[835]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 176; Erl. ed., 27, p. 367.[836]Cp. vol. i., pp. 290 ff., 379 ff., 384 f.; vol. ii., p. 59 ff.[837]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 251; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 23; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; 46, p. 123.[838]“An den Rat zu Nürnberg, Gutachten Luthers und Melanchthons” (April 18, 1533); “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 8 (“Briefwechsel” 9, p. 292).[839]Köstlin,ibid., p. 252 f.[840]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 17 f.[841]Köstlin,ibid., p. 249.[842]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 107 ff.; 46, p. 292; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 136. See also Köstlin,ibid., p. 250. Absolution may also be sent by one far away, as Luther wrote to Spalatin: “Audi et crede iis quæ Christus per me tibi loquitur. Neque enim erro, quod scio, aut satanica loquor. Christus loquitur per me et iubet, ut fratri tuo in communi fide in eum credas. Ipse absolvit te ab hoc peccato et omnibus.” Aug. 24, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.[843]Ibid., 44, p. 109.[844]At Nuremberg Osiander had opposed the general absolution, and then, in spite of a memorandum from Wittenberg to the contrary (above, p. 349, n. 3), persisted in his opposition so that the magistrates made another application to Wittenberg on Sep. 27 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 337) and again got a similar reply (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 27; “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 343). In the new “memorandum” it was also stated that the public and the private absolution were real absolutions; but Osiander was not to be compelled to give the general absolution.[845]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 398. Form of Absolution dated Feb. 15, 1540, for the Nurembergers. The editor remarks: “The questionable point in this form, viz. that the Absolution was attached to an eventuality (‘should God to-day or to-morrow call one of you from this vale of tears’), and might thus be regarded as valid only in this event, can merely be hinted at here.”[846]These words were added by Luther in 1538 to his “Unterricht der Visitatorn” (1528); “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; Köstlin,ibid., p. 251.[847]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.[848]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 251).[849]P. 565 ff.=381 ff.[850]P. 567 f.=383, 385.[851]P. 569=386.[852]P. 569=385.[853]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 133 f.[854]Ibid., Erl. ed., 23, p. 87 ff.[855]“Drei Beichtbüchlein nach den Zehngeboten aus der Frühzeit der Buchdruckerkunst,” Münster, 1907 (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 2).[856]F. W. Battenberg, “Beichtbüchlein des Mag. Wolff,” Giessen, 1907, pp. 189, 205.[857]Falk,ibid., p. 13. Falk also quotes (p. 14) a noteworthy observation of Luthmer’s (“Zeitschr. für christl. Kunst,” 9, p. 5): “The close of the 15th century was the time when the Decalogue, as the starting-point for Confession, was most frequently commentated, described and depicted pictorially. For those unable to read, tables with the Commandments luridly pictured hung in the churches, schools and religious institutions, and the books on this subject were abundantly illustrated with woodcuts.”[858]“Die Reue in den deutschen Beichtschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 28, 1904, pp. 1-36. “In den deutschen Erbauungsschriften des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 440-485. “In den deutschen Sterbebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 682-698.—Cp. also, Luzian Pfleger, “Die Reue in der deutschen Dichtung des MA.” (“Wiss. Beil. zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 45-47).[859]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 566, 568 f.; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 382, 385.[860]Cp. on the abuses of the Penitentiary and for an elucidation of certain misunderstandings, E. Göller, “Die päpstl. Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis ... Pius V.,” 2 vols., Rome, 1907-1911.[861]More on Luther and Hymnology in vol. v., xxxiv., 4.[862]See Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 111, 150, 389: “egregias cantilenas post cœnam cecinerunt.” He himself on one occasion sung “octavo tono,”ibid., p. 332; cp. p. 391.[863]Cp., e.g., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 307; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 148seq.[864]See vol. ii., p. 171 f.[865]The whole in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 503.[866]Grauert, “Heinrich Denifle,”² 1906, p. 7.[867]“He possessed all the gifts which go to make an emotional man, as is apparent everywhere; depth, however, and true inwardness were not his.” A. M. Weiss, “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 223. What he says of Luther’s “depth” must be read in the light of what is said in the text above.[868]See vol. v., xxxi., 5.[869]Above, p. 244.[870]Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701. Further details on Luther’s prayers below, p. 274 ff.[871]The account by Cochlæus, taken from a special print of 1540 “of which sufficient account has hardly been made,” in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 174 ff. New edition of the “Colloqium Cochlæi,” by J. Greving, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” 4, Hft. 3, Leipzig, 1910.[872]So Jonas declares in his funeral address on Luther. “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.[873]Ibid.[874]In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.[875]“Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo, perchè portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”[876]6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24) calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.”Ibid., p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,” which he is ready to prize.[877]“Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.[878]Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung” (a reply to Denifle), 1904.[879]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.[880]Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.[881]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.[882]There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was objectionable—the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no exception to the rule—without sufficiently discriminating between what was true and what was false (B. Duhr,S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general encyclopædias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some examples, H. Brück (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.” J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J. A. Möhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law than his own will.” J. v. Döllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language. His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole Protestant world.”[883]For the collections of the Table-Talk see vol. iii., p. 218 ff.[884]See vol. iii., p. 223.[885]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311.[886]Cp. the emotion which accompanied another fine utterance spoken “ex pleno et accenso corde” (Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 23). There Luther was speaking of the profundity of the Word of God and of reliance on His Promises. See also below, p. 265.[887]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 309.[888]Ibid., p. 311, with the heading “Papæ tyrannis.”[889]Ibid., p. 310.[890]Ibid., pp. 310-322.[891]In his “Sabbata,” ed. Götzinger in the St. Gallen “Mitteilungen zur vaterländ. Gesch.,” 1869; new edition, St. Gallen, 1902, p. 76 ff.[892]Burrer’s letter, in Baum, “Capito,” 1860, p. 83.[893]“Historien,” p. 147.[894]Cp.ibid., pp. 142, 143.[895]Ibid., p. 153´.[896]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.[897]In F. S. Keil, “Luthers Lebensumstände,” 1, 1764, p. 2. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 243 f.[898]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 442. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 322.[899]“Vita Lutheri,” in “Vitæ quattuor reformatorum,” p. 14.[900]See our remarks above, p. 112 ff., on the way he came to believe in the truth of the falsehoods he so often repeated and even to convince his pupils of it too.[901]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.[902]Jos. Hundhausen, “Kirche oder Protestantismus,” a Catholic work, Mayence, 1883, p. 225.[903]In a sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 408 f.[904]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.[905]See vol. ii., p. 133.[906]To Amsdorf, Feb. 6 and 12, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, pp. 432, 434.[907]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.,” 8², col. 339.[908]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.[909]To Anton Unruhe, Judge at Torgau, June 13, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 205 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 371).[910]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 323 ff.; Erl. ed., 317 ff. N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 133, 1904, p. 201) also points out the “Courage which Luther showed in the time of the plague,” also his “liberality, his cheerful, sociable ways, how easily he was contented and how tirelessly he laboured.” George Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 6) recognises, amongst many other good qualities, the courage he showed during the plague.[911]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 285.[912]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.[913]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 31.[914]To Justus Jonas, April 19, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 87.[915]To Nicholas Hausmann, Aug. 20, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 77.[916]Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 254.[917]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 26. It may be remarked incidentally that possibly Luther was not aware, that, not long before, the people of Wittenberg, though no longer Catholic, had been shocked at his eating meat on fast days. In 1523 the people, who still kept the old custom of the Church, as a traveller remarks, were disposed to regard the overflow of the Elbe as Heaven’s judgment on Luther’s and his preachers’ laxity in the matter. See the account of Bishop Dantiscus, of Ermeland, who visited Wittenberg in that year, in Hipler, “Kopernikus und Luther,” Braunsberg, 1868, p. 72: “I heard from the country people on my way much abuse and many execrations of Luther and his co-religionists,” etc.[918]Letter of Dec. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” p. 702.[919]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 94.[920]“Einfeltige Weise zu beten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 215 ff.[921]Pp. 217, 221 f. The booklet was dedicated to Master Peter Balbier. This master, after having stabbed in anger a foot-soldier, was sentenced to death. Luther’s intercession procured the commutation of the sentence into one of banishment.[922]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 6, “Tischreden.” The whole section in question, “Tischreden vom Gebete,” really belongs here.[923]Ibid., p. 28.[924]Cp.ibid., p. 24, and above, vol. iii., p. 437.[925]Dietrich to Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 159. Cp. vol. iii., p. 162, his prayer for F. Myconius who was sick, which concludes: “My will be done. Amen.”[926]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 315.[927]Ibid.[928]For more on this subject see vol. v., xxxii., 5. We see this even in his prayers at the Wartburg.[929]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 130 f. In the second edition the closing chapter containing these passages is omitted. The comparison with Calvin made by Böhmer in this same chapter on Luther’s talent for organisation, is also worthy of notice. “At that time Luther hardly had his equal as pastor, preacher and writer, but, unlike Calvin, he was no born organiser or church-founder. Hence, as soon as he was confronted with the great problem how to organise the evangelical movement now becoming more and more powerful, he ceased to be the one leader and commander of the Reformation. It is true he always remained the supreme authority to his own followers; he reigned indeed, but did not govern; he no longer inspired, instructed or guided his fellow-workers individually. In this respect, also, Calvin was his exact opposite. His position at the outset was incomparably more humble than that of Luther. Yet his reputation grew constantly, till Church and State in Geneva unhesitatingly obeyed him, whilst his sphere of action went on extending till his very death, till finally it embraced the greater part of Western Europe” (p. 131 f.). “Down to the year 1689, nay, down to the 19th century, the nations of the West were still engaged in the solution of the political problems with which Luther’s reform had confronted them. For these Luther himself had but slight comprehension. If anything, he rendered their solution more difficult. He, however, took more interest in the legal reforms which had become necessary in consequence of his undertaking” (p. 136).[930]“Luther’s domestic life displays, as a whole, a not unpleasant picture, and its description would form the kindliest portion of a life which really does not offer much that is pleasing.” Thus Georg Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 1.[931]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2 f.[932]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 487.[933]Letters of Jan. 25 to Feb. 14, 1546, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 149, 151-154.[934]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 314: “Fax domestica.” The cause of Caspar Beier, the clandestinely married student, with regard to which she fanned the flames of Luther’s anger, was, according to Cruciger, “none of the best,” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 571, n. 1, and p. 569 f.[935]To Bernard v. Dölen, Aug. 31, 1538, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 398.[936]“Opp.,” Lovanii, 1566, f. 116´.[937]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 316.[938]Cp. Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Jüden” (“N. Stud. zur Gesch. der Theol. und Kirche,” 10), 1911.[939]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 135.[940]Ibid., p. 177 f.[941]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298.[942]Ibid.[943]Ibid., p. 242.[944]Ibid., p. 244 f.[945]Ibid., p. 244 f.[946]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261. Cp. vol., iii., p. 289 f.[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 271; Erl. ed., 27, p. 206.[948]Ibid., Erl. ed., 65, p. 79.[949]See vol. ii., p. 280.[950]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 196.[951]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 137.[952]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 306; Erl. ed., 40, p. 250 f.[953]To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535; “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[954]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. See above, vol. iii., 93 f.[955]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 56 f.[956]Ibid., p. 86.[957]Ibid., 25¹, p. 192.[958]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 676; Erl. ed., 27, p. 292.[959]Ibid., 6, p. 302=27, p. 110.[960]Ibid., 26, p. 351=30, p. 224.[961]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, p. 404.[962]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469.[963]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 289seq.The date, Dec. 4, 1538, must be taken for what it is worth.[964]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 14.[965]Ibid., p. 8 f.[966]On Invocavit Sunday, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 471.[967]See vol. ii., pp. 297, 305 ff.[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.[969]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 265 = 86.[970]Ibid., p. 267 f. = 89.[971]Ibid., p. 268 = 90.[972]Ibid., p. 270 = 92 f.[973]E. Brandenburg (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 70, Halle, 1901), p. 21.[974]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 265.[975]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139 f.[976]Ibid.[977]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 504 f.; 6, p. 319 ff.; “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 84. The “printed Mandate” was affixed to the church door. Cp. E. Michael (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895), p. 455 ff.[978]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette & Seidemann, 6, p. 320 ff.[979]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179, Aug., 1540.[980]Ibid., p. 180.[981]Ibid., p. 171. Still more strongly against the Franciscans on p. 180.[982]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 222.[983]Ibid., p. 226 f.[984]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 301.[985]Ibid., p. 292 f. Letter of Oct. 10, 1540. De Wette, 5, p. 308, also has 80,000 ducats. In the passage that follows Luther speaks of 18,000 crowns.[986]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 213.[987]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 762; Erl. ed., 36, p. 410. See below, p. 304.[988]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 171.[989]P. 64.[990]P. 25.[991]P. 149.[992]P. 64.[993]P. 30.[994]P. 163.[995]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 439, “Tischreden.”[996]Ibid.[997]Ibid., p. 441, and Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 100.[998]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, p. 5.[999]P. 2.[1000]P. 3.[1001]P. 7.[1002]P. 9.[1003]P. 9.[1004]P. 10.[1005]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391, “Tischreden.”[1006]Ibid., 60, p. 227 f., in chapter xxvii. of the Table-Talk.[1007]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 68.[1008]Ibid., 57, p. 80.[1009]Ibid., 60, p. 206.[1010]Ibid., p. 183.[1011]Ibid., p. 214.[1012]Ibid., 62, p. 222.[1013]Ibid., 60, p. 180.[1014]Ibid., p. 195.[1015]P. 305.[1016]Ibid., p. 200.[1017]Ibid., 61, p. 149.[1018]Ibid., 57, p. 206.[1019]Ibid., 60, p. 255.[1020]Ibid.[1021]Ibid., p. 185.[1022]Ibid., p. 291.[1023]Ibid., 57, p. 367 f.[1024]Ibid., 60, p. 379, chapter xxvii.[1025]Ibid., p. 184.[1026]“Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers, 1535-1545,” ed. P. Drews, pp. 532-584. Cp. the Theses already published in Luther’s “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 442seq.[1027]They are thus summed up by Drews (p. 533).[1028]Thesis 56: “Papa est illud monstrum, de quo Daniel dicit, quod adversatur omni Deo, etiam Deo deorum.”—Thesis 58: “Nostri Germani vocant Beerwolf, quod Græci, si forte notum illis fuisset, dixissentἀρκτόλυκον” (i.e. “Bearwolf”).—Thesis 59: “Hoc animal lupus est quidem, sed a dæmone arreptus, lacerat omnia et elabitur omnibus venabulis et armis.”—Thesis 60: “Ad quod opprimendum necessarius est concursus omnium pagorum,” etc.—Thesis 61: “Nec est hic expectanda iudicis sententia aut consilii auctoritas,” etc.—Thesis 66: “Ita si papa bellum moverit, resistendum est ei sicut monstro furioso et obsesso seu vere ἀρκτολύκῳ.”—Thesis 68: “Nec curandum, si habeat militantes sibi principes, reges vel ipsos cæsares, titulo ecclesiæ incantatos.”[1029]Drews, p. 544.[1030]Ibid., p. 549. Given in Luther’s German Works, Jena ed., 7, p. 285, and Halle ed. (Walch), 19, p. 2438 f.[1031]Ibid., p. 552.[1032]Ibid., p. 559, Jena ed., 285´, Walch, p. 2440.[1033]Ibid., p. 566.[1034]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127.[1035]Ibid.[1036]Ibid.See above, p. 208. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 111: “Quando frigeo in corde ... oppono contra me impietatem papæ,” etc.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 107 f.; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.[1037]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 74.[1038]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 180.[1039]Ibid., p. 177 f.[1040]Ibid., Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.[1041]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.[1042]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 286; Erl. ed., 25², p. 16.[1043]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.[1044]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 269.[1045]Ibid., p. 307.[1046]Ibid., p. 249; cp. p. 115.[1047]See vol. ii., p. 153.[1048]Letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14, 1518, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 4 (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 249).[1049]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 206. Cp. what he says of Duke George, above, p. 190.[1050]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 295.[1051]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 274. On Brand of Berne cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, pp. 16-45; on p. 29 f. there is a remark of Luther’s on the “poor smoking ‘brand’ which escaped the fire of Berne,” rightly taken by Paulus to apply to Mensing (Seckendorf, Walch, De Wette and Enders were of a different opinion).—J. Koss, the Leipzig preacher, is again described by Luther in a letter to N. Hausmann (Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260) as a “preacher of blasphemy.”[1052]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 158. Under the heading “Mortes persecutorum,” the list commences with the words: “Pauci præsentia Dei miracula observant.” It contains the names of Richard von Greifenklau, Archbishop of Troves, Ernest Count of Mansfeld, Count Wartenberg, Dr. Matthias Henning, son of Henning the lawyer, Cæsar Pflug, Chancellor of Treves, and, besides, a Catholic preacher at Leipzig, a minister who had fallen away from Lutheranism at Kunewalde, a monk who was alleged to have spoken against the Apostle Paul, and a Silesian Doctor of Divinity. Then followed various additions. Cp. N. Paulus, “Luther über das schlimme Ende seiner Gegner” (“Katholik,” 1899, 2, pp. 490-505).[1053]Letter to Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260.[1054]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 289.[1055]All of the above expressions are taken from the first pages of “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526).[1056]Ibid., 28, p. 868=36, p. 410.—For the tone of Luther’s polemics against his theological opponents among both the Catholics and the Protestants, cp. vol. ii., p. 153 f., where the opinions of contemporaries, and friends of Luther’s immediate circle are given. For further criticisms of Catholic contemporaries see below, p. 251 ff., also vol. v., xxxiii., on the extreme tension of Luther’s polemics against Popery towards the end of his life.[1057]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 83 ff.[1058]Cp. below, p. 320, n. 15, and p. 323, n. 2.[1059]Letter written soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.
[835]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 176; Erl. ed., 27, p. 367.[836]Cp. vol. i., pp. 290 ff., 379 ff., 384 f.; vol. ii., p. 59 ff.[837]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 251; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 23; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; 46, p. 123.[838]“An den Rat zu Nürnberg, Gutachten Luthers und Melanchthons” (April 18, 1533); “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 8 (“Briefwechsel” 9, p. 292).[839]Köstlin,ibid., p. 252 f.[840]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 17 f.[841]Köstlin,ibid., p. 249.[842]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 107 ff.; 46, p. 292; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 136. See also Köstlin,ibid., p. 250. Absolution may also be sent by one far away, as Luther wrote to Spalatin: “Audi et crede iis quæ Christus per me tibi loquitur. Neque enim erro, quod scio, aut satanica loquor. Christus loquitur per me et iubet, ut fratri tuo in communi fide in eum credas. Ipse absolvit te ab hoc peccato et omnibus.” Aug. 24, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.[843]Ibid., 44, p. 109.[844]At Nuremberg Osiander had opposed the general absolution, and then, in spite of a memorandum from Wittenberg to the contrary (above, p. 349, n. 3), persisted in his opposition so that the magistrates made another application to Wittenberg on Sep. 27 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 337) and again got a similar reply (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 27; “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 343). In the new “memorandum” it was also stated that the public and the private absolution were real absolutions; but Osiander was not to be compelled to give the general absolution.[845]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 398. Form of Absolution dated Feb. 15, 1540, for the Nurembergers. The editor remarks: “The questionable point in this form, viz. that the Absolution was attached to an eventuality (‘should God to-day or to-morrow call one of you from this vale of tears’), and might thus be regarded as valid only in this event, can merely be hinted at here.”[846]These words were added by Luther in 1538 to his “Unterricht der Visitatorn” (1528); “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; Köstlin,ibid., p. 251.[847]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.[848]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 251).[849]P. 565 ff.=381 ff.[850]P. 567 f.=383, 385.[851]P. 569=386.[852]P. 569=385.[853]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 133 f.[854]Ibid., Erl. ed., 23, p. 87 ff.[855]“Drei Beichtbüchlein nach den Zehngeboten aus der Frühzeit der Buchdruckerkunst,” Münster, 1907 (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 2).[856]F. W. Battenberg, “Beichtbüchlein des Mag. Wolff,” Giessen, 1907, pp. 189, 205.[857]Falk,ibid., p. 13. Falk also quotes (p. 14) a noteworthy observation of Luthmer’s (“Zeitschr. für christl. Kunst,” 9, p. 5): “The close of the 15th century was the time when the Decalogue, as the starting-point for Confession, was most frequently commentated, described and depicted pictorially. For those unable to read, tables with the Commandments luridly pictured hung in the churches, schools and religious institutions, and the books on this subject were abundantly illustrated with woodcuts.”[858]“Die Reue in den deutschen Beichtschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 28, 1904, pp. 1-36. “In den deutschen Erbauungsschriften des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 440-485. “In den deutschen Sterbebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 682-698.—Cp. also, Luzian Pfleger, “Die Reue in der deutschen Dichtung des MA.” (“Wiss. Beil. zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 45-47).[859]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 566, 568 f.; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 382, 385.[860]Cp. on the abuses of the Penitentiary and for an elucidation of certain misunderstandings, E. Göller, “Die päpstl. Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis ... Pius V.,” 2 vols., Rome, 1907-1911.[861]More on Luther and Hymnology in vol. v., xxxiv., 4.[862]See Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 111, 150, 389: “egregias cantilenas post cœnam cecinerunt.” He himself on one occasion sung “octavo tono,”ibid., p. 332; cp. p. 391.[863]Cp., e.g., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 307; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 148seq.[864]See vol. ii., p. 171 f.[865]The whole in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 503.[866]Grauert, “Heinrich Denifle,”² 1906, p. 7.[867]“He possessed all the gifts which go to make an emotional man, as is apparent everywhere; depth, however, and true inwardness were not his.” A. M. Weiss, “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 223. What he says of Luther’s “depth” must be read in the light of what is said in the text above.[868]See vol. v., xxxi., 5.[869]Above, p. 244.[870]Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701. Further details on Luther’s prayers below, p. 274 ff.[871]The account by Cochlæus, taken from a special print of 1540 “of which sufficient account has hardly been made,” in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 174 ff. New edition of the “Colloqium Cochlæi,” by J. Greving, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” 4, Hft. 3, Leipzig, 1910.[872]So Jonas declares in his funeral address on Luther. “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.[873]Ibid.[874]In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.[875]“Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo, perchè portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”[876]6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24) calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.”Ibid., p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,” which he is ready to prize.[877]“Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.[878]Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung” (a reply to Denifle), 1904.[879]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.[880]Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.[881]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.[882]There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was objectionable—the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no exception to the rule—without sufficiently discriminating between what was true and what was false (B. Duhr,S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general encyclopædias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some examples, H. Brück (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.” J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J. A. Möhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law than his own will.” J. v. Döllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language. His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole Protestant world.”[883]For the collections of the Table-Talk see vol. iii., p. 218 ff.[884]See vol. iii., p. 223.[885]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311.[886]Cp. the emotion which accompanied another fine utterance spoken “ex pleno et accenso corde” (Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 23). There Luther was speaking of the profundity of the Word of God and of reliance on His Promises. See also below, p. 265.[887]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 309.[888]Ibid., p. 311, with the heading “Papæ tyrannis.”[889]Ibid., p. 310.[890]Ibid., pp. 310-322.[891]In his “Sabbata,” ed. Götzinger in the St. Gallen “Mitteilungen zur vaterländ. Gesch.,” 1869; new edition, St. Gallen, 1902, p. 76 ff.[892]Burrer’s letter, in Baum, “Capito,” 1860, p. 83.[893]“Historien,” p. 147.[894]Cp.ibid., pp. 142, 143.[895]Ibid., p. 153´.[896]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.[897]In F. S. Keil, “Luthers Lebensumstände,” 1, 1764, p. 2. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 243 f.[898]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 442. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 322.[899]“Vita Lutheri,” in “Vitæ quattuor reformatorum,” p. 14.[900]See our remarks above, p. 112 ff., on the way he came to believe in the truth of the falsehoods he so often repeated and even to convince his pupils of it too.[901]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.[902]Jos. Hundhausen, “Kirche oder Protestantismus,” a Catholic work, Mayence, 1883, p. 225.[903]In a sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 408 f.[904]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.[905]See vol. ii., p. 133.[906]To Amsdorf, Feb. 6 and 12, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, pp. 432, 434.[907]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.,” 8², col. 339.[908]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.[909]To Anton Unruhe, Judge at Torgau, June 13, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 205 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 371).[910]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 323 ff.; Erl. ed., 317 ff. N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 133, 1904, p. 201) also points out the “Courage which Luther showed in the time of the plague,” also his “liberality, his cheerful, sociable ways, how easily he was contented and how tirelessly he laboured.” George Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 6) recognises, amongst many other good qualities, the courage he showed during the plague.[911]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 285.[912]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.[913]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 31.[914]To Justus Jonas, April 19, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 87.[915]To Nicholas Hausmann, Aug. 20, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 77.[916]Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 254.[917]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 26. It may be remarked incidentally that possibly Luther was not aware, that, not long before, the people of Wittenberg, though no longer Catholic, had been shocked at his eating meat on fast days. In 1523 the people, who still kept the old custom of the Church, as a traveller remarks, were disposed to regard the overflow of the Elbe as Heaven’s judgment on Luther’s and his preachers’ laxity in the matter. See the account of Bishop Dantiscus, of Ermeland, who visited Wittenberg in that year, in Hipler, “Kopernikus und Luther,” Braunsberg, 1868, p. 72: “I heard from the country people on my way much abuse and many execrations of Luther and his co-religionists,” etc.[918]Letter of Dec. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” p. 702.[919]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 94.[920]“Einfeltige Weise zu beten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 215 ff.[921]Pp. 217, 221 f. The booklet was dedicated to Master Peter Balbier. This master, after having stabbed in anger a foot-soldier, was sentenced to death. Luther’s intercession procured the commutation of the sentence into one of banishment.[922]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 6, “Tischreden.” The whole section in question, “Tischreden vom Gebete,” really belongs here.[923]Ibid., p. 28.[924]Cp.ibid., p. 24, and above, vol. iii., p. 437.[925]Dietrich to Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 159. Cp. vol. iii., p. 162, his prayer for F. Myconius who was sick, which concludes: “My will be done. Amen.”[926]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 315.[927]Ibid.[928]For more on this subject see vol. v., xxxii., 5. We see this even in his prayers at the Wartburg.[929]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 130 f. In the second edition the closing chapter containing these passages is omitted. The comparison with Calvin made by Böhmer in this same chapter on Luther’s talent for organisation, is also worthy of notice. “At that time Luther hardly had his equal as pastor, preacher and writer, but, unlike Calvin, he was no born organiser or church-founder. Hence, as soon as he was confronted with the great problem how to organise the evangelical movement now becoming more and more powerful, he ceased to be the one leader and commander of the Reformation. It is true he always remained the supreme authority to his own followers; he reigned indeed, but did not govern; he no longer inspired, instructed or guided his fellow-workers individually. In this respect, also, Calvin was his exact opposite. His position at the outset was incomparably more humble than that of Luther. Yet his reputation grew constantly, till Church and State in Geneva unhesitatingly obeyed him, whilst his sphere of action went on extending till his very death, till finally it embraced the greater part of Western Europe” (p. 131 f.). “Down to the year 1689, nay, down to the 19th century, the nations of the West were still engaged in the solution of the political problems with which Luther’s reform had confronted them. For these Luther himself had but slight comprehension. If anything, he rendered their solution more difficult. He, however, took more interest in the legal reforms which had become necessary in consequence of his undertaking” (p. 136).[930]“Luther’s domestic life displays, as a whole, a not unpleasant picture, and its description would form the kindliest portion of a life which really does not offer much that is pleasing.” Thus Georg Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 1.[931]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2 f.[932]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 487.[933]Letters of Jan. 25 to Feb. 14, 1546, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 149, 151-154.[934]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 314: “Fax domestica.” The cause of Caspar Beier, the clandestinely married student, with regard to which she fanned the flames of Luther’s anger, was, according to Cruciger, “none of the best,” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 571, n. 1, and p. 569 f.[935]To Bernard v. Dölen, Aug. 31, 1538, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 398.[936]“Opp.,” Lovanii, 1566, f. 116´.[937]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 316.[938]Cp. Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Jüden” (“N. Stud. zur Gesch. der Theol. und Kirche,” 10), 1911.[939]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 135.[940]Ibid., p. 177 f.[941]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298.[942]Ibid.[943]Ibid., p. 242.[944]Ibid., p. 244 f.[945]Ibid., p. 244 f.[946]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261. Cp. vol., iii., p. 289 f.[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 271; Erl. ed., 27, p. 206.[948]Ibid., Erl. ed., 65, p. 79.[949]See vol. ii., p. 280.[950]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 196.[951]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 137.[952]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 306; Erl. ed., 40, p. 250 f.[953]To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535; “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[954]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. See above, vol. iii., 93 f.[955]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 56 f.[956]Ibid., p. 86.[957]Ibid., 25¹, p. 192.[958]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 676; Erl. ed., 27, p. 292.[959]Ibid., 6, p. 302=27, p. 110.[960]Ibid., 26, p. 351=30, p. 224.[961]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, p. 404.[962]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469.[963]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 289seq.The date, Dec. 4, 1538, must be taken for what it is worth.[964]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 14.[965]Ibid., p. 8 f.[966]On Invocavit Sunday, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 471.[967]See vol. ii., pp. 297, 305 ff.[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.[969]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 265 = 86.[970]Ibid., p. 267 f. = 89.[971]Ibid., p. 268 = 90.[972]Ibid., p. 270 = 92 f.[973]E. Brandenburg (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 70, Halle, 1901), p. 21.[974]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 265.[975]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139 f.[976]Ibid.[977]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 504 f.; 6, p. 319 ff.; “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 84. The “printed Mandate” was affixed to the church door. Cp. E. Michael (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895), p. 455 ff.[978]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette & Seidemann, 6, p. 320 ff.[979]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179, Aug., 1540.[980]Ibid., p. 180.[981]Ibid., p. 171. Still more strongly against the Franciscans on p. 180.[982]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 222.[983]Ibid., p. 226 f.[984]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 301.[985]Ibid., p. 292 f. Letter of Oct. 10, 1540. De Wette, 5, p. 308, also has 80,000 ducats. In the passage that follows Luther speaks of 18,000 crowns.[986]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 213.[987]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 762; Erl. ed., 36, p. 410. See below, p. 304.[988]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 171.[989]P. 64.[990]P. 25.[991]P. 149.[992]P. 64.[993]P. 30.[994]P. 163.[995]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 439, “Tischreden.”[996]Ibid.[997]Ibid., p. 441, and Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 100.[998]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, p. 5.[999]P. 2.[1000]P. 3.[1001]P. 7.[1002]P. 9.[1003]P. 9.[1004]P. 10.[1005]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391, “Tischreden.”[1006]Ibid., 60, p. 227 f., in chapter xxvii. of the Table-Talk.[1007]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 68.[1008]Ibid., 57, p. 80.[1009]Ibid., 60, p. 206.[1010]Ibid., p. 183.[1011]Ibid., p. 214.[1012]Ibid., 62, p. 222.[1013]Ibid., 60, p. 180.[1014]Ibid., p. 195.[1015]P. 305.[1016]Ibid., p. 200.[1017]Ibid., 61, p. 149.[1018]Ibid., 57, p. 206.[1019]Ibid., 60, p. 255.[1020]Ibid.[1021]Ibid., p. 185.[1022]Ibid., p. 291.[1023]Ibid., 57, p. 367 f.[1024]Ibid., 60, p. 379, chapter xxvii.[1025]Ibid., p. 184.[1026]“Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers, 1535-1545,” ed. P. Drews, pp. 532-584. Cp. the Theses already published in Luther’s “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 442seq.[1027]They are thus summed up by Drews (p. 533).[1028]Thesis 56: “Papa est illud monstrum, de quo Daniel dicit, quod adversatur omni Deo, etiam Deo deorum.”—Thesis 58: “Nostri Germani vocant Beerwolf, quod Græci, si forte notum illis fuisset, dixissentἀρκτόλυκον” (i.e. “Bearwolf”).—Thesis 59: “Hoc animal lupus est quidem, sed a dæmone arreptus, lacerat omnia et elabitur omnibus venabulis et armis.”—Thesis 60: “Ad quod opprimendum necessarius est concursus omnium pagorum,” etc.—Thesis 61: “Nec est hic expectanda iudicis sententia aut consilii auctoritas,” etc.—Thesis 66: “Ita si papa bellum moverit, resistendum est ei sicut monstro furioso et obsesso seu vere ἀρκτολύκῳ.”—Thesis 68: “Nec curandum, si habeat militantes sibi principes, reges vel ipsos cæsares, titulo ecclesiæ incantatos.”[1029]Drews, p. 544.[1030]Ibid., p. 549. Given in Luther’s German Works, Jena ed., 7, p. 285, and Halle ed. (Walch), 19, p. 2438 f.[1031]Ibid., p. 552.[1032]Ibid., p. 559, Jena ed., 285´, Walch, p. 2440.[1033]Ibid., p. 566.[1034]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127.[1035]Ibid.[1036]Ibid.See above, p. 208. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 111: “Quando frigeo in corde ... oppono contra me impietatem papæ,” etc.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 107 f.; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.[1037]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 74.[1038]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 180.[1039]Ibid., p. 177 f.[1040]Ibid., Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.[1041]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.[1042]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 286; Erl. ed., 25², p. 16.[1043]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.[1044]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 269.[1045]Ibid., p. 307.[1046]Ibid., p. 249; cp. p. 115.[1047]See vol. ii., p. 153.[1048]Letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14, 1518, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 4 (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 249).[1049]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 206. Cp. what he says of Duke George, above, p. 190.[1050]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 295.[1051]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 274. On Brand of Berne cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, pp. 16-45; on p. 29 f. there is a remark of Luther’s on the “poor smoking ‘brand’ which escaped the fire of Berne,” rightly taken by Paulus to apply to Mensing (Seckendorf, Walch, De Wette and Enders were of a different opinion).—J. Koss, the Leipzig preacher, is again described by Luther in a letter to N. Hausmann (Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260) as a “preacher of blasphemy.”[1052]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 158. Under the heading “Mortes persecutorum,” the list commences with the words: “Pauci præsentia Dei miracula observant.” It contains the names of Richard von Greifenklau, Archbishop of Troves, Ernest Count of Mansfeld, Count Wartenberg, Dr. Matthias Henning, son of Henning the lawyer, Cæsar Pflug, Chancellor of Treves, and, besides, a Catholic preacher at Leipzig, a minister who had fallen away from Lutheranism at Kunewalde, a monk who was alleged to have spoken against the Apostle Paul, and a Silesian Doctor of Divinity. Then followed various additions. Cp. N. Paulus, “Luther über das schlimme Ende seiner Gegner” (“Katholik,” 1899, 2, pp. 490-505).[1053]Letter to Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260.[1054]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 289.[1055]All of the above expressions are taken from the first pages of “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526).[1056]Ibid., 28, p. 868=36, p. 410.—For the tone of Luther’s polemics against his theological opponents among both the Catholics and the Protestants, cp. vol. ii., p. 153 f., where the opinions of contemporaries, and friends of Luther’s immediate circle are given. For further criticisms of Catholic contemporaries see below, p. 251 ff., also vol. v., xxxiii., on the extreme tension of Luther’s polemics against Popery towards the end of his life.[1057]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 83 ff.[1058]Cp. below, p. 320, n. 15, and p. 323, n. 2.[1059]Letter written soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.
[835]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 176; Erl. ed., 27, p. 367.[836]Cp. vol. i., pp. 290 ff., 379 ff., 384 f.; vol. ii., p. 59 ff.[837]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 251; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 23; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; 46, p. 123.[838]“An den Rat zu Nürnberg, Gutachten Luthers und Melanchthons” (April 18, 1533); “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 8 (“Briefwechsel” 9, p. 292).[839]Köstlin,ibid., p. 252 f.[840]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 17 f.[841]Köstlin,ibid., p. 249.[842]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 107 ff.; 46, p. 292; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 136. See also Köstlin,ibid., p. 250. Absolution may also be sent by one far away, as Luther wrote to Spalatin: “Audi et crede iis quæ Christus per me tibi loquitur. Neque enim erro, quod scio, aut satanica loquor. Christus loquitur per me et iubet, ut fratri tuo in communi fide in eum credas. Ipse absolvit te ab hoc peccato et omnibus.” Aug. 24, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.[843]Ibid., 44, p. 109.[844]At Nuremberg Osiander had opposed the general absolution, and then, in spite of a memorandum from Wittenberg to the contrary (above, p. 349, n. 3), persisted in his opposition so that the magistrates made another application to Wittenberg on Sep. 27 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 337) and again got a similar reply (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 27; “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 343). In the new “memorandum” it was also stated that the public and the private absolution were real absolutions; but Osiander was not to be compelled to give the general absolution.[845]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 398. Form of Absolution dated Feb. 15, 1540, for the Nurembergers. The editor remarks: “The questionable point in this form, viz. that the Absolution was attached to an eventuality (‘should God to-day or to-morrow call one of you from this vale of tears’), and might thus be regarded as valid only in this event, can merely be hinted at here.”[846]These words were added by Luther in 1538 to his “Unterricht der Visitatorn” (1528); “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; Köstlin,ibid., p. 251.[847]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.[848]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 251).[849]P. 565 ff.=381 ff.[850]P. 567 f.=383, 385.[851]P. 569=386.[852]P. 569=385.[853]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 133 f.[854]Ibid., Erl. ed., 23, p. 87 ff.[855]“Drei Beichtbüchlein nach den Zehngeboten aus der Frühzeit der Buchdruckerkunst,” Münster, 1907 (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 2).[856]F. W. Battenberg, “Beichtbüchlein des Mag. Wolff,” Giessen, 1907, pp. 189, 205.[857]Falk,ibid., p. 13. Falk also quotes (p. 14) a noteworthy observation of Luthmer’s (“Zeitschr. für christl. Kunst,” 9, p. 5): “The close of the 15th century was the time when the Decalogue, as the starting-point for Confession, was most frequently commentated, described and depicted pictorially. For those unable to read, tables with the Commandments luridly pictured hung in the churches, schools and religious institutions, and the books on this subject were abundantly illustrated with woodcuts.”[858]“Die Reue in den deutschen Beichtschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 28, 1904, pp. 1-36. “In den deutschen Erbauungsschriften des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 440-485. “In den deutschen Sterbebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 682-698.—Cp. also, Luzian Pfleger, “Die Reue in der deutschen Dichtung des MA.” (“Wiss. Beil. zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 45-47).[859]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 566, 568 f.; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 382, 385.[860]Cp. on the abuses of the Penitentiary and for an elucidation of certain misunderstandings, E. Göller, “Die päpstl. Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis ... Pius V.,” 2 vols., Rome, 1907-1911.[861]More on Luther and Hymnology in vol. v., xxxiv., 4.[862]See Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 111, 150, 389: “egregias cantilenas post cœnam cecinerunt.” He himself on one occasion sung “octavo tono,”ibid., p. 332; cp. p. 391.[863]Cp., e.g., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 307; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 148seq.[864]See vol. ii., p. 171 f.[865]The whole in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 503.[866]Grauert, “Heinrich Denifle,”² 1906, p. 7.[867]“He possessed all the gifts which go to make an emotional man, as is apparent everywhere; depth, however, and true inwardness were not his.” A. M. Weiss, “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 223. What he says of Luther’s “depth” must be read in the light of what is said in the text above.[868]See vol. v., xxxi., 5.[869]Above, p. 244.[870]Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701. Further details on Luther’s prayers below, p. 274 ff.[871]The account by Cochlæus, taken from a special print of 1540 “of which sufficient account has hardly been made,” in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 174 ff. New edition of the “Colloqium Cochlæi,” by J. Greving, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” 4, Hft. 3, Leipzig, 1910.[872]So Jonas declares in his funeral address on Luther. “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.[873]Ibid.[874]In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.[875]“Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo, perchè portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”[876]6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24) calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.”Ibid., p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,” which he is ready to prize.[877]“Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.[878]Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung” (a reply to Denifle), 1904.[879]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.[880]Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.[881]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.[882]There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was objectionable—the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no exception to the rule—without sufficiently discriminating between what was true and what was false (B. Duhr,S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general encyclopædias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some examples, H. Brück (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.” J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J. A. Möhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law than his own will.” J. v. Döllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language. His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole Protestant world.”[883]For the collections of the Table-Talk see vol. iii., p. 218 ff.[884]See vol. iii., p. 223.[885]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311.[886]Cp. the emotion which accompanied another fine utterance spoken “ex pleno et accenso corde” (Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 23). There Luther was speaking of the profundity of the Word of God and of reliance on His Promises. See also below, p. 265.[887]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 309.[888]Ibid., p. 311, with the heading “Papæ tyrannis.”[889]Ibid., p. 310.[890]Ibid., pp. 310-322.[891]In his “Sabbata,” ed. Götzinger in the St. Gallen “Mitteilungen zur vaterländ. Gesch.,” 1869; new edition, St. Gallen, 1902, p. 76 ff.[892]Burrer’s letter, in Baum, “Capito,” 1860, p. 83.[893]“Historien,” p. 147.[894]Cp.ibid., pp. 142, 143.[895]Ibid., p. 153´.[896]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.[897]In F. S. Keil, “Luthers Lebensumstände,” 1, 1764, p. 2. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 243 f.[898]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 442. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 322.[899]“Vita Lutheri,” in “Vitæ quattuor reformatorum,” p. 14.[900]See our remarks above, p. 112 ff., on the way he came to believe in the truth of the falsehoods he so often repeated and even to convince his pupils of it too.[901]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.[902]Jos. Hundhausen, “Kirche oder Protestantismus,” a Catholic work, Mayence, 1883, p. 225.[903]In a sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 408 f.[904]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.[905]See vol. ii., p. 133.[906]To Amsdorf, Feb. 6 and 12, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, pp. 432, 434.[907]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.,” 8², col. 339.[908]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.[909]To Anton Unruhe, Judge at Torgau, June 13, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 205 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 371).[910]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 323 ff.; Erl. ed., 317 ff. N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 133, 1904, p. 201) also points out the “Courage which Luther showed in the time of the plague,” also his “liberality, his cheerful, sociable ways, how easily he was contented and how tirelessly he laboured.” George Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 6) recognises, amongst many other good qualities, the courage he showed during the plague.[911]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 285.[912]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.[913]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 31.[914]To Justus Jonas, April 19, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 87.[915]To Nicholas Hausmann, Aug. 20, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 77.[916]Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 254.[917]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 26. It may be remarked incidentally that possibly Luther was not aware, that, not long before, the people of Wittenberg, though no longer Catholic, had been shocked at his eating meat on fast days. In 1523 the people, who still kept the old custom of the Church, as a traveller remarks, were disposed to regard the overflow of the Elbe as Heaven’s judgment on Luther’s and his preachers’ laxity in the matter. See the account of Bishop Dantiscus, of Ermeland, who visited Wittenberg in that year, in Hipler, “Kopernikus und Luther,” Braunsberg, 1868, p. 72: “I heard from the country people on my way much abuse and many execrations of Luther and his co-religionists,” etc.[918]Letter of Dec. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” p. 702.[919]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 94.[920]“Einfeltige Weise zu beten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 215 ff.[921]Pp. 217, 221 f. The booklet was dedicated to Master Peter Balbier. This master, after having stabbed in anger a foot-soldier, was sentenced to death. Luther’s intercession procured the commutation of the sentence into one of banishment.[922]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 6, “Tischreden.” The whole section in question, “Tischreden vom Gebete,” really belongs here.[923]Ibid., p. 28.[924]Cp.ibid., p. 24, and above, vol. iii., p. 437.[925]Dietrich to Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 159. Cp. vol. iii., p. 162, his prayer for F. Myconius who was sick, which concludes: “My will be done. Amen.”[926]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 315.[927]Ibid.[928]For more on this subject see vol. v., xxxii., 5. We see this even in his prayers at the Wartburg.[929]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 130 f. In the second edition the closing chapter containing these passages is omitted. The comparison with Calvin made by Böhmer in this same chapter on Luther’s talent for organisation, is also worthy of notice. “At that time Luther hardly had his equal as pastor, preacher and writer, but, unlike Calvin, he was no born organiser or church-founder. Hence, as soon as he was confronted with the great problem how to organise the evangelical movement now becoming more and more powerful, he ceased to be the one leader and commander of the Reformation. It is true he always remained the supreme authority to his own followers; he reigned indeed, but did not govern; he no longer inspired, instructed or guided his fellow-workers individually. In this respect, also, Calvin was his exact opposite. His position at the outset was incomparably more humble than that of Luther. Yet his reputation grew constantly, till Church and State in Geneva unhesitatingly obeyed him, whilst his sphere of action went on extending till his very death, till finally it embraced the greater part of Western Europe” (p. 131 f.). “Down to the year 1689, nay, down to the 19th century, the nations of the West were still engaged in the solution of the political problems with which Luther’s reform had confronted them. For these Luther himself had but slight comprehension. If anything, he rendered their solution more difficult. He, however, took more interest in the legal reforms which had become necessary in consequence of his undertaking” (p. 136).[930]“Luther’s domestic life displays, as a whole, a not unpleasant picture, and its description would form the kindliest portion of a life which really does not offer much that is pleasing.” Thus Georg Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 1.[931]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2 f.[932]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 487.[933]Letters of Jan. 25 to Feb. 14, 1546, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 149, 151-154.[934]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 314: “Fax domestica.” The cause of Caspar Beier, the clandestinely married student, with regard to which she fanned the flames of Luther’s anger, was, according to Cruciger, “none of the best,” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 571, n. 1, and p. 569 f.[935]To Bernard v. Dölen, Aug. 31, 1538, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 398.[936]“Opp.,” Lovanii, 1566, f. 116´.[937]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 316.[938]Cp. Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Jüden” (“N. Stud. zur Gesch. der Theol. und Kirche,” 10), 1911.[939]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 135.[940]Ibid., p. 177 f.[941]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298.[942]Ibid.[943]Ibid., p. 242.[944]Ibid., p. 244 f.[945]Ibid., p. 244 f.[946]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261. Cp. vol., iii., p. 289 f.[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 271; Erl. ed., 27, p. 206.[948]Ibid., Erl. ed., 65, p. 79.[949]See vol. ii., p. 280.[950]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 196.[951]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 137.[952]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 306; Erl. ed., 40, p. 250 f.[953]To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535; “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[954]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. See above, vol. iii., 93 f.[955]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 56 f.[956]Ibid., p. 86.[957]Ibid., 25¹, p. 192.[958]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 676; Erl. ed., 27, p. 292.[959]Ibid., 6, p. 302=27, p. 110.[960]Ibid., 26, p. 351=30, p. 224.[961]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, p. 404.[962]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469.[963]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 289seq.The date, Dec. 4, 1538, must be taken for what it is worth.[964]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 14.[965]Ibid., p. 8 f.[966]On Invocavit Sunday, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 471.[967]See vol. ii., pp. 297, 305 ff.[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.[969]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 265 = 86.[970]Ibid., p. 267 f. = 89.[971]Ibid., p. 268 = 90.[972]Ibid., p. 270 = 92 f.[973]E. Brandenburg (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 70, Halle, 1901), p. 21.[974]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 265.[975]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139 f.[976]Ibid.[977]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 504 f.; 6, p. 319 ff.; “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 84. The “printed Mandate” was affixed to the church door. Cp. E. Michael (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895), p. 455 ff.[978]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette & Seidemann, 6, p. 320 ff.[979]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179, Aug., 1540.[980]Ibid., p. 180.[981]Ibid., p. 171. Still more strongly against the Franciscans on p. 180.[982]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 222.[983]Ibid., p. 226 f.[984]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 301.[985]Ibid., p. 292 f. Letter of Oct. 10, 1540. De Wette, 5, p. 308, also has 80,000 ducats. In the passage that follows Luther speaks of 18,000 crowns.[986]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 213.[987]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 762; Erl. ed., 36, p. 410. See below, p. 304.[988]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 171.[989]P. 64.[990]P. 25.[991]P. 149.[992]P. 64.[993]P. 30.[994]P. 163.[995]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 439, “Tischreden.”[996]Ibid.[997]Ibid., p. 441, and Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 100.[998]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, p. 5.[999]P. 2.[1000]P. 3.[1001]P. 7.[1002]P. 9.[1003]P. 9.[1004]P. 10.[1005]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391, “Tischreden.”[1006]Ibid., 60, p. 227 f., in chapter xxvii. of the Table-Talk.[1007]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 68.[1008]Ibid., 57, p. 80.[1009]Ibid., 60, p. 206.[1010]Ibid., p. 183.[1011]Ibid., p. 214.[1012]Ibid., 62, p. 222.[1013]Ibid., 60, p. 180.[1014]Ibid., p. 195.[1015]P. 305.[1016]Ibid., p. 200.[1017]Ibid., 61, p. 149.[1018]Ibid., 57, p. 206.[1019]Ibid., 60, p. 255.[1020]Ibid.[1021]Ibid., p. 185.[1022]Ibid., p. 291.[1023]Ibid., 57, p. 367 f.[1024]Ibid., 60, p. 379, chapter xxvii.[1025]Ibid., p. 184.[1026]“Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers, 1535-1545,” ed. P. Drews, pp. 532-584. Cp. the Theses already published in Luther’s “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 442seq.[1027]They are thus summed up by Drews (p. 533).[1028]Thesis 56: “Papa est illud monstrum, de quo Daniel dicit, quod adversatur omni Deo, etiam Deo deorum.”—Thesis 58: “Nostri Germani vocant Beerwolf, quod Græci, si forte notum illis fuisset, dixissentἀρκτόλυκον” (i.e. “Bearwolf”).—Thesis 59: “Hoc animal lupus est quidem, sed a dæmone arreptus, lacerat omnia et elabitur omnibus venabulis et armis.”—Thesis 60: “Ad quod opprimendum necessarius est concursus omnium pagorum,” etc.—Thesis 61: “Nec est hic expectanda iudicis sententia aut consilii auctoritas,” etc.—Thesis 66: “Ita si papa bellum moverit, resistendum est ei sicut monstro furioso et obsesso seu vere ἀρκτολύκῳ.”—Thesis 68: “Nec curandum, si habeat militantes sibi principes, reges vel ipsos cæsares, titulo ecclesiæ incantatos.”[1029]Drews, p. 544.[1030]Ibid., p. 549. Given in Luther’s German Works, Jena ed., 7, p. 285, and Halle ed. (Walch), 19, p. 2438 f.[1031]Ibid., p. 552.[1032]Ibid., p. 559, Jena ed., 285´, Walch, p. 2440.[1033]Ibid., p. 566.[1034]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127.[1035]Ibid.[1036]Ibid.See above, p. 208. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 111: “Quando frigeo in corde ... oppono contra me impietatem papæ,” etc.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 107 f.; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.[1037]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 74.[1038]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 180.[1039]Ibid., p. 177 f.[1040]Ibid., Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.[1041]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.[1042]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 286; Erl. ed., 25², p. 16.[1043]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.[1044]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 269.[1045]Ibid., p. 307.[1046]Ibid., p. 249; cp. p. 115.[1047]See vol. ii., p. 153.[1048]Letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14, 1518, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 4 (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 249).[1049]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 206. Cp. what he says of Duke George, above, p. 190.[1050]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 295.[1051]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 274. On Brand of Berne cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, pp. 16-45; on p. 29 f. there is a remark of Luther’s on the “poor smoking ‘brand’ which escaped the fire of Berne,” rightly taken by Paulus to apply to Mensing (Seckendorf, Walch, De Wette and Enders were of a different opinion).—J. Koss, the Leipzig preacher, is again described by Luther in a letter to N. Hausmann (Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260) as a “preacher of blasphemy.”[1052]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 158. Under the heading “Mortes persecutorum,” the list commences with the words: “Pauci præsentia Dei miracula observant.” It contains the names of Richard von Greifenklau, Archbishop of Troves, Ernest Count of Mansfeld, Count Wartenberg, Dr. Matthias Henning, son of Henning the lawyer, Cæsar Pflug, Chancellor of Treves, and, besides, a Catholic preacher at Leipzig, a minister who had fallen away from Lutheranism at Kunewalde, a monk who was alleged to have spoken against the Apostle Paul, and a Silesian Doctor of Divinity. Then followed various additions. Cp. N. Paulus, “Luther über das schlimme Ende seiner Gegner” (“Katholik,” 1899, 2, pp. 490-505).[1053]Letter to Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260.[1054]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 289.[1055]All of the above expressions are taken from the first pages of “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526).[1056]Ibid., 28, p. 868=36, p. 410.—For the tone of Luther’s polemics against his theological opponents among both the Catholics and the Protestants, cp. vol. ii., p. 153 f., where the opinions of contemporaries, and friends of Luther’s immediate circle are given. For further criticisms of Catholic contemporaries see below, p. 251 ff., also vol. v., xxxiii., on the extreme tension of Luther’s polemics against Popery towards the end of his life.[1057]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 83 ff.[1058]Cp. below, p. 320, n. 15, and p. 323, n. 2.[1059]Letter written soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.
[835]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 176; Erl. ed., 27, p. 367.
[836]Cp. vol. i., pp. 290 ff., 379 ff., 384 f.; vol. ii., p. 59 ff.
[837]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 251; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 23; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; 46, p. 123.
[838]“An den Rat zu Nürnberg, Gutachten Luthers und Melanchthons” (April 18, 1533); “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 8 (“Briefwechsel” 9, p. 292).
[839]Köstlin,ibid., p. 252 f.
[840]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 17 f.
[841]Köstlin,ibid., p. 249.
[842]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 107 ff.; 46, p. 292; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 136. See also Köstlin,ibid., p. 250. Absolution may also be sent by one far away, as Luther wrote to Spalatin: “Audi et crede iis quæ Christus per me tibi loquitur. Neque enim erro, quod scio, aut satanica loquor. Christus loquitur per me et iubet, ut fratri tuo in communi fide in eum credas. Ipse absolvit te ab hoc peccato et omnibus.” Aug. 24, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.
[843]Ibid., 44, p. 109.
[844]At Nuremberg Osiander had opposed the general absolution, and then, in spite of a memorandum from Wittenberg to the contrary (above, p. 349, n. 3), persisted in his opposition so that the magistrates made another application to Wittenberg on Sep. 27 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 337) and again got a similar reply (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 27; “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 343). In the new “memorandum” it was also stated that the public and the private absolution were real absolutions; but Osiander was not to be compelled to give the general absolution.
[845]“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 398. Form of Absolution dated Feb. 15, 1540, for the Nurembergers. The editor remarks: “The questionable point in this form, viz. that the Absolution was attached to an eventuality (‘should God to-day or to-morrow call one of you from this vale of tears’), and might thus be regarded as valid only in this event, can merely be hinted at here.”
[846]These words were added by Luther in 1538 to his “Unterricht der Visitatorn” (1528); “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; Köstlin,ibid., p. 251.
[847]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.
[848]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 251).
[849]P. 565 ff.=381 ff.
[850]P. 567 f.=383, 385.
[851]P. 569=386.
[852]P. 569=385.
[853]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 133 f.
[854]Ibid., Erl. ed., 23, p. 87 ff.
[855]“Drei Beichtbüchlein nach den Zehngeboten aus der Frühzeit der Buchdruckerkunst,” Münster, 1907 (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 2).
[856]F. W. Battenberg, “Beichtbüchlein des Mag. Wolff,” Giessen, 1907, pp. 189, 205.
[857]Falk,ibid., p. 13. Falk also quotes (p. 14) a noteworthy observation of Luthmer’s (“Zeitschr. für christl. Kunst,” 9, p. 5): “The close of the 15th century was the time when the Decalogue, as the starting-point for Confession, was most frequently commentated, described and depicted pictorially. For those unable to read, tables with the Commandments luridly pictured hung in the churches, schools and religious institutions, and the books on this subject were abundantly illustrated with woodcuts.”
[858]“Die Reue in den deutschen Beichtschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 28, 1904, pp. 1-36. “In den deutschen Erbauungsschriften des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 440-485. “In den deutschen Sterbebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,”ibid., pp. 682-698.—Cp. also, Luzian Pfleger, “Die Reue in der deutschen Dichtung des MA.” (“Wiss. Beil. zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 45-47).
[859]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 566, 568 f.; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 382, 385.
[860]Cp. on the abuses of the Penitentiary and for an elucidation of certain misunderstandings, E. Göller, “Die päpstl. Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis ... Pius V.,” 2 vols., Rome, 1907-1911.
[861]More on Luther and Hymnology in vol. v., xxxiv., 4.
[862]See Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 111, 150, 389: “egregias cantilenas post cœnam cecinerunt.” He himself on one occasion sung “octavo tono,”ibid., p. 332; cp. p. 391.
[863]Cp., e.g., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 307; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 148seq.
[864]See vol. ii., p. 171 f.
[865]The whole in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 503.
[866]Grauert, “Heinrich Denifle,”² 1906, p. 7.
[867]“He possessed all the gifts which go to make an emotional man, as is apparent everywhere; depth, however, and true inwardness were not his.” A. M. Weiss, “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 223. What he says of Luther’s “depth” must be read in the light of what is said in the text above.
[868]See vol. v., xxxi., 5.
[869]Above, p. 244.
[870]Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701. Further details on Luther’s prayers below, p. 274 ff.
[871]The account by Cochlæus, taken from a special print of 1540 “of which sufficient account has hardly been made,” in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 174 ff. New edition of the “Colloqium Cochlæi,” by J. Greving, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” 4, Hft. 3, Leipzig, 1910.
[872]So Jonas declares in his funeral address on Luther. “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.
[873]Ibid.
[874]In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.
[875]“Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo, perchè portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”
[876]6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24) calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.”Ibid., p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,” which he is ready to prize.
[877]“Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.
[878]Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung” (a reply to Denifle), 1904.
[879]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.
[880]Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.
[881]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.
[882]There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was objectionable—the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no exception to the rule—without sufficiently discriminating between what was true and what was false (B. Duhr,S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general encyclopædias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some examples, H. Brück (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.” J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J. A. Möhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law than his own will.” J. v. Döllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language. His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole Protestant world.”
[883]For the collections of the Table-Talk see vol. iii., p. 218 ff.
[884]See vol. iii., p. 223.
[885]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311.
[886]Cp. the emotion which accompanied another fine utterance spoken “ex pleno et accenso corde” (Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 23). There Luther was speaking of the profundity of the Word of God and of reliance on His Promises. See also below, p. 265.
[887]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 309.
[888]Ibid., p. 311, with the heading “Papæ tyrannis.”
[889]Ibid., p. 310.
[890]Ibid., pp. 310-322.
[891]In his “Sabbata,” ed. Götzinger in the St. Gallen “Mitteilungen zur vaterländ. Gesch.,” 1869; new edition, St. Gallen, 1902, p. 76 ff.
[892]Burrer’s letter, in Baum, “Capito,” 1860, p. 83.
[893]“Historien,” p. 147.
[894]Cp.ibid., pp. 142, 143.
[895]Ibid., p. 153´.
[896]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.
[897]In F. S. Keil, “Luthers Lebensumstände,” 1, 1764, p. 2. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 243 f.
[898]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 442. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 322.
[899]“Vita Lutheri,” in “Vitæ quattuor reformatorum,” p. 14.
[900]See our remarks above, p. 112 ff., on the way he came to believe in the truth of the falsehoods he so often repeated and even to convince his pupils of it too.
[901]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.
[902]Jos. Hundhausen, “Kirche oder Protestantismus,” a Catholic work, Mayence, 1883, p. 225.
[903]In a sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 408 f.
[904]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.
[905]See vol. ii., p. 133.
[906]To Amsdorf, Feb. 6 and 12, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, pp. 432, 434.
[907]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.,” 8², col. 339.
[908]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.
[909]To Anton Unruhe, Judge at Torgau, June 13, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 205 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 371).
[910]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 323 ff.; Erl. ed., 317 ff. N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 133, 1904, p. 201) also points out the “Courage which Luther showed in the time of the plague,” also his “liberality, his cheerful, sociable ways, how easily he was contented and how tirelessly he laboured.” George Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 6) recognises, amongst many other good qualities, the courage he showed during the plague.
[911]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 285.
[912]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.
[913]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 31.
[914]To Justus Jonas, April 19, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 87.
[915]To Nicholas Hausmann, Aug. 20, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 77.
[916]Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 254.
[917]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 26. It may be remarked incidentally that possibly Luther was not aware, that, not long before, the people of Wittenberg, though no longer Catholic, had been shocked at his eating meat on fast days. In 1523 the people, who still kept the old custom of the Church, as a traveller remarks, were disposed to regard the overflow of the Elbe as Heaven’s judgment on Luther’s and his preachers’ laxity in the matter. See the account of Bishop Dantiscus, of Ermeland, who visited Wittenberg in that year, in Hipler, “Kopernikus und Luther,” Braunsberg, 1868, p. 72: “I heard from the country people on my way much abuse and many execrations of Luther and his co-religionists,” etc.
[918]Letter of Dec. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” p. 702.
[919]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 94.
[920]“Einfeltige Weise zu beten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 215 ff.
[921]Pp. 217, 221 f. The booklet was dedicated to Master Peter Balbier. This master, after having stabbed in anger a foot-soldier, was sentenced to death. Luther’s intercession procured the commutation of the sentence into one of banishment.
[922]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 6, “Tischreden.” The whole section in question, “Tischreden vom Gebete,” really belongs here.
[923]Ibid., p. 28.
[924]Cp.ibid., p. 24, and above, vol. iii., p. 437.
[925]Dietrich to Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 159. Cp. vol. iii., p. 162, his prayer for F. Myconius who was sick, which concludes: “My will be done. Amen.”
[926]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 315.
[927]Ibid.
[928]For more on this subject see vol. v., xxxii., 5. We see this even in his prayers at the Wartburg.
[929]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 130 f. In the second edition the closing chapter containing these passages is omitted. The comparison with Calvin made by Böhmer in this same chapter on Luther’s talent for organisation, is also worthy of notice. “At that time Luther hardly had his equal as pastor, preacher and writer, but, unlike Calvin, he was no born organiser or church-founder. Hence, as soon as he was confronted with the great problem how to organise the evangelical movement now becoming more and more powerful, he ceased to be the one leader and commander of the Reformation. It is true he always remained the supreme authority to his own followers; he reigned indeed, but did not govern; he no longer inspired, instructed or guided his fellow-workers individually. In this respect, also, Calvin was his exact opposite. His position at the outset was incomparably more humble than that of Luther. Yet his reputation grew constantly, till Church and State in Geneva unhesitatingly obeyed him, whilst his sphere of action went on extending till his very death, till finally it embraced the greater part of Western Europe” (p. 131 f.). “Down to the year 1689, nay, down to the 19th century, the nations of the West were still engaged in the solution of the political problems with which Luther’s reform had confronted them. For these Luther himself had but slight comprehension. If anything, he rendered their solution more difficult. He, however, took more interest in the legal reforms which had become necessary in consequence of his undertaking” (p. 136).
[930]“Luther’s domestic life displays, as a whole, a not unpleasant picture, and its description would form the kindliest portion of a life which really does not offer much that is pleasing.” Thus Georg Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 1.
[931]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2 f.
[932]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 487.
[933]Letters of Jan. 25 to Feb. 14, 1546, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 149, 151-154.
[934]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 314: “Fax domestica.” The cause of Caspar Beier, the clandestinely married student, with regard to which she fanned the flames of Luther’s anger, was, according to Cruciger, “none of the best,” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 571, n. 1, and p. 569 f.
[935]To Bernard v. Dölen, Aug. 31, 1538, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 398.
[936]“Opp.,” Lovanii, 1566, f. 116´.
[937]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 316.
[938]Cp. Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Jüden” (“N. Stud. zur Gesch. der Theol. und Kirche,” 10), 1911.
[939]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 135.
[940]Ibid., p. 177 f.
[941]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298.
[942]Ibid.
[943]Ibid., p. 242.
[944]Ibid., p. 244 f.
[945]Ibid., p. 244 f.
[946]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261. Cp. vol., iii., p. 289 f.
[947]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 271; Erl. ed., 27, p. 206.
[948]Ibid., Erl. ed., 65, p. 79.
[949]See vol. ii., p. 280.
[950]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 196.
[951]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 137.
[952]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 306; Erl. ed., 40, p. 250 f.
[953]To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535; “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.
[954]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. See above, vol. iii., 93 f.
[955]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 56 f.
[956]Ibid., p. 86.
[957]Ibid., 25¹, p. 192.
[958]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 676; Erl. ed., 27, p. 292.
[959]Ibid., 6, p. 302=27, p. 110.
[960]Ibid., 26, p. 351=30, p. 224.
[961]Ibid., Erl. ed., 32, p. 404.
[962]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469.
[963]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 289seq.The date, Dec. 4, 1538, must be taken for what it is worth.
[964]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 14.
[965]Ibid., p. 8 f.
[966]On Invocavit Sunday, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 471.
[967]See vol. ii., pp. 297, 305 ff.
[968]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.
[969]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 265 = 86.
[970]Ibid., p. 267 f. = 89.
[971]Ibid., p. 268 = 90.
[972]Ibid., p. 270 = 92 f.
[973]E. Brandenburg (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 70, Halle, 1901), p. 21.
[974]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 265.
[975]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139 f.
[976]Ibid.
[977]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 504 f.; 6, p. 319 ff.; “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 84. The “printed Mandate” was affixed to the church door. Cp. E. Michael (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895), p. 455 ff.
[978]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette & Seidemann, 6, p. 320 ff.
[979]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179, Aug., 1540.
[980]Ibid., p. 180.
[981]Ibid., p. 171. Still more strongly against the Franciscans on p. 180.
[982]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 222.
[983]Ibid., p. 226 f.
[984]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 301.
[985]Ibid., p. 292 f. Letter of Oct. 10, 1540. De Wette, 5, p. 308, also has 80,000 ducats. In the passage that follows Luther speaks of 18,000 crowns.
[986]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 213.
[987]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 762; Erl. ed., 36, p. 410. See below, p. 304.
[988]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 171.
[989]P. 64.
[990]P. 25.
[991]P. 149.
[992]P. 64.
[993]P. 30.
[994]P. 163.
[995]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 439, “Tischreden.”
[996]Ibid.
[997]Ibid., p. 441, and Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 100.
[998]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, p. 5.
[999]P. 2.
[1000]P. 3.
[1001]P. 7.
[1002]P. 9.
[1003]P. 9.
[1004]P. 10.
[1005]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391, “Tischreden.”
[1006]Ibid., 60, p. 227 f., in chapter xxvii. of the Table-Talk.
[1007]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 68.
[1008]Ibid., 57, p. 80.
[1009]Ibid., 60, p. 206.
[1010]Ibid., p. 183.
[1011]Ibid., p. 214.
[1012]Ibid., 62, p. 222.
[1013]Ibid., 60, p. 180.
[1014]Ibid., p. 195.
[1015]P. 305.
[1016]Ibid., p. 200.
[1017]Ibid., 61, p. 149.
[1018]Ibid., 57, p. 206.
[1019]Ibid., 60, p. 255.
[1020]Ibid.
[1021]Ibid., p. 185.
[1022]Ibid., p. 291.
[1023]Ibid., 57, p. 367 f.
[1024]Ibid., 60, p. 379, chapter xxvii.
[1025]Ibid., p. 184.
[1026]“Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers, 1535-1545,” ed. P. Drews, pp. 532-584. Cp. the Theses already published in Luther’s “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 442seq.
[1027]They are thus summed up by Drews (p. 533).
[1028]Thesis 56: “Papa est illud monstrum, de quo Daniel dicit, quod adversatur omni Deo, etiam Deo deorum.”—Thesis 58: “Nostri Germani vocant Beerwolf, quod Græci, si forte notum illis fuisset, dixissentἀρκτόλυκον” (i.e. “Bearwolf”).—Thesis 59: “Hoc animal lupus est quidem, sed a dæmone arreptus, lacerat omnia et elabitur omnibus venabulis et armis.”—Thesis 60: “Ad quod opprimendum necessarius est concursus omnium pagorum,” etc.—Thesis 61: “Nec est hic expectanda iudicis sententia aut consilii auctoritas,” etc.—Thesis 66: “Ita si papa bellum moverit, resistendum est ei sicut monstro furioso et obsesso seu vere ἀρκτολύκῳ.”—Thesis 68: “Nec curandum, si habeat militantes sibi principes, reges vel ipsos cæsares, titulo ecclesiæ incantatos.”
[1029]Drews, p. 544.
[1030]Ibid., p. 549. Given in Luther’s German Works, Jena ed., 7, p. 285, and Halle ed. (Walch), 19, p. 2438 f.
[1031]Ibid., p. 552.
[1032]Ibid., p. 559, Jena ed., 285´, Walch, p. 2440.
[1033]Ibid., p. 566.
[1034]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127.
[1035]Ibid.
[1036]Ibid.See above, p. 208. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 111: “Quando frigeo in corde ... oppono contra me impietatem papæ,” etc.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 107 f.; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.
[1037]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 74.
[1038]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 180.
[1039]Ibid., p. 177 f.
[1040]Ibid., Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.
[1041]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.
[1042]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 286; Erl. ed., 25², p. 16.
[1043]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.
[1044]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 269.
[1045]Ibid., p. 307.
[1046]Ibid., p. 249; cp. p. 115.
[1047]See vol. ii., p. 153.
[1048]Letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14, 1518, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 4 (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 249).
[1049]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 206. Cp. what he says of Duke George, above, p. 190.
[1050]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 295.
[1051]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 274. On Brand of Berne cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, pp. 16-45; on p. 29 f. there is a remark of Luther’s on the “poor smoking ‘brand’ which escaped the fire of Berne,” rightly taken by Paulus to apply to Mensing (Seckendorf, Walch, De Wette and Enders were of a different opinion).—J. Koss, the Leipzig preacher, is again described by Luther in a letter to N. Hausmann (Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260) as a “preacher of blasphemy.”
[1052]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 158. Under the heading “Mortes persecutorum,” the list commences with the words: “Pauci præsentia Dei miracula observant.” It contains the names of Richard von Greifenklau, Archbishop of Troves, Ernest Count of Mansfeld, Count Wartenberg, Dr. Matthias Henning, son of Henning the lawyer, Cæsar Pflug, Chancellor of Treves, and, besides, a Catholic preacher at Leipzig, a minister who had fallen away from Lutheranism at Kunewalde, a monk who was alleged to have spoken against the Apostle Paul, and a Silesian Doctor of Divinity. Then followed various additions. Cp. N. Paulus, “Luther über das schlimme Ende seiner Gegner” (“Katholik,” 1899, 2, pp. 490-505).
[1053]Letter to Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260.
[1054]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 289.
[1055]All of the above expressions are taken from the first pages of “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526).
[1056]Ibid., 28, p. 868=36, p. 410.—For the tone of Luther’s polemics against his theological opponents among both the Catholics and the Protestants, cp. vol. ii., p. 153 f., where the opinions of contemporaries, and friends of Luther’s immediate circle are given. For further criticisms of Catholic contemporaries see below, p. 251 ff., also vol. v., xxxiii., on the extreme tension of Luther’s polemics against Popery towards the end of his life.
[1057]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 83 ff.
[1058]Cp. below, p. 320, n. 15, and p. 323, n. 2.
[1059]Letter written soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.