his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 241 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 152 ff.), he frequently asserts this principle.[337]“Si mentiris, etiam quod verum dicis mentiris.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 214 in “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.”[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 15; Erl. ed., 35, p. 18. The passage in vindication of the Egyptian midwives was not merely added later.[339]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 18.[340]Ibid., 3, p. 139seq.[341]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 85: “Mentiri et fallere differunt, nam mendacium est falsitas cum studio nocendi, fallacia vero est simplex.”[342]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 12, Sermon of Jan. 5, 1528.[343]“Summa theol.,” 2-2, Q. 111, a. 3.[344]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 288.[345]“Corp. iur. can.,” ed. Friedberg, 2, p. 812. Yet a champion of Luther’s “truthfulness” has attempted to prove of Alexander III, that “the objectivity of good was foreign to him,” and that he taught that the end justifies the means. As K. Hampe has pointed out in the “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 93, 1904, p. 415, the letter from the Pope to Thomas Becket (“P.L.,” 200, col. 290), here referred to, has been “quite misunderstood.” The same is the case with a letter of Gregory VII to Alphonsus of Castile, which has also been alleged to show that a Pope “had not unconditionally rejected lying, nay, had even made use of it.” Gregory on the contrary declares that even “a lie told for a pious object and for the sake of peace” was a sin (“illud peccatum esse non dubitaveris, in sacerdotibus quasi sacrilegium coniicias.” “P.L.,” 148, col. 604). Cp. Hampe,ibid., p. 385 ff.; N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 51.[346]“N. Lehrb. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1825, p. 354. Sodeur (“Luther und die Lüge”) says that in his teaching on lies Luther led the way to “a more profound understanding of the problem” (p. 2), he taught us “to act according to simple and fundamental principles”; “under certain conditions” it became “a duty to tell untruths, not merely on casuistic grounds as formerly [!], but on principle; Luther harked back to the all embracing duty of charity which constitutes the moral life of the Christian” (p. 30); he desired “falsehood to be used only to the advantage of our neighbour,” “referring our conduct in every instance to the underlying principle of charity” (p. 32 f.). Chr. Rogge, another Protestant, says of all this (“Türmer,” Jan., 1906, p. 491): “I wish Sodeur had adopted a more decided and less apologetic attitude.”W. Walther, in the article quoted above (p. 81, n. 1), admits that Luther taught “in the clearest possible manner that cases might occur where a departure from truth became the Christian’s duty.... It is probable that many Evangelicals will strongly repudiate this thesis, but, in our opinion, almost everybody follows it in practice”; if charity led to untruth then the latter was no evil act, and it could not be said that Luther accepted the principle that the end justifies the means. It was not necessary for Walther, having made Luther’s views on lying his own, to assure us, “that they were not shared by every Christian, not even by every Evangelical.” As regards the end justifying the means, Walther should prove that the principle does not really underlie much of what Luther says (cp. also above, p. 94 f.). Cp. what A. Baur says, with praiseworthy frankness, in a work entitled “Johann Calvin” (“Religionsgeschichtl. Volksb.,” Reihe 4, Hft. 9), p. 29, concerning the reformer of Geneva whom he extols: “Consciously, or unconsciously, the principle that the end justifies the means became necessarily more and more deeply rooted in Calvin’s mind, viz. the principle that the holy purpose willed by God justifies the use of means—the employment of which would otherwise appear altogether repugnant and reprehensible to a refined moral sense—at least when no other way presents itself for the attainment of the end. To renounce the end on account of the means appeared to Calvin a betrayal of God’s honour and cause.” And yet it is clear that only a theory which “transcends good and evil” can approve the principle that the end justifies the means.We may add that, according to Walther (“Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 11 f.), Luther, in view of the exalted end towards which the means he used were directed, “gradually resolved” to set the law of charity above that of truth; he did not, however, do this in his practical writings, fearing its abuse; yet Luther still contends that Abraham was permitted to tell an untruth in order “to prevent the frustration of God’s Will,” i.e. from love of God (ibid., p. 13).[347]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289.[348]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 139-144.[349]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, above, p. 95, n. 3.[350]See vol. ii., p. 384 ff.[351]“Corp. ref.,” 20, p. 573.[352]The document in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578.[353]“Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” Münster, 1910, p. 75.[354]Cp. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 320.[355]Loc. cit., p. 74 f.[356]“Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 156seq.N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 509.[357]“Quod defendam ipsum facinus, equidem nullum [scriptum] scripsi aut subscripsi.” Paulus,ibid., p. 511.[358]F. W. Hassenkamp, “Hessische KG.,” 1, p. 510. Paulus,ibid., p. 512.[359]H. Rocholl, in N. Paulus’s art. on the Catholic lawyer and writer, Conrad Braun († 1563), in “Hist. Jahrb.” (14, 1893, p. 517 ff.), p. 525.[360]Paulus, “Johann Hoffmeister,” 1891, p. 206, and in “Hist. Jahrb.,”loc. cit.[361]“Theol. Rev.,” 1908, p. 215.[362]Bd. 1, 1908, p. 66: “Nullis conviciis parcemus quantumvis turpibus et ignominiosis,” etc.[363]Luther’s friend Jonas also distinguished himself in controversy by the character of the charges he brings forward against his opponents as true “historia.” (See above, vol. iii., p. 416, n. 3.)[364]W. Köhler, “Luthers Werden” (“Prot. Monatshefte,” 1907, Hft. 8-9, p. 292 ff., p. 345 ff., p. 294).[365]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform.,” pp. 221, 220.[366]“Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der RG.” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16 f.). The author’s standpoint is expressed on p. 13: “It is self-evident that this does not in any way detract from Luther’s importance.... Luther merely stands out all the more as the last link of the previous evolution,” etc. On p. 17 he declares that the author of “Luther und Luthertum” lacked entirely the “sense of truth.” See the passage from Böhmer in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1901, p. 144.[367]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 581.[368]“Luther und die KG.,” 1, 1900, p. 363.[369]“Sermo 60 in Dom. 6 post. Trin.” (“Sermones de tempore,” Tubingæ, 1500).[370]“Sibend und Acht ader letzte Sermon,” Lipsie, 1533. On this work cp. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 66, n. 2.[371]“Reportata in quatuor S. Bonaventuræ sententiarum libros, Scoti subtilis secundi,” Basileæ, 1501. L. 2 d. 5 q. 6.[372]Bl. 2. On the work, see Hasak, “Der christl. Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des MA.,” 1868, p. 67 ff.[373]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales,” s. l. e. a. Bl. 51. N. Paulus quotes more of Herolt’s sayings in “Johann Herolt und seine Lehre, Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiösen Volksunterrichts am Ausgang des MA.” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 417 ff., particularly p. 429).[374]Paulus,ibid., pp. 429, 430.[375]“Evangelibuch,” Augsburg, 1560, Bl. 15. Cp. the Basle “Plenarium,” 1514, Bl. 25.[376]“Errettunge des christl. Bescheydts,” usw., 1528, 32, Bl. 4º, h. 2.[377]“De imitatione Christi,” 1, 15; and 3, 4.[378]Ibid., 1, 17, 19.[379]Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 143.[380]See the figures in Grisar, “Analecta Romana,” 1, tab. 10-12.[381]On the origin of the waxen “Agnus Dei” and its connection with the oldest baptismal rite, see my art. in the “Civiltà Cattolica,” June 2, 1907. From the beginning it was a memorial of the baptismal covenant and served as a constant stimulus to personal union with Christ.[382]“De imit. Christi,” 4, 1, 2.[383]Freiburg, i/B., 1902, p. 730 f.[384]Ibid., p. 737 f.[385]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 407.[386]N. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 961. Cp. Paulus “Der Katholik,” 1898, 2, p. 25: “Had Luther’s intention been merely to impress this fundamentally Catholic message on Christendom [the trustful relations between the individual and God] there would never have been a schism.”[387]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740.[388]Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297.[389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418.[390]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 184.[391]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 186.[392]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 230.[393]Ibid., p. 193.[394]Ibid., p. 323.[395]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”[396]“Sermo 55 de tempore.”[397]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales.” Sermo 15.[398]“Eine nutzliche Lere,” usw., Leipzig, 1502, c. 1.[399]In a “Novelle,” published by Ph. Strauch in the “Zeitschr. für deutsches Luthertum,” 29, 1885, p. 389.—For further particulars of the respect for worldly callings before Luther’s day, see N. Paulus, “Luther und der Beruf” (“Der Katholik,” 1902, 1, p. 327 ff.), and in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 20, p. 148; likewise Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 138 ff.[400]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”[401]“Cp. Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 496 ff. (N. Paulus on O. Scheel).[402]Basle, 1522, B. 1´.[403]“Von dem waren christl. Leben,” Bl. C. 3´.[404]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178.[405]Ibid.[406]What follows has, it is true, no close relation to “Luther and Lying”; the author has, however, thought it right to deal with the matter here because of the connection between Luther’s misrepresentations of the Middle Ages and his calumny against Catholic times, both of which were founded, not on the facts of the case, but on personal grounds. Cp. below, p. 147.[407]Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 71 ff., pp. 155, 238, 242.[408]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55.[409]Cp. Denifle,ibid., p. 239 f.[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 152; Erl. ed., 28, p. 194. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”[411]Ibid., Weim. ed., 14, p. 157.[412]Ibid., 24, p. 123 f.[413]Ibid., 27, p. 26.
[210]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 393 ff.[211]O. Clemen, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 30, 1909, p. 389 f. Cp. the views of the Protestant historians, K. Wenck, H. Virck and W. Köhler, adduced by Paulus (loc. cit., p. 515), who all admit the working of political pressure.[212]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 382, 383.[213]Bd., 2, p. 488 f.[214]Page 736.[215]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 403.[216]The larger portion of the present chapter appeared as an article in the “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 29, 1905, p. 417 ff.[217]See above, p. 51.[218]W. Walther, “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1904, No. 35. Cp. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 425 ff.[219]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.[220]Ibid., 39, p. 356.[221]Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier volumes.[222]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.[223]Ibid., p. 316.[224]To Christoph Scheurl,ibid., p. 348.[225]To Johann Lang,ibid., p. 410.[226]To Willibald Pirkheimer,ibid., p. 436.[227]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204 f.[228]Strange to say, this document has not been taken into consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die Lüge, eine Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the “Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s behalf in his art. “Luther und die Lüge,” and in his “Für Luther.” See above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Doppelzüngigkeit” (“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.[229]On May 22, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 149.[230]On Feb. 15, 1518,ibid., p. 155.[231]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 469.[232]July 10, 1520,ibid., p. 432.[233]Ibid., Schauenburg’s letter,ibid., p. 415.[234]Ibid., p. 433.[235]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.[236]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 72.[237]Ibid., p. 70, 68 f.[238]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 284; Erl. ed., 24², p. 367. On indulgences for the departed, see our vol. i., p. 344.[239]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 432.[240]Historien (1566), p. 11.[241]Ed. Cyprian., p. 20.[242]“Reformationsgesch. von H. Bullinger,” ed. Hottinger u. Vögeli, 1, 1838, p. 19.[243]One such tale put in circulation by the Lutherans in the 16th century has been dealt with by N. Paulus in “Gibt es Ablässe für zukünftige Sünden?” (“Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1905, No. 43.) Here, in view of some modern misapprehensions of the so-called Confession and Indulgence letters, he says: “They referred to future sins, only inasmuch as they authorised those who obtained them to select a confessor at their own discretion for their subsequent sins, and promised an Indulgence later, provided the sins committed had been humbly confessed. In this sense even our modern Indulgences promised for the future may be said to refer to future sins.”[244]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.[245]To Count Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).[246]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, from Eisenach, May 9, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 74 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 144).[247]To Spalatin, (11) October, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 491: “credo veram et propriam esse bullam.”[248]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29 ff.[249]Ibid., p. 138=27, p. 80, in February, 1520.[250]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 214, 759.[251]The letter was written after Oct. 13, 1520, but is dated Sep. 6, the Excommunication having been published on Sep. 21. Cp. Miltitz to the Elector of Saxony, Oct. 14, 1520, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.[252]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 441 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 323 f.[253]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 279: “It was much better and safer to declare them damned than saved.”[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, 1906, p. 133, sermons here printed for the first time.[255]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 240.[256]Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, p. 223.[257]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 37 f.[258]Ibid., Weim. ed., 8, p. 658; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 360[259]Ibid., p. 601=p. 278.[260]Ibid., 1, p. 323=1, p. 338; 1, p. 534=2, p. 142.[261]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 44. Denifle has shown that the passage in question occurs in the form of a prayer in St. Bernard’s “Sermo XX in Cantica” “P.L.,” 183, col. 867: “De mea misera vita suscipe (Deus), obsecro, residuum annorum meorum; pro his vero (annis) quos vivendo perdidi, quia perdite vixi, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicias. Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt et præterierunt sine fructu. Impossibile est, ut revocem; placeat, ut recogitem tibi eos in amaritudine animæ meæ.” Denifle points out that the sermon in question was preached about 1136 or 1137, about sixteen years before Bernard’s death, thus certainly not in his last illness.[262]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 249.[263]Ibid., p. 145; cp. p. 204.[264]“Luther als Kirchenhistoriker,” Gütersloh, 1897, p. 391, referring to Sabellicus, “Rhapsod. hist. Ennead.,” 9, 8.[265]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 766, p. 350, n. 1. For the literature dealing with the Ulrich fable, see N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 253; and particularly J. Haussleiter, “Beiträge zur bayerischen KG.,” 6, p. 121 f.[266]Cp. Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 40, and Flacius Illyricus in his two separate editions of the letter. Flacius also incorporated the Ulrich letter in his “Catalogus testium veritatis” and repeatedly referred to it in his controversial writings. See J. Niemöller’s article on the mendacity of a certain class of historical literature in the 16th century, “Flacius und Flacianismus” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 12, 1888, pp. 75-115, particularly p. 107 f.).[267]Cp. Knaake, “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362.[268]Cp. Kolde on Luther’s “private print,” in Müller, “Bekenntnisschriften”[10], p. xxvi., n. 1.[269]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.[270]For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p. 226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.[271]“Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.[272]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.[273]Joh. Karl Seidemann, “Beiträge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.[274]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.[275]Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.[276]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.[277]K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of Luther’s assertions in the “De servo arbitrio,” that “he was led away by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p. 79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla, ‘De libero arbitrio’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p. 2).—H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polémique sur le libre arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done to Erasmus by Luther.[278]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii., p. 398 f.[279]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. our vol. i., p. 400 f.[280]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.[281]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391 (“Tischreden”).[282]Cp. e.g. the summarised teaching of an eminent theologian, Denis the Carthusian, in Krogh-Tonning, “Der letzte Scholastiker,” 1904.[283]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391.[284]From Kleindienst, “Ein recht catholisch Ermanung an seine lieben Teutschen,” Dillingen, 1560, Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., 1903, p. 276.[285]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461: “Nos hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi sedem, in cuius deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur.” This must not be translated “to their deceiving and destruction,” but, “against their trickery and malice.” The passage strictly refers to his passionate work “An den christlichen Adel,” but seems also to be intended generally.[286]To Melanchthon, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235. Cp. vol. ii., p. 386. Luther says: “dolos et lapsus nostros facile emendabimus”; thus assuming his part of the responsibility. The explanation that he is speaking merely of the mistakes which Melanchthon might make, and simply wished “to console and sympathise with him,” is too far-fetched to be true. In his edition of the “Briefwechsel” Enders has struck out the word “mendacia” after “dolos,” though wrongly, as we shall see in vol. vi., xxxvi., 4. According to Enders the handwriting is too faint for it to be accepted as genuine. As there is no original of the letter the question remains how it came into the old copies which were in Lutheran hands. In any case, such an interpolation would be more difficult to understand than its removal. Cp. also Luther’s own justification of suchmendaciain 1524 and 1528, given below on p. 109 ff.[287]To the apostate Franciscan Johann Briesmann, July 4, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 360. These instructions to the preacher who was to work for the apostasy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are characteristic of Luther’s diplomacy. Cp. the directions to Martin Weier (above, vol. ii., p. 323).[288]“Briefe,” 6, p. 386 ff.[289]Cp. v. Druffel in the “SB. der bayer. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl.,” 2, 1888, and “Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.,” 25, p. 71.[290]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 693, p. 612, n. 1.[291]Ibid., p. 612.[292]“Briefe,” 6, p. 401.[293]Ibid., p. 386.[294]Ibid.[295]Ibid., p. 387.[296]Ibid., p. 391.[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29.[298]Ibid., 26, p. 532 f. = 63, p. 276.[299]G. Buchwald, “Simon Wilde” (“Mitt. der deutschen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung vaterländ. Sprache und Altertums in Leipzig,” 9, 1894, p. 61 ff.), p. 95: “libellum calumniis refertissimum.”[300]“Zwinglii Opp.,” 8, p. 165: “calumniandi magister et sophistarum princeps.”[301]Letter to J. Vadian, April 14, 1528, “Die Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 4, p. 101. “Mitt. zur vaterl. Gesch. von St. Gallen,” 28, 1902.[302]“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Hft. 118, 1893, pp. 19, 29, etc.[303]Cp. Münzer in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 374, n. 6.Ibid., p. 373, n. 1, “the mendacious Luther.”[304]“Vergleichung D. Luthers und seines Gegenteiles vom Abendmahl Christi,” 1528, p. 23.[305]“Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 6, p. 16 (“Mitt. z. v. G. v. S.G.”, 30, 1, 1906): Pappus calls the book: “librum famosissimum, plaustra et carros convitiorum. Misereor huius tam felicissimi ingenii, quod tantis se immiscet sordibus; et profecto, ut est Lutherus vertendo et docendo inimitabilis, ita mihi iam quoque videtur calumniando non parem habere.” Letter of April 13, 1541. Pappus was Burgomaster of Lindau.[306]E. Thiele, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1907, p. 265 f.[307]“Ep.,” 1, 18; “Opp.,” 3, col. 1056.[308]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, 9, col. 1043.[309]Letter to George Agricola, in Buchwald, “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 5, Leipzig, 1884, p. 56.[310]“Antwort auf das Büchlein,” 1531. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89.[311]“De votis monasticis,” 1, 2, Colon., 1524, Bl. S 5´: “Omnium mendacissimus, qui sub cœlo vivunt, hominum.”[312]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. E 2´. The author was Abbot of Altzelle.[313]“Ein Maulstreich dem lutherischen lügenhaften, weit aufgesperrten Rachen,” Dresden, 1534.[314]See above, vol. ii., p. 147.[315]See vol. ii., p. 40: “Quum ita frontem perfricuerit, ut a nullo abstineat mendacio,” etc.[316]Letter of George, in Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges Karls V,” pp. 604, 606. Denifle, 1², p. 126, n. 3.[317]Vol. ii., p. 395 f.[318]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.[319]Ibid., p. 86.[320]Ibid., p. 210. The last three passages are from sermons preached by Luther at Wittenberg in 1528 when doing duty for Bugenhagen.[321]“Luther,” 1², p. 400 ff. We may discount the objection of Protestant controversialists who plead that Luther at least described correctly the popular notions of Catholics. The popular works then in use, handbooks and sermons for the instruction of the people, prayer-books, booklets for use in trials and at the hour of death, etc., give a picture of the then popular piety, and the best refutation of Luther’s statements.[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed.. 5², p. 378.[323]Cp. “Comment. in Gal.,” 2, p. 175. “Opp. lat, exeg.,” 16, p. 197seq.Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 218.[324]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 255.[325]Ibid.[326]Ibid., p. 256. “The Pope’s teaching and all the books and writings of his theologians and decretalists did nothing but revile Christ and His Baptism, so that no one was able to rejoice or comfort himself therewith”; this he knew, having been himself fifteen years a monk.Ibid., 19², p. 151, in a sermon of 1535, “On Holy Baptism.”Even in the learned disputations of his Wittenberg pupils similar assertions are found: The Papists have ever taught that the powers of man after the Fall still remained unimpaired (“adhuc integras”), and that therefore he could fulfil the whole law; doctrines no better than those of the Turks and Jews had been set up (“non secus apud Turcas et Iudæos,” etc.). “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 340.And so Luther goes on down to the last sermon he preached at Eisleben just before his death: The Pope destroyed Baptism and only left works, tonsures, etc., in the Church (ibid., 20², 2, p. 534); the “purest monks” had usually been the “worst lewdsters” (p. 542); the monks had done nothing for souls, but “merely hidden themselves in their cells” (p. 543); “the monks think if they keep their Rule they are veritable saints” (p. 532).In his accusations against the religious life we find him making statements which, from his own former experience, he must have known to be false. For instance, when he says, that, in their hypocritical holiness, they had regarded it as a mortal sin to leave their cell without the scapular (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 347; 38, p. 203; 60, p. 270). Denifle proves convincingly (1², p. 54), that all monks were well aware that such customs, prescribed by the Constitutions, were not binding under sin, but merely exposed transgressors to punishment by their superiors.—Luther also frequently declared, that in the Mass every mistake in the ceremonies was looked upon as a mortal sin, even the omission of an “enim” or an “æterni” in the Canon (ibid., 28, p. 65), and that the incorrect use of the frequently repeated sign of the cross had caused such apprehension, that they were “plagued beyond measure with the Mass” (ibid., 59, p. 98). And yet his own words (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 164) show he was aware that such involuntary mistakes were no sin: “cum casus quispiam nullum peccatum fuerit.”[327]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 221.[328]“Cinquante raisons,” Munich, 1736, 29, p. 37. Above, vol. iii., p. 273, n. 2.[329]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 395 ff.[330]Cp.ibid., 31, p. 279.[331]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 227.[332]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 430 f.: “Yet how few can ever have had such a thought, much less expressed it?” Denifle-Weiss, 17², p. 774. Speaking of this passage, Denifle rightly remarks: “I have frequently pointed out that it was Luther’s tactics to represent wicked Catholics as typical of all the rest.” Here again Denifle might have quoted Luther against Luther, as indeed he often does. In one passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 412) Luther points out quite correctly, that to make all or even a class responsible for the faults of a few is to be guilty of injustice.[333]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.[334]“There are passionate natures gifted with a strong imagination, who gradually, and sometimes even rapidly, come to take in good faith that for true, which their own spirit of contradiction, or the desire to vindicate themselves and to gain the day, suggests. Such a one was Luther.... It was possible for him to persuade himself of things which he had once regarded in quite a different light.” Thus Alb. M. Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 424. Ad. Hausrath rightly characterises much of what Luther says that he had learnt of Rome on his trip thither, as the “product of a self-deception which is readily understood” (“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 79). “During a quarrel,” aptly remarks Fénelon, “the imagination becomes heated and a man deceives himself.”[335]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 510 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 200seq.[336]In his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 241 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 152 ff.), he frequently asserts this principle.[337]“Si mentiris, etiam quod verum dicis mentiris.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 214 in “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.”[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 15; Erl. ed., 35, p. 18. The passage in vindication of the Egyptian midwives was not merely added later.[339]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 18.[340]Ibid., 3, p. 139seq.[341]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 85: “Mentiri et fallere differunt, nam mendacium est falsitas cum studio nocendi, fallacia vero est simplex.”[342]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 12, Sermon of Jan. 5, 1528.[343]“Summa theol.,” 2-2, Q. 111, a. 3.[344]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 288.[345]“Corp. iur. can.,” ed. Friedberg, 2, p. 812. Yet a champion of Luther’s “truthfulness” has attempted to prove of Alexander III, that “the objectivity of good was foreign to him,” and that he taught that the end justifies the means. As K. Hampe has pointed out in the “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 93, 1904, p. 415, the letter from the Pope to Thomas Becket (“P.L.,” 200, col. 290), here referred to, has been “quite misunderstood.” The same is the case with a letter of Gregory VII to Alphonsus of Castile, which has also been alleged to show that a Pope “had not unconditionally rejected lying, nay, had even made use of it.” Gregory on the contrary declares that even “a lie told for a pious object and for the sake of peace” was a sin (“illud peccatum esse non dubitaveris, in sacerdotibus quasi sacrilegium coniicias.” “P.L.,” 148, col. 604). Cp. Hampe,ibid., p. 385 ff.; N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 51.[346]“N. Lehrb. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1825, p. 354. Sodeur (“Luther und die Lüge”) says that in his teaching on lies Luther led the way to “a more profound understanding of the problem” (p. 2), he taught us “to act according to simple and fundamental principles”; “under certain conditions” it became “a duty to tell untruths, not merely on casuistic grounds as formerly [!], but on principle; Luther harked back to the all embracing duty of charity which constitutes the moral life of the Christian” (p. 30); he desired “falsehood to be used only to the advantage of our neighbour,” “referring our conduct in every instance to the underlying principle of charity” (p. 32 f.). Chr. Rogge, another Protestant, says of all this (“Türmer,” Jan., 1906, p. 491): “I wish Sodeur had adopted a more decided and less apologetic attitude.”W. Walther, in the article quoted above (p. 81, n. 1), admits that Luther taught “in the clearest possible manner that cases might occur where a departure from truth became the Christian’s duty.... It is probable that many Evangelicals will strongly repudiate this thesis, but, in our opinion, almost everybody follows it in practice”; if charity led to untruth then the latter was no evil act, and it could not be said that Luther accepted the principle that the end justifies the means. It was not necessary for Walther, having made Luther’s views on lying his own, to assure us, “that they were not shared by every Christian, not even by every Evangelical.” As regards the end justifying the means, Walther should prove that the principle does not really underlie much of what Luther says (cp. also above, p. 94 f.). Cp. what A. Baur says, with praiseworthy frankness, in a work entitled “Johann Calvin” (“Religionsgeschichtl. Volksb.,” Reihe 4, Hft. 9), p. 29, concerning the reformer of Geneva whom he extols: “Consciously, or unconsciously, the principle that the end justifies the means became necessarily more and more deeply rooted in Calvin’s mind, viz. the principle that the holy purpose willed by God justifies the use of means—the employment of which would otherwise appear altogether repugnant and reprehensible to a refined moral sense—at least when no other way presents itself for the attainment of the end. To renounce the end on account of the means appeared to Calvin a betrayal of God’s honour and cause.” And yet it is clear that only a theory which “transcends good and evil” can approve the principle that the end justifies the means.We may add that, according to Walther (“Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 11 f.), Luther, in view of the exalted end towards which the means he used were directed, “gradually resolved” to set the law of charity above that of truth; he did not, however, do this in his practical writings, fearing its abuse; yet Luther still contends that Abraham was permitted to tell an untruth in order “to prevent the frustration of God’s Will,” i.e. from love of God (ibid., p. 13).[347]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289.[348]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 139-144.[349]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, above, p. 95, n. 3.[350]See vol. ii., p. 384 ff.[351]“Corp. ref.,” 20, p. 573.[352]The document in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578.[353]“Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” Münster, 1910, p. 75.[354]Cp. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 320.[355]Loc. cit., p. 74 f.[356]“Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 156seq.N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 509.[357]“Quod defendam ipsum facinus, equidem nullum [scriptum] scripsi aut subscripsi.” Paulus,ibid., p. 511.[358]F. W. Hassenkamp, “Hessische KG.,” 1, p. 510. Paulus,ibid., p. 512.[359]H. Rocholl, in N. Paulus’s art. on the Catholic lawyer and writer, Conrad Braun († 1563), in “Hist. Jahrb.” (14, 1893, p. 517 ff.), p. 525.[360]Paulus, “Johann Hoffmeister,” 1891, p. 206, and in “Hist. Jahrb.,”loc. cit.[361]“Theol. Rev.,” 1908, p. 215.[362]Bd. 1, 1908, p. 66: “Nullis conviciis parcemus quantumvis turpibus et ignominiosis,” etc.[363]Luther’s friend Jonas also distinguished himself in controversy by the character of the charges he brings forward against his opponents as true “historia.” (See above, vol. iii., p. 416, n. 3.)[364]W. Köhler, “Luthers Werden” (“Prot. Monatshefte,” 1907, Hft. 8-9, p. 292 ff., p. 345 ff., p. 294).[365]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform.,” pp. 221, 220.[366]“Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der RG.” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16 f.). The author’s standpoint is expressed on p. 13: “It is self-evident that this does not in any way detract from Luther’s importance.... Luther merely stands out all the more as the last link of the previous evolution,” etc. On p. 17 he declares that the author of “Luther und Luthertum” lacked entirely the “sense of truth.” See the passage from Böhmer in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1901, p. 144.[367]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 581.[368]“Luther und die KG.,” 1, 1900, p. 363.[369]“Sermo 60 in Dom. 6 post. Trin.” (“Sermones de tempore,” Tubingæ, 1500).[370]“Sibend und Acht ader letzte Sermon,” Lipsie, 1533. On this work cp. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 66, n. 2.[371]“Reportata in quatuor S. Bonaventuræ sententiarum libros, Scoti subtilis secundi,” Basileæ, 1501. L. 2 d. 5 q. 6.[372]Bl. 2. On the work, see Hasak, “Der christl. Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des MA.,” 1868, p. 67 ff.[373]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales,” s. l. e. a. Bl. 51. N. Paulus quotes more of Herolt’s sayings in “Johann Herolt und seine Lehre, Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiösen Volksunterrichts am Ausgang des MA.” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 417 ff., particularly p. 429).[374]Paulus,ibid., pp. 429, 430.[375]“Evangelibuch,” Augsburg, 1560, Bl. 15. Cp. the Basle “Plenarium,” 1514, Bl. 25.[376]“Errettunge des christl. Bescheydts,” usw., 1528, 32, Bl. 4º, h. 2.[377]“De imitatione Christi,” 1, 15; and 3, 4.[378]Ibid., 1, 17, 19.[379]Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 143.[380]See the figures in Grisar, “Analecta Romana,” 1, tab. 10-12.[381]On the origin of the waxen “Agnus Dei” and its connection with the oldest baptismal rite, see my art. in the “Civiltà Cattolica,” June 2, 1907. From the beginning it was a memorial of the baptismal covenant and served as a constant stimulus to personal union with Christ.[382]“De imit. Christi,” 4, 1, 2.[383]Freiburg, i/B., 1902, p. 730 f.[384]Ibid., p. 737 f.[385]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 407.[386]N. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 961. Cp. Paulus “Der Katholik,” 1898, 2, p. 25: “Had Luther’s intention been merely to impress this fundamentally Catholic message on Christendom [the trustful relations between the individual and God] there would never have been a schism.”[387]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740.[388]Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297.[389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418.[390]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 184.[391]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 186.[392]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 230.[393]Ibid., p. 193.[394]Ibid., p. 323.[395]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”[396]“Sermo 55 de tempore.”[397]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales.” Sermo 15.[398]“Eine nutzliche Lere,” usw., Leipzig, 1502, c. 1.[399]In a “Novelle,” published by Ph. Strauch in the “Zeitschr. für deutsches Luthertum,” 29, 1885, p. 389.—For further particulars of the respect for worldly callings before Luther’s day, see N. Paulus, “Luther und der Beruf” (“Der Katholik,” 1902, 1, p. 327 ff.), and in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 20, p. 148; likewise Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 138 ff.[400]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”[401]“Cp. Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 496 ff. (N. Paulus on O. Scheel).[402]Basle, 1522, B. 1´.[403]“Von dem waren christl. Leben,” Bl. C. 3´.[404]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178.[405]Ibid.[406]What follows has, it is true, no close relation to “Luther and Lying”; the author has, however, thought it right to deal with the matter here because of the connection between Luther’s misrepresentations of the Middle Ages and his calumny against Catholic times, both of which were founded, not on the facts of the case, but on personal grounds. Cp. below, p. 147.[407]Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 71 ff., pp. 155, 238, 242.[408]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55.[409]Cp. Denifle,ibid., p. 239 f.[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 152; Erl. ed., 28, p. 194. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”[411]Ibid., Weim. ed., 14, p. 157.[412]Ibid., 24, p. 123 f.[413]Ibid., 27, p. 26.
[210]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 393 ff.
[211]O. Clemen, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 30, 1909, p. 389 f. Cp. the views of the Protestant historians, K. Wenck, H. Virck and W. Köhler, adduced by Paulus (loc. cit., p. 515), who all admit the working of political pressure.
[212]“Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 382, 383.
[213]Bd., 2, p. 488 f.
[214]Page 736.
[215]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 403.
[216]The larger portion of the present chapter appeared as an article in the “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 29, 1905, p. 417 ff.
[217]See above, p. 51.
[218]W. Walther, “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1904, No. 35. Cp. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 425 ff.
[219]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.
[220]Ibid., 39, p. 356.
[221]Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier volumes.
[222]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.
[223]Ibid., p. 316.
[224]To Christoph Scheurl,ibid., p. 348.
[225]To Johann Lang,ibid., p. 410.
[226]To Willibald Pirkheimer,ibid., p. 436.
[227]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204 f.
[228]Strange to say, this document has not been taken into consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die Lüge, eine Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the “Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s behalf in his art. “Luther und die Lüge,” and in his “Für Luther.” See above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Doppelzüngigkeit” (“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.
[229]On May 22, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 149.
[230]On Feb. 15, 1518,ibid., p. 155.
[231]“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 469.
[232]July 10, 1520,ibid., p. 432.
[233]Ibid., Schauenburg’s letter,ibid., p. 415.
[234]Ibid., p. 433.
[235]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.
[236]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 72.
[237]Ibid., p. 70, 68 f.
[238]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 284; Erl. ed., 24², p. 367. On indulgences for the departed, see our vol. i., p. 344.
[239]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 432.
[240]Historien (1566), p. 11.
[241]Ed. Cyprian., p. 20.
[242]“Reformationsgesch. von H. Bullinger,” ed. Hottinger u. Vögeli, 1, 1838, p. 19.
[243]One such tale put in circulation by the Lutherans in the 16th century has been dealt with by N. Paulus in “Gibt es Ablässe für zukünftige Sünden?” (“Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1905, No. 43.) Here, in view of some modern misapprehensions of the so-called Confession and Indulgence letters, he says: “They referred to future sins, only inasmuch as they authorised those who obtained them to select a confessor at their own discretion for their subsequent sins, and promised an Indulgence later, provided the sins committed had been humbly confessed. In this sense even our modern Indulgences promised for the future may be said to refer to future sins.”
[244]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.
[245]To Count Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).
[246]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, from Eisenach, May 9, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 74 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 144).
[247]To Spalatin, (11) October, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 491: “credo veram et propriam esse bullam.”
[248]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29 ff.
[249]Ibid., p. 138=27, p. 80, in February, 1520.
[250]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 214, 759.
[251]The letter was written after Oct. 13, 1520, but is dated Sep. 6, the Excommunication having been published on Sep. 21. Cp. Miltitz to the Elector of Saxony, Oct. 14, 1520, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.
[252]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 441 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 323 f.
[253]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 279: “It was much better and safer to declare them damned than saved.”
[254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, 1906, p. 133, sermons here printed for the first time.
[255]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 240.
[256]Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, p. 223.
[257]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 37 f.
[258]Ibid., Weim. ed., 8, p. 658; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 360
[259]Ibid., p. 601=p. 278.
[260]Ibid., 1, p. 323=1, p. 338; 1, p. 534=2, p. 142.
[261]Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 44. Denifle has shown that the passage in question occurs in the form of a prayer in St. Bernard’s “Sermo XX in Cantica” “P.L.,” 183, col. 867: “De mea misera vita suscipe (Deus), obsecro, residuum annorum meorum; pro his vero (annis) quos vivendo perdidi, quia perdite vixi, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicias. Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt et præterierunt sine fructu. Impossibile est, ut revocem; placeat, ut recogitem tibi eos in amaritudine animæ meæ.” Denifle points out that the sermon in question was preached about 1136 or 1137, about sixteen years before Bernard’s death, thus certainly not in his last illness.
[262]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 249.
[263]Ibid., p. 145; cp. p. 204.
[264]“Luther als Kirchenhistoriker,” Gütersloh, 1897, p. 391, referring to Sabellicus, “Rhapsod. hist. Ennead.,” 9, 8.
[265]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 766, p. 350, n. 1. For the literature dealing with the Ulrich fable, see N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 253; and particularly J. Haussleiter, “Beiträge zur bayerischen KG.,” 6, p. 121 f.
[266]Cp. Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 40, and Flacius Illyricus in his two separate editions of the letter. Flacius also incorporated the Ulrich letter in his “Catalogus testium veritatis” and repeatedly referred to it in his controversial writings. See J. Niemöller’s article on the mendacity of a certain class of historical literature in the 16th century, “Flacius und Flacianismus” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 12, 1888, pp. 75-115, particularly p. 107 f.).
[267]Cp. Knaake, “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362.
[268]Cp. Kolde on Luther’s “private print,” in Müller, “Bekenntnisschriften”[10], p. xxvi., n. 1.
[269]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.
[270]For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p. 226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.
[271]“Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.
[272]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.
[273]Joh. Karl Seidemann, “Beiträge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.
[274]“Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.
[275]Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.
[276]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.
[277]K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of Luther’s assertions in the “De servo arbitrio,” that “he was led away by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p. 79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla, ‘De libero arbitrio’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p. 2).—H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polémique sur le libre arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done to Erasmus by Luther.
[278]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii., p. 398 f.
[279]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. our vol. i., p. 400 f.
[280]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.
[281]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391 (“Tischreden”).
[282]Cp. e.g. the summarised teaching of an eminent theologian, Denis the Carthusian, in Krogh-Tonning, “Der letzte Scholastiker,” 1904.
[283]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391.
[284]From Kleindienst, “Ein recht catholisch Ermanung an seine lieben Teutschen,” Dillingen, 1560, Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., 1903, p. 276.
[285]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461: “Nos hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi sedem, in cuius deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur.” This must not be translated “to their deceiving and destruction,” but, “against their trickery and malice.” The passage strictly refers to his passionate work “An den christlichen Adel,” but seems also to be intended generally.
[286]To Melanchthon, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235. Cp. vol. ii., p. 386. Luther says: “dolos et lapsus nostros facile emendabimus”; thus assuming his part of the responsibility. The explanation that he is speaking merely of the mistakes which Melanchthon might make, and simply wished “to console and sympathise with him,” is too far-fetched to be true. In his edition of the “Briefwechsel” Enders has struck out the word “mendacia” after “dolos,” though wrongly, as we shall see in vol. vi., xxxvi., 4. According to Enders the handwriting is too faint for it to be accepted as genuine. As there is no original of the letter the question remains how it came into the old copies which were in Lutheran hands. In any case, such an interpolation would be more difficult to understand than its removal. Cp. also Luther’s own justification of suchmendaciain 1524 and 1528, given below on p. 109 ff.
[287]To the apostate Franciscan Johann Briesmann, July 4, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 360. These instructions to the preacher who was to work for the apostasy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are characteristic of Luther’s diplomacy. Cp. the directions to Martin Weier (above, vol. ii., p. 323).
[288]“Briefe,” 6, p. 386 ff.
[289]Cp. v. Druffel in the “SB. der bayer. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl.,” 2, 1888, and “Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.,” 25, p. 71.
[290]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 693, p. 612, n. 1.
[291]Ibid., p. 612.
[292]“Briefe,” 6, p. 401.
[293]Ibid., p. 386.
[294]Ibid.
[295]Ibid., p. 387.
[296]Ibid., p. 391.
[297]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29.
[298]Ibid., 26, p. 532 f. = 63, p. 276.
[299]G. Buchwald, “Simon Wilde” (“Mitt. der deutschen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung vaterländ. Sprache und Altertums in Leipzig,” 9, 1894, p. 61 ff.), p. 95: “libellum calumniis refertissimum.”
[300]“Zwinglii Opp.,” 8, p. 165: “calumniandi magister et sophistarum princeps.”
[301]Letter to J. Vadian, April 14, 1528, “Die Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 4, p. 101. “Mitt. zur vaterl. Gesch. von St. Gallen,” 28, 1902.
[302]“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Hft. 118, 1893, pp. 19, 29, etc.
[303]Cp. Münzer in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 374, n. 6.Ibid., p. 373, n. 1, “the mendacious Luther.”
[304]“Vergleichung D. Luthers und seines Gegenteiles vom Abendmahl Christi,” 1528, p. 23.
[305]“Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 6, p. 16 (“Mitt. z. v. G. v. S.G.”, 30, 1, 1906): Pappus calls the book: “librum famosissimum, plaustra et carros convitiorum. Misereor huius tam felicissimi ingenii, quod tantis se immiscet sordibus; et profecto, ut est Lutherus vertendo et docendo inimitabilis, ita mihi iam quoque videtur calumniando non parem habere.” Letter of April 13, 1541. Pappus was Burgomaster of Lindau.
[306]E. Thiele, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1907, p. 265 f.
[307]“Ep.,” 1, 18; “Opp.,” 3, col. 1056.
[308]“Hyperaspistes,” 1, 9, col. 1043.
[309]Letter to George Agricola, in Buchwald, “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 5, Leipzig, 1884, p. 56.
[310]“Antwort auf das Büchlein,” 1531. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89.
[311]“De votis monasticis,” 1, 2, Colon., 1524, Bl. S 5´: “Omnium mendacissimus, qui sub cœlo vivunt, hominum.”
[312]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. E 2´. The author was Abbot of Altzelle.
[313]“Ein Maulstreich dem lutherischen lügenhaften, weit aufgesperrten Rachen,” Dresden, 1534.
[314]See above, vol. ii., p. 147.
[315]See vol. ii., p. 40: “Quum ita frontem perfricuerit, ut a nullo abstineat mendacio,” etc.
[316]Letter of George, in Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges Karls V,” pp. 604, 606. Denifle, 1², p. 126, n. 3.
[317]Vol. ii., p. 395 f.
[318]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.
[319]Ibid., p. 86.
[320]Ibid., p. 210. The last three passages are from sermons preached by Luther at Wittenberg in 1528 when doing duty for Bugenhagen.
[321]“Luther,” 1², p. 400 ff. We may discount the objection of Protestant controversialists who plead that Luther at least described correctly the popular notions of Catholics. The popular works then in use, handbooks and sermons for the instruction of the people, prayer-books, booklets for use in trials and at the hour of death, etc., give a picture of the then popular piety, and the best refutation of Luther’s statements.
[322]“Werke,” Erl. ed.. 5², p. 378.
[323]Cp. “Comment. in Gal.,” 2, p. 175. “Opp. lat, exeg.,” 16, p. 197seq.Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 218.
[324]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 255.
[325]Ibid.
[326]Ibid., p. 256. “The Pope’s teaching and all the books and writings of his theologians and decretalists did nothing but revile Christ and His Baptism, so that no one was able to rejoice or comfort himself therewith”; this he knew, having been himself fifteen years a monk.Ibid., 19², p. 151, in a sermon of 1535, “On Holy Baptism.”
Even in the learned disputations of his Wittenberg pupils similar assertions are found: The Papists have ever taught that the powers of man after the Fall still remained unimpaired (“adhuc integras”), and that therefore he could fulfil the whole law; doctrines no better than those of the Turks and Jews had been set up (“non secus apud Turcas et Iudæos,” etc.). “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 340.
And so Luther goes on down to the last sermon he preached at Eisleben just before his death: The Pope destroyed Baptism and only left works, tonsures, etc., in the Church (ibid., 20², 2, p. 534); the “purest monks” had usually been the “worst lewdsters” (p. 542); the monks had done nothing for souls, but “merely hidden themselves in their cells” (p. 543); “the monks think if they keep their Rule they are veritable saints” (p. 532).
In his accusations against the religious life we find him making statements which, from his own former experience, he must have known to be false. For instance, when he says, that, in their hypocritical holiness, they had regarded it as a mortal sin to leave their cell without the scapular (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 347; 38, p. 203; 60, p. 270). Denifle proves convincingly (1², p. 54), that all monks were well aware that such customs, prescribed by the Constitutions, were not binding under sin, but merely exposed transgressors to punishment by their superiors.—Luther also frequently declared, that in the Mass every mistake in the ceremonies was looked upon as a mortal sin, even the omission of an “enim” or an “æterni” in the Canon (ibid., 28, p. 65), and that the incorrect use of the frequently repeated sign of the cross had caused such apprehension, that they were “plagued beyond measure with the Mass” (ibid., 59, p. 98). And yet his own words (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 164) show he was aware that such involuntary mistakes were no sin: “cum casus quispiam nullum peccatum fuerit.”
[327]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 221.
[328]“Cinquante raisons,” Munich, 1736, 29, p. 37. Above, vol. iii., p. 273, n. 2.
[329]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 395 ff.
[330]Cp.ibid., 31, p. 279.
[331]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 227.
[332]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 430 f.: “Yet how few can ever have had such a thought, much less expressed it?” Denifle-Weiss, 17², p. 774. Speaking of this passage, Denifle rightly remarks: “I have frequently pointed out that it was Luther’s tactics to represent wicked Catholics as typical of all the rest.” Here again Denifle might have quoted Luther against Luther, as indeed he often does. In one passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 412) Luther points out quite correctly, that to make all or even a class responsible for the faults of a few is to be guilty of injustice.
[333]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.
[334]“There are passionate natures gifted with a strong imagination, who gradually, and sometimes even rapidly, come to take in good faith that for true, which their own spirit of contradiction, or the desire to vindicate themselves and to gain the day, suggests. Such a one was Luther.... It was possible for him to persuade himself of things which he had once regarded in quite a different light.” Thus Alb. M. Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 424. Ad. Hausrath rightly characterises much of what Luther says that he had learnt of Rome on his trip thither, as the “product of a self-deception which is readily understood” (“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 79). “During a quarrel,” aptly remarks Fénelon, “the imagination becomes heated and a man deceives himself.”
[335]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 510 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 200seq.
[336]In his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 241 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 152 ff.), he frequently asserts this principle.
[337]“Si mentiris, etiam quod verum dicis mentiris.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 214 in “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.”
[338]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 15; Erl. ed., 35, p. 18. The passage in vindication of the Egyptian midwives was not merely added later.
[339]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 18.
[340]Ibid., 3, p. 139seq.
[341]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 85: “Mentiri et fallere differunt, nam mendacium est falsitas cum studio nocendi, fallacia vero est simplex.”
[342]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 12, Sermon of Jan. 5, 1528.
[343]“Summa theol.,” 2-2, Q. 111, a. 3.
[344]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 288.
[345]“Corp. iur. can.,” ed. Friedberg, 2, p. 812. Yet a champion of Luther’s “truthfulness” has attempted to prove of Alexander III, that “the objectivity of good was foreign to him,” and that he taught that the end justifies the means. As K. Hampe has pointed out in the “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 93, 1904, p. 415, the letter from the Pope to Thomas Becket (“P.L.,” 200, col. 290), here referred to, has been “quite misunderstood.” The same is the case with a letter of Gregory VII to Alphonsus of Castile, which has also been alleged to show that a Pope “had not unconditionally rejected lying, nay, had even made use of it.” Gregory on the contrary declares that even “a lie told for a pious object and for the sake of peace” was a sin (“illud peccatum esse non dubitaveris, in sacerdotibus quasi sacrilegium coniicias.” “P.L.,” 148, col. 604). Cp. Hampe,ibid., p. 385 ff.; N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 51.
[346]“N. Lehrb. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1825, p. 354. Sodeur (“Luther und die Lüge”) says that in his teaching on lies Luther led the way to “a more profound understanding of the problem” (p. 2), he taught us “to act according to simple and fundamental principles”; “under certain conditions” it became “a duty to tell untruths, not merely on casuistic grounds as formerly [!], but on principle; Luther harked back to the all embracing duty of charity which constitutes the moral life of the Christian” (p. 30); he desired “falsehood to be used only to the advantage of our neighbour,” “referring our conduct in every instance to the underlying principle of charity” (p. 32 f.). Chr. Rogge, another Protestant, says of all this (“Türmer,” Jan., 1906, p. 491): “I wish Sodeur had adopted a more decided and less apologetic attitude.”
W. Walther, in the article quoted above (p. 81, n. 1), admits that Luther taught “in the clearest possible manner that cases might occur where a departure from truth became the Christian’s duty.... It is probable that many Evangelicals will strongly repudiate this thesis, but, in our opinion, almost everybody follows it in practice”; if charity led to untruth then the latter was no evil act, and it could not be said that Luther accepted the principle that the end justifies the means. It was not necessary for Walther, having made Luther’s views on lying his own, to assure us, “that they were not shared by every Christian, not even by every Evangelical.” As regards the end justifying the means, Walther should prove that the principle does not really underlie much of what Luther says (cp. also above, p. 94 f.). Cp. what A. Baur says, with praiseworthy frankness, in a work entitled “Johann Calvin” (“Religionsgeschichtl. Volksb.,” Reihe 4, Hft. 9), p. 29, concerning the reformer of Geneva whom he extols: “Consciously, or unconsciously, the principle that the end justifies the means became necessarily more and more deeply rooted in Calvin’s mind, viz. the principle that the holy purpose willed by God justifies the use of means—the employment of which would otherwise appear altogether repugnant and reprehensible to a refined moral sense—at least when no other way presents itself for the attainment of the end. To renounce the end on account of the means appeared to Calvin a betrayal of God’s honour and cause.” And yet it is clear that only a theory which “transcends good and evil” can approve the principle that the end justifies the means.
We may add that, according to Walther (“Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 11 f.), Luther, in view of the exalted end towards which the means he used were directed, “gradually resolved” to set the law of charity above that of truth; he did not, however, do this in his practical writings, fearing its abuse; yet Luther still contends that Abraham was permitted to tell an untruth in order “to prevent the frustration of God’s Will,” i.e. from love of God (ibid., p. 13).
[347]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289.
[348]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 139-144.
[349]To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, above, p. 95, n. 3.
[350]See vol. ii., p. 384 ff.
[351]“Corp. ref.,” 20, p. 573.
[352]The document in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578.
[353]“Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” Münster, 1910, p. 75.
[354]Cp. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 320.
[355]Loc. cit., p. 74 f.
[356]“Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 156seq.N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 509.
[357]“Quod defendam ipsum facinus, equidem nullum [scriptum] scripsi aut subscripsi.” Paulus,ibid., p. 511.
[358]F. W. Hassenkamp, “Hessische KG.,” 1, p. 510. Paulus,ibid., p. 512.
[359]H. Rocholl, in N. Paulus’s art. on the Catholic lawyer and writer, Conrad Braun († 1563), in “Hist. Jahrb.” (14, 1893, p. 517 ff.), p. 525.
[360]Paulus, “Johann Hoffmeister,” 1891, p. 206, and in “Hist. Jahrb.,”loc. cit.
[361]“Theol. Rev.,” 1908, p. 215.
[362]Bd. 1, 1908, p. 66: “Nullis conviciis parcemus quantumvis turpibus et ignominiosis,” etc.
[363]Luther’s friend Jonas also distinguished himself in controversy by the character of the charges he brings forward against his opponents as true “historia.” (See above, vol. iii., p. 416, n. 3.)
[364]W. Köhler, “Luthers Werden” (“Prot. Monatshefte,” 1907, Hft. 8-9, p. 292 ff., p. 345 ff., p. 294).
[365]W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform.,” pp. 221, 220.
[366]“Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der RG.” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16 f.). The author’s standpoint is expressed on p. 13: “It is self-evident that this does not in any way detract from Luther’s importance.... Luther merely stands out all the more as the last link of the previous evolution,” etc. On p. 17 he declares that the author of “Luther und Luthertum” lacked entirely the “sense of truth.” See the passage from Böhmer in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1901, p. 144.
[367]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 581.
[368]“Luther und die KG.,” 1, 1900, p. 363.
[369]“Sermo 60 in Dom. 6 post. Trin.” (“Sermones de tempore,” Tubingæ, 1500).
[370]“Sibend und Acht ader letzte Sermon,” Lipsie, 1533. On this work cp. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 66, n. 2.
[371]“Reportata in quatuor S. Bonaventuræ sententiarum libros, Scoti subtilis secundi,” Basileæ, 1501. L. 2 d. 5 q. 6.
[372]Bl. 2. On the work, see Hasak, “Der christl. Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des MA.,” 1868, p. 67 ff.
[373]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales,” s. l. e. a. Bl. 51. N. Paulus quotes more of Herolt’s sayings in “Johann Herolt und seine Lehre, Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiösen Volksunterrichts am Ausgang des MA.” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 417 ff., particularly p. 429).
[374]Paulus,ibid., pp. 429, 430.
[375]“Evangelibuch,” Augsburg, 1560, Bl. 15. Cp. the Basle “Plenarium,” 1514, Bl. 25.
[376]“Errettunge des christl. Bescheydts,” usw., 1528, 32, Bl. 4º, h. 2.
[377]“De imitatione Christi,” 1, 15; and 3, 4.
[378]Ibid., 1, 17, 19.
[379]Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 143.
[380]See the figures in Grisar, “Analecta Romana,” 1, tab. 10-12.
[381]On the origin of the waxen “Agnus Dei” and its connection with the oldest baptismal rite, see my art. in the “Civiltà Cattolica,” June 2, 1907. From the beginning it was a memorial of the baptismal covenant and served as a constant stimulus to personal union with Christ.
[382]“De imit. Christi,” 4, 1, 2.
[383]Freiburg, i/B., 1902, p. 730 f.
[384]Ibid., p. 737 f.
[385]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 407.
[386]N. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 961. Cp. Paulus “Der Katholik,” 1898, 2, p. 25: “Had Luther’s intention been merely to impress this fundamentally Catholic message on Christendom [the trustful relations between the individual and God] there would never have been a schism.”
[387]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740.
[388]Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297.
[389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418.
[390]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 184.
[391]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 186.
[392]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 230.
[393]Ibid., p. 193.
[394]Ibid., p. 323.
[395]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”
[396]“Sermo 55 de tempore.”
[397]“Sermones super epistolas dominicales.” Sermo 15.
[398]“Eine nutzliche Lere,” usw., Leipzig, 1502, c. 1.
[399]In a “Novelle,” published by Ph. Strauch in the “Zeitschr. für deutsches Luthertum,” 29, 1885, p. 389.—For further particulars of the respect for worldly callings before Luther’s day, see N. Paulus, “Luther und der Beruf” (“Der Katholik,” 1902, 1, p. 327 ff.), and in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 20, p. 148; likewise Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 138 ff.
[400]“Sermo 25 de tempore.”
[401]“Cp. Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 496 ff. (N. Paulus on O. Scheel).
[402]Basle, 1522, B. 1´.
[403]“Von dem waren christl. Leben,” Bl. C. 3´.
[404]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178.
[405]Ibid.
[406]What follows has, it is true, no close relation to “Luther and Lying”; the author has, however, thought it right to deal with the matter here because of the connection between Luther’s misrepresentations of the Middle Ages and his calumny against Catholic times, both of which were founded, not on the facts of the case, but on personal grounds. Cp. below, p. 147.
[407]Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 71 ff., pp. 155, 238, 242.
[408]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55.
[409]Cp. Denifle,ibid., p. 239 f.
[410]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 152; Erl. ed., 28, p. 194. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”
[411]Ibid., Weim. ed., 14, p. 157.
[412]Ibid., 24, p. 123 f.
[413]Ibid., 27, p. 26.