[477]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 70.[478]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.[479]Ib., p. 35 ff=153 ff.[480]Ib., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens,” 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.[481]See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4.[482]Above, p. 78 ff.[483]“Schwenckfelds Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 ff. Cp. K. Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39, are given, showing that Schwenckfeld “noted down the whole affair from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory.”[484]Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.[485]“Epistolar,”ib., pp. 39, 43.[486]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff.[487]See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.[488]Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523,ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.[489]In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231: “In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it of my own initiative.”[490]“Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 65. Drews adds: “He was afraid of doing something contrary to God’s will.” That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also stated by K. Müller (“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 121).[491]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10.[492]As late as June 26, 1533 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317), he wrote: “In hoc sæculo tam turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda disciplina idoneo non ausim consulere tam subitam innovationem.” Cp. p. 142, below.[493]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 32), p. 399.[494]P. 67.[495]The plan as Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had been formed “mainly on elements previously brought forward by Luther.”[496]Reprinted in A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 56.[497]Jan. 7, 1527. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 9).[498]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.[499]F. Feuchtwanger: “Gesch. der sozialen Politik ... im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.,” 33, 1909), p. 193.[500]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.[501]June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.[502]Ib., p. 68.[503]Below, xxxv., 2.[504]To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.[505]To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.[506]Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.[507]Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.[508]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2sqq.[509]Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.[510]To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.[511]“Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular power also urges me to it.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 14², p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, “Lehrb. der Liturgik,” Berlin, 1900, p. 278.[512]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 95; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.[513]For Luther’s writing: “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet,” see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.[514]For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, p. 239, and Kawerau, in Möller, “KG,” 3³, p. 401.[515]See below, xxxiv., 4.[516]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains that the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the “Te Deum” he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in the sense in which he taught it. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.[517]W. Germann, “Johann Forster” (“N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen Altertums,” Hft. 12), 1894.[518]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.[519]Ib., 12, p. 37=22, p. 156.[520]Ib., 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.[521]Ib.[522]Ib., p. 75=230 f.[523]Ib., 74 ff.=229 ff.[524]Ib., p. 72=228.[525]Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.[526]Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.[527]On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[528]Kawerau in the “Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”[529]J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.[530]Cp. Kawerau’s quotations in his article in the “Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 115.[531]June 17, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 315 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen’s letter see “Briefwechsel,” p. 207, for Hofmann’s,ib., p. 213.[532]Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 400; “The influence of the Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and that it culminated in this ‘office.’ This, even in the 16th century, gave rise to difficulties.”[533]To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above, p. 145, n. 2.[534]Kawerau,ib., p. 401.[535]Ib., p. 400. Luther says: “Diligens verbi Dei prædicatio est proprius cultus novi testamenti.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 161.[536]Gottschick.[537]This is Kawerau’s opinion,ib., p. 401.[538]See above, p. 146, n. 3.[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 35; Erl. ed., 22, p. 153. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne,” 1523.[540]Of the most recent studies we need only mention here H. Greving, “Ecks Pfarrbuch für U.L. Frau in Ingolstadt” (“RGI. Studien”), Hft. 4 and 5, 1908, p. 87 ff. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. i.,passim.[541]This introduction, together with the whole text of the common Preface, enters into Luther’s Latin Mass. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 8. In his German Mass it is suppressed.[542]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570. Ecke (see below, p. 156, n. 1), p. 159.[543]“Der erste Teil der christl. orthodox. Bücher und Schriften.... Schwenckfelds ... durch Mitbekenner zusammengetragen,” 1564, p. 4. Ecke, p. 160; cp. p. 10 f.[544]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 228; cp. p. 246.[545]Ib., p. 645.[546]Ib., p. 519.[547]“Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Ref.,” Berlin, 1911, p. 161.[548]Ecke, p. 176. The Protestant author adds in a note: “It must, however, be pointed out that this criticism does not affect the apostolic nature of the profound phenomena of Evangelical piety seen among Lutherans.”[549]“Christl. Bücher,” etc. (above, p. 155, n. 2), p. 384. Ecke, p. 177.[550]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 602. In 1550. Ecke, p. 196.[551]See our vol. iv., p. 210 ff., for instance, and below, vol. vi., xxxix., 1.[552]“Die andere Verantwortung,” 1556, Aiii. Ecke, p. 190 f.[553]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 326 f. Ecke, p. 163.[554]Ib.[555]“Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 680. Ecke, p. 164.[556]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 362. In 1547. Ecke,ib.[557]Ecke, p. 164, from a MS.[558]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 477. Ecke, p. 164.[559]Thus G. Arnold, “Kirchenhistorie,” Frankfurt a/M., 1729, 1, p. 413.[560]Ib., p. 395. Ecke, p. 170 f., where he quotes in support of this and what follows, “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 164 f., 174.[561]Ib.[562]Ib., p. 325. Ecke, p. 172.[563]Ib., p. 377. Ecke, p. 168.[564]Ib., p. 420. Schwenckfeld’s excuse is, however, worthy of note, p. 401: “Such doctrine is not the outcome of an evil mind but is due to misapprehension.” Ecke, p. 168.[565]Ib., p. 421. Ecke, p. 169.[566]Ib.[567]Ib., p. 401. Ecke,ib.[568]Ib.Ecke, p. 170.[569]Ib., p. 361. Ecke quotes “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 217.[570]Ib., p. 365. Ecke, p. 166, quotes Erl. ed., 13², p. 218; 14², pp. 281 f., 287 ff.[571]Ib.[572]Ib.[573]Ib.[574]Ib., p. 343 f. Cp. “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 912. Ecke, p. 176. Cp. Döllinger, on Schwenckfeld, in “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 254 ff.[575]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 913. Ecke, p. 55.[576]Ib., p. 427. Cp. “Epistolar,” 1., p. 410.[577]Ecke’s words, p. 161.[578]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 513, cp. p. 403 ff.; 1, p. 424. Ecke,ib.[579]Ecke, p. 162.[580]Cp. Ecke, p. 160, n. 3.[581]Ib., p. 222.[582]Ecke, p. 180 f.; from MS. sources.[583]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 639. Ecke, p. 179.[584]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 99. Ecke, p. 181.[585]Ib.Ecke, p. 182.[586]Ib., 1, p. 92. Ecke, p. 181.[587]Ib., p. 736. Ecke, p. 182.[588]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 363. Ecke, p. 173.[589]Ib.[590]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 1014. Ecke, p. 160.[591]Ecke, p. 227, MS.[592]“Christl. Bücher,” pp. 962, 965. Ecke, p. 191.[593]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 173. “Christl. Bücher,” p. 74 f., 549. Ecke,ib.[594]“Epistolar,” 1, p. iii. B. Ecke, p. 86.[595]See above, vol. iv., p. 367.[596]Ch. v. Rommel, “Philipp der Grossmüthige, Landgraf von Hessen,” 1, 1820, p. 517.[597]Aug. 5, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 580.[598]May 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 557.[599]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 562.[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75 ff. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 91 ff.[601]Letter to the Emperor Charles V, Aug. 24, 1544, in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1544; in German in “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1253 ff. For the former attitude of the Papacy to the idea of the Council, cp. our vol. iii., p. 424 ff.[602]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.[603]Ib., p. 62.[604]Ib., p. 70.[605]Ib., p. 114.[606]Ib., p. 80.[607]Ib., p. 91 f. Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 90sq.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 42 f.[608]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101.[609]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 138.[610]Ib., p. 287.[611]Ib., p. 231.[612]Ib., p. 169.[613]Ib., p. 417.[614]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.[615]Ib., p. 475 = 264 f.[616]In the “Antwort auf das Schmähbüchlein,” etc., “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 146.[617]April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.[618]To the Preacher Balthasar Raida of Hersfeld, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288.[619]April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.[620]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 398.[621]To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 18, 1545,ib., p. 716: “I will have them [the lawyers] eternally damned and cursedin myChurches.”[622]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543,ib., p. 612.[623]To Jacob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544,ib., p. 703.[624]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 773 f.[625]Ib., p. 774.[626]Cp. (E. v. Jarcke) “Studien und Skizzen z. Gesch. d. Ref.,” 1846, p. 68.[627]Ib.[628]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 158.[629]Ib., p. 198.[630]Ib., p. 200.[631]“Theander Lutherus,” Ursel s.a., Bl. 59´.[632]After June 16, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 20. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312.) The passage in question in the original at Weimar is in Melanchthon’s handwriting. Cp. Enders, p. 313, on the historical connection of the memorandum.[633]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 139sqq.Rommel, “Philipp von Hessen,” 1, p. 417. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. v., p. 527 ff. Pastor, “Die kirchl. Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V,” p. 95.[634]To Brenz, April 14, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 340: “Ulyssea philosophia ... multa dissimulantes.”[635]Letter of March 10, 1540, in Bindseil, “Melanchthonis epistolæ, iudicia, etc.,” 1874, p. 146.[636]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 421 ff.[637]Letter of Dec. 28, 1543, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” 2, p. 227. “Nihil est quod minus multum[readinultum]relinquerem.”[638]Lenz,ib., p. 241.[639]Letter of Feb. 25, 1545, Lenz, p. 304.[640]Letter of Dec. 1, 1545, Lenz, p. 379.[641]Letter of April 5, 1546, Lenz, p. 426 f.[642]Letter of May 12, 1545, Lenz, p. 433.[643]See below, vol. vi., xl., 3.[644]Seckendorf, “Comm. hist. de Lutheranismo,” 3, Lips., 1694, p. 468. The disputant, Johannes Marbach, received from Luther this testimony: “Amplectitur puram evangelii doctrinam, quam ecclesia nostra uno spiritu et una voce profitetur.” “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 543. Cp. Disputationen, ed. Drews, p. 700 ff. Some of Luther’s other statements concerning unity ring very differently.[645]Cp. vol. iii., pp. 324, 363, 371 f.[646]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 230; “Incipiunt de tota religione dubitare.”[647]“Pezelii Object. et resp. Melanchtonis,” P. V., p. 289. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.[648]Nov., 1536, to Myconius, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.[649]Ib., pp. 460, 488 (1537 and 1538).[650]To Prince George of Anhalt, June 10, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 379.[651]Ib.[652]“Corp, ref.,” 1, p. 907.[653]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 441, 574.[654]To Spalatin, Jan. 12, 1541. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 246. “Spalatin foresaw what was to come better than did Luther.” K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 57.[655]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 223, Table-Talk.[656]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90). Cp. above, vol. iii., 38 f., 263 f.[657]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.[658]Ib., p. 152.[659]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[660]To the Visitors in Thuringia, March 25, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 173 “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 118.[661]To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 596, concerning certain occurrences at Dresden.[662]See above p. 55, ff., and vol. ii., p. 298.[663]“Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 613.[664]R. Sohm,ib., p. 615.[665]Ib., p. 623.[666]Ib., p. 618.[667]Ib., p. 632. Sohm’s standpoint is, that a Church with powers of self-government or with a “canon law,” as he calls it, is practically unthinkable. Cp. Carl Müller, “Die Anfänge der Konsistorialverfassung in Deutschland” (Hist. Zeitschr. Bd. 102, 3. Folge Bd. 6, p. 1 ff.). He too arrives at the conclusion, contrary to many previously held views, viz. that it was only gradually in the course of the 16th century that the consistories changed, from organs of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, into organs of State government of the Church. Cp. also O. Mejer, “Zum KR. des Reformationsjahrh.,” 1891, p. 1 ff.[668]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 66.[669]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 720sq.Memorandum as to whether the Schmalkalden League should continue, etc., March, 1545, signed by him first. Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 374.[670]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.[671]Pars 3, art. 9: “Maiorem excommunicationem, quam papa ita nominat, non nisi civilem poenam esse ducimus non pertinentem ad nos ministros ecclesiæ.” “Symbol. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 323.[672]To Tileman Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy, June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317: “Hoc sæculo excommunicatio maior ne potest quidem in nostram potestatem redigi, et ridiculi fieremus, ante vires, hanc tentantes. Nam quod vos sperare videmini, ut executio vel per ipsum principem fiat, valde incertum est, nec vellem politicum magistratum in id officii misceri,” etc.[673]N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess,” 1911, p. 32, with reference to “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 539, where the note of the Wittenberg Deacon, George Rörer to Luther’s sermon of Aug. 22 of that year says: “Hæc prima fuit excommunicatio ab ipso pronuntiata.”[674]Luther to Leonhard Beier, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.[675]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 275.[676]Cp. the passages quoted,ib., p. 675, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.[677]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 291sqq.Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.[678]On April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 550. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 162 ff., 159 f.; “We must set up excommunication again.” In the latter passage he speaks of his action against the Wittenberg Commandant, Hans v. Metzsch.[679]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 42. His words remind us of Luther’s own; above, p. 139.[680]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 160.[681]Ib., p. 179 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185 (in 1540).[682]Ib., p. 169 f.[683]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 278 (in 1542-1543).[684]“Kosmographie,” Bl. 44´, 163. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 535.[685]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 122.[686]Ib., 1, p. 322.[687]Ib., 3, p. 306.[688]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 367, Table-Talk.[689]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 306. In the statement the year given is uncertain. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 368: “Anno34,” etc.; elsewhere 1543.[690]Rebenstock, in Bindseil, 1. c.[691]P. Drews, “Die Ordination, Prüfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg” (“Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.”), 15, 1905, pp. 66 ff., 274 ff., particularly p. 281 ff.[692]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 22 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80: “Doctor dixit: Nos qui prædicamus Evangelium, habemus potestatem ordinandi; papa et episcopi neminem possunt ordinare” (a. 1540). P. 226: “Doctor ad Cellarium; Vos estis episcopus, quemadmodum ego sum papa” (a. 1540). Johannes Cellarius was Superintendent at Dresden.[693]Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), vi., 181 ff.[694]Letter of Jan. 24, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 253 f.[695]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 553 ff.[696]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 126, in the “Exempel” (see below, p. 195).[697]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, p. 302, according to MS. Dresdense B 193, 4.[698]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 554 f.[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 125, in the “Exempel.”[700]On March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 451: “Venerabili in Domino viro Iacobo Probst ecclesiæ Bremensis episcopo vero,” etc.[701]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 93 ff.[702]Ib., p. 121.[703]Ib., pp. 99, 100, 118, 113.[704]P. 124.[705]P. 125.[706]P. 115.[707]P. 126 f.[708]Feb. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 432.[709]Letter of Jan. 13, 1543,ib., p. 532.[710]Letter of July 23, 1542,ib., p. 485.[711]To Amsdorf after Jan. 20, 1542,ib., p. 430.[712]To Amsdorf, Feb. 12, 1542,ib., p. 433.[713]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 123.
[477]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 70.[478]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.[479]Ib., p. 35 ff=153 ff.[480]Ib., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens,” 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.[481]See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4.[482]Above, p. 78 ff.[483]“Schwenckfelds Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 ff. Cp. K. Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39, are given, showing that Schwenckfeld “noted down the whole affair from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory.”[484]Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.[485]“Epistolar,”ib., pp. 39, 43.[486]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff.[487]See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.[488]Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523,ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.[489]In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231: “In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it of my own initiative.”[490]“Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 65. Drews adds: “He was afraid of doing something contrary to God’s will.” That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also stated by K. Müller (“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 121).[491]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10.[492]As late as June 26, 1533 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317), he wrote: “In hoc sæculo tam turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda disciplina idoneo non ausim consulere tam subitam innovationem.” Cp. p. 142, below.[493]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 32), p. 399.[494]P. 67.[495]The plan as Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had been formed “mainly on elements previously brought forward by Luther.”[496]Reprinted in A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 56.[497]Jan. 7, 1527. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 9).[498]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.[499]F. Feuchtwanger: “Gesch. der sozialen Politik ... im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.,” 33, 1909), p. 193.[500]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.[501]June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.[502]Ib., p. 68.[503]Below, xxxv., 2.[504]To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.[505]To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.[506]Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.[507]Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.[508]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2sqq.[509]Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.[510]To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.[511]“Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular power also urges me to it.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 14², p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, “Lehrb. der Liturgik,” Berlin, 1900, p. 278.[512]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 95; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.[513]For Luther’s writing: “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet,” see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.[514]For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, p. 239, and Kawerau, in Möller, “KG,” 3³, p. 401.[515]See below, xxxiv., 4.[516]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains that the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the “Te Deum” he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in the sense in which he taught it. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.[517]W. Germann, “Johann Forster” (“N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen Altertums,” Hft. 12), 1894.[518]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.[519]Ib., 12, p. 37=22, p. 156.[520]Ib., 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.[521]Ib.[522]Ib., p. 75=230 f.[523]Ib., 74 ff.=229 ff.[524]Ib., p. 72=228.[525]Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.[526]Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.[527]On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[528]Kawerau in the “Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”[529]J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.[530]Cp. Kawerau’s quotations in his article in the “Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 115.[531]June 17, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 315 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen’s letter see “Briefwechsel,” p. 207, for Hofmann’s,ib., p. 213.[532]Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 400; “The influence of the Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and that it culminated in this ‘office.’ This, even in the 16th century, gave rise to difficulties.”[533]To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above, p. 145, n. 2.[534]Kawerau,ib., p. 401.[535]Ib., p. 400. Luther says: “Diligens verbi Dei prædicatio est proprius cultus novi testamenti.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 161.[536]Gottschick.[537]This is Kawerau’s opinion,ib., p. 401.[538]See above, p. 146, n. 3.[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 35; Erl. ed., 22, p. 153. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne,” 1523.[540]Of the most recent studies we need only mention here H. Greving, “Ecks Pfarrbuch für U.L. Frau in Ingolstadt” (“RGI. Studien”), Hft. 4 and 5, 1908, p. 87 ff. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. i.,passim.[541]This introduction, together with the whole text of the common Preface, enters into Luther’s Latin Mass. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 8. In his German Mass it is suppressed.[542]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570. Ecke (see below, p. 156, n. 1), p. 159.[543]“Der erste Teil der christl. orthodox. Bücher und Schriften.... Schwenckfelds ... durch Mitbekenner zusammengetragen,” 1564, p. 4. Ecke, p. 160; cp. p. 10 f.[544]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 228; cp. p. 246.[545]Ib., p. 645.[546]Ib., p. 519.[547]“Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Ref.,” Berlin, 1911, p. 161.[548]Ecke, p. 176. The Protestant author adds in a note: “It must, however, be pointed out that this criticism does not affect the apostolic nature of the profound phenomena of Evangelical piety seen among Lutherans.”[549]“Christl. Bücher,” etc. (above, p. 155, n. 2), p. 384. Ecke, p. 177.[550]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 602. In 1550. Ecke, p. 196.[551]See our vol. iv., p. 210 ff., for instance, and below, vol. vi., xxxix., 1.[552]“Die andere Verantwortung,” 1556, Aiii. Ecke, p. 190 f.[553]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 326 f. Ecke, p. 163.[554]Ib.[555]“Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 680. Ecke, p. 164.[556]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 362. In 1547. Ecke,ib.[557]Ecke, p. 164, from a MS.[558]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 477. Ecke, p. 164.[559]Thus G. Arnold, “Kirchenhistorie,” Frankfurt a/M., 1729, 1, p. 413.[560]Ib., p. 395. Ecke, p. 170 f., where he quotes in support of this and what follows, “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 164 f., 174.[561]Ib.[562]Ib., p. 325. Ecke, p. 172.[563]Ib., p. 377. Ecke, p. 168.[564]Ib., p. 420. Schwenckfeld’s excuse is, however, worthy of note, p. 401: “Such doctrine is not the outcome of an evil mind but is due to misapprehension.” Ecke, p. 168.[565]Ib., p. 421. Ecke, p. 169.[566]Ib.[567]Ib., p. 401. Ecke,ib.[568]Ib.Ecke, p. 170.[569]Ib., p. 361. Ecke quotes “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 217.[570]Ib., p. 365. Ecke, p. 166, quotes Erl. ed., 13², p. 218; 14², pp. 281 f., 287 ff.[571]Ib.[572]Ib.[573]Ib.[574]Ib., p. 343 f. Cp. “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 912. Ecke, p. 176. Cp. Döllinger, on Schwenckfeld, in “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 254 ff.[575]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 913. Ecke, p. 55.[576]Ib., p. 427. Cp. “Epistolar,” 1., p. 410.[577]Ecke’s words, p. 161.[578]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 513, cp. p. 403 ff.; 1, p. 424. Ecke,ib.[579]Ecke, p. 162.[580]Cp. Ecke, p. 160, n. 3.[581]Ib., p. 222.[582]Ecke, p. 180 f.; from MS. sources.[583]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 639. Ecke, p. 179.[584]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 99. Ecke, p. 181.[585]Ib.Ecke, p. 182.[586]Ib., 1, p. 92. Ecke, p. 181.[587]Ib., p. 736. Ecke, p. 182.[588]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 363. Ecke, p. 173.[589]Ib.[590]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 1014. Ecke, p. 160.[591]Ecke, p. 227, MS.[592]“Christl. Bücher,” pp. 962, 965. Ecke, p. 191.[593]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 173. “Christl. Bücher,” p. 74 f., 549. Ecke,ib.[594]“Epistolar,” 1, p. iii. B. Ecke, p. 86.[595]See above, vol. iv., p. 367.[596]Ch. v. Rommel, “Philipp der Grossmüthige, Landgraf von Hessen,” 1, 1820, p. 517.[597]Aug. 5, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 580.[598]May 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 557.[599]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 562.[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75 ff. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 91 ff.[601]Letter to the Emperor Charles V, Aug. 24, 1544, in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1544; in German in “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1253 ff. For the former attitude of the Papacy to the idea of the Council, cp. our vol. iii., p. 424 ff.[602]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.[603]Ib., p. 62.[604]Ib., p. 70.[605]Ib., p. 114.[606]Ib., p. 80.[607]Ib., p. 91 f. Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 90sq.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 42 f.[608]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101.[609]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 138.[610]Ib., p. 287.[611]Ib., p. 231.[612]Ib., p. 169.[613]Ib., p. 417.[614]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.[615]Ib., p. 475 = 264 f.[616]In the “Antwort auf das Schmähbüchlein,” etc., “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 146.[617]April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.[618]To the Preacher Balthasar Raida of Hersfeld, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288.[619]April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.[620]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 398.[621]To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 18, 1545,ib., p. 716: “I will have them [the lawyers] eternally damned and cursedin myChurches.”[622]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543,ib., p. 612.[623]To Jacob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544,ib., p. 703.[624]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 773 f.[625]Ib., p. 774.[626]Cp. (E. v. Jarcke) “Studien und Skizzen z. Gesch. d. Ref.,” 1846, p. 68.[627]Ib.[628]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 158.[629]Ib., p. 198.[630]Ib., p. 200.[631]“Theander Lutherus,” Ursel s.a., Bl. 59´.[632]After June 16, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 20. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312.) The passage in question in the original at Weimar is in Melanchthon’s handwriting. Cp. Enders, p. 313, on the historical connection of the memorandum.[633]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 139sqq.Rommel, “Philipp von Hessen,” 1, p. 417. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. v., p. 527 ff. Pastor, “Die kirchl. Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V,” p. 95.[634]To Brenz, April 14, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 340: “Ulyssea philosophia ... multa dissimulantes.”[635]Letter of March 10, 1540, in Bindseil, “Melanchthonis epistolæ, iudicia, etc.,” 1874, p. 146.[636]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 421 ff.[637]Letter of Dec. 28, 1543, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” 2, p. 227. “Nihil est quod minus multum[readinultum]relinquerem.”[638]Lenz,ib., p. 241.[639]Letter of Feb. 25, 1545, Lenz, p. 304.[640]Letter of Dec. 1, 1545, Lenz, p. 379.[641]Letter of April 5, 1546, Lenz, p. 426 f.[642]Letter of May 12, 1545, Lenz, p. 433.[643]See below, vol. vi., xl., 3.[644]Seckendorf, “Comm. hist. de Lutheranismo,” 3, Lips., 1694, p. 468. The disputant, Johannes Marbach, received from Luther this testimony: “Amplectitur puram evangelii doctrinam, quam ecclesia nostra uno spiritu et una voce profitetur.” “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 543. Cp. Disputationen, ed. Drews, p. 700 ff. Some of Luther’s other statements concerning unity ring very differently.[645]Cp. vol. iii., pp. 324, 363, 371 f.[646]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 230; “Incipiunt de tota religione dubitare.”[647]“Pezelii Object. et resp. Melanchtonis,” P. V., p. 289. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.[648]Nov., 1536, to Myconius, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.[649]Ib., pp. 460, 488 (1537 and 1538).[650]To Prince George of Anhalt, June 10, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 379.[651]Ib.[652]“Corp, ref.,” 1, p. 907.[653]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 441, 574.[654]To Spalatin, Jan. 12, 1541. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 246. “Spalatin foresaw what was to come better than did Luther.” K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 57.[655]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 223, Table-Talk.[656]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90). Cp. above, vol. iii., 38 f., 263 f.[657]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.[658]Ib., p. 152.[659]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[660]To the Visitors in Thuringia, March 25, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 173 “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 118.[661]To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 596, concerning certain occurrences at Dresden.[662]See above p. 55, ff., and vol. ii., p. 298.[663]“Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 613.[664]R. Sohm,ib., p. 615.[665]Ib., p. 623.[666]Ib., p. 618.[667]Ib., p. 632. Sohm’s standpoint is, that a Church with powers of self-government or with a “canon law,” as he calls it, is practically unthinkable. Cp. Carl Müller, “Die Anfänge der Konsistorialverfassung in Deutschland” (Hist. Zeitschr. Bd. 102, 3. Folge Bd. 6, p. 1 ff.). He too arrives at the conclusion, contrary to many previously held views, viz. that it was only gradually in the course of the 16th century that the consistories changed, from organs of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, into organs of State government of the Church. Cp. also O. Mejer, “Zum KR. des Reformationsjahrh.,” 1891, p. 1 ff.[668]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 66.[669]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 720sq.Memorandum as to whether the Schmalkalden League should continue, etc., March, 1545, signed by him first. Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 374.[670]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.[671]Pars 3, art. 9: “Maiorem excommunicationem, quam papa ita nominat, non nisi civilem poenam esse ducimus non pertinentem ad nos ministros ecclesiæ.” “Symbol. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 323.[672]To Tileman Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy, June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317: “Hoc sæculo excommunicatio maior ne potest quidem in nostram potestatem redigi, et ridiculi fieremus, ante vires, hanc tentantes. Nam quod vos sperare videmini, ut executio vel per ipsum principem fiat, valde incertum est, nec vellem politicum magistratum in id officii misceri,” etc.[673]N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess,” 1911, p. 32, with reference to “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 539, where the note of the Wittenberg Deacon, George Rörer to Luther’s sermon of Aug. 22 of that year says: “Hæc prima fuit excommunicatio ab ipso pronuntiata.”[674]Luther to Leonhard Beier, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.[675]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 275.[676]Cp. the passages quoted,ib., p. 675, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.[677]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 291sqq.Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.[678]On April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 550. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 162 ff., 159 f.; “We must set up excommunication again.” In the latter passage he speaks of his action against the Wittenberg Commandant, Hans v. Metzsch.[679]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 42. His words remind us of Luther’s own; above, p. 139.[680]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 160.[681]Ib., p. 179 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185 (in 1540).[682]Ib., p. 169 f.[683]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 278 (in 1542-1543).[684]“Kosmographie,” Bl. 44´, 163. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 535.[685]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 122.[686]Ib., 1, p. 322.[687]Ib., 3, p. 306.[688]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 367, Table-Talk.[689]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 306. In the statement the year given is uncertain. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 368: “Anno34,” etc.; elsewhere 1543.[690]Rebenstock, in Bindseil, 1. c.[691]P. Drews, “Die Ordination, Prüfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg” (“Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.”), 15, 1905, pp. 66 ff., 274 ff., particularly p. 281 ff.[692]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 22 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80: “Doctor dixit: Nos qui prædicamus Evangelium, habemus potestatem ordinandi; papa et episcopi neminem possunt ordinare” (a. 1540). P. 226: “Doctor ad Cellarium; Vos estis episcopus, quemadmodum ego sum papa” (a. 1540). Johannes Cellarius was Superintendent at Dresden.[693]Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), vi., 181 ff.[694]Letter of Jan. 24, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 253 f.[695]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 553 ff.[696]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 126, in the “Exempel” (see below, p. 195).[697]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, p. 302, according to MS. Dresdense B 193, 4.[698]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 554 f.[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 125, in the “Exempel.”[700]On March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 451: “Venerabili in Domino viro Iacobo Probst ecclesiæ Bremensis episcopo vero,” etc.[701]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 93 ff.[702]Ib., p. 121.[703]Ib., pp. 99, 100, 118, 113.[704]P. 124.[705]P. 125.[706]P. 115.[707]P. 126 f.[708]Feb. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 432.[709]Letter of Jan. 13, 1543,ib., p. 532.[710]Letter of July 23, 1542,ib., p. 485.[711]To Amsdorf after Jan. 20, 1542,ib., p. 430.[712]To Amsdorf, Feb. 12, 1542,ib., p. 433.[713]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 123.
[477]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 70.[478]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.[479]Ib., p. 35 ff=153 ff.[480]Ib., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens,” 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.[481]See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4.[482]Above, p. 78 ff.[483]“Schwenckfelds Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 ff. Cp. K. Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39, are given, showing that Schwenckfeld “noted down the whole affair from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory.”[484]Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.[485]“Epistolar,”ib., pp. 39, 43.[486]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff.[487]See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.[488]Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523,ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.[489]In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231: “In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it of my own initiative.”[490]“Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 65. Drews adds: “He was afraid of doing something contrary to God’s will.” That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also stated by K. Müller (“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 121).[491]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10.[492]As late as June 26, 1533 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317), he wrote: “In hoc sæculo tam turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda disciplina idoneo non ausim consulere tam subitam innovationem.” Cp. p. 142, below.[493]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 32), p. 399.[494]P. 67.[495]The plan as Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had been formed “mainly on elements previously brought forward by Luther.”[496]Reprinted in A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 56.[497]Jan. 7, 1527. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 9).[498]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.[499]F. Feuchtwanger: “Gesch. der sozialen Politik ... im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.,” 33, 1909), p. 193.[500]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.[501]June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.[502]Ib., p. 68.[503]Below, xxxv., 2.[504]To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.[505]To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.[506]Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.[507]Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.[508]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2sqq.[509]Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.[510]To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.[511]“Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular power also urges me to it.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 14², p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, “Lehrb. der Liturgik,” Berlin, 1900, p. 278.[512]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 95; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.[513]For Luther’s writing: “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet,” see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.[514]For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, p. 239, and Kawerau, in Möller, “KG,” 3³, p. 401.[515]See below, xxxiv., 4.[516]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains that the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the “Te Deum” he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in the sense in which he taught it. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.[517]W. Germann, “Johann Forster” (“N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen Altertums,” Hft. 12), 1894.[518]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.[519]Ib., 12, p. 37=22, p. 156.[520]Ib., 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.[521]Ib.[522]Ib., p. 75=230 f.[523]Ib., 74 ff.=229 ff.[524]Ib., p. 72=228.[525]Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.[526]Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.[527]On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).[528]Kawerau in the “Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”[529]J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.[530]Cp. Kawerau’s quotations in his article in the “Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 115.[531]June 17, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 315 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen’s letter see “Briefwechsel,” p. 207, for Hofmann’s,ib., p. 213.[532]Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 400; “The influence of the Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and that it culminated in this ‘office.’ This, even in the 16th century, gave rise to difficulties.”[533]To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above, p. 145, n. 2.[534]Kawerau,ib., p. 401.[535]Ib., p. 400. Luther says: “Diligens verbi Dei prædicatio est proprius cultus novi testamenti.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 161.[536]Gottschick.[537]This is Kawerau’s opinion,ib., p. 401.[538]See above, p. 146, n. 3.[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 35; Erl. ed., 22, p. 153. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne,” 1523.[540]Of the most recent studies we need only mention here H. Greving, “Ecks Pfarrbuch für U.L. Frau in Ingolstadt” (“RGI. Studien”), Hft. 4 and 5, 1908, p. 87 ff. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. i.,passim.[541]This introduction, together with the whole text of the common Preface, enters into Luther’s Latin Mass. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 8. In his German Mass it is suppressed.[542]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570. Ecke (see below, p. 156, n. 1), p. 159.[543]“Der erste Teil der christl. orthodox. Bücher und Schriften.... Schwenckfelds ... durch Mitbekenner zusammengetragen,” 1564, p. 4. Ecke, p. 160; cp. p. 10 f.[544]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 228; cp. p. 246.[545]Ib., p. 645.[546]Ib., p. 519.[547]“Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Ref.,” Berlin, 1911, p. 161.[548]Ecke, p. 176. The Protestant author adds in a note: “It must, however, be pointed out that this criticism does not affect the apostolic nature of the profound phenomena of Evangelical piety seen among Lutherans.”[549]“Christl. Bücher,” etc. (above, p. 155, n. 2), p. 384. Ecke, p. 177.[550]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 602. In 1550. Ecke, p. 196.[551]See our vol. iv., p. 210 ff., for instance, and below, vol. vi., xxxix., 1.[552]“Die andere Verantwortung,” 1556, Aiii. Ecke, p. 190 f.[553]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 326 f. Ecke, p. 163.[554]Ib.[555]“Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 680. Ecke, p. 164.[556]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 362. In 1547. Ecke,ib.[557]Ecke, p. 164, from a MS.[558]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 477. Ecke, p. 164.[559]Thus G. Arnold, “Kirchenhistorie,” Frankfurt a/M., 1729, 1, p. 413.[560]Ib., p. 395. Ecke, p. 170 f., where he quotes in support of this and what follows, “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 164 f., 174.[561]Ib.[562]Ib., p. 325. Ecke, p. 172.[563]Ib., p. 377. Ecke, p. 168.[564]Ib., p. 420. Schwenckfeld’s excuse is, however, worthy of note, p. 401: “Such doctrine is not the outcome of an evil mind but is due to misapprehension.” Ecke, p. 168.[565]Ib., p. 421. Ecke, p. 169.[566]Ib.[567]Ib., p. 401. Ecke,ib.[568]Ib.Ecke, p. 170.[569]Ib., p. 361. Ecke quotes “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 217.[570]Ib., p. 365. Ecke, p. 166, quotes Erl. ed., 13², p. 218; 14², pp. 281 f., 287 ff.[571]Ib.[572]Ib.[573]Ib.[574]Ib., p. 343 f. Cp. “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 912. Ecke, p. 176. Cp. Döllinger, on Schwenckfeld, in “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 254 ff.[575]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 913. Ecke, p. 55.[576]Ib., p. 427. Cp. “Epistolar,” 1., p. 410.[577]Ecke’s words, p. 161.[578]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 513, cp. p. 403 ff.; 1, p. 424. Ecke,ib.[579]Ecke, p. 162.[580]Cp. Ecke, p. 160, n. 3.[581]Ib., p. 222.[582]Ecke, p. 180 f.; from MS. sources.[583]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 639. Ecke, p. 179.[584]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 99. Ecke, p. 181.[585]Ib.Ecke, p. 182.[586]Ib., 1, p. 92. Ecke, p. 181.[587]Ib., p. 736. Ecke, p. 182.[588]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 363. Ecke, p. 173.[589]Ib.[590]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 1014. Ecke, p. 160.[591]Ecke, p. 227, MS.[592]“Christl. Bücher,” pp. 962, 965. Ecke, p. 191.[593]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 173. “Christl. Bücher,” p. 74 f., 549. Ecke,ib.[594]“Epistolar,” 1, p. iii. B. Ecke, p. 86.[595]See above, vol. iv., p. 367.[596]Ch. v. Rommel, “Philipp der Grossmüthige, Landgraf von Hessen,” 1, 1820, p. 517.[597]Aug. 5, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 580.[598]May 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 557.[599]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 562.[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75 ff. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 91 ff.[601]Letter to the Emperor Charles V, Aug. 24, 1544, in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1544; in German in “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1253 ff. For the former attitude of the Papacy to the idea of the Council, cp. our vol. iii., p. 424 ff.[602]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.[603]Ib., p. 62.[604]Ib., p. 70.[605]Ib., p. 114.[606]Ib., p. 80.[607]Ib., p. 91 f. Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 90sq.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 42 f.[608]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101.[609]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 138.[610]Ib., p. 287.[611]Ib., p. 231.[612]Ib., p. 169.[613]Ib., p. 417.[614]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.[615]Ib., p. 475 = 264 f.[616]In the “Antwort auf das Schmähbüchlein,” etc., “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 146.[617]April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.[618]To the Preacher Balthasar Raida of Hersfeld, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288.[619]April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.[620]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 398.[621]To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 18, 1545,ib., p. 716: “I will have them [the lawyers] eternally damned and cursedin myChurches.”[622]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543,ib., p. 612.[623]To Jacob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544,ib., p. 703.[624]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 773 f.[625]Ib., p. 774.[626]Cp. (E. v. Jarcke) “Studien und Skizzen z. Gesch. d. Ref.,” 1846, p. 68.[627]Ib.[628]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 158.[629]Ib., p. 198.[630]Ib., p. 200.[631]“Theander Lutherus,” Ursel s.a., Bl. 59´.[632]After June 16, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 20. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312.) The passage in question in the original at Weimar is in Melanchthon’s handwriting. Cp. Enders, p. 313, on the historical connection of the memorandum.[633]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 139sqq.Rommel, “Philipp von Hessen,” 1, p. 417. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. v., p. 527 ff. Pastor, “Die kirchl. Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V,” p. 95.[634]To Brenz, April 14, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 340: “Ulyssea philosophia ... multa dissimulantes.”[635]Letter of March 10, 1540, in Bindseil, “Melanchthonis epistolæ, iudicia, etc.,” 1874, p. 146.[636]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 421 ff.[637]Letter of Dec. 28, 1543, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” 2, p. 227. “Nihil est quod minus multum[readinultum]relinquerem.”[638]Lenz,ib., p. 241.[639]Letter of Feb. 25, 1545, Lenz, p. 304.[640]Letter of Dec. 1, 1545, Lenz, p. 379.[641]Letter of April 5, 1546, Lenz, p. 426 f.[642]Letter of May 12, 1545, Lenz, p. 433.[643]See below, vol. vi., xl., 3.[644]Seckendorf, “Comm. hist. de Lutheranismo,” 3, Lips., 1694, p. 468. The disputant, Johannes Marbach, received from Luther this testimony: “Amplectitur puram evangelii doctrinam, quam ecclesia nostra uno spiritu et una voce profitetur.” “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 543. Cp. Disputationen, ed. Drews, p. 700 ff. Some of Luther’s other statements concerning unity ring very differently.[645]Cp. vol. iii., pp. 324, 363, 371 f.[646]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 230; “Incipiunt de tota religione dubitare.”[647]“Pezelii Object. et resp. Melanchtonis,” P. V., p. 289. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.[648]Nov., 1536, to Myconius, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.[649]Ib., pp. 460, 488 (1537 and 1538).[650]To Prince George of Anhalt, June 10, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 379.[651]Ib.[652]“Corp, ref.,” 1, p. 907.[653]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 441, 574.[654]To Spalatin, Jan. 12, 1541. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 246. “Spalatin foresaw what was to come better than did Luther.” K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 57.[655]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 223, Table-Talk.[656]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90). Cp. above, vol. iii., 38 f., 263 f.[657]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.[658]Ib., p. 152.[659]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[660]To the Visitors in Thuringia, March 25, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 173 “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 118.[661]To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 596, concerning certain occurrences at Dresden.[662]See above p. 55, ff., and vol. ii., p. 298.[663]“Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 613.[664]R. Sohm,ib., p. 615.[665]Ib., p. 623.[666]Ib., p. 618.[667]Ib., p. 632. Sohm’s standpoint is, that a Church with powers of self-government or with a “canon law,” as he calls it, is practically unthinkable. Cp. Carl Müller, “Die Anfänge der Konsistorialverfassung in Deutschland” (Hist. Zeitschr. Bd. 102, 3. Folge Bd. 6, p. 1 ff.). He too arrives at the conclusion, contrary to many previously held views, viz. that it was only gradually in the course of the 16th century that the consistories changed, from organs of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, into organs of State government of the Church. Cp. also O. Mejer, “Zum KR. des Reformationsjahrh.,” 1891, p. 1 ff.[668]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 66.[669]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 720sq.Memorandum as to whether the Schmalkalden League should continue, etc., March, 1545, signed by him first. Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 374.[670]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.[671]Pars 3, art. 9: “Maiorem excommunicationem, quam papa ita nominat, non nisi civilem poenam esse ducimus non pertinentem ad nos ministros ecclesiæ.” “Symbol. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 323.[672]To Tileman Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy, June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317: “Hoc sæculo excommunicatio maior ne potest quidem in nostram potestatem redigi, et ridiculi fieremus, ante vires, hanc tentantes. Nam quod vos sperare videmini, ut executio vel per ipsum principem fiat, valde incertum est, nec vellem politicum magistratum in id officii misceri,” etc.[673]N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess,” 1911, p. 32, with reference to “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 539, where the note of the Wittenberg Deacon, George Rörer to Luther’s sermon of Aug. 22 of that year says: “Hæc prima fuit excommunicatio ab ipso pronuntiata.”[674]Luther to Leonhard Beier, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.[675]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 275.[676]Cp. the passages quoted,ib., p. 675, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.[677]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 291sqq.Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.[678]On April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 550. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 162 ff., 159 f.; “We must set up excommunication again.” In the latter passage he speaks of his action against the Wittenberg Commandant, Hans v. Metzsch.[679]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 42. His words remind us of Luther’s own; above, p. 139.[680]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 160.[681]Ib., p. 179 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185 (in 1540).[682]Ib., p. 169 f.[683]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 278 (in 1542-1543).[684]“Kosmographie,” Bl. 44´, 163. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 535.[685]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 122.[686]Ib., 1, p. 322.[687]Ib., 3, p. 306.[688]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 367, Table-Talk.[689]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 306. In the statement the year given is uncertain. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 368: “Anno34,” etc.; elsewhere 1543.[690]Rebenstock, in Bindseil, 1. c.[691]P. Drews, “Die Ordination, Prüfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg” (“Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.”), 15, 1905, pp. 66 ff., 274 ff., particularly p. 281 ff.[692]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 22 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80: “Doctor dixit: Nos qui prædicamus Evangelium, habemus potestatem ordinandi; papa et episcopi neminem possunt ordinare” (a. 1540). P. 226: “Doctor ad Cellarium; Vos estis episcopus, quemadmodum ego sum papa” (a. 1540). Johannes Cellarius was Superintendent at Dresden.[693]Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), vi., 181 ff.[694]Letter of Jan. 24, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 253 f.[695]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 553 ff.[696]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 126, in the “Exempel” (see below, p. 195).[697]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, p. 302, according to MS. Dresdense B 193, 4.[698]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 554 f.[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 125, in the “Exempel.”[700]On March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 451: “Venerabili in Domino viro Iacobo Probst ecclesiæ Bremensis episcopo vero,” etc.[701]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 93 ff.[702]Ib., p. 121.[703]Ib., pp. 99, 100, 118, 113.[704]P. 124.[705]P. 125.[706]P. 115.[707]P. 126 f.[708]Feb. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 432.[709]Letter of Jan. 13, 1543,ib., p. 532.[710]Letter of July 23, 1542,ib., p. 485.[711]To Amsdorf after Jan. 20, 1542,ib., p. 430.[712]To Amsdorf, Feb. 12, 1542,ib., p. 433.[713]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 123.
[477]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 70.
[478]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.
[479]Ib., p. 35 ff=153 ff.
[480]Ib., 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens,” 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.
[481]See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4.
[482]Above, p. 78 ff.
[483]“Schwenckfelds Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 ff. Cp. K. Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39, are given, showing that Schwenckfeld “noted down the whole affair from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory.”
[484]Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.
[485]“Epistolar,”ib., pp. 39, 43.
[486]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff.
[487]See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.
[488]Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523,ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.
[489]In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231: “In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it of my own initiative.”
[490]“Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 65. Drews adds: “He was afraid of doing something contrary to God’s will.” That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also stated by K. Müller (“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 121).
[491]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10.
[492]As late as June 26, 1533 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317), he wrote: “In hoc sæculo tam turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda disciplina idoneo non ausim consulere tam subitam innovationem.” Cp. p. 142, below.
[493]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 32), p. 399.
[494]P. 67.
[495]The plan as Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had been formed “mainly on elements previously brought forward by Luther.”
[496]Reprinted in A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 56.
[497]Jan. 7, 1527. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 9).
[498]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.
[499]F. Feuchtwanger: “Gesch. der sozialen Politik ... im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.,” 33, 1909), p. 193.
[500]Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.
[501]June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.
[502]Ib., p. 68.
[503]Below, xxxv., 2.
[504]To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.
[505]To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.
[506]Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.
[507]Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.
[508]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2sqq.
[509]Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.
[510]To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.
[511]“Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular power also urges me to it.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 14², p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, “Lehrb. der Liturgik,” Berlin, 1900, p. 278.
[512]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 95; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.
[513]For Luther’s writing: “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet,” see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.
[514]For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, p. 239, and Kawerau, in Möller, “KG,” 3³, p. 401.
[515]See below, xxxiv., 4.
[516]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains that the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the “Te Deum” he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in the sense in which he taught it. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.
[517]W. Germann, “Johann Forster” (“N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen Altertums,” Hft. 12), 1894.
[518]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.
[519]Ib., 12, p. 37=22, p. 156.
[520]Ib., 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.
[521]Ib.
[522]Ib., p. 75=230 f.
[523]Ib., 74 ff.=229 ff.
[524]Ib., p. 72=228.
[525]Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.
[526]Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.
[527]On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).
[528]Kawerau in the “Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”
[529]J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.
[530]Cp. Kawerau’s quotations in his article in the “Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 115.
[531]June 17, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 315 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen’s letter see “Briefwechsel,” p. 207, for Hofmann’s,ib., p. 213.
[532]Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 400; “The influence of the Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and that it culminated in this ‘office.’ This, even in the 16th century, gave rise to difficulties.”
[533]To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above, p. 145, n. 2.
[534]Kawerau,ib., p. 401.
[535]Ib., p. 400. Luther says: “Diligens verbi Dei prædicatio est proprius cultus novi testamenti.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 161.
[536]Gottschick.
[537]This is Kawerau’s opinion,ib., p. 401.
[538]See above, p. 146, n. 3.
[539]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 35; Erl. ed., 22, p. 153. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne,” 1523.
[540]Of the most recent studies we need only mention here H. Greving, “Ecks Pfarrbuch für U.L. Frau in Ingolstadt” (“RGI. Studien”), Hft. 4 and 5, 1908, p. 87 ff. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. i.,passim.
[541]This introduction, together with the whole text of the common Preface, enters into Luther’s Latin Mass. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 8. In his German Mass it is suppressed.
[542]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570. Ecke (see below, p. 156, n. 1), p. 159.
[543]“Der erste Teil der christl. orthodox. Bücher und Schriften.... Schwenckfelds ... durch Mitbekenner zusammengetragen,” 1564, p. 4. Ecke, p. 160; cp. p. 10 f.
[544]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 228; cp. p. 246.
[545]Ib., p. 645.
[546]Ib., p. 519.
[547]“Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Ref.,” Berlin, 1911, p. 161.
[548]Ecke, p. 176. The Protestant author adds in a note: “It must, however, be pointed out that this criticism does not affect the apostolic nature of the profound phenomena of Evangelical piety seen among Lutherans.”
[549]“Christl. Bücher,” etc. (above, p. 155, n. 2), p. 384. Ecke, p. 177.
[550]“Epistolar,”ib., p. 602. In 1550. Ecke, p. 196.
[551]See our vol. iv., p. 210 ff., for instance, and below, vol. vi., xxxix., 1.
[552]“Die andere Verantwortung,” 1556, Aiii. Ecke, p. 190 f.
[553]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 326 f. Ecke, p. 163.
[554]Ib.
[555]“Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 680. Ecke, p. 164.
[556]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 362. In 1547. Ecke,ib.
[557]Ecke, p. 164, from a MS.
[558]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 477. Ecke, p. 164.
[559]Thus G. Arnold, “Kirchenhistorie,” Frankfurt a/M., 1729, 1, p. 413.
[560]Ib., p. 395. Ecke, p. 170 f., where he quotes in support of this and what follows, “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 164 f., 174.
[561]Ib.
[562]Ib., p. 325. Ecke, p. 172.
[563]Ib., p. 377. Ecke, p. 168.
[564]Ib., p. 420. Schwenckfeld’s excuse is, however, worthy of note, p. 401: “Such doctrine is not the outcome of an evil mind but is due to misapprehension.” Ecke, p. 168.
[565]Ib., p. 421. Ecke, p. 169.
[566]Ib.
[567]Ib., p. 401. Ecke,ib.
[568]Ib.Ecke, p. 170.
[569]Ib., p. 361. Ecke quotes “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 217.
[570]Ib., p. 365. Ecke, p. 166, quotes Erl. ed., 13², p. 218; 14², pp. 281 f., 287 ff.
[571]Ib.
[572]Ib.
[573]Ib.
[574]Ib., p. 343 f. Cp. “Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 912. Ecke, p. 176. Cp. Döllinger, on Schwenckfeld, in “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 254 ff.
[575]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 913. Ecke, p. 55.
[576]Ib., p. 427. Cp. “Epistolar,” 1., p. 410.
[577]Ecke’s words, p. 161.
[578]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 513, cp. p. 403 ff.; 1, p. 424. Ecke,ib.
[579]Ecke, p. 162.
[580]Cp. Ecke, p. 160, n. 3.
[581]Ib., p. 222.
[582]Ecke, p. 180 f.; from MS. sources.
[583]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 639. Ecke, p. 179.
[584]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 99. Ecke, p. 181.
[585]Ib.Ecke, p. 182.
[586]Ib., 1, p. 92. Ecke, p. 181.
[587]Ib., p. 736. Ecke, p. 182.
[588]“Christl. Bücher,” p. 363. Ecke, p. 173.
[589]Ib.
[590]“Epistolar,” 2, 2, p. 1014. Ecke, p. 160.
[591]Ecke, p. 227, MS.
[592]“Christl. Bücher,” pp. 962, 965. Ecke, p. 191.
[593]“Epistolar,” 1, p. 173. “Christl. Bücher,” p. 74 f., 549. Ecke,ib.
[594]“Epistolar,” 1, p. iii. B. Ecke, p. 86.
[595]See above, vol. iv., p. 367.
[596]Ch. v. Rommel, “Philipp der Grossmüthige, Landgraf von Hessen,” 1, 1820, p. 517.
[597]Aug. 5, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 580.
[598]May 7, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 557.
[599]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 562.
[600]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75 ff. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 91 ff.
[601]Letter to the Emperor Charles V, Aug. 24, 1544, in Raynaldus, “Annales,” a. 1544; in German in “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 17, p. 1253 ff. For the former attitude of the Papacy to the idea of the Council, cp. our vol. iii., p. 424 ff.
[602]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 172 f.
[603]Ib., p. 62.
[604]Ib., p. 70.
[605]Ib., p. 114.
[606]Ib., p. 80.
[607]Ib., p. 91 f. Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 90sq.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 42 f.
[608]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101.
[609]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 138.
[610]Ib., p. 287.
[611]Ib., p. 231.
[612]Ib., p. 169.
[613]Ib., p. 417.
[614]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.
[615]Ib., p. 475 = 264 f.
[616]In the “Antwort auf das Schmähbüchlein,” etc., “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 146.
[617]April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151.
[618]To the Preacher Balthasar Raida of Hersfeld, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288.
[619]April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.
[620]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 398.
[621]To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 18, 1545,ib., p. 716: “I will have them [the lawyers] eternally damned and cursedin myChurches.”
[622]To Justus Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543,ib., p. 612.
[623]To Jacob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544,ib., p. 703.
[624]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 773 f.
[625]Ib., p. 774.
[626]Cp. (E. v. Jarcke) “Studien und Skizzen z. Gesch. d. Ref.,” 1846, p. 68.
[627]Ib.
[628]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 158.
[629]Ib., p. 198.
[630]Ib., p. 200.
[631]“Theander Lutherus,” Ursel s.a., Bl. 59´.
[632]After June 16, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 20. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 312.) The passage in question in the original at Weimar is in Melanchthon’s handwriting. Cp. Enders, p. 313, on the historical connection of the memorandum.
[633]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 139sqq.Rommel, “Philipp von Hessen,” 1, p. 417. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. v., p. 527 ff. Pastor, “Die kirchl. Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V,” p. 95.
[634]To Brenz, April 14, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 340: “Ulyssea philosophia ... multa dissimulantes.”
[635]Letter of March 10, 1540, in Bindseil, “Melanchthonis epistolæ, iudicia, etc.,” 1874, p. 146.
[636]Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 421 ff.
[637]Letter of Dec. 28, 1543, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” 2, p. 227. “Nihil est quod minus multum[readinultum]relinquerem.”
[638]Lenz,ib., p. 241.
[639]Letter of Feb. 25, 1545, Lenz, p. 304.
[640]Letter of Dec. 1, 1545, Lenz, p. 379.
[641]Letter of April 5, 1546, Lenz, p. 426 f.
[642]Letter of May 12, 1545, Lenz, p. 433.
[643]See below, vol. vi., xl., 3.
[644]Seckendorf, “Comm. hist. de Lutheranismo,” 3, Lips., 1694, p. 468. The disputant, Johannes Marbach, received from Luther this testimony: “Amplectitur puram evangelii doctrinam, quam ecclesia nostra uno spiritu et una voce profitetur.” “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 543. Cp. Disputationen, ed. Drews, p. 700 ff. Some of Luther’s other statements concerning unity ring very differently.
[645]Cp. vol. iii., pp. 324, 363, 371 f.
[646]“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 230; “Incipiunt de tota religione dubitare.”
[647]“Pezelii Object. et resp. Melanchtonis,” P. V., p. 289. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.
[648]Nov., 1536, to Myconius, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 187.
[649]Ib., pp. 460, 488 (1537 and 1538).
[650]To Prince George of Anhalt, June 10, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 379.
[651]Ib.
[652]“Corp, ref.,” 1, p. 907.
[653]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 441, 574.
[654]To Spalatin, Jan. 12, 1541. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 246. “Spalatin foresaw what was to come better than did Luther.” K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 57.
[655]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 223, Table-Talk.
[656]To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90). Cp. above, vol. iii., 38 f., 263 f.
[657]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.
[658]Ib., p. 152.
[659]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.
[660]To the Visitors in Thuringia, March 25, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 173 “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 118.
[661]To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 596, concerning certain occurrences at Dresden.
[662]See above p. 55, ff., and vol. ii., p. 298.
[663]“Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 613.
[664]R. Sohm,ib., p. 615.
[665]Ib., p. 623.
[666]Ib., p. 618.
[667]Ib., p. 632. Sohm’s standpoint is, that a Church with powers of self-government or with a “canon law,” as he calls it, is practically unthinkable. Cp. Carl Müller, “Die Anfänge der Konsistorialverfassung in Deutschland” (Hist. Zeitschr. Bd. 102, 3. Folge Bd. 6, p. 1 ff.). He too arrives at the conclusion, contrary to many previously held views, viz. that it was only gradually in the course of the 16th century that the consistories changed, from organs of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, into organs of State government of the Church. Cp. also O. Mejer, “Zum KR. des Reformationsjahrh.,” 1891, p. 1 ff.
[668]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 66.
[669]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 720sq.Memorandum as to whether the Schmalkalden League should continue, etc., March, 1545, signed by him first. Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 374.
[670]To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.
[671]Pars 3, art. 9: “Maiorem excommunicationem, quam papa ita nominat, non nisi civilem poenam esse ducimus non pertinentem ad nos ministros ecclesiæ.” “Symbol. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde10, p. 323.
[672]To Tileman Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy, June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317: “Hoc sæculo excommunicatio maior ne potest quidem in nostram potestatem redigi, et ridiculi fieremus, ante vires, hanc tentantes. Nam quod vos sperare videmini, ut executio vel per ipsum principem fiat, valde incertum est, nec vellem politicum magistratum in id officii misceri,” etc.
[673]N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess,” 1911, p. 32, with reference to “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 539, where the note of the Wittenberg Deacon, George Rörer to Luther’s sermon of Aug. 22 of that year says: “Hæc prima fuit excommunicatio ab ipso pronuntiata.”
[674]Luther to Leonhard Beier, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.
[675]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 275.
[676]Cp. the passages quoted,ib., p. 675, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.
[677]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 291sqq.Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.
[678]On April 2, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 550. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 162 ff., 159 f.; “We must set up excommunication again.” In the latter passage he speaks of his action against the Wittenberg Commandant, Hans v. Metzsch.
[679]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 42. His words remind us of Luther’s own; above, p. 139.
[680]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 160.
[681]Ib., p. 179 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185 (in 1540).
[682]Ib., p. 169 f.
[683]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 278 (in 1542-1543).
[684]“Kosmographie,” Bl. 44´, 163. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 535.
[685]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 122.
[686]Ib., 1, p. 322.
[687]Ib., 3, p. 306.
[688]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 367, Table-Talk.
[689]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 306. In the statement the year given is uncertain. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 368: “Anno34,” etc.; elsewhere 1543.
[690]Rebenstock, in Bindseil, 1. c.
[691]P. Drews, “Die Ordination, Prüfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg” (“Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.”), 15, 1905, pp. 66 ff., 274 ff., particularly p. 281 ff.
[692]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 22 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 80: “Doctor dixit: Nos qui prædicamus Evangelium, habemus potestatem ordinandi; papa et episcopi neminem possunt ordinare” (a. 1540). P. 226: “Doctor ad Cellarium; Vos estis episcopus, quemadmodum ego sum papa” (a. 1540). Johannes Cellarius was Superintendent at Dresden.
[693]Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), vi., 181 ff.
[694]Letter of Jan. 24, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 253 f.
[695]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 553 ff.
[696]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 126, in the “Exempel” (see below, p. 195).
[697]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, p. 302, according to MS. Dresdense B 193, 4.
[698]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 554 f.
[699]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 125, in the “Exempel.”
[700]On March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 451: “Venerabili in Domino viro Iacobo Probst ecclesiæ Bremensis episcopo vero,” etc.
[701]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 93 ff.
[702]Ib., p. 121.
[703]Ib., pp. 99, 100, 118, 113.
[704]P. 124.
[705]P. 125.
[706]P. 115.
[707]P. 126 f.
[708]Feb. 6, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 432.
[709]Letter of Jan. 13, 1543,ib., p. 532.
[710]Letter of July 23, 1542,ib., p. 485.
[711]To Amsdorf after Jan. 20, 1542,ib., p. 430.
[712]To Amsdorf, Feb. 12, 1542,ib., p. 433.
[713]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 123.