[617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 343 f., Table-Talk.[618]Ibid., 58, p. 412 (Table-Talk), where Luther bases his tale on a remark of the Protestant Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony.[619]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 413 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. See our vol. ii., p. 295 f.[620]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.[621]P. 135.[622]P. 130.[623]P. 144.[624]“Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen,” p. 53.[625]Above, p. 38, and vol. iii., p. 262.[626]Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 271.[627]To Johannes Cellarius, minister at Dresden, Nov. 26, 1540, Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 229.[628]Ibid., cp. the letter to Wenceslaus Link of Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 270: “Proceres veteri odio despiciunt Wittembergam.”[629]Letter of Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 313.[630]To Provost George Buchholzer at Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539,ibid., p. 316. At the Wittenberg Schlosskirche the elevation had gone before 1539, and soon after was discontinued throughout the Saxon Electorate. It was retained, however, in the parish church of Wittenberg until Bugenhagen did away with it on June 25, 1542. Luther reserved to himself the liberty of re-introducing it should heresy or other reasons call for it. He had retained the elevation at Wittenberg for a while as a protest against Carlstadt’s attacks on the Sacrament, at least such was the reason he gave in May, 1542, to Landgrave Philip, who wanted its abrogation. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 578.[631]Dec., 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266).[632]Cp. Enders,ibid., 10, p. 98, n. 7.[633]Letter to Coler, April 30, 1535. Enders,ibid., p. 151, n. 5.[634]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 17, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 98.[635]To Erhard Schnepf at Stuttgart, May 15, 1535,ibid., p. 150.[636]Letter to the Chancellor Leonard v. Eck, Jan. 21, 1535, in Wille, “Anal. zur Gesch. Oberdeutschlands, 1534-1540” (“Zeitschr. für die Gesch. des Oberrheins,” 37, p. 263 ff.), p. 293 f.[637]G. Bossert in “Württemberg. KG.,” ed. Calwer Verlagsverein, Calw. 1893, p. 335.[638]Cp.ibid., p. 336.[639]Ibid., p. 347.[640]Ibid., p. 348.[641]Hans Werner to Chancellor Eck, Jan. 14, 1536, Wille,ibid., p. 298.[642]Bossert,ibid., remarks, p. 333: “Manymediæval works of art were preserved.”[643]Ibid., p. 356.[644]In Heyd, “Ulrich Herzog von Würtenberg,” 3, p. 89.[645]The passages are given in greater detail in “Erinnerung nach dem Lauf der Planeten gestellt,” Tübingen, 1568, and “Dreizehn Predigten vom Türken,” Tübingen, 1569, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, pp. 376-378.[646]Bossert,ibid., p. 357.[647]Thus, e.g. Bossert,loc. cit., and in other studies on Würtemberg Church-History in the 16th century, called forth by Janssen’s work.[648]Cp. above,passim.[649]See above, p. 65.[650]“Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 334 f.[651]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 315 f. On his marriage, see above, p. 157.[652]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,” 1, p. 290.[653]“Leben,” etc. (“Zeitschr. des Vereins für hess. Gesch.,” Suppl. 2, Bd. 1 und 2), 1, p. 379 ff.[654]Neudecker, “Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit,” p. 684 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, pp. 88-91.[655]Hassencamp, “Hess. KG. im Zeitalter der Reformation,” 2, p. 613 f. Janssen,ibid.[656]“Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 121 f. Janssen,ibid.[657]Cp. above,passim, and vol. iii., p. 324; vol. ii., pp. 123 ff., 218 ff. 344, 349 f.[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173.[659]Ibid., p. 100.[660]Ibid., p. 373.[661]Hausrath, 2, p. 391.[662]Letter of Feb. 9, 1541. See G. Mentz, “Johann Friedrich der Grossmütige,” 3, Jena, 1908, p. 344, according to certain “archives.”—Steinhausen (“Kulturgesch. der Deutschen,” p. 508), calls the Elector Johann Frederick quite simply a “drunkard.” He points out that Anna of Saxony died of drink and that the Saxons, even in the 15th century, were noted for their drinking habits.[663]Letter of Jan. 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 302.[664]“Luthers Leben,” 2, Berlin, 1904, p. 391.[665]3 Teil, Jena, 1909, p. 343 f.[666]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, p. 213.[667]Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Karls V. wider die Schmalkaldische,” 1, Gotha, 1645, p. 1837.[668]Ibid., p. 1869 f.[669]N. Paulus, who examined the matter more closely in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 154, comes to the conclusion that Mentz in his Life of Johann Frederick has not laid sufficient weight on the testimony of the witnesses.[670]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 391 f.[671]Cp. above,passim.[672]Vol. i., p. 601.[673]Frankfurt, 1699, 2, p. 44.[674]Ibid.[675]“Allg. deutsche Biographie,” 7, p. 781 (Flathe).[676]Hausrath,loc. cit., 2, p. 67.[677]Ibid., p. 68.[678]“Martin Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, p. xiii.[679]Hausrath,ibid., 2, p. 390.[680]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 209, from the original at Weimar, written by Bugenhagen: “Utcunque sint in quibusdam peccatores et non in omnibus puri, calumniantibus hoc etiam vel forte accusantibus adversariis, tamen confidant de Domini bonitate,” etc. And before this, concerning the “adversariorum clamores ‘Rapiunt bona ecclesiastica,’” etc., they were to comfort themselves, “quia non sic rapiunt, quemadmodum quidam alii; video enim eos per hæc bona curare quæ sunt religionis. Si quid præterea ipsis ex talibus bonis accedit, quis potius ea susciperet? Principum sunt talia, non nebulonum papistarum.” The general spoliation of church property disturbed his mind, as we can see, but he overcomes his scruples, and persuades himself that their action, like his own, was really directed against Antichrist: “Iube meis verbis, ut faciant in Deo confidenter pro causa evangelii quicquid Spiritus sanctus suggesserit; non præscribo eis modum. Misericors Deus confortet eos, ut maneant in ista sana doctrina et gratias agant, quod sunt liberati ab Antichristo.”[681]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 588.[682]This ex-priest, Michael Kramer, first took a wife at Cunitz, and when she began to lead a bad life, married a second at Dommitzsch “on the strength of an advice secured.” On account of matrimonial squabbles he married a third time, after obtaining advice from Luther through the magistrates. C. A. Burkhardt, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” p. 87; cp. his “Gesch. d. sächs. Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen,” p. 48.[683]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 888, 913, 982. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, pp. 362 f., 369. Above, vol. iii., p. 324.[684]Quoted in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 100 f.[685]From Burkhardt,ibid.Janssen,ibid.[686]Janssen,ibid., 6, p. 521, given as Melanchthon’s words.[687]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, pp. 181, 192 f. Janssen,ibid., p. 523. W. Schmidt (“Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen im sächs. Kurkreis von 1555,” 1907, Hft. 1-2, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 90) fancies he can discern a certain improvement in ecclesiastical life and in the school system about the year 1555.[688]For the way Metzsch was dealt with, see Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 163, 167. “Briefe,” 6, p. 213 f. Below, vol. v., xxx., 3.[689]“Briefe,” 5, p. 223 f.[690]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”[691]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411, conclusion of the “Auslegung über etliche Kapitel des fünften Buches Mosis,” 1529.[692]Ibid., Erl. ed., 9², p. 330 f., “Kirchenpostille.”[693]Ibid., 4², p. 4, “Hauspostille.”[694]Ibid.[695]Ibid., p. 6.[696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443.[697]“Comment, in ep. ad Galatas,” 2, p. 351.[698]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443, according to another set of notes of the sermon quoted in n. 1.[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.[700]Ibid., 59, p. 6. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.[701]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 455.[702]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 86, “Auff das vermeint Edict,” 1531.[703]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 385 ff.=86 f.[704]March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 722, letter called forth by the death of George Held Forchheim, to whom the Prince was much attached.[705]To Catherine Bora, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753.[706]To Justus Jonas, June 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 570.[707]On Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 615.[708]“Vermahnung,” Feb. or Nov., 1542, “Briefe,” 6, p. 302.[709]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 80 ff.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23 ff.[710]Ibid., 27, p. 408 f., in the newly published sermons of 1528.[711]Ibid., p. 418 f.[712]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.[713]Ibid., p. 153.[714]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” 179.[715]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 402.[716]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.[717]Ibid., p. 138.[718]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185.[719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 323 (Table-Talk).[720]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 19.[721]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. (Table-Talk).[722]“Historien,” p. 136´. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 126 andibid., Introduction, p. 72; Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 13. See above, p. 210.[723]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 70, Khummer.[724]Ibid., p. 80.[725]Above, vol. iii., p. 410.[726]G. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Cp. Luther’s letter to Spalatin, quoted in vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1, where he tells him: “Tristitia occidet te”; by his (Luther’s) mouth Christ had raised up Melanchthon from a similar state induced by the “spiritus tristitiæ”; such continuous sorrow over sin was an even greater sin; he was still inexperienced “in the battle against sin or conscience and the law”; now, however, he must look upon Luther as St. Peter, who speaks to him as he did to the lame man: “In the name of Christ, arise and walk”; Christ did not wish him to be “crucified with sorrow”; this came from the devil.—We do not learn that these words had any effect.[727]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 416.[728]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 193.[729]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung,” Leipzig, 1740, p. 519.[730]M. Hempel, “Libellus H. Welleri,” Lipsiæ, 1581, p. 60.[731]H. Weller, Preface to Beltzius, “On Man’s Conversion,” Leipzig, 1575.[732]He wrote “Against the grievous plague of Melancholy,” Erfurt, 1557, and “A useful instruction against the demon of melancholy,” 1569 (s.l.). In the latter work he says in the Preface that he considered himself all the more called to comfort “sad and sorrowful hearts” because he himself “not seldom lay sick in that same hospital.”[733]“We experience in our own selves, that our hearts become increasingly stupid, weak and timid, and often know not whence it comes or what it is.” “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nürnberg, 1565, p. 94.—On his edition of the Table-Talk, cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.[734]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 231, where Capito’s letter to Luther of June 13, 1536, is given. The letter is also in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 353. Capito there laments, “me deiectiorem apud me factum, adeo ut in morbum melancholicum prope inciderim. Hilaritatem, si potero, revocabo.” The internal dissensions, which pained and distressed him to the last degree, were the immediate cause of his sadness, so he declares.[735]C. Gerbert, “Gesch. der Strassburger Sektenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation,” Strasburg, 1889, p. 183 f.[736]Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 462seq.[737]Contemporary account in J. C. Siebenkees, “Materialien zur Nürnberg. Gesch.,” 2, Nuremberg, 1792, p. 754.[738]Fischlin, “Memoria theologorum Wirtembergensium,” 1, Ulmæ, 1720, pp. 144, 171.[739]Cp. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer und Elend menschlichen Lebens und Wesens,” Leipzig, 1574, Bl. 3´.[740]“Handbuch,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1613, p. 725 f. (1 ed., 1603).[741]“Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nuremberg, 1565, p. 94.[742]Sarcerius, “Etliche Predigten,” etc., Leipzig, 1551, Bl. C 2´.[743]Strigel, “Ypomnemata 1,” Lipsiæ, 1565, p. 219.[744]Sachse, “Acht Trostpredigten,” Leipzig, 1602, Bl. A 5´.[745]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. On the Disputation held at Leipzig by Beyer, the ex-Augustinian, see vol. i, p. 316.[746]G. Loesche, “Joh. Mathesius,” 1, Gotha, 1895, p. 223.[747]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.[748]“Fest-Chronika,” 2 Tl., Leipzig, 1602, Bl. 2´ (1 ed., 1591).[749]G. Th. Strobel, “Neue Beyträge zur Literatur,” 1, Nuremberg, 1790, p. 97.[750]Hondorf-Sturm, “Calendarium Sanctorum,” Leipzig, 1599, p. 338.[751]L. Osiander, “Bauren-Postilla,” 4 Tl., Tübingen, 1599, p. 188.[752]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 365.[753]Hocker-Hamelmann, “Der Teufel selbs,” 3 Tl., Ursel, 1568, p. 130.[754]Celichius in a work on suicide: “Nützlicher und nothwendiger Bericht von den Leuten, so sich selbst aus Angst, Verzweiffelung oder andern Ursachen entleiben und hinrichten,” Magdeburg, 1578, Bl. A 2, S 5, R 5´.[755]Helding, “Von der hailigisten Messe,” Ingolstadt, 1548, p. 7.[756]“Postilla oder Auslegung der Sonntagsevangelien,” Nuremberg, 1565, p. 14.[757]Selnecker, “Tröstliche schöne Spruch für die engstigen Gewissen,” Leipzig, 1561, Preface.[758]Georg Major (a Wittenberg Professor), “Homiliæ in Evangelia dominicalia,” 1, Wittenbergæ, 1562, p. 38.—Johann Pomarius, preacher at Magdeburg: “People are growing so distressed and afflicted that they droop and languish,” etc., the Last Day is, however, “at the door.” “Postilla,” Bd. 1, Magdeburg, 1587, p. 6 f.[759]Nikol. Kramer, “Würtzgärtlein der Seelen,” Frankfurt a. M., 1573, Bl. V., 3´. Still more emphatically the preacher Sigismund Suevus (“Trewe Warnung für der leidigen Verzweiffelung,” Görlitz, 1572, p. A 3´): The devil raves and rages in these latter days like a mad dog and tries above all to make people despair.[760]Christoph Irenæus, preacher at Eisleben, “Prognosticon,” 1578, (s.l.), Bl. D d 3.[761]Joh. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer,” etc., Bl. B 3´.[762]Ruprecht Erythropilus, preacher at Hanover, “Weckglock,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1595, p. 181 f.[763]Valerius Herberger, preacher at Fraustädt, “Herzpostilla,” Bl. 1, Leipzig, 1614, p. 16 ff.[764]Andreas Celichius, “Notwendige Erinnerung,” etc., Wittenberg, 1595, Bl. A 3 ff. He enumerates with terror thirty possessed persons in Mecklenburg alone, among whom, however, he probably includes many who were simply mad. “Here, in the immediate vicinity,” he says, “three preachers have lost their minds, and would even appear to be bodily possessed.” J. Moehsen (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in der Mark Brandenburg,” Berlin, 1781, p. 500) rightly remarked: “The plentiful writings and sermons on the devil’s power, ... on the portents of the Last Judgment, such as comets, meteors, bloody rain, etc., cost many their reason during the latter half of the 16th century.”[765]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452: “‘Articulus fidei’ won’t go home, ‘ideo tot accidunt tristitiæ’”[766]“Extract oder Ausszug aus der Postill,” Magdeburg, 1584, p. 16 f.[767]See N. Paulus, “Die Melancholie im 16 Jahrh.” (“Wiss. Beilage zur Germania,” 1897, No. 18), p. 137 ff.; on p. 140 he refers to G. Draudius, “Bibl. libr. germ.,” for the titles of many such works of consolation. For the above description we have made use of this rich article by Paulus and of his other one: “Der Selbstmord im 16. Jahrh.,”ibid., 1896, No. 1.[768]“Eyne schöne Artzney, dadurch der leidenden Christen Sorge und Betrübnus gelindert werden,” Lübeck, 1555, p. 145.[769]Op. cit., Bl. A 3´, R 5.[770]“Fünff fürnemliche Zeichen ... vor dem jüngsten Tag,” Jena, 1554, Bl. B 4´.[771]Op. cit., Magdeburg, 1584, p. 733.[772]“Verthädigung deren, so sich diser Zeit ... in den Frid der römischen Kirchen begeben,” Dillingen, 1574, p. 72 f.[773]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 9, 76, 88.[774]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.[775]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.[776]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 21.[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418 f., in the sermons of 1528, recently published.[778]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 154´; Kroker, “Mathesius’ Tischreden,” Einleitung, p. 70.[779]Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. Euling, p. 40.[780]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 572, n.[781]May 13, 1543, “Briefe,” 5 (De Wette and Seidemann), p. 560.[782]1542, possibly Feb. or Nov. “Briefe,” 6, p. 302. Cp. the Rector’s exhortation to the students on Feb. 18, 1542, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 780seq.[783]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178.[784]Published from notes taken at the time.[785]“Historien,” p. 216.[786]He says this to Pastor Bernard of Dölen, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 272 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 140.[787]“Werke,”ibid., p. 273.[788]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 389.[789]See above, vol. iii., p. 309.[790]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 184: “Prædicator ascendat suggestum, aperiat os et desinat,” etc. See,ibid., No. 316a, also pp. 139 and 196.[791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 214.[792]“Luthers Sprichwörtersammlung,” ed. E. Thiele, Weimar, 1900, No. 483.[793]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 113seq.[794]“Historien,” pp. 144, 148, 151, etc.[795]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 31.[796]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 265.[797]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 82.[798]The lack of religious instruction in the schools is confirmed by Falk, “Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu Mainz (1491-1518),” 1904, p. 17.[799]“Historien,” 12 Predigt.[800]To Margrave George of Brandenburg, Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[801]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.[802]Cp. O. Clemen, “Zeitschrift für KG.,” 1909, p. 382.[803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352. Agricola had excused himself by saying he had not attacked Luther but Cruciger and Rörer. Luther replied: “Catechismus, tabulæ, confessio Augustana, etc., mea, non Crucigeri nec Rœreri sunt.”[804]See vol. vi., xxxv., 6, on his attitude to the taking of interest.[805]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², pp. 89 ff., 105 ff.; 19², p. 243 ff. Cp. above, p. 142.[806]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 437.[807]Ibid., p. 641 ff., “Collections” is our amendment for “Lections.”[808]Luther must have known that in Catholic worship the Divine Son is more honoured by the veneration of Mary than she herself. That adoration was paid to God alone and not to Mary he could see from the text of the prayers of the ancient Church. Luther, for instance, was acquainted with the Invitatories of the Office for the Feasts of Mary’s Nativity and Assumption, the first of which commences with the words: “Let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary,” and then at once adds: “Let us adore her Son Christ our Lord”; while the second sets Our Lord in the first place and says: “Come, let us adore the King of Kings Whose Virgin Mother was to-day assumed into Heaven.” Thus in the Liturgy which he himself had celebrated, the leading thought, that Christ was honoured in Mary, ran through the celebration of all her Feasts, from that of her entrance into this life to that of her exit. The Hymns to the Mother of God in Luther’s day concluded as they do now: “Jesu, to Thee be glory, Who wast born of a virgin,” etc. Any adoration of the Blessed Virgin as of a “goddess” was so alien to the people that it would have been rejected with indignation.In the same way that the Invitatories just quoted expressly reserve adoration for the Divine Son, so the veneration of the Mother of God in the Church’s Offices is justified on exactly the same grounds as those which, according to Luther, result from the mystery of the Visitation and from the Magnificat. The Church has always extolled Mary simply in the spirit of the Magnificat.—Luther himself had published a printed exposition of the Magnificat in 1521. There he still speaks of the Blessed Virgin in the usual way (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 545 f.; Erl. ed., 45, p. 214 f.). At the commencement of the work he invokes her assistance with the words: “May the same tender Mother of God obtain for me the spirit to interpret her song usefully and practically ... that we may sing and chant this Magnificat eternally in the life to come. So help us God. Amen” (p. 546 = 214). In the same way, at the close, he expresses his hope that a right understanding of the Magnificat “may not only illumine and teach, but burn and live in body and soul; may Christ grant us this by the intercession and assistance of His dear Mother Mary. Amen” (p. 601 = 287). Thus he was then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint, and declared it to be one of “the abuses of Antichrist.” (See Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370 ff.)—Luther wrote his exposition of the Magnificat in the spirit which must inspire every theologian who studies the canticle, and which had been even stronger in him during his Catholic period. At the same time he obviously wished to work upon the wavering and cautious Court of the Elector, and for this reason dedicated this work, which, though peaceful in tone, contained hidden errors, to Prince Johann Frederick in a submissive letter. It should be noted that Luther wrote this dedication soon after receiving his summons to Worms. It is dated March 10, 1521 (ibid., p. 545=212. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 109).[809]He admitted this belief handed down in the Catholic Schools, though not proclaimed a dogma till much later, in the sermon he preached in 1527 “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of God”: “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 58). The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear. (Cp. N. Paulus, “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 41.) In a work of 1521 he says: Mary not only kept God’s commandments perfectly but also “received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we believe” (“Rationis Latomianæ confutatio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8. p. 56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 416). As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.[810]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 64-302; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.[811]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.[812]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.[813]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505seq.[814]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 145 f.[815]Ibid., p. 192 ff.[816]Ibid., pp. 148-200.[817]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 1 f.; 12², p. 408.[818]Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 58; “KL.,” 8², col. 343.[819]“Cod. germ. Monacensis,” 4842, Bl. 1, 2´.[820]“Gesch. Luthers,” German edition, Mayence, 1836, p. 463 f.[821]E. Gutjahr, “Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache”; “Studien zur deutschen Rechts- und Sprachgesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1906.[822]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 3, p. 238.[823]“Leichenrede” of Feb. 19, 1546, commencement; “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.[824]“Wellers Deutsche Schriften,” Tl. 3, p. 215. Before this Weller remarks: “For he was equal to the greatest prophets and Apostles in spirit, strength, wisdom, ability and experience.” He attributes to him “a prophetical spirit, notable strength, generosity and a power of faith such as we read existed in the prophet Elias....” Great persecutions and temptations had been his masters and teachers; they it was who had taught him the art of speaking.[825]Above, p. 210.[826]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 27, 37.[827]On the inner connection between his own teaching and Antinomianism and on his controversy with Agricola, see vol. v., xxix., 2 and 3.[828]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 504.[829]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.[830]E. Thiele, “Luthers Sprichwörtersamml.,” Weimar, 1900.[831]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 346.[832]“Briefe an Stephan Roth,” ed. Buchwald (“Archiv des deutschen Buchhandels,” 16, 1893), p. 37; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.[833]L. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volkes,” Bonn, 1903, p. 125.[834]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10.
[617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 343 f., Table-Talk.[618]Ibid., 58, p. 412 (Table-Talk), where Luther bases his tale on a remark of the Protestant Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony.[619]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 413 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. See our vol. ii., p. 295 f.[620]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.[621]P. 135.[622]P. 130.[623]P. 144.[624]“Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen,” p. 53.[625]Above, p. 38, and vol. iii., p. 262.[626]Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 271.[627]To Johannes Cellarius, minister at Dresden, Nov. 26, 1540, Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 229.[628]Ibid., cp. the letter to Wenceslaus Link of Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 270: “Proceres veteri odio despiciunt Wittembergam.”[629]Letter of Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 313.[630]To Provost George Buchholzer at Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539,ibid., p. 316. At the Wittenberg Schlosskirche the elevation had gone before 1539, and soon after was discontinued throughout the Saxon Electorate. It was retained, however, in the parish church of Wittenberg until Bugenhagen did away with it on June 25, 1542. Luther reserved to himself the liberty of re-introducing it should heresy or other reasons call for it. He had retained the elevation at Wittenberg for a while as a protest against Carlstadt’s attacks on the Sacrament, at least such was the reason he gave in May, 1542, to Landgrave Philip, who wanted its abrogation. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 578.[631]Dec., 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266).[632]Cp. Enders,ibid., 10, p. 98, n. 7.[633]Letter to Coler, April 30, 1535. Enders,ibid., p. 151, n. 5.[634]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 17, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 98.[635]To Erhard Schnepf at Stuttgart, May 15, 1535,ibid., p. 150.[636]Letter to the Chancellor Leonard v. Eck, Jan. 21, 1535, in Wille, “Anal. zur Gesch. Oberdeutschlands, 1534-1540” (“Zeitschr. für die Gesch. des Oberrheins,” 37, p. 263 ff.), p. 293 f.[637]G. Bossert in “Württemberg. KG.,” ed. Calwer Verlagsverein, Calw. 1893, p. 335.[638]Cp.ibid., p. 336.[639]Ibid., p. 347.[640]Ibid., p. 348.[641]Hans Werner to Chancellor Eck, Jan. 14, 1536, Wille,ibid., p. 298.[642]Bossert,ibid., remarks, p. 333: “Manymediæval works of art were preserved.”[643]Ibid., p. 356.[644]In Heyd, “Ulrich Herzog von Würtenberg,” 3, p. 89.[645]The passages are given in greater detail in “Erinnerung nach dem Lauf der Planeten gestellt,” Tübingen, 1568, and “Dreizehn Predigten vom Türken,” Tübingen, 1569, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, pp. 376-378.[646]Bossert,ibid., p. 357.[647]Thus, e.g. Bossert,loc. cit., and in other studies on Würtemberg Church-History in the 16th century, called forth by Janssen’s work.[648]Cp. above,passim.[649]See above, p. 65.[650]“Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 334 f.[651]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 315 f. On his marriage, see above, p. 157.[652]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,” 1, p. 290.[653]“Leben,” etc. (“Zeitschr. des Vereins für hess. Gesch.,” Suppl. 2, Bd. 1 und 2), 1, p. 379 ff.[654]Neudecker, “Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit,” p. 684 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, pp. 88-91.[655]Hassencamp, “Hess. KG. im Zeitalter der Reformation,” 2, p. 613 f. Janssen,ibid.[656]“Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 121 f. Janssen,ibid.[657]Cp. above,passim, and vol. iii., p. 324; vol. ii., pp. 123 ff., 218 ff. 344, 349 f.[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173.[659]Ibid., p. 100.[660]Ibid., p. 373.[661]Hausrath, 2, p. 391.[662]Letter of Feb. 9, 1541. See G. Mentz, “Johann Friedrich der Grossmütige,” 3, Jena, 1908, p. 344, according to certain “archives.”—Steinhausen (“Kulturgesch. der Deutschen,” p. 508), calls the Elector Johann Frederick quite simply a “drunkard.” He points out that Anna of Saxony died of drink and that the Saxons, even in the 15th century, were noted for their drinking habits.[663]Letter of Jan. 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 302.[664]“Luthers Leben,” 2, Berlin, 1904, p. 391.[665]3 Teil, Jena, 1909, p. 343 f.[666]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, p. 213.[667]Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Karls V. wider die Schmalkaldische,” 1, Gotha, 1645, p. 1837.[668]Ibid., p. 1869 f.[669]N. Paulus, who examined the matter more closely in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 154, comes to the conclusion that Mentz in his Life of Johann Frederick has not laid sufficient weight on the testimony of the witnesses.[670]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 391 f.[671]Cp. above,passim.[672]Vol. i., p. 601.[673]Frankfurt, 1699, 2, p. 44.[674]Ibid.[675]“Allg. deutsche Biographie,” 7, p. 781 (Flathe).[676]Hausrath,loc. cit., 2, p. 67.[677]Ibid., p. 68.[678]“Martin Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, p. xiii.[679]Hausrath,ibid., 2, p. 390.[680]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 209, from the original at Weimar, written by Bugenhagen: “Utcunque sint in quibusdam peccatores et non in omnibus puri, calumniantibus hoc etiam vel forte accusantibus adversariis, tamen confidant de Domini bonitate,” etc. And before this, concerning the “adversariorum clamores ‘Rapiunt bona ecclesiastica,’” etc., they were to comfort themselves, “quia non sic rapiunt, quemadmodum quidam alii; video enim eos per hæc bona curare quæ sunt religionis. Si quid præterea ipsis ex talibus bonis accedit, quis potius ea susciperet? Principum sunt talia, non nebulonum papistarum.” The general spoliation of church property disturbed his mind, as we can see, but he overcomes his scruples, and persuades himself that their action, like his own, was really directed against Antichrist: “Iube meis verbis, ut faciant in Deo confidenter pro causa evangelii quicquid Spiritus sanctus suggesserit; non præscribo eis modum. Misericors Deus confortet eos, ut maneant in ista sana doctrina et gratias agant, quod sunt liberati ab Antichristo.”[681]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 588.[682]This ex-priest, Michael Kramer, first took a wife at Cunitz, and when she began to lead a bad life, married a second at Dommitzsch “on the strength of an advice secured.” On account of matrimonial squabbles he married a third time, after obtaining advice from Luther through the magistrates. C. A. Burkhardt, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” p. 87; cp. his “Gesch. d. sächs. Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen,” p. 48.[683]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 888, 913, 982. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, pp. 362 f., 369. Above, vol. iii., p. 324.[684]Quoted in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 100 f.[685]From Burkhardt,ibid.Janssen,ibid.[686]Janssen,ibid., 6, p. 521, given as Melanchthon’s words.[687]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, pp. 181, 192 f. Janssen,ibid., p. 523. W. Schmidt (“Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen im sächs. Kurkreis von 1555,” 1907, Hft. 1-2, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 90) fancies he can discern a certain improvement in ecclesiastical life and in the school system about the year 1555.[688]For the way Metzsch was dealt with, see Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 163, 167. “Briefe,” 6, p. 213 f. Below, vol. v., xxx., 3.[689]“Briefe,” 5, p. 223 f.[690]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”[691]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411, conclusion of the “Auslegung über etliche Kapitel des fünften Buches Mosis,” 1529.[692]Ibid., Erl. ed., 9², p. 330 f., “Kirchenpostille.”[693]Ibid., 4², p. 4, “Hauspostille.”[694]Ibid.[695]Ibid., p. 6.[696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443.[697]“Comment, in ep. ad Galatas,” 2, p. 351.[698]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443, according to another set of notes of the sermon quoted in n. 1.[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.[700]Ibid., 59, p. 6. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.[701]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 455.[702]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 86, “Auff das vermeint Edict,” 1531.[703]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 385 ff.=86 f.[704]March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 722, letter called forth by the death of George Held Forchheim, to whom the Prince was much attached.[705]To Catherine Bora, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753.[706]To Justus Jonas, June 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 570.[707]On Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 615.[708]“Vermahnung,” Feb. or Nov., 1542, “Briefe,” 6, p. 302.[709]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 80 ff.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23 ff.[710]Ibid., 27, p. 408 f., in the newly published sermons of 1528.[711]Ibid., p. 418 f.[712]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.[713]Ibid., p. 153.[714]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” 179.[715]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 402.[716]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.[717]Ibid., p. 138.[718]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185.[719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 323 (Table-Talk).[720]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 19.[721]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. (Table-Talk).[722]“Historien,” p. 136´. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 126 andibid., Introduction, p. 72; Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 13. See above, p. 210.[723]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 70, Khummer.[724]Ibid., p. 80.[725]Above, vol. iii., p. 410.[726]G. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Cp. Luther’s letter to Spalatin, quoted in vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1, where he tells him: “Tristitia occidet te”; by his (Luther’s) mouth Christ had raised up Melanchthon from a similar state induced by the “spiritus tristitiæ”; such continuous sorrow over sin was an even greater sin; he was still inexperienced “in the battle against sin or conscience and the law”; now, however, he must look upon Luther as St. Peter, who speaks to him as he did to the lame man: “In the name of Christ, arise and walk”; Christ did not wish him to be “crucified with sorrow”; this came from the devil.—We do not learn that these words had any effect.[727]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 416.[728]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 193.[729]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung,” Leipzig, 1740, p. 519.[730]M. Hempel, “Libellus H. Welleri,” Lipsiæ, 1581, p. 60.[731]H. Weller, Preface to Beltzius, “On Man’s Conversion,” Leipzig, 1575.[732]He wrote “Against the grievous plague of Melancholy,” Erfurt, 1557, and “A useful instruction against the demon of melancholy,” 1569 (s.l.). In the latter work he says in the Preface that he considered himself all the more called to comfort “sad and sorrowful hearts” because he himself “not seldom lay sick in that same hospital.”[733]“We experience in our own selves, that our hearts become increasingly stupid, weak and timid, and often know not whence it comes or what it is.” “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nürnberg, 1565, p. 94.—On his edition of the Table-Talk, cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.[734]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 231, where Capito’s letter to Luther of June 13, 1536, is given. The letter is also in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 353. Capito there laments, “me deiectiorem apud me factum, adeo ut in morbum melancholicum prope inciderim. Hilaritatem, si potero, revocabo.” The internal dissensions, which pained and distressed him to the last degree, were the immediate cause of his sadness, so he declares.[735]C. Gerbert, “Gesch. der Strassburger Sektenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation,” Strasburg, 1889, p. 183 f.[736]Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 462seq.[737]Contemporary account in J. C. Siebenkees, “Materialien zur Nürnberg. Gesch.,” 2, Nuremberg, 1792, p. 754.[738]Fischlin, “Memoria theologorum Wirtembergensium,” 1, Ulmæ, 1720, pp. 144, 171.[739]Cp. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer und Elend menschlichen Lebens und Wesens,” Leipzig, 1574, Bl. 3´.[740]“Handbuch,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1613, p. 725 f. (1 ed., 1603).[741]“Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nuremberg, 1565, p. 94.[742]Sarcerius, “Etliche Predigten,” etc., Leipzig, 1551, Bl. C 2´.[743]Strigel, “Ypomnemata 1,” Lipsiæ, 1565, p. 219.[744]Sachse, “Acht Trostpredigten,” Leipzig, 1602, Bl. A 5´.[745]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. On the Disputation held at Leipzig by Beyer, the ex-Augustinian, see vol. i, p. 316.[746]G. Loesche, “Joh. Mathesius,” 1, Gotha, 1895, p. 223.[747]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.[748]“Fest-Chronika,” 2 Tl., Leipzig, 1602, Bl. 2´ (1 ed., 1591).[749]G. Th. Strobel, “Neue Beyträge zur Literatur,” 1, Nuremberg, 1790, p. 97.[750]Hondorf-Sturm, “Calendarium Sanctorum,” Leipzig, 1599, p. 338.[751]L. Osiander, “Bauren-Postilla,” 4 Tl., Tübingen, 1599, p. 188.[752]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 365.[753]Hocker-Hamelmann, “Der Teufel selbs,” 3 Tl., Ursel, 1568, p. 130.[754]Celichius in a work on suicide: “Nützlicher und nothwendiger Bericht von den Leuten, so sich selbst aus Angst, Verzweiffelung oder andern Ursachen entleiben und hinrichten,” Magdeburg, 1578, Bl. A 2, S 5, R 5´.[755]Helding, “Von der hailigisten Messe,” Ingolstadt, 1548, p. 7.[756]“Postilla oder Auslegung der Sonntagsevangelien,” Nuremberg, 1565, p. 14.[757]Selnecker, “Tröstliche schöne Spruch für die engstigen Gewissen,” Leipzig, 1561, Preface.[758]Georg Major (a Wittenberg Professor), “Homiliæ in Evangelia dominicalia,” 1, Wittenbergæ, 1562, p. 38.—Johann Pomarius, preacher at Magdeburg: “People are growing so distressed and afflicted that they droop and languish,” etc., the Last Day is, however, “at the door.” “Postilla,” Bd. 1, Magdeburg, 1587, p. 6 f.[759]Nikol. Kramer, “Würtzgärtlein der Seelen,” Frankfurt a. M., 1573, Bl. V., 3´. Still more emphatically the preacher Sigismund Suevus (“Trewe Warnung für der leidigen Verzweiffelung,” Görlitz, 1572, p. A 3´): The devil raves and rages in these latter days like a mad dog and tries above all to make people despair.[760]Christoph Irenæus, preacher at Eisleben, “Prognosticon,” 1578, (s.l.), Bl. D d 3.[761]Joh. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer,” etc., Bl. B 3´.[762]Ruprecht Erythropilus, preacher at Hanover, “Weckglock,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1595, p. 181 f.[763]Valerius Herberger, preacher at Fraustädt, “Herzpostilla,” Bl. 1, Leipzig, 1614, p. 16 ff.[764]Andreas Celichius, “Notwendige Erinnerung,” etc., Wittenberg, 1595, Bl. A 3 ff. He enumerates with terror thirty possessed persons in Mecklenburg alone, among whom, however, he probably includes many who were simply mad. “Here, in the immediate vicinity,” he says, “three preachers have lost their minds, and would even appear to be bodily possessed.” J. Moehsen (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in der Mark Brandenburg,” Berlin, 1781, p. 500) rightly remarked: “The plentiful writings and sermons on the devil’s power, ... on the portents of the Last Judgment, such as comets, meteors, bloody rain, etc., cost many their reason during the latter half of the 16th century.”[765]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452: “‘Articulus fidei’ won’t go home, ‘ideo tot accidunt tristitiæ’”[766]“Extract oder Ausszug aus der Postill,” Magdeburg, 1584, p. 16 f.[767]See N. Paulus, “Die Melancholie im 16 Jahrh.” (“Wiss. Beilage zur Germania,” 1897, No. 18), p. 137 ff.; on p. 140 he refers to G. Draudius, “Bibl. libr. germ.,” for the titles of many such works of consolation. For the above description we have made use of this rich article by Paulus and of his other one: “Der Selbstmord im 16. Jahrh.,”ibid., 1896, No. 1.[768]“Eyne schöne Artzney, dadurch der leidenden Christen Sorge und Betrübnus gelindert werden,” Lübeck, 1555, p. 145.[769]Op. cit., Bl. A 3´, R 5.[770]“Fünff fürnemliche Zeichen ... vor dem jüngsten Tag,” Jena, 1554, Bl. B 4´.[771]Op. cit., Magdeburg, 1584, p. 733.[772]“Verthädigung deren, so sich diser Zeit ... in den Frid der römischen Kirchen begeben,” Dillingen, 1574, p. 72 f.[773]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 9, 76, 88.[774]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.[775]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.[776]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 21.[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418 f., in the sermons of 1528, recently published.[778]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 154´; Kroker, “Mathesius’ Tischreden,” Einleitung, p. 70.[779]Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. Euling, p. 40.[780]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 572, n.[781]May 13, 1543, “Briefe,” 5 (De Wette and Seidemann), p. 560.[782]1542, possibly Feb. or Nov. “Briefe,” 6, p. 302. Cp. the Rector’s exhortation to the students on Feb. 18, 1542, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 780seq.[783]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178.[784]Published from notes taken at the time.[785]“Historien,” p. 216.[786]He says this to Pastor Bernard of Dölen, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 272 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 140.[787]“Werke,”ibid., p. 273.[788]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 389.[789]See above, vol. iii., p. 309.[790]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 184: “Prædicator ascendat suggestum, aperiat os et desinat,” etc. See,ibid., No. 316a, also pp. 139 and 196.[791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 214.[792]“Luthers Sprichwörtersammlung,” ed. E. Thiele, Weimar, 1900, No. 483.[793]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 113seq.[794]“Historien,” pp. 144, 148, 151, etc.[795]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 31.[796]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 265.[797]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 82.[798]The lack of religious instruction in the schools is confirmed by Falk, “Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu Mainz (1491-1518),” 1904, p. 17.[799]“Historien,” 12 Predigt.[800]To Margrave George of Brandenburg, Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[801]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.[802]Cp. O. Clemen, “Zeitschrift für KG.,” 1909, p. 382.[803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352. Agricola had excused himself by saying he had not attacked Luther but Cruciger and Rörer. Luther replied: “Catechismus, tabulæ, confessio Augustana, etc., mea, non Crucigeri nec Rœreri sunt.”[804]See vol. vi., xxxv., 6, on his attitude to the taking of interest.[805]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², pp. 89 ff., 105 ff.; 19², p. 243 ff. Cp. above, p. 142.[806]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 437.[807]Ibid., p. 641 ff., “Collections” is our amendment for “Lections.”[808]Luther must have known that in Catholic worship the Divine Son is more honoured by the veneration of Mary than she herself. That adoration was paid to God alone and not to Mary he could see from the text of the prayers of the ancient Church. Luther, for instance, was acquainted with the Invitatories of the Office for the Feasts of Mary’s Nativity and Assumption, the first of which commences with the words: “Let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary,” and then at once adds: “Let us adore her Son Christ our Lord”; while the second sets Our Lord in the first place and says: “Come, let us adore the King of Kings Whose Virgin Mother was to-day assumed into Heaven.” Thus in the Liturgy which he himself had celebrated, the leading thought, that Christ was honoured in Mary, ran through the celebration of all her Feasts, from that of her entrance into this life to that of her exit. The Hymns to the Mother of God in Luther’s day concluded as they do now: “Jesu, to Thee be glory, Who wast born of a virgin,” etc. Any adoration of the Blessed Virgin as of a “goddess” was so alien to the people that it would have been rejected with indignation.In the same way that the Invitatories just quoted expressly reserve adoration for the Divine Son, so the veneration of the Mother of God in the Church’s Offices is justified on exactly the same grounds as those which, according to Luther, result from the mystery of the Visitation and from the Magnificat. The Church has always extolled Mary simply in the spirit of the Magnificat.—Luther himself had published a printed exposition of the Magnificat in 1521. There he still speaks of the Blessed Virgin in the usual way (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 545 f.; Erl. ed., 45, p. 214 f.). At the commencement of the work he invokes her assistance with the words: “May the same tender Mother of God obtain for me the spirit to interpret her song usefully and practically ... that we may sing and chant this Magnificat eternally in the life to come. So help us God. Amen” (p. 546 = 214). In the same way, at the close, he expresses his hope that a right understanding of the Magnificat “may not only illumine and teach, but burn and live in body and soul; may Christ grant us this by the intercession and assistance of His dear Mother Mary. Amen” (p. 601 = 287). Thus he was then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint, and declared it to be one of “the abuses of Antichrist.” (See Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370 ff.)—Luther wrote his exposition of the Magnificat in the spirit which must inspire every theologian who studies the canticle, and which had been even stronger in him during his Catholic period. At the same time he obviously wished to work upon the wavering and cautious Court of the Elector, and for this reason dedicated this work, which, though peaceful in tone, contained hidden errors, to Prince Johann Frederick in a submissive letter. It should be noted that Luther wrote this dedication soon after receiving his summons to Worms. It is dated March 10, 1521 (ibid., p. 545=212. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 109).[809]He admitted this belief handed down in the Catholic Schools, though not proclaimed a dogma till much later, in the sermon he preached in 1527 “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of God”: “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 58). The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear. (Cp. N. Paulus, “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 41.) In a work of 1521 he says: Mary not only kept God’s commandments perfectly but also “received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we believe” (“Rationis Latomianæ confutatio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8. p. 56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 416). As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.[810]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 64-302; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.[811]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.[812]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.[813]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505seq.[814]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 145 f.[815]Ibid., p. 192 ff.[816]Ibid., pp. 148-200.[817]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 1 f.; 12², p. 408.[818]Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 58; “KL.,” 8², col. 343.[819]“Cod. germ. Monacensis,” 4842, Bl. 1, 2´.[820]“Gesch. Luthers,” German edition, Mayence, 1836, p. 463 f.[821]E. Gutjahr, “Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache”; “Studien zur deutschen Rechts- und Sprachgesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1906.[822]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 3, p. 238.[823]“Leichenrede” of Feb. 19, 1546, commencement; “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.[824]“Wellers Deutsche Schriften,” Tl. 3, p. 215. Before this Weller remarks: “For he was equal to the greatest prophets and Apostles in spirit, strength, wisdom, ability and experience.” He attributes to him “a prophetical spirit, notable strength, generosity and a power of faith such as we read existed in the prophet Elias....” Great persecutions and temptations had been his masters and teachers; they it was who had taught him the art of speaking.[825]Above, p. 210.[826]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 27, 37.[827]On the inner connection between his own teaching and Antinomianism and on his controversy with Agricola, see vol. v., xxix., 2 and 3.[828]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 504.[829]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.[830]E. Thiele, “Luthers Sprichwörtersamml.,” Weimar, 1900.[831]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 346.[832]“Briefe an Stephan Roth,” ed. Buchwald (“Archiv des deutschen Buchhandels,” 16, 1893), p. 37; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.[833]L. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volkes,” Bonn, 1903, p. 125.[834]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10.
[617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 343 f., Table-Talk.[618]Ibid., 58, p. 412 (Table-Talk), where Luther bases his tale on a remark of the Protestant Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony.[619]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 413 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. See our vol. ii., p. 295 f.[620]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.[621]P. 135.[622]P. 130.[623]P. 144.[624]“Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen,” p. 53.[625]Above, p. 38, and vol. iii., p. 262.[626]Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 271.[627]To Johannes Cellarius, minister at Dresden, Nov. 26, 1540, Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 229.[628]Ibid., cp. the letter to Wenceslaus Link of Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 270: “Proceres veteri odio despiciunt Wittembergam.”[629]Letter of Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 313.[630]To Provost George Buchholzer at Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539,ibid., p. 316. At the Wittenberg Schlosskirche the elevation had gone before 1539, and soon after was discontinued throughout the Saxon Electorate. It was retained, however, in the parish church of Wittenberg until Bugenhagen did away with it on June 25, 1542. Luther reserved to himself the liberty of re-introducing it should heresy or other reasons call for it. He had retained the elevation at Wittenberg for a while as a protest against Carlstadt’s attacks on the Sacrament, at least such was the reason he gave in May, 1542, to Landgrave Philip, who wanted its abrogation. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 578.[631]Dec., 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266).[632]Cp. Enders,ibid., 10, p. 98, n. 7.[633]Letter to Coler, April 30, 1535. Enders,ibid., p. 151, n. 5.[634]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 17, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 98.[635]To Erhard Schnepf at Stuttgart, May 15, 1535,ibid., p. 150.[636]Letter to the Chancellor Leonard v. Eck, Jan. 21, 1535, in Wille, “Anal. zur Gesch. Oberdeutschlands, 1534-1540” (“Zeitschr. für die Gesch. des Oberrheins,” 37, p. 263 ff.), p. 293 f.[637]G. Bossert in “Württemberg. KG.,” ed. Calwer Verlagsverein, Calw. 1893, p. 335.[638]Cp.ibid., p. 336.[639]Ibid., p. 347.[640]Ibid., p. 348.[641]Hans Werner to Chancellor Eck, Jan. 14, 1536, Wille,ibid., p. 298.[642]Bossert,ibid., remarks, p. 333: “Manymediæval works of art were preserved.”[643]Ibid., p. 356.[644]In Heyd, “Ulrich Herzog von Würtenberg,” 3, p. 89.[645]The passages are given in greater detail in “Erinnerung nach dem Lauf der Planeten gestellt,” Tübingen, 1568, and “Dreizehn Predigten vom Türken,” Tübingen, 1569, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, pp. 376-378.[646]Bossert,ibid., p. 357.[647]Thus, e.g. Bossert,loc. cit., and in other studies on Würtemberg Church-History in the 16th century, called forth by Janssen’s work.[648]Cp. above,passim.[649]See above, p. 65.[650]“Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 334 f.[651]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 315 f. On his marriage, see above, p. 157.[652]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,” 1, p. 290.[653]“Leben,” etc. (“Zeitschr. des Vereins für hess. Gesch.,” Suppl. 2, Bd. 1 und 2), 1, p. 379 ff.[654]Neudecker, “Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit,” p. 684 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, pp. 88-91.[655]Hassencamp, “Hess. KG. im Zeitalter der Reformation,” 2, p. 613 f. Janssen,ibid.[656]“Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 121 f. Janssen,ibid.[657]Cp. above,passim, and vol. iii., p. 324; vol. ii., pp. 123 ff., 218 ff. 344, 349 f.[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173.[659]Ibid., p. 100.[660]Ibid., p. 373.[661]Hausrath, 2, p. 391.[662]Letter of Feb. 9, 1541. See G. Mentz, “Johann Friedrich der Grossmütige,” 3, Jena, 1908, p. 344, according to certain “archives.”—Steinhausen (“Kulturgesch. der Deutschen,” p. 508), calls the Elector Johann Frederick quite simply a “drunkard.” He points out that Anna of Saxony died of drink and that the Saxons, even in the 15th century, were noted for their drinking habits.[663]Letter of Jan. 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 302.[664]“Luthers Leben,” 2, Berlin, 1904, p. 391.[665]3 Teil, Jena, 1909, p. 343 f.[666]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, p. 213.[667]Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Karls V. wider die Schmalkaldische,” 1, Gotha, 1645, p. 1837.[668]Ibid., p. 1869 f.[669]N. Paulus, who examined the matter more closely in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 154, comes to the conclusion that Mentz in his Life of Johann Frederick has not laid sufficient weight on the testimony of the witnesses.[670]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 391 f.[671]Cp. above,passim.[672]Vol. i., p. 601.[673]Frankfurt, 1699, 2, p. 44.[674]Ibid.[675]“Allg. deutsche Biographie,” 7, p. 781 (Flathe).[676]Hausrath,loc. cit., 2, p. 67.[677]Ibid., p. 68.[678]“Martin Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, p. xiii.[679]Hausrath,ibid., 2, p. 390.[680]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 209, from the original at Weimar, written by Bugenhagen: “Utcunque sint in quibusdam peccatores et non in omnibus puri, calumniantibus hoc etiam vel forte accusantibus adversariis, tamen confidant de Domini bonitate,” etc. And before this, concerning the “adversariorum clamores ‘Rapiunt bona ecclesiastica,’” etc., they were to comfort themselves, “quia non sic rapiunt, quemadmodum quidam alii; video enim eos per hæc bona curare quæ sunt religionis. Si quid præterea ipsis ex talibus bonis accedit, quis potius ea susciperet? Principum sunt talia, non nebulonum papistarum.” The general spoliation of church property disturbed his mind, as we can see, but he overcomes his scruples, and persuades himself that their action, like his own, was really directed against Antichrist: “Iube meis verbis, ut faciant in Deo confidenter pro causa evangelii quicquid Spiritus sanctus suggesserit; non præscribo eis modum. Misericors Deus confortet eos, ut maneant in ista sana doctrina et gratias agant, quod sunt liberati ab Antichristo.”[681]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 588.[682]This ex-priest, Michael Kramer, first took a wife at Cunitz, and when she began to lead a bad life, married a second at Dommitzsch “on the strength of an advice secured.” On account of matrimonial squabbles he married a third time, after obtaining advice from Luther through the magistrates. C. A. Burkhardt, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” p. 87; cp. his “Gesch. d. sächs. Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen,” p. 48.[683]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 888, 913, 982. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, pp. 362 f., 369. Above, vol. iii., p. 324.[684]Quoted in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 100 f.[685]From Burkhardt,ibid.Janssen,ibid.[686]Janssen,ibid., 6, p. 521, given as Melanchthon’s words.[687]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, pp. 181, 192 f. Janssen,ibid., p. 523. W. Schmidt (“Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen im sächs. Kurkreis von 1555,” 1907, Hft. 1-2, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 90) fancies he can discern a certain improvement in ecclesiastical life and in the school system about the year 1555.[688]For the way Metzsch was dealt with, see Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 163, 167. “Briefe,” 6, p. 213 f. Below, vol. v., xxx., 3.[689]“Briefe,” 5, p. 223 f.[690]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”[691]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411, conclusion of the “Auslegung über etliche Kapitel des fünften Buches Mosis,” 1529.[692]Ibid., Erl. ed., 9², p. 330 f., “Kirchenpostille.”[693]Ibid., 4², p. 4, “Hauspostille.”[694]Ibid.[695]Ibid., p. 6.[696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443.[697]“Comment, in ep. ad Galatas,” 2, p. 351.[698]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443, according to another set of notes of the sermon quoted in n. 1.[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.[700]Ibid., 59, p. 6. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.[701]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 455.[702]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 86, “Auff das vermeint Edict,” 1531.[703]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 385 ff.=86 f.[704]March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 722, letter called forth by the death of George Held Forchheim, to whom the Prince was much attached.[705]To Catherine Bora, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753.[706]To Justus Jonas, June 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 570.[707]On Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 615.[708]“Vermahnung,” Feb. or Nov., 1542, “Briefe,” 6, p. 302.[709]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 80 ff.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23 ff.[710]Ibid., 27, p. 408 f., in the newly published sermons of 1528.[711]Ibid., p. 418 f.[712]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.[713]Ibid., p. 153.[714]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” 179.[715]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 402.[716]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.[717]Ibid., p. 138.[718]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185.[719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 323 (Table-Talk).[720]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 19.[721]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. (Table-Talk).[722]“Historien,” p. 136´. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 126 andibid., Introduction, p. 72; Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 13. See above, p. 210.[723]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 70, Khummer.[724]Ibid., p. 80.[725]Above, vol. iii., p. 410.[726]G. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Cp. Luther’s letter to Spalatin, quoted in vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1, where he tells him: “Tristitia occidet te”; by his (Luther’s) mouth Christ had raised up Melanchthon from a similar state induced by the “spiritus tristitiæ”; such continuous sorrow over sin was an even greater sin; he was still inexperienced “in the battle against sin or conscience and the law”; now, however, he must look upon Luther as St. Peter, who speaks to him as he did to the lame man: “In the name of Christ, arise and walk”; Christ did not wish him to be “crucified with sorrow”; this came from the devil.—We do not learn that these words had any effect.[727]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 416.[728]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 193.[729]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung,” Leipzig, 1740, p. 519.[730]M. Hempel, “Libellus H. Welleri,” Lipsiæ, 1581, p. 60.[731]H. Weller, Preface to Beltzius, “On Man’s Conversion,” Leipzig, 1575.[732]He wrote “Against the grievous plague of Melancholy,” Erfurt, 1557, and “A useful instruction against the demon of melancholy,” 1569 (s.l.). In the latter work he says in the Preface that he considered himself all the more called to comfort “sad and sorrowful hearts” because he himself “not seldom lay sick in that same hospital.”[733]“We experience in our own selves, that our hearts become increasingly stupid, weak and timid, and often know not whence it comes or what it is.” “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nürnberg, 1565, p. 94.—On his edition of the Table-Talk, cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.[734]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 231, where Capito’s letter to Luther of June 13, 1536, is given. The letter is also in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 353. Capito there laments, “me deiectiorem apud me factum, adeo ut in morbum melancholicum prope inciderim. Hilaritatem, si potero, revocabo.” The internal dissensions, which pained and distressed him to the last degree, were the immediate cause of his sadness, so he declares.[735]C. Gerbert, “Gesch. der Strassburger Sektenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation,” Strasburg, 1889, p. 183 f.[736]Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 462seq.[737]Contemporary account in J. C. Siebenkees, “Materialien zur Nürnberg. Gesch.,” 2, Nuremberg, 1792, p. 754.[738]Fischlin, “Memoria theologorum Wirtembergensium,” 1, Ulmæ, 1720, pp. 144, 171.[739]Cp. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer und Elend menschlichen Lebens und Wesens,” Leipzig, 1574, Bl. 3´.[740]“Handbuch,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1613, p. 725 f. (1 ed., 1603).[741]“Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nuremberg, 1565, p. 94.[742]Sarcerius, “Etliche Predigten,” etc., Leipzig, 1551, Bl. C 2´.[743]Strigel, “Ypomnemata 1,” Lipsiæ, 1565, p. 219.[744]Sachse, “Acht Trostpredigten,” Leipzig, 1602, Bl. A 5´.[745]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. On the Disputation held at Leipzig by Beyer, the ex-Augustinian, see vol. i, p. 316.[746]G. Loesche, “Joh. Mathesius,” 1, Gotha, 1895, p. 223.[747]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.[748]“Fest-Chronika,” 2 Tl., Leipzig, 1602, Bl. 2´ (1 ed., 1591).[749]G. Th. Strobel, “Neue Beyträge zur Literatur,” 1, Nuremberg, 1790, p. 97.[750]Hondorf-Sturm, “Calendarium Sanctorum,” Leipzig, 1599, p. 338.[751]L. Osiander, “Bauren-Postilla,” 4 Tl., Tübingen, 1599, p. 188.[752]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 365.[753]Hocker-Hamelmann, “Der Teufel selbs,” 3 Tl., Ursel, 1568, p. 130.[754]Celichius in a work on suicide: “Nützlicher und nothwendiger Bericht von den Leuten, so sich selbst aus Angst, Verzweiffelung oder andern Ursachen entleiben und hinrichten,” Magdeburg, 1578, Bl. A 2, S 5, R 5´.[755]Helding, “Von der hailigisten Messe,” Ingolstadt, 1548, p. 7.[756]“Postilla oder Auslegung der Sonntagsevangelien,” Nuremberg, 1565, p. 14.[757]Selnecker, “Tröstliche schöne Spruch für die engstigen Gewissen,” Leipzig, 1561, Preface.[758]Georg Major (a Wittenberg Professor), “Homiliæ in Evangelia dominicalia,” 1, Wittenbergæ, 1562, p. 38.—Johann Pomarius, preacher at Magdeburg: “People are growing so distressed and afflicted that they droop and languish,” etc., the Last Day is, however, “at the door.” “Postilla,” Bd. 1, Magdeburg, 1587, p. 6 f.[759]Nikol. Kramer, “Würtzgärtlein der Seelen,” Frankfurt a. M., 1573, Bl. V., 3´. Still more emphatically the preacher Sigismund Suevus (“Trewe Warnung für der leidigen Verzweiffelung,” Görlitz, 1572, p. A 3´): The devil raves and rages in these latter days like a mad dog and tries above all to make people despair.[760]Christoph Irenæus, preacher at Eisleben, “Prognosticon,” 1578, (s.l.), Bl. D d 3.[761]Joh. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer,” etc., Bl. B 3´.[762]Ruprecht Erythropilus, preacher at Hanover, “Weckglock,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1595, p. 181 f.[763]Valerius Herberger, preacher at Fraustädt, “Herzpostilla,” Bl. 1, Leipzig, 1614, p. 16 ff.[764]Andreas Celichius, “Notwendige Erinnerung,” etc., Wittenberg, 1595, Bl. A 3 ff. He enumerates with terror thirty possessed persons in Mecklenburg alone, among whom, however, he probably includes many who were simply mad. “Here, in the immediate vicinity,” he says, “three preachers have lost their minds, and would even appear to be bodily possessed.” J. Moehsen (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in der Mark Brandenburg,” Berlin, 1781, p. 500) rightly remarked: “The plentiful writings and sermons on the devil’s power, ... on the portents of the Last Judgment, such as comets, meteors, bloody rain, etc., cost many their reason during the latter half of the 16th century.”[765]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452: “‘Articulus fidei’ won’t go home, ‘ideo tot accidunt tristitiæ’”[766]“Extract oder Ausszug aus der Postill,” Magdeburg, 1584, p. 16 f.[767]See N. Paulus, “Die Melancholie im 16 Jahrh.” (“Wiss. Beilage zur Germania,” 1897, No. 18), p. 137 ff.; on p. 140 he refers to G. Draudius, “Bibl. libr. germ.,” for the titles of many such works of consolation. For the above description we have made use of this rich article by Paulus and of his other one: “Der Selbstmord im 16. Jahrh.,”ibid., 1896, No. 1.[768]“Eyne schöne Artzney, dadurch der leidenden Christen Sorge und Betrübnus gelindert werden,” Lübeck, 1555, p. 145.[769]Op. cit., Bl. A 3´, R 5.[770]“Fünff fürnemliche Zeichen ... vor dem jüngsten Tag,” Jena, 1554, Bl. B 4´.[771]Op. cit., Magdeburg, 1584, p. 733.[772]“Verthädigung deren, so sich diser Zeit ... in den Frid der römischen Kirchen begeben,” Dillingen, 1574, p. 72 f.[773]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 9, 76, 88.[774]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.[775]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.[776]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 21.[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418 f., in the sermons of 1528, recently published.[778]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 154´; Kroker, “Mathesius’ Tischreden,” Einleitung, p. 70.[779]Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. Euling, p. 40.[780]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 572, n.[781]May 13, 1543, “Briefe,” 5 (De Wette and Seidemann), p. 560.[782]1542, possibly Feb. or Nov. “Briefe,” 6, p. 302. Cp. the Rector’s exhortation to the students on Feb. 18, 1542, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 780seq.[783]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178.[784]Published from notes taken at the time.[785]“Historien,” p. 216.[786]He says this to Pastor Bernard of Dölen, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 272 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 140.[787]“Werke,”ibid., p. 273.[788]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 389.[789]See above, vol. iii., p. 309.[790]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 184: “Prædicator ascendat suggestum, aperiat os et desinat,” etc. See,ibid., No. 316a, also pp. 139 and 196.[791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 214.[792]“Luthers Sprichwörtersammlung,” ed. E. Thiele, Weimar, 1900, No. 483.[793]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 113seq.[794]“Historien,” pp. 144, 148, 151, etc.[795]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 31.[796]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 265.[797]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 82.[798]The lack of religious instruction in the schools is confirmed by Falk, “Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu Mainz (1491-1518),” 1904, p. 17.[799]“Historien,” 12 Predigt.[800]To Margrave George of Brandenburg, Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[801]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.[802]Cp. O. Clemen, “Zeitschrift für KG.,” 1909, p. 382.[803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352. Agricola had excused himself by saying he had not attacked Luther but Cruciger and Rörer. Luther replied: “Catechismus, tabulæ, confessio Augustana, etc., mea, non Crucigeri nec Rœreri sunt.”[804]See vol. vi., xxxv., 6, on his attitude to the taking of interest.[805]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², pp. 89 ff., 105 ff.; 19², p. 243 ff. Cp. above, p. 142.[806]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 437.[807]Ibid., p. 641 ff., “Collections” is our amendment for “Lections.”[808]Luther must have known that in Catholic worship the Divine Son is more honoured by the veneration of Mary than she herself. That adoration was paid to God alone and not to Mary he could see from the text of the prayers of the ancient Church. Luther, for instance, was acquainted with the Invitatories of the Office for the Feasts of Mary’s Nativity and Assumption, the first of which commences with the words: “Let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary,” and then at once adds: “Let us adore her Son Christ our Lord”; while the second sets Our Lord in the first place and says: “Come, let us adore the King of Kings Whose Virgin Mother was to-day assumed into Heaven.” Thus in the Liturgy which he himself had celebrated, the leading thought, that Christ was honoured in Mary, ran through the celebration of all her Feasts, from that of her entrance into this life to that of her exit. The Hymns to the Mother of God in Luther’s day concluded as they do now: “Jesu, to Thee be glory, Who wast born of a virgin,” etc. Any adoration of the Blessed Virgin as of a “goddess” was so alien to the people that it would have been rejected with indignation.In the same way that the Invitatories just quoted expressly reserve adoration for the Divine Son, so the veneration of the Mother of God in the Church’s Offices is justified on exactly the same grounds as those which, according to Luther, result from the mystery of the Visitation and from the Magnificat. The Church has always extolled Mary simply in the spirit of the Magnificat.—Luther himself had published a printed exposition of the Magnificat in 1521. There he still speaks of the Blessed Virgin in the usual way (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 545 f.; Erl. ed., 45, p. 214 f.). At the commencement of the work he invokes her assistance with the words: “May the same tender Mother of God obtain for me the spirit to interpret her song usefully and practically ... that we may sing and chant this Magnificat eternally in the life to come. So help us God. Amen” (p. 546 = 214). In the same way, at the close, he expresses his hope that a right understanding of the Magnificat “may not only illumine and teach, but burn and live in body and soul; may Christ grant us this by the intercession and assistance of His dear Mother Mary. Amen” (p. 601 = 287). Thus he was then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint, and declared it to be one of “the abuses of Antichrist.” (See Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370 ff.)—Luther wrote his exposition of the Magnificat in the spirit which must inspire every theologian who studies the canticle, and which had been even stronger in him during his Catholic period. At the same time he obviously wished to work upon the wavering and cautious Court of the Elector, and for this reason dedicated this work, which, though peaceful in tone, contained hidden errors, to Prince Johann Frederick in a submissive letter. It should be noted that Luther wrote this dedication soon after receiving his summons to Worms. It is dated March 10, 1521 (ibid., p. 545=212. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 109).[809]He admitted this belief handed down in the Catholic Schools, though not proclaimed a dogma till much later, in the sermon he preached in 1527 “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of God”: “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 58). The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear. (Cp. N. Paulus, “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 41.) In a work of 1521 he says: Mary not only kept God’s commandments perfectly but also “received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we believe” (“Rationis Latomianæ confutatio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8. p. 56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 416). As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.[810]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 64-302; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.[811]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.[812]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.[813]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505seq.[814]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 145 f.[815]Ibid., p. 192 ff.[816]Ibid., pp. 148-200.[817]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 1 f.; 12², p. 408.[818]Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 58; “KL.,” 8², col. 343.[819]“Cod. germ. Monacensis,” 4842, Bl. 1, 2´.[820]“Gesch. Luthers,” German edition, Mayence, 1836, p. 463 f.[821]E. Gutjahr, “Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache”; “Studien zur deutschen Rechts- und Sprachgesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1906.[822]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 3, p. 238.[823]“Leichenrede” of Feb. 19, 1546, commencement; “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.[824]“Wellers Deutsche Schriften,” Tl. 3, p. 215. Before this Weller remarks: “For he was equal to the greatest prophets and Apostles in spirit, strength, wisdom, ability and experience.” He attributes to him “a prophetical spirit, notable strength, generosity and a power of faith such as we read existed in the prophet Elias....” Great persecutions and temptations had been his masters and teachers; they it was who had taught him the art of speaking.[825]Above, p. 210.[826]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 27, 37.[827]On the inner connection between his own teaching and Antinomianism and on his controversy with Agricola, see vol. v., xxix., 2 and 3.[828]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 504.[829]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.[830]E. Thiele, “Luthers Sprichwörtersamml.,” Weimar, 1900.[831]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 346.[832]“Briefe an Stephan Roth,” ed. Buchwald (“Archiv des deutschen Buchhandels,” 16, 1893), p. 37; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.[833]L. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volkes,” Bonn, 1903, p. 125.[834]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10.
[617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 343 f., Table-Talk.
[618]Ibid., 58, p. 412 (Table-Talk), where Luther bases his tale on a remark of the Protestant Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony.
[619]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 413 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. See our vol. ii., p. 295 f.
[620]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.
[621]P. 135.
[622]P. 130.
[623]P. 144.
[624]“Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen,” p. 53.
[625]Above, p. 38, and vol. iii., p. 262.
[626]Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 271.
[627]To Johannes Cellarius, minister at Dresden, Nov. 26, 1540, Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 229.
[628]Ibid., cp. the letter to Wenceslaus Link of Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 270: “Proceres veteri odio despiciunt Wittembergam.”
[629]Letter of Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,”ibid., p. 313.
[630]To Provost George Buchholzer at Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539,ibid., p. 316. At the Wittenberg Schlosskirche the elevation had gone before 1539, and soon after was discontinued throughout the Saxon Electorate. It was retained, however, in the parish church of Wittenberg until Bugenhagen did away with it on June 25, 1542. Luther reserved to himself the liberty of re-introducing it should heresy or other reasons call for it. He had retained the elevation at Wittenberg for a while as a protest against Carlstadt’s attacks on the Sacrament, at least such was the reason he gave in May, 1542, to Landgrave Philip, who wanted its abrogation. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 578.
[631]Dec., 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266).
[632]Cp. Enders,ibid., 10, p. 98, n. 7.
[633]Letter to Coler, April 30, 1535. Enders,ibid., p. 151, n. 5.
[634]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 17, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 98.
[635]To Erhard Schnepf at Stuttgart, May 15, 1535,ibid., p. 150.
[636]Letter to the Chancellor Leonard v. Eck, Jan. 21, 1535, in Wille, “Anal. zur Gesch. Oberdeutschlands, 1534-1540” (“Zeitschr. für die Gesch. des Oberrheins,” 37, p. 263 ff.), p. 293 f.
[637]G. Bossert in “Württemberg. KG.,” ed. Calwer Verlagsverein, Calw. 1893, p. 335.
[638]Cp.ibid., p. 336.
[639]Ibid., p. 347.
[640]Ibid., p. 348.
[641]Hans Werner to Chancellor Eck, Jan. 14, 1536, Wille,ibid., p. 298.
[642]Bossert,ibid., remarks, p. 333: “Manymediæval works of art were preserved.”
[643]Ibid., p. 356.
[644]In Heyd, “Ulrich Herzog von Würtenberg,” 3, p. 89.
[645]The passages are given in greater detail in “Erinnerung nach dem Lauf der Planeten gestellt,” Tübingen, 1568, and “Dreizehn Predigten vom Türken,” Tübingen, 1569, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, pp. 376-378.
[646]Bossert,ibid., p. 357.
[647]Thus, e.g. Bossert,loc. cit., and in other studies on Würtemberg Church-History in the 16th century, called forth by Janssen’s work.
[648]Cp. above,passim.
[649]See above, p. 65.
[650]“Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 334 f.
[651]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 315 f. On his marriage, see above, p. 157.
[652]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,” 1, p. 290.
[653]“Leben,” etc. (“Zeitschr. des Vereins für hess. Gesch.,” Suppl. 2, Bd. 1 und 2), 1, p. 379 ff.
[654]Neudecker, “Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit,” p. 684 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, pp. 88-91.
[655]Hassencamp, “Hess. KG. im Zeitalter der Reformation,” 2, p. 613 f. Janssen,ibid.
[656]“Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 121 f. Janssen,ibid.
[657]Cp. above,passim, and vol. iii., p. 324; vol. ii., pp. 123 ff., 218 ff. 344, 349 f.
[658]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173.
[659]Ibid., p. 100.
[660]Ibid., p. 373.
[661]Hausrath, 2, p. 391.
[662]Letter of Feb. 9, 1541. See G. Mentz, “Johann Friedrich der Grossmütige,” 3, Jena, 1908, p. 344, according to certain “archives.”—Steinhausen (“Kulturgesch. der Deutschen,” p. 508), calls the Elector Johann Frederick quite simply a “drunkard.” He points out that Anna of Saxony died of drink and that the Saxons, even in the 15th century, were noted for their drinking habits.
[663]Letter of Jan. 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 302.
[664]“Luthers Leben,” 2, Berlin, 1904, p. 391.
[665]3 Teil, Jena, 1909, p. 343 f.
[666]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, p. 213.
[667]Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Karls V. wider die Schmalkaldische,” 1, Gotha, 1645, p. 1837.
[668]Ibid., p. 1869 f.
[669]N. Paulus, who examined the matter more closely in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 154, comes to the conclusion that Mentz in his Life of Johann Frederick has not laid sufficient weight on the testimony of the witnesses.
[670]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 391 f.
[671]Cp. above,passim.
[672]Vol. i., p. 601.
[673]Frankfurt, 1699, 2, p. 44.
[674]Ibid.
[675]“Allg. deutsche Biographie,” 7, p. 781 (Flathe).
[676]Hausrath,loc. cit., 2, p. 67.
[677]Ibid., p. 68.
[678]“Martin Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, p. xiii.
[679]Hausrath,ibid., 2, p. 390.
[680]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 209, from the original at Weimar, written by Bugenhagen: “Utcunque sint in quibusdam peccatores et non in omnibus puri, calumniantibus hoc etiam vel forte accusantibus adversariis, tamen confidant de Domini bonitate,” etc. And before this, concerning the “adversariorum clamores ‘Rapiunt bona ecclesiastica,’” etc., they were to comfort themselves, “quia non sic rapiunt, quemadmodum quidam alii; video enim eos per hæc bona curare quæ sunt religionis. Si quid præterea ipsis ex talibus bonis accedit, quis potius ea susciperet? Principum sunt talia, non nebulonum papistarum.” The general spoliation of church property disturbed his mind, as we can see, but he overcomes his scruples, and persuades himself that their action, like his own, was really directed against Antichrist: “Iube meis verbis, ut faciant in Deo confidenter pro causa evangelii quicquid Spiritus sanctus suggesserit; non præscribo eis modum. Misericors Deus confortet eos, ut maneant in ista sana doctrina et gratias agant, quod sunt liberati ab Antichristo.”
[681]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 588.
[682]This ex-priest, Michael Kramer, first took a wife at Cunitz, and when she began to lead a bad life, married a second at Dommitzsch “on the strength of an advice secured.” On account of matrimonial squabbles he married a third time, after obtaining advice from Luther through the magistrates. C. A. Burkhardt, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” p. 87; cp. his “Gesch. d. sächs. Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen,” p. 48.
[683]“Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 888, 913, 982. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, pp. 362 f., 369. Above, vol. iii., p. 324.
[684]Quoted in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 100 f.
[685]From Burkhardt,ibid.Janssen,ibid.
[686]Janssen,ibid., 6, p. 521, given as Melanchthon’s words.
[687]A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, pp. 181, 192 f. Janssen,ibid., p. 523. W. Schmidt (“Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen im sächs. Kurkreis von 1555,” 1907, Hft. 1-2, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 90) fancies he can discern a certain improvement in ecclesiastical life and in the school system about the year 1555.
[688]For the way Metzsch was dealt with, see Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 163, 167. “Briefe,” 6, p. 213 f. Below, vol. v., xxx., 3.
[689]“Briefe,” 5, p. 223 f.
[690]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”
[691]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411, conclusion of the “Auslegung über etliche Kapitel des fünften Buches Mosis,” 1529.
[692]Ibid., Erl. ed., 9², p. 330 f., “Kirchenpostille.”
[693]Ibid., 4², p. 4, “Hauspostille.”
[694]Ibid.
[695]Ibid., p. 6.
[696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443.
[697]“Comment, in ep. ad Galatas,” 2, p. 351.
[698]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443, according to another set of notes of the sermon quoted in n. 1.
[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.
[700]Ibid., 59, p. 6. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.
[701]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 455.
[702]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 86, “Auff das vermeint Edict,” 1531.
[703]“Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 385 ff.=86 f.
[704]March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 722, letter called forth by the death of George Held Forchheim, to whom the Prince was much attached.
[705]To Catherine Bora, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753.
[706]To Justus Jonas, June 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 570.
[707]On Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 615.
[708]“Vermahnung,” Feb. or Nov., 1542, “Briefe,” 6, p. 302.
[709]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 80 ff.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23 ff.
[710]Ibid., 27, p. 408 f., in the newly published sermons of 1528.
[711]Ibid., p. 418 f.
[712]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.
[713]Ibid., p. 153.
[714]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” 179.
[715]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 402.
[716]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.
[717]Ibid., p. 138.
[718]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185.
[719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 323 (Table-Talk).
[720]“Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 19.
[721]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. (Table-Talk).
[722]“Historien,” p. 136´. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 126 andibid., Introduction, p. 72; Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 13. See above, p. 210.
[723]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 70, Khummer.
[724]Ibid., p. 80.
[725]Above, vol. iii., p. 410.
[726]G. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Cp. Luther’s letter to Spalatin, quoted in vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1, where he tells him: “Tristitia occidet te”; by his (Luther’s) mouth Christ had raised up Melanchthon from a similar state induced by the “spiritus tristitiæ”; such continuous sorrow over sin was an even greater sin; he was still inexperienced “in the battle against sin or conscience and the law”; now, however, he must look upon Luther as St. Peter, who speaks to him as he did to the lame man: “In the name of Christ, arise and walk”; Christ did not wish him to be “crucified with sorrow”; this came from the devil.—We do not learn that these words had any effect.
[727]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 416.
[728]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 193.
[729]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung,” Leipzig, 1740, p. 519.
[730]M. Hempel, “Libellus H. Welleri,” Lipsiæ, 1581, p. 60.
[731]H. Weller, Preface to Beltzius, “On Man’s Conversion,” Leipzig, 1575.
[732]He wrote “Against the grievous plague of Melancholy,” Erfurt, 1557, and “A useful instruction against the demon of melancholy,” 1569 (s.l.). In the latter work he says in the Preface that he considered himself all the more called to comfort “sad and sorrowful hearts” because he himself “not seldom lay sick in that same hospital.”
[733]“We experience in our own selves, that our hearts become increasingly stupid, weak and timid, and often know not whence it comes or what it is.” “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nürnberg, 1565, p. 94.—On his edition of the Table-Talk, cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.
[734]Cp. Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 231, where Capito’s letter to Luther of June 13, 1536, is given. The letter is also in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 353. Capito there laments, “me deiectiorem apud me factum, adeo ut in morbum melancholicum prope inciderim. Hilaritatem, si potero, revocabo.” The internal dissensions, which pained and distressed him to the last degree, were the immediate cause of his sadness, so he declares.
[735]C. Gerbert, “Gesch. der Strassburger Sektenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation,” Strasburg, 1889, p. 183 f.
[736]Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 462seq.
[737]Contemporary account in J. C. Siebenkees, “Materialien zur Nürnberg. Gesch.,” 2, Nuremberg, 1792, p. 754.
[738]Fischlin, “Memoria theologorum Wirtembergensium,” 1, Ulmæ, 1720, pp. 144, 171.
[739]Cp. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer und Elend menschlichen Lebens und Wesens,” Leipzig, 1574, Bl. 3´.
[740]“Handbuch,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1613, p. 725 f. (1 ed., 1603).
[741]“Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nuremberg, 1565, p. 94.
[742]Sarcerius, “Etliche Predigten,” etc., Leipzig, 1551, Bl. C 2´.
[743]Strigel, “Ypomnemata 1,” Lipsiæ, 1565, p. 219.
[744]Sachse, “Acht Trostpredigten,” Leipzig, 1602, Bl. A 5´.
[745]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. On the Disputation held at Leipzig by Beyer, the ex-Augustinian, see vol. i, p. 316.
[746]G. Loesche, “Joh. Mathesius,” 1, Gotha, 1895, p. 223.
[747]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.
[748]“Fest-Chronika,” 2 Tl., Leipzig, 1602, Bl. 2´ (1 ed., 1591).
[749]G. Th. Strobel, “Neue Beyträge zur Literatur,” 1, Nuremberg, 1790, p. 97.
[750]Hondorf-Sturm, “Calendarium Sanctorum,” Leipzig, 1599, p. 338.
[751]L. Osiander, “Bauren-Postilla,” 4 Tl., Tübingen, 1599, p. 188.
[752]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 365.
[753]Hocker-Hamelmann, “Der Teufel selbs,” 3 Tl., Ursel, 1568, p. 130.
[754]Celichius in a work on suicide: “Nützlicher und nothwendiger Bericht von den Leuten, so sich selbst aus Angst, Verzweiffelung oder andern Ursachen entleiben und hinrichten,” Magdeburg, 1578, Bl. A 2, S 5, R 5´.
[755]Helding, “Von der hailigisten Messe,” Ingolstadt, 1548, p. 7.
[756]“Postilla oder Auslegung der Sonntagsevangelien,” Nuremberg, 1565, p. 14.
[757]Selnecker, “Tröstliche schöne Spruch für die engstigen Gewissen,” Leipzig, 1561, Preface.
[758]Georg Major (a Wittenberg Professor), “Homiliæ in Evangelia dominicalia,” 1, Wittenbergæ, 1562, p. 38.—Johann Pomarius, preacher at Magdeburg: “People are growing so distressed and afflicted that they droop and languish,” etc., the Last Day is, however, “at the door.” “Postilla,” Bd. 1, Magdeburg, 1587, p. 6 f.
[759]Nikol. Kramer, “Würtzgärtlein der Seelen,” Frankfurt a. M., 1573, Bl. V., 3´. Still more emphatically the preacher Sigismund Suevus (“Trewe Warnung für der leidigen Verzweiffelung,” Görlitz, 1572, p. A 3´): The devil raves and rages in these latter days like a mad dog and tries above all to make people despair.
[760]Christoph Irenæus, preacher at Eisleben, “Prognosticon,” 1578, (s.l.), Bl. D d 3.
[761]Joh. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer,” etc., Bl. B 3´.
[762]Ruprecht Erythropilus, preacher at Hanover, “Weckglock,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1595, p. 181 f.
[763]Valerius Herberger, preacher at Fraustädt, “Herzpostilla,” Bl. 1, Leipzig, 1614, p. 16 ff.
[764]Andreas Celichius, “Notwendige Erinnerung,” etc., Wittenberg, 1595, Bl. A 3 ff. He enumerates with terror thirty possessed persons in Mecklenburg alone, among whom, however, he probably includes many who were simply mad. “Here, in the immediate vicinity,” he says, “three preachers have lost their minds, and would even appear to be bodily possessed.” J. Moehsen (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in der Mark Brandenburg,” Berlin, 1781, p. 500) rightly remarked: “The plentiful writings and sermons on the devil’s power, ... on the portents of the Last Judgment, such as comets, meteors, bloody rain, etc., cost many their reason during the latter half of the 16th century.”
[765]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452: “‘Articulus fidei’ won’t go home, ‘ideo tot accidunt tristitiæ’”
[766]“Extract oder Ausszug aus der Postill,” Magdeburg, 1584, p. 16 f.
[767]See N. Paulus, “Die Melancholie im 16 Jahrh.” (“Wiss. Beilage zur Germania,” 1897, No. 18), p. 137 ff.; on p. 140 he refers to G. Draudius, “Bibl. libr. germ.,” for the titles of many such works of consolation. For the above description we have made use of this rich article by Paulus and of his other one: “Der Selbstmord im 16. Jahrh.,”ibid., 1896, No. 1.
[768]“Eyne schöne Artzney, dadurch der leidenden Christen Sorge und Betrübnus gelindert werden,” Lübeck, 1555, p. 145.
[769]Op. cit., Bl. A 3´, R 5.
[770]“Fünff fürnemliche Zeichen ... vor dem jüngsten Tag,” Jena, 1554, Bl. B 4´.
[771]Op. cit., Magdeburg, 1584, p. 733.
[772]“Verthädigung deren, so sich diser Zeit ... in den Frid der römischen Kirchen begeben,” Dillingen, 1574, p. 72 f.
[773]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 9, 76, 88.
[774]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.
[775]Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.
[776]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 21.
[777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418 f., in the sermons of 1528, recently published.
[778]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 154´; Kroker, “Mathesius’ Tischreden,” Einleitung, p. 70.
[779]Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. Euling, p. 40.
[780]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 572, n.
[781]May 13, 1543, “Briefe,” 5 (De Wette and Seidemann), p. 560.
[782]1542, possibly Feb. or Nov. “Briefe,” 6, p. 302. Cp. the Rector’s exhortation to the students on Feb. 18, 1542, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 780seq.
[783]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178.
[784]Published from notes taken at the time.
[785]“Historien,” p. 216.
[786]He says this to Pastor Bernard of Dölen, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 272 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 140.
[787]“Werke,”ibid., p. 273.
[788]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 389.
[789]See above, vol. iii., p. 309.
[790]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 184: “Prædicator ascendat suggestum, aperiat os et desinat,” etc. See,ibid., No. 316a, also pp. 139 and 196.
[791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 214.
[792]“Luthers Sprichwörtersammlung,” ed. E. Thiele, Weimar, 1900, No. 483.
[793]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 113seq.
[794]“Historien,” pp. 144, 148, 151, etc.
[795]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 31.
[796]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 265.
[797]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 82.
[798]The lack of religious instruction in the schools is confirmed by Falk, “Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu Mainz (1491-1518),” 1904, p. 17.
[799]“Historien,” 12 Predigt.
[800]To Margrave George of Brandenburg, Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).
[801]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.
[802]Cp. O. Clemen, “Zeitschrift für KG.,” 1909, p. 382.
[803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352. Agricola had excused himself by saying he had not attacked Luther but Cruciger and Rörer. Luther replied: “Catechismus, tabulæ, confessio Augustana, etc., mea, non Crucigeri nec Rœreri sunt.”
[804]See vol. vi., xxxv., 6, on his attitude to the taking of interest.
[805]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², pp. 89 ff., 105 ff.; 19², p. 243 ff. Cp. above, p. 142.
[806]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 437.
[807]Ibid., p. 641 ff., “Collections” is our amendment for “Lections.”
[808]Luther must have known that in Catholic worship the Divine Son is more honoured by the veneration of Mary than she herself. That adoration was paid to God alone and not to Mary he could see from the text of the prayers of the ancient Church. Luther, for instance, was acquainted with the Invitatories of the Office for the Feasts of Mary’s Nativity and Assumption, the first of which commences with the words: “Let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary,” and then at once adds: “Let us adore her Son Christ our Lord”; while the second sets Our Lord in the first place and says: “Come, let us adore the King of Kings Whose Virgin Mother was to-day assumed into Heaven.” Thus in the Liturgy which he himself had celebrated, the leading thought, that Christ was honoured in Mary, ran through the celebration of all her Feasts, from that of her entrance into this life to that of her exit. The Hymns to the Mother of God in Luther’s day concluded as they do now: “Jesu, to Thee be glory, Who wast born of a virgin,” etc. Any adoration of the Blessed Virgin as of a “goddess” was so alien to the people that it would have been rejected with indignation.
In the same way that the Invitatories just quoted expressly reserve adoration for the Divine Son, so the veneration of the Mother of God in the Church’s Offices is justified on exactly the same grounds as those which, according to Luther, result from the mystery of the Visitation and from the Magnificat. The Church has always extolled Mary simply in the spirit of the Magnificat.—Luther himself had published a printed exposition of the Magnificat in 1521. There he still speaks of the Blessed Virgin in the usual way (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 545 f.; Erl. ed., 45, p. 214 f.). At the commencement of the work he invokes her assistance with the words: “May the same tender Mother of God obtain for me the spirit to interpret her song usefully and practically ... that we may sing and chant this Magnificat eternally in the life to come. So help us God. Amen” (p. 546 = 214). In the same way, at the close, he expresses his hope that a right understanding of the Magnificat “may not only illumine and teach, but burn and live in body and soul; may Christ grant us this by the intercession and assistance of His dear Mother Mary. Amen” (p. 601 = 287). Thus he was then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint, and declared it to be one of “the abuses of Antichrist.” (See Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370 ff.)—Luther wrote his exposition of the Magnificat in the spirit which must inspire every theologian who studies the canticle, and which had been even stronger in him during his Catholic period. At the same time he obviously wished to work upon the wavering and cautious Court of the Elector, and for this reason dedicated this work, which, though peaceful in tone, contained hidden errors, to Prince Johann Frederick in a submissive letter. It should be noted that Luther wrote this dedication soon after receiving his summons to Worms. It is dated March 10, 1521 (ibid., p. 545=212. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 109).
[809]He admitted this belief handed down in the Catholic Schools, though not proclaimed a dogma till much later, in the sermon he preached in 1527 “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of God”: “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 58). The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear. (Cp. N. Paulus, “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 41.) In a work of 1521 he says: Mary not only kept God’s commandments perfectly but also “received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we believe” (“Rationis Latomianæ confutatio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8. p. 56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 416). As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.
[810]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 64-302; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.
[811]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.
[812]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.
[813]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505seq.
[814]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 145 f.
[815]Ibid., p. 192 ff.
[816]Ibid., pp. 148-200.
[817]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 1 f.; 12², p. 408.
[818]Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 58; “KL.,” 8², col. 343.
[819]“Cod. germ. Monacensis,” 4842, Bl. 1, 2´.
[820]“Gesch. Luthers,” German edition, Mayence, 1836, p. 463 f.
[821]E. Gutjahr, “Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache”; “Studien zur deutschen Rechts- und Sprachgesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1906.
[822]“Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 3, p. 238.
[823]“Leichenrede” of Feb. 19, 1546, commencement; “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.
[824]“Wellers Deutsche Schriften,” Tl. 3, p. 215. Before this Weller remarks: “For he was equal to the greatest prophets and Apostles in spirit, strength, wisdom, ability and experience.” He attributes to him “a prophetical spirit, notable strength, generosity and a power of faith such as we read existed in the prophet Elias....” Great persecutions and temptations had been his masters and teachers; they it was who had taught him the art of speaking.
[825]Above, p. 210.
[826]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 27, 37.
[827]On the inner connection between his own teaching and Antinomianism and on his controversy with Agricola, see vol. v., xxix., 2 and 3.
[828]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 504.
[829]See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.
[830]E. Thiele, “Luthers Sprichwörtersamml.,” Weimar, 1900.
[831]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 346.
[832]“Briefe an Stephan Roth,” ed. Buchwald (“Archiv des deutschen Buchhandels,” 16, 1893), p. 37; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.
[833]L. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volkes,” Bonn, 1903, p. 125.
[834]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10.