[414]“Werke.” Erl. ed., 18², p. 92.[415]Ibid., 31, p. 297.[416]Sermo 343, n. 7; Denifle, 1², p. 243, refers also to “De bono coniugali,” n. 9, 27, 28.[417]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 138 f.: “A married man cannot give himself up entirely to reading and prayer, but is, as St. Paul says, ‘divided’ and must devote a great part of his life to pleasing his spouse.” The Apostle says that though the “troubles and cares of the married state are good, yet it is far better to be free to pray and attend to the Word of God.”—Luther is more silent concerning our Lord’s own recommendation of virginity (“Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est,” etc., Mat. xix. 11 f.). Of his attitude towards voluntary virginity we have already spoken in vol. iii., 246 ff.[418]“Werke.,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178 (Table-Talk).[419]Ibid., 64, p. 155. From his glosses on the Bible.[420]Ibid., 31, p. 390. From the “Winckelmesse,” 1534.[421]Ibid., 44, p. 376.[422]Ibid., p. 25², p. 432; cp. p. 428.[423]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 283: “Ipse ego, cum essem adhuc monachus, idem sapiebam, coniugium esse damnatum genus vitæ.”[424]And yet a Protestant has said quite recently: “The Church persistently taught that love had nothing to do with marriage.” As though the restraining of sexual love within just limits was equivalent to the exclusion of conjugal love.[425]Ed. Ph. Strauch, “Zeitschr. für deutsches Altertum,” 29, 1885, pp. 373-427.[426]P. 385.[427]Munich State Library, cod. germ., 757.[428]Ibid., cod. 756.[429]Heinemann, “Die Handschriften der Herzogl. Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel,” 2, 4, p. 332 f.[430]“Überlieferungen zur Gesch.,” etc., 1, 2, p. 204 f.[431]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1892, p. 487.[432]“Sermones Fratris Barlete,” Brixie, 1497 and 1498, several times republished in the 16th century. See sermon for the Friday of the fourth week of Lent.[433]“Opus super Sapientiam Salomonis,” ed. Hagenau, 1494 (and elsewhere), “Lectio” 43 and 44, on Marriage. Cp.ibid., 181, the “Lectio” on the Valiant Woman, and in his work, “In Proverbia Salomonis explanationes,” Paris, 1510, “Lectio” 91, with the explanation of Prov. xii. 4: “A diligent woman is a crown to her husband.”[434]Luther, on the other hand, declares: “The work of begetting children was not distinguished from other sins, such as fornication and adultery. But now we have learnt and are assured by the Grace of God that marriage is honourable.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 116.[435]On Barletta and Holkot, cp. N. Paulus in “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, Nos. 19 and 20; and his art., “Die Ehe in den deutschen Postillen des ausgehenden MA.,” and “Gedruckte und Ungedruckte deutsche Ehebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., 1903, Nos. 18 and 20. See also F(alk) in “Der Katholik,” 1906, 2, p. 317 ff.: “Ehe und Ehestand im MA.,” and in the work about to be quoted. Denifle, “Luther,” 1, has much to say of the Catholic and the Lutheran views of marriage.[436]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz. zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4).[437]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz, zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4), p. 67.[438]Ibid., p. 66.[439]“Die Stellung der Frau im MA.,” Oct. 1 and 8, 1910, p. 1253.[440]Ibid., p. 1299.[441]Ibid., p. 1248.[442]Cp. F. Schaub, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 117 ff., on H. Crohns, who, in order to accuse St. Antoninus and others of “hatred of women,” appeals to the “Witches’ Hammer”: “It is unjust to make these authors responsible for the consequences drawn from their utterances by such petty fry as the producers of the ‘Witches’ Hammer.’” Cp. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 134, 1904, particularly p. 812 ff.[443]Finke,ibid., p. 1249.[444]Ibid., p. 1256.[445]Ibid., p. 1258.—Finke’s statements may be completed by the assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a writer, so deeply versed in mediæval Scholasticism, is worthy of note: “There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point [esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally. Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage” (p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,” he says (ibid.) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16, “Symb. Bücher10,” ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.” Jos. Löhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, bes. der Erzdiözese Köln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911, “Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.[446]Prov. xxxi. 10 f.: “Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?” etc. The Lesson of the MassDe communi nec virginum nec martyrum.[447]The Gradual of the same Mass, taken from Psalm xliv.[448]Falk,op. cit., p. 71.[449]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 207 (Table-Talk). In his translation of the Bible Luther quotes the German verse: “Nought so dear on earth as the love of woman to the man who shares it” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 113), in connection with Proverbs xxxi. 10 ff. (“Mulierem fortem,” etc.). In the Table-Talk he quotes the same when speaking of those who are unfaithful to their marriage vow in not praying: “People do not pray. Therefore my hostess at Eisenach [Ursula, Cunz Cotta’s wife, see vol. i., p. 5 f., and vol. iii., p. 288 f.] was right in saying to me when I went to school there: ‘There is no dearer thing on earth than the love of woman to the man on whom it is bestowed’” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 212). Luther’s introduction of the phrase in connection with the passage on the “Mulier fortis” was an injustice, and an attempt to prove again the alleged contempt of Catholicism for the love of woman.[450]N. Paulus, “Zur angeblichen Geringschätzung der Frau und der Ehe im MA.,” in the “Wissensch. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 10 and 12.[451]Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 119.[452]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 246 f.[453]Ibid., 16², p. 536 ff.[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 51 ff.[455]Ibid., p. 58.[456]Ibid., pp. 66, 68.[457]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 278; Erl. ed., 25², p. 6. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[458]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 420.[459]Ibid., Erl. ed., 16², p. 538.[460]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 519. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 263 and p. 241 ff.[461]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 205 (Table-Talk).[462]Cp. the passages in the Table-Talk on marriage and on women, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 182-213, and 57, pp. 270-273.[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 205.[464]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.[465]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “reicio ... ubi possum.” There are, however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.[466]See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.[467]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second edition of the Sermon.[468]Ibid., p. 168 f.=63 f.[469]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.[470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353seq.“Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.[471]“Apol. Conf. Augustanæ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften,10, p. 242: “Ita virginitas donum est præstantius coniugio.”[472]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.[473]Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L. v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,” Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde, however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediæval views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl, usw., Ergänzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).[474]“Die kath. Moral,” 1902, p. 118.[475]On Dec. 6, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 279. See vol. iii., p. 269. The passage was omitted by Aurifaber and De Wette probably because not judged quite proper.[476]Aug., “De bono coniug.,” c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 6. According to Denifle, 1¹, p. 277, n. 2, the Schoolmen knew the passages through the Lombard “Sent.,” 4, dist. 31, c. 5. He also quotes S. Thom., “Summa theol.,” Supplem., q. 41, a. 4; q. 49, a. 5; q. 64, a. 4: “ut sibi invicem debitum reddant.”[477]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 654; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 355. On the text, see Denifle, 1², p. 263, n. 3.[478]Ibid., 20, 2, p. 304; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541. “On Married Life,” 1522.[479]Ibid., 12, p. 114. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 10.[480]N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 495, art. “Zu Luthers Schrift über die Mönchsgelübde”: “Luther’s false view of the sinfulness of the ‘actus matrimonialis’ was strongly repudiated by Catholics, particularly by Clichtoveus and Cochlæus.”[481]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. “Sermon on the Married Life,” 1522.[482]Ibid., 12, p. 66; Erl. ed., 53, p. 188.[483]Ibid., p. 113.[484]Cp. vol. iii., p. 264 ff.[485]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101. Then follows a highly questionable statement concerning a rule of the Wittenberg Augustinian monastery, in which Luther fails to distinguish between “pollutiones voluntariæ” and “involuntariæ,” but which draws from him the exclamation: “All the monasteries and foundations ought to be destroyed, if only on account of these shocking ‘pollutiones’!”[486]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 73, where some improper remarks may be found on the temptation of St. Paul (according to the notes, on account of St. Thecla) and that of St. Benedict, who, we are told, rolled himself in the thorns to overcome it.[487]See vol. iii., p. 267, n. 10.[488]Ibid., p. 122: “Scribis, mea iactari ab iis qui lupanaria colunt.”[489]“Briefe,” ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 419, undated.[490]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 373. To a bridegroom in 1536.[491]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 364 f.; Erl. ed., 41, p. 135. Brandenburg, “Luther über die Obrigkeit,” p. 7.[492]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 437.[493]Ibid., p. 219.[494]See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.[495]To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders (p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least are obviously referred to: “Quod illi vero prætexunt, certos sese fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus potentissimus est,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.[496]On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.[497]On May 26, 1525, “Werke,”ibid., p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).[498]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).[499]Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in 1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to curtail our freedom!”[500]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.[501]In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.[502]Mathesius,ibid.For further explanation of this statement, cp. Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff. He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “Est nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur, quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra papam.” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic ordinances. “Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a magistratu peteret dispensationem.”[503]Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.[504]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Jan., 1537.[505]Luther’s memorandum, Aug. 18, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 326 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 228). Cp. Enders’ Notes to this letter.[506]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98seq.“De captivitate babylonica.”[507]Ibid., 10. 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 513 f.[508]Dec. 28, 1525, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 289.[509]Dec. 19, 1522, “Akten und Briefe des Herzogs Georg von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, I, 1905, p. 402.[510]Jan. 1, 1523,ibid., p. 415. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 137, 1906, p. 56 f.[511]“Postille,” Mainz, 1542, 4b. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 52.[512]“Professio catholica,” Coloniæ, 1580 (reprint), p. 219seq.Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, p. 456. Several replies were called forth by this over-zealous and extremely anti-Lutheran polemic.[513]“Vormeldung der Unwahrheit Luterscher Clage,” Frankfurt/Oder, 1532. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 33.[514]Cp. above, p. 152 f.[515]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 340. Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 252.[516]Cp., for instance, present work, vol. iii., p. 268, and vol. ii., p. 378.[517]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 281.[518]This was Elisabeth Kaufmann, a niece of Luther’s, yet unmarried, who lived with her widowed sister Magdalene at the Black Monastery. The “pastoress” was the wife of the apostate priest Bugenhagen, Pastor of Wittenberg, who, during Bugenhagen’s absence in Brunswick, seems to have enjoyed the hospitality of the same great house. The “many girls” are Luther’s servants and those of the other inhabitants.[519]Aurifaber suppressed the end of this conversation. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 201.[520]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 221.[521]Cp. vol. iii., p. 175 f. Cp. p. 179.[522]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.[523]Cp. vol. v., xxxi., 5.[524]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 396.[525]Ibid., p. 415.[526]Ibid., p. 405 f.[527]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426. See vol. iii., p. 273. Akin to this is his self-congratulation (above, p. 46), that he works for the increase of mankind, whereas the Papists put men to death.[528]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 430.[529]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 388.[531]Ibid., 61, p. 193. The last words are omitted in the two old editions of the Table-Talk by Selnecker and Stangwald.[532]Ibid., 20², p. 365. At the marriage of the apostate Dean of Merseburg.[533]Ibid., 25², p. 373; cp. p. 369 and above, vol. iii., p. 251, n. 3.[534]Ibid., 61, p. 204 (Table-Talk).[535]“Werke,”ibid., p. 205 (Table-Talk).[536]Ibid., p. 211.[537]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262.[538]For similar instances of the use of such signs see vol. iii., p. 231. The Nuremberg MS. of the Mathesius collection substitutes here, according to Kroker, a meaningless phrase. The MS. in the Ducal Library at Gotha, entitled “Farrago” (1551), omits it altogether.[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525. On the “strangling,” cp. vol. iii., p. 253, n. 3.[540]“Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German ed. (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.,” Hft. 6).[541]“De stultitia mortalium,” Basil., 1557, 1, 1, p. 50seq.Denifle, 1², p. 287.[542]“Von werlicher Visitation,” Eisleben, 1555, Bl. K. 3. Denifle, 1², p. 280.[543]“Annotationen zu den Propheten,” 2, Eisleben, 1536, fol. 88. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 48.[544]“Ein unüberwindlicher gründlicher Bericht was die Rechtfertigung in Paulo sei,” Leipzig, 1533. Döllinger,ibid., p. 40.[545]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[546]Dan. xi., 37. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 155.[547]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, fol. 198´. Döllinger,ibid., p. 106.[548]The passages referred to are, according to the text of the Vulgate: 1 Cor. vii. 32: “Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quæ Domini sunt,” etc.Ibid., 38: “Qui non iungit (virginem suam) melius facit.”Ibid., 40: “Beatior erit, si sic permanserit,” etc. Mat. xix. 12: “Sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum Dei. Qui potest capere capiat.” Apoc. xiv. 3 f., of those who sing “the new song before the throne” of the Lamb: “Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocunque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex hominibus primitiæ Deo et Agno.” 1 Tim. v. 12, of those widows dedicated to God who marry: “Habentes damnationem, qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt.”—Against Jovinian St. Jerome wrote, in 392: “Adv. Iovinianum” (“P.L.,” 23, col. 211seq.), where, in the first part, he defends virginity, which the former had attacked, and demonstrates its superiority and its merit.[549]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, 1536, fol. 198´, on Daniel xi., 37. Döllinger,ibid., p. 105 f.[550]“Homiliæ XXII,” Vitebergæ, 1532. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 278.[551]“De corruptis moribus utriusque partis,” Bl. F. III. In the title page the author’s name is given as Czecanovius; this is identical with Staphylus, as N. Paulus has shown in the “Katholik,” 1895, 1, p. 574 f.[552]F. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, fol. 202´.[553]Cp. the quotations in Denifle (1², Preface, p. 15 ff.), commencing with one from Billicanus: “By the eternal God, what fornication and adultery are we not forced to witness”; also those on pp. 282 ff., 805 f.[554]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, pp. 378 f., 384 ff., 392.[555]See above, p. 167, n. 3.[556]J. Löhr, “Methodisch-kritische Beiträge zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, besonders der Erzdiözese Köln, am Ausgange des MA.” (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, 1910).[557]Page 44.[558]Page 59.[559]Page 65. That all offenders without exception were punished is of course not likely.[560]Ibid., pp. 1-24.—For the 16th and 17th centuries we refer the reader to J. Schmidlin, “Die kirchl. Zustände in Deutschland vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege nach den bischöflichen Diözesanberichten an den Heiligen Stuhl,” Freiburg, 1908-1911 (“Erläuterungen usw. zu Janssens Gesch.,” 7, Hft. 1-10). In the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 31, 1910, p. 163, we read of the reports contained in the first part of the work: “They commence by revealing the sad depths to which Catholic life had sunk, but go on to show an ever-increasing vigour on the part of the bishops, in many cases crowned with complete success.”[561]“De vita et miraculis Iohannis Gerson,” s.l.e.a. (1506), B 4b; Janssen-Pastor, 118, p. 681. Wimpfeling is, however, answering the Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who had attacked the secular clergy; elsewhere he witnesses to the grave blots on the life of the secular clergy.[562]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400 (“Tischreden”). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “Cum summo fletu spectatorum.”[563]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 239; Erl. ed., 16², p. 234.[564]We may here remark concerning Luther’s stay at Cologne (passed over in vol. i., p. 38 f., for the sake of brevity), that at the Chapter then held by Staupitz—to whose party Luther had now gone over—the former probably refrained, in his official capacity, from putting in force his plans for an amalgamation of the Observantines and the Conventuals of the Saxon Province. There is no doubt that Luther came to Cologne from Wittenberg, whither he had betaken himself on his return from Rome. After the Chapter at Cologne he made preparations for his promotion. Possibly the project of securing the Doctorate was matured at Cologne. He speaks of the relics of the Three Kings in a sermon of January 5th, of which two accounts have been preserved (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 22: “I have seen them.” “I too have seen them”). In the so-called “Bibelprotokollen,” of 1539, he says (ibid., p. 585): “At Cologne I drank a winequod penetrabat in mensa manum” (which probably means, was so fiery that soon after drinking it he felt a tingling down to his finger-tips). “Never in all my life have I drunk so rich a wine.” Cp., for the Cologne Chapter, Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 242 f., and for the same and Luther’s Cologne visit, Walter Köhler, “Christl. Welt,” 1908, No. 30; N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 142, 1908, p. 749; and G. Kawerau, “Theol. Stud, und Krit.,” 81, 1908, p. 348. Buchwald refers to a statement of Luther’s on a monument at Cologne (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 371=“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, p. 625) in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 609.[565]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 86.[566]Ibid., p. 308.[567]Jan. 25, 1526,ibid., p. 312.[568]Cp. Enders on the letter last quoted.[569]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 322 f. Hasenberg’s Latin letter, Aug. 10, 1528, p. 334 ff.; v. der Heyden’s German one of same date.[570]Cp. Duke George’s fierce letter to Luther of Dec. 28, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.), which was also printed forthwith. He will speak freely and openly to him, he says: “Seek the hypocrites amongst those who call you a prophet, a Daniel, the Apostle of the Germans and an Evangelist.” “At Wittenberg you have set up an asylum where all the monks and nuns who, by their robbing and stealing, deprive us of our churches and convents find refuge.” “When have more acts of sacrilege been committed by people dedicated to God than since your Evangel has been preached?” Did not Christ say: “By their fruits you shall know them”? All the great preachers of the faith have been “pious, respectable and truthful men, not proud, avaricious or unchaste.” “Your marriage is the work, not of God, but of the enemy.... Since both of you once took an oath not to commit unchastity lest God should forsake you, is it not high time that you considered your position?”—The greater part of the letter was incorporated by Cochlæus in hisActa(p. 119).[571]On p. 336 von der Heyden says: Luther is “beginning to draw in his horns and is in great fear lest his nun should be unyoked.”[572]Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana, may be the author of this anonymous work, printed in “P.L.,” 16, col. 367-384.[573]For the full text of this anonymous hymn (incorporated in the Office for Virgins in the Breviary), see “P.L.,” 16, col. 1221.[574]“Literarii sodalitii apud Marpurgam aliquot cachinni super quodam duorum Lypsiensium poetarum in Lutherum scripto libello effusi” (Marburgæ), 1528.[575]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 539 ff. (with the editor’s opinion on the authorship); Erl. ed., 64, pp. 324-337.[576]Ibid., p. 540=339. The writing aptly concludes: “... tuo, vates, carmine tergo nates.”[577]Ibid., p. 548=330.[578]Ibid., p. 547=327 f.[579]Ibid., p. 544=344.[580]Ibid., p. 553 f.=335 f.[581]“Sermones dominicales des gnadenreichen Predigers Andree Prolis” (with notes), Leipzig, 1530, fol. K. 4´.[582]“Apologeticus adv. Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro Libro Conformitatum,” Antverpiæ, 1607, p. 101.[583]“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 9, col. 1249seq.[584]See vol. ii., p. 242 ff.[585]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 29.[586]Ibid., p. 96 f.[587]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 311.[588]See vol. ii., p. 249 ff.[589]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 368 f.[590]Ibid., p. 382.[591]Ibid., 10, p. 8 ff., about March 11, 1534.[592]On March 31, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 36.[593]At the conclusion Luther says of the young people: “Hac levitate et vanitate paulatim desuescit a religione, donec abhorreat et penitus profanescat.” And: “Dominus noster Iesus, quem mihi Petrus non tacet Deum, sed in cuius virtute scio et certus sum me sæpius a morte liberatum, in cuius fide hæc omnia incepi et hactenus effeci, quæ ipsi hostes mirantur, ipse custodiat et liberet nos in finem. Ipse est Dominus Deus noster verus.”[594]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 709:γεροντικὰ πάθη.[595]Ibid., 3, p. 69.[596]On April 15, 1534, Burckhardt-Biedermann, “Bonif. Amerbach,” 1894, p. 297. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 24.[597]Enders,ibid., p. 23.[598]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 312.[599]“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 526,seq.[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.[601]“Opp.,” 3, col. 1494seq.[602]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, admits that Luther’s charge was “groundless.”[603]Most of the above passages from Erasmus’s reply are quoted by Enders, p. 25 ff. The outspoken passage last quoted is given in Latin in vol. iii., p. 136. n. 2.[604]Quoted by Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, p. 313, n. 1.[605]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 275: “Vixit et decessit ut Epicureus sine aliquo ministro et consolatione.... Multa quidem præclara scripsit, habuit ingenium præstantissimum, otium tranquillum.... In agone non expetivit ministrum verbi neque sacramenta, et fortasse ilia verba suæ confessionis in agone ‘Fili Dei miserere mei’ illi affinguntur.” Cp. Luther’s words in 1544 in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343: “He died ‘sine crux et sine lux’”; here again Luther says he had been the cause of many losing body and soul and had been the originator of the Sacramentarians. See our vol. ii., p. 252, n. 1, for further details of Erasmus’s end. We read in Mathesius, p. 90 (May, 1540): “The Doctor said: He arrogated to himself the Divinity of which he deprived Christ. In his ‘Colloquia’ he compared Christ with Priapus [Kroker remarks: ‘Erasmus didnotcompare Christ with Priapus’], he mocked at Him in his ‘Catechism’ [’Symbolum’], and particularly in his execrable book the ‘Farragines.’”[606]See the whole passage in “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 272seq.[607]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89. See above, p. 101.[608]“Werke,”ibid., p. 92.[609]Ibid.[610]Luther to Duke George, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 338 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281, with amended date and colophon). George to Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.[611]More in the same strain above, p. 173, n. 4.[612]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 134.[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 411, Table-Talk.[614]Ibid., 31, p. 250 ff.[615]Ibid., 61, p. 343, Table-Talk.[616]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 107 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).
[414]“Werke.” Erl. ed., 18², p. 92.[415]Ibid., 31, p. 297.[416]Sermo 343, n. 7; Denifle, 1², p. 243, refers also to “De bono coniugali,” n. 9, 27, 28.[417]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 138 f.: “A married man cannot give himself up entirely to reading and prayer, but is, as St. Paul says, ‘divided’ and must devote a great part of his life to pleasing his spouse.” The Apostle says that though the “troubles and cares of the married state are good, yet it is far better to be free to pray and attend to the Word of God.”—Luther is more silent concerning our Lord’s own recommendation of virginity (“Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est,” etc., Mat. xix. 11 f.). Of his attitude towards voluntary virginity we have already spoken in vol. iii., 246 ff.[418]“Werke.,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178 (Table-Talk).[419]Ibid., 64, p. 155. From his glosses on the Bible.[420]Ibid., 31, p. 390. From the “Winckelmesse,” 1534.[421]Ibid., 44, p. 376.[422]Ibid., p. 25², p. 432; cp. p. 428.[423]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 283: “Ipse ego, cum essem adhuc monachus, idem sapiebam, coniugium esse damnatum genus vitæ.”[424]And yet a Protestant has said quite recently: “The Church persistently taught that love had nothing to do with marriage.” As though the restraining of sexual love within just limits was equivalent to the exclusion of conjugal love.[425]Ed. Ph. Strauch, “Zeitschr. für deutsches Altertum,” 29, 1885, pp. 373-427.[426]P. 385.[427]Munich State Library, cod. germ., 757.[428]Ibid., cod. 756.[429]Heinemann, “Die Handschriften der Herzogl. Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel,” 2, 4, p. 332 f.[430]“Überlieferungen zur Gesch.,” etc., 1, 2, p. 204 f.[431]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1892, p. 487.[432]“Sermones Fratris Barlete,” Brixie, 1497 and 1498, several times republished in the 16th century. See sermon for the Friday of the fourth week of Lent.[433]“Opus super Sapientiam Salomonis,” ed. Hagenau, 1494 (and elsewhere), “Lectio” 43 and 44, on Marriage. Cp.ibid., 181, the “Lectio” on the Valiant Woman, and in his work, “In Proverbia Salomonis explanationes,” Paris, 1510, “Lectio” 91, with the explanation of Prov. xii. 4: “A diligent woman is a crown to her husband.”[434]Luther, on the other hand, declares: “The work of begetting children was not distinguished from other sins, such as fornication and adultery. But now we have learnt and are assured by the Grace of God that marriage is honourable.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 116.[435]On Barletta and Holkot, cp. N. Paulus in “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, Nos. 19 and 20; and his art., “Die Ehe in den deutschen Postillen des ausgehenden MA.,” and “Gedruckte und Ungedruckte deutsche Ehebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., 1903, Nos. 18 and 20. See also F(alk) in “Der Katholik,” 1906, 2, p. 317 ff.: “Ehe und Ehestand im MA.,” and in the work about to be quoted. Denifle, “Luther,” 1, has much to say of the Catholic and the Lutheran views of marriage.[436]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz. zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4).[437]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz, zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4), p. 67.[438]Ibid., p. 66.[439]“Die Stellung der Frau im MA.,” Oct. 1 and 8, 1910, p. 1253.[440]Ibid., p. 1299.[441]Ibid., p. 1248.[442]Cp. F. Schaub, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 117 ff., on H. Crohns, who, in order to accuse St. Antoninus and others of “hatred of women,” appeals to the “Witches’ Hammer”: “It is unjust to make these authors responsible for the consequences drawn from their utterances by such petty fry as the producers of the ‘Witches’ Hammer.’” Cp. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 134, 1904, particularly p. 812 ff.[443]Finke,ibid., p. 1249.[444]Ibid., p. 1256.[445]Ibid., p. 1258.—Finke’s statements may be completed by the assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a writer, so deeply versed in mediæval Scholasticism, is worthy of note: “There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point [esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally. Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage” (p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,” he says (ibid.) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16, “Symb. Bücher10,” ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.” Jos. Löhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, bes. der Erzdiözese Köln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911, “Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.[446]Prov. xxxi. 10 f.: “Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?” etc. The Lesson of the MassDe communi nec virginum nec martyrum.[447]The Gradual of the same Mass, taken from Psalm xliv.[448]Falk,op. cit., p. 71.[449]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 207 (Table-Talk). In his translation of the Bible Luther quotes the German verse: “Nought so dear on earth as the love of woman to the man who shares it” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 113), in connection with Proverbs xxxi. 10 ff. (“Mulierem fortem,” etc.). In the Table-Talk he quotes the same when speaking of those who are unfaithful to their marriage vow in not praying: “People do not pray. Therefore my hostess at Eisenach [Ursula, Cunz Cotta’s wife, see vol. i., p. 5 f., and vol. iii., p. 288 f.] was right in saying to me when I went to school there: ‘There is no dearer thing on earth than the love of woman to the man on whom it is bestowed’” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 212). Luther’s introduction of the phrase in connection with the passage on the “Mulier fortis” was an injustice, and an attempt to prove again the alleged contempt of Catholicism for the love of woman.[450]N. Paulus, “Zur angeblichen Geringschätzung der Frau und der Ehe im MA.,” in the “Wissensch. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 10 and 12.[451]Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 119.[452]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 246 f.[453]Ibid., 16², p. 536 ff.[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 51 ff.[455]Ibid., p. 58.[456]Ibid., pp. 66, 68.[457]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 278; Erl. ed., 25², p. 6. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[458]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 420.[459]Ibid., Erl. ed., 16², p. 538.[460]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 519. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 263 and p. 241 ff.[461]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 205 (Table-Talk).[462]Cp. the passages in the Table-Talk on marriage and on women, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 182-213, and 57, pp. 270-273.[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 205.[464]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.[465]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “reicio ... ubi possum.” There are, however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.[466]See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.[467]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second edition of the Sermon.[468]Ibid., p. 168 f.=63 f.[469]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.[470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353seq.“Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.[471]“Apol. Conf. Augustanæ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften,10, p. 242: “Ita virginitas donum est præstantius coniugio.”[472]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.[473]Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L. v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,” Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde, however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediæval views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl, usw., Ergänzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).[474]“Die kath. Moral,” 1902, p. 118.[475]On Dec. 6, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 279. See vol. iii., p. 269. The passage was omitted by Aurifaber and De Wette probably because not judged quite proper.[476]Aug., “De bono coniug.,” c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 6. According to Denifle, 1¹, p. 277, n. 2, the Schoolmen knew the passages through the Lombard “Sent.,” 4, dist. 31, c. 5. He also quotes S. Thom., “Summa theol.,” Supplem., q. 41, a. 4; q. 49, a. 5; q. 64, a. 4: “ut sibi invicem debitum reddant.”[477]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 654; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 355. On the text, see Denifle, 1², p. 263, n. 3.[478]Ibid., 20, 2, p. 304; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541. “On Married Life,” 1522.[479]Ibid., 12, p. 114. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 10.[480]N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 495, art. “Zu Luthers Schrift über die Mönchsgelübde”: “Luther’s false view of the sinfulness of the ‘actus matrimonialis’ was strongly repudiated by Catholics, particularly by Clichtoveus and Cochlæus.”[481]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. “Sermon on the Married Life,” 1522.[482]Ibid., 12, p. 66; Erl. ed., 53, p. 188.[483]Ibid., p. 113.[484]Cp. vol. iii., p. 264 ff.[485]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101. Then follows a highly questionable statement concerning a rule of the Wittenberg Augustinian monastery, in which Luther fails to distinguish between “pollutiones voluntariæ” and “involuntariæ,” but which draws from him the exclamation: “All the monasteries and foundations ought to be destroyed, if only on account of these shocking ‘pollutiones’!”[486]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 73, where some improper remarks may be found on the temptation of St. Paul (according to the notes, on account of St. Thecla) and that of St. Benedict, who, we are told, rolled himself in the thorns to overcome it.[487]See vol. iii., p. 267, n. 10.[488]Ibid., p. 122: “Scribis, mea iactari ab iis qui lupanaria colunt.”[489]“Briefe,” ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 419, undated.[490]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 373. To a bridegroom in 1536.[491]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 364 f.; Erl. ed., 41, p. 135. Brandenburg, “Luther über die Obrigkeit,” p. 7.[492]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 437.[493]Ibid., p. 219.[494]See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.[495]To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders (p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least are obviously referred to: “Quod illi vero prætexunt, certos sese fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus potentissimus est,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.[496]On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.[497]On May 26, 1525, “Werke,”ibid., p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).[498]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).[499]Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in 1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to curtail our freedom!”[500]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.[501]In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.[502]Mathesius,ibid.For further explanation of this statement, cp. Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff. He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “Est nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur, quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra papam.” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic ordinances. “Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a magistratu peteret dispensationem.”[503]Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.[504]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Jan., 1537.[505]Luther’s memorandum, Aug. 18, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 326 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 228). Cp. Enders’ Notes to this letter.[506]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98seq.“De captivitate babylonica.”[507]Ibid., 10. 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 513 f.[508]Dec. 28, 1525, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 289.[509]Dec. 19, 1522, “Akten und Briefe des Herzogs Georg von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, I, 1905, p. 402.[510]Jan. 1, 1523,ibid., p. 415. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 137, 1906, p. 56 f.[511]“Postille,” Mainz, 1542, 4b. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 52.[512]“Professio catholica,” Coloniæ, 1580 (reprint), p. 219seq.Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, p. 456. Several replies were called forth by this over-zealous and extremely anti-Lutheran polemic.[513]“Vormeldung der Unwahrheit Luterscher Clage,” Frankfurt/Oder, 1532. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 33.[514]Cp. above, p. 152 f.[515]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 340. Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 252.[516]Cp., for instance, present work, vol. iii., p. 268, and vol. ii., p. 378.[517]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 281.[518]This was Elisabeth Kaufmann, a niece of Luther’s, yet unmarried, who lived with her widowed sister Magdalene at the Black Monastery. The “pastoress” was the wife of the apostate priest Bugenhagen, Pastor of Wittenberg, who, during Bugenhagen’s absence in Brunswick, seems to have enjoyed the hospitality of the same great house. The “many girls” are Luther’s servants and those of the other inhabitants.[519]Aurifaber suppressed the end of this conversation. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 201.[520]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 221.[521]Cp. vol. iii., p. 175 f. Cp. p. 179.[522]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.[523]Cp. vol. v., xxxi., 5.[524]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 396.[525]Ibid., p. 415.[526]Ibid., p. 405 f.[527]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426. See vol. iii., p. 273. Akin to this is his self-congratulation (above, p. 46), that he works for the increase of mankind, whereas the Papists put men to death.[528]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 430.[529]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 388.[531]Ibid., 61, p. 193. The last words are omitted in the two old editions of the Table-Talk by Selnecker and Stangwald.[532]Ibid., 20², p. 365. At the marriage of the apostate Dean of Merseburg.[533]Ibid., 25², p. 373; cp. p. 369 and above, vol. iii., p. 251, n. 3.[534]Ibid., 61, p. 204 (Table-Talk).[535]“Werke,”ibid., p. 205 (Table-Talk).[536]Ibid., p. 211.[537]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262.[538]For similar instances of the use of such signs see vol. iii., p. 231. The Nuremberg MS. of the Mathesius collection substitutes here, according to Kroker, a meaningless phrase. The MS. in the Ducal Library at Gotha, entitled “Farrago” (1551), omits it altogether.[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525. On the “strangling,” cp. vol. iii., p. 253, n. 3.[540]“Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German ed. (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.,” Hft. 6).[541]“De stultitia mortalium,” Basil., 1557, 1, 1, p. 50seq.Denifle, 1², p. 287.[542]“Von werlicher Visitation,” Eisleben, 1555, Bl. K. 3. Denifle, 1², p. 280.[543]“Annotationen zu den Propheten,” 2, Eisleben, 1536, fol. 88. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 48.[544]“Ein unüberwindlicher gründlicher Bericht was die Rechtfertigung in Paulo sei,” Leipzig, 1533. Döllinger,ibid., p. 40.[545]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[546]Dan. xi., 37. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 155.[547]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, fol. 198´. Döllinger,ibid., p. 106.[548]The passages referred to are, according to the text of the Vulgate: 1 Cor. vii. 32: “Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quæ Domini sunt,” etc.Ibid., 38: “Qui non iungit (virginem suam) melius facit.”Ibid., 40: “Beatior erit, si sic permanserit,” etc. Mat. xix. 12: “Sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum Dei. Qui potest capere capiat.” Apoc. xiv. 3 f., of those who sing “the new song before the throne” of the Lamb: “Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocunque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex hominibus primitiæ Deo et Agno.” 1 Tim. v. 12, of those widows dedicated to God who marry: “Habentes damnationem, qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt.”—Against Jovinian St. Jerome wrote, in 392: “Adv. Iovinianum” (“P.L.,” 23, col. 211seq.), where, in the first part, he defends virginity, which the former had attacked, and demonstrates its superiority and its merit.[549]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, 1536, fol. 198´, on Daniel xi., 37. Döllinger,ibid., p. 105 f.[550]“Homiliæ XXII,” Vitebergæ, 1532. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 278.[551]“De corruptis moribus utriusque partis,” Bl. F. III. In the title page the author’s name is given as Czecanovius; this is identical with Staphylus, as N. Paulus has shown in the “Katholik,” 1895, 1, p. 574 f.[552]F. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, fol. 202´.[553]Cp. the quotations in Denifle (1², Preface, p. 15 ff.), commencing with one from Billicanus: “By the eternal God, what fornication and adultery are we not forced to witness”; also those on pp. 282 ff., 805 f.[554]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, pp. 378 f., 384 ff., 392.[555]See above, p. 167, n. 3.[556]J. Löhr, “Methodisch-kritische Beiträge zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, besonders der Erzdiözese Köln, am Ausgange des MA.” (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, 1910).[557]Page 44.[558]Page 59.[559]Page 65. That all offenders without exception were punished is of course not likely.[560]Ibid., pp. 1-24.—For the 16th and 17th centuries we refer the reader to J. Schmidlin, “Die kirchl. Zustände in Deutschland vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege nach den bischöflichen Diözesanberichten an den Heiligen Stuhl,” Freiburg, 1908-1911 (“Erläuterungen usw. zu Janssens Gesch.,” 7, Hft. 1-10). In the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 31, 1910, p. 163, we read of the reports contained in the first part of the work: “They commence by revealing the sad depths to which Catholic life had sunk, but go on to show an ever-increasing vigour on the part of the bishops, in many cases crowned with complete success.”[561]“De vita et miraculis Iohannis Gerson,” s.l.e.a. (1506), B 4b; Janssen-Pastor, 118, p. 681. Wimpfeling is, however, answering the Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who had attacked the secular clergy; elsewhere he witnesses to the grave blots on the life of the secular clergy.[562]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400 (“Tischreden”). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “Cum summo fletu spectatorum.”[563]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 239; Erl. ed., 16², p. 234.[564]We may here remark concerning Luther’s stay at Cologne (passed over in vol. i., p. 38 f., for the sake of brevity), that at the Chapter then held by Staupitz—to whose party Luther had now gone over—the former probably refrained, in his official capacity, from putting in force his plans for an amalgamation of the Observantines and the Conventuals of the Saxon Province. There is no doubt that Luther came to Cologne from Wittenberg, whither he had betaken himself on his return from Rome. After the Chapter at Cologne he made preparations for his promotion. Possibly the project of securing the Doctorate was matured at Cologne. He speaks of the relics of the Three Kings in a sermon of January 5th, of which two accounts have been preserved (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 22: “I have seen them.” “I too have seen them”). In the so-called “Bibelprotokollen,” of 1539, he says (ibid., p. 585): “At Cologne I drank a winequod penetrabat in mensa manum” (which probably means, was so fiery that soon after drinking it he felt a tingling down to his finger-tips). “Never in all my life have I drunk so rich a wine.” Cp., for the Cologne Chapter, Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 242 f., and for the same and Luther’s Cologne visit, Walter Köhler, “Christl. Welt,” 1908, No. 30; N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 142, 1908, p. 749; and G. Kawerau, “Theol. Stud, und Krit.,” 81, 1908, p. 348. Buchwald refers to a statement of Luther’s on a monument at Cologne (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 371=“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, p. 625) in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 609.[565]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 86.[566]Ibid., p. 308.[567]Jan. 25, 1526,ibid., p. 312.[568]Cp. Enders on the letter last quoted.[569]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 322 f. Hasenberg’s Latin letter, Aug. 10, 1528, p. 334 ff.; v. der Heyden’s German one of same date.[570]Cp. Duke George’s fierce letter to Luther of Dec. 28, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.), which was also printed forthwith. He will speak freely and openly to him, he says: “Seek the hypocrites amongst those who call you a prophet, a Daniel, the Apostle of the Germans and an Evangelist.” “At Wittenberg you have set up an asylum where all the monks and nuns who, by their robbing and stealing, deprive us of our churches and convents find refuge.” “When have more acts of sacrilege been committed by people dedicated to God than since your Evangel has been preached?” Did not Christ say: “By their fruits you shall know them”? All the great preachers of the faith have been “pious, respectable and truthful men, not proud, avaricious or unchaste.” “Your marriage is the work, not of God, but of the enemy.... Since both of you once took an oath not to commit unchastity lest God should forsake you, is it not high time that you considered your position?”—The greater part of the letter was incorporated by Cochlæus in hisActa(p. 119).[571]On p. 336 von der Heyden says: Luther is “beginning to draw in his horns and is in great fear lest his nun should be unyoked.”[572]Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana, may be the author of this anonymous work, printed in “P.L.,” 16, col. 367-384.[573]For the full text of this anonymous hymn (incorporated in the Office for Virgins in the Breviary), see “P.L.,” 16, col. 1221.[574]“Literarii sodalitii apud Marpurgam aliquot cachinni super quodam duorum Lypsiensium poetarum in Lutherum scripto libello effusi” (Marburgæ), 1528.[575]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 539 ff. (with the editor’s opinion on the authorship); Erl. ed., 64, pp. 324-337.[576]Ibid., p. 540=339. The writing aptly concludes: “... tuo, vates, carmine tergo nates.”[577]Ibid., p. 548=330.[578]Ibid., p. 547=327 f.[579]Ibid., p. 544=344.[580]Ibid., p. 553 f.=335 f.[581]“Sermones dominicales des gnadenreichen Predigers Andree Prolis” (with notes), Leipzig, 1530, fol. K. 4´.[582]“Apologeticus adv. Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro Libro Conformitatum,” Antverpiæ, 1607, p. 101.[583]“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 9, col. 1249seq.[584]See vol. ii., p. 242 ff.[585]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 29.[586]Ibid., p. 96 f.[587]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 311.[588]See vol. ii., p. 249 ff.[589]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 368 f.[590]Ibid., p. 382.[591]Ibid., 10, p. 8 ff., about March 11, 1534.[592]On March 31, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 36.[593]At the conclusion Luther says of the young people: “Hac levitate et vanitate paulatim desuescit a religione, donec abhorreat et penitus profanescat.” And: “Dominus noster Iesus, quem mihi Petrus non tacet Deum, sed in cuius virtute scio et certus sum me sæpius a morte liberatum, in cuius fide hæc omnia incepi et hactenus effeci, quæ ipsi hostes mirantur, ipse custodiat et liberet nos in finem. Ipse est Dominus Deus noster verus.”[594]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 709:γεροντικὰ πάθη.[595]Ibid., 3, p. 69.[596]On April 15, 1534, Burckhardt-Biedermann, “Bonif. Amerbach,” 1894, p. 297. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 24.[597]Enders,ibid., p. 23.[598]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 312.[599]“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 526,seq.[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.[601]“Opp.,” 3, col. 1494seq.[602]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, admits that Luther’s charge was “groundless.”[603]Most of the above passages from Erasmus’s reply are quoted by Enders, p. 25 ff. The outspoken passage last quoted is given in Latin in vol. iii., p. 136. n. 2.[604]Quoted by Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, p. 313, n. 1.[605]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 275: “Vixit et decessit ut Epicureus sine aliquo ministro et consolatione.... Multa quidem præclara scripsit, habuit ingenium præstantissimum, otium tranquillum.... In agone non expetivit ministrum verbi neque sacramenta, et fortasse ilia verba suæ confessionis in agone ‘Fili Dei miserere mei’ illi affinguntur.” Cp. Luther’s words in 1544 in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343: “He died ‘sine crux et sine lux’”; here again Luther says he had been the cause of many losing body and soul and had been the originator of the Sacramentarians. See our vol. ii., p. 252, n. 1, for further details of Erasmus’s end. We read in Mathesius, p. 90 (May, 1540): “The Doctor said: He arrogated to himself the Divinity of which he deprived Christ. In his ‘Colloquia’ he compared Christ with Priapus [Kroker remarks: ‘Erasmus didnotcompare Christ with Priapus’], he mocked at Him in his ‘Catechism’ [’Symbolum’], and particularly in his execrable book the ‘Farragines.’”[606]See the whole passage in “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 272seq.[607]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89. See above, p. 101.[608]“Werke,”ibid., p. 92.[609]Ibid.[610]Luther to Duke George, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 338 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281, with amended date and colophon). George to Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.[611]More in the same strain above, p. 173, n. 4.[612]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 134.[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 411, Table-Talk.[614]Ibid., 31, p. 250 ff.[615]Ibid., 61, p. 343, Table-Talk.[616]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 107 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).
[414]“Werke.” Erl. ed., 18², p. 92.[415]Ibid., 31, p. 297.[416]Sermo 343, n. 7; Denifle, 1², p. 243, refers also to “De bono coniugali,” n. 9, 27, 28.[417]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 138 f.: “A married man cannot give himself up entirely to reading and prayer, but is, as St. Paul says, ‘divided’ and must devote a great part of his life to pleasing his spouse.” The Apostle says that though the “troubles and cares of the married state are good, yet it is far better to be free to pray and attend to the Word of God.”—Luther is more silent concerning our Lord’s own recommendation of virginity (“Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est,” etc., Mat. xix. 11 f.). Of his attitude towards voluntary virginity we have already spoken in vol. iii., 246 ff.[418]“Werke.,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178 (Table-Talk).[419]Ibid., 64, p. 155. From his glosses on the Bible.[420]Ibid., 31, p. 390. From the “Winckelmesse,” 1534.[421]Ibid., 44, p. 376.[422]Ibid., p. 25², p. 432; cp. p. 428.[423]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 283: “Ipse ego, cum essem adhuc monachus, idem sapiebam, coniugium esse damnatum genus vitæ.”[424]And yet a Protestant has said quite recently: “The Church persistently taught that love had nothing to do with marriage.” As though the restraining of sexual love within just limits was equivalent to the exclusion of conjugal love.[425]Ed. Ph. Strauch, “Zeitschr. für deutsches Altertum,” 29, 1885, pp. 373-427.[426]P. 385.[427]Munich State Library, cod. germ., 757.[428]Ibid., cod. 756.[429]Heinemann, “Die Handschriften der Herzogl. Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel,” 2, 4, p. 332 f.[430]“Überlieferungen zur Gesch.,” etc., 1, 2, p. 204 f.[431]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1892, p. 487.[432]“Sermones Fratris Barlete,” Brixie, 1497 and 1498, several times republished in the 16th century. See sermon for the Friday of the fourth week of Lent.[433]“Opus super Sapientiam Salomonis,” ed. Hagenau, 1494 (and elsewhere), “Lectio” 43 and 44, on Marriage. Cp.ibid., 181, the “Lectio” on the Valiant Woman, and in his work, “In Proverbia Salomonis explanationes,” Paris, 1510, “Lectio” 91, with the explanation of Prov. xii. 4: “A diligent woman is a crown to her husband.”[434]Luther, on the other hand, declares: “The work of begetting children was not distinguished from other sins, such as fornication and adultery. But now we have learnt and are assured by the Grace of God that marriage is honourable.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 116.[435]On Barletta and Holkot, cp. N. Paulus in “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, Nos. 19 and 20; and his art., “Die Ehe in den deutschen Postillen des ausgehenden MA.,” and “Gedruckte und Ungedruckte deutsche Ehebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., 1903, Nos. 18 and 20. See also F(alk) in “Der Katholik,” 1906, 2, p. 317 ff.: “Ehe und Ehestand im MA.,” and in the work about to be quoted. Denifle, “Luther,” 1, has much to say of the Catholic and the Lutheran views of marriage.[436]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz. zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4).[437]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz, zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4), p. 67.[438]Ibid., p. 66.[439]“Die Stellung der Frau im MA.,” Oct. 1 and 8, 1910, p. 1253.[440]Ibid., p. 1299.[441]Ibid., p. 1248.[442]Cp. F. Schaub, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 117 ff., on H. Crohns, who, in order to accuse St. Antoninus and others of “hatred of women,” appeals to the “Witches’ Hammer”: “It is unjust to make these authors responsible for the consequences drawn from their utterances by such petty fry as the producers of the ‘Witches’ Hammer.’” Cp. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 134, 1904, particularly p. 812 ff.[443]Finke,ibid., p. 1249.[444]Ibid., p. 1256.[445]Ibid., p. 1258.—Finke’s statements may be completed by the assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a writer, so deeply versed in mediæval Scholasticism, is worthy of note: “There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point [esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally. Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage” (p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,” he says (ibid.) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16, “Symb. Bücher10,” ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.” Jos. Löhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, bes. der Erzdiözese Köln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911, “Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.[446]Prov. xxxi. 10 f.: “Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?” etc. The Lesson of the MassDe communi nec virginum nec martyrum.[447]The Gradual of the same Mass, taken from Psalm xliv.[448]Falk,op. cit., p. 71.[449]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 207 (Table-Talk). In his translation of the Bible Luther quotes the German verse: “Nought so dear on earth as the love of woman to the man who shares it” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 113), in connection with Proverbs xxxi. 10 ff. (“Mulierem fortem,” etc.). In the Table-Talk he quotes the same when speaking of those who are unfaithful to their marriage vow in not praying: “People do not pray. Therefore my hostess at Eisenach [Ursula, Cunz Cotta’s wife, see vol. i., p. 5 f., and vol. iii., p. 288 f.] was right in saying to me when I went to school there: ‘There is no dearer thing on earth than the love of woman to the man on whom it is bestowed’” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 212). Luther’s introduction of the phrase in connection with the passage on the “Mulier fortis” was an injustice, and an attempt to prove again the alleged contempt of Catholicism for the love of woman.[450]N. Paulus, “Zur angeblichen Geringschätzung der Frau und der Ehe im MA.,” in the “Wissensch. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 10 and 12.[451]Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 119.[452]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 246 f.[453]Ibid., 16², p. 536 ff.[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 51 ff.[455]Ibid., p. 58.[456]Ibid., pp. 66, 68.[457]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 278; Erl. ed., 25², p. 6. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[458]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 420.[459]Ibid., Erl. ed., 16², p. 538.[460]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 519. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 263 and p. 241 ff.[461]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 205 (Table-Talk).[462]Cp. the passages in the Table-Talk on marriage and on women, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 182-213, and 57, pp. 270-273.[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 205.[464]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.[465]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “reicio ... ubi possum.” There are, however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.[466]See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.[467]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second edition of the Sermon.[468]Ibid., p. 168 f.=63 f.[469]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.[470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353seq.“Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.[471]“Apol. Conf. Augustanæ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften,10, p. 242: “Ita virginitas donum est præstantius coniugio.”[472]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.[473]Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L. v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,” Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde, however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediæval views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl, usw., Ergänzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).[474]“Die kath. Moral,” 1902, p. 118.[475]On Dec. 6, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 279. See vol. iii., p. 269. The passage was omitted by Aurifaber and De Wette probably because not judged quite proper.[476]Aug., “De bono coniug.,” c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 6. According to Denifle, 1¹, p. 277, n. 2, the Schoolmen knew the passages through the Lombard “Sent.,” 4, dist. 31, c. 5. He also quotes S. Thom., “Summa theol.,” Supplem., q. 41, a. 4; q. 49, a. 5; q. 64, a. 4: “ut sibi invicem debitum reddant.”[477]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 654; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 355. On the text, see Denifle, 1², p. 263, n. 3.[478]Ibid., 20, 2, p. 304; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541. “On Married Life,” 1522.[479]Ibid., 12, p. 114. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 10.[480]N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 495, art. “Zu Luthers Schrift über die Mönchsgelübde”: “Luther’s false view of the sinfulness of the ‘actus matrimonialis’ was strongly repudiated by Catholics, particularly by Clichtoveus and Cochlæus.”[481]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. “Sermon on the Married Life,” 1522.[482]Ibid., 12, p. 66; Erl. ed., 53, p. 188.[483]Ibid., p. 113.[484]Cp. vol. iii., p. 264 ff.[485]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101. Then follows a highly questionable statement concerning a rule of the Wittenberg Augustinian monastery, in which Luther fails to distinguish between “pollutiones voluntariæ” and “involuntariæ,” but which draws from him the exclamation: “All the monasteries and foundations ought to be destroyed, if only on account of these shocking ‘pollutiones’!”[486]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 73, where some improper remarks may be found on the temptation of St. Paul (according to the notes, on account of St. Thecla) and that of St. Benedict, who, we are told, rolled himself in the thorns to overcome it.[487]See vol. iii., p. 267, n. 10.[488]Ibid., p. 122: “Scribis, mea iactari ab iis qui lupanaria colunt.”[489]“Briefe,” ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 419, undated.[490]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 373. To a bridegroom in 1536.[491]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 364 f.; Erl. ed., 41, p. 135. Brandenburg, “Luther über die Obrigkeit,” p. 7.[492]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 437.[493]Ibid., p. 219.[494]See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.[495]To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders (p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least are obviously referred to: “Quod illi vero prætexunt, certos sese fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus potentissimus est,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.[496]On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.[497]On May 26, 1525, “Werke,”ibid., p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).[498]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).[499]Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in 1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to curtail our freedom!”[500]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.[501]In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.[502]Mathesius,ibid.For further explanation of this statement, cp. Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff. He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “Est nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur, quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra papam.” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic ordinances. “Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a magistratu peteret dispensationem.”[503]Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.[504]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Jan., 1537.[505]Luther’s memorandum, Aug. 18, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 326 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 228). Cp. Enders’ Notes to this letter.[506]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98seq.“De captivitate babylonica.”[507]Ibid., 10. 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 513 f.[508]Dec. 28, 1525, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 289.[509]Dec. 19, 1522, “Akten und Briefe des Herzogs Georg von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, I, 1905, p. 402.[510]Jan. 1, 1523,ibid., p. 415. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 137, 1906, p. 56 f.[511]“Postille,” Mainz, 1542, 4b. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 52.[512]“Professio catholica,” Coloniæ, 1580 (reprint), p. 219seq.Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, p. 456. Several replies were called forth by this over-zealous and extremely anti-Lutheran polemic.[513]“Vormeldung der Unwahrheit Luterscher Clage,” Frankfurt/Oder, 1532. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 33.[514]Cp. above, p. 152 f.[515]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 340. Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 252.[516]Cp., for instance, present work, vol. iii., p. 268, and vol. ii., p. 378.[517]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 281.[518]This was Elisabeth Kaufmann, a niece of Luther’s, yet unmarried, who lived with her widowed sister Magdalene at the Black Monastery. The “pastoress” was the wife of the apostate priest Bugenhagen, Pastor of Wittenberg, who, during Bugenhagen’s absence in Brunswick, seems to have enjoyed the hospitality of the same great house. The “many girls” are Luther’s servants and those of the other inhabitants.[519]Aurifaber suppressed the end of this conversation. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 201.[520]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 221.[521]Cp. vol. iii., p. 175 f. Cp. p. 179.[522]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.[523]Cp. vol. v., xxxi., 5.[524]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 396.[525]Ibid., p. 415.[526]Ibid., p. 405 f.[527]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426. See vol. iii., p. 273. Akin to this is his self-congratulation (above, p. 46), that he works for the increase of mankind, whereas the Papists put men to death.[528]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 430.[529]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 388.[531]Ibid., 61, p. 193. The last words are omitted in the two old editions of the Table-Talk by Selnecker and Stangwald.[532]Ibid., 20², p. 365. At the marriage of the apostate Dean of Merseburg.[533]Ibid., 25², p. 373; cp. p. 369 and above, vol. iii., p. 251, n. 3.[534]Ibid., 61, p. 204 (Table-Talk).[535]“Werke,”ibid., p. 205 (Table-Talk).[536]Ibid., p. 211.[537]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262.[538]For similar instances of the use of such signs see vol. iii., p. 231. The Nuremberg MS. of the Mathesius collection substitutes here, according to Kroker, a meaningless phrase. The MS. in the Ducal Library at Gotha, entitled “Farrago” (1551), omits it altogether.[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525. On the “strangling,” cp. vol. iii., p. 253, n. 3.[540]“Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German ed. (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.,” Hft. 6).[541]“De stultitia mortalium,” Basil., 1557, 1, 1, p. 50seq.Denifle, 1², p. 287.[542]“Von werlicher Visitation,” Eisleben, 1555, Bl. K. 3. Denifle, 1², p. 280.[543]“Annotationen zu den Propheten,” 2, Eisleben, 1536, fol. 88. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 48.[544]“Ein unüberwindlicher gründlicher Bericht was die Rechtfertigung in Paulo sei,” Leipzig, 1533. Döllinger,ibid., p. 40.[545]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[546]Dan. xi., 37. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 155.[547]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, fol. 198´. Döllinger,ibid., p. 106.[548]The passages referred to are, according to the text of the Vulgate: 1 Cor. vii. 32: “Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quæ Domini sunt,” etc.Ibid., 38: “Qui non iungit (virginem suam) melius facit.”Ibid., 40: “Beatior erit, si sic permanserit,” etc. Mat. xix. 12: “Sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum Dei. Qui potest capere capiat.” Apoc. xiv. 3 f., of those who sing “the new song before the throne” of the Lamb: “Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocunque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex hominibus primitiæ Deo et Agno.” 1 Tim. v. 12, of those widows dedicated to God who marry: “Habentes damnationem, qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt.”—Against Jovinian St. Jerome wrote, in 392: “Adv. Iovinianum” (“P.L.,” 23, col. 211seq.), where, in the first part, he defends virginity, which the former had attacked, and demonstrates its superiority and its merit.[549]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, 1536, fol. 198´, on Daniel xi., 37. Döllinger,ibid., p. 105 f.[550]“Homiliæ XXII,” Vitebergæ, 1532. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 278.[551]“De corruptis moribus utriusque partis,” Bl. F. III. In the title page the author’s name is given as Czecanovius; this is identical with Staphylus, as N. Paulus has shown in the “Katholik,” 1895, 1, p. 574 f.[552]F. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, fol. 202´.[553]Cp. the quotations in Denifle (1², Preface, p. 15 ff.), commencing with one from Billicanus: “By the eternal God, what fornication and adultery are we not forced to witness”; also those on pp. 282 ff., 805 f.[554]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, pp. 378 f., 384 ff., 392.[555]See above, p. 167, n. 3.[556]J. Löhr, “Methodisch-kritische Beiträge zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, besonders der Erzdiözese Köln, am Ausgange des MA.” (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, 1910).[557]Page 44.[558]Page 59.[559]Page 65. That all offenders without exception were punished is of course not likely.[560]Ibid., pp. 1-24.—For the 16th and 17th centuries we refer the reader to J. Schmidlin, “Die kirchl. Zustände in Deutschland vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege nach den bischöflichen Diözesanberichten an den Heiligen Stuhl,” Freiburg, 1908-1911 (“Erläuterungen usw. zu Janssens Gesch.,” 7, Hft. 1-10). In the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 31, 1910, p. 163, we read of the reports contained in the first part of the work: “They commence by revealing the sad depths to which Catholic life had sunk, but go on to show an ever-increasing vigour on the part of the bishops, in many cases crowned with complete success.”[561]“De vita et miraculis Iohannis Gerson,” s.l.e.a. (1506), B 4b; Janssen-Pastor, 118, p. 681. Wimpfeling is, however, answering the Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who had attacked the secular clergy; elsewhere he witnesses to the grave blots on the life of the secular clergy.[562]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400 (“Tischreden”). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “Cum summo fletu spectatorum.”[563]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 239; Erl. ed., 16², p. 234.[564]We may here remark concerning Luther’s stay at Cologne (passed over in vol. i., p. 38 f., for the sake of brevity), that at the Chapter then held by Staupitz—to whose party Luther had now gone over—the former probably refrained, in his official capacity, from putting in force his plans for an amalgamation of the Observantines and the Conventuals of the Saxon Province. There is no doubt that Luther came to Cologne from Wittenberg, whither he had betaken himself on his return from Rome. After the Chapter at Cologne he made preparations for his promotion. Possibly the project of securing the Doctorate was matured at Cologne. He speaks of the relics of the Three Kings in a sermon of January 5th, of which two accounts have been preserved (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 22: “I have seen them.” “I too have seen them”). In the so-called “Bibelprotokollen,” of 1539, he says (ibid., p. 585): “At Cologne I drank a winequod penetrabat in mensa manum” (which probably means, was so fiery that soon after drinking it he felt a tingling down to his finger-tips). “Never in all my life have I drunk so rich a wine.” Cp., for the Cologne Chapter, Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 242 f., and for the same and Luther’s Cologne visit, Walter Köhler, “Christl. Welt,” 1908, No. 30; N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 142, 1908, p. 749; and G. Kawerau, “Theol. Stud, und Krit.,” 81, 1908, p. 348. Buchwald refers to a statement of Luther’s on a monument at Cologne (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 371=“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, p. 625) in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 609.[565]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 86.[566]Ibid., p. 308.[567]Jan. 25, 1526,ibid., p. 312.[568]Cp. Enders on the letter last quoted.[569]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 322 f. Hasenberg’s Latin letter, Aug. 10, 1528, p. 334 ff.; v. der Heyden’s German one of same date.[570]Cp. Duke George’s fierce letter to Luther of Dec. 28, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.), which was also printed forthwith. He will speak freely and openly to him, he says: “Seek the hypocrites amongst those who call you a prophet, a Daniel, the Apostle of the Germans and an Evangelist.” “At Wittenberg you have set up an asylum where all the monks and nuns who, by their robbing and stealing, deprive us of our churches and convents find refuge.” “When have more acts of sacrilege been committed by people dedicated to God than since your Evangel has been preached?” Did not Christ say: “By their fruits you shall know them”? All the great preachers of the faith have been “pious, respectable and truthful men, not proud, avaricious or unchaste.” “Your marriage is the work, not of God, but of the enemy.... Since both of you once took an oath not to commit unchastity lest God should forsake you, is it not high time that you considered your position?”—The greater part of the letter was incorporated by Cochlæus in hisActa(p. 119).[571]On p. 336 von der Heyden says: Luther is “beginning to draw in his horns and is in great fear lest his nun should be unyoked.”[572]Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana, may be the author of this anonymous work, printed in “P.L.,” 16, col. 367-384.[573]For the full text of this anonymous hymn (incorporated in the Office for Virgins in the Breviary), see “P.L.,” 16, col. 1221.[574]“Literarii sodalitii apud Marpurgam aliquot cachinni super quodam duorum Lypsiensium poetarum in Lutherum scripto libello effusi” (Marburgæ), 1528.[575]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 539 ff. (with the editor’s opinion on the authorship); Erl. ed., 64, pp. 324-337.[576]Ibid., p. 540=339. The writing aptly concludes: “... tuo, vates, carmine tergo nates.”[577]Ibid., p. 548=330.[578]Ibid., p. 547=327 f.[579]Ibid., p. 544=344.[580]Ibid., p. 553 f.=335 f.[581]“Sermones dominicales des gnadenreichen Predigers Andree Prolis” (with notes), Leipzig, 1530, fol. K. 4´.[582]“Apologeticus adv. Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro Libro Conformitatum,” Antverpiæ, 1607, p. 101.[583]“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 9, col. 1249seq.[584]See vol. ii., p. 242 ff.[585]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 29.[586]Ibid., p. 96 f.[587]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 311.[588]See vol. ii., p. 249 ff.[589]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 368 f.[590]Ibid., p. 382.[591]Ibid., 10, p. 8 ff., about March 11, 1534.[592]On March 31, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 36.[593]At the conclusion Luther says of the young people: “Hac levitate et vanitate paulatim desuescit a religione, donec abhorreat et penitus profanescat.” And: “Dominus noster Iesus, quem mihi Petrus non tacet Deum, sed in cuius virtute scio et certus sum me sæpius a morte liberatum, in cuius fide hæc omnia incepi et hactenus effeci, quæ ipsi hostes mirantur, ipse custodiat et liberet nos in finem. Ipse est Dominus Deus noster verus.”[594]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 709:γεροντικὰ πάθη.[595]Ibid., 3, p. 69.[596]On April 15, 1534, Burckhardt-Biedermann, “Bonif. Amerbach,” 1894, p. 297. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 24.[597]Enders,ibid., p. 23.[598]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 312.[599]“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 526,seq.[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.[601]“Opp.,” 3, col. 1494seq.[602]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, admits that Luther’s charge was “groundless.”[603]Most of the above passages from Erasmus’s reply are quoted by Enders, p. 25 ff. The outspoken passage last quoted is given in Latin in vol. iii., p. 136. n. 2.[604]Quoted by Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, p. 313, n. 1.[605]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 275: “Vixit et decessit ut Epicureus sine aliquo ministro et consolatione.... Multa quidem præclara scripsit, habuit ingenium præstantissimum, otium tranquillum.... In agone non expetivit ministrum verbi neque sacramenta, et fortasse ilia verba suæ confessionis in agone ‘Fili Dei miserere mei’ illi affinguntur.” Cp. Luther’s words in 1544 in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343: “He died ‘sine crux et sine lux’”; here again Luther says he had been the cause of many losing body and soul and had been the originator of the Sacramentarians. See our vol. ii., p. 252, n. 1, for further details of Erasmus’s end. We read in Mathesius, p. 90 (May, 1540): “The Doctor said: He arrogated to himself the Divinity of which he deprived Christ. In his ‘Colloquia’ he compared Christ with Priapus [Kroker remarks: ‘Erasmus didnotcompare Christ with Priapus’], he mocked at Him in his ‘Catechism’ [’Symbolum’], and particularly in his execrable book the ‘Farragines.’”[606]See the whole passage in “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 272seq.[607]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89. See above, p. 101.[608]“Werke,”ibid., p. 92.[609]Ibid.[610]Luther to Duke George, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 338 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281, with amended date and colophon). George to Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.[611]More in the same strain above, p. 173, n. 4.[612]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 134.[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 411, Table-Talk.[614]Ibid., 31, p. 250 ff.[615]Ibid., 61, p. 343, Table-Talk.[616]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 107 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).
[414]“Werke.” Erl. ed., 18², p. 92.
[415]Ibid., 31, p. 297.
[416]Sermo 343, n. 7; Denifle, 1², p. 243, refers also to “De bono coniugali,” n. 9, 27, 28.
[417]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 138 f.: “A married man cannot give himself up entirely to reading and prayer, but is, as St. Paul says, ‘divided’ and must devote a great part of his life to pleasing his spouse.” The Apostle says that though the “troubles and cares of the married state are good, yet it is far better to be free to pray and attend to the Word of God.”—Luther is more silent concerning our Lord’s own recommendation of virginity (“Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est,” etc., Mat. xix. 11 f.). Of his attitude towards voluntary virginity we have already spoken in vol. iii., 246 ff.
[418]“Werke.,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178 (Table-Talk).
[419]Ibid., 64, p. 155. From his glosses on the Bible.
[420]Ibid., 31, p. 390. From the “Winckelmesse,” 1534.
[421]Ibid., 44, p. 376.
[422]Ibid., p. 25², p. 432; cp. p. 428.
[423]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 283: “Ipse ego, cum essem adhuc monachus, idem sapiebam, coniugium esse damnatum genus vitæ.”
[424]And yet a Protestant has said quite recently: “The Church persistently taught that love had nothing to do with marriage.” As though the restraining of sexual love within just limits was equivalent to the exclusion of conjugal love.
[425]Ed. Ph. Strauch, “Zeitschr. für deutsches Altertum,” 29, 1885, pp. 373-427.
[426]P. 385.
[427]Munich State Library, cod. germ., 757.
[428]Ibid., cod. 756.
[429]Heinemann, “Die Handschriften der Herzogl. Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel,” 2, 4, p. 332 f.
[430]“Überlieferungen zur Gesch.,” etc., 1, 2, p. 204 f.
[431]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1892, p. 487.
[432]“Sermones Fratris Barlete,” Brixie, 1497 and 1498, several times republished in the 16th century. See sermon for the Friday of the fourth week of Lent.
[433]“Opus super Sapientiam Salomonis,” ed. Hagenau, 1494 (and elsewhere), “Lectio” 43 and 44, on Marriage. Cp.ibid., 181, the “Lectio” on the Valiant Woman, and in his work, “In Proverbia Salomonis explanationes,” Paris, 1510, “Lectio” 91, with the explanation of Prov. xii. 4: “A diligent woman is a crown to her husband.”
[434]Luther, on the other hand, declares: “The work of begetting children was not distinguished from other sins, such as fornication and adultery. But now we have learnt and are assured by the Grace of God that marriage is honourable.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 116.
[435]On Barletta and Holkot, cp. N. Paulus in “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, Nos. 19 and 20; and his art., “Die Ehe in den deutschen Postillen des ausgehenden MA.,” and “Gedruckte und Ungedruckte deutsche Ehebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., 1903, Nos. 18 and 20. See also F(alk) in “Der Katholik,” 1906, 2, p. 317 ff.: “Ehe und Ehestand im MA.,” and in the work about to be quoted. Denifle, “Luther,” 1, has much to say of the Catholic and the Lutheran views of marriage.
[436]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz. zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4).
[437]“Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz, zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4), p. 67.
[438]Ibid., p. 66.
[439]“Die Stellung der Frau im MA.,” Oct. 1 and 8, 1910, p. 1253.
[440]Ibid., p. 1299.
[441]Ibid., p. 1248.
[442]Cp. F. Schaub, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 117 ff., on H. Crohns, who, in order to accuse St. Antoninus and others of “hatred of women,” appeals to the “Witches’ Hammer”: “It is unjust to make these authors responsible for the consequences drawn from their utterances by such petty fry as the producers of the ‘Witches’ Hammer.’” Cp. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 134, 1904, particularly p. 812 ff.
[443]Finke,ibid., p. 1249.
[444]Ibid., p. 1256.
[445]Ibid., p. 1258.—Finke’s statements may be completed by the assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a writer, so deeply versed in mediæval Scholasticism, is worthy of note: “There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point [esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally. Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage” (p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,” he says (ibid.) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16, “Symb. Bücher10,” ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.” Jos. Löhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, bes. der Erzdiözese Köln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911, “Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.
[446]Prov. xxxi. 10 f.: “Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?” etc. The Lesson of the MassDe communi nec virginum nec martyrum.
[447]The Gradual of the same Mass, taken from Psalm xliv.
[448]Falk,op. cit., p. 71.
[449]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 207 (Table-Talk). In his translation of the Bible Luther quotes the German verse: “Nought so dear on earth as the love of woman to the man who shares it” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 113), in connection with Proverbs xxxi. 10 ff. (“Mulierem fortem,” etc.). In the Table-Talk he quotes the same when speaking of those who are unfaithful to their marriage vow in not praying: “People do not pray. Therefore my hostess at Eisenach [Ursula, Cunz Cotta’s wife, see vol. i., p. 5 f., and vol. iii., p. 288 f.] was right in saying to me when I went to school there: ‘There is no dearer thing on earth than the love of woman to the man on whom it is bestowed’” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 212). Luther’s introduction of the phrase in connection with the passage on the “Mulier fortis” was an injustice, and an attempt to prove again the alleged contempt of Catholicism for the love of woman.
[450]N. Paulus, “Zur angeblichen Geringschätzung der Frau und der Ehe im MA.,” in the “Wissensch. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 10 and 12.
[451]Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 119.
[452]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 246 f.
[453]Ibid., 16², p. 536 ff.
[454]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 51 ff.
[455]Ibid., p. 58.
[456]Ibid., pp. 66, 68.
[457]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 278; Erl. ed., 25², p. 6. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.
[458]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 420.
[459]Ibid., Erl. ed., 16², p. 538.
[460]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 519. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 263 and p. 241 ff.
[461]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 205 (Table-Talk).
[462]Cp. the passages in the Table-Talk on marriage and on women, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 182-213, and 57, pp. 270-273.
[463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 205.
[464]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.
[465]“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “reicio ... ubi possum.” There are, however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.
[466]See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.
[467]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second edition of the Sermon.
[468]Ibid., p. 168 f.=63 f.
[469]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.
[470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353seq.“Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.
[471]“Apol. Conf. Augustanæ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften,10, p. 242: “Ita virginitas donum est præstantius coniugio.”
[472]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.
[473]Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L. v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,” Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde, however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediæval views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl, usw., Ergänzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).
[474]“Die kath. Moral,” 1902, p. 118.
[475]On Dec. 6, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 279. See vol. iii., p. 269. The passage was omitted by Aurifaber and De Wette probably because not judged quite proper.
[476]Aug., “De bono coniug.,” c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 6. According to Denifle, 1¹, p. 277, n. 2, the Schoolmen knew the passages through the Lombard “Sent.,” 4, dist. 31, c. 5. He also quotes S. Thom., “Summa theol.,” Supplem., q. 41, a. 4; q. 49, a. 5; q. 64, a. 4: “ut sibi invicem debitum reddant.”
[477]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 654; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 355. On the text, see Denifle, 1², p. 263, n. 3.
[478]Ibid., 20, 2, p. 304; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541. “On Married Life,” 1522.
[479]Ibid., 12, p. 114. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 10.
[480]N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 495, art. “Zu Luthers Schrift über die Mönchsgelübde”: “Luther’s false view of the sinfulness of the ‘actus matrimonialis’ was strongly repudiated by Catholics, particularly by Clichtoveus and Cochlæus.”
[481]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. “Sermon on the Married Life,” 1522.
[482]Ibid., 12, p. 66; Erl. ed., 53, p. 188.
[483]Ibid., p. 113.
[484]Cp. vol. iii., p. 264 ff.
[485]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101. Then follows a highly questionable statement concerning a rule of the Wittenberg Augustinian monastery, in which Luther fails to distinguish between “pollutiones voluntariæ” and “involuntariæ,” but which draws from him the exclamation: “All the monasteries and foundations ought to be destroyed, if only on account of these shocking ‘pollutiones’!”
[486]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 73, where some improper remarks may be found on the temptation of St. Paul (according to the notes, on account of St. Thecla) and that of St. Benedict, who, we are told, rolled himself in the thorns to overcome it.
[487]See vol. iii., p. 267, n. 10.
[488]Ibid., p. 122: “Scribis, mea iactari ab iis qui lupanaria colunt.”
[489]“Briefe,” ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 419, undated.
[490]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 373. To a bridegroom in 1536.
[491]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 364 f.; Erl. ed., 41, p. 135. Brandenburg, “Luther über die Obrigkeit,” p. 7.
[492]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 437.
[493]Ibid., p. 219.
[494]See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.
[495]To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders (p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least are obviously referred to: “Quod illi vero prætexunt, certos sese fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus potentissimus est,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.
[496]On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.
[497]On May 26, 1525, “Werke,”ibid., p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).
[498]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).
[499]Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in 1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to curtail our freedom!”
[500]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.
[501]In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.
[502]Mathesius,ibid.For further explanation of this statement, cp. Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff. He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “Est nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur, quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra papam.” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic ordinances. “Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a magistratu peteret dispensationem.”
[503]Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.
[504]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Jan., 1537.
[505]Luther’s memorandum, Aug. 18, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 326 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 228). Cp. Enders’ Notes to this letter.
[506]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98seq.“De captivitate babylonica.”
[507]Ibid., 10. 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 513 f.
[508]Dec. 28, 1525, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 289.
[509]Dec. 19, 1522, “Akten und Briefe des Herzogs Georg von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, I, 1905, p. 402.
[510]Jan. 1, 1523,ibid., p. 415. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 137, 1906, p. 56 f.
[511]“Postille,” Mainz, 1542, 4b. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 52.
[512]“Professio catholica,” Coloniæ, 1580 (reprint), p. 219seq.Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, p. 456. Several replies were called forth by this over-zealous and extremely anti-Lutheran polemic.
[513]“Vormeldung der Unwahrheit Luterscher Clage,” Frankfurt/Oder, 1532. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 33.
[514]Cp. above, p. 152 f.
[515]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 340. Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 252.
[516]Cp., for instance, present work, vol. iii., p. 268, and vol. ii., p. 378.
[517]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 281.
[518]This was Elisabeth Kaufmann, a niece of Luther’s, yet unmarried, who lived with her widowed sister Magdalene at the Black Monastery. The “pastoress” was the wife of the apostate priest Bugenhagen, Pastor of Wittenberg, who, during Bugenhagen’s absence in Brunswick, seems to have enjoyed the hospitality of the same great house. The “many girls” are Luther’s servants and those of the other inhabitants.
[519]Aurifaber suppressed the end of this conversation. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 201.
[520]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 221.
[521]Cp. vol. iii., p. 175 f. Cp. p. 179.
[522]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.
[523]Cp. vol. v., xxxi., 5.
[524]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 396.
[525]Ibid., p. 415.
[526]Ibid., p. 405 f.
[527]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426. See vol. iii., p. 273. Akin to this is his self-congratulation (above, p. 46), that he works for the increase of mankind, whereas the Papists put men to death.
[528]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 430.
[529]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.
[530]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 388.
[531]Ibid., 61, p. 193. The last words are omitted in the two old editions of the Table-Talk by Selnecker and Stangwald.
[532]Ibid., 20², p. 365. At the marriage of the apostate Dean of Merseburg.
[533]Ibid., 25², p. 373; cp. p. 369 and above, vol. iii., p. 251, n. 3.
[534]Ibid., 61, p. 204 (Table-Talk).
[535]“Werke,”ibid., p. 205 (Table-Talk).
[536]Ibid., p. 211.
[537]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262.
[538]For similar instances of the use of such signs see vol. iii., p. 231. The Nuremberg MS. of the Mathesius collection substitutes here, according to Kroker, a meaningless phrase. The MS. in the Ducal Library at Gotha, entitled “Farrago” (1551), omits it altogether.
[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525. On the “strangling,” cp. vol. iii., p. 253, n. 3.
[540]“Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German ed. (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.,” Hft. 6).
[541]“De stultitia mortalium,” Basil., 1557, 1, 1, p. 50seq.Denifle, 1², p. 287.
[542]“Von werlicher Visitation,” Eisleben, 1555, Bl. K. 3. Denifle, 1², p. 280.
[543]“Annotationen zu den Propheten,” 2, Eisleben, 1536, fol. 88. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 48.
[544]“Ein unüberwindlicher gründlicher Bericht was die Rechtfertigung in Paulo sei,” Leipzig, 1533. Döllinger,ibid., p. 40.
[545]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).
[546]Dan. xi., 37. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 155.
[547]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, fol. 198´. Döllinger,ibid., p. 106.
[548]The passages referred to are, according to the text of the Vulgate: 1 Cor. vii. 32: “Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quæ Domini sunt,” etc.Ibid., 38: “Qui non iungit (virginem suam) melius facit.”Ibid., 40: “Beatior erit, si sic permanserit,” etc. Mat. xix. 12: “Sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum Dei. Qui potest capere capiat.” Apoc. xiv. 3 f., of those who sing “the new song before the throne” of the Lamb: “Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocunque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex hominibus primitiæ Deo et Agno.” 1 Tim. v. 12, of those widows dedicated to God who marry: “Habentes damnationem, qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt.”—Against Jovinian St. Jerome wrote, in 392: “Adv. Iovinianum” (“P.L.,” 23, col. 211seq.), where, in the first part, he defends virginity, which the former had attacked, and demonstrates its superiority and its merit.
[549]“Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, 1536, fol. 198´, on Daniel xi., 37. Döllinger,ibid., p. 105 f.
[550]“Homiliæ XXII,” Vitebergæ, 1532. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 278.
[551]“De corruptis moribus utriusque partis,” Bl. F. III. In the title page the author’s name is given as Czecanovius; this is identical with Staphylus, as N. Paulus has shown in the “Katholik,” 1895, 1, p. 574 f.
[552]F. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, fol. 202´.
[553]Cp. the quotations in Denifle (1², Preface, p. 15 ff.), commencing with one from Billicanus: “By the eternal God, what fornication and adultery are we not forced to witness”; also those on pp. 282 ff., 805 f.
[554]Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 814, pp. 378 f., 384 ff., 392.
[555]See above, p. 167, n. 3.
[556]J. Löhr, “Methodisch-kritische Beiträge zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, besonders der Erzdiözese Köln, am Ausgange des MA.” (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, 1910).
[557]Page 44.
[558]Page 59.
[559]Page 65. That all offenders without exception were punished is of course not likely.
[560]Ibid., pp. 1-24.—For the 16th and 17th centuries we refer the reader to J. Schmidlin, “Die kirchl. Zustände in Deutschland vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege nach den bischöflichen Diözesanberichten an den Heiligen Stuhl,” Freiburg, 1908-1911 (“Erläuterungen usw. zu Janssens Gesch.,” 7, Hft. 1-10). In the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 31, 1910, p. 163, we read of the reports contained in the first part of the work: “They commence by revealing the sad depths to which Catholic life had sunk, but go on to show an ever-increasing vigour on the part of the bishops, in many cases crowned with complete success.”
[561]“De vita et miraculis Iohannis Gerson,” s.l.e.a. (1506), B 4b; Janssen-Pastor, 118, p. 681. Wimpfeling is, however, answering the Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who had attacked the secular clergy; elsewhere he witnesses to the grave blots on the life of the secular clergy.
[562]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400 (“Tischreden”). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “Cum summo fletu spectatorum.”
[563]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 239; Erl. ed., 16², p. 234.
[564]We may here remark concerning Luther’s stay at Cologne (passed over in vol. i., p. 38 f., for the sake of brevity), that at the Chapter then held by Staupitz—to whose party Luther had now gone over—the former probably refrained, in his official capacity, from putting in force his plans for an amalgamation of the Observantines and the Conventuals of the Saxon Province. There is no doubt that Luther came to Cologne from Wittenberg, whither he had betaken himself on his return from Rome. After the Chapter at Cologne he made preparations for his promotion. Possibly the project of securing the Doctorate was matured at Cologne. He speaks of the relics of the Three Kings in a sermon of January 5th, of which two accounts have been preserved (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 22: “I have seen them.” “I too have seen them”). In the so-called “Bibelprotokollen,” of 1539, he says (ibid., p. 585): “At Cologne I drank a winequod penetrabat in mensa manum” (which probably means, was so fiery that soon after drinking it he felt a tingling down to his finger-tips). “Never in all my life have I drunk so rich a wine.” Cp., for the Cologne Chapter, Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 242 f., and for the same and Luther’s Cologne visit, Walter Köhler, “Christl. Welt,” 1908, No. 30; N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 142, 1908, p. 749; and G. Kawerau, “Theol. Stud, und Krit.,” 81, 1908, p. 348. Buchwald refers to a statement of Luther’s on a monument at Cologne (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 371=“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, p. 625) in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 609.
[565]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 86.
[566]Ibid., p. 308.
[567]Jan. 25, 1526,ibid., p. 312.
[568]Cp. Enders on the letter last quoted.
[569]“Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 322 f. Hasenberg’s Latin letter, Aug. 10, 1528, p. 334 ff.; v. der Heyden’s German one of same date.
[570]Cp. Duke George’s fierce letter to Luther of Dec. 28, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.), which was also printed forthwith. He will speak freely and openly to him, he says: “Seek the hypocrites amongst those who call you a prophet, a Daniel, the Apostle of the Germans and an Evangelist.” “At Wittenberg you have set up an asylum where all the monks and nuns who, by their robbing and stealing, deprive us of our churches and convents find refuge.” “When have more acts of sacrilege been committed by people dedicated to God than since your Evangel has been preached?” Did not Christ say: “By their fruits you shall know them”? All the great preachers of the faith have been “pious, respectable and truthful men, not proud, avaricious or unchaste.” “Your marriage is the work, not of God, but of the enemy.... Since both of you once took an oath not to commit unchastity lest God should forsake you, is it not high time that you considered your position?”—The greater part of the letter was incorporated by Cochlæus in hisActa(p. 119).
[571]On p. 336 von der Heyden says: Luther is “beginning to draw in his horns and is in great fear lest his nun should be unyoked.”
[572]Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana, may be the author of this anonymous work, printed in “P.L.,” 16, col. 367-384.
[573]For the full text of this anonymous hymn (incorporated in the Office for Virgins in the Breviary), see “P.L.,” 16, col. 1221.
[574]“Literarii sodalitii apud Marpurgam aliquot cachinni super quodam duorum Lypsiensium poetarum in Lutherum scripto libello effusi” (Marburgæ), 1528.
[575]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 539 ff. (with the editor’s opinion on the authorship); Erl. ed., 64, pp. 324-337.
[576]Ibid., p. 540=339. The writing aptly concludes: “... tuo, vates, carmine tergo nates.”
[577]Ibid., p. 548=330.
[578]Ibid., p. 547=327 f.
[579]Ibid., p. 544=344.
[580]Ibid., p. 553 f.=335 f.
[581]“Sermones dominicales des gnadenreichen Predigers Andree Prolis” (with notes), Leipzig, 1530, fol. K. 4´.
[582]“Apologeticus adv. Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro Libro Conformitatum,” Antverpiæ, 1607, p. 101.
[583]“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 9, col. 1249seq.
[584]See vol. ii., p. 242 ff.
[585]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 29.
[586]Ibid., p. 96 f.
[587]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 311.
[588]See vol. ii., p. 249 ff.
[589]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 368 f.
[590]Ibid., p. 382.
[591]Ibid., 10, p. 8 ff., about March 11, 1534.
[592]On March 31, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 36.
[593]At the conclusion Luther says of the young people: “Hac levitate et vanitate paulatim desuescit a religione, donec abhorreat et penitus profanescat.” And: “Dominus noster Iesus, quem mihi Petrus non tacet Deum, sed in cuius virtute scio et certus sum me sæpius a morte liberatum, in cuius fide hæc omnia incepi et hactenus effeci, quæ ipsi hostes mirantur, ipse custodiat et liberet nos in finem. Ipse est Dominus Deus noster verus.”
[594]“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 709:γεροντικὰ πάθη.
[595]Ibid., 3, p. 69.
[596]On April 15, 1534, Burckhardt-Biedermann, “Bonif. Amerbach,” 1894, p. 297. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 24.
[597]Enders,ibid., p. 23.
[598]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 312.
[599]“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 526,seq.
[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.
[601]“Opp.,” 3, col. 1494seq.
[602]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, admits that Luther’s charge was “groundless.”
[603]Most of the above passages from Erasmus’s reply are quoted by Enders, p. 25 ff. The outspoken passage last quoted is given in Latin in vol. iii., p. 136. n. 2.
[604]Quoted by Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, p. 313, n. 1.
[605]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 275: “Vixit et decessit ut Epicureus sine aliquo ministro et consolatione.... Multa quidem præclara scripsit, habuit ingenium præstantissimum, otium tranquillum.... In agone non expetivit ministrum verbi neque sacramenta, et fortasse ilia verba suæ confessionis in agone ‘Fili Dei miserere mei’ illi affinguntur.” Cp. Luther’s words in 1544 in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343: “He died ‘sine crux et sine lux’”; here again Luther says he had been the cause of many losing body and soul and had been the originator of the Sacramentarians. See our vol. ii., p. 252, n. 1, for further details of Erasmus’s end. We read in Mathesius, p. 90 (May, 1540): “The Doctor said: He arrogated to himself the Divinity of which he deprived Christ. In his ‘Colloquia’ he compared Christ with Priapus [Kroker remarks: ‘Erasmus didnotcompare Christ with Priapus’], he mocked at Him in his ‘Catechism’ [’Symbolum’], and particularly in his execrable book the ‘Farragines.’”
[606]See the whole passage in “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 272seq.
[607]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89. See above, p. 101.
[608]“Werke,”ibid., p. 92.
[609]Ibid.
[610]Luther to Duke George, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 338 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281, with amended date and colophon). George to Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.
[611]More in the same strain above, p. 173, n. 4.
[612]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 134.
[613]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 411, Table-Talk.
[614]Ibid., 31, p. 250 ff.
[615]Ibid., 61, p. 343, Table-Talk.
[616]To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 107 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).