[1694]Ibid., n. 14.[1695]Art. 6. Cp. Art. 20. “Symbolische Bücher,”10pp. 40, 44.[1696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 32; Erl. ed., 27, p. 191, “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.”[1697]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 11. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 7.[1698]Cp. above 472 f., 210, 194 f., andpassim. To supplement what he there says on the scarcity and smallness of contributions towards Divine worship and preaching we may add two other utterances of Luther’s given by Möhler (“KG.,” 3. pp. 149 and 160): Nobles, burghers and peasants were all intent on letting the clergy starve that the Evangel might cease to be proclaimed.—“Unless something is done soon, there will be an end in this land to Evangel, pastors and schools; they will have to run away, for they have nothing, and go about looking like haggard ghosts.”[1699]Mayence, 1509, Bl. 7.[1700]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25² (where the whole of the Duke’s reply is printed), p. 144.[1701]S. Riezler, “Gesch. Bayerns,” 3, 1889, p. 809.[1702]R. Wackernagel (“Basler Zeitschr. f. Gesch.,” 2, 1903, p. 181).[1703]Dietrich, “Über Gesch. der Krankenpflege” in Liebe-Jacobsohn-Meyer, “Hdb. der Krankenversorgung und Krankenpflege,” 1, Berlin, 1899, p. 47 ff.[1704]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 409 ff. (from notes).[1705]Ibid.24, p. 454 (from notes).[1706]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 283; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 425 f., Table-Talk.[1707]A. Harnack, “Dogmengesch.,” 3³, p. 733 ff.; 3^[4], p. 819 ff.[1708]See above, vol. iii., p. 5 ff.[1709]“DG.,” 3^[4], p. 811.[1710]P. 684, n. 1.[1711]P. 895.[1712]P. 811. Carl Müller, “ Preuss. Jah..,” 63, Hft, 2, p. 147.[1713]“DG.,” 3³, p. 616 (omitted in the 4th edition).[1714]Ibid., p. 808, and 3^[4], p. 896 f.[1715]3^[4], p. 857 f.[1716]Vol. 1², p. 213 ff.[1717]Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” 30. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 10 f.[1718]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 237 f.[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 170, “Wider die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.”[1720]To Melanchthon from the Wartburg, Jan. 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 273 f. Because reason is “diametrically opposed to faith” and gleams only like “a smudge on a lantern” (p. 156), people, so he says, “would believe better were they a little less reasonable” (p. 162). But “even though it were true, which it is not,” and even were we to allow that infants do not believe at all, are without reason and cannot grasp the Word of God, would their baptism therefore “be wrong”? Even then it would have its value.[1721]P. 256.[1722]Vol. 17, No. 2.[1723]“Deutsch-Ev. Bl.,” 32, 1907, p. 651 ff.Ibid., p. 713 ff.[1724]P. 651.[1725]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 162. Cp. Rietschel,ibid., p. 274.[1726]P. 653.[1727]P. 717.[1728]Vol. 18, 1908, p. 148.[1729]The better to understand the strange (though by no means unique) attitude of this professor of theology, see the “Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, pp. 228 ff., 389 ff., and more particularly 74 ff., where he defends his proposals for the remedy of the “lamentable state of present-day Protestantism”; also 17, 1907, pp. 1 ff., 315 ff.—On the above question see also Ernst Bunge, “Der Lehrstreit über die Kindertaufe innerhalb der Lutherischen Kirche,” Cassel, 1900, with Preface by Ad. Stöcker.[1730]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 398 ff.[1731]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371 in “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.[1732]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 173: “Widder die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.” Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 247.[1733]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 507; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371. Cp. p. 582 ff.[1734]Ibid., p. 508=371. In the passage, Erl. ed., 21, p. 140, immediately after the portion of the sentence cited by Köstlin: “The third sacrament which has been called Penance,” there follows: “Which is nothing else but baptism; for,” etc.[1735]Dec. 15, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 394; Erl. ed., 53, p. 274 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). On the pair, see Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 412.[1736]P. 393 f.=273 f.[1737]Above, p. 410.[1738]K. Jäger (“Luthers religiöses Interesse an seiner Lehre von der Realpräsenz,” Giessen, 1900) examines the writings dating from the period previous to the Sacramentarian controversy and rightly comes to the conclusion, first, that Luther had above all an ethical interest in regarding as he did the Sacrament of the Altar as a means of strengthening faith by making known the redeeming death of Christ; secondly, that he held fast to the Real Presence on the strength of the traditional faith of the Church without going any deeper into its grounds. Faith in the Real Presence was, however, no suitable means of strengthening the certainty of salvation, because the Presence there does not appeal to the senses nor does it serve as a sign of the forgiveness of sins as Luther supposed. To postulate it primarily on the authority of the Church was to contradict the principles of Lutheranism.—P. 27: According to Luther, by partaking of it we are to be convinced in a “peculiarly vivid and lively manner of God’s Grace.” The partaking of these “signs” was, according to Luther, necessary for us, “because we are still living in sin and our certainty of salvation is ever exposed to attack, and it is useful or suitable because here the Grace of God is offered to each man in a manner that appeals to the senses. Thus the assurance arising from sensible perception is to serve to strengthen and support religious certainty of salvation.” “This is the sole religious importance that can be attributed to the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ.” Nevertheless, “from that very point of view of the religious interest involved in the Supper, which we have seen above to be Luther’s main concern (p. 28), we are forced to deny the Real Presence.” “What is to strengthen our faith in God’s grace must not itself be the object of faith, but, as is evident, must force itself upon our mind by a higher certainty, or to speak more correctly, by a clearer certainty, such as attaches to sensible perception.... A fact which in the last instance itself calls for confirmation, and which in every instance is perceptible only to faith, cannot reasonably serve to support another fact which is of the utmost importance to our life of faith.”[1739]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 143; Erl. ed., 30, p. 65, in the writing “Das diese Wort Christi ‘Das ist mein Leib etce.,’ noch fest stehen.” 1527.[1740]Ibid., p. 151=69.[1741]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.[1742]See the passages of Buchholzer and Trabe, two Protestants, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 694.[1743]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.[1744]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.[1745]Cp., the reprint in Köstlin-Kawerau.[1746]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.[1747]F. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4] p. 863.[1748]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 9, p. 831 ff.; 10, p. 455 ff.[1749]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 147 ff.: “I, innocent man, am made the devil’s scavenger.... There was really no need so to defame my beloved book behind my back.”[1750]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 15.[1751]Above, vol. iii., p. 346 ff.[1752]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 696: Erl. ed., 21, p. 272. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², pp. 253, 371.[1753]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 71 f.[1754]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 372.[1755]To the Provost, Canons and whole Wittenberg Chapter, Aug. 19, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 212: “Quamvis privato affectui spiritualis viri indulgendum sit, tamen manifestam et publicam religionem in his tolerare non licet propter scandalum ignorantium et infirmorum, qui relicta fide huc adfluunt.”[1756]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 119 ff. Cp. “Conf. Aug.,” art. 21, and “Apol.,” ad art. 21. Below, p. 501.[1757]Pars II. art. 2, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 305.[1758]Ibid., 7, pp. 575=45, p. 252. Exposition of the Magnificat.[1759]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 313=15², p. 495. Church-postils, Sermon on Mary’s Nativity.[1760]Ibid., 1, p. 79=“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 118. Sermon on the Assumption, Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 86.[1761]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 107; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 150.[1762]Above, p. 238, n. 1.[1763]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 433.[1764]Ibid., 19², p. 29 ff.; 37, p. 71. Köstlin,ibid., 2, p. 135.[1765]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 7², p. 276.[1766]Ibid., 20², 2, pp. 530-532.[1767]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, pp. 568, 573 f.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 245, 250 f.[1768]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 574 f.[1769]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 59 f. On March 11, 1523.[1770]Müller-Kolde, “Symb. Bücher,”10p. 227.[1771]“Hom. de temp.,” Aug. Vindel., 1533 (“Opp.,” tom. 5, pars 1), fol. 55´.[1772]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 113 ff; Erl. ed., 15², p. 495 f.[1773]Ibid., p. 321 f. = 499.[1774]Ibid., p. 325 = 501.[1775]Müller-Kolde,ibid., p. 303.[1776]K. Hase, “Hdb. der prot. Polemik,” Buch 2, Kapitel 6: “Most mortals are too good for hell, but assuredly not good enough for heaven. We may as well openly admit that there is something not quite clear here in the Protestantism of the Reformation.”[1777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 555; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 177. Resolutions on the Indulgence Theses. Thesis 15.[1778]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1779]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 13², p. 2 ff.; 15², p. 521; 17², p. 55.[1780]In the “Bekentnis” also,ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; in Erl. ed., 30, p. 370, prayer for the dead is left optional.[1781]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 184 ff.[1782]That a sacrifice had been made of the Mass appeared to him “Idolatry and a shameful abuse,” a “twofold impiety and abomination”; its abomination no tongue could express. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 489, 493; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 38, 45 f.; 60, pp. 403 f., 396.[1783]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 243. There were, however, always some voices raised amongst Protestants to demand that the “Sacrifice and Atonement” under some shape or form should be insisted on more than the sermon. The Presence of Christ, as taught by Luther, although this Presence did not involve a sacrifice, was made use of to oppose any further denuding of worship. “No longer is the Sacrifice and the Atonement which takes place at the Altar to be the centre of Divine worship,” Pastor E. Strack wrote in 1904, in “Der alte Glaube,” 1903-4, 5, col. 1255, “but, according to modern views, God is merely present in the listening congregation by virtue of the Word preached from the pulpit. Hence the pulpit becomes the central point, the altar an accessory. To this we cannot agree. Without atonement we have no God; hence no altar either ... and no pulpit.”[1784]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 24: “Stante missa Lutherus est damnatus, ruente missa totum fundamentum papæ corruit.”[1785]Ibid., p. 19: “nam ego toto pectore illam adorabam.” But cp. below, p. 509, n. 2.[1786]Above, vol. i., p. 275.[1787]Ibid., p. 276.[1788]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18.[1789]Cp. vol. i., p. 15 f. and, besides the references given there, a passage from George Rörer’s MS. of the Table-Talk, given by E. Kroker, “Archiv für RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 354, where Luther, in a paroxysm of terror at the words of the Canon “offero tibi Deo vivo æterno[sic],” says: “Sic perterrefiebam, ut ab altari discedere cogitabam, et fecissem, nisi me retinuisset meus præceptor, quia cogitavi: Who is He with Whom you are speaking? From that time forward I said Mass with terror, and I am thankful to God that He has released me from it.”[1790]On a solemn occasion, at the conclusion of his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” in 1528, he has it, that, though he had “spent his youth damnably,” yet his having been a monk and his having said Mass had been his greatest sins. See below, p. 524.[1791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 443 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, pp. 81, 83seq.[1792]Ibid., 2, p. 738 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 25 ff.[1793]Ibid., 6, p. 364 ff.=27, p. 155 ff.[1794]Aug. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208.[1795]Above, vol. iii., p. 194 ff.[1796]Vol. ii., pp. 88 f., 327 ff.[1797]To Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525. Cp. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 94.[1798]See vol. ii., p. 320.[1799]Ibid.[1800]Ibid., p. 328.[1801]On Rörer’s work and its connection with the writing mentioned, see Weim. ed., 18, p. 22 ff.[1802]F. Probst, “Die Liturgie der drei ersten Jahrh.,” 1870, p. 349 ff. P. Drews, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons der röm. Messe,” 1902, p. 39 ff. F. X. Funk, “Über den Kanon.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 24, 1903), pp. 62 ff., 283 ff. (against Drews). A. Baumstark, “Liturgia romana e liturgia dell’ esarcato, Origini del canon missæ romanæ,” 1904 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 25, 1904, p. 859; cp.,ibid., 31, 1910, p. 596). P. Drews, “Untersuchungen über die sog. klementinische Liturgie,” 1 Tl., 1907 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 166). N. Gihr, “Das hl. Messopfer”10, 1907.[1803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 119, in 1540.[1804]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 36; Erl. ed., 29, p. 132 f.[1805]Cp. vol. ii., p. 311.[1806]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 338. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 216 ff., 258 ff.[1807]Vol. ii., pp. 326 ff., 336 ff.[1808]After Köstlin (ibid., p. 340), who quotes from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 49 (Weim. ed., 8, p. 687 f.), Luther’s passage against the Princes, who allow everything to slide: they ought to draw the sword, not indeed to “put the priests to death,” but to “forbid by word and then put down by force whatever they do that is over or against the Gospel.”[1809]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 29; Erl. ed., 29, p. 124.[1810]Ibid., p. 33=129.[1811]“Auf Luthers Greuel wider die heilige Stillmess Antwort,” 1525.[1812]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 31; Erl. ed., 29, p. 126.[1813]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527.[1814]Cp. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 12, 1891, p. 776, where N. Paulus quotes for the first time a memorandum (1523) of Johann Staupitz against Stephen Agricola, which corroborates his statement mentioned before (ibid., p. 309 ff.), that Staupitz was quite Catholic in his views on matters of faith.[1815]“Antwort auf das ... Geschwetz M. Flaccii Illyrici,” 1558, p. 121 f. Quoted by Paulus,ibid., p. 776.[1816]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1578seq.Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 13 f.[1817]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 236.[1818]For this excellent work, which for the most part reproduces the lectures of Magister Egeling Becker, see A. Franz, “Die Messe im deutschen MA.,” Freiburg, 1902, pp. 542-554. The comprehensive “Expositio,” comprising 51 “signatures,” consists of 89 Lectures addressed to the clergy. Franz characterises it as “a work which, by its theological thoroughness and its moderately ascetical views, was calculated to promote learning amongst the clergy and render them more worthy of exercising their greatest and finest privilege” (p. 554).[1819]Lectio 85, F.[1820]Ibid.: “Quamvis autem semel oblatus est Christus in aperta carnis effigie, offertur nihilominus quotidie in altari velatus,” etc. Of the numerous witnesses to the ancient belief of the Church, Joh. Ernest Grabe notes in his Oxford edition of Irenæus (1702) with regard to a statement of his on this subject (4 c. 17, al. 33): “What Irenæus here teaches of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ignatius and Justin taught before him, and Tertullian and Cyprian after. It is clearly vouched for in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians.” “There is no doubt that Irenæus and the other Fathers, both those who had seen the Apostles, as well as their immediate successors, regarded the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law, and ... presented at the altar the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine to God the Father in order to figure the bloody Sacrifice which He Himself had offered on the cross in His flesh and Blood, and in order to obtain the fruits of His death for all for whom it was offered.” Gregory the Great taught with antiquity (Hom. 37 in Evang. c. 7): “Quoties ei (Deo) hostiam suæ passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus,” and in his Dialogues, which contributed greatly to the high esteem of Masses for the dead (we are here considering the doctrine, not the legends), he says of the Sacrifice of the Mass: “Hæc singulariter victima ab æterno interitu animam salvat, quæ illam nobis mortem Unigeniti per mysterium reparat.... Pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacræ oblationis immolatur” (“Dial.,” 4, 58; cf. 59). The well-known Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz wrote in his “Examen concilii Tridentini” (1565-1573), that it could not be denied that the Fathers, when speaking of the celebration of the Supper, make use of expressions descriptive of Sacrifice, such as “sacrificium,” “immolatio,” “oblatio,” “hostia,” “victima,” “offerre,” “sacrificare,” “immolare” (t. 2, p. 782). Cp. J. Döllinger, “Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrh.,” 1826. J. A. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §§ 34 and 35.[1821]Lectio 85, under L.: “Si eos dispositos inveniat, eis gratiam obtinet virtute illius unius sacrificii, a quo omnis gratia in nos influxit, et per consequens peccata mortalia in eis delet ... in quantum gratiam contritionis eis impetrat.”[1822]Lectio 26, under F.[1823]Lectio 28.[1824]Ibid., L. 17 (E.). Master Egeling discusses this even more in detail. Franz says (ibid., p. 548), speaking of Egeling’s MS., of which he makes use: “The remarkable length at which he vindicates the Church’s rule that the Canon be recited silently is not without significance. It would appear that this gave offence to the people.” Luther seized upon this popular prejudice as a weapon in his war on the Mass.[1825]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 308 ff. New edition by G. Kawerau in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 50, Halle, 1883.[1826]“Werke,”ibid., p. 308.[1827]Ibid., p. 374 f.[1828]P. 372.[1829]Vol. v., xxxi., 4.[1830]To Nic. Hausmann at Dessau, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363, where he calls the writing a “novi generis libellus,” which challenged the Papists to see whether they had an answer ready to give the devil when lying on their death-beds.[1831]A. Freytag, in Koffmane, “Die handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, pp. 16 and 11, where in Luther’s rough notes the words first occur: “primum argumentum diaboli.” Freytag, however, is of opinion, that “Luther’s account of the disputation with the devil certainly [?] had its origin in the Reformer’s tormenting mental experiences, and that he had been actually assailed by accusing thoughts concerning his former share in the abomination of private Masses.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 308, speaking of the disputation, also refers to the “anguish of soul” which overwhelmed him “owing to his own former share in so great a crime as he now more fully recognised it to be.” Cp. our vol. v., xxxii.[1832]In the letter to Hausmann (above, n. 2): “Lutherum hoc libello tentare papatus sapientiam et potentiam.”[1833]To Spalatin; only an extract extant. See Jonas’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201: “Lutherus scribit utilissimum, fortissimum arietem, quo quatietur, ut ferreus murus, papatus.”[1834]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 378 ff.[1835]Ibid., p. 379.[1836]P. 383.[1837]P. 384.[1838]On “Bible, Babble, Bubble,” see above, vol. ii, pp. 365, 370; on the “Heresy-book,” see above, p. 396.[1839]Bl. A. 3.[1840]In this sense G. Kawerau’s remark on the “Winckelmesse” is much to the point: “It is of interest on account of the insight it affords into the Reformer’s efforts to arrive at certainty concerning the fundamentals of his religious views.” In the Introduction to the edition quoted above, p. 519 n. 1.[1841]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 132.[1842]Ibid., p. 119.[1843]See the letter written before his first Mass, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 10.[1844]See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372. Above, p. 509 n. 3.[1845]Above, vol. iii., p. 130.[1846]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 122.[1847]Ibid., p. 119.[1848]Ibid., p. 120.[1849]Ibid.On Gregory the Great, see above, p. 517 n. 2.[1850]Ibid., p. 119.[1851]Ibid., p. 122.[1852]Symbol. Bücher10, p. 301 ff. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 174 ff.[1853]“Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 381 f.
[1694]Ibid., n. 14.[1695]Art. 6. Cp. Art. 20. “Symbolische Bücher,”10pp. 40, 44.[1696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 32; Erl. ed., 27, p. 191, “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.”[1697]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 11. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 7.[1698]Cp. above 472 f., 210, 194 f., andpassim. To supplement what he there says on the scarcity and smallness of contributions towards Divine worship and preaching we may add two other utterances of Luther’s given by Möhler (“KG.,” 3. pp. 149 and 160): Nobles, burghers and peasants were all intent on letting the clergy starve that the Evangel might cease to be proclaimed.—“Unless something is done soon, there will be an end in this land to Evangel, pastors and schools; they will have to run away, for they have nothing, and go about looking like haggard ghosts.”[1699]Mayence, 1509, Bl. 7.[1700]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25² (where the whole of the Duke’s reply is printed), p. 144.[1701]S. Riezler, “Gesch. Bayerns,” 3, 1889, p. 809.[1702]R. Wackernagel (“Basler Zeitschr. f. Gesch.,” 2, 1903, p. 181).[1703]Dietrich, “Über Gesch. der Krankenpflege” in Liebe-Jacobsohn-Meyer, “Hdb. der Krankenversorgung und Krankenpflege,” 1, Berlin, 1899, p. 47 ff.[1704]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 409 ff. (from notes).[1705]Ibid.24, p. 454 (from notes).[1706]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 283; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 425 f., Table-Talk.[1707]A. Harnack, “Dogmengesch.,” 3³, p. 733 ff.; 3^[4], p. 819 ff.[1708]See above, vol. iii., p. 5 ff.[1709]“DG.,” 3^[4], p. 811.[1710]P. 684, n. 1.[1711]P. 895.[1712]P. 811. Carl Müller, “ Preuss. Jah..,” 63, Hft, 2, p. 147.[1713]“DG.,” 3³, p. 616 (omitted in the 4th edition).[1714]Ibid., p. 808, and 3^[4], p. 896 f.[1715]3^[4], p. 857 f.[1716]Vol. 1², p. 213 ff.[1717]Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” 30. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 10 f.[1718]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 237 f.[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 170, “Wider die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.”[1720]To Melanchthon from the Wartburg, Jan. 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 273 f. Because reason is “diametrically opposed to faith” and gleams only like “a smudge on a lantern” (p. 156), people, so he says, “would believe better were they a little less reasonable” (p. 162). But “even though it were true, which it is not,” and even were we to allow that infants do not believe at all, are without reason and cannot grasp the Word of God, would their baptism therefore “be wrong”? Even then it would have its value.[1721]P. 256.[1722]Vol. 17, No. 2.[1723]“Deutsch-Ev. Bl.,” 32, 1907, p. 651 ff.Ibid., p. 713 ff.[1724]P. 651.[1725]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 162. Cp. Rietschel,ibid., p. 274.[1726]P. 653.[1727]P. 717.[1728]Vol. 18, 1908, p. 148.[1729]The better to understand the strange (though by no means unique) attitude of this professor of theology, see the “Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, pp. 228 ff., 389 ff., and more particularly 74 ff., where he defends his proposals for the remedy of the “lamentable state of present-day Protestantism”; also 17, 1907, pp. 1 ff., 315 ff.—On the above question see also Ernst Bunge, “Der Lehrstreit über die Kindertaufe innerhalb der Lutherischen Kirche,” Cassel, 1900, with Preface by Ad. Stöcker.[1730]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 398 ff.[1731]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371 in “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.[1732]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 173: “Widder die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.” Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 247.[1733]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 507; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371. Cp. p. 582 ff.[1734]Ibid., p. 508=371. In the passage, Erl. ed., 21, p. 140, immediately after the portion of the sentence cited by Köstlin: “The third sacrament which has been called Penance,” there follows: “Which is nothing else but baptism; for,” etc.[1735]Dec. 15, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 394; Erl. ed., 53, p. 274 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). On the pair, see Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 412.[1736]P. 393 f.=273 f.[1737]Above, p. 410.[1738]K. Jäger (“Luthers religiöses Interesse an seiner Lehre von der Realpräsenz,” Giessen, 1900) examines the writings dating from the period previous to the Sacramentarian controversy and rightly comes to the conclusion, first, that Luther had above all an ethical interest in regarding as he did the Sacrament of the Altar as a means of strengthening faith by making known the redeeming death of Christ; secondly, that he held fast to the Real Presence on the strength of the traditional faith of the Church without going any deeper into its grounds. Faith in the Real Presence was, however, no suitable means of strengthening the certainty of salvation, because the Presence there does not appeal to the senses nor does it serve as a sign of the forgiveness of sins as Luther supposed. To postulate it primarily on the authority of the Church was to contradict the principles of Lutheranism.—P. 27: According to Luther, by partaking of it we are to be convinced in a “peculiarly vivid and lively manner of God’s Grace.” The partaking of these “signs” was, according to Luther, necessary for us, “because we are still living in sin and our certainty of salvation is ever exposed to attack, and it is useful or suitable because here the Grace of God is offered to each man in a manner that appeals to the senses. Thus the assurance arising from sensible perception is to serve to strengthen and support religious certainty of salvation.” “This is the sole religious importance that can be attributed to the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ.” Nevertheless, “from that very point of view of the religious interest involved in the Supper, which we have seen above to be Luther’s main concern (p. 28), we are forced to deny the Real Presence.” “What is to strengthen our faith in God’s grace must not itself be the object of faith, but, as is evident, must force itself upon our mind by a higher certainty, or to speak more correctly, by a clearer certainty, such as attaches to sensible perception.... A fact which in the last instance itself calls for confirmation, and which in every instance is perceptible only to faith, cannot reasonably serve to support another fact which is of the utmost importance to our life of faith.”[1739]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 143; Erl. ed., 30, p. 65, in the writing “Das diese Wort Christi ‘Das ist mein Leib etce.,’ noch fest stehen.” 1527.[1740]Ibid., p. 151=69.[1741]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.[1742]See the passages of Buchholzer and Trabe, two Protestants, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 694.[1743]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.[1744]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.[1745]Cp., the reprint in Köstlin-Kawerau.[1746]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.[1747]F. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4] p. 863.[1748]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 9, p. 831 ff.; 10, p. 455 ff.[1749]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 147 ff.: “I, innocent man, am made the devil’s scavenger.... There was really no need so to defame my beloved book behind my back.”[1750]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 15.[1751]Above, vol. iii., p. 346 ff.[1752]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 696: Erl. ed., 21, p. 272. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², pp. 253, 371.[1753]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 71 f.[1754]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 372.[1755]To the Provost, Canons and whole Wittenberg Chapter, Aug. 19, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 212: “Quamvis privato affectui spiritualis viri indulgendum sit, tamen manifestam et publicam religionem in his tolerare non licet propter scandalum ignorantium et infirmorum, qui relicta fide huc adfluunt.”[1756]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 119 ff. Cp. “Conf. Aug.,” art. 21, and “Apol.,” ad art. 21. Below, p. 501.[1757]Pars II. art. 2, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 305.[1758]Ibid., 7, pp. 575=45, p. 252. Exposition of the Magnificat.[1759]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 313=15², p. 495. Church-postils, Sermon on Mary’s Nativity.[1760]Ibid., 1, p. 79=“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 118. Sermon on the Assumption, Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 86.[1761]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 107; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 150.[1762]Above, p. 238, n. 1.[1763]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 433.[1764]Ibid., 19², p. 29 ff.; 37, p. 71. Köstlin,ibid., 2, p. 135.[1765]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 7², p. 276.[1766]Ibid., 20², 2, pp. 530-532.[1767]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, pp. 568, 573 f.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 245, 250 f.[1768]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 574 f.[1769]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 59 f. On March 11, 1523.[1770]Müller-Kolde, “Symb. Bücher,”10p. 227.[1771]“Hom. de temp.,” Aug. Vindel., 1533 (“Opp.,” tom. 5, pars 1), fol. 55´.[1772]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 113 ff; Erl. ed., 15², p. 495 f.[1773]Ibid., p. 321 f. = 499.[1774]Ibid., p. 325 = 501.[1775]Müller-Kolde,ibid., p. 303.[1776]K. Hase, “Hdb. der prot. Polemik,” Buch 2, Kapitel 6: “Most mortals are too good for hell, but assuredly not good enough for heaven. We may as well openly admit that there is something not quite clear here in the Protestantism of the Reformation.”[1777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 555; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 177. Resolutions on the Indulgence Theses. Thesis 15.[1778]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1779]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 13², p. 2 ff.; 15², p. 521; 17², p. 55.[1780]In the “Bekentnis” also,ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; in Erl. ed., 30, p. 370, prayer for the dead is left optional.[1781]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 184 ff.[1782]That a sacrifice had been made of the Mass appeared to him “Idolatry and a shameful abuse,” a “twofold impiety and abomination”; its abomination no tongue could express. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 489, 493; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 38, 45 f.; 60, pp. 403 f., 396.[1783]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 243. There were, however, always some voices raised amongst Protestants to demand that the “Sacrifice and Atonement” under some shape or form should be insisted on more than the sermon. The Presence of Christ, as taught by Luther, although this Presence did not involve a sacrifice, was made use of to oppose any further denuding of worship. “No longer is the Sacrifice and the Atonement which takes place at the Altar to be the centre of Divine worship,” Pastor E. Strack wrote in 1904, in “Der alte Glaube,” 1903-4, 5, col. 1255, “but, according to modern views, God is merely present in the listening congregation by virtue of the Word preached from the pulpit. Hence the pulpit becomes the central point, the altar an accessory. To this we cannot agree. Without atonement we have no God; hence no altar either ... and no pulpit.”[1784]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 24: “Stante missa Lutherus est damnatus, ruente missa totum fundamentum papæ corruit.”[1785]Ibid., p. 19: “nam ego toto pectore illam adorabam.” But cp. below, p. 509, n. 2.[1786]Above, vol. i., p. 275.[1787]Ibid., p. 276.[1788]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18.[1789]Cp. vol. i., p. 15 f. and, besides the references given there, a passage from George Rörer’s MS. of the Table-Talk, given by E. Kroker, “Archiv für RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 354, where Luther, in a paroxysm of terror at the words of the Canon “offero tibi Deo vivo æterno[sic],” says: “Sic perterrefiebam, ut ab altari discedere cogitabam, et fecissem, nisi me retinuisset meus præceptor, quia cogitavi: Who is He with Whom you are speaking? From that time forward I said Mass with terror, and I am thankful to God that He has released me from it.”[1790]On a solemn occasion, at the conclusion of his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” in 1528, he has it, that, though he had “spent his youth damnably,” yet his having been a monk and his having said Mass had been his greatest sins. See below, p. 524.[1791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 443 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, pp. 81, 83seq.[1792]Ibid., 2, p. 738 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 25 ff.[1793]Ibid., 6, p. 364 ff.=27, p. 155 ff.[1794]Aug. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208.[1795]Above, vol. iii., p. 194 ff.[1796]Vol. ii., pp. 88 f., 327 ff.[1797]To Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525. Cp. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 94.[1798]See vol. ii., p. 320.[1799]Ibid.[1800]Ibid., p. 328.[1801]On Rörer’s work and its connection with the writing mentioned, see Weim. ed., 18, p. 22 ff.[1802]F. Probst, “Die Liturgie der drei ersten Jahrh.,” 1870, p. 349 ff. P. Drews, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons der röm. Messe,” 1902, p. 39 ff. F. X. Funk, “Über den Kanon.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 24, 1903), pp. 62 ff., 283 ff. (against Drews). A. Baumstark, “Liturgia romana e liturgia dell’ esarcato, Origini del canon missæ romanæ,” 1904 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 25, 1904, p. 859; cp.,ibid., 31, 1910, p. 596). P. Drews, “Untersuchungen über die sog. klementinische Liturgie,” 1 Tl., 1907 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 166). N. Gihr, “Das hl. Messopfer”10, 1907.[1803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 119, in 1540.[1804]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 36; Erl. ed., 29, p. 132 f.[1805]Cp. vol. ii., p. 311.[1806]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 338. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 216 ff., 258 ff.[1807]Vol. ii., pp. 326 ff., 336 ff.[1808]After Köstlin (ibid., p. 340), who quotes from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 49 (Weim. ed., 8, p. 687 f.), Luther’s passage against the Princes, who allow everything to slide: they ought to draw the sword, not indeed to “put the priests to death,” but to “forbid by word and then put down by force whatever they do that is over or against the Gospel.”[1809]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 29; Erl. ed., 29, p. 124.[1810]Ibid., p. 33=129.[1811]“Auf Luthers Greuel wider die heilige Stillmess Antwort,” 1525.[1812]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 31; Erl. ed., 29, p. 126.[1813]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527.[1814]Cp. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 12, 1891, p. 776, where N. Paulus quotes for the first time a memorandum (1523) of Johann Staupitz against Stephen Agricola, which corroborates his statement mentioned before (ibid., p. 309 ff.), that Staupitz was quite Catholic in his views on matters of faith.[1815]“Antwort auf das ... Geschwetz M. Flaccii Illyrici,” 1558, p. 121 f. Quoted by Paulus,ibid., p. 776.[1816]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1578seq.Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 13 f.[1817]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 236.[1818]For this excellent work, which for the most part reproduces the lectures of Magister Egeling Becker, see A. Franz, “Die Messe im deutschen MA.,” Freiburg, 1902, pp. 542-554. The comprehensive “Expositio,” comprising 51 “signatures,” consists of 89 Lectures addressed to the clergy. Franz characterises it as “a work which, by its theological thoroughness and its moderately ascetical views, was calculated to promote learning amongst the clergy and render them more worthy of exercising their greatest and finest privilege” (p. 554).[1819]Lectio 85, F.[1820]Ibid.: “Quamvis autem semel oblatus est Christus in aperta carnis effigie, offertur nihilominus quotidie in altari velatus,” etc. Of the numerous witnesses to the ancient belief of the Church, Joh. Ernest Grabe notes in his Oxford edition of Irenæus (1702) with regard to a statement of his on this subject (4 c. 17, al. 33): “What Irenæus here teaches of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ignatius and Justin taught before him, and Tertullian and Cyprian after. It is clearly vouched for in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians.” “There is no doubt that Irenæus and the other Fathers, both those who had seen the Apostles, as well as their immediate successors, regarded the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law, and ... presented at the altar the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine to God the Father in order to figure the bloody Sacrifice which He Himself had offered on the cross in His flesh and Blood, and in order to obtain the fruits of His death for all for whom it was offered.” Gregory the Great taught with antiquity (Hom. 37 in Evang. c. 7): “Quoties ei (Deo) hostiam suæ passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus,” and in his Dialogues, which contributed greatly to the high esteem of Masses for the dead (we are here considering the doctrine, not the legends), he says of the Sacrifice of the Mass: “Hæc singulariter victima ab æterno interitu animam salvat, quæ illam nobis mortem Unigeniti per mysterium reparat.... Pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacræ oblationis immolatur” (“Dial.,” 4, 58; cf. 59). The well-known Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz wrote in his “Examen concilii Tridentini” (1565-1573), that it could not be denied that the Fathers, when speaking of the celebration of the Supper, make use of expressions descriptive of Sacrifice, such as “sacrificium,” “immolatio,” “oblatio,” “hostia,” “victima,” “offerre,” “sacrificare,” “immolare” (t. 2, p. 782). Cp. J. Döllinger, “Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrh.,” 1826. J. A. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §§ 34 and 35.[1821]Lectio 85, under L.: “Si eos dispositos inveniat, eis gratiam obtinet virtute illius unius sacrificii, a quo omnis gratia in nos influxit, et per consequens peccata mortalia in eis delet ... in quantum gratiam contritionis eis impetrat.”[1822]Lectio 26, under F.[1823]Lectio 28.[1824]Ibid., L. 17 (E.). Master Egeling discusses this even more in detail. Franz says (ibid., p. 548), speaking of Egeling’s MS., of which he makes use: “The remarkable length at which he vindicates the Church’s rule that the Canon be recited silently is not without significance. It would appear that this gave offence to the people.” Luther seized upon this popular prejudice as a weapon in his war on the Mass.[1825]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 308 ff. New edition by G. Kawerau in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 50, Halle, 1883.[1826]“Werke,”ibid., p. 308.[1827]Ibid., p. 374 f.[1828]P. 372.[1829]Vol. v., xxxi., 4.[1830]To Nic. Hausmann at Dessau, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363, where he calls the writing a “novi generis libellus,” which challenged the Papists to see whether they had an answer ready to give the devil when lying on their death-beds.[1831]A. Freytag, in Koffmane, “Die handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, pp. 16 and 11, where in Luther’s rough notes the words first occur: “primum argumentum diaboli.” Freytag, however, is of opinion, that “Luther’s account of the disputation with the devil certainly [?] had its origin in the Reformer’s tormenting mental experiences, and that he had been actually assailed by accusing thoughts concerning his former share in the abomination of private Masses.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 308, speaking of the disputation, also refers to the “anguish of soul” which overwhelmed him “owing to his own former share in so great a crime as he now more fully recognised it to be.” Cp. our vol. v., xxxii.[1832]In the letter to Hausmann (above, n. 2): “Lutherum hoc libello tentare papatus sapientiam et potentiam.”[1833]To Spalatin; only an extract extant. See Jonas’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201: “Lutherus scribit utilissimum, fortissimum arietem, quo quatietur, ut ferreus murus, papatus.”[1834]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 378 ff.[1835]Ibid., p. 379.[1836]P. 383.[1837]P. 384.[1838]On “Bible, Babble, Bubble,” see above, vol. ii, pp. 365, 370; on the “Heresy-book,” see above, p. 396.[1839]Bl. A. 3.[1840]In this sense G. Kawerau’s remark on the “Winckelmesse” is much to the point: “It is of interest on account of the insight it affords into the Reformer’s efforts to arrive at certainty concerning the fundamentals of his religious views.” In the Introduction to the edition quoted above, p. 519 n. 1.[1841]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 132.[1842]Ibid., p. 119.[1843]See the letter written before his first Mass, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 10.[1844]See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372. Above, p. 509 n. 3.[1845]Above, vol. iii., p. 130.[1846]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 122.[1847]Ibid., p. 119.[1848]Ibid., p. 120.[1849]Ibid.On Gregory the Great, see above, p. 517 n. 2.[1850]Ibid., p. 119.[1851]Ibid., p. 122.[1852]Symbol. Bücher10, p. 301 ff. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 174 ff.[1853]“Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 381 f.
[1694]Ibid., n. 14.[1695]Art. 6. Cp. Art. 20. “Symbolische Bücher,”10pp. 40, 44.[1696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 32; Erl. ed., 27, p. 191, “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.”[1697]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 11. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 7.[1698]Cp. above 472 f., 210, 194 f., andpassim. To supplement what he there says on the scarcity and smallness of contributions towards Divine worship and preaching we may add two other utterances of Luther’s given by Möhler (“KG.,” 3. pp. 149 and 160): Nobles, burghers and peasants were all intent on letting the clergy starve that the Evangel might cease to be proclaimed.—“Unless something is done soon, there will be an end in this land to Evangel, pastors and schools; they will have to run away, for they have nothing, and go about looking like haggard ghosts.”[1699]Mayence, 1509, Bl. 7.[1700]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25² (where the whole of the Duke’s reply is printed), p. 144.[1701]S. Riezler, “Gesch. Bayerns,” 3, 1889, p. 809.[1702]R. Wackernagel (“Basler Zeitschr. f. Gesch.,” 2, 1903, p. 181).[1703]Dietrich, “Über Gesch. der Krankenpflege” in Liebe-Jacobsohn-Meyer, “Hdb. der Krankenversorgung und Krankenpflege,” 1, Berlin, 1899, p. 47 ff.[1704]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 409 ff. (from notes).[1705]Ibid.24, p. 454 (from notes).[1706]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 283; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 425 f., Table-Talk.[1707]A. Harnack, “Dogmengesch.,” 3³, p. 733 ff.; 3^[4], p. 819 ff.[1708]See above, vol. iii., p. 5 ff.[1709]“DG.,” 3^[4], p. 811.[1710]P. 684, n. 1.[1711]P. 895.[1712]P. 811. Carl Müller, “ Preuss. Jah..,” 63, Hft, 2, p. 147.[1713]“DG.,” 3³, p. 616 (omitted in the 4th edition).[1714]Ibid., p. 808, and 3^[4], p. 896 f.[1715]3^[4], p. 857 f.[1716]Vol. 1², p. 213 ff.[1717]Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” 30. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 10 f.[1718]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 237 f.[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 170, “Wider die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.”[1720]To Melanchthon from the Wartburg, Jan. 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 273 f. Because reason is “diametrically opposed to faith” and gleams only like “a smudge on a lantern” (p. 156), people, so he says, “would believe better were they a little less reasonable” (p. 162). But “even though it were true, which it is not,” and even were we to allow that infants do not believe at all, are without reason and cannot grasp the Word of God, would their baptism therefore “be wrong”? Even then it would have its value.[1721]P. 256.[1722]Vol. 17, No. 2.[1723]“Deutsch-Ev. Bl.,” 32, 1907, p. 651 ff.Ibid., p. 713 ff.[1724]P. 651.[1725]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 162. Cp. Rietschel,ibid., p. 274.[1726]P. 653.[1727]P. 717.[1728]Vol. 18, 1908, p. 148.[1729]The better to understand the strange (though by no means unique) attitude of this professor of theology, see the “Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, pp. 228 ff., 389 ff., and more particularly 74 ff., where he defends his proposals for the remedy of the “lamentable state of present-day Protestantism”; also 17, 1907, pp. 1 ff., 315 ff.—On the above question see also Ernst Bunge, “Der Lehrstreit über die Kindertaufe innerhalb der Lutherischen Kirche,” Cassel, 1900, with Preface by Ad. Stöcker.[1730]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 398 ff.[1731]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371 in “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.[1732]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 173: “Widder die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.” Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 247.[1733]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 507; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371. Cp. p. 582 ff.[1734]Ibid., p. 508=371. In the passage, Erl. ed., 21, p. 140, immediately after the portion of the sentence cited by Köstlin: “The third sacrament which has been called Penance,” there follows: “Which is nothing else but baptism; for,” etc.[1735]Dec. 15, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 394; Erl. ed., 53, p. 274 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). On the pair, see Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 412.[1736]P. 393 f.=273 f.[1737]Above, p. 410.[1738]K. Jäger (“Luthers religiöses Interesse an seiner Lehre von der Realpräsenz,” Giessen, 1900) examines the writings dating from the period previous to the Sacramentarian controversy and rightly comes to the conclusion, first, that Luther had above all an ethical interest in regarding as he did the Sacrament of the Altar as a means of strengthening faith by making known the redeeming death of Christ; secondly, that he held fast to the Real Presence on the strength of the traditional faith of the Church without going any deeper into its grounds. Faith in the Real Presence was, however, no suitable means of strengthening the certainty of salvation, because the Presence there does not appeal to the senses nor does it serve as a sign of the forgiveness of sins as Luther supposed. To postulate it primarily on the authority of the Church was to contradict the principles of Lutheranism.—P. 27: According to Luther, by partaking of it we are to be convinced in a “peculiarly vivid and lively manner of God’s Grace.” The partaking of these “signs” was, according to Luther, necessary for us, “because we are still living in sin and our certainty of salvation is ever exposed to attack, and it is useful or suitable because here the Grace of God is offered to each man in a manner that appeals to the senses. Thus the assurance arising from sensible perception is to serve to strengthen and support religious certainty of salvation.” “This is the sole religious importance that can be attributed to the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ.” Nevertheless, “from that very point of view of the religious interest involved in the Supper, which we have seen above to be Luther’s main concern (p. 28), we are forced to deny the Real Presence.” “What is to strengthen our faith in God’s grace must not itself be the object of faith, but, as is evident, must force itself upon our mind by a higher certainty, or to speak more correctly, by a clearer certainty, such as attaches to sensible perception.... A fact which in the last instance itself calls for confirmation, and which in every instance is perceptible only to faith, cannot reasonably serve to support another fact which is of the utmost importance to our life of faith.”[1739]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 143; Erl. ed., 30, p. 65, in the writing “Das diese Wort Christi ‘Das ist mein Leib etce.,’ noch fest stehen.” 1527.[1740]Ibid., p. 151=69.[1741]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.[1742]See the passages of Buchholzer and Trabe, two Protestants, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 694.[1743]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.[1744]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.[1745]Cp., the reprint in Köstlin-Kawerau.[1746]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.[1747]F. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4] p. 863.[1748]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 9, p. 831 ff.; 10, p. 455 ff.[1749]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 147 ff.: “I, innocent man, am made the devil’s scavenger.... There was really no need so to defame my beloved book behind my back.”[1750]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 15.[1751]Above, vol. iii., p. 346 ff.[1752]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 696: Erl. ed., 21, p. 272. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², pp. 253, 371.[1753]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 71 f.[1754]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 372.[1755]To the Provost, Canons and whole Wittenberg Chapter, Aug. 19, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 212: “Quamvis privato affectui spiritualis viri indulgendum sit, tamen manifestam et publicam religionem in his tolerare non licet propter scandalum ignorantium et infirmorum, qui relicta fide huc adfluunt.”[1756]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 119 ff. Cp. “Conf. Aug.,” art. 21, and “Apol.,” ad art. 21. Below, p. 501.[1757]Pars II. art. 2, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 305.[1758]Ibid., 7, pp. 575=45, p. 252. Exposition of the Magnificat.[1759]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 313=15², p. 495. Church-postils, Sermon on Mary’s Nativity.[1760]Ibid., 1, p. 79=“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 118. Sermon on the Assumption, Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 86.[1761]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 107; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 150.[1762]Above, p. 238, n. 1.[1763]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 433.[1764]Ibid., 19², p. 29 ff.; 37, p. 71. Köstlin,ibid., 2, p. 135.[1765]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 7², p. 276.[1766]Ibid., 20², 2, pp. 530-532.[1767]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, pp. 568, 573 f.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 245, 250 f.[1768]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 574 f.[1769]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 59 f. On March 11, 1523.[1770]Müller-Kolde, “Symb. Bücher,”10p. 227.[1771]“Hom. de temp.,” Aug. Vindel., 1533 (“Opp.,” tom. 5, pars 1), fol. 55´.[1772]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 113 ff; Erl. ed., 15², p. 495 f.[1773]Ibid., p. 321 f. = 499.[1774]Ibid., p. 325 = 501.[1775]Müller-Kolde,ibid., p. 303.[1776]K. Hase, “Hdb. der prot. Polemik,” Buch 2, Kapitel 6: “Most mortals are too good for hell, but assuredly not good enough for heaven. We may as well openly admit that there is something not quite clear here in the Protestantism of the Reformation.”[1777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 555; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 177. Resolutions on the Indulgence Theses. Thesis 15.[1778]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1779]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 13², p. 2 ff.; 15², p. 521; 17², p. 55.[1780]In the “Bekentnis” also,ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; in Erl. ed., 30, p. 370, prayer for the dead is left optional.[1781]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 184 ff.[1782]That a sacrifice had been made of the Mass appeared to him “Idolatry and a shameful abuse,” a “twofold impiety and abomination”; its abomination no tongue could express. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 489, 493; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 38, 45 f.; 60, pp. 403 f., 396.[1783]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 243. There were, however, always some voices raised amongst Protestants to demand that the “Sacrifice and Atonement” under some shape or form should be insisted on more than the sermon. The Presence of Christ, as taught by Luther, although this Presence did not involve a sacrifice, was made use of to oppose any further denuding of worship. “No longer is the Sacrifice and the Atonement which takes place at the Altar to be the centre of Divine worship,” Pastor E. Strack wrote in 1904, in “Der alte Glaube,” 1903-4, 5, col. 1255, “but, according to modern views, God is merely present in the listening congregation by virtue of the Word preached from the pulpit. Hence the pulpit becomes the central point, the altar an accessory. To this we cannot agree. Without atonement we have no God; hence no altar either ... and no pulpit.”[1784]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 24: “Stante missa Lutherus est damnatus, ruente missa totum fundamentum papæ corruit.”[1785]Ibid., p. 19: “nam ego toto pectore illam adorabam.” But cp. below, p. 509, n. 2.[1786]Above, vol. i., p. 275.[1787]Ibid., p. 276.[1788]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18.[1789]Cp. vol. i., p. 15 f. and, besides the references given there, a passage from George Rörer’s MS. of the Table-Talk, given by E. Kroker, “Archiv für RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 354, where Luther, in a paroxysm of terror at the words of the Canon “offero tibi Deo vivo æterno[sic],” says: “Sic perterrefiebam, ut ab altari discedere cogitabam, et fecissem, nisi me retinuisset meus præceptor, quia cogitavi: Who is He with Whom you are speaking? From that time forward I said Mass with terror, and I am thankful to God that He has released me from it.”[1790]On a solemn occasion, at the conclusion of his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” in 1528, he has it, that, though he had “spent his youth damnably,” yet his having been a monk and his having said Mass had been his greatest sins. See below, p. 524.[1791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 443 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, pp. 81, 83seq.[1792]Ibid., 2, p. 738 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 25 ff.[1793]Ibid., 6, p. 364 ff.=27, p. 155 ff.[1794]Aug. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208.[1795]Above, vol. iii., p. 194 ff.[1796]Vol. ii., pp. 88 f., 327 ff.[1797]To Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525. Cp. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 94.[1798]See vol. ii., p. 320.[1799]Ibid.[1800]Ibid., p. 328.[1801]On Rörer’s work and its connection with the writing mentioned, see Weim. ed., 18, p. 22 ff.[1802]F. Probst, “Die Liturgie der drei ersten Jahrh.,” 1870, p. 349 ff. P. Drews, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons der röm. Messe,” 1902, p. 39 ff. F. X. Funk, “Über den Kanon.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 24, 1903), pp. 62 ff., 283 ff. (against Drews). A. Baumstark, “Liturgia romana e liturgia dell’ esarcato, Origini del canon missæ romanæ,” 1904 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 25, 1904, p. 859; cp.,ibid., 31, 1910, p. 596). P. Drews, “Untersuchungen über die sog. klementinische Liturgie,” 1 Tl., 1907 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 166). N. Gihr, “Das hl. Messopfer”10, 1907.[1803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 119, in 1540.[1804]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 36; Erl. ed., 29, p. 132 f.[1805]Cp. vol. ii., p. 311.[1806]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 338. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 216 ff., 258 ff.[1807]Vol. ii., pp. 326 ff., 336 ff.[1808]After Köstlin (ibid., p. 340), who quotes from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 49 (Weim. ed., 8, p. 687 f.), Luther’s passage against the Princes, who allow everything to slide: they ought to draw the sword, not indeed to “put the priests to death,” but to “forbid by word and then put down by force whatever they do that is over or against the Gospel.”[1809]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 29; Erl. ed., 29, p. 124.[1810]Ibid., p. 33=129.[1811]“Auf Luthers Greuel wider die heilige Stillmess Antwort,” 1525.[1812]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 31; Erl. ed., 29, p. 126.[1813]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527.[1814]Cp. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 12, 1891, p. 776, where N. Paulus quotes for the first time a memorandum (1523) of Johann Staupitz against Stephen Agricola, which corroborates his statement mentioned before (ibid., p. 309 ff.), that Staupitz was quite Catholic in his views on matters of faith.[1815]“Antwort auf das ... Geschwetz M. Flaccii Illyrici,” 1558, p. 121 f. Quoted by Paulus,ibid., p. 776.[1816]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1578seq.Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 13 f.[1817]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 236.[1818]For this excellent work, which for the most part reproduces the lectures of Magister Egeling Becker, see A. Franz, “Die Messe im deutschen MA.,” Freiburg, 1902, pp. 542-554. The comprehensive “Expositio,” comprising 51 “signatures,” consists of 89 Lectures addressed to the clergy. Franz characterises it as “a work which, by its theological thoroughness and its moderately ascetical views, was calculated to promote learning amongst the clergy and render them more worthy of exercising their greatest and finest privilege” (p. 554).[1819]Lectio 85, F.[1820]Ibid.: “Quamvis autem semel oblatus est Christus in aperta carnis effigie, offertur nihilominus quotidie in altari velatus,” etc. Of the numerous witnesses to the ancient belief of the Church, Joh. Ernest Grabe notes in his Oxford edition of Irenæus (1702) with regard to a statement of his on this subject (4 c. 17, al. 33): “What Irenæus here teaches of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ignatius and Justin taught before him, and Tertullian and Cyprian after. It is clearly vouched for in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians.” “There is no doubt that Irenæus and the other Fathers, both those who had seen the Apostles, as well as their immediate successors, regarded the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law, and ... presented at the altar the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine to God the Father in order to figure the bloody Sacrifice which He Himself had offered on the cross in His flesh and Blood, and in order to obtain the fruits of His death for all for whom it was offered.” Gregory the Great taught with antiquity (Hom. 37 in Evang. c. 7): “Quoties ei (Deo) hostiam suæ passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus,” and in his Dialogues, which contributed greatly to the high esteem of Masses for the dead (we are here considering the doctrine, not the legends), he says of the Sacrifice of the Mass: “Hæc singulariter victima ab æterno interitu animam salvat, quæ illam nobis mortem Unigeniti per mysterium reparat.... Pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacræ oblationis immolatur” (“Dial.,” 4, 58; cf. 59). The well-known Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz wrote in his “Examen concilii Tridentini” (1565-1573), that it could not be denied that the Fathers, when speaking of the celebration of the Supper, make use of expressions descriptive of Sacrifice, such as “sacrificium,” “immolatio,” “oblatio,” “hostia,” “victima,” “offerre,” “sacrificare,” “immolare” (t. 2, p. 782). Cp. J. Döllinger, “Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrh.,” 1826. J. A. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §§ 34 and 35.[1821]Lectio 85, under L.: “Si eos dispositos inveniat, eis gratiam obtinet virtute illius unius sacrificii, a quo omnis gratia in nos influxit, et per consequens peccata mortalia in eis delet ... in quantum gratiam contritionis eis impetrat.”[1822]Lectio 26, under F.[1823]Lectio 28.[1824]Ibid., L. 17 (E.). Master Egeling discusses this even more in detail. Franz says (ibid., p. 548), speaking of Egeling’s MS., of which he makes use: “The remarkable length at which he vindicates the Church’s rule that the Canon be recited silently is not without significance. It would appear that this gave offence to the people.” Luther seized upon this popular prejudice as a weapon in his war on the Mass.[1825]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 308 ff. New edition by G. Kawerau in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 50, Halle, 1883.[1826]“Werke,”ibid., p. 308.[1827]Ibid., p. 374 f.[1828]P. 372.[1829]Vol. v., xxxi., 4.[1830]To Nic. Hausmann at Dessau, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363, where he calls the writing a “novi generis libellus,” which challenged the Papists to see whether they had an answer ready to give the devil when lying on their death-beds.[1831]A. Freytag, in Koffmane, “Die handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, pp. 16 and 11, where in Luther’s rough notes the words first occur: “primum argumentum diaboli.” Freytag, however, is of opinion, that “Luther’s account of the disputation with the devil certainly [?] had its origin in the Reformer’s tormenting mental experiences, and that he had been actually assailed by accusing thoughts concerning his former share in the abomination of private Masses.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 308, speaking of the disputation, also refers to the “anguish of soul” which overwhelmed him “owing to his own former share in so great a crime as he now more fully recognised it to be.” Cp. our vol. v., xxxii.[1832]In the letter to Hausmann (above, n. 2): “Lutherum hoc libello tentare papatus sapientiam et potentiam.”[1833]To Spalatin; only an extract extant. See Jonas’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201: “Lutherus scribit utilissimum, fortissimum arietem, quo quatietur, ut ferreus murus, papatus.”[1834]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 378 ff.[1835]Ibid., p. 379.[1836]P. 383.[1837]P. 384.[1838]On “Bible, Babble, Bubble,” see above, vol. ii, pp. 365, 370; on the “Heresy-book,” see above, p. 396.[1839]Bl. A. 3.[1840]In this sense G. Kawerau’s remark on the “Winckelmesse” is much to the point: “It is of interest on account of the insight it affords into the Reformer’s efforts to arrive at certainty concerning the fundamentals of his religious views.” In the Introduction to the edition quoted above, p. 519 n. 1.[1841]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 132.[1842]Ibid., p. 119.[1843]See the letter written before his first Mass, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 10.[1844]See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372. Above, p. 509 n. 3.[1845]Above, vol. iii., p. 130.[1846]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 122.[1847]Ibid., p. 119.[1848]Ibid., p. 120.[1849]Ibid.On Gregory the Great, see above, p. 517 n. 2.[1850]Ibid., p. 119.[1851]Ibid., p. 122.[1852]Symbol. Bücher10, p. 301 ff. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 174 ff.[1853]“Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 381 f.
[1694]Ibid., n. 14.
[1695]Art. 6. Cp. Art. 20. “Symbolische Bücher,”10pp. 40, 44.
[1696]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 32; Erl. ed., 27, p. 191, “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.”
[1697]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 11. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 7.
[1698]Cp. above 472 f., 210, 194 f., andpassim. To supplement what he there says on the scarcity and smallness of contributions towards Divine worship and preaching we may add two other utterances of Luther’s given by Möhler (“KG.,” 3. pp. 149 and 160): Nobles, burghers and peasants were all intent on letting the clergy starve that the Evangel might cease to be proclaimed.—“Unless something is done soon, there will be an end in this land to Evangel, pastors and schools; they will have to run away, for they have nothing, and go about looking like haggard ghosts.”
[1699]Mayence, 1509, Bl. 7.
[1700]“Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25² (where the whole of the Duke’s reply is printed), p. 144.
[1701]S. Riezler, “Gesch. Bayerns,” 3, 1889, p. 809.
[1702]R. Wackernagel (“Basler Zeitschr. f. Gesch.,” 2, 1903, p. 181).
[1703]Dietrich, “Über Gesch. der Krankenpflege” in Liebe-Jacobsohn-Meyer, “Hdb. der Krankenversorgung und Krankenpflege,” 1, Berlin, 1899, p. 47 ff.
[1704]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 409 ff. (from notes).
[1705]Ibid.24, p. 454 (from notes).
[1706]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 283; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 425 f., Table-Talk.
[1707]A. Harnack, “Dogmengesch.,” 3³, p. 733 ff.; 3^[4], p. 819 ff.
[1708]See above, vol. iii., p. 5 ff.
[1709]“DG.,” 3^[4], p. 811.
[1710]P. 684, n. 1.
[1711]P. 895.
[1712]P. 811. Carl Müller, “ Preuss. Jah..,” 63, Hft, 2, p. 147.
[1713]“DG.,” 3³, p. 616 (omitted in the 4th edition).
[1714]Ibid., p. 808, and 3^[4], p. 896 f.
[1715]3^[4], p. 857 f.
[1716]Vol. 1², p. 213 ff.
[1717]Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” 30. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 10 f.
[1718]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 237 f.
[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 170, “Wider die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.”
[1720]To Melanchthon from the Wartburg, Jan. 13, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 273 f. Because reason is “diametrically opposed to faith” and gleams only like “a smudge on a lantern” (p. 156), people, so he says, “would believe better were they a little less reasonable” (p. 162). But “even though it were true, which it is not,” and even were we to allow that infants do not believe at all, are without reason and cannot grasp the Word of God, would their baptism therefore “be wrong”? Even then it would have its value.
[1721]P. 256.
[1722]Vol. 17, No. 2.
[1723]“Deutsch-Ev. Bl.,” 32, 1907, p. 651 ff.Ibid., p. 713 ff.
[1724]P. 651.
[1725]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 162. Cp. Rietschel,ibid., p. 274.
[1726]P. 653.
[1727]P. 717.
[1728]Vol. 18, 1908, p. 148.
[1729]The better to understand the strange (though by no means unique) attitude of this professor of theology, see the “Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, pp. 228 ff., 389 ff., and more particularly 74 ff., where he defends his proposals for the remedy of the “lamentable state of present-day Protestantism”; also 17, 1907, pp. 1 ff., 315 ff.—On the above question see also Ernst Bunge, “Der Lehrstreit über die Kindertaufe innerhalb der Lutherischen Kirche,” Cassel, 1900, with Preface by Ad. Stöcker.
[1730]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 398 ff.
[1731]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371 in “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” 1528.
[1732]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 173: “Widder die xxxii. Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.” Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 247.
[1733]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 507; Erl. ed., 30, p. 371. Cp. p. 582 ff.
[1734]Ibid., p. 508=371. In the passage, Erl. ed., 21, p. 140, immediately after the portion of the sentence cited by Köstlin: “The third sacrament which has been called Penance,” there follows: “Which is nothing else but baptism; for,” etc.
[1735]Dec. 15, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 394; Erl. ed., 53, p. 274 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). On the pair, see Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 412.
[1736]P. 393 f.=273 f.
[1737]Above, p. 410.
[1738]K. Jäger (“Luthers religiöses Interesse an seiner Lehre von der Realpräsenz,” Giessen, 1900) examines the writings dating from the period previous to the Sacramentarian controversy and rightly comes to the conclusion, first, that Luther had above all an ethical interest in regarding as he did the Sacrament of the Altar as a means of strengthening faith by making known the redeeming death of Christ; secondly, that he held fast to the Real Presence on the strength of the traditional faith of the Church without going any deeper into its grounds. Faith in the Real Presence was, however, no suitable means of strengthening the certainty of salvation, because the Presence there does not appeal to the senses nor does it serve as a sign of the forgiveness of sins as Luther supposed. To postulate it primarily on the authority of the Church was to contradict the principles of Lutheranism.—P. 27: According to Luther, by partaking of it we are to be convinced in a “peculiarly vivid and lively manner of God’s Grace.” The partaking of these “signs” was, according to Luther, necessary for us, “because we are still living in sin and our certainty of salvation is ever exposed to attack, and it is useful or suitable because here the Grace of God is offered to each man in a manner that appeals to the senses. Thus the assurance arising from sensible perception is to serve to strengthen and support religious certainty of salvation.” “This is the sole religious importance that can be attributed to the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ.” Nevertheless, “from that very point of view of the religious interest involved in the Supper, which we have seen above to be Luther’s main concern (p. 28), we are forced to deny the Real Presence.” “What is to strengthen our faith in God’s grace must not itself be the object of faith, but, as is evident, must force itself upon our mind by a higher certainty, or to speak more correctly, by a clearer certainty, such as attaches to sensible perception.... A fact which in the last instance itself calls for confirmation, and which in every instance is perceptible only to faith, cannot reasonably serve to support another fact which is of the utmost importance to our life of faith.”
[1739]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 143; Erl. ed., 30, p. 65, in the writing “Das diese Wort Christi ‘Das ist mein Leib etce.,’ noch fest stehen.” 1527.
[1740]Ibid., p. 151=69.
[1741]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.
[1742]See the passages of Buchholzer and Trabe, two Protestants, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 694.
[1743]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.
[1744]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.
[1745]Cp., the reprint in Köstlin-Kawerau.
[1746]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 616.
[1747]F. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4] p. 863.
[1748]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 9, p. 831 ff.; 10, p. 455 ff.
[1749]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 147 ff.: “I, innocent man, am made the devil’s scavenger.... There was really no need so to defame my beloved book behind my back.”
[1750]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 15.
[1751]Above, vol. iii., p. 346 ff.
[1752]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 696: Erl. ed., 21, p. 272. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², pp. 253, 371.
[1753]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 71 f.
[1754]Cp. Köstlin,ibid., p. 372.
[1755]To the Provost, Canons and whole Wittenberg Chapter, Aug. 19, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 212: “Quamvis privato affectui spiritualis viri indulgendum sit, tamen manifestam et publicam religionem in his tolerare non licet propter scandalum ignorantium et infirmorum, qui relicta fide huc adfluunt.”
[1756]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 119 ff. Cp. “Conf. Aug.,” art. 21, and “Apol.,” ad art. 21. Below, p. 501.
[1757]Pars II. art. 2, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 305.
[1758]Ibid., 7, pp. 575=45, p. 252. Exposition of the Magnificat.
[1759]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 313=15², p. 495. Church-postils, Sermon on Mary’s Nativity.
[1760]Ibid., 1, p. 79=“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 118. Sermon on the Assumption, Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 86.
[1761]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 107; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 150.
[1762]Above, p. 238, n. 1.
[1763]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 433.
[1764]Ibid., 19², p. 29 ff.; 37, p. 71. Köstlin,ibid., 2, p. 135.
[1765]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 7², p. 276.
[1766]Ibid., 20², 2, pp. 530-532.
[1767]Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, pp. 568, 573 f.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 245, 250 f.
[1768]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 574 f.
[1769]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 59 f. On March 11, 1523.
[1770]Müller-Kolde, “Symb. Bücher,”10p. 227.
[1771]“Hom. de temp.,” Aug. Vindel., 1533 (“Opp.,” tom. 5, pars 1), fol. 55´.
[1772]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 113 ff; Erl. ed., 15², p. 495 f.
[1773]Ibid., p. 321 f. = 499.
[1774]Ibid., p. 325 = 501.
[1775]Müller-Kolde,ibid., p. 303.
[1776]K. Hase, “Hdb. der prot. Polemik,” Buch 2, Kapitel 6: “Most mortals are too good for hell, but assuredly not good enough for heaven. We may as well openly admit that there is something not quite clear here in the Protestantism of the Reformation.”
[1777]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 555; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 177. Resolutions on the Indulgence Theses. Thesis 15.
[1778]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.
[1779]Cp.,ibid., Erl. ed., 13², p. 2 ff.; 15², p. 521; 17², p. 55.
[1780]In the “Bekentnis” also,ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; in Erl. ed., 30, p. 370, prayer for the dead is left optional.
[1781]Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 184 ff.
[1782]That a sacrifice had been made of the Mass appeared to him “Idolatry and a shameful abuse,” a “twofold impiety and abomination”; its abomination no tongue could express. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 489, 493; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 38, 45 f.; 60, pp. 403 f., 396.
[1783]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 243. There were, however, always some voices raised amongst Protestants to demand that the “Sacrifice and Atonement” under some shape or form should be insisted on more than the sermon. The Presence of Christ, as taught by Luther, although this Presence did not involve a sacrifice, was made use of to oppose any further denuding of worship. “No longer is the Sacrifice and the Atonement which takes place at the Altar to be the centre of Divine worship,” Pastor E. Strack wrote in 1904, in “Der alte Glaube,” 1903-4, 5, col. 1255, “but, according to modern views, God is merely present in the listening congregation by virtue of the Word preached from the pulpit. Hence the pulpit becomes the central point, the altar an accessory. To this we cannot agree. Without atonement we have no God; hence no altar either ... and no pulpit.”
[1784]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 24: “Stante missa Lutherus est damnatus, ruente missa totum fundamentum papæ corruit.”
[1785]Ibid., p. 19: “nam ego toto pectore illam adorabam.” But cp. below, p. 509, n. 2.
[1786]Above, vol. i., p. 275.
[1787]Ibid., p. 276.
[1788]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18.
[1789]Cp. vol. i., p. 15 f. and, besides the references given there, a passage from George Rörer’s MS. of the Table-Talk, given by E. Kroker, “Archiv für RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 354, where Luther, in a paroxysm of terror at the words of the Canon “offero tibi Deo vivo æterno[sic],” says: “Sic perterrefiebam, ut ab altari discedere cogitabam, et fecissem, nisi me retinuisset meus præceptor, quia cogitavi: Who is He with Whom you are speaking? From that time forward I said Mass with terror, and I am thankful to God that He has released me from it.”
[1790]On a solemn occasion, at the conclusion of his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” in 1528, he has it, that, though he had “spent his youth damnably,” yet his having been a monk and his having said Mass had been his greatest sins. See below, p. 524.
[1791]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 443 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, pp. 81, 83seq.
[1792]Ibid., 2, p. 738 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 25 ff.
[1793]Ibid., 6, p. 364 ff.=27, p. 155 ff.
[1794]Aug. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208.
[1795]Above, vol. iii., p. 194 ff.
[1796]Vol. ii., pp. 88 f., 327 ff.
[1797]To Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525. Cp. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 94.
[1798]See vol. ii., p. 320.
[1799]Ibid.
[1800]Ibid., p. 328.
[1801]On Rörer’s work and its connection with the writing mentioned, see Weim. ed., 18, p. 22 ff.
[1802]F. Probst, “Die Liturgie der drei ersten Jahrh.,” 1870, p. 349 ff. P. Drews, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons der röm. Messe,” 1902, p. 39 ff. F. X. Funk, “Über den Kanon.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 24, 1903), pp. 62 ff., 283 ff. (against Drews). A. Baumstark, “Liturgia romana e liturgia dell’ esarcato, Origini del canon missæ romanæ,” 1904 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 25, 1904, p. 859; cp.,ibid., 31, 1910, p. 596). P. Drews, “Untersuchungen über die sog. klementinische Liturgie,” 1 Tl., 1907 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 166). N. Gihr, “Das hl. Messopfer”10, 1907.
[1803]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 119, in 1540.
[1804]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 36; Erl. ed., 29, p. 132 f.
[1805]Cp. vol. ii., p. 311.
[1806]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 338. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 216 ff., 258 ff.
[1807]Vol. ii., pp. 326 ff., 336 ff.
[1808]After Köstlin (ibid., p. 340), who quotes from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 49 (Weim. ed., 8, p. 687 f.), Luther’s passage against the Princes, who allow everything to slide: they ought to draw the sword, not indeed to “put the priests to death,” but to “forbid by word and then put down by force whatever they do that is over or against the Gospel.”
[1809]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 29; Erl. ed., 29, p. 124.
[1810]Ibid., p. 33=129.
[1811]“Auf Luthers Greuel wider die heilige Stillmess Antwort,” 1525.
[1812]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 31; Erl. ed., 29, p. 126.
[1813]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527.
[1814]Cp. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 12, 1891, p. 776, where N. Paulus quotes for the first time a memorandum (1523) of Johann Staupitz against Stephen Agricola, which corroborates his statement mentioned before (ibid., p. 309 ff.), that Staupitz was quite Catholic in his views on matters of faith.
[1815]“Antwort auf das ... Geschwetz M. Flaccii Illyrici,” 1558, p. 121 f. Quoted by Paulus,ibid., p. 776.
[1816]“Opp.,” 10, col. 1578seq.Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 13 f.
[1817]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 236.
[1818]For this excellent work, which for the most part reproduces the lectures of Magister Egeling Becker, see A. Franz, “Die Messe im deutschen MA.,” Freiburg, 1902, pp. 542-554. The comprehensive “Expositio,” comprising 51 “signatures,” consists of 89 Lectures addressed to the clergy. Franz characterises it as “a work which, by its theological thoroughness and its moderately ascetical views, was calculated to promote learning amongst the clergy and render them more worthy of exercising their greatest and finest privilege” (p. 554).
[1819]Lectio 85, F.
[1820]Ibid.: “Quamvis autem semel oblatus est Christus in aperta carnis effigie, offertur nihilominus quotidie in altari velatus,” etc. Of the numerous witnesses to the ancient belief of the Church, Joh. Ernest Grabe notes in his Oxford edition of Irenæus (1702) with regard to a statement of his on this subject (4 c. 17, al. 33): “What Irenæus here teaches of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ignatius and Justin taught before him, and Tertullian and Cyprian after. It is clearly vouched for in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians.” “There is no doubt that Irenæus and the other Fathers, both those who had seen the Apostles, as well as their immediate successors, regarded the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law, and ... presented at the altar the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine to God the Father in order to figure the bloody Sacrifice which He Himself had offered on the cross in His flesh and Blood, and in order to obtain the fruits of His death for all for whom it was offered.” Gregory the Great taught with antiquity (Hom. 37 in Evang. c. 7): “Quoties ei (Deo) hostiam suæ passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus,” and in his Dialogues, which contributed greatly to the high esteem of Masses for the dead (we are here considering the doctrine, not the legends), he says of the Sacrifice of the Mass: “Hæc singulariter victima ab æterno interitu animam salvat, quæ illam nobis mortem Unigeniti per mysterium reparat.... Pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacræ oblationis immolatur” (“Dial.,” 4, 58; cf. 59). The well-known Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz wrote in his “Examen concilii Tridentini” (1565-1573), that it could not be denied that the Fathers, when speaking of the celebration of the Supper, make use of expressions descriptive of Sacrifice, such as “sacrificium,” “immolatio,” “oblatio,” “hostia,” “victima,” “offerre,” “sacrificare,” “immolare” (t. 2, p. 782). Cp. J. Döllinger, “Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrh.,” 1826. J. A. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §§ 34 and 35.
[1821]Lectio 85, under L.: “Si eos dispositos inveniat, eis gratiam obtinet virtute illius unius sacrificii, a quo omnis gratia in nos influxit, et per consequens peccata mortalia in eis delet ... in quantum gratiam contritionis eis impetrat.”
[1822]Lectio 26, under F.
[1823]Lectio 28.
[1824]Ibid., L. 17 (E.). Master Egeling discusses this even more in detail. Franz says (ibid., p. 548), speaking of Egeling’s MS., of which he makes use: “The remarkable length at which he vindicates the Church’s rule that the Canon be recited silently is not without significance. It would appear that this gave offence to the people.” Luther seized upon this popular prejudice as a weapon in his war on the Mass.
[1825]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 308 ff. New edition by G. Kawerau in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 50, Halle, 1883.
[1826]“Werke,”ibid., p. 308.
[1827]Ibid., p. 374 f.
[1828]P. 372.
[1829]Vol. v., xxxi., 4.
[1830]To Nic. Hausmann at Dessau, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363, where he calls the writing a “novi generis libellus,” which challenged the Papists to see whether they had an answer ready to give the devil when lying on their death-beds.
[1831]A. Freytag, in Koffmane, “Die handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, pp. 16 and 11, where in Luther’s rough notes the words first occur: “primum argumentum diaboli.” Freytag, however, is of opinion, that “Luther’s account of the disputation with the devil certainly [?] had its origin in the Reformer’s tormenting mental experiences, and that he had been actually assailed by accusing thoughts concerning his former share in the abomination of private Masses.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 308, speaking of the disputation, also refers to the “anguish of soul” which overwhelmed him “owing to his own former share in so great a crime as he now more fully recognised it to be.” Cp. our vol. v., xxxii.
[1832]In the letter to Hausmann (above, n. 2): “Lutherum hoc libello tentare papatus sapientiam et potentiam.”
[1833]To Spalatin; only an extract extant. See Jonas’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201: “Lutherus scribit utilissimum, fortissimum arietem, quo quatietur, ut ferreus murus, papatus.”
[1834]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 378 ff.
[1835]Ibid., p. 379.
[1836]P. 383.
[1837]P. 384.
[1838]On “Bible, Babble, Bubble,” see above, vol. ii, pp. 365, 370; on the “Heresy-book,” see above, p. 396.
[1839]Bl. A. 3.
[1840]In this sense G. Kawerau’s remark on the “Winckelmesse” is much to the point: “It is of interest on account of the insight it affords into the Reformer’s efforts to arrive at certainty concerning the fundamentals of his religious views.” In the Introduction to the edition quoted above, p. 519 n. 1.
[1841]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 132.
[1842]Ibid., p. 119.
[1843]See the letter written before his first Mass, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 10.
[1844]See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372. Above, p. 509 n. 3.
[1845]Above, vol. iii., p. 130.
[1846]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 122.
[1847]Ibid., p. 119.
[1848]Ibid., p. 120.
[1849]Ibid.On Gregory the Great, see above, p. 517 n. 2.
[1850]Ibid., p. 119.
[1851]Ibid., p. 122.
[1852]Symbol. Bücher10, p. 301 ff. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 174 ff.
[1853]“Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 381 f.