[1281]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 2, p. 632: “en los ojos no ben señalado.”[1282]According to Myconius, “Historia Reformationis,” p. 30sq.(written after 1541). Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 97: “Cardinalis Augustæ dixit de me: iste frater habet profundos oculos, ideo et mirabiles phantasias in capite habet.”[1283]Pollich’s remark (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 154, from Rebenstock) has been characterised quite wrongly by O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 2, 1878, p. 627) as spurious and a late interpollation. As a matter of fact it had merely been excluded from the Table-Talk by Aurifaber; see Seidemann in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, 1879, p. 305. Cp. vol. i., p. 86, n. 5.[1284]Above, vol. i., p. 86.[1285]Letter of Aug. 8, 1523, in Hipler, “Nikolaus Kopernikus und Luther,” 1868, p. 73. Höfler, “Adrian VI,” p. 320, n. 2, quotes a remark of Dantiscus on Luther: “affirmans eum esse dæmoniacum.” Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 194, n. 3.[1286]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.[1287]He refers simply to what he knew from some of Luther’s intimate friends “concerning his birth and past life up to the time of his becoming a monk.”[1288]In his Exposition of the Ten Commandments, published in 1518 and frequently reprinted during his lifetime, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 407; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 18: “Among the devils there are ‘incubi’ and ‘succubi,’ of which I shall speak more fully immediately,” which he then proceeds to do. The children are, according to him, abortions. According to a statement in the Table-Talk, however, they were “devils with bodies like the mother’s,” or stolen children, or changelings, like one he wished to have drowned because the devil constituted the soul in its body (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6O, pp. 37-42). In his exposition of Genesis (cap. vi.) Luther admits the existence and activity of the said “incubi.” He declares he had heard from many persons credible instances and had himself met with such (!), and even appeals to St. Augustine (“Hoc negare impudentiæ videtur,” “De civ. Dei,” 15, c. 23); he remarks, however, that it was altogether false to believe that “anything could be born of a union of devil and man”; on the contrary, those taken for the devil’s offspring, some of whom he had seen, had either been distorted by the devil though not actually begotten by him, or were real devils who had either assumed flesh in appearance or borrowed it elsewhere with the devil’s help. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 127. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” Freiburg, 1910, p. 35 f.[1289]“Commentaria,” p. 2: “sive ex occulto aliquo cum dæmone commercio.”[1290]The writing in question, “Ein Maulstreich,” etc., is not by Cochlæus but by Paul Bachmann. See above, p. 352, n. 3.[1291]Paulus (p. 356, n. 3), p. 63 f., from Sylvius, “Zwei neugedruckte Büchlein,” 1533, p. 3´, and “Die letzten zwei Büchlein,” 1534. Cp. also his work of 1531, “Ein besonder nützliches ... Büchlein.”[1292]Friedensburg (above, p. 356, n. 6), p. 554.[1293]Letter to Bartholomew Golsibius, in Weller, “Altes aus allen Theilen der Gesch.,” 1, p. 178. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 133.[1294]Letter to Nicholas Œcander; Weller,ibid., 2, p. 780 f.; Döllinger,ibid., 135.[1295]“Epistolæ,” ed. Riegger, Ulmæ, 1774, p. 72. Döllinger,ibid., p. 178.[1296]R. Stintzing, “Ulrich Zasius,” Basle, 1857, p. 230, from the letter of Zasius to Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521. “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.[1297]Stintzing,ibid.[1298]Ibid., p. 97. Döllinger,ibid., p. 179.[1299]On March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[1300]“Retectio,” Hbseq.Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 57 f.[1301]Ibid., G 2b: “cepit omnium animos mirus pavor,” etc. Döllinger,ibid., p. 61.[1302]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.[1303]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159.[1304]Ibid., p. 161 f.[1305]Ibid., p. 147.[1306]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.[1307]See A. Räss, “Die Convertiten seit der Reformation,” 1, 1866, where the “Apologia” is reprinted, p. 184. Cp. Wicel’s remarks above, p. 165 f.[1308]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 117; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 420 f.[1309]“Werke,”ibid.[1310]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.[1311]On Feb. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.[1312]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 342.[1313]Ibid.[1314]“Præcipuæ constitutiones Caroli M.,” etc., Ingolst., 1545, præf. f. A 3a, A 8a; Döllinger,ibid., 1, p. 160.[1315]“Comment.,” p. 1.[1316]Ibid., p. 56.[1317]N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (3. “Vereinsschr. der Görres-Ges.,” 1893), p. 15.[1318]Ibid.[1319]Ibid., p. 34.[1320]Ibid., p. 35.[1321]Ibid., p. 40.[1322]Ibid., p. 13 f.[1323]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 450-455; Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 152 f.[1324]Janssen,ibid., p. 264 f.[1325]Ibid., p. 264 f. Passages taken from Luther’s writing, “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 282 ff.[1326]On May 29, 1545. Janssen,ibid., p. 286 f.[1327]Hortleder, “Von Rechtmässigkeit usw. Karls V.,” 1645, p. 486 ff. Janssen,ibid., p. 288.[1328]M. J. Schmidt, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 1, 1785, p. 23 f. Janssen,ibid.[1329]See above,passim.[1330]See, for instance, above, pp. 96 ff., 102 ff.[1331]Vol. ii., p. 48.[1332]“Transfiguratur coram te satanas ille in angelum lucis.” The text in Raynaldus, “Annales eccles.,” ann. 1522, n. 72.[1333]At the end of the second series of Theses (“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., “Opp. lat var.,” 1, p. 312) occur the words, “bestia, quæ montem tetigerit,” the sole quotation from that sort of biblical language mentioned above.[1334]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.[1335]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 1, p. 484 ff.[1336]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 380 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 10 ff.[1337]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 345.[1338]Ibid., p. 368.[1339]Ibid., p. 370.[1340]Ibid., p. 351.[1341]Ibid., p. 365.[1342]Ibid., 2, p. 1seq.[1343]Ibid., p. 68seq.[1344]Ibid., p. 81seq.[1345]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 50; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 68.[1346]Ibid., 6, pp. 328-348=2, pp. 79-108. See the actual words in our vol. ii., p. 12 f. Cp. vol. i., p. 338 f., for the first interchange of amenities between the two champions.[1347]In W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 215.[1348]G. Kawerau (“Hieronymus Emser,” 1898, p. 2) remarks that it must be admitted of Emser, “that he was an honest curmudgeon, averse to all subterfuge and pretence, amazingly frank in his admissions concerning himself, and, in controversy, very rude. Only rarely do we see him departing from this frankness.”[1349]“KL.,” 4², col. 483.[1350]“Lutheri Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 410.[1351]Ibid., p. 408, in the editor’s Introduction to the “Asterisks” and “Obelisks.”[1352]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 281; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 411.[1353]“Enchiridion,” Ingolst., 1556, f. 167, 167´. In the prefatory letter of dedication to Cardinal Farnese, Eck expresses himself in his usual manner against the ill-advised attempts of Catholics at mediation: “Hinc parum profecit conventus Ratisponensis(1541)in causa fidei et plurimorum fidelium exspectationem fefellit.”—In the matter of religious conferences and disputations Eck had ripe experience on his side. Though once very ready to accept a challenge to dispute, he nevertheless wrote later in the “Enchiridion” concerning controversies with heretics: “Hæretici non quærunt disputationem nisi multis malitiis involutam.... Fraudulenter obtendunt disputare non coram doctis et literatis ac in theologia exercitatis, sed coram indoctis, vulgaribus laicis”; the learned men at the Universities would otherwise have already tackled Luther. After mentioning the other disadvantages of the disputations he concludes: “Catholici ergo debent vitare disputationem cum huiusmodi” (ibid., p. 163seq.).[1354]The state of his Ingolstadt parish and Eck’s pastoral labours have recently been placed in a clear and favourable light by J. Greving in his “Johann Ecks Pfarrbuch,” 1908 (“RGl. Stud. und Texte,” Hft. 4-5).[1355]See above, p. 258.[1356]“Z. f. preuss. Gesch.,” 5, p. 481.[1357]“Septiceps Lutherus, ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius, in visitationem Saxonicam editus,” Dresdæ, 1529; in part repeated in the “Commentaria,” 1549, F. 196 C.[1358]Cp.ibid., F. III´seq.: “Non ex Deo sed ex diabolo esse tantam in doctrina dissensionem.... Cucullatus draco iste noster,” etc.—M. Spahn, “Joh. Cochläus,” Berlin, 1898.[1359]N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1894, 2, p. 571 ff.[1360]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 78.[1361]Ibid., p. 258.[1362]Ibid., p. 315.[1363]N. Paulus, “Schatzgeyer,” 1898; “Hoffmeister,” 1891; A. Postina, “Billick,” 1901.[1364]J. Negwer, “Conrad Wimpina,” Breslau, 1909 (in “KGl. Abh.”)[1365]Karl Goedeke, Introd. to his edition of Murner’s “Narrenbeschwörung,” Leipzig, 1879. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 333.[1366]Goedeke,ibid.[1367]“Memoriale B. Petri Faber,” ed. Marc. Bouix, Paris, 1873, pp. 378, 370.[1368]Dan. Bartoli, “Opere,” 5, Torino, 1825, pp. 110, 116. Cp. B. Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten,” etc., 1, 1907, 3 ff. Not all the members of the Order to which Favre and Canisius belonged were faithful to Favre’s principles in the controversy against Luther and his teaching, particularly during the excited polemics of the 17th century. Many, at their own costs, disregarded those laws of urbanity which Bellarmine, for instance, ever respected in his controversial writings. Such was the case, for instance, with Conrad Vetter, † 1622 (K. A. J. Andreæ).[1369]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 404; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 247. He refers to Panormitanus, “De elect.,” c. Significasti.[1370]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 18 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 385seq.[1371]Ibid., p. 288=p. 75.[1372]Ibid., p. 303=p. 97seq.: “Concilium aliquando errasse, præsertim in iis quæ non sunt fidei.” Cp. the following: “conciliorum statuta in iis quæ sunt fidei, sunt omnimodo amplectenda.”[1373]Letter of Aug. 18, 1519, “Briefe,” 1, p. 315; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 19 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12). At Worms in 1521 he had declared in this same sense, that he would not submit, “nisi convictus fuero testimoniis scripturarum aut ratione evidente; nam neque papæ neque conciliis solis credo, cum constet eos et errasse sæpius et sibi ipsis contradixisse; victus sum scripturis a me adductis et capta conscientia in verbis Dei.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 883; cp. p. 853.—He writes emphatically in reply to King Henry VIII (see p. 391): “Ego vero adversus dicta patrum, hominum, angelorum, dæmonum pono non antiquum usum, non multitudinem hominum, sed unius maiestatis æternæ verbum, evangelium.... Dei verbum est super omnia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 214 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 437.[1374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.[1375]Ibid., p. 425=p. 278.[1376]Ibid., p. 324=p. 131.[1377]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 359; Erl. ed., 16², p. 446.[1378]Ibid., 11, p. 409=22, p. 143.[1379]Ibid., 8, p. 484 f.=28, p. 32.[1380]Ibid., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff.[1381]In his “Com. in Ep. ad. Galatas,” 1, p. 104.[1382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 383 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 11.[1383]Ibid., p. 385 = 13.[1384]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 256 f.=28, p. 379 f.[1385]Ibid., p. 90=340. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden,” 1522.[1386]Ibid., p. 90=341. See below, Luther’s denial of the Augustinian “Non crederem evangelio,” etc.[1387]Otto Scheel, “Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift,” Tübingen, 1902 (“Sammlung gemeinverständl. Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol. und RG.,” No. 29), p. 38 (on p. 37 the last quotation is also given with an incorrect reference) and p. 41 f.[1388]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 489; Erl. ed., 29, p. 334. “Sermon von dem Sacrament,” 1526.[1389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 565: “Quod est eius opus? Quoddrive into the heartprædicationem Christi, qui nonfails. Christ failed,quia multis prædicaverit et nihil effecit; Spiritus sanctuspresses the wordin cor.... Si etiama hundred thousandverbum prædicatur, nihil facit; cum Spiritus sanctus hoc suum officium facit, tumit makes its way.”[1390]Cp. above, vol. iii., pp. 12 ff., 398.[1391]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 181; Erl. ed., 29, p. 260.[1392]Ibid., p. 137=209 (“Widder die hymelischen Propheten”): “Do you see how the devil, the enemy of divine order, opens his mouth at you with the words, ‘spirit, spirit, spirit’?” etc.[1393]Ibid., p. 180=258.[1394]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 85.[1395]Ibid., Weim. ed., 15, p. 42; Erl. ed., 22, p. 187. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands, das sie christliche Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen,” 1524.[1396]Ibid., p. 39=184.[1397]At the German Protestant Congress at Berlin in 1904, Dr. Max Fischer of Berlin appealed to the above writing of Luther’s as a proof that the latter had relinquished his idea of the Bible being in the hands of each individual the sole source of doctrine. “That this, as a foundation of all doctrine, is impossible in Protestantism,” he said, speaking from his standpoint, “has long been admitted, and we have simply to bear in mind how Protestant theology has come to examine freely, not only the contents of the Bible, but the Bible itself. Theology has no rights other than those enjoyed by any other branch of worldly learning.” In the sequel the writer declared himself against the Divinity of Christ and any set system of doctrine. According to him particular doctrines, even those of the Apostles’ Creed, were of no importance. “He has all the faith required who makes his faith for himself.” (See the report of the discourse in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 834.) We may compare this principle with Luther’s own on freedom. The same principles were recently invoked in the case of the Protestant Pastor Jatho of Cologne, when he was charged with being an unbeliever. On his dismissal from office his friends declared that “a chain had been riveted on free and unbiassed research in Prussian Protestantism, and that the official representatives of Protestantism had banned that spirit of personal Christianity which once had impelled Luther to nail up his Theses to the door of the Castle-church at Wittenberg.” (“Köln. Ztng.,” 1911, No. 712; cp. “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 545.) During the trial Jatho, too, had appealed to his “inward experience” and personal knowledge. (“Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 592.)[1398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 236; Erl. ed., 39, p. 133.[1399]Ibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 606=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 124. “De servo arbitrio.”[1400]Ibid., 7, p. 317=24, p. 58.[1401]Ibid., 7, p. 97=“Opp. lat. var,” 5, p. 161.[1402]Ibid., Erl. ed., 57, p. 16, Table-Talk.[1403]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 75; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.[1404]Ibid.[1405]Sermon of Aug. 2, 1528. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 287.[1406]On Dec. 23, 1526, he said in his afternoon sermon, speaking of the sermon that morning: “Hodie dixi, biblia esse hæresium librum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 624. And as a matter of fact the notes contain the passage,ibid., 20, p. 588.[1407]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 362.[1408]Ibid., p. 360.[1409]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 144.[1410]“With reference to this Luther declares (‘De servo arbitrio’): In the words of Scripture which lie open to us and all the world, no one, owing to the darkening of the mind, is able to discern the smallest iota so long as he has not the Spirit of God; no one possesses the inner sense or the true knowledge requisite—‘nihil horum sentiunt aut vere cognoscunt’—no one believes that God exists and that he is His creature. For him the ‘iudicium interius,’ in the Christian who has attained to the true light and his salvation through the Spirit of God, consists in being able to test with certainty all doctrines and beliefs (1 Cor. ii. 15). This individual judgment is essential for every Christian and for his faith; it does not, however, profit others: For them the ‘exterius iudicium’ is intended, which is exercised by the preacher of the Word.” Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 380.[1411]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 145; Erl. ed., 47, p. 353. From Notes of the Sermon published in 1564.[1412]Ibid., p. 161=367; cp. p. 165=371.[1413]P. 148=356.[1414]P. 152=360.[1415]P. 150=358.[1416]P. 152=359.[1417]P. 146=354.[1418]P. 148=356.[1419]Ibid., Erl. ed., 5², p. 251, Hauspostille. Sermon of 1533.[1420]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 313, “Enarr. in Genes.”[1421]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the second part of the first complete edition of his works (compiled from his writings).[1422]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 36.[1423]Köstlin,ibid., and p. 15, 30.[1424]Ibid., p. 35.[1425]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 23 f., where Luther says, the predictions of the prophets (or of the Apocalypse) concerning wars, the Kings, etc., were “things pleasing to the inquisitive ... but were unnecessary prophecies, for they neither taught nor furthered the Christian faith”; in those prophecies “concerning Kings and worldly events” the Prophets had “often been wrong.”[1426]Thus O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 67 f.[1427]“Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas ... qua infirmata iam nec evangelio credere potero.” “Contra epistolam fundamenti Manichæorum,” c. 5.[1428]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 429-432; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 284-288. “Resol. super propos. Lipsienses.”[1429]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 90; Erl. ed., 28, p. 341.[1430]According to Köstlin (“Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 10 ff.), it was only the orthodox Lutherans after his day who developed this into the doctrine of the “testimonium Spiritus Sancti,” which assures every reader of the canonicity of the books of the Bible. In reality, however, Luther himself already stood for this “testimonium.” Thanks to it he judged of the relative importance of the Sacred Books and only “allowed himself to be determined by the spirit speaking to him out of them.” Thus Köstlin himself, 1², p. 319.[1431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 325; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 131: “Non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libra, quam per se ipsum habeat.” The question, however, was who was to attest this authority.[1432]See our vol. v., xxxiv., 3.[1433]O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 47, after having instanced Luther’s adverse criticism of the Epistle of St. James and the prophetical books, remarks: “He took exception to the Epistle of Jude, to Hebrews and to the Apocalypse. The Book of Esther deserved no place in the Canon any more than the second Book of Machabees, though the first was worthy of canonisation. [It was, as Luther says in the Preface to his German translation of it (Erl. ed., 63, p. 104), ‘not unworthy of being included amongst the sacred writings of the Hebrews,’ because in the history of Antiochus it gives us a picture of the fall of the real Antichrist, viz. Popery!] Luther makes a distinction even between the books he does not impugn. Of the Pauline writings he gives the first place to Romans, just as he places St. John’s first among the Gospels. He esteems the synoptics less highly because they record the works and deeds of Christ and not the message of righteousness by grace.” Scheel notes (p. 49 f.), that Luther’s criticism was based, not on learned historical arguments, but on the “religious stimulus” these writings supplied, viz. on the extent to which they might prove of service to his doctrine, i.e. on “inward considerations.” “The fact that the Epistle of James says nothing of Christ and Justification by grace was ground enough for Luther to reject it. Analogous is the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews.... From all this it is evident how much Luther placed religious criticism in the foreground and what secondary importance he attached to historical criticism.” He cares little whether a writing is apostolic or not; what he wants to know is whether its contents agree with what he has perceived to be the kernel of Scripture. “He did not even shrink from impugning the authority of the Apostles in favour of a higher standard” (p. 52). Scheel then deals with the statements more favourable to Luther made by J. Kunze (“Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift und Taufbekenntnis,” Leipzig, 1899, pp. 509, 521) and H. Preuss (“Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther bis zur Leipziger Disputation,” Leipzig, 1901, p. 99). “With Luther’s independent criticism of Scripture,” he says (p. 64 f.), “the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture hardly agrees.... Kunze also denies that the effect of the mediæval doctrine of inspiration appears at all in Luther; the belief that the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost should not be identified with the doctrine of inspiration in its concrete and historical shape.” True enough Kunze admits (p. 504, n. 1) “some after-effects” of that doctrine upon Luther, but the question is “how such after-effects were compatible with the uniform theory of Scripture,” which he finds in Luther. On the consistency of Luther’s theory, see Scheel’s remarks below, p. 407.—Adolf Harnack repeatedly declares, that Luther’s attitude towards the Bible was characterised by “flagrant contradictions” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], pp. 868, 878; cp. pp. 771 f., 791 f.), because his criticism “demolished the external authority of the written Word.”—Of Luther’s treatment of the Apocalypse, G. Arnold, the spokesman and historian of the Pietists, complains in his Church History (Frankfurt edition, vol. ii., 1699, p. 39); he said of it “very much what all the fanatics said, viz. that each one might believe concerning it what his Spirit inspired him with; his [Luther’s] Spirit could not agree with the book, and the fact that Christ was neither taught nor recognised in it was sufficient for him not to esteem it highly.” Arnold also complains that, in the Preface to the Apocalypse (“now usually omitted”), Luther says, “that it was too bad of John to command and threaten about this book,” etc.; the book, according to Luther, was neither apostolic nor prophetical, indeed not by the Holy Ghost at all, seeing that it did not treat of faith or Christian doctrine but merely of history.[1434]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 29.[1435]F. Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 747) says that Luther reintroduced the Catholic ideas he had “vanquished,” and made this “burden in Protestantism heavier than it had ever been before.” Cp. above, p. 398 f.[1436]Jan. 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.[1437]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 52.[1438]In this remarkable passage of his exposition of 1 Cor. xv. (1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, pp. 102-104), he exhorts all to “hold fast to the doctrine and preaching for which we have both sure Scripture and also inward experience. These should be the two witnesses and the two test-stones of true doctrine.” He here inveighs against the fanatics because they taught, “what not one of them had experienced,” “an uncertain delusion of which not one of them had had any experience.” “None of the fanatics are able to prove their contention either by their own experience or by that of others.” Of himself, however, he could say: “I have experienced it; for I too was once a pious monk,” etc.; then follows the legend of his life in the monastery and of how, before his discovery of the sense of the text on which his new teaching rested, he had never known what it was to have a “gracious God.” “Hence, whoever wishes not to err, let him look to these two points, whether he is able to bear witness to his doctrine out of Scripture and a sure inward experience, as we can to our doctrine and preaching.”[1439]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 250. “An Exposition of the Christian Faith,” 1537. Before this: “This is to have the Holy Ghost, when we experience in our hearts the Creation and Redemption.” “The Pope and his people do not feel this in their hearts.”[1440]“All the articles which he believed he had repeatedly drawn from Scripture.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 500; Erl. ed., 30, p. 363. “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.[1441]“Lehrb. der DG.,” part 2, Erlangen, 1898, p. 289 f.[1442]Seeberg refers to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 413 f., 346 f.; 9¹, p. 29 ff.; 13¹, p. 221 f.; 20¹, p. 297 f.[1443]Reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 249, 267; 20¹, p. 148.[1444]Weim. ed., 6, p. 561; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 302.[1445]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 219=6, p. 444: “Hic dicent: Si singulorum est ius iudicandi et probandi, quis erit modus, si iudices dissenserint et unusquisque secundum suum caput iudicarit?” etc.[1446]Ibid., 18, p. 649 f.=7, p. 171. “De servo arbitrio.” Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 381.[1447]Hence his confession: “Credo ecclesiam sanctam catholicam, ut impossibile sit, illam errare etiam in minimo articulo.” “Werke,”ibid.[1448]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 39.[1449]Above, vol. iii., p. 401.[1450]Vol. iii., p. 400.[1451]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.[1452]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 389.[1453]“To the Christians at Antwerp” early in April, 1525. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 342; “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.[1454]Ibid., Erl. ed., 53, p. 343.[1455]Ibid., Weim. ed., 20, p. 571; Erl. ed., 41, p. 210.[1456]O. Scheel,ibid., pp. 38, 55. Cp. F. Loofs, above, p. 403, n. 1.[1457]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1902, No. 21, p. 576, review of H. Preuss, “Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther.”[1458]Above,passim.[1459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, pp. 85-88.[1460]P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 69. The booklet was written by Melanchthon but was certainly circulated with Luther’s approval.[1461]Wappler,ibid.[1462]Letter of Feb. or beginning of March, 1532, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 157).[1463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 50, Table-Talk, in connection with some words reported to have been uttered by Andreas Proles, which, however, were certainly meant by him in a different sense.[1464]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 632; Erl. ed., 27, p. 235.[1465]Ibid., 23, p. 69=30, p. 19 f.[1466]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 441. Here he says in his “Contra regem Angliæ”: “De doctrina cognoscere et iudicare pertinet ad omnes et singulos Christianos et ita pertinet, ut anathema sit, qui hoc ius uno pilo læserit.... Nunc autem (Christus) non solum ius, sed præceptum, iudicandi statuit, ut hæc sola auctoritas satis esse queat adversus omnium pontificum, omnium patrum, omnium conciliorum, omnium scholarum sententias.... Huic subscribunt ferme omnes omnium prophetarum syllabæ.... Habet hic Henricus noster aut ullus impurus Thomista, quod istis obganniat? Nonne obstruximus os loquentium iniqua?”[1467]Köstlin, “Luther’s Theol.,” 1², p. 379.[1468]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.[1469]Ibid., Weim. ed., 2, p. 429 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.[1470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 298, 299. Cp. above, p. 397, n. 1, also pp. 398 and 400, on the “iudicium interius.”[1471]The last words are from Scheel. See above, p. 392, n. 2, p. 76.[1472]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 580 ff.; Erl. ed., 36, p. 234 f.; 52, p. 392.[1473]Article 12. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343. G. Kawerau adds, when quoting this passage (Möller’s “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 104), “It is here, therefore, that the ‘Communion of Saints’ begins to become Luther’s confessional Church.”—The Articles of Schwabach, which were sent by Luther to the Elector after the Conference of Marburg (above, vol. iii., p. 381), probably on Oct. 7, 1529, were mainly intended to oppose the Zwinglians. It is when repudiating them, as non-Christians, that Luther puts forward the above conception of the Church.[1474]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 252 ff., in the preface to his edition of these Creeds, and the “Te Deum,” 1538.[1475]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505.[1476]Scheel,ibid., p. 75.[1477]Above, vol. iii., p. 21.[1478]Vol. i., p. 58.[1479]P. 459.[1480]P. 440.
[1281]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 2, p. 632: “en los ojos no ben señalado.”[1282]According to Myconius, “Historia Reformationis,” p. 30sq.(written after 1541). Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 97: “Cardinalis Augustæ dixit de me: iste frater habet profundos oculos, ideo et mirabiles phantasias in capite habet.”[1283]Pollich’s remark (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 154, from Rebenstock) has been characterised quite wrongly by O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 2, 1878, p. 627) as spurious and a late interpollation. As a matter of fact it had merely been excluded from the Table-Talk by Aurifaber; see Seidemann in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, 1879, p. 305. Cp. vol. i., p. 86, n. 5.[1284]Above, vol. i., p. 86.[1285]Letter of Aug. 8, 1523, in Hipler, “Nikolaus Kopernikus und Luther,” 1868, p. 73. Höfler, “Adrian VI,” p. 320, n. 2, quotes a remark of Dantiscus on Luther: “affirmans eum esse dæmoniacum.” Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 194, n. 3.[1286]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.[1287]He refers simply to what he knew from some of Luther’s intimate friends “concerning his birth and past life up to the time of his becoming a monk.”[1288]In his Exposition of the Ten Commandments, published in 1518 and frequently reprinted during his lifetime, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 407; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 18: “Among the devils there are ‘incubi’ and ‘succubi,’ of which I shall speak more fully immediately,” which he then proceeds to do. The children are, according to him, abortions. According to a statement in the Table-Talk, however, they were “devils with bodies like the mother’s,” or stolen children, or changelings, like one he wished to have drowned because the devil constituted the soul in its body (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6O, pp. 37-42). In his exposition of Genesis (cap. vi.) Luther admits the existence and activity of the said “incubi.” He declares he had heard from many persons credible instances and had himself met with such (!), and even appeals to St. Augustine (“Hoc negare impudentiæ videtur,” “De civ. Dei,” 15, c. 23); he remarks, however, that it was altogether false to believe that “anything could be born of a union of devil and man”; on the contrary, those taken for the devil’s offspring, some of whom he had seen, had either been distorted by the devil though not actually begotten by him, or were real devils who had either assumed flesh in appearance or borrowed it elsewhere with the devil’s help. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 127. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” Freiburg, 1910, p. 35 f.[1289]“Commentaria,” p. 2: “sive ex occulto aliquo cum dæmone commercio.”[1290]The writing in question, “Ein Maulstreich,” etc., is not by Cochlæus but by Paul Bachmann. See above, p. 352, n. 3.[1291]Paulus (p. 356, n. 3), p. 63 f., from Sylvius, “Zwei neugedruckte Büchlein,” 1533, p. 3´, and “Die letzten zwei Büchlein,” 1534. Cp. also his work of 1531, “Ein besonder nützliches ... Büchlein.”[1292]Friedensburg (above, p. 356, n. 6), p. 554.[1293]Letter to Bartholomew Golsibius, in Weller, “Altes aus allen Theilen der Gesch.,” 1, p. 178. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 133.[1294]Letter to Nicholas Œcander; Weller,ibid., 2, p. 780 f.; Döllinger,ibid., 135.[1295]“Epistolæ,” ed. Riegger, Ulmæ, 1774, p. 72. Döllinger,ibid., p. 178.[1296]R. Stintzing, “Ulrich Zasius,” Basle, 1857, p. 230, from the letter of Zasius to Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521. “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.[1297]Stintzing,ibid.[1298]Ibid., p. 97. Döllinger,ibid., p. 179.[1299]On March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[1300]“Retectio,” Hbseq.Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 57 f.[1301]Ibid., G 2b: “cepit omnium animos mirus pavor,” etc. Döllinger,ibid., p. 61.[1302]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.[1303]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159.[1304]Ibid., p. 161 f.[1305]Ibid., p. 147.[1306]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.[1307]See A. Räss, “Die Convertiten seit der Reformation,” 1, 1866, where the “Apologia” is reprinted, p. 184. Cp. Wicel’s remarks above, p. 165 f.[1308]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 117; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 420 f.[1309]“Werke,”ibid.[1310]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.[1311]On Feb. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.[1312]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 342.[1313]Ibid.[1314]“Præcipuæ constitutiones Caroli M.,” etc., Ingolst., 1545, præf. f. A 3a, A 8a; Döllinger,ibid., 1, p. 160.[1315]“Comment.,” p. 1.[1316]Ibid., p. 56.[1317]N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (3. “Vereinsschr. der Görres-Ges.,” 1893), p. 15.[1318]Ibid.[1319]Ibid., p. 34.[1320]Ibid., p. 35.[1321]Ibid., p. 40.[1322]Ibid., p. 13 f.[1323]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 450-455; Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 152 f.[1324]Janssen,ibid., p. 264 f.[1325]Ibid., p. 264 f. Passages taken from Luther’s writing, “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 282 ff.[1326]On May 29, 1545. Janssen,ibid., p. 286 f.[1327]Hortleder, “Von Rechtmässigkeit usw. Karls V.,” 1645, p. 486 ff. Janssen,ibid., p. 288.[1328]M. J. Schmidt, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 1, 1785, p. 23 f. Janssen,ibid.[1329]See above,passim.[1330]See, for instance, above, pp. 96 ff., 102 ff.[1331]Vol. ii., p. 48.[1332]“Transfiguratur coram te satanas ille in angelum lucis.” The text in Raynaldus, “Annales eccles.,” ann. 1522, n. 72.[1333]At the end of the second series of Theses (“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., “Opp. lat var.,” 1, p. 312) occur the words, “bestia, quæ montem tetigerit,” the sole quotation from that sort of biblical language mentioned above.[1334]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.[1335]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 1, p. 484 ff.[1336]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 380 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 10 ff.[1337]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 345.[1338]Ibid., p. 368.[1339]Ibid., p. 370.[1340]Ibid., p. 351.[1341]Ibid., p. 365.[1342]Ibid., 2, p. 1seq.[1343]Ibid., p. 68seq.[1344]Ibid., p. 81seq.[1345]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 50; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 68.[1346]Ibid., 6, pp. 328-348=2, pp. 79-108. See the actual words in our vol. ii., p. 12 f. Cp. vol. i., p. 338 f., for the first interchange of amenities between the two champions.[1347]In W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 215.[1348]G. Kawerau (“Hieronymus Emser,” 1898, p. 2) remarks that it must be admitted of Emser, “that he was an honest curmudgeon, averse to all subterfuge and pretence, amazingly frank in his admissions concerning himself, and, in controversy, very rude. Only rarely do we see him departing from this frankness.”[1349]“KL.,” 4², col. 483.[1350]“Lutheri Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 410.[1351]Ibid., p. 408, in the editor’s Introduction to the “Asterisks” and “Obelisks.”[1352]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 281; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 411.[1353]“Enchiridion,” Ingolst., 1556, f. 167, 167´. In the prefatory letter of dedication to Cardinal Farnese, Eck expresses himself in his usual manner against the ill-advised attempts of Catholics at mediation: “Hinc parum profecit conventus Ratisponensis(1541)in causa fidei et plurimorum fidelium exspectationem fefellit.”—In the matter of religious conferences and disputations Eck had ripe experience on his side. Though once very ready to accept a challenge to dispute, he nevertheless wrote later in the “Enchiridion” concerning controversies with heretics: “Hæretici non quærunt disputationem nisi multis malitiis involutam.... Fraudulenter obtendunt disputare non coram doctis et literatis ac in theologia exercitatis, sed coram indoctis, vulgaribus laicis”; the learned men at the Universities would otherwise have already tackled Luther. After mentioning the other disadvantages of the disputations he concludes: “Catholici ergo debent vitare disputationem cum huiusmodi” (ibid., p. 163seq.).[1354]The state of his Ingolstadt parish and Eck’s pastoral labours have recently been placed in a clear and favourable light by J. Greving in his “Johann Ecks Pfarrbuch,” 1908 (“RGl. Stud. und Texte,” Hft. 4-5).[1355]See above, p. 258.[1356]“Z. f. preuss. Gesch.,” 5, p. 481.[1357]“Septiceps Lutherus, ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius, in visitationem Saxonicam editus,” Dresdæ, 1529; in part repeated in the “Commentaria,” 1549, F. 196 C.[1358]Cp.ibid., F. III´seq.: “Non ex Deo sed ex diabolo esse tantam in doctrina dissensionem.... Cucullatus draco iste noster,” etc.—M. Spahn, “Joh. Cochläus,” Berlin, 1898.[1359]N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1894, 2, p. 571 ff.[1360]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 78.[1361]Ibid., p. 258.[1362]Ibid., p. 315.[1363]N. Paulus, “Schatzgeyer,” 1898; “Hoffmeister,” 1891; A. Postina, “Billick,” 1901.[1364]J. Negwer, “Conrad Wimpina,” Breslau, 1909 (in “KGl. Abh.”)[1365]Karl Goedeke, Introd. to his edition of Murner’s “Narrenbeschwörung,” Leipzig, 1879. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 333.[1366]Goedeke,ibid.[1367]“Memoriale B. Petri Faber,” ed. Marc. Bouix, Paris, 1873, pp. 378, 370.[1368]Dan. Bartoli, “Opere,” 5, Torino, 1825, pp. 110, 116. Cp. B. Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten,” etc., 1, 1907, 3 ff. Not all the members of the Order to which Favre and Canisius belonged were faithful to Favre’s principles in the controversy against Luther and his teaching, particularly during the excited polemics of the 17th century. Many, at their own costs, disregarded those laws of urbanity which Bellarmine, for instance, ever respected in his controversial writings. Such was the case, for instance, with Conrad Vetter, † 1622 (K. A. J. Andreæ).[1369]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 404; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 247. He refers to Panormitanus, “De elect.,” c. Significasti.[1370]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 18 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 385seq.[1371]Ibid., p. 288=p. 75.[1372]Ibid., p. 303=p. 97seq.: “Concilium aliquando errasse, præsertim in iis quæ non sunt fidei.” Cp. the following: “conciliorum statuta in iis quæ sunt fidei, sunt omnimodo amplectenda.”[1373]Letter of Aug. 18, 1519, “Briefe,” 1, p. 315; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 19 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12). At Worms in 1521 he had declared in this same sense, that he would not submit, “nisi convictus fuero testimoniis scripturarum aut ratione evidente; nam neque papæ neque conciliis solis credo, cum constet eos et errasse sæpius et sibi ipsis contradixisse; victus sum scripturis a me adductis et capta conscientia in verbis Dei.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 883; cp. p. 853.—He writes emphatically in reply to King Henry VIII (see p. 391): “Ego vero adversus dicta patrum, hominum, angelorum, dæmonum pono non antiquum usum, non multitudinem hominum, sed unius maiestatis æternæ verbum, evangelium.... Dei verbum est super omnia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 214 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 437.[1374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.[1375]Ibid., p. 425=p. 278.[1376]Ibid., p. 324=p. 131.[1377]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 359; Erl. ed., 16², p. 446.[1378]Ibid., 11, p. 409=22, p. 143.[1379]Ibid., 8, p. 484 f.=28, p. 32.[1380]Ibid., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff.[1381]In his “Com. in Ep. ad. Galatas,” 1, p. 104.[1382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 383 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 11.[1383]Ibid., p. 385 = 13.[1384]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 256 f.=28, p. 379 f.[1385]Ibid., p. 90=340. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden,” 1522.[1386]Ibid., p. 90=341. See below, Luther’s denial of the Augustinian “Non crederem evangelio,” etc.[1387]Otto Scheel, “Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift,” Tübingen, 1902 (“Sammlung gemeinverständl. Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol. und RG.,” No. 29), p. 38 (on p. 37 the last quotation is also given with an incorrect reference) and p. 41 f.[1388]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 489; Erl. ed., 29, p. 334. “Sermon von dem Sacrament,” 1526.[1389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 565: “Quod est eius opus? Quoddrive into the heartprædicationem Christi, qui nonfails. Christ failed,quia multis prædicaverit et nihil effecit; Spiritus sanctuspresses the wordin cor.... Si etiama hundred thousandverbum prædicatur, nihil facit; cum Spiritus sanctus hoc suum officium facit, tumit makes its way.”[1390]Cp. above, vol. iii., pp. 12 ff., 398.[1391]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 181; Erl. ed., 29, p. 260.[1392]Ibid., p. 137=209 (“Widder die hymelischen Propheten”): “Do you see how the devil, the enemy of divine order, opens his mouth at you with the words, ‘spirit, spirit, spirit’?” etc.[1393]Ibid., p. 180=258.[1394]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 85.[1395]Ibid., Weim. ed., 15, p. 42; Erl. ed., 22, p. 187. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands, das sie christliche Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen,” 1524.[1396]Ibid., p. 39=184.[1397]At the German Protestant Congress at Berlin in 1904, Dr. Max Fischer of Berlin appealed to the above writing of Luther’s as a proof that the latter had relinquished his idea of the Bible being in the hands of each individual the sole source of doctrine. “That this, as a foundation of all doctrine, is impossible in Protestantism,” he said, speaking from his standpoint, “has long been admitted, and we have simply to bear in mind how Protestant theology has come to examine freely, not only the contents of the Bible, but the Bible itself. Theology has no rights other than those enjoyed by any other branch of worldly learning.” In the sequel the writer declared himself against the Divinity of Christ and any set system of doctrine. According to him particular doctrines, even those of the Apostles’ Creed, were of no importance. “He has all the faith required who makes his faith for himself.” (See the report of the discourse in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 834.) We may compare this principle with Luther’s own on freedom. The same principles were recently invoked in the case of the Protestant Pastor Jatho of Cologne, when he was charged with being an unbeliever. On his dismissal from office his friends declared that “a chain had been riveted on free and unbiassed research in Prussian Protestantism, and that the official representatives of Protestantism had banned that spirit of personal Christianity which once had impelled Luther to nail up his Theses to the door of the Castle-church at Wittenberg.” (“Köln. Ztng.,” 1911, No. 712; cp. “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 545.) During the trial Jatho, too, had appealed to his “inward experience” and personal knowledge. (“Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 592.)[1398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 236; Erl. ed., 39, p. 133.[1399]Ibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 606=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 124. “De servo arbitrio.”[1400]Ibid., 7, p. 317=24, p. 58.[1401]Ibid., 7, p. 97=“Opp. lat. var,” 5, p. 161.[1402]Ibid., Erl. ed., 57, p. 16, Table-Talk.[1403]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 75; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.[1404]Ibid.[1405]Sermon of Aug. 2, 1528. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 287.[1406]On Dec. 23, 1526, he said in his afternoon sermon, speaking of the sermon that morning: “Hodie dixi, biblia esse hæresium librum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 624. And as a matter of fact the notes contain the passage,ibid., 20, p. 588.[1407]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 362.[1408]Ibid., p. 360.[1409]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 144.[1410]“With reference to this Luther declares (‘De servo arbitrio’): In the words of Scripture which lie open to us and all the world, no one, owing to the darkening of the mind, is able to discern the smallest iota so long as he has not the Spirit of God; no one possesses the inner sense or the true knowledge requisite—‘nihil horum sentiunt aut vere cognoscunt’—no one believes that God exists and that he is His creature. For him the ‘iudicium interius,’ in the Christian who has attained to the true light and his salvation through the Spirit of God, consists in being able to test with certainty all doctrines and beliefs (1 Cor. ii. 15). This individual judgment is essential for every Christian and for his faith; it does not, however, profit others: For them the ‘exterius iudicium’ is intended, which is exercised by the preacher of the Word.” Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 380.[1411]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 145; Erl. ed., 47, p. 353. From Notes of the Sermon published in 1564.[1412]Ibid., p. 161=367; cp. p. 165=371.[1413]P. 148=356.[1414]P. 152=360.[1415]P. 150=358.[1416]P. 152=359.[1417]P. 146=354.[1418]P. 148=356.[1419]Ibid., Erl. ed., 5², p. 251, Hauspostille. Sermon of 1533.[1420]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 313, “Enarr. in Genes.”[1421]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the second part of the first complete edition of his works (compiled from his writings).[1422]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 36.[1423]Köstlin,ibid., and p. 15, 30.[1424]Ibid., p. 35.[1425]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 23 f., where Luther says, the predictions of the prophets (or of the Apocalypse) concerning wars, the Kings, etc., were “things pleasing to the inquisitive ... but were unnecessary prophecies, for they neither taught nor furthered the Christian faith”; in those prophecies “concerning Kings and worldly events” the Prophets had “often been wrong.”[1426]Thus O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 67 f.[1427]“Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas ... qua infirmata iam nec evangelio credere potero.” “Contra epistolam fundamenti Manichæorum,” c. 5.[1428]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 429-432; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 284-288. “Resol. super propos. Lipsienses.”[1429]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 90; Erl. ed., 28, p. 341.[1430]According to Köstlin (“Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 10 ff.), it was only the orthodox Lutherans after his day who developed this into the doctrine of the “testimonium Spiritus Sancti,” which assures every reader of the canonicity of the books of the Bible. In reality, however, Luther himself already stood for this “testimonium.” Thanks to it he judged of the relative importance of the Sacred Books and only “allowed himself to be determined by the spirit speaking to him out of them.” Thus Köstlin himself, 1², p. 319.[1431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 325; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 131: “Non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libra, quam per se ipsum habeat.” The question, however, was who was to attest this authority.[1432]See our vol. v., xxxiv., 3.[1433]O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 47, after having instanced Luther’s adverse criticism of the Epistle of St. James and the prophetical books, remarks: “He took exception to the Epistle of Jude, to Hebrews and to the Apocalypse. The Book of Esther deserved no place in the Canon any more than the second Book of Machabees, though the first was worthy of canonisation. [It was, as Luther says in the Preface to his German translation of it (Erl. ed., 63, p. 104), ‘not unworthy of being included amongst the sacred writings of the Hebrews,’ because in the history of Antiochus it gives us a picture of the fall of the real Antichrist, viz. Popery!] Luther makes a distinction even between the books he does not impugn. Of the Pauline writings he gives the first place to Romans, just as he places St. John’s first among the Gospels. He esteems the synoptics less highly because they record the works and deeds of Christ and not the message of righteousness by grace.” Scheel notes (p. 49 f.), that Luther’s criticism was based, not on learned historical arguments, but on the “religious stimulus” these writings supplied, viz. on the extent to which they might prove of service to his doctrine, i.e. on “inward considerations.” “The fact that the Epistle of James says nothing of Christ and Justification by grace was ground enough for Luther to reject it. Analogous is the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews.... From all this it is evident how much Luther placed religious criticism in the foreground and what secondary importance he attached to historical criticism.” He cares little whether a writing is apostolic or not; what he wants to know is whether its contents agree with what he has perceived to be the kernel of Scripture. “He did not even shrink from impugning the authority of the Apostles in favour of a higher standard” (p. 52). Scheel then deals with the statements more favourable to Luther made by J. Kunze (“Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift und Taufbekenntnis,” Leipzig, 1899, pp. 509, 521) and H. Preuss (“Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther bis zur Leipziger Disputation,” Leipzig, 1901, p. 99). “With Luther’s independent criticism of Scripture,” he says (p. 64 f.), “the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture hardly agrees.... Kunze also denies that the effect of the mediæval doctrine of inspiration appears at all in Luther; the belief that the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost should not be identified with the doctrine of inspiration in its concrete and historical shape.” True enough Kunze admits (p. 504, n. 1) “some after-effects” of that doctrine upon Luther, but the question is “how such after-effects were compatible with the uniform theory of Scripture,” which he finds in Luther. On the consistency of Luther’s theory, see Scheel’s remarks below, p. 407.—Adolf Harnack repeatedly declares, that Luther’s attitude towards the Bible was characterised by “flagrant contradictions” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], pp. 868, 878; cp. pp. 771 f., 791 f.), because his criticism “demolished the external authority of the written Word.”—Of Luther’s treatment of the Apocalypse, G. Arnold, the spokesman and historian of the Pietists, complains in his Church History (Frankfurt edition, vol. ii., 1699, p. 39); he said of it “very much what all the fanatics said, viz. that each one might believe concerning it what his Spirit inspired him with; his [Luther’s] Spirit could not agree with the book, and the fact that Christ was neither taught nor recognised in it was sufficient for him not to esteem it highly.” Arnold also complains that, in the Preface to the Apocalypse (“now usually omitted”), Luther says, “that it was too bad of John to command and threaten about this book,” etc.; the book, according to Luther, was neither apostolic nor prophetical, indeed not by the Holy Ghost at all, seeing that it did not treat of faith or Christian doctrine but merely of history.[1434]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 29.[1435]F. Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 747) says that Luther reintroduced the Catholic ideas he had “vanquished,” and made this “burden in Protestantism heavier than it had ever been before.” Cp. above, p. 398 f.[1436]Jan. 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.[1437]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 52.[1438]In this remarkable passage of his exposition of 1 Cor. xv. (1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, pp. 102-104), he exhorts all to “hold fast to the doctrine and preaching for which we have both sure Scripture and also inward experience. These should be the two witnesses and the two test-stones of true doctrine.” He here inveighs against the fanatics because they taught, “what not one of them had experienced,” “an uncertain delusion of which not one of them had had any experience.” “None of the fanatics are able to prove their contention either by their own experience or by that of others.” Of himself, however, he could say: “I have experienced it; for I too was once a pious monk,” etc.; then follows the legend of his life in the monastery and of how, before his discovery of the sense of the text on which his new teaching rested, he had never known what it was to have a “gracious God.” “Hence, whoever wishes not to err, let him look to these two points, whether he is able to bear witness to his doctrine out of Scripture and a sure inward experience, as we can to our doctrine and preaching.”[1439]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 250. “An Exposition of the Christian Faith,” 1537. Before this: “This is to have the Holy Ghost, when we experience in our hearts the Creation and Redemption.” “The Pope and his people do not feel this in their hearts.”[1440]“All the articles which he believed he had repeatedly drawn from Scripture.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 500; Erl. ed., 30, p. 363. “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.[1441]“Lehrb. der DG.,” part 2, Erlangen, 1898, p. 289 f.[1442]Seeberg refers to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 413 f., 346 f.; 9¹, p. 29 ff.; 13¹, p. 221 f.; 20¹, p. 297 f.[1443]Reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 249, 267; 20¹, p. 148.[1444]Weim. ed., 6, p. 561; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 302.[1445]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 219=6, p. 444: “Hic dicent: Si singulorum est ius iudicandi et probandi, quis erit modus, si iudices dissenserint et unusquisque secundum suum caput iudicarit?” etc.[1446]Ibid., 18, p. 649 f.=7, p. 171. “De servo arbitrio.” Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 381.[1447]Hence his confession: “Credo ecclesiam sanctam catholicam, ut impossibile sit, illam errare etiam in minimo articulo.” “Werke,”ibid.[1448]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 39.[1449]Above, vol. iii., p. 401.[1450]Vol. iii., p. 400.[1451]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.[1452]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 389.[1453]“To the Christians at Antwerp” early in April, 1525. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 342; “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.[1454]Ibid., Erl. ed., 53, p. 343.[1455]Ibid., Weim. ed., 20, p. 571; Erl. ed., 41, p. 210.[1456]O. Scheel,ibid., pp. 38, 55. Cp. F. Loofs, above, p. 403, n. 1.[1457]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1902, No. 21, p. 576, review of H. Preuss, “Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther.”[1458]Above,passim.[1459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, pp. 85-88.[1460]P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 69. The booklet was written by Melanchthon but was certainly circulated with Luther’s approval.[1461]Wappler,ibid.[1462]Letter of Feb. or beginning of March, 1532, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 157).[1463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 50, Table-Talk, in connection with some words reported to have been uttered by Andreas Proles, which, however, were certainly meant by him in a different sense.[1464]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 632; Erl. ed., 27, p. 235.[1465]Ibid., 23, p. 69=30, p. 19 f.[1466]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 441. Here he says in his “Contra regem Angliæ”: “De doctrina cognoscere et iudicare pertinet ad omnes et singulos Christianos et ita pertinet, ut anathema sit, qui hoc ius uno pilo læserit.... Nunc autem (Christus) non solum ius, sed præceptum, iudicandi statuit, ut hæc sola auctoritas satis esse queat adversus omnium pontificum, omnium patrum, omnium conciliorum, omnium scholarum sententias.... Huic subscribunt ferme omnes omnium prophetarum syllabæ.... Habet hic Henricus noster aut ullus impurus Thomista, quod istis obganniat? Nonne obstruximus os loquentium iniqua?”[1467]Köstlin, “Luther’s Theol.,” 1², p. 379.[1468]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.[1469]Ibid., Weim. ed., 2, p. 429 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.[1470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 298, 299. Cp. above, p. 397, n. 1, also pp. 398 and 400, on the “iudicium interius.”[1471]The last words are from Scheel. See above, p. 392, n. 2, p. 76.[1472]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 580 ff.; Erl. ed., 36, p. 234 f.; 52, p. 392.[1473]Article 12. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343. G. Kawerau adds, when quoting this passage (Möller’s “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 104), “It is here, therefore, that the ‘Communion of Saints’ begins to become Luther’s confessional Church.”—The Articles of Schwabach, which were sent by Luther to the Elector after the Conference of Marburg (above, vol. iii., p. 381), probably on Oct. 7, 1529, were mainly intended to oppose the Zwinglians. It is when repudiating them, as non-Christians, that Luther puts forward the above conception of the Church.[1474]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 252 ff., in the preface to his edition of these Creeds, and the “Te Deum,” 1538.[1475]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505.[1476]Scheel,ibid., p. 75.[1477]Above, vol. iii., p. 21.[1478]Vol. i., p. 58.[1479]P. 459.[1480]P. 440.
[1281]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 2, p. 632: “en los ojos no ben señalado.”[1282]According to Myconius, “Historia Reformationis,” p. 30sq.(written after 1541). Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 97: “Cardinalis Augustæ dixit de me: iste frater habet profundos oculos, ideo et mirabiles phantasias in capite habet.”[1283]Pollich’s remark (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 154, from Rebenstock) has been characterised quite wrongly by O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 2, 1878, p. 627) as spurious and a late interpollation. As a matter of fact it had merely been excluded from the Table-Talk by Aurifaber; see Seidemann in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, 1879, p. 305. Cp. vol. i., p. 86, n. 5.[1284]Above, vol. i., p. 86.[1285]Letter of Aug. 8, 1523, in Hipler, “Nikolaus Kopernikus und Luther,” 1868, p. 73. Höfler, “Adrian VI,” p. 320, n. 2, quotes a remark of Dantiscus on Luther: “affirmans eum esse dæmoniacum.” Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 194, n. 3.[1286]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.[1287]He refers simply to what he knew from some of Luther’s intimate friends “concerning his birth and past life up to the time of his becoming a monk.”[1288]In his Exposition of the Ten Commandments, published in 1518 and frequently reprinted during his lifetime, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 407; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 18: “Among the devils there are ‘incubi’ and ‘succubi,’ of which I shall speak more fully immediately,” which he then proceeds to do. The children are, according to him, abortions. According to a statement in the Table-Talk, however, they were “devils with bodies like the mother’s,” or stolen children, or changelings, like one he wished to have drowned because the devil constituted the soul in its body (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6O, pp. 37-42). In his exposition of Genesis (cap. vi.) Luther admits the existence and activity of the said “incubi.” He declares he had heard from many persons credible instances and had himself met with such (!), and even appeals to St. Augustine (“Hoc negare impudentiæ videtur,” “De civ. Dei,” 15, c. 23); he remarks, however, that it was altogether false to believe that “anything could be born of a union of devil and man”; on the contrary, those taken for the devil’s offspring, some of whom he had seen, had either been distorted by the devil though not actually begotten by him, or were real devils who had either assumed flesh in appearance or borrowed it elsewhere with the devil’s help. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 127. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” Freiburg, 1910, p. 35 f.[1289]“Commentaria,” p. 2: “sive ex occulto aliquo cum dæmone commercio.”[1290]The writing in question, “Ein Maulstreich,” etc., is not by Cochlæus but by Paul Bachmann. See above, p. 352, n. 3.[1291]Paulus (p. 356, n. 3), p. 63 f., from Sylvius, “Zwei neugedruckte Büchlein,” 1533, p. 3´, and “Die letzten zwei Büchlein,” 1534. Cp. also his work of 1531, “Ein besonder nützliches ... Büchlein.”[1292]Friedensburg (above, p. 356, n. 6), p. 554.[1293]Letter to Bartholomew Golsibius, in Weller, “Altes aus allen Theilen der Gesch.,” 1, p. 178. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 133.[1294]Letter to Nicholas Œcander; Weller,ibid., 2, p. 780 f.; Döllinger,ibid., 135.[1295]“Epistolæ,” ed. Riegger, Ulmæ, 1774, p. 72. Döllinger,ibid., p. 178.[1296]R. Stintzing, “Ulrich Zasius,” Basle, 1857, p. 230, from the letter of Zasius to Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521. “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.[1297]Stintzing,ibid.[1298]Ibid., p. 97. Döllinger,ibid., p. 179.[1299]On March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.[1300]“Retectio,” Hbseq.Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 57 f.[1301]Ibid., G 2b: “cepit omnium animos mirus pavor,” etc. Döllinger,ibid., p. 61.[1302]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.[1303]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159.[1304]Ibid., p. 161 f.[1305]Ibid., p. 147.[1306]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.[1307]See A. Räss, “Die Convertiten seit der Reformation,” 1, 1866, where the “Apologia” is reprinted, p. 184. Cp. Wicel’s remarks above, p. 165 f.[1308]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 117; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 420 f.[1309]“Werke,”ibid.[1310]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.[1311]On Feb. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.[1312]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 342.[1313]Ibid.[1314]“Præcipuæ constitutiones Caroli M.,” etc., Ingolst., 1545, præf. f. A 3a, A 8a; Döllinger,ibid., 1, p. 160.[1315]“Comment.,” p. 1.[1316]Ibid., p. 56.[1317]N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (3. “Vereinsschr. der Görres-Ges.,” 1893), p. 15.[1318]Ibid.[1319]Ibid., p. 34.[1320]Ibid., p. 35.[1321]Ibid., p. 40.[1322]Ibid., p. 13 f.[1323]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 450-455; Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 152 f.[1324]Janssen,ibid., p. 264 f.[1325]Ibid., p. 264 f. Passages taken from Luther’s writing, “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 282 ff.[1326]On May 29, 1545. Janssen,ibid., p. 286 f.[1327]Hortleder, “Von Rechtmässigkeit usw. Karls V.,” 1645, p. 486 ff. Janssen,ibid., p. 288.[1328]M. J. Schmidt, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 1, 1785, p. 23 f. Janssen,ibid.[1329]See above,passim.[1330]See, for instance, above, pp. 96 ff., 102 ff.[1331]Vol. ii., p. 48.[1332]“Transfiguratur coram te satanas ille in angelum lucis.” The text in Raynaldus, “Annales eccles.,” ann. 1522, n. 72.[1333]At the end of the second series of Theses (“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., “Opp. lat var.,” 1, p. 312) occur the words, “bestia, quæ montem tetigerit,” the sole quotation from that sort of biblical language mentioned above.[1334]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.[1335]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 1, p. 484 ff.[1336]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 380 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 10 ff.[1337]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 345.[1338]Ibid., p. 368.[1339]Ibid., p. 370.[1340]Ibid., p. 351.[1341]Ibid., p. 365.[1342]Ibid., 2, p. 1seq.[1343]Ibid., p. 68seq.[1344]Ibid., p. 81seq.[1345]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 50; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 68.[1346]Ibid., 6, pp. 328-348=2, pp. 79-108. See the actual words in our vol. ii., p. 12 f. Cp. vol. i., p. 338 f., for the first interchange of amenities between the two champions.[1347]In W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 215.[1348]G. Kawerau (“Hieronymus Emser,” 1898, p. 2) remarks that it must be admitted of Emser, “that he was an honest curmudgeon, averse to all subterfuge and pretence, amazingly frank in his admissions concerning himself, and, in controversy, very rude. Only rarely do we see him departing from this frankness.”[1349]“KL.,” 4², col. 483.[1350]“Lutheri Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 410.[1351]Ibid., p. 408, in the editor’s Introduction to the “Asterisks” and “Obelisks.”[1352]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 281; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 411.[1353]“Enchiridion,” Ingolst., 1556, f. 167, 167´. In the prefatory letter of dedication to Cardinal Farnese, Eck expresses himself in his usual manner against the ill-advised attempts of Catholics at mediation: “Hinc parum profecit conventus Ratisponensis(1541)in causa fidei et plurimorum fidelium exspectationem fefellit.”—In the matter of religious conferences and disputations Eck had ripe experience on his side. Though once very ready to accept a challenge to dispute, he nevertheless wrote later in the “Enchiridion” concerning controversies with heretics: “Hæretici non quærunt disputationem nisi multis malitiis involutam.... Fraudulenter obtendunt disputare non coram doctis et literatis ac in theologia exercitatis, sed coram indoctis, vulgaribus laicis”; the learned men at the Universities would otherwise have already tackled Luther. After mentioning the other disadvantages of the disputations he concludes: “Catholici ergo debent vitare disputationem cum huiusmodi” (ibid., p. 163seq.).[1354]The state of his Ingolstadt parish and Eck’s pastoral labours have recently been placed in a clear and favourable light by J. Greving in his “Johann Ecks Pfarrbuch,” 1908 (“RGl. Stud. und Texte,” Hft. 4-5).[1355]See above, p. 258.[1356]“Z. f. preuss. Gesch.,” 5, p. 481.[1357]“Septiceps Lutherus, ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius, in visitationem Saxonicam editus,” Dresdæ, 1529; in part repeated in the “Commentaria,” 1549, F. 196 C.[1358]Cp.ibid., F. III´seq.: “Non ex Deo sed ex diabolo esse tantam in doctrina dissensionem.... Cucullatus draco iste noster,” etc.—M. Spahn, “Joh. Cochläus,” Berlin, 1898.[1359]N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1894, 2, p. 571 ff.[1360]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 78.[1361]Ibid., p. 258.[1362]Ibid., p. 315.[1363]N. Paulus, “Schatzgeyer,” 1898; “Hoffmeister,” 1891; A. Postina, “Billick,” 1901.[1364]J. Negwer, “Conrad Wimpina,” Breslau, 1909 (in “KGl. Abh.”)[1365]Karl Goedeke, Introd. to his edition of Murner’s “Narrenbeschwörung,” Leipzig, 1879. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 333.[1366]Goedeke,ibid.[1367]“Memoriale B. Petri Faber,” ed. Marc. Bouix, Paris, 1873, pp. 378, 370.[1368]Dan. Bartoli, “Opere,” 5, Torino, 1825, pp. 110, 116. Cp. B. Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten,” etc., 1, 1907, 3 ff. Not all the members of the Order to which Favre and Canisius belonged were faithful to Favre’s principles in the controversy against Luther and his teaching, particularly during the excited polemics of the 17th century. Many, at their own costs, disregarded those laws of urbanity which Bellarmine, for instance, ever respected in his controversial writings. Such was the case, for instance, with Conrad Vetter, † 1622 (K. A. J. Andreæ).[1369]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 404; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 247. He refers to Panormitanus, “De elect.,” c. Significasti.[1370]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 18 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 385seq.[1371]Ibid., p. 288=p. 75.[1372]Ibid., p. 303=p. 97seq.: “Concilium aliquando errasse, præsertim in iis quæ non sunt fidei.” Cp. the following: “conciliorum statuta in iis quæ sunt fidei, sunt omnimodo amplectenda.”[1373]Letter of Aug. 18, 1519, “Briefe,” 1, p. 315; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 19 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12). At Worms in 1521 he had declared in this same sense, that he would not submit, “nisi convictus fuero testimoniis scripturarum aut ratione evidente; nam neque papæ neque conciliis solis credo, cum constet eos et errasse sæpius et sibi ipsis contradixisse; victus sum scripturis a me adductis et capta conscientia in verbis Dei.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 883; cp. p. 853.—He writes emphatically in reply to King Henry VIII (see p. 391): “Ego vero adversus dicta patrum, hominum, angelorum, dæmonum pono non antiquum usum, non multitudinem hominum, sed unius maiestatis æternæ verbum, evangelium.... Dei verbum est super omnia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 214 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 437.[1374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.[1375]Ibid., p. 425=p. 278.[1376]Ibid., p. 324=p. 131.[1377]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 359; Erl. ed., 16², p. 446.[1378]Ibid., 11, p. 409=22, p. 143.[1379]Ibid., 8, p. 484 f.=28, p. 32.[1380]Ibid., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff.[1381]In his “Com. in Ep. ad. Galatas,” 1, p. 104.[1382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 383 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 11.[1383]Ibid., p. 385 = 13.[1384]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 256 f.=28, p. 379 f.[1385]Ibid., p. 90=340. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden,” 1522.[1386]Ibid., p. 90=341. See below, Luther’s denial of the Augustinian “Non crederem evangelio,” etc.[1387]Otto Scheel, “Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift,” Tübingen, 1902 (“Sammlung gemeinverständl. Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol. und RG.,” No. 29), p. 38 (on p. 37 the last quotation is also given with an incorrect reference) and p. 41 f.[1388]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 489; Erl. ed., 29, p. 334. “Sermon von dem Sacrament,” 1526.[1389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 565: “Quod est eius opus? Quoddrive into the heartprædicationem Christi, qui nonfails. Christ failed,quia multis prædicaverit et nihil effecit; Spiritus sanctuspresses the wordin cor.... Si etiama hundred thousandverbum prædicatur, nihil facit; cum Spiritus sanctus hoc suum officium facit, tumit makes its way.”[1390]Cp. above, vol. iii., pp. 12 ff., 398.[1391]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 181; Erl. ed., 29, p. 260.[1392]Ibid., p. 137=209 (“Widder die hymelischen Propheten”): “Do you see how the devil, the enemy of divine order, opens his mouth at you with the words, ‘spirit, spirit, spirit’?” etc.[1393]Ibid., p. 180=258.[1394]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 85.[1395]Ibid., Weim. ed., 15, p. 42; Erl. ed., 22, p. 187. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands, das sie christliche Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen,” 1524.[1396]Ibid., p. 39=184.[1397]At the German Protestant Congress at Berlin in 1904, Dr. Max Fischer of Berlin appealed to the above writing of Luther’s as a proof that the latter had relinquished his idea of the Bible being in the hands of each individual the sole source of doctrine. “That this, as a foundation of all doctrine, is impossible in Protestantism,” he said, speaking from his standpoint, “has long been admitted, and we have simply to bear in mind how Protestant theology has come to examine freely, not only the contents of the Bible, but the Bible itself. Theology has no rights other than those enjoyed by any other branch of worldly learning.” In the sequel the writer declared himself against the Divinity of Christ and any set system of doctrine. According to him particular doctrines, even those of the Apostles’ Creed, were of no importance. “He has all the faith required who makes his faith for himself.” (See the report of the discourse in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 834.) We may compare this principle with Luther’s own on freedom. The same principles were recently invoked in the case of the Protestant Pastor Jatho of Cologne, when he was charged with being an unbeliever. On his dismissal from office his friends declared that “a chain had been riveted on free and unbiassed research in Prussian Protestantism, and that the official representatives of Protestantism had banned that spirit of personal Christianity which once had impelled Luther to nail up his Theses to the door of the Castle-church at Wittenberg.” (“Köln. Ztng.,” 1911, No. 712; cp. “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 545.) During the trial Jatho, too, had appealed to his “inward experience” and personal knowledge. (“Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 592.)[1398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 236; Erl. ed., 39, p. 133.[1399]Ibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 606=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 124. “De servo arbitrio.”[1400]Ibid., 7, p. 317=24, p. 58.[1401]Ibid., 7, p. 97=“Opp. lat. var,” 5, p. 161.[1402]Ibid., Erl. ed., 57, p. 16, Table-Talk.[1403]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 75; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.[1404]Ibid.[1405]Sermon of Aug. 2, 1528. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 287.[1406]On Dec. 23, 1526, he said in his afternoon sermon, speaking of the sermon that morning: “Hodie dixi, biblia esse hæresium librum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 624. And as a matter of fact the notes contain the passage,ibid., 20, p. 588.[1407]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 362.[1408]Ibid., p. 360.[1409]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 144.[1410]“With reference to this Luther declares (‘De servo arbitrio’): In the words of Scripture which lie open to us and all the world, no one, owing to the darkening of the mind, is able to discern the smallest iota so long as he has not the Spirit of God; no one possesses the inner sense or the true knowledge requisite—‘nihil horum sentiunt aut vere cognoscunt’—no one believes that God exists and that he is His creature. For him the ‘iudicium interius,’ in the Christian who has attained to the true light and his salvation through the Spirit of God, consists in being able to test with certainty all doctrines and beliefs (1 Cor. ii. 15). This individual judgment is essential for every Christian and for his faith; it does not, however, profit others: For them the ‘exterius iudicium’ is intended, which is exercised by the preacher of the Word.” Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 380.[1411]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 145; Erl. ed., 47, p. 353. From Notes of the Sermon published in 1564.[1412]Ibid., p. 161=367; cp. p. 165=371.[1413]P. 148=356.[1414]P. 152=360.[1415]P. 150=358.[1416]P. 152=359.[1417]P. 146=354.[1418]P. 148=356.[1419]Ibid., Erl. ed., 5², p. 251, Hauspostille. Sermon of 1533.[1420]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 313, “Enarr. in Genes.”[1421]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the second part of the first complete edition of his works (compiled from his writings).[1422]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 36.[1423]Köstlin,ibid., and p. 15, 30.[1424]Ibid., p. 35.[1425]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 23 f., where Luther says, the predictions of the prophets (or of the Apocalypse) concerning wars, the Kings, etc., were “things pleasing to the inquisitive ... but were unnecessary prophecies, for they neither taught nor furthered the Christian faith”; in those prophecies “concerning Kings and worldly events” the Prophets had “often been wrong.”[1426]Thus O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 67 f.[1427]“Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas ... qua infirmata iam nec evangelio credere potero.” “Contra epistolam fundamenti Manichæorum,” c. 5.[1428]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 429-432; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 284-288. “Resol. super propos. Lipsienses.”[1429]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 90; Erl. ed., 28, p. 341.[1430]According to Köstlin (“Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 10 ff.), it was only the orthodox Lutherans after his day who developed this into the doctrine of the “testimonium Spiritus Sancti,” which assures every reader of the canonicity of the books of the Bible. In reality, however, Luther himself already stood for this “testimonium.” Thanks to it he judged of the relative importance of the Sacred Books and only “allowed himself to be determined by the spirit speaking to him out of them.” Thus Köstlin himself, 1², p. 319.[1431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 325; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 131: “Non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libra, quam per se ipsum habeat.” The question, however, was who was to attest this authority.[1432]See our vol. v., xxxiv., 3.[1433]O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 47, after having instanced Luther’s adverse criticism of the Epistle of St. James and the prophetical books, remarks: “He took exception to the Epistle of Jude, to Hebrews and to the Apocalypse. The Book of Esther deserved no place in the Canon any more than the second Book of Machabees, though the first was worthy of canonisation. [It was, as Luther says in the Preface to his German translation of it (Erl. ed., 63, p. 104), ‘not unworthy of being included amongst the sacred writings of the Hebrews,’ because in the history of Antiochus it gives us a picture of the fall of the real Antichrist, viz. Popery!] Luther makes a distinction even between the books he does not impugn. Of the Pauline writings he gives the first place to Romans, just as he places St. John’s first among the Gospels. He esteems the synoptics less highly because they record the works and deeds of Christ and not the message of righteousness by grace.” Scheel notes (p. 49 f.), that Luther’s criticism was based, not on learned historical arguments, but on the “religious stimulus” these writings supplied, viz. on the extent to which they might prove of service to his doctrine, i.e. on “inward considerations.” “The fact that the Epistle of James says nothing of Christ and Justification by grace was ground enough for Luther to reject it. Analogous is the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews.... From all this it is evident how much Luther placed religious criticism in the foreground and what secondary importance he attached to historical criticism.” He cares little whether a writing is apostolic or not; what he wants to know is whether its contents agree with what he has perceived to be the kernel of Scripture. “He did not even shrink from impugning the authority of the Apostles in favour of a higher standard” (p. 52). Scheel then deals with the statements more favourable to Luther made by J. Kunze (“Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift und Taufbekenntnis,” Leipzig, 1899, pp. 509, 521) and H. Preuss (“Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther bis zur Leipziger Disputation,” Leipzig, 1901, p. 99). “With Luther’s independent criticism of Scripture,” he says (p. 64 f.), “the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture hardly agrees.... Kunze also denies that the effect of the mediæval doctrine of inspiration appears at all in Luther; the belief that the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost should not be identified with the doctrine of inspiration in its concrete and historical shape.” True enough Kunze admits (p. 504, n. 1) “some after-effects” of that doctrine upon Luther, but the question is “how such after-effects were compatible with the uniform theory of Scripture,” which he finds in Luther. On the consistency of Luther’s theory, see Scheel’s remarks below, p. 407.—Adolf Harnack repeatedly declares, that Luther’s attitude towards the Bible was characterised by “flagrant contradictions” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], pp. 868, 878; cp. pp. 771 f., 791 f.), because his criticism “demolished the external authority of the written Word.”—Of Luther’s treatment of the Apocalypse, G. Arnold, the spokesman and historian of the Pietists, complains in his Church History (Frankfurt edition, vol. ii., 1699, p. 39); he said of it “very much what all the fanatics said, viz. that each one might believe concerning it what his Spirit inspired him with; his [Luther’s] Spirit could not agree with the book, and the fact that Christ was neither taught nor recognised in it was sufficient for him not to esteem it highly.” Arnold also complains that, in the Preface to the Apocalypse (“now usually omitted”), Luther says, “that it was too bad of John to command and threaten about this book,” etc.; the book, according to Luther, was neither apostolic nor prophetical, indeed not by the Holy Ghost at all, seeing that it did not treat of faith or Christian doctrine but merely of history.[1434]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 29.[1435]F. Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 747) says that Luther reintroduced the Catholic ideas he had “vanquished,” and made this “burden in Protestantism heavier than it had ever been before.” Cp. above, p. 398 f.[1436]Jan. 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.[1437]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 52.[1438]In this remarkable passage of his exposition of 1 Cor. xv. (1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, pp. 102-104), he exhorts all to “hold fast to the doctrine and preaching for which we have both sure Scripture and also inward experience. These should be the two witnesses and the two test-stones of true doctrine.” He here inveighs against the fanatics because they taught, “what not one of them had experienced,” “an uncertain delusion of which not one of them had had any experience.” “None of the fanatics are able to prove their contention either by their own experience or by that of others.” Of himself, however, he could say: “I have experienced it; for I too was once a pious monk,” etc.; then follows the legend of his life in the monastery and of how, before his discovery of the sense of the text on which his new teaching rested, he had never known what it was to have a “gracious God.” “Hence, whoever wishes not to err, let him look to these two points, whether he is able to bear witness to his doctrine out of Scripture and a sure inward experience, as we can to our doctrine and preaching.”[1439]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 250. “An Exposition of the Christian Faith,” 1537. Before this: “This is to have the Holy Ghost, when we experience in our hearts the Creation and Redemption.” “The Pope and his people do not feel this in their hearts.”[1440]“All the articles which he believed he had repeatedly drawn from Scripture.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 500; Erl. ed., 30, p. 363. “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.[1441]“Lehrb. der DG.,” part 2, Erlangen, 1898, p. 289 f.[1442]Seeberg refers to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 413 f., 346 f.; 9¹, p. 29 ff.; 13¹, p. 221 f.; 20¹, p. 297 f.[1443]Reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 249, 267; 20¹, p. 148.[1444]Weim. ed., 6, p. 561; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 302.[1445]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 219=6, p. 444: “Hic dicent: Si singulorum est ius iudicandi et probandi, quis erit modus, si iudices dissenserint et unusquisque secundum suum caput iudicarit?” etc.[1446]Ibid., 18, p. 649 f.=7, p. 171. “De servo arbitrio.” Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 381.[1447]Hence his confession: “Credo ecclesiam sanctam catholicam, ut impossibile sit, illam errare etiam in minimo articulo.” “Werke,”ibid.[1448]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 39.[1449]Above, vol. iii., p. 401.[1450]Vol. iii., p. 400.[1451]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.[1452]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 389.[1453]“To the Christians at Antwerp” early in April, 1525. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 342; “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.[1454]Ibid., Erl. ed., 53, p. 343.[1455]Ibid., Weim. ed., 20, p. 571; Erl. ed., 41, p. 210.[1456]O. Scheel,ibid., pp. 38, 55. Cp. F. Loofs, above, p. 403, n. 1.[1457]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1902, No. 21, p. 576, review of H. Preuss, “Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther.”[1458]Above,passim.[1459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, pp. 85-88.[1460]P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 69. The booklet was written by Melanchthon but was certainly circulated with Luther’s approval.[1461]Wappler,ibid.[1462]Letter of Feb. or beginning of March, 1532, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 157).[1463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 50, Table-Talk, in connection with some words reported to have been uttered by Andreas Proles, which, however, were certainly meant by him in a different sense.[1464]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 632; Erl. ed., 27, p. 235.[1465]Ibid., 23, p. 69=30, p. 19 f.[1466]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 441. Here he says in his “Contra regem Angliæ”: “De doctrina cognoscere et iudicare pertinet ad omnes et singulos Christianos et ita pertinet, ut anathema sit, qui hoc ius uno pilo læserit.... Nunc autem (Christus) non solum ius, sed præceptum, iudicandi statuit, ut hæc sola auctoritas satis esse queat adversus omnium pontificum, omnium patrum, omnium conciliorum, omnium scholarum sententias.... Huic subscribunt ferme omnes omnium prophetarum syllabæ.... Habet hic Henricus noster aut ullus impurus Thomista, quod istis obganniat? Nonne obstruximus os loquentium iniqua?”[1467]Köstlin, “Luther’s Theol.,” 1², p. 379.[1468]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.[1469]Ibid., Weim. ed., 2, p. 429 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.[1470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 298, 299. Cp. above, p. 397, n. 1, also pp. 398 and 400, on the “iudicium interius.”[1471]The last words are from Scheel. See above, p. 392, n. 2, p. 76.[1472]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 580 ff.; Erl. ed., 36, p. 234 f.; 52, p. 392.[1473]Article 12. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343. G. Kawerau adds, when quoting this passage (Möller’s “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 104), “It is here, therefore, that the ‘Communion of Saints’ begins to become Luther’s confessional Church.”—The Articles of Schwabach, which were sent by Luther to the Elector after the Conference of Marburg (above, vol. iii., p. 381), probably on Oct. 7, 1529, were mainly intended to oppose the Zwinglians. It is when repudiating them, as non-Christians, that Luther puts forward the above conception of the Church.[1474]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 252 ff., in the preface to his edition of these Creeds, and the “Te Deum,” 1538.[1475]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505.[1476]Scheel,ibid., p. 75.[1477]Above, vol. iii., p. 21.[1478]Vol. i., p. 58.[1479]P. 459.[1480]P. 440.
[1281]“Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 2, p. 632: “en los ojos no ben señalado.”
[1282]According to Myconius, “Historia Reformationis,” p. 30sq.(written after 1541). Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 97: “Cardinalis Augustæ dixit de me: iste frater habet profundos oculos, ideo et mirabiles phantasias in capite habet.”
[1283]Pollich’s remark (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 154, from Rebenstock) has been characterised quite wrongly by O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 2, 1878, p. 627) as spurious and a late interpollation. As a matter of fact it had merely been excluded from the Table-Talk by Aurifaber; see Seidemann in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, 1879, p. 305. Cp. vol. i., p. 86, n. 5.
[1284]Above, vol. i., p. 86.
[1285]Letter of Aug. 8, 1523, in Hipler, “Nikolaus Kopernikus und Luther,” 1868, p. 73. Höfler, “Adrian VI,” p. 320, n. 2, quotes a remark of Dantiscus on Luther: “affirmans eum esse dæmoniacum.” Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 194, n. 3.
[1286]“Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.
[1287]He refers simply to what he knew from some of Luther’s intimate friends “concerning his birth and past life up to the time of his becoming a monk.”
[1288]In his Exposition of the Ten Commandments, published in 1518 and frequently reprinted during his lifetime, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 407; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 18: “Among the devils there are ‘incubi’ and ‘succubi,’ of which I shall speak more fully immediately,” which he then proceeds to do. The children are, according to him, abortions. According to a statement in the Table-Talk, however, they were “devils with bodies like the mother’s,” or stolen children, or changelings, like one he wished to have drowned because the devil constituted the soul in its body (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6O, pp. 37-42). In his exposition of Genesis (cap. vi.) Luther admits the existence and activity of the said “incubi.” He declares he had heard from many persons credible instances and had himself met with such (!), and even appeals to St. Augustine (“Hoc negare impudentiæ videtur,” “De civ. Dei,” 15, c. 23); he remarks, however, that it was altogether false to believe that “anything could be born of a union of devil and man”; on the contrary, those taken for the devil’s offspring, some of whom he had seen, had either been distorted by the devil though not actually begotten by him, or were real devils who had either assumed flesh in appearance or borrowed it elsewhere with the devil’s help. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 127. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” Freiburg, 1910, p. 35 f.
[1289]“Commentaria,” p. 2: “sive ex occulto aliquo cum dæmone commercio.”
[1290]The writing in question, “Ein Maulstreich,” etc., is not by Cochlæus but by Paul Bachmann. See above, p. 352, n. 3.
[1291]Paulus (p. 356, n. 3), p. 63 f., from Sylvius, “Zwei neugedruckte Büchlein,” 1533, p. 3´, and “Die letzten zwei Büchlein,” 1534. Cp. also his work of 1531, “Ein besonder nützliches ... Büchlein.”
[1292]Friedensburg (above, p. 356, n. 6), p. 554.
[1293]Letter to Bartholomew Golsibius, in Weller, “Altes aus allen Theilen der Gesch.,” 1, p. 178. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 133.
[1294]Letter to Nicholas Œcander; Weller,ibid., 2, p. 780 f.; Döllinger,ibid., 135.
[1295]“Epistolæ,” ed. Riegger, Ulmæ, 1774, p. 72. Döllinger,ibid., p. 178.
[1296]R. Stintzing, “Ulrich Zasius,” Basle, 1857, p. 230, from the letter of Zasius to Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521. “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.
[1297]Stintzing,ibid.
[1298]Ibid., p. 97. Döllinger,ibid., p. 179.
[1299]On March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.
[1300]“Retectio,” Hbseq.Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 57 f.
[1301]Ibid., G 2b: “cepit omnium animos mirus pavor,” etc. Döllinger,ibid., p. 61.
[1302]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.
[1303]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159.
[1304]Ibid., p. 161 f.
[1305]Ibid., p. 147.
[1306]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 323.
[1307]See A. Räss, “Die Convertiten seit der Reformation,” 1, 1866, where the “Apologia” is reprinted, p. 184. Cp. Wicel’s remarks above, p. 165 f.
[1308]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 117; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 420 f.
[1309]“Werke,”ibid.
[1310]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.
[1311]On Feb. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 629.
[1312]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 342.
[1313]Ibid.
[1314]“Præcipuæ constitutiones Caroli M.,” etc., Ingolst., 1545, præf. f. A 3a, A 8a; Döllinger,ibid., 1, p. 160.
[1315]“Comment.,” p. 1.
[1316]Ibid., p. 56.
[1317]N. Paulus, “Johann Wild” (3. “Vereinsschr. der Görres-Ges.,” 1893), p. 15.
[1318]Ibid.
[1319]Ibid., p. 34.
[1320]Ibid., p. 35.
[1321]Ibid., p. 40.
[1322]Ibid., p. 13 f.
[1323]“Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 450-455; Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 6, p. 152 f.
[1324]Janssen,ibid., p. 264 f.
[1325]Ibid., p. 264 f. Passages taken from Luther’s writing, “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 282 ff.
[1326]On May 29, 1545. Janssen,ibid., p. 286 f.
[1327]Hortleder, “Von Rechtmässigkeit usw. Karls V.,” 1645, p. 486 ff. Janssen,ibid., p. 288.
[1328]M. J. Schmidt, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 1, 1785, p. 23 f. Janssen,ibid.
[1329]See above,passim.
[1330]See, for instance, above, pp. 96 ff., 102 ff.
[1331]Vol. ii., p. 48.
[1332]“Transfiguratur coram te satanas ille in angelum lucis.” The text in Raynaldus, “Annales eccles.,” ann. 1522, n. 72.
[1333]At the end of the second series of Theses (“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., “Opp. lat var.,” 1, p. 312) occur the words, “bestia, quæ montem tetigerit,” the sole quotation from that sort of biblical language mentioned above.
[1334]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.
[1335]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 1, p. 484 ff.
[1336]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 380 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 10 ff.
[1337]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 345.
[1338]Ibid., p. 368.
[1339]Ibid., p. 370.
[1340]Ibid., p. 351.
[1341]Ibid., p. 365.
[1342]Ibid., 2, p. 1seq.
[1343]Ibid., p. 68seq.
[1344]Ibid., p. 81seq.
[1345]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 50; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 68.
[1346]Ibid., 6, pp. 328-348=2, pp. 79-108. See the actual words in our vol. ii., p. 12 f. Cp. vol. i., p. 338 f., for the first interchange of amenities between the two champions.
[1347]In W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 215.
[1348]G. Kawerau (“Hieronymus Emser,” 1898, p. 2) remarks that it must be admitted of Emser, “that he was an honest curmudgeon, averse to all subterfuge and pretence, amazingly frank in his admissions concerning himself, and, in controversy, very rude. Only rarely do we see him departing from this frankness.”
[1349]“KL.,” 4², col. 483.
[1350]“Lutheri Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 410.
[1351]Ibid., p. 408, in the editor’s Introduction to the “Asterisks” and “Obelisks.”
[1352]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 281; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 411.
[1353]“Enchiridion,” Ingolst., 1556, f. 167, 167´. In the prefatory letter of dedication to Cardinal Farnese, Eck expresses himself in his usual manner against the ill-advised attempts of Catholics at mediation: “Hinc parum profecit conventus Ratisponensis(1541)in causa fidei et plurimorum fidelium exspectationem fefellit.”—In the matter of religious conferences and disputations Eck had ripe experience on his side. Though once very ready to accept a challenge to dispute, he nevertheless wrote later in the “Enchiridion” concerning controversies with heretics: “Hæretici non quærunt disputationem nisi multis malitiis involutam.... Fraudulenter obtendunt disputare non coram doctis et literatis ac in theologia exercitatis, sed coram indoctis, vulgaribus laicis”; the learned men at the Universities would otherwise have already tackled Luther. After mentioning the other disadvantages of the disputations he concludes: “Catholici ergo debent vitare disputationem cum huiusmodi” (ibid., p. 163seq.).
[1354]The state of his Ingolstadt parish and Eck’s pastoral labours have recently been placed in a clear and favourable light by J. Greving in his “Johann Ecks Pfarrbuch,” 1908 (“RGl. Stud. und Texte,” Hft. 4-5).
[1355]See above, p. 258.
[1356]“Z. f. preuss. Gesch.,” 5, p. 481.
[1357]“Septiceps Lutherus, ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius, in visitationem Saxonicam editus,” Dresdæ, 1529; in part repeated in the “Commentaria,” 1549, F. 196 C.
[1358]Cp.ibid., F. III´seq.: “Non ex Deo sed ex diabolo esse tantam in doctrina dissensionem.... Cucullatus draco iste noster,” etc.—M. Spahn, “Joh. Cochläus,” Berlin, 1898.
[1359]N. Paulus, “Katholik,” 1894, 2, p. 571 ff.
[1360]N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 78.
[1361]Ibid., p. 258.
[1362]Ibid., p. 315.
[1363]N. Paulus, “Schatzgeyer,” 1898; “Hoffmeister,” 1891; A. Postina, “Billick,” 1901.
[1364]J. Negwer, “Conrad Wimpina,” Breslau, 1909 (in “KGl. Abh.”)
[1365]Karl Goedeke, Introd. to his edition of Murner’s “Narrenbeschwörung,” Leipzig, 1879. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 333.
[1366]Goedeke,ibid.
[1367]“Memoriale B. Petri Faber,” ed. Marc. Bouix, Paris, 1873, pp. 378, 370.
[1368]Dan. Bartoli, “Opere,” 5, Torino, 1825, pp. 110, 116. Cp. B. Duhr, “Gesch. der Jesuiten,” etc., 1, 1907, 3 ff. Not all the members of the Order to which Favre and Canisius belonged were faithful to Favre’s principles in the controversy against Luther and his teaching, particularly during the excited polemics of the 17th century. Many, at their own costs, disregarded those laws of urbanity which Bellarmine, for instance, ever respected in his controversial writings. Such was the case, for instance, with Conrad Vetter, † 1622 (K. A. J. Andreæ).
[1369]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 404; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 247. He refers to Panormitanus, “De elect.,” c. Significasti.
[1370]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 18 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 385seq.
[1371]Ibid., p. 288=p. 75.
[1372]Ibid., p. 303=p. 97seq.: “Concilium aliquando errasse, præsertim in iis quæ non sunt fidei.” Cp. the following: “conciliorum statuta in iis quæ sunt fidei, sunt omnimodo amplectenda.”
[1373]Letter of Aug. 18, 1519, “Briefe,” 1, p. 315; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 19 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 12). At Worms in 1521 he had declared in this same sense, that he would not submit, “nisi convictus fuero testimoniis scripturarum aut ratione evidente; nam neque papæ neque conciliis solis credo, cum constet eos et errasse sæpius et sibi ipsis contradixisse; victus sum scripturis a me adductis et capta conscientia in verbis Dei.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 883; cp. p. 853.—He writes emphatically in reply to King Henry VIII (see p. 391): “Ego vero adversus dicta patrum, hominum, angelorum, dæmonum pono non antiquum usum, non multitudinem hominum, sed unius maiestatis æternæ verbum, evangelium.... Dei verbum est super omnia.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 214 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 437.
[1374]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.
[1375]Ibid., p. 425=p. 278.
[1376]Ibid., p. 324=p. 131.
[1377]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 359; Erl. ed., 16², p. 446.
[1378]Ibid., 11, p. 409=22, p. 143.
[1379]Ibid., 8, p. 484 f.=28, p. 32.
[1380]Ibid., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff.
[1381]In his “Com. in Ep. ad. Galatas,” 1, p. 104.
[1382]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 383 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 11.
[1383]Ibid., p. 385 = 13.
[1384]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 256 f.=28, p. 379 f.
[1385]Ibid., p. 90=340. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden,” 1522.
[1386]Ibid., p. 90=341. See below, Luther’s denial of the Augustinian “Non crederem evangelio,” etc.
[1387]Otto Scheel, “Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift,” Tübingen, 1902 (“Sammlung gemeinverständl. Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol. und RG.,” No. 29), p. 38 (on p. 37 the last quotation is also given with an incorrect reference) and p. 41 f.
[1388]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 489; Erl. ed., 29, p. 334. “Sermon von dem Sacrament,” 1526.
[1389]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 565: “Quod est eius opus? Quoddrive into the heartprædicationem Christi, qui nonfails. Christ failed,quia multis prædicaverit et nihil effecit; Spiritus sanctuspresses the wordin cor.... Si etiama hundred thousandverbum prædicatur, nihil facit; cum Spiritus sanctus hoc suum officium facit, tumit makes its way.”
[1390]Cp. above, vol. iii., pp. 12 ff., 398.
[1391]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 181; Erl. ed., 29, p. 260.
[1392]Ibid., p. 137=209 (“Widder die hymelischen Propheten”): “Do you see how the devil, the enemy of divine order, opens his mouth at you with the words, ‘spirit, spirit, spirit’?” etc.
[1393]Ibid., p. 180=258.
[1394]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 85.
[1395]Ibid., Weim. ed., 15, p. 42; Erl. ed., 22, p. 187. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands, das sie christliche Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen,” 1524.
[1396]Ibid., p. 39=184.
[1397]At the German Protestant Congress at Berlin in 1904, Dr. Max Fischer of Berlin appealed to the above writing of Luther’s as a proof that the latter had relinquished his idea of the Bible being in the hands of each individual the sole source of doctrine. “That this, as a foundation of all doctrine, is impossible in Protestantism,” he said, speaking from his standpoint, “has long been admitted, and we have simply to bear in mind how Protestant theology has come to examine freely, not only the contents of the Bible, but the Bible itself. Theology has no rights other than those enjoyed by any other branch of worldly learning.” In the sequel the writer declared himself against the Divinity of Christ and any set system of doctrine. According to him particular doctrines, even those of the Apostles’ Creed, were of no importance. “He has all the faith required who makes his faith for himself.” (See the report of the discourse in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 834.) We may compare this principle with Luther’s own on freedom. The same principles were recently invoked in the case of the Protestant Pastor Jatho of Cologne, when he was charged with being an unbeliever. On his dismissal from office his friends declared that “a chain had been riveted on free and unbiassed research in Prussian Protestantism, and that the official representatives of Protestantism had banned that spirit of personal Christianity which once had impelled Luther to nail up his Theses to the door of the Castle-church at Wittenberg.” (“Köln. Ztng.,” 1911, No. 712; cp. “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 545.) During the trial Jatho, too, had appealed to his “inward experience” and personal knowledge. (“Köln. Volksztng.,” 1911, No. 592.)
[1398]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 236; Erl. ed., 39, p. 133.
[1399]Ibid., Weim. ed., 18, p. 606=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 124. “De servo arbitrio.”
[1400]Ibid., 7, p. 317=24, p. 58.
[1401]Ibid., 7, p. 97=“Opp. lat. var,” 5, p. 161.
[1402]Ibid., Erl. ed., 57, p. 16, Table-Talk.
[1403]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 75; Erl. ed., 30, p. 22.
[1404]Ibid.
[1405]Sermon of Aug. 2, 1528. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 287.
[1406]On Dec. 23, 1526, he said in his afternoon sermon, speaking of the sermon that morning: “Hodie dixi, biblia esse hæresium librum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 624. And as a matter of fact the notes contain the passage,ibid., 20, p. 588.
[1407]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 362.
[1408]Ibid., p. 360.
[1409]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 144.
[1410]“With reference to this Luther declares (‘De servo arbitrio’): In the words of Scripture which lie open to us and all the world, no one, owing to the darkening of the mind, is able to discern the smallest iota so long as he has not the Spirit of God; no one possesses the inner sense or the true knowledge requisite—‘nihil horum sentiunt aut vere cognoscunt’—no one believes that God exists and that he is His creature. For him the ‘iudicium interius,’ in the Christian who has attained to the true light and his salvation through the Spirit of God, consists in being able to test with certainty all doctrines and beliefs (1 Cor. ii. 15). This individual judgment is essential for every Christian and for his faith; it does not, however, profit others: For them the ‘exterius iudicium’ is intended, which is exercised by the preacher of the Word.” Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 380.
[1411]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 145; Erl. ed., 47, p. 353. From Notes of the Sermon published in 1564.
[1412]Ibid., p. 161=367; cp. p. 165=371.
[1413]P. 148=356.
[1414]P. 152=360.
[1415]P. 150=358.
[1416]P. 152=359.
[1417]P. 146=354.
[1418]P. 148=356.
[1419]Ibid., Erl. ed., 5², p. 251, Hauspostille. Sermon of 1533.
[1420]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 313, “Enarr. in Genes.”
[1421]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the second part of the first complete edition of his works (compiled from his writings).
[1422]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 36.
[1423]Köstlin,ibid., and p. 15, 30.
[1424]Ibid., p. 35.
[1425]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 23 f., where Luther says, the predictions of the prophets (or of the Apocalypse) concerning wars, the Kings, etc., were “things pleasing to the inquisitive ... but were unnecessary prophecies, for they neither taught nor furthered the Christian faith”; in those prophecies “concerning Kings and worldly events” the Prophets had “often been wrong.”
[1426]Thus O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 67 f.
[1427]“Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas ... qua infirmata iam nec evangelio credere potero.” “Contra epistolam fundamenti Manichæorum,” c. 5.
[1428]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 429-432; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 284-288. “Resol. super propos. Lipsienses.”
[1429]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 90; Erl. ed., 28, p. 341.
[1430]According to Köstlin (“Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 10 ff.), it was only the orthodox Lutherans after his day who developed this into the doctrine of the “testimonium Spiritus Sancti,” which assures every reader of the canonicity of the books of the Bible. In reality, however, Luther himself already stood for this “testimonium.” Thanks to it he judged of the relative importance of the Sacred Books and only “allowed himself to be determined by the spirit speaking to him out of them.” Thus Köstlin himself, 1², p. 319.
[1431]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 325; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 131: “Non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libra, quam per se ipsum habeat.” The question, however, was who was to attest this authority.
[1432]See our vol. v., xxxiv., 3.
[1433]O. Scheel (above, p. 392, n. 2), p. 47, after having instanced Luther’s adverse criticism of the Epistle of St. James and the prophetical books, remarks: “He took exception to the Epistle of Jude, to Hebrews and to the Apocalypse. The Book of Esther deserved no place in the Canon any more than the second Book of Machabees, though the first was worthy of canonisation. [It was, as Luther says in the Preface to his German translation of it (Erl. ed., 63, p. 104), ‘not unworthy of being included amongst the sacred writings of the Hebrews,’ because in the history of Antiochus it gives us a picture of the fall of the real Antichrist, viz. Popery!] Luther makes a distinction even between the books he does not impugn. Of the Pauline writings he gives the first place to Romans, just as he places St. John’s first among the Gospels. He esteems the synoptics less highly because they record the works and deeds of Christ and not the message of righteousness by grace.” Scheel notes (p. 49 f.), that Luther’s criticism was based, not on learned historical arguments, but on the “religious stimulus” these writings supplied, viz. on the extent to which they might prove of service to his doctrine, i.e. on “inward considerations.” “The fact that the Epistle of James says nothing of Christ and Justification by grace was ground enough for Luther to reject it. Analogous is the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews.... From all this it is evident how much Luther placed religious criticism in the foreground and what secondary importance he attached to historical criticism.” He cares little whether a writing is apostolic or not; what he wants to know is whether its contents agree with what he has perceived to be the kernel of Scripture. “He did not even shrink from impugning the authority of the Apostles in favour of a higher standard” (p. 52). Scheel then deals with the statements more favourable to Luther made by J. Kunze (“Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift und Taufbekenntnis,” Leipzig, 1899, pp. 509, 521) and H. Preuss (“Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther bis zur Leipziger Disputation,” Leipzig, 1901, p. 99). “With Luther’s independent criticism of Scripture,” he says (p. 64 f.), “the assumption of the inspiration of Scripture hardly agrees.... Kunze also denies that the effect of the mediæval doctrine of inspiration appears at all in Luther; the belief that the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost should not be identified with the doctrine of inspiration in its concrete and historical shape.” True enough Kunze admits (p. 504, n. 1) “some after-effects” of that doctrine upon Luther, but the question is “how such after-effects were compatible with the uniform theory of Scripture,” which he finds in Luther. On the consistency of Luther’s theory, see Scheel’s remarks below, p. 407.—Adolf Harnack repeatedly declares, that Luther’s attitude towards the Bible was characterised by “flagrant contradictions” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], pp. 868, 878; cp. pp. 771 f., 791 f.), because his criticism “demolished the external authority of the written Word.”—Of Luther’s treatment of the Apocalypse, G. Arnold, the spokesman and historian of the Pietists, complains in his Church History (Frankfurt edition, vol. ii., 1699, p. 39); he said of it “very much what all the fanatics said, viz. that each one might believe concerning it what his Spirit inspired him with; his [Luther’s] Spirit could not agree with the book, and the fact that Christ was neither taught nor recognised in it was sufficient for him not to esteem it highly.” Arnold also complains that, in the Preface to the Apocalypse (“now usually omitted”), Luther says, “that it was too bad of John to command and threaten about this book,” etc.; the book, according to Luther, was neither apostolic nor prophetical, indeed not by the Holy Ghost at all, seeing that it did not treat of faith or Christian doctrine but merely of history.
[1434]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 29.
[1435]F. Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 747) says that Luther reintroduced the Catholic ideas he had “vanquished,” and made this “burden in Protestantism heavier than it had ever been before.” Cp. above, p. 398 f.
[1436]Jan. 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.
[1437]Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 52.
[1438]In this remarkable passage of his exposition of 1 Cor. xv. (1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, pp. 102-104), he exhorts all to “hold fast to the doctrine and preaching for which we have both sure Scripture and also inward experience. These should be the two witnesses and the two test-stones of true doctrine.” He here inveighs against the fanatics because they taught, “what not one of them had experienced,” “an uncertain delusion of which not one of them had had any experience.” “None of the fanatics are able to prove their contention either by their own experience or by that of others.” Of himself, however, he could say: “I have experienced it; for I too was once a pious monk,” etc.; then follows the legend of his life in the monastery and of how, before his discovery of the sense of the text on which his new teaching rested, he had never known what it was to have a “gracious God.” “Hence, whoever wishes not to err, let him look to these two points, whether he is able to bear witness to his doctrine out of Scripture and a sure inward experience, as we can to our doctrine and preaching.”
[1439]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 250. “An Exposition of the Christian Faith,” 1537. Before this: “This is to have the Holy Ghost, when we experience in our hearts the Creation and Redemption.” “The Pope and his people do not feel this in their hearts.”
[1440]“All the articles which he believed he had repeatedly drawn from Scripture.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 500; Erl. ed., 30, p. 363. “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.
[1441]“Lehrb. der DG.,” part 2, Erlangen, 1898, p. 289 f.
[1442]Seeberg refers to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 413 f., 346 f.; 9¹, p. 29 ff.; 13¹, p. 221 f.; 20¹, p. 297 f.
[1443]Reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 249, 267; 20¹, p. 148.
[1444]Weim. ed., 6, p. 561; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 102. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 302.
[1445]Ibid., 10, 2, p. 219=6, p. 444: “Hic dicent: Si singulorum est ius iudicandi et probandi, quis erit modus, si iudices dissenserint et unusquisque secundum suum caput iudicarit?” etc.
[1446]Ibid., 18, p. 649 f.=7, p. 171. “De servo arbitrio.” Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 381.
[1447]Hence his confession: “Credo ecclesiam sanctam catholicam, ut impossibile sit, illam errare etiam in minimo articulo.” “Werke,”ibid.
[1448]Köstlin,ibid., 2², p. 39.
[1449]Above, vol. iii., p. 401.
[1450]Vol. iii., p. 400.
[1451]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.
[1452]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 389.
[1453]“To the Christians at Antwerp” early in April, 1525. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 342; “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.
[1454]Ibid., Erl. ed., 53, p. 343.
[1455]Ibid., Weim. ed., 20, p. 571; Erl. ed., 41, p. 210.
[1456]O. Scheel,ibid., pp. 38, 55. Cp. F. Loofs, above, p. 403, n. 1.
[1457]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1902, No. 21, p. 576, review of H. Preuss, “Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther.”
[1458]Above,passim.
[1459]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, pp. 85-88.
[1460]P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 69. The booklet was written by Melanchthon but was certainly circulated with Luther’s approval.
[1461]Wappler,ibid.
[1462]Letter of Feb. or beginning of March, 1532, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 157).
[1463]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 50, Table-Talk, in connection with some words reported to have been uttered by Andreas Proles, which, however, were certainly meant by him in a different sense.
[1464]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 632; Erl. ed., 27, p. 235.
[1465]Ibid., 23, p. 69=30, p. 19 f.
[1466]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 441. Here he says in his “Contra regem Angliæ”: “De doctrina cognoscere et iudicare pertinet ad omnes et singulos Christianos et ita pertinet, ut anathema sit, qui hoc ius uno pilo læserit.... Nunc autem (Christus) non solum ius, sed præceptum, iudicandi statuit, ut hæc sola auctoritas satis esse queat adversus omnium pontificum, omnium patrum, omnium conciliorum, omnium scholarum sententias.... Huic subscribunt ferme omnes omnium prophetarum syllabæ.... Habet hic Henricus noster aut ullus impurus Thomista, quod istis obganniat? Nonne obstruximus os loquentium iniqua?”
[1467]Köstlin, “Luther’s Theol.,” 1², p. 379.
[1468]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.
[1469]Ibid., Weim. ed., 2, p. 429 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.
[1470]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 298, 299. Cp. above, p. 397, n. 1, also pp. 398 and 400, on the “iudicium interius.”
[1471]The last words are from Scheel. See above, p. 392, n. 2, p. 76.
[1472]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 580 ff.; Erl. ed., 36, p. 234 f.; 52, p. 392.
[1473]Article 12. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343. G. Kawerau adds, when quoting this passage (Möller’s “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 104), “It is here, therefore, that the ‘Communion of Saints’ begins to become Luther’s confessional Church.”—The Articles of Schwabach, which were sent by Luther to the Elector after the Conference of Marburg (above, vol. iii., p. 381), probably on Oct. 7, 1529, were mainly intended to oppose the Zwinglians. It is when repudiating them, as non-Christians, that Luther puts forward the above conception of the Church.
[1474]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 252 ff., in the preface to his edition of these Creeds, and the “Te Deum,” 1538.
[1475]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505.
[1476]Scheel,ibid., p. 75.
[1477]Above, vol. iii., p. 21.
[1478]Vol. i., p. 58.
[1479]P. 459.
[1480]P. 440.