[1060]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 277 ff., on the Epistle James i. 16-21, on the 4th Sunday after Easter.[1061]Ibid., p. 286.[1062]P. 282.[1063]P. 288.[1064]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115 f.[1065]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 166, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.”[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 167.[1067]Ibid., p. 169.[1068]See vol. iii., p. 379 f.[1069]Letter of Nov. 5, 1525, to Gregory Casel, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 263 ff.[1070]“Summa, utros oportet esse Sathanæ ministros, vel ipsos, vel nos.”[1071]To the Strasburg preachers, Nov. 5, 1525: “Christum a nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari, at huius negationis iam traducit nos Zwinglius.”Ibid., p. 262.[1072]“Hist. des variations des églises protestantes,” Paris, 1702, 1, p. 69.[1073]“Iudicium de controversiis theol. inter Luther. et Ref.,” 1650, c. 53.[1074]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411.[1075]To Caspar Müller, Chancellor at Mansfeld, Jan. 19, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 119 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 290).[1076]To the preacher, Balthasar Rhaide, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288. Cp. p. 293: “Vides, quantas illi nobis faciant turbas, qui a nobis exierunt,” and before this: “Spero, quod non discedes a forma doctrinæ quam hic hausisti.”[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 129; “Tischreden,” Döllinger. “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251, erroneously quotes the passage as being in Walch: it does, however, occur in Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 136 f. The commencement is remarkable: “At times I consider the Pope and say: What after all is the Pope that I should honour him, even though you [the devil] magnify him? See what an abomination he has wrought and works even to-day! Before myself I set Christ and the forgiveness of sins, but under Satan’s nose I put the abominations of the Pope. The abomination and the horror is so great that I am encouraged and am quite ready to allow that,” etc.[1078]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251.[1079]To Spalatin, soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.[1080]July 31, 1530,ibid., 8, p. 157.[1081]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261; Erl. ed., 65, p. 25; “Widder den Radschlag,” etc., 1526.[1082]Aug. 19, 1520, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 463.[1083]April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 342: “Miror, quid mihi acciderit, ut tam moderatus fuerim.”[1084]Ibid., p. 341: “Certum est ipsum [Christum] pedetentim descendere de throno ad iudicium illud exspectatissimum; multa sunt nimis signa, quæ id mihi persuadent.”[1085]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 266, from the notes of one of his table-companions: Cod. Manh., 355. Coll. Camerar. v. (Ms. Bibl. Monac.), fol. 148 a.[1086]Cp. vol. iii., 148 f. See also “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ed. C. A. H. Burkhardt, 1866, p. 357.[1087]Cp. our vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.[1088]To Spalatin, July 26, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 435.[1089]Aug. 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 349 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447). Cp. the letter to Spalatin of Nov. 11, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 246 f.[1090]Cp. letters of Nov. 11, 1517, and Feb., 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126, and 2, p. 345.[1091]April 13, 1531, in Seidemann, “Beitr. zur RG.,” 1. p. 207; Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 389, n. 1.[1092]April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 225 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).[1093]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87, at the end of “Auff das vermeint Edict.”[1094]Cp.ibid., p. 386=86 f.[1095]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 188; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 397, in “Contra Henricum regem Anqliæ,” 1522.[1096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 27 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 3 ff. in “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift,” 1527.[1097]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 311; Erl. ed., 25[9], p. 38, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[1098]Ibid.[1099]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.[1100]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 486; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 41, p. 17.[1102]Ibid., Weim. ed., 16, p. 469; Erl. ed., 36, p. 81.[1103]Ibid., Erl. ed., 38, p. 176.[1104]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 7; Erl. ed., 53, p. 46.[1105]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 404.[1106]Ibid., p. 393.[1107]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 674; Erl. ed., 27, p. 290.[1108]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 29.[1109]Cp.ibid., 64, p. 324.[1110]“Briefe,” 6, p. 373.[1111]Ibid., 5, p. 622.[1112]“Werke,” Weim. ed, 30, 2, p. 485; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.[1113]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 148.[1114]Ibid., Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.[1115]Ibid., 33, p. 673=48, p. 407.[1116]Ibid., Erl. ed., 42, p. 67.[1117]Ibid., Weim. ed., 19, p. 400; Erl. ed., 41, p. 30.[1118]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 296.[1119]Ibid., 45, p. 153.[1120]Ibid., 44, p. 257.[1121]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 495; Erl. ed., 31, p. 167.[1122]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 321.[1123]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, pp. 3, 335; Erl. ed., 25², p. 52.[1124]Ibid., Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 562.[1125]Ibid., 20², 1, p. 19.[1126]Ibid., 25², p. 253.[1127]Ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 429; Erl. ed., 30, p. 282.[1128]“Briefe,” 6, p. 296.[1129]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 43; Erl. ed., 29, p. 378.[1130]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 318.[1131]Ibid., p. 316.[1132]Ibid., Weim. ed., 33, p. 458; Erl. ed., 48, p. 222.[1133]On June 30, 1530, to Johann Agricola, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 57.[1134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 207.[1135]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 468; Erl. ed., 25², p. 125.[1136]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 216.[1137]Ibid., p. 216 f.[1138]Ibid., p. 205.[1139]Calvin also suffered, though in a less degree, from this mania for invective; of him and of the excuse some have sought in the tone and habits of the age a recent French historian says: Even though such abuse was not entirely unparalleled, “yet it cannot but surprise and grieve us in the case of a religious reformer.” H. Lemonnier, “Histoire de France,” ed. E. Lavisse, 5, 2, 1904, p. 230, dealing with French Calvinism.[1140]See our vol. ii., p. 153 ff.[1141]In the reply “Auf das chmähbüchlein,” usw., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 143, published under Arnold’s name.[1142]Thus F. Polygranus,O.S.F., in his “Assertiones quorundam ecclesiæ dogmatum,” printed at Cologne in 1571, Bl. 10: “insatiabilis maledicendi libido ... a seculis inauditæ conviciorum voces.”[1143]To Ulrich Zasius, Oct. 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 66.[1144]Cp. “KL.,” 5², col. 1958 f.[1145]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” p. 514.[1146]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57 f.; “KL.,” 8², p. 343.[1147]“Wider das unchristenliche Buch M. Luthers,” ed. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” vol. i., 1889, p. 132.[1148]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1557.[1149]Ibid., col. 1155: “ista tam effrenis in omnes maledicentia,” etc.[1150]“Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss der Dieneren an der Kilchen zu Zürych,” Zürych, 1545, Bl. 130 f.[1151]Ibid., Bl. 10.[1152]To Bucer, 1543, Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 2, p. 224. Another remark of Bullinger’s is given above, vol. iii., p. 417.[1153]To Bullinger, 1543, Lenz,ibid., p. 226. Cp. what Bucer said, in our vol. ii., p. 155.[1154]On May 19, 1545, Lenz,ibid., p. 343.[1155]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 279, Table-Talk.[1156]On Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 255, printed in the 2nd edition of the Psalter of Hessus of 1538.—The following remark of Luther’s on those who wanted to call themselves after him has also been quoted: “Fool that you are, just listen: First of all I beg people to leave my name out and to call themselves, not Lutherans, but Christians. What has Luther to do with it? The doctrine is not mine, nor was I ever crucified for anyone. St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. [4, 5], would not hear of Christians being called Pauline or Petrine, but simply Christians. How then should I, poor smelly sack of maggots that I am, suffer the children of Christ to be called by my unholy name? Hence, dear friend, let us do away with party names and be called after Christ, Whose teaching we follow. It is only right that the Papists should have a party name, because they are not content with Christ’s teaching and name, but insist on being Popish; let them then be the Pope’s, since he is their master. As for me, I neither am nor wish to be anyone’s master. I share with the congregation the teaching of Christ Who alone is our Master. Mt. xxiii. [8].” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55 f., “Vormanung sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr,” 1522. He blames those who, by their stupid zeal, “cause calumny and a falling away from the holy Evangel,” and “affright” the people and prevent their accepting it. Just then it was to his interest to represent his teaching as peaceable and his action as moderate. Cp. pp. 677, 682 f.=46, 51, 53.[1157]We have chosen this somewhat unusual setting for the following collection of Luther’s sayings in order to prevent monotony. The texts, indeed, belong to various times, but there are periods in Luther’s history, for instance, about the time of the Diet of Augsburg, and in 1540 and 1541, when, within a short chronological space, he contrived to make a vast number of statements regarding his greatness; for this reason the above arrangement is not altogether untrue to the reality.[1158]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2, and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422. Words taken from his Will of Jan. 6, 1542, by which he intended to show the lawyers (who questioned his power to make a valid Will on account of his marriage) that he was not bound by the formalities on which they insisted.[1159]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 366; Erl. ed., 25², p. 75.[1160]Ibid., p. 290=22.[1161]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 105=28, p. 143.[1162]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.[1163]“Briefe,” 5, p. 754.[1164]Ibid., 1, p. 101.[1165]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 70.[1166]Ibid., p. 73.[1167]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 442. See above, vol. iii., p. 165 f.[1168]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520.[1169]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.[1170]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. See above, vol. iii., p. 165.[1171]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 4.[1172]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.[1173]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716.[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2. p. 309 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 491; “Briefe,” 2, p. 238 (“Briefewechsel,” 3, p. 438).[1175]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 151.[1176]Ibid., p. 193.[1177]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.[1178]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 109 f.=31, p. 34 f. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” 1529.[1179]Ibid., 36, p. 447=18², p. 334. Sermon of 1532.[1180]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 178, Table-Talk.[1181]Cp. vol. iii., p. 131 f., and above, p. 102.[1182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184.[1183]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 422.[1184]W. Walther, “Für Luther, wider Rom,” pp. 526-543.[1185]Other Protestant writers are of a different opinion. Friedrich Paulsen says in his “Gesch. des Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 178: “It is certain that humility towards men, respect for human wisdom and human laws, did not enter into Luther’s make. He is altogether deficient in that humility towards the actual Church which is so characteristic of St. Augustine, Luther’s great predecessor in theology. The more Luther, during the course of his life, passes from the position of a mere heretic to that of head of a new Church, the more does that formula [My cause is God’s own] become tinged with bitterness, with obstinacy and with pride.”[1186]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. “An die Radherrn,” etc., 1524.[1187]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421. “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle,” 1530.[1188]Ibid., p. 585 f.=420.[1189]Ibid., 62, p. 443 f., Table-Talk.[1190]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface to the edition of the Latin works (1545).[1191]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.[1192]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 445 f., Table-Talk (in Latin).[1193]Ibid., 31, p. 389 f. “Ein Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” 1534.[1194]Ibid., 63, pp. 271, 274, Table-Talk.[1195]Preface to his Commentary on Galatians, Irmischer, 1, p. 9.[1196]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.[1197]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.[1198]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 153.[1199]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[1200]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403, Preface, 1539.[1201]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 121.[1202]Ibid., p. 41.[1203]Ibid., from Veit Dietrich’s “Aufzeichnungen.”[1204]Ibid., p. 9.[1205]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[1206]To Ambros. Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, p. 42 ff. R. Stintzing, “Ulr. Zasius,” 1857, p. 231, Cp. p. 371.[1207]Münzer and Ickelsamer in our vol. ii., p. 377.[1208]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 310 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 57. “Grund und Ursach aller Artickel,” 1521.[1209]Ibid., p. 311=58.[1210]Ibid.[1211]Ibid., p. 313=59.[1212]Ibid.[1213]Ibid.[1214]Ibid.[1215]Ibid., p. 315=61.[1216]Ibid., p. 317=61 f.[1217]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 389 f.[1218]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186.[1219]“Briefe,” 6, p. 402.[1220]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 94.[1221]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 113.[1222]“Briefe,” 5, p. 418 f.[1223]Ibid., p. 743.[1224]Ibid., p. 746.[1225]Ibid., p. 750.[1226]Ibid., p. 777.[1227]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51 f., during the Diet of Augsburg.[1228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.[1229]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, No. 10, col. 304. Harnack adds: “Towards God he remained humble; this humility was, however, couched in a language which must have affrighted the monkish devotees.”[1230]“Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen,” with the sub-title: “Martin Luther, by God’s grace Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to the Popish Bishops my service and to them knowledge in Christ.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 ff. The book was partly written at the Wartburg (see Introd. in the Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 93 f.), and was published in 1522, probably in Aug.[1231]Bossuet, “Hist. des variations,” Paris ed., 1702, 1, p. 26.[1232]To Spalatin, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 232.[1233]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 275.[1234]Above, p. 58.[1235]Above, p. 327.[1236]P. 28. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (Khummer), p. 141; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.[1237]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 346 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 90 and 427.[1238]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f., in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1530.[1239]Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus, Von des werthen Gottes Mannes Doctor Martin Luther 21 Predigten” (preached after 1562), Ursel, s. a. Bl. 12´.[1240]Letter written after Oct. 24, 1545, “Briefe,” 6, p. 392.[1241]“For we account a man to be justified by faithalonewithout the works of the law.” Cp. vol. v., xxxiv. 3.[1242]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 635 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 107 (cp. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 249), in the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” which is in fact no “letter” but a polemical treatise in the form of a letter, published by Wenceslaus Link in September, 1530, at Luther’s instance.[1243]“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 817.[1244]Letter of Jan. 16, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17 f.[1245]On his theology cp. the numerous instances given in Denifle, e.g., 1², pp. 467, 469, 657. P. 466: “He is always playing with grotesque ideas.” Cp. also,ibid., p. 454 f.[1246]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 162.[1247]“Briefe,” 6, p. 185 f., in the so-called “first Will.”[1248]Jonas, in his panegyric on Luther.[1249]Cp. e.g. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 83 and 126.[1250]For proofs see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 89, n. 3. Cp. vol. ii., p. 162 f., vol. iii., p. 322 and above, p. 269.[1251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 650; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 512.[1252]Schlaginhaufen, “Anfzeichnungen,” p. 31.[1253]“Dicta memorabilia,” Coloniæ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.[1254]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).[1255]“Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’” Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534), B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sächs. Gesch.,” 26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say, viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this legend.[1256]Cp. above, p. 101.[1257]Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12, from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “vel a malo dæmonio agitari.”[1258]In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534, “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “a sinistro quopiam agitari genio” (for the whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “Hyperaspistes” against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio” (c.1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “Num hæc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriæ?” And before this: “Sed longe perniciosior est philautiæ et odii temulentia quam vini” (c.1546). “Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hæc deliramenta inauspicatis illineret chartis” (c.1545). “Ipsa febris non posset loqui febrilius” (c.1546). “Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla” (c.1547). “Hic nihil crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, Megæras, aliasque voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; certe hæc esse solent venturæ insaniæ præsagia” (c.1542). “Quæ cum scribit, videtur sibi mire δεινός; verum hæc δείνωσις sobriis videtur esse mera insania” (c.1543). Martin may wish to make him out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him himself as mad (“citius lymphatum,” etc.,c.1557, first passage given above).—In the first book of his “Hyperaspistes” (ib.) he writes: “Hæc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non eras sobrius, quum scriberes” (c.1281). “Totus enim hic sensus sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hæc scripsisse” (c.1367). “Si qui hæc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem” (c.1371). “Quis non videt hæc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum, quum hæc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiæ” (c.1394). “An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?” (c.1411; in connection with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh). “Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia, sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur, quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit” (c.1477). “Quam multa hic delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba” (c.1472).—Luther’s contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“Replica,” s. l. et. a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtovæus (“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same way.—All these statements, with those already given, are worth the consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their number gives them importance.[1259]Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later more detailed explanation of the same incident.[1260]“Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,” Dresdæ, 1529 (dedication).[1261]“Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt., 1549), p. 1.[1262]Ibid.[1263]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” end. In Enders, “Luther und Emser,” 2, p. 25 f.[1264]“Auss was Grund und Ursach Luthers Dolmetschung ... verbotten worden sey,” 1523. In “Zu Luthers Vorred zum Römerbrief,” Bl. 65´.[1265]“Historia sui temporis,” ed. Aretin (“Beitr. zur Gesch. und Lit.,” 7, Munich, 1806, p. 535 ff.), p. 666: “Quam elata cervice tumidisque moribus expresserit prodideritque superbiam, ut sathanæ veteris vel etiam præsentanei hospitis illius et præceptoris quædam in eo imago spectaretur.”[1266]Ibid., p. 663.[1267]“Dadelung,” p. 14.[1268]Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” pp. 147, 143. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen Aleanders vom Wormser Reichstage”², 1897, p. 171.[1269]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 1, p. 718 ff.[1270]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 f.[1271]Quoted by W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 213.Ibid., 214, from Dietenberger’s work against Luther’s doctrine of auricular Confession: To speak and teach as Luther did was to have “a compact and alliance with the poison of the devil and with eternal death.”Ibid., similar statements from Emser and others.[1272]O. Kronseder, “Christophorus Hoffmann,” 1898, p. 57, with reference to Cod. Monac. lat. 14626, p. 326.[1273]Cod. Monac. germ., 4842, Bl. 2. Cp. above, p. 242.[1274]Ed. Reithmeier, p. 2, 165.[1275]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 63.—What the Catholics thought will be better understood when we remember that even H. Bullinger, in his “History of the Reformation” (ed. Hottinger and Vœgeli, 2, Frauenfeld, 1838, p. 239), says of Luther’s “Kurtz Bekentnis” of 1544: “Although he had previously written much that was illogical, insulting and even blasphemous, yet he outdoes himself in the shameful, wanton and offensive words he uses in this booklet. He bursts for very devils ... and actslike a man possessed.”[1276]“KG.,” ed. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 105 f.[1277]Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188.[1278]Ed. Friedensburg (“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,” 1533-1559, vol. i.), p. 541, report on Nov. 13, 1535.[1279]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.[1280]“Melanchthoniana,” ed. O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.; see also above, vol. i., p. 279, n. 2.) According to Erasmus Alber, a personal acquaintance, friend and admirer of Luther’s, the latter had a “fine, open and brave countenance and hawk’s eyes.” Cp. Alber, “Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter,” Bl. f. 3 ff.; see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.
[1060]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 277 ff., on the Epistle James i. 16-21, on the 4th Sunday after Easter.[1061]Ibid., p. 286.[1062]P. 282.[1063]P. 288.[1064]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115 f.[1065]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 166, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.”[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 167.[1067]Ibid., p. 169.[1068]See vol. iii., p. 379 f.[1069]Letter of Nov. 5, 1525, to Gregory Casel, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 263 ff.[1070]“Summa, utros oportet esse Sathanæ ministros, vel ipsos, vel nos.”[1071]To the Strasburg preachers, Nov. 5, 1525: “Christum a nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari, at huius negationis iam traducit nos Zwinglius.”Ibid., p. 262.[1072]“Hist. des variations des églises protestantes,” Paris, 1702, 1, p. 69.[1073]“Iudicium de controversiis theol. inter Luther. et Ref.,” 1650, c. 53.[1074]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411.[1075]To Caspar Müller, Chancellor at Mansfeld, Jan. 19, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 119 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 290).[1076]To the preacher, Balthasar Rhaide, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288. Cp. p. 293: “Vides, quantas illi nobis faciant turbas, qui a nobis exierunt,” and before this: “Spero, quod non discedes a forma doctrinæ quam hic hausisti.”[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 129; “Tischreden,” Döllinger. “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251, erroneously quotes the passage as being in Walch: it does, however, occur in Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 136 f. The commencement is remarkable: “At times I consider the Pope and say: What after all is the Pope that I should honour him, even though you [the devil] magnify him? See what an abomination he has wrought and works even to-day! Before myself I set Christ and the forgiveness of sins, but under Satan’s nose I put the abominations of the Pope. The abomination and the horror is so great that I am encouraged and am quite ready to allow that,” etc.[1078]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251.[1079]To Spalatin, soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.[1080]July 31, 1530,ibid., 8, p. 157.[1081]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261; Erl. ed., 65, p. 25; “Widder den Radschlag,” etc., 1526.[1082]Aug. 19, 1520, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 463.[1083]April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 342: “Miror, quid mihi acciderit, ut tam moderatus fuerim.”[1084]Ibid., p. 341: “Certum est ipsum [Christum] pedetentim descendere de throno ad iudicium illud exspectatissimum; multa sunt nimis signa, quæ id mihi persuadent.”[1085]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 266, from the notes of one of his table-companions: Cod. Manh., 355. Coll. Camerar. v. (Ms. Bibl. Monac.), fol. 148 a.[1086]Cp. vol. iii., 148 f. See also “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ed. C. A. H. Burkhardt, 1866, p. 357.[1087]Cp. our vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.[1088]To Spalatin, July 26, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 435.[1089]Aug. 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 349 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447). Cp. the letter to Spalatin of Nov. 11, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 246 f.[1090]Cp. letters of Nov. 11, 1517, and Feb., 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126, and 2, p. 345.[1091]April 13, 1531, in Seidemann, “Beitr. zur RG.,” 1. p. 207; Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 389, n. 1.[1092]April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 225 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).[1093]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87, at the end of “Auff das vermeint Edict.”[1094]Cp.ibid., p. 386=86 f.[1095]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 188; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 397, in “Contra Henricum regem Anqliæ,” 1522.[1096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 27 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 3 ff. in “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift,” 1527.[1097]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 311; Erl. ed., 25[9], p. 38, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[1098]Ibid.[1099]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.[1100]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 486; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 41, p. 17.[1102]Ibid., Weim. ed., 16, p. 469; Erl. ed., 36, p. 81.[1103]Ibid., Erl. ed., 38, p. 176.[1104]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 7; Erl. ed., 53, p. 46.[1105]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 404.[1106]Ibid., p. 393.[1107]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 674; Erl. ed., 27, p. 290.[1108]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 29.[1109]Cp.ibid., 64, p. 324.[1110]“Briefe,” 6, p. 373.[1111]Ibid., 5, p. 622.[1112]“Werke,” Weim. ed, 30, 2, p. 485; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.[1113]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 148.[1114]Ibid., Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.[1115]Ibid., 33, p. 673=48, p. 407.[1116]Ibid., Erl. ed., 42, p. 67.[1117]Ibid., Weim. ed., 19, p. 400; Erl. ed., 41, p. 30.[1118]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 296.[1119]Ibid., 45, p. 153.[1120]Ibid., 44, p. 257.[1121]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 495; Erl. ed., 31, p. 167.[1122]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 321.[1123]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, pp. 3, 335; Erl. ed., 25², p. 52.[1124]Ibid., Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 562.[1125]Ibid., 20², 1, p. 19.[1126]Ibid., 25², p. 253.[1127]Ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 429; Erl. ed., 30, p. 282.[1128]“Briefe,” 6, p. 296.[1129]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 43; Erl. ed., 29, p. 378.[1130]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 318.[1131]Ibid., p. 316.[1132]Ibid., Weim. ed., 33, p. 458; Erl. ed., 48, p. 222.[1133]On June 30, 1530, to Johann Agricola, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 57.[1134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 207.[1135]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 468; Erl. ed., 25², p. 125.[1136]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 216.[1137]Ibid., p. 216 f.[1138]Ibid., p. 205.[1139]Calvin also suffered, though in a less degree, from this mania for invective; of him and of the excuse some have sought in the tone and habits of the age a recent French historian says: Even though such abuse was not entirely unparalleled, “yet it cannot but surprise and grieve us in the case of a religious reformer.” H. Lemonnier, “Histoire de France,” ed. E. Lavisse, 5, 2, 1904, p. 230, dealing with French Calvinism.[1140]See our vol. ii., p. 153 ff.[1141]In the reply “Auf das chmähbüchlein,” usw., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 143, published under Arnold’s name.[1142]Thus F. Polygranus,O.S.F., in his “Assertiones quorundam ecclesiæ dogmatum,” printed at Cologne in 1571, Bl. 10: “insatiabilis maledicendi libido ... a seculis inauditæ conviciorum voces.”[1143]To Ulrich Zasius, Oct. 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 66.[1144]Cp. “KL.,” 5², col. 1958 f.[1145]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” p. 514.[1146]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57 f.; “KL.,” 8², p. 343.[1147]“Wider das unchristenliche Buch M. Luthers,” ed. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” vol. i., 1889, p. 132.[1148]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1557.[1149]Ibid., col. 1155: “ista tam effrenis in omnes maledicentia,” etc.[1150]“Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss der Dieneren an der Kilchen zu Zürych,” Zürych, 1545, Bl. 130 f.[1151]Ibid., Bl. 10.[1152]To Bucer, 1543, Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 2, p. 224. Another remark of Bullinger’s is given above, vol. iii., p. 417.[1153]To Bullinger, 1543, Lenz,ibid., p. 226. Cp. what Bucer said, in our vol. ii., p. 155.[1154]On May 19, 1545, Lenz,ibid., p. 343.[1155]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 279, Table-Talk.[1156]On Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 255, printed in the 2nd edition of the Psalter of Hessus of 1538.—The following remark of Luther’s on those who wanted to call themselves after him has also been quoted: “Fool that you are, just listen: First of all I beg people to leave my name out and to call themselves, not Lutherans, but Christians. What has Luther to do with it? The doctrine is not mine, nor was I ever crucified for anyone. St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. [4, 5], would not hear of Christians being called Pauline or Petrine, but simply Christians. How then should I, poor smelly sack of maggots that I am, suffer the children of Christ to be called by my unholy name? Hence, dear friend, let us do away with party names and be called after Christ, Whose teaching we follow. It is only right that the Papists should have a party name, because they are not content with Christ’s teaching and name, but insist on being Popish; let them then be the Pope’s, since he is their master. As for me, I neither am nor wish to be anyone’s master. I share with the congregation the teaching of Christ Who alone is our Master. Mt. xxiii. [8].” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55 f., “Vormanung sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr,” 1522. He blames those who, by their stupid zeal, “cause calumny and a falling away from the holy Evangel,” and “affright” the people and prevent their accepting it. Just then it was to his interest to represent his teaching as peaceable and his action as moderate. Cp. pp. 677, 682 f.=46, 51, 53.[1157]We have chosen this somewhat unusual setting for the following collection of Luther’s sayings in order to prevent monotony. The texts, indeed, belong to various times, but there are periods in Luther’s history, for instance, about the time of the Diet of Augsburg, and in 1540 and 1541, when, within a short chronological space, he contrived to make a vast number of statements regarding his greatness; for this reason the above arrangement is not altogether untrue to the reality.[1158]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2, and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422. Words taken from his Will of Jan. 6, 1542, by which he intended to show the lawyers (who questioned his power to make a valid Will on account of his marriage) that he was not bound by the formalities on which they insisted.[1159]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 366; Erl. ed., 25², p. 75.[1160]Ibid., p. 290=22.[1161]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 105=28, p. 143.[1162]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.[1163]“Briefe,” 5, p. 754.[1164]Ibid., 1, p. 101.[1165]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 70.[1166]Ibid., p. 73.[1167]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 442. See above, vol. iii., p. 165 f.[1168]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520.[1169]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.[1170]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. See above, vol. iii., p. 165.[1171]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 4.[1172]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.[1173]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716.[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2. p. 309 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 491; “Briefe,” 2, p. 238 (“Briefewechsel,” 3, p. 438).[1175]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 151.[1176]Ibid., p. 193.[1177]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.[1178]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 109 f.=31, p. 34 f. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” 1529.[1179]Ibid., 36, p. 447=18², p. 334. Sermon of 1532.[1180]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 178, Table-Talk.[1181]Cp. vol. iii., p. 131 f., and above, p. 102.[1182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184.[1183]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 422.[1184]W. Walther, “Für Luther, wider Rom,” pp. 526-543.[1185]Other Protestant writers are of a different opinion. Friedrich Paulsen says in his “Gesch. des Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 178: “It is certain that humility towards men, respect for human wisdom and human laws, did not enter into Luther’s make. He is altogether deficient in that humility towards the actual Church which is so characteristic of St. Augustine, Luther’s great predecessor in theology. The more Luther, during the course of his life, passes from the position of a mere heretic to that of head of a new Church, the more does that formula [My cause is God’s own] become tinged with bitterness, with obstinacy and with pride.”[1186]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. “An die Radherrn,” etc., 1524.[1187]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421. “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle,” 1530.[1188]Ibid., p. 585 f.=420.[1189]Ibid., 62, p. 443 f., Table-Talk.[1190]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface to the edition of the Latin works (1545).[1191]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.[1192]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 445 f., Table-Talk (in Latin).[1193]Ibid., 31, p. 389 f. “Ein Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” 1534.[1194]Ibid., 63, pp. 271, 274, Table-Talk.[1195]Preface to his Commentary on Galatians, Irmischer, 1, p. 9.[1196]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.[1197]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.[1198]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 153.[1199]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[1200]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403, Preface, 1539.[1201]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 121.[1202]Ibid., p. 41.[1203]Ibid., from Veit Dietrich’s “Aufzeichnungen.”[1204]Ibid., p. 9.[1205]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[1206]To Ambros. Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, p. 42 ff. R. Stintzing, “Ulr. Zasius,” 1857, p. 231, Cp. p. 371.[1207]Münzer and Ickelsamer in our vol. ii., p. 377.[1208]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 310 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 57. “Grund und Ursach aller Artickel,” 1521.[1209]Ibid., p. 311=58.[1210]Ibid.[1211]Ibid., p. 313=59.[1212]Ibid.[1213]Ibid.[1214]Ibid.[1215]Ibid., p. 315=61.[1216]Ibid., p. 317=61 f.[1217]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 389 f.[1218]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186.[1219]“Briefe,” 6, p. 402.[1220]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 94.[1221]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 113.[1222]“Briefe,” 5, p. 418 f.[1223]Ibid., p. 743.[1224]Ibid., p. 746.[1225]Ibid., p. 750.[1226]Ibid., p. 777.[1227]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51 f., during the Diet of Augsburg.[1228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.[1229]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, No. 10, col. 304. Harnack adds: “Towards God he remained humble; this humility was, however, couched in a language which must have affrighted the monkish devotees.”[1230]“Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen,” with the sub-title: “Martin Luther, by God’s grace Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to the Popish Bishops my service and to them knowledge in Christ.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 ff. The book was partly written at the Wartburg (see Introd. in the Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 93 f.), and was published in 1522, probably in Aug.[1231]Bossuet, “Hist. des variations,” Paris ed., 1702, 1, p. 26.[1232]To Spalatin, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 232.[1233]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 275.[1234]Above, p. 58.[1235]Above, p. 327.[1236]P. 28. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (Khummer), p. 141; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.[1237]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 346 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 90 and 427.[1238]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f., in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1530.[1239]Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus, Von des werthen Gottes Mannes Doctor Martin Luther 21 Predigten” (preached after 1562), Ursel, s. a. Bl. 12´.[1240]Letter written after Oct. 24, 1545, “Briefe,” 6, p. 392.[1241]“For we account a man to be justified by faithalonewithout the works of the law.” Cp. vol. v., xxxiv. 3.[1242]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 635 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 107 (cp. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 249), in the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” which is in fact no “letter” but a polemical treatise in the form of a letter, published by Wenceslaus Link in September, 1530, at Luther’s instance.[1243]“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 817.[1244]Letter of Jan. 16, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17 f.[1245]On his theology cp. the numerous instances given in Denifle, e.g., 1², pp. 467, 469, 657. P. 466: “He is always playing with grotesque ideas.” Cp. also,ibid., p. 454 f.[1246]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 162.[1247]“Briefe,” 6, p. 185 f., in the so-called “first Will.”[1248]Jonas, in his panegyric on Luther.[1249]Cp. e.g. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 83 and 126.[1250]For proofs see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 89, n. 3. Cp. vol. ii., p. 162 f., vol. iii., p. 322 and above, p. 269.[1251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 650; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 512.[1252]Schlaginhaufen, “Anfzeichnungen,” p. 31.[1253]“Dicta memorabilia,” Coloniæ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.[1254]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).[1255]“Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’” Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534), B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sächs. Gesch.,” 26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say, viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this legend.[1256]Cp. above, p. 101.[1257]Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12, from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “vel a malo dæmonio agitari.”[1258]In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534, “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “a sinistro quopiam agitari genio” (for the whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “Hyperaspistes” against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio” (c.1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “Num hæc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriæ?” And before this: “Sed longe perniciosior est philautiæ et odii temulentia quam vini” (c.1546). “Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hæc deliramenta inauspicatis illineret chartis” (c.1545). “Ipsa febris non posset loqui febrilius” (c.1546). “Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla” (c.1547). “Hic nihil crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, Megæras, aliasque voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; certe hæc esse solent venturæ insaniæ præsagia” (c.1542). “Quæ cum scribit, videtur sibi mire δεινός; verum hæc δείνωσις sobriis videtur esse mera insania” (c.1543). Martin may wish to make him out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him himself as mad (“citius lymphatum,” etc.,c.1557, first passage given above).—In the first book of his “Hyperaspistes” (ib.) he writes: “Hæc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non eras sobrius, quum scriberes” (c.1281). “Totus enim hic sensus sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hæc scripsisse” (c.1367). “Si qui hæc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem” (c.1371). “Quis non videt hæc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum, quum hæc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiæ” (c.1394). “An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?” (c.1411; in connection with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh). “Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia, sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur, quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit” (c.1477). “Quam multa hic delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba” (c.1472).—Luther’s contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“Replica,” s. l. et. a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtovæus (“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same way.—All these statements, with those already given, are worth the consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their number gives them importance.[1259]Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later more detailed explanation of the same incident.[1260]“Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,” Dresdæ, 1529 (dedication).[1261]“Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt., 1549), p. 1.[1262]Ibid.[1263]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” end. In Enders, “Luther und Emser,” 2, p. 25 f.[1264]“Auss was Grund und Ursach Luthers Dolmetschung ... verbotten worden sey,” 1523. In “Zu Luthers Vorred zum Römerbrief,” Bl. 65´.[1265]“Historia sui temporis,” ed. Aretin (“Beitr. zur Gesch. und Lit.,” 7, Munich, 1806, p. 535 ff.), p. 666: “Quam elata cervice tumidisque moribus expresserit prodideritque superbiam, ut sathanæ veteris vel etiam præsentanei hospitis illius et præceptoris quædam in eo imago spectaretur.”[1266]Ibid., p. 663.[1267]“Dadelung,” p. 14.[1268]Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” pp. 147, 143. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen Aleanders vom Wormser Reichstage”², 1897, p. 171.[1269]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 1, p. 718 ff.[1270]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 f.[1271]Quoted by W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 213.Ibid., 214, from Dietenberger’s work against Luther’s doctrine of auricular Confession: To speak and teach as Luther did was to have “a compact and alliance with the poison of the devil and with eternal death.”Ibid., similar statements from Emser and others.[1272]O. Kronseder, “Christophorus Hoffmann,” 1898, p. 57, with reference to Cod. Monac. lat. 14626, p. 326.[1273]Cod. Monac. germ., 4842, Bl. 2. Cp. above, p. 242.[1274]Ed. Reithmeier, p. 2, 165.[1275]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 63.—What the Catholics thought will be better understood when we remember that even H. Bullinger, in his “History of the Reformation” (ed. Hottinger and Vœgeli, 2, Frauenfeld, 1838, p. 239), says of Luther’s “Kurtz Bekentnis” of 1544: “Although he had previously written much that was illogical, insulting and even blasphemous, yet he outdoes himself in the shameful, wanton and offensive words he uses in this booklet. He bursts for very devils ... and actslike a man possessed.”[1276]“KG.,” ed. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 105 f.[1277]Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188.[1278]Ed. Friedensburg (“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,” 1533-1559, vol. i.), p. 541, report on Nov. 13, 1535.[1279]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.[1280]“Melanchthoniana,” ed. O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.; see also above, vol. i., p. 279, n. 2.) According to Erasmus Alber, a personal acquaintance, friend and admirer of Luther’s, the latter had a “fine, open and brave countenance and hawk’s eyes.” Cp. Alber, “Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter,” Bl. f. 3 ff.; see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.
[1060]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 277 ff., on the Epistle James i. 16-21, on the 4th Sunday after Easter.[1061]Ibid., p. 286.[1062]P. 282.[1063]P. 288.[1064]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115 f.[1065]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 166, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.”[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 167.[1067]Ibid., p. 169.[1068]See vol. iii., p. 379 f.[1069]Letter of Nov. 5, 1525, to Gregory Casel, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 263 ff.[1070]“Summa, utros oportet esse Sathanæ ministros, vel ipsos, vel nos.”[1071]To the Strasburg preachers, Nov. 5, 1525: “Christum a nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari, at huius negationis iam traducit nos Zwinglius.”Ibid., p. 262.[1072]“Hist. des variations des églises protestantes,” Paris, 1702, 1, p. 69.[1073]“Iudicium de controversiis theol. inter Luther. et Ref.,” 1650, c. 53.[1074]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411.[1075]To Caspar Müller, Chancellor at Mansfeld, Jan. 19, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 119 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 290).[1076]To the preacher, Balthasar Rhaide, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288. Cp. p. 293: “Vides, quantas illi nobis faciant turbas, qui a nobis exierunt,” and before this: “Spero, quod non discedes a forma doctrinæ quam hic hausisti.”[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 129; “Tischreden,” Döllinger. “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251, erroneously quotes the passage as being in Walch: it does, however, occur in Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 136 f. The commencement is remarkable: “At times I consider the Pope and say: What after all is the Pope that I should honour him, even though you [the devil] magnify him? See what an abomination he has wrought and works even to-day! Before myself I set Christ and the forgiveness of sins, but under Satan’s nose I put the abominations of the Pope. The abomination and the horror is so great that I am encouraged and am quite ready to allow that,” etc.[1078]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251.[1079]To Spalatin, soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.[1080]July 31, 1530,ibid., 8, p. 157.[1081]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261; Erl. ed., 65, p. 25; “Widder den Radschlag,” etc., 1526.[1082]Aug. 19, 1520, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 463.[1083]April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 342: “Miror, quid mihi acciderit, ut tam moderatus fuerim.”[1084]Ibid., p. 341: “Certum est ipsum [Christum] pedetentim descendere de throno ad iudicium illud exspectatissimum; multa sunt nimis signa, quæ id mihi persuadent.”[1085]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 266, from the notes of one of his table-companions: Cod. Manh., 355. Coll. Camerar. v. (Ms. Bibl. Monac.), fol. 148 a.[1086]Cp. vol. iii., 148 f. See also “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ed. C. A. H. Burkhardt, 1866, p. 357.[1087]Cp. our vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.[1088]To Spalatin, July 26, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 435.[1089]Aug. 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 349 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447). Cp. the letter to Spalatin of Nov. 11, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 246 f.[1090]Cp. letters of Nov. 11, 1517, and Feb., 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126, and 2, p. 345.[1091]April 13, 1531, in Seidemann, “Beitr. zur RG.,” 1. p. 207; Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 389, n. 1.[1092]April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 225 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).[1093]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87, at the end of “Auff das vermeint Edict.”[1094]Cp.ibid., p. 386=86 f.[1095]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 188; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 397, in “Contra Henricum regem Anqliæ,” 1522.[1096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 27 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 3 ff. in “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift,” 1527.[1097]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 311; Erl. ed., 25[9], p. 38, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.[1098]Ibid.[1099]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.[1100]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 486; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 41, p. 17.[1102]Ibid., Weim. ed., 16, p. 469; Erl. ed., 36, p. 81.[1103]Ibid., Erl. ed., 38, p. 176.[1104]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 7; Erl. ed., 53, p. 46.[1105]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 404.[1106]Ibid., p. 393.[1107]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 674; Erl. ed., 27, p. 290.[1108]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 29.[1109]Cp.ibid., 64, p. 324.[1110]“Briefe,” 6, p. 373.[1111]Ibid., 5, p. 622.[1112]“Werke,” Weim. ed, 30, 2, p. 485; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.[1113]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 148.[1114]Ibid., Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.[1115]Ibid., 33, p. 673=48, p. 407.[1116]Ibid., Erl. ed., 42, p. 67.[1117]Ibid., Weim. ed., 19, p. 400; Erl. ed., 41, p. 30.[1118]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 296.[1119]Ibid., 45, p. 153.[1120]Ibid., 44, p. 257.[1121]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 495; Erl. ed., 31, p. 167.[1122]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 321.[1123]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, pp. 3, 335; Erl. ed., 25², p. 52.[1124]Ibid., Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 562.[1125]Ibid., 20², 1, p. 19.[1126]Ibid., 25², p. 253.[1127]Ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 429; Erl. ed., 30, p. 282.[1128]“Briefe,” 6, p. 296.[1129]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 43; Erl. ed., 29, p. 378.[1130]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 318.[1131]Ibid., p. 316.[1132]Ibid., Weim. ed., 33, p. 458; Erl. ed., 48, p. 222.[1133]On June 30, 1530, to Johann Agricola, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 57.[1134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 207.[1135]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 468; Erl. ed., 25², p. 125.[1136]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 216.[1137]Ibid., p. 216 f.[1138]Ibid., p. 205.[1139]Calvin also suffered, though in a less degree, from this mania for invective; of him and of the excuse some have sought in the tone and habits of the age a recent French historian says: Even though such abuse was not entirely unparalleled, “yet it cannot but surprise and grieve us in the case of a religious reformer.” H. Lemonnier, “Histoire de France,” ed. E. Lavisse, 5, 2, 1904, p. 230, dealing with French Calvinism.[1140]See our vol. ii., p. 153 ff.[1141]In the reply “Auf das chmähbüchlein,” usw., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 143, published under Arnold’s name.[1142]Thus F. Polygranus,O.S.F., in his “Assertiones quorundam ecclesiæ dogmatum,” printed at Cologne in 1571, Bl. 10: “insatiabilis maledicendi libido ... a seculis inauditæ conviciorum voces.”[1143]To Ulrich Zasius, Oct. 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 66.[1144]Cp. “KL.,” 5², col. 1958 f.[1145]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” p. 514.[1146]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57 f.; “KL.,” 8², p. 343.[1147]“Wider das unchristenliche Buch M. Luthers,” ed. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” vol. i., 1889, p. 132.[1148]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1557.[1149]Ibid., col. 1155: “ista tam effrenis in omnes maledicentia,” etc.[1150]“Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss der Dieneren an der Kilchen zu Zürych,” Zürych, 1545, Bl. 130 f.[1151]Ibid., Bl. 10.[1152]To Bucer, 1543, Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 2, p. 224. Another remark of Bullinger’s is given above, vol. iii., p. 417.[1153]To Bullinger, 1543, Lenz,ibid., p. 226. Cp. what Bucer said, in our vol. ii., p. 155.[1154]On May 19, 1545, Lenz,ibid., p. 343.[1155]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 279, Table-Talk.[1156]On Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 255, printed in the 2nd edition of the Psalter of Hessus of 1538.—The following remark of Luther’s on those who wanted to call themselves after him has also been quoted: “Fool that you are, just listen: First of all I beg people to leave my name out and to call themselves, not Lutherans, but Christians. What has Luther to do with it? The doctrine is not mine, nor was I ever crucified for anyone. St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. [4, 5], would not hear of Christians being called Pauline or Petrine, but simply Christians. How then should I, poor smelly sack of maggots that I am, suffer the children of Christ to be called by my unholy name? Hence, dear friend, let us do away with party names and be called after Christ, Whose teaching we follow. It is only right that the Papists should have a party name, because they are not content with Christ’s teaching and name, but insist on being Popish; let them then be the Pope’s, since he is their master. As for me, I neither am nor wish to be anyone’s master. I share with the congregation the teaching of Christ Who alone is our Master. Mt. xxiii. [8].” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55 f., “Vormanung sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr,” 1522. He blames those who, by their stupid zeal, “cause calumny and a falling away from the holy Evangel,” and “affright” the people and prevent their accepting it. Just then it was to his interest to represent his teaching as peaceable and his action as moderate. Cp. pp. 677, 682 f.=46, 51, 53.[1157]We have chosen this somewhat unusual setting for the following collection of Luther’s sayings in order to prevent monotony. The texts, indeed, belong to various times, but there are periods in Luther’s history, for instance, about the time of the Diet of Augsburg, and in 1540 and 1541, when, within a short chronological space, he contrived to make a vast number of statements regarding his greatness; for this reason the above arrangement is not altogether untrue to the reality.[1158]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2, and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422. Words taken from his Will of Jan. 6, 1542, by which he intended to show the lawyers (who questioned his power to make a valid Will on account of his marriage) that he was not bound by the formalities on which they insisted.[1159]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 366; Erl. ed., 25², p. 75.[1160]Ibid., p. 290=22.[1161]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 105=28, p. 143.[1162]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.[1163]“Briefe,” 5, p. 754.[1164]Ibid., 1, p. 101.[1165]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 70.[1166]Ibid., p. 73.[1167]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 442. See above, vol. iii., p. 165 f.[1168]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520.[1169]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.[1170]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. See above, vol. iii., p. 165.[1171]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 4.[1172]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.[1173]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716.[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2. p. 309 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 491; “Briefe,” 2, p. 238 (“Briefewechsel,” 3, p. 438).[1175]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 151.[1176]Ibid., p. 193.[1177]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.[1178]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 109 f.=31, p. 34 f. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” 1529.[1179]Ibid., 36, p. 447=18², p. 334. Sermon of 1532.[1180]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 178, Table-Talk.[1181]Cp. vol. iii., p. 131 f., and above, p. 102.[1182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184.[1183]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 422.[1184]W. Walther, “Für Luther, wider Rom,” pp. 526-543.[1185]Other Protestant writers are of a different opinion. Friedrich Paulsen says in his “Gesch. des Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 178: “It is certain that humility towards men, respect for human wisdom and human laws, did not enter into Luther’s make. He is altogether deficient in that humility towards the actual Church which is so characteristic of St. Augustine, Luther’s great predecessor in theology. The more Luther, during the course of his life, passes from the position of a mere heretic to that of head of a new Church, the more does that formula [My cause is God’s own] become tinged with bitterness, with obstinacy and with pride.”[1186]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. “An die Radherrn,” etc., 1524.[1187]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421. “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle,” 1530.[1188]Ibid., p. 585 f.=420.[1189]Ibid., 62, p. 443 f., Table-Talk.[1190]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface to the edition of the Latin works (1545).[1191]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.[1192]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 445 f., Table-Talk (in Latin).[1193]Ibid., 31, p. 389 f. “Ein Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” 1534.[1194]Ibid., 63, pp. 271, 274, Table-Talk.[1195]Preface to his Commentary on Galatians, Irmischer, 1, p. 9.[1196]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.[1197]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.[1198]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 153.[1199]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[1200]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403, Preface, 1539.[1201]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 121.[1202]Ibid., p. 41.[1203]Ibid., from Veit Dietrich’s “Aufzeichnungen.”[1204]Ibid., p. 9.[1205]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.[1206]To Ambros. Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, p. 42 ff. R. Stintzing, “Ulr. Zasius,” 1857, p. 231, Cp. p. 371.[1207]Münzer and Ickelsamer in our vol. ii., p. 377.[1208]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 310 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 57. “Grund und Ursach aller Artickel,” 1521.[1209]Ibid., p. 311=58.[1210]Ibid.[1211]Ibid., p. 313=59.[1212]Ibid.[1213]Ibid.[1214]Ibid.[1215]Ibid., p. 315=61.[1216]Ibid., p. 317=61 f.[1217]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 389 f.[1218]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186.[1219]“Briefe,” 6, p. 402.[1220]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 94.[1221]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 113.[1222]“Briefe,” 5, p. 418 f.[1223]Ibid., p. 743.[1224]Ibid., p. 746.[1225]Ibid., p. 750.[1226]Ibid., p. 777.[1227]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51 f., during the Diet of Augsburg.[1228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.[1229]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, No. 10, col. 304. Harnack adds: “Towards God he remained humble; this humility was, however, couched in a language which must have affrighted the monkish devotees.”[1230]“Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen,” with the sub-title: “Martin Luther, by God’s grace Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to the Popish Bishops my service and to them knowledge in Christ.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 ff. The book was partly written at the Wartburg (see Introd. in the Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 93 f.), and was published in 1522, probably in Aug.[1231]Bossuet, “Hist. des variations,” Paris ed., 1702, 1, p. 26.[1232]To Spalatin, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 232.[1233]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 275.[1234]Above, p. 58.[1235]Above, p. 327.[1236]P. 28. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (Khummer), p. 141; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.[1237]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 346 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 90 and 427.[1238]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f., in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1530.[1239]Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus, Von des werthen Gottes Mannes Doctor Martin Luther 21 Predigten” (preached after 1562), Ursel, s. a. Bl. 12´.[1240]Letter written after Oct. 24, 1545, “Briefe,” 6, p. 392.[1241]“For we account a man to be justified by faithalonewithout the works of the law.” Cp. vol. v., xxxiv. 3.[1242]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 635 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 107 (cp. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 249), in the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” which is in fact no “letter” but a polemical treatise in the form of a letter, published by Wenceslaus Link in September, 1530, at Luther’s instance.[1243]“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 817.[1244]Letter of Jan. 16, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17 f.[1245]On his theology cp. the numerous instances given in Denifle, e.g., 1², pp. 467, 469, 657. P. 466: “He is always playing with grotesque ideas.” Cp. also,ibid., p. 454 f.[1246]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 162.[1247]“Briefe,” 6, p. 185 f., in the so-called “first Will.”[1248]Jonas, in his panegyric on Luther.[1249]Cp. e.g. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 83 and 126.[1250]For proofs see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 89, n. 3. Cp. vol. ii., p. 162 f., vol. iii., p. 322 and above, p. 269.[1251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 650; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 512.[1252]Schlaginhaufen, “Anfzeichnungen,” p. 31.[1253]“Dicta memorabilia,” Coloniæ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.[1254]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).[1255]“Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’” Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534), B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sächs. Gesch.,” 26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say, viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this legend.[1256]Cp. above, p. 101.[1257]Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12, from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “vel a malo dæmonio agitari.”[1258]In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534, “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “a sinistro quopiam agitari genio” (for the whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “Hyperaspistes” against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio” (c.1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “Num hæc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriæ?” And before this: “Sed longe perniciosior est philautiæ et odii temulentia quam vini” (c.1546). “Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hæc deliramenta inauspicatis illineret chartis” (c.1545). “Ipsa febris non posset loqui febrilius” (c.1546). “Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla” (c.1547). “Hic nihil crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, Megæras, aliasque voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; certe hæc esse solent venturæ insaniæ præsagia” (c.1542). “Quæ cum scribit, videtur sibi mire δεινός; verum hæc δείνωσις sobriis videtur esse mera insania” (c.1543). Martin may wish to make him out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him himself as mad (“citius lymphatum,” etc.,c.1557, first passage given above).—In the first book of his “Hyperaspistes” (ib.) he writes: “Hæc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non eras sobrius, quum scriberes” (c.1281). “Totus enim hic sensus sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hæc scripsisse” (c.1367). “Si qui hæc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem” (c.1371). “Quis non videt hæc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum, quum hæc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiæ” (c.1394). “An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?” (c.1411; in connection with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh). “Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia, sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur, quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit” (c.1477). “Quam multa hic delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba” (c.1472).—Luther’s contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“Replica,” s. l. et. a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtovæus (“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same way.—All these statements, with those already given, are worth the consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their number gives them importance.[1259]Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later more detailed explanation of the same incident.[1260]“Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,” Dresdæ, 1529 (dedication).[1261]“Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt., 1549), p. 1.[1262]Ibid.[1263]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” end. In Enders, “Luther und Emser,” 2, p. 25 f.[1264]“Auss was Grund und Ursach Luthers Dolmetschung ... verbotten worden sey,” 1523. In “Zu Luthers Vorred zum Römerbrief,” Bl. 65´.[1265]“Historia sui temporis,” ed. Aretin (“Beitr. zur Gesch. und Lit.,” 7, Munich, 1806, p. 535 ff.), p. 666: “Quam elata cervice tumidisque moribus expresserit prodideritque superbiam, ut sathanæ veteris vel etiam præsentanei hospitis illius et præceptoris quædam in eo imago spectaretur.”[1266]Ibid., p. 663.[1267]“Dadelung,” p. 14.[1268]Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” pp. 147, 143. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen Aleanders vom Wormser Reichstage”², 1897, p. 171.[1269]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 1, p. 718 ff.[1270]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 f.[1271]Quoted by W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 213.Ibid., 214, from Dietenberger’s work against Luther’s doctrine of auricular Confession: To speak and teach as Luther did was to have “a compact and alliance with the poison of the devil and with eternal death.”Ibid., similar statements from Emser and others.[1272]O. Kronseder, “Christophorus Hoffmann,” 1898, p. 57, with reference to Cod. Monac. lat. 14626, p. 326.[1273]Cod. Monac. germ., 4842, Bl. 2. Cp. above, p. 242.[1274]Ed. Reithmeier, p. 2, 165.[1275]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 63.—What the Catholics thought will be better understood when we remember that even H. Bullinger, in his “History of the Reformation” (ed. Hottinger and Vœgeli, 2, Frauenfeld, 1838, p. 239), says of Luther’s “Kurtz Bekentnis” of 1544: “Although he had previously written much that was illogical, insulting and even blasphemous, yet he outdoes himself in the shameful, wanton and offensive words he uses in this booklet. He bursts for very devils ... and actslike a man possessed.”[1276]“KG.,” ed. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 105 f.[1277]Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188.[1278]Ed. Friedensburg (“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,” 1533-1559, vol. i.), p. 541, report on Nov. 13, 1535.[1279]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.[1280]“Melanchthoniana,” ed. O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.; see also above, vol. i., p. 279, n. 2.) According to Erasmus Alber, a personal acquaintance, friend and admirer of Luther’s, the latter had a “fine, open and brave countenance and hawk’s eyes.” Cp. Alber, “Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter,” Bl. f. 3 ff.; see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.
[1060]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 277 ff., on the Epistle James i. 16-21, on the 4th Sunday after Easter.
[1061]Ibid., p. 286.
[1062]P. 282.
[1063]P. 288.
[1064]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115 f.
[1065]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 166, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.”
[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 167.
[1067]Ibid., p. 169.
[1068]See vol. iii., p. 379 f.
[1069]Letter of Nov. 5, 1525, to Gregory Casel, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 263 ff.
[1070]“Summa, utros oportet esse Sathanæ ministros, vel ipsos, vel nos.”
[1071]To the Strasburg preachers, Nov. 5, 1525: “Christum a nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari, at huius negationis iam traducit nos Zwinglius.”Ibid., p. 262.
[1072]“Hist. des variations des églises protestantes,” Paris, 1702, 1, p. 69.
[1073]“Iudicium de controversiis theol. inter Luther. et Ref.,” 1650, c. 53.
[1074]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411.
[1075]To Caspar Müller, Chancellor at Mansfeld, Jan. 19, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 119 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 290).
[1076]To the preacher, Balthasar Rhaide, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288. Cp. p. 293: “Vides, quantas illi nobis faciant turbas, qui a nobis exierunt,” and before this: “Spero, quod non discedes a forma doctrinæ quam hic hausisti.”
[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 129; “Tischreden,” Döllinger. “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251, erroneously quotes the passage as being in Walch: it does, however, occur in Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 136 f. The commencement is remarkable: “At times I consider the Pope and say: What after all is the Pope that I should honour him, even though you [the devil] magnify him? See what an abomination he has wrought and works even to-day! Before myself I set Christ and the forgiveness of sins, but under Satan’s nose I put the abominations of the Pope. The abomination and the horror is so great that I am encouraged and am quite ready to allow that,” etc.
[1078]“Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251.
[1079]To Spalatin, soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.
[1080]July 31, 1530,ibid., 8, p. 157.
[1081]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261; Erl. ed., 65, p. 25; “Widder den Radschlag,” etc., 1526.
[1082]Aug. 19, 1520, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 463.
[1083]April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 342: “Miror, quid mihi acciderit, ut tam moderatus fuerim.”
[1084]Ibid., p. 341: “Certum est ipsum [Christum] pedetentim descendere de throno ad iudicium illud exspectatissimum; multa sunt nimis signa, quæ id mihi persuadent.”
[1085]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 266, from the notes of one of his table-companions: Cod. Manh., 355. Coll. Camerar. v. (Ms. Bibl. Monac.), fol. 148 a.
[1086]Cp. vol. iii., 148 f. See also “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ed. C. A. H. Burkhardt, 1866, p. 357.
[1087]Cp. our vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.
[1088]To Spalatin, July 26, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 435.
[1089]Aug. 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 349 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447). Cp. the letter to Spalatin of Nov. 11, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 246 f.
[1090]Cp. letters of Nov. 11, 1517, and Feb., 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126, and 2, p. 345.
[1091]April 13, 1531, in Seidemann, “Beitr. zur RG.,” 1. p. 207; Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 389, n. 1.
[1092]April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 225 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).
[1093]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87, at the end of “Auff das vermeint Edict.”
[1094]Cp.ibid., p. 386=86 f.
[1095]Ibid., Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 188; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 397, in “Contra Henricum regem Anqliæ,” 1522.
[1096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 27 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 3 ff. in “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift,” 1527.
[1097]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 311; Erl. ed., 25[9], p. 38, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.
[1098]Ibid.
[1099]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.
[1100]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 486; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.
[1101]Ibid., Erl. ed., 41, p. 17.
[1102]Ibid., Weim. ed., 16, p. 469; Erl. ed., 36, p. 81.
[1103]Ibid., Erl. ed., 38, p. 176.
[1104]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 7; Erl. ed., 53, p. 46.
[1105]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 404.
[1106]Ibid., p. 393.
[1107]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, p. 674; Erl. ed., 27, p. 290.
[1108]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 29.
[1109]Cp.ibid., 64, p. 324.
[1110]“Briefe,” 6, p. 373.
[1111]Ibid., 5, p. 622.
[1112]“Werke,” Weim. ed, 30, 2, p. 485; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.
[1113]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 148.
[1114]Ibid., Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.
[1115]Ibid., 33, p. 673=48, p. 407.
[1116]Ibid., Erl. ed., 42, p. 67.
[1117]Ibid., Weim. ed., 19, p. 400; Erl. ed., 41, p. 30.
[1118]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 296.
[1119]Ibid., 45, p. 153.
[1120]Ibid., 44, p. 257.
[1121]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 495; Erl. ed., 31, p. 167.
[1122]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 321.
[1123]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, pp. 3, 335; Erl. ed., 25², p. 52.
[1124]Ibid., Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 562.
[1125]Ibid., 20², 1, p. 19.
[1126]Ibid., 25², p. 253.
[1127]Ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 429; Erl. ed., 30, p. 282.
[1128]“Briefe,” 6, p. 296.
[1129]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 43; Erl. ed., 29, p. 378.
[1130]Ibid., Erl. ed., 44, p. 318.
[1131]Ibid., p. 316.
[1132]Ibid., Weim. ed., 33, p. 458; Erl. ed., 48, p. 222.
[1133]On June 30, 1530, to Johann Agricola, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 57.
[1134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 207.
[1135]Ibid., Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 468; Erl. ed., 25², p. 125.
[1136]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 216.
[1137]Ibid., p. 216 f.
[1138]Ibid., p. 205.
[1139]Calvin also suffered, though in a less degree, from this mania for invective; of him and of the excuse some have sought in the tone and habits of the age a recent French historian says: Even though such abuse was not entirely unparalleled, “yet it cannot but surprise and grieve us in the case of a religious reformer.” H. Lemonnier, “Histoire de France,” ed. E. Lavisse, 5, 2, 1904, p. 230, dealing with French Calvinism.
[1140]See our vol. ii., p. 153 ff.
[1141]In the reply “Auf das chmähbüchlein,” usw., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 143, published under Arnold’s name.
[1142]Thus F. Polygranus,O.S.F., in his “Assertiones quorundam ecclesiæ dogmatum,” printed at Cologne in 1571, Bl. 10: “insatiabilis maledicendi libido ... a seculis inauditæ conviciorum voces.”
[1143]To Ulrich Zasius, Oct. 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 66.
[1144]Cp. “KL.,” 5², col. 1958 f.
[1145]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” p. 514.
[1146]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57 f.; “KL.,” 8², p. 343.
[1147]“Wider das unchristenliche Buch M. Luthers,” ed. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” vol. i., 1889, p. 132.
[1148]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1557.
[1149]Ibid., col. 1155: “ista tam effrenis in omnes maledicentia,” etc.
[1150]“Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss der Dieneren an der Kilchen zu Zürych,” Zürych, 1545, Bl. 130 f.
[1151]Ibid., Bl. 10.
[1152]To Bucer, 1543, Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 2, p. 224. Another remark of Bullinger’s is given above, vol. iii., p. 417.
[1153]To Bullinger, 1543, Lenz,ibid., p. 226. Cp. what Bucer said, in our vol. ii., p. 155.
[1154]On May 19, 1545, Lenz,ibid., p. 343.
[1155]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 279, Table-Talk.
[1156]On Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 255, printed in the 2nd edition of the Psalter of Hessus of 1538.—The following remark of Luther’s on those who wanted to call themselves after him has also been quoted: “Fool that you are, just listen: First of all I beg people to leave my name out and to call themselves, not Lutherans, but Christians. What has Luther to do with it? The doctrine is not mine, nor was I ever crucified for anyone. St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. [4, 5], would not hear of Christians being called Pauline or Petrine, but simply Christians. How then should I, poor smelly sack of maggots that I am, suffer the children of Christ to be called by my unholy name? Hence, dear friend, let us do away with party names and be called after Christ, Whose teaching we follow. It is only right that the Papists should have a party name, because they are not content with Christ’s teaching and name, but insist on being Popish; let them then be the Pope’s, since he is their master. As for me, I neither am nor wish to be anyone’s master. I share with the congregation the teaching of Christ Who alone is our Master. Mt. xxiii. [8].” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55 f., “Vormanung sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr,” 1522. He blames those who, by their stupid zeal, “cause calumny and a falling away from the holy Evangel,” and “affright” the people and prevent their accepting it. Just then it was to his interest to represent his teaching as peaceable and his action as moderate. Cp. pp. 677, 682 f.=46, 51, 53.
[1157]We have chosen this somewhat unusual setting for the following collection of Luther’s sayings in order to prevent monotony. The texts, indeed, belong to various times, but there are periods in Luther’s history, for instance, about the time of the Diet of Augsburg, and in 1540 and 1541, when, within a short chronological space, he contrived to make a vast number of statements regarding his greatness; for this reason the above arrangement is not altogether untrue to the reality.
[1158]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2, and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422. Words taken from his Will of Jan. 6, 1542, by which he intended to show the lawyers (who questioned his power to make a valid Will on account of his marriage) that he was not bound by the formalities on which they insisted.
[1159]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 366; Erl. ed., 25², p. 75.
[1160]Ibid., p. 290=22.
[1161]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 105=28, p. 143.
[1162]Ibid., Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.
[1163]“Briefe,” 5, p. 754.
[1164]Ibid., 1, p. 101.
[1165]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 70.
[1166]Ibid., p. 73.
[1167]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 442. See above, vol. iii., p. 165 f.
[1168]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520.
[1169]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.
[1170]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. See above, vol. iii., p. 165.
[1171]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 4.
[1172]“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.
[1173]“Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716.
[1174]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2. p. 309 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 491; “Briefe,” 2, p. 238 (“Briefewechsel,” 3, p. 438).
[1175]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 151.
[1176]Ibid., p. 193.
[1177]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.
[1178]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 109 f.=31, p. 34 f. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” 1529.
[1179]Ibid., 36, p. 447=18², p. 334. Sermon of 1532.
[1180]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 178, Table-Talk.
[1181]Cp. vol. iii., p. 131 f., and above, p. 102.
[1182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184.
[1183]Ibid., Erl. ed., 61, p. 422.
[1184]W. Walther, “Für Luther, wider Rom,” pp. 526-543.
[1185]Other Protestant writers are of a different opinion. Friedrich Paulsen says in his “Gesch. des Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 178: “It is certain that humility towards men, respect for human wisdom and human laws, did not enter into Luther’s make. He is altogether deficient in that humility towards the actual Church which is so characteristic of St. Augustine, Luther’s great predecessor in theology. The more Luther, during the course of his life, passes from the position of a mere heretic to that of head of a new Church, the more does that formula [My cause is God’s own] become tinged with bitterness, with obstinacy and with pride.”
[1186]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. “An die Radherrn,” etc., 1524.
[1187]Ibid., 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421. “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle,” 1530.
[1188]Ibid., p. 585 f.=420.
[1189]Ibid., 62, p. 443 f., Table-Talk.
[1190]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface to the edition of the Latin works (1545).
[1191]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.
[1192]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 445 f., Table-Talk (in Latin).
[1193]Ibid., 31, p. 389 f. “Ein Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” 1534.
[1194]Ibid., 63, pp. 271, 274, Table-Talk.
[1195]Preface to his Commentary on Galatians, Irmischer, 1, p. 9.
[1196]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.
[1197]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.
[1198]Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 153.
[1199]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.
[1200]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403, Preface, 1539.
[1201]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 121.
[1202]Ibid., p. 41.
[1203]Ibid., from Veit Dietrich’s “Aufzeichnungen.”
[1204]Ibid., p. 9.
[1205]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.
[1206]To Ambros. Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, p. 42 ff. R. Stintzing, “Ulr. Zasius,” 1857, p. 231, Cp. p. 371.
[1207]Münzer and Ickelsamer in our vol. ii., p. 377.
[1208]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 310 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 57. “Grund und Ursach aller Artickel,” 1521.
[1209]Ibid., p. 311=58.
[1210]Ibid.
[1211]Ibid., p. 313=59.
[1212]Ibid.
[1213]Ibid.
[1214]Ibid.
[1215]Ibid., p. 315=61.
[1216]Ibid., p. 317=61 f.
[1217]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 389 f.
[1218]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186.
[1219]“Briefe,” 6, p. 402.
[1220]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 94.
[1221]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 113.
[1222]“Briefe,” 5, p. 418 f.
[1223]Ibid., p. 743.
[1224]Ibid., p. 746.
[1225]Ibid., p. 750.
[1226]Ibid., p. 777.
[1227]To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51 f., during the Diet of Augsburg.
[1228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.
[1229]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, No. 10, col. 304. Harnack adds: “Towards God he remained humble; this humility was, however, couched in a language which must have affrighted the monkish devotees.”
[1230]“Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen,” with the sub-title: “Martin Luther, by God’s grace Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to the Popish Bishops my service and to them knowledge in Christ.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 ff. The book was partly written at the Wartburg (see Introd. in the Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 93 f.), and was published in 1522, probably in Aug.
[1231]Bossuet, “Hist. des variations,” Paris ed., 1702, 1, p. 26.
[1232]To Spalatin, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 232.
[1233]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 275.
[1234]Above, p. 58.
[1235]Above, p. 327.
[1236]P. 28. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (Khummer), p. 141; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.
[1237]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 346 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 90 and 427.
[1238]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f., in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1530.
[1239]Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus, Von des werthen Gottes Mannes Doctor Martin Luther 21 Predigten” (preached after 1562), Ursel, s. a. Bl. 12´.
[1240]Letter written after Oct. 24, 1545, “Briefe,” 6, p. 392.
[1241]“For we account a man to be justified by faithalonewithout the works of the law.” Cp. vol. v., xxxiv. 3.
[1242]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 635 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 107 (cp. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 249), in the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” which is in fact no “letter” but a polemical treatise in the form of a letter, published by Wenceslaus Link in September, 1530, at Luther’s instance.
[1243]“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 817.
[1244]Letter of Jan. 16, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17 f.
[1245]On his theology cp. the numerous instances given in Denifle, e.g., 1², pp. 467, 469, 657. P. 466: “He is always playing with grotesque ideas.” Cp. also,ibid., p. 454 f.
[1246]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 162.
[1247]“Briefe,” 6, p. 185 f., in the so-called “first Will.”
[1248]Jonas, in his panegyric on Luther.
[1249]Cp. e.g. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 83 and 126.
[1250]For proofs see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 89, n. 3. Cp. vol. ii., p. 162 f., vol. iii., p. 322 and above, p. 269.
[1251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 650; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 512.
[1252]Schlaginhaufen, “Anfzeichnungen,” p. 31.
[1253]“Dicta memorabilia,” Coloniæ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.
[1254]“Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).
[1255]“Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’” Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534), B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sächs. Gesch.,” 26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say, viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this legend.
[1256]Cp. above, p. 101.
[1257]Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12, from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “vel a malo dæmonio agitari.”
[1258]In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534, “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “a sinistro quopiam agitari genio” (for the whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “Hyperaspistes” against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio” (c.1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “Num hæc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriæ?” And before this: “Sed longe perniciosior est philautiæ et odii temulentia quam vini” (c.1546). “Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hæc deliramenta inauspicatis illineret chartis” (c.1545). “Ipsa febris non posset loqui febrilius” (c.1546). “Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla” (c.1547). “Hic nihil crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, Megæras, aliasque voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; certe hæc esse solent venturæ insaniæ præsagia” (c.1542). “Quæ cum scribit, videtur sibi mire δεινός; verum hæc δείνωσις sobriis videtur esse mera insania” (c.1543). Martin may wish to make him out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him himself as mad (“citius lymphatum,” etc.,c.1557, first passage given above).—In the first book of his “Hyperaspistes” (ib.) he writes: “Hæc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non eras sobrius, quum scriberes” (c.1281). “Totus enim hic sensus sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hæc scripsisse” (c.1367). “Si qui hæc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem” (c.1371). “Quis non videt hæc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum, quum hæc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiæ” (c.1394). “An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?” (c.1411; in connection with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh). “Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia, sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur, quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit” (c.1477). “Quam multa hic delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba” (c.1472).—Luther’s contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“Replica,” s. l. et. a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtovæus (“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same way.—All these statements, with those already given, are worth the consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their number gives them importance.
[1259]Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later more detailed explanation of the same incident.
[1260]“Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,” Dresdæ, 1529 (dedication).
[1261]“Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt., 1549), p. 1.
[1262]Ibid.
[1263]“Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” end. In Enders, “Luther und Emser,” 2, p. 25 f.
[1264]“Auss was Grund und Ursach Luthers Dolmetschung ... verbotten worden sey,” 1523. In “Zu Luthers Vorred zum Römerbrief,” Bl. 65´.
[1265]“Historia sui temporis,” ed. Aretin (“Beitr. zur Gesch. und Lit.,” 7, Munich, 1806, p. 535 ff.), p. 666: “Quam elata cervice tumidisque moribus expresserit prodideritque superbiam, ut sathanæ veteris vel etiam præsentanei hospitis illius et præceptoris quædam in eo imago spectaretur.”
[1266]Ibid., p. 663.
[1267]“Dadelung,” p. 14.
[1268]Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” pp. 147, 143. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen Aleanders vom Wormser Reichstage”², 1897, p. 171.
[1269]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 1, p. 718 ff.
[1270]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 f.
[1271]Quoted by W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 213.Ibid., 214, from Dietenberger’s work against Luther’s doctrine of auricular Confession: To speak and teach as Luther did was to have “a compact and alliance with the poison of the devil and with eternal death.”Ibid., similar statements from Emser and others.
[1272]O. Kronseder, “Christophorus Hoffmann,” 1898, p. 57, with reference to Cod. Monac. lat. 14626, p. 326.
[1273]Cod. Monac. germ., 4842, Bl. 2. Cp. above, p. 242.
[1274]Ed. Reithmeier, p. 2, 165.
[1275]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 63.—What the Catholics thought will be better understood when we remember that even H. Bullinger, in his “History of the Reformation” (ed. Hottinger and Vœgeli, 2, Frauenfeld, 1838, p. 239), says of Luther’s “Kurtz Bekentnis” of 1544: “Although he had previously written much that was illogical, insulting and even blasphemous, yet he outdoes himself in the shameful, wanton and offensive words he uses in this booklet. He bursts for very devils ... and actslike a man possessed.”
[1276]“KG.,” ed. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 105 f.
[1277]Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188.
[1278]Ed. Friedensburg (“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,” 1533-1559, vol. i.), p. 541, report on Nov. 13, 1535.
[1279]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.
[1280]“Melanchthoniana,” ed. O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.; see also above, vol. i., p. 279, n. 2.) According to Erasmus Alber, a personal acquaintance, friend and admirer of Luther’s, the latter had a “fine, open and brave countenance and hawk’s eyes.” Cp. Alber, “Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter,” Bl. f. 3 ff.; see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.