[969]Cp. “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 523.[970]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 394.[971]On March 9, 1559, to the Elector August of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766sq.Cp. “RE.,”ib., p. 525.[972]As early as Aug. 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917.[973]Sep. 8, 1544, to Peter Medmann,ib., 5, p. 478.[974]Oct. 6, 1538,ib., 3, p. 594.[975]See Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 354, and 3, p. 270.[976]See above, vol. iii., p. 421 f.[977]Kolde in the Preface to the “Symbol. Bücher,”10, p. xxvi., No. 3. The Articles of Agreement were published in full by G. Mentz in 1905, “Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2). Letter to the Elector, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 128; “Briefe,” 4, p. 683 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 315, where Enders, as late as 1903, had to admit: “The doctrinal articles herewith transmitted are not known”). On the negotiations with the English, see vol. iv., p. 10 f.[978]Thus Mentz, the editor, p. 11. Some theses from these Articles of Agreement proposed by the Wittenbergers but not accepted by the English deserve to be quoted from the new sources; their divergence from Luther’s ordinary teaching is self-evident. Of good works: “Bona opera non sunt precium pro vita æterna, tamen sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia sunt debitum, quod necessario reconciliationem sequi debet.” In support of this Mt. xix. 17 is quoted: “Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata.” Again: “Docemus requiri opera a Deo mandata et quidem non tantum externa civilia opera, sed etiam spirituales motus, timorem Dei, fiduciam,” etc. (p. 34).—“Hæc obedientia in reconciliatis fide iam reputatur esse iustitia et quædam legis impletio” (p. 40).—“Docendæ sunt ecclesiæ de necessitate et de dignitate huius obedientiæ, videlicet quod ... hæc obedientia seu iusticia bonæ conscientiæ sit necessaria quia debitum est, quod necessario sequi reconciliationem debet” (p. 42).—Merit, at least in a certain restricted sense, is also admitted: “Ad hæc bona opera sunt meritoria iuxta illud(1 Cor. iii. 8):Unusquisque accipiet mercedem iuxta proprium laborem.” (Cp. the Apologia of the Confession of Augsburg, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 120, 148.) “Etsi enim conscientia non potest statuere, quod propter dignitatem operum detur vita æterna, sed nascimur filii Dei et hæredes per misericordiam(which is also the Catholic teaching)tamen hæc opera in filiis merentur præmia corporalia et spiritualia et gradus præmiorum,” etc. (p. 46). The ambiguity concerning Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (p. 62) is due to Melanchthon, not to Luther.[979]Kolde,ib.[980]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 497.[981]To Melanchthon, June 18, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 293; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 91; “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 102 ff.; “Corp. ref.,” 3, pp. 1060sq., 1077, 1081. To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,”ib., p. 297; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 109: “mortuum enim invenimus; miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.” See vol. iii., p. 162.[982]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 689; “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 402; “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 522.[983]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 524.[984]Cp., for instance, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 106, 116, 123, etc.; 13, pp. 282, 318.[985]Discourse of Feb. 22, 1546, “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 726sqq.[986]“Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 59.[987]For further details, see below, vol. vi., xl., 3.[988]On what follows, see Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 867 f.[989]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 554.[990]Ib., p. 569.[991]Cp. the report of Peter Canisius to Lainez, General of the Jesuits, Braunsberger, “Epistulæ b. Petri Canisii,” 2, p. 176sq.[992]Ellinger,ib., p. 570.[993]Ib., p. 571.[994]Thus the Protestant theologian Nitzsch, see “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 525. Loofs,4, p. 904. “The religious conference suffered shipwreck from want of unity amongst the Evangelicals.” The Gnesio-Lutherans demanded (Sep. 27) that all errors on “the Supper” should be condemned, “ whether emanating from Carlstadt, Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Calvin or others.” Calvin’s doctrine was, however, substantially identical with Melanchthon’s at that time.[995]“RE.,”ib.[996]To Camerarius, Feb. 16, 1559, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 744.[997]Ib., p. 822. As a Humanist he was fond of conjuring up heaven under the image of the Academy. In his address to the students on Luther’s death he says, the former had been snatched away “in æternam scholam et in æterna gaudia.”[998]To Buchholzer, Aug. 10, 1559,ib., p. 898.[999]Ib., p. 1098.[1000]Thus in his “Testament” of April 18, 1560,ib., p. 1099.[1001]Reprinted in “Opera Ph. Melanchtonis,” t. 1, Vitebergæ, 1562, p. 364sqq.[1002]Jan. 28, 1538, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 20, p. 247 ff. G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kathol. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 73), p. 43.[1003]To Vergerio, June 1, 1534, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 19, p. 222. Kawerau,ib., p. 79.[1004]To Bishop Cricius, June 2, 1534, in his “Velitatio in Apologiam Ph. Melanchthonis,” 1534, Bl. A. 6 ff. Kawerau,ib., p. 23 f.[1005]“Velitatio,” Bl A. 4. Kawerau, p. 25.[1006]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 18, p. 424. Kawerau, p. 64 f.[1007]Vol. ii., p. 438 ff., and above, p. 266. Cp. vol. iii., p. 447 (Cologne Book of Reform).[1008]Cp. above, p. 265, n. 6.[1009]The authors of the Article on Melanchthon in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, say, p. 535: “A Humanist mode of thought forms the background of his theology”; Melanchthon strove for a kind of compromise between Christian truth and ancient philosophy.[1010]“Versuche,” p. 83, with the above example taken from “Corp. ref.,” 12, p. 269.[1011]Cp., for instance, the letter of May 12, 1536, to Erasmus, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68sq.Kawerau,ib., p. 32.[1012]Cp. the Article quoted, p. 268, n. 2.[1013]Ib., and pp. 532, 537 of the “Realenzyklopädie.”[1014]F. X. Funk in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212 f.[1015]For a supposed remark of Luther’s to Catherine Bora which would seem even more clearly to admit the uncertainty of the new faith, see below, p. 372 f.[1016]“L’Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle,” l. 2, ch. 9 (Rouen, 1648), p. 166: “On éscrit, qu’éstant sur le poinct de rendre l’âme, l’an 1560, sa mère,” etc. The author is quite uncritical (see below, p. 271).[1017]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083, Melanchthon to Camerarius. C. G. Strobel, “Melanchthoniana,” 1771, p. 9.[1018]Cp. N. Müller, “Jakob Schwarzerd,” 1908 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Nos. 96-97), p. 42, on “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 563. Müller assumes (p. 41) that the visit took place in 1524.[1019]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1, 1830, p. 119 ff., “Die Schwarzerd.”[1020]P. 122.[1021]In the collection of essays published by the Wittenberg “Academy,” “Memoria Ph. Melanchthonis, finito post eius exitum sæculo II.”[1022]3rd ed., Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531.[1023]G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 191. F. X. Funk remarks in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212: Melanchthon, “after having made her [his mother] repeat her prayers, is said to have assured her, that if she continued thus to believe and to pray, she might well live in hopes of being saved.”[1024]“Des Teutschen ... Rekreation,” Munich, 1612, 4, p. 143. The author, who died in 1620, is no authority on historical matters beyond his own times and surroundings.[1025]“Vitæ theologorum,” p. 333.[1026]“RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531, with reference to Melanchthon’s “Postille,” 2, p. 477.[1027]Above, p. 270, n. 5, p. 41.[1028]“Historia comitiorum a. 1530 Augustæ celebratorum,” 3, p. 20.[1029]Gotha, 1876, p. 191.[1030]J. B. Hablitzel, “Liter. Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1905, No. 40 f.[1031]Printed in the Jena edition of Luther’s German works, 5, 1557, p. 41.[1032]“Apologia,” Ingolstadii, 1542, p. clii.[1033]Willibald Pirkheimer, who was then on Luther’s side, is usually regarded as the author of this screed published under the pseudonym of J. F. Cottalambergius. Like some others, K. Bauer (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 272) rejects his authorship. The passage in question appears in Böcking’s edition, “Hutteni opp.,” 4, 1860, p. 533.[1034]“Johannes Eck,” 1865, p. 275 f.[1035]1906, p. 885.[1036]To Melanchthon, Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 227.[1037]To Melanchthon, Nov. 21, 1540,ib., p. 215.[1038]To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.[1039]To Jonas, Jan. 23, 1542,ib., p. 429.[1040]To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543,ib., pp. 551, 552.[1041]To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543,ib., p. 569.[1042]To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542,ib., p. 487 f.[1043]To Cordatus, Dec. 3, 1544,ib., p. 702.[1044]To Probst, Jan. 17 (the year of his death), 1546,ib., p. 778.[1045]To Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543,ib., p. 591: “quorum glorias pro stercore diaboli habeo.”[1046]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 426, on “Master Grickel,” i.e. Agricola.[1047]To Caspar Schwenckfeld’s messenger (1543), “Briefe,” 5, p. 614: “Increpet Dominus in te, Satan,” etc.[1048]Cp. for what follows N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, where not only Luther’s (pp. 20 ff., 48 ff.) but also the Zwinglians’ and Calvinists’ attitude to the matter is dealt with.[1049]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 305.[1050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; cp. p. 127=28 ff.[1051]Ib., p. 211=127.[1052]Ib., p. 205=121.[1053]Ib., p. 134=36.[1054]Ib., Erl. ed., 3², p. 477 f., in the first Sermon on the Angels.[1055]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 590 f.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 359. In the editions from 1522 to 1540 the word “conjugal” is inserted before “members.”[1056]Ib.[1057]Ib., 32, p. 112 ff.=18², p. 64 ff.[1058]Ib., p. 120=76.[1059]Ib., 34, 2, p. 263 f.=19², p. 75.[1060]Ib., 32, p. 114=18², p. 68.[1061]“Drey Sermon, Von den Heiligen Engeln, Vom Teufel, Von der Menschen Seele,” Wittenberg, 1563. In the sermon “Vom Teufel.” See N. Paulus, “Augsburger Postztng.,” 1903, May 8.[1062]July 26, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 147.[1063]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 331.[1064]On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299. Cp. Mathesius,ib., p. 179: “Nothing is more certain than that the insane are not without their devils; these make them madder; the devil knows those who are of a melancholy turn, and of this tool he makes use.” Thus Luther in 1540.[1065]“Sic informat [diabolus] animam et corpus, ut obsessi nihil audiant, videant, sentiant; sed ipse est iis pro anima.” Mathesius,ib., p. 198 (in 1540). Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13, with reference to 1 Cor. v. 5. The passage occurs in the Table-Talk, ch. 24, No. 68. Cp. Erl. ed., vol. 59, p. 289 to vol. 60, p. 75. This chapter is followed by others on similar subjects. Demonology occupies altogether a very large place. Ch. 59, “On the Angels,” comprises hardly four pages.[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 326 (in 1543).[1067]Dec. 1, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 699 f.[1068]July 25, 1542: “quum ipse occiderit eos et imaginatione animis impressa coegerit eos putare, quod se ipsos suspenderent.”[1069]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 59. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 198.[1070]Mathesius,ib.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 127.[1071]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 24; cp. pp. 25, 27.[1072]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 269; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 300.[1073]Mathesius, in both the passages quoted. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 105 (1538): “habuit fœdus cum Sathana ipse et pater eius, et fœdissima scortatione occubuit securissime.”[1074]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 207, under the heading “Spectra.” In the same volume pp. 218-242 treat of the devil under the heading “Diabolus, illius natura, conatus, insidiæ, figura, expulsio.” In the second volume the ch. on “tentationes,” pp. 287-320, and, in the third, that on “fascinationes et incantationes,” pp. 9-14, are important.[1075]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 224 f. (1540).[1076]Ib., p. 402: “dixit de machinis bellicis et bombardis,” etc. (1537).[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 23.[1078]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262 (1542-43).[1079]Ib., p. 380 (1536).[1080]Ib., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291: “We see how the milk thieves and other witches often do great mischief” (1543). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.[1081]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117 (1532).[1082]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 304.[1083]Ib., 60, p. 73.[1084]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 322 (1543).[1085]Ib., p. 412 f.[1086]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 130; Erl. ed., 18², p. 70 (1530).[1087]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 395 f. (1537).[1088]Ib., p. 198 (1540).[1089]Ib., p. 240.[1090]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.[1091]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed. 10², p. 354.[1092]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. Cp. p. 31 and Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1093]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.[1094]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1095]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.[1096]Ib., 59, p. 348.[1097]Ib.[1098]Ib., 60, p. 70.[1099]Ib., 59, p. 348.[1100]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279, in the fuller Commentary on Galatians (1535). Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 357: “In Antinomis furit Sathan”(1539).Ib., p. 206: “Anabaptistæ non intelligunt iram Dei, sic excæcantur a diabolo; quare non anguntur, ut sancti, qui hæc omnia sentiunt; diabolus enim ipsorum aures et animos tenet occupatos,” etc. (1540).[1101]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279.[1102]Ib.[1103]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 505 f.; Irmischer, 3, p. 251, in the first Commentary on Galatians.[1104]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 97 (1540). Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 23, in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1518.[1105]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 321.[1106]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, pp. 315, 317, 319; Irmischer, 1, pp. 278, 280, 283; Erl. ed., 49, p. 19, in the Exposition of St. John xiv.-xvi. Erl. ed., 59, p. 335.[1107]Cp., for instance, Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 55, 111. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 97, 130, 174, 198, 279, 380, 436. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 317, 320-323; 60, pp. 24, 27, 57, 63, 71, etc.[1108]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560.[1109]Ib., 29, p. 401. Sermon of 1529. Similarly in the sermon of July 2, 1536,ib., 41, p. 633. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), p. 31.[1110]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 136. Sermon on Oculi Sunday.[1111]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 248.[1112]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 22. Cp. p. 38 f.[1113]Ib., 11², p. 136.[1114]Ib., 59, p. 287.[1115]Ib., p. 324.[1116]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 110. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 108.[1117]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179; “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 87, 127.[1118]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13.[1119]Ib., 59, p. 287. There ever was a widespread tendency to connect the Evil One with the water.[1120]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380 (1536).[1121]Ib., p. 118 (1540).[1122]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340.[1123]Ib., 60, pp. 64, 66[1124]Ib., 59, p. 138.[1125]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1126]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 129. The account assures us that he claimed to have seen the apparition himself.[1127]Ib., 31, p. 363.[1128]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 140, in the shorter Exposition of Isaias iii. 21.[1129]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 71.[1130]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 300 (1542-44).[1131]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 73.[1132]Ib., 59, p. 294; cp. 60, p. 123. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 235, 318. For an explanation of the word here used see Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 132, n. 3.[1133]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 281 f.[1134]Ib., 32, p. 291 in “Vom Schem Hamphoras,” 1543.[1135]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 258 (1542-43).[1136]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 208.[1137]Ib., p. 218.[1138]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 211 f., in the Exposition of John i. and ii. (1537-38).[1139]Ib., 60, p. 70.[1140]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 315; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sq.[1141]“Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), pp. 45, 67.[1142]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1909, p. 147. Paulus,ib., p. 46.[1143]Leipzig, 1904, p. 518. Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-10.[1144]Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-19.[1145]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 3sqq.[1146]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540): “hoc malum (sagarum) invalescit iterum.” In 1519 he had lamented that “this evil is noticeably on the increase.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426, first Commentary on Galatians.[1147]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 7.[1148]Ib., p. 406 f.=16.[1149]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 57 (heading).[1150]Ib., p. 79.[1151]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1152]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 406 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 20.[1153]Ib., 12, p. 345. Sermon of 1523.[1154]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 190.[1155]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426.[1156]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156; Nov. 4, 1538.[1157]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 314 ff.; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sqq., detailed Commentary on Galatians which is fuller on the question of sorcery than the Commentary of 1519 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426).[1158]Ib., 40, 1, p. 314; Irmischer, 1, p. 277.[1159]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1160]See Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 117, for both.[1161]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 162; Erl. ed., 33, p. 161. Cp. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 37, 39.[1162]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198 (1540). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 39 f.[1163]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 40.[1164]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1165]Ib., p. 380 (1536).[1166]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1167]Lauterbach,ib.[1168]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129.[1169]Ib.: there is no “motus de loco,” etc., all this “phantasmata sunt.” Similarly in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 17sq.: the metamorphosis of old women into tom-cats and the nocturnal excursions of the witches to banquets are “delusions of the devil, not actual occurrences”; he, however, admits the possibility.[1170]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.[1171]See Paulus,ib., pp. 25 ff., 49.[1172]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.[1173]Ib., p. 117, Aug. 20, 1538.[1174]Ib., p. 121, Aug. 25, 1538. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 79.[1176]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 551 (“occidantur,” etc.).[1177]See Paulus,ib., p. 43 f., where he quotes Luther’s “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539), in support of the duty of burning witches on account of their compact with the devil, quite apart from the harm they may cause—“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 441 f.: The witches or “devil’s whores, who are burnt at the stake whenever they are caught, as is right, not for stealing milk but because of the blasphemy by which they strengthen the cause of the devil, his sacraments and Churches.”[1178]Cp. the Eisleben edition (1569), pp. 280, 280´: “They should be hurried to the stake. The lawyers require too many witnesses and proofs, they despise these open, etc.” The same occurs in the Frankfurt edition (1568), p. 218´.[1179]“Pythonissa,” Frankfurt, 1660, pp. 471, 472, from Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 58, p. 129 (above, p. 287).[1180]“Hexenwahn,” p. 75 ff.[1181]Ib., p. 54 ff.[1182]See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xvi., pp. 269 to 526, a very full account of the Witch trials, etc.[1183]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129. From May 21 to June 11, 1540. See above, p. 290, n. 3.[1184]Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” pp. 52, 66.[1185]Karl Adolf Menzel, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 3², 1854, p. 65, is of opinion that the reformers of the 16th century lent the whole weight of their position and convictions to strengthening the belief in witches. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,”loc. cit.: “Through Luther and his followers belief in the power and influence of the devil, who was active in all men and who exercised his arts especially through witches and sorcerers, received an impetus and spread in a manner never known before.” J. Hansen, “Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess im MA.,” 1900, p. 536 f., also admits that Protestantism had increased the readiness to accept such belief. Cp. the admissions of Riezler, v. Bezold and Steinhausen quoted by Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” p. 48 f.[1186]Cp. J. Diefenbach, “Der Zauberglaube des 16. Jahrh. nach den Katechismen Luthers und Canisius,” 1900.[1187]To Catherine Bora, Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.[1188]See below, vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.[1189]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295 (1542). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.[1190]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.[1191]Ib., p. 267, speaking of a case of long-continued adulterous incest between brother and sister (1542): “This was the work of the devil himself,” etc.[1192]“Satanicum tempus et sæculum.” To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703.[1193]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 774.[1194]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174 (1540).[1195]On the great tragedy between God and Satan in which he (particularly in 1541) is so prominently entangled, see the letter to Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.
[969]Cp. “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 523.[970]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 394.[971]On March 9, 1559, to the Elector August of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766sq.Cp. “RE.,”ib., p. 525.[972]As early as Aug. 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917.[973]Sep. 8, 1544, to Peter Medmann,ib., 5, p. 478.[974]Oct. 6, 1538,ib., 3, p. 594.[975]See Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 354, and 3, p. 270.[976]See above, vol. iii., p. 421 f.[977]Kolde in the Preface to the “Symbol. Bücher,”10, p. xxvi., No. 3. The Articles of Agreement were published in full by G. Mentz in 1905, “Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2). Letter to the Elector, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 128; “Briefe,” 4, p. 683 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 315, where Enders, as late as 1903, had to admit: “The doctrinal articles herewith transmitted are not known”). On the negotiations with the English, see vol. iv., p. 10 f.[978]Thus Mentz, the editor, p. 11. Some theses from these Articles of Agreement proposed by the Wittenbergers but not accepted by the English deserve to be quoted from the new sources; their divergence from Luther’s ordinary teaching is self-evident. Of good works: “Bona opera non sunt precium pro vita æterna, tamen sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia sunt debitum, quod necessario reconciliationem sequi debet.” In support of this Mt. xix. 17 is quoted: “Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata.” Again: “Docemus requiri opera a Deo mandata et quidem non tantum externa civilia opera, sed etiam spirituales motus, timorem Dei, fiduciam,” etc. (p. 34).—“Hæc obedientia in reconciliatis fide iam reputatur esse iustitia et quædam legis impletio” (p. 40).—“Docendæ sunt ecclesiæ de necessitate et de dignitate huius obedientiæ, videlicet quod ... hæc obedientia seu iusticia bonæ conscientiæ sit necessaria quia debitum est, quod necessario sequi reconciliationem debet” (p. 42).—Merit, at least in a certain restricted sense, is also admitted: “Ad hæc bona opera sunt meritoria iuxta illud(1 Cor. iii. 8):Unusquisque accipiet mercedem iuxta proprium laborem.” (Cp. the Apologia of the Confession of Augsburg, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 120, 148.) “Etsi enim conscientia non potest statuere, quod propter dignitatem operum detur vita æterna, sed nascimur filii Dei et hæredes per misericordiam(which is also the Catholic teaching)tamen hæc opera in filiis merentur præmia corporalia et spiritualia et gradus præmiorum,” etc. (p. 46). The ambiguity concerning Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (p. 62) is due to Melanchthon, not to Luther.[979]Kolde,ib.[980]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 497.[981]To Melanchthon, June 18, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 293; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 91; “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 102 ff.; “Corp. ref.,” 3, pp. 1060sq., 1077, 1081. To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,”ib., p. 297; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 109: “mortuum enim invenimus; miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.” See vol. iii., p. 162.[982]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 689; “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 402; “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 522.[983]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 524.[984]Cp., for instance, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 106, 116, 123, etc.; 13, pp. 282, 318.[985]Discourse of Feb. 22, 1546, “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 726sqq.[986]“Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 59.[987]For further details, see below, vol. vi., xl., 3.[988]On what follows, see Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 867 f.[989]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 554.[990]Ib., p. 569.[991]Cp. the report of Peter Canisius to Lainez, General of the Jesuits, Braunsberger, “Epistulæ b. Petri Canisii,” 2, p. 176sq.[992]Ellinger,ib., p. 570.[993]Ib., p. 571.[994]Thus the Protestant theologian Nitzsch, see “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 525. Loofs,4, p. 904. “The religious conference suffered shipwreck from want of unity amongst the Evangelicals.” The Gnesio-Lutherans demanded (Sep. 27) that all errors on “the Supper” should be condemned, “ whether emanating from Carlstadt, Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Calvin or others.” Calvin’s doctrine was, however, substantially identical with Melanchthon’s at that time.[995]“RE.,”ib.[996]To Camerarius, Feb. 16, 1559, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 744.[997]Ib., p. 822. As a Humanist he was fond of conjuring up heaven under the image of the Academy. In his address to the students on Luther’s death he says, the former had been snatched away “in æternam scholam et in æterna gaudia.”[998]To Buchholzer, Aug. 10, 1559,ib., p. 898.[999]Ib., p. 1098.[1000]Thus in his “Testament” of April 18, 1560,ib., p. 1099.[1001]Reprinted in “Opera Ph. Melanchtonis,” t. 1, Vitebergæ, 1562, p. 364sqq.[1002]Jan. 28, 1538, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 20, p. 247 ff. G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kathol. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 73), p. 43.[1003]To Vergerio, June 1, 1534, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 19, p. 222. Kawerau,ib., p. 79.[1004]To Bishop Cricius, June 2, 1534, in his “Velitatio in Apologiam Ph. Melanchthonis,” 1534, Bl. A. 6 ff. Kawerau,ib., p. 23 f.[1005]“Velitatio,” Bl A. 4. Kawerau, p. 25.[1006]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 18, p. 424. Kawerau, p. 64 f.[1007]Vol. ii., p. 438 ff., and above, p. 266. Cp. vol. iii., p. 447 (Cologne Book of Reform).[1008]Cp. above, p. 265, n. 6.[1009]The authors of the Article on Melanchthon in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, say, p. 535: “A Humanist mode of thought forms the background of his theology”; Melanchthon strove for a kind of compromise between Christian truth and ancient philosophy.[1010]“Versuche,” p. 83, with the above example taken from “Corp. ref.,” 12, p. 269.[1011]Cp., for instance, the letter of May 12, 1536, to Erasmus, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68sq.Kawerau,ib., p. 32.[1012]Cp. the Article quoted, p. 268, n. 2.[1013]Ib., and pp. 532, 537 of the “Realenzyklopädie.”[1014]F. X. Funk in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212 f.[1015]For a supposed remark of Luther’s to Catherine Bora which would seem even more clearly to admit the uncertainty of the new faith, see below, p. 372 f.[1016]“L’Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle,” l. 2, ch. 9 (Rouen, 1648), p. 166: “On éscrit, qu’éstant sur le poinct de rendre l’âme, l’an 1560, sa mère,” etc. The author is quite uncritical (see below, p. 271).[1017]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083, Melanchthon to Camerarius. C. G. Strobel, “Melanchthoniana,” 1771, p. 9.[1018]Cp. N. Müller, “Jakob Schwarzerd,” 1908 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Nos. 96-97), p. 42, on “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 563. Müller assumes (p. 41) that the visit took place in 1524.[1019]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1, 1830, p. 119 ff., “Die Schwarzerd.”[1020]P. 122.[1021]In the collection of essays published by the Wittenberg “Academy,” “Memoria Ph. Melanchthonis, finito post eius exitum sæculo II.”[1022]3rd ed., Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531.[1023]G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 191. F. X. Funk remarks in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212: Melanchthon, “after having made her [his mother] repeat her prayers, is said to have assured her, that if she continued thus to believe and to pray, she might well live in hopes of being saved.”[1024]“Des Teutschen ... Rekreation,” Munich, 1612, 4, p. 143. The author, who died in 1620, is no authority on historical matters beyond his own times and surroundings.[1025]“Vitæ theologorum,” p. 333.[1026]“RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531, with reference to Melanchthon’s “Postille,” 2, p. 477.[1027]Above, p. 270, n. 5, p. 41.[1028]“Historia comitiorum a. 1530 Augustæ celebratorum,” 3, p. 20.[1029]Gotha, 1876, p. 191.[1030]J. B. Hablitzel, “Liter. Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1905, No. 40 f.[1031]Printed in the Jena edition of Luther’s German works, 5, 1557, p. 41.[1032]“Apologia,” Ingolstadii, 1542, p. clii.[1033]Willibald Pirkheimer, who was then on Luther’s side, is usually regarded as the author of this screed published under the pseudonym of J. F. Cottalambergius. Like some others, K. Bauer (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 272) rejects his authorship. The passage in question appears in Böcking’s edition, “Hutteni opp.,” 4, 1860, p. 533.[1034]“Johannes Eck,” 1865, p. 275 f.[1035]1906, p. 885.[1036]To Melanchthon, Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 227.[1037]To Melanchthon, Nov. 21, 1540,ib., p. 215.[1038]To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.[1039]To Jonas, Jan. 23, 1542,ib., p. 429.[1040]To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543,ib., pp. 551, 552.[1041]To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543,ib., p. 569.[1042]To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542,ib., p. 487 f.[1043]To Cordatus, Dec. 3, 1544,ib., p. 702.[1044]To Probst, Jan. 17 (the year of his death), 1546,ib., p. 778.[1045]To Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543,ib., p. 591: “quorum glorias pro stercore diaboli habeo.”[1046]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 426, on “Master Grickel,” i.e. Agricola.[1047]To Caspar Schwenckfeld’s messenger (1543), “Briefe,” 5, p. 614: “Increpet Dominus in te, Satan,” etc.[1048]Cp. for what follows N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, where not only Luther’s (pp. 20 ff., 48 ff.) but also the Zwinglians’ and Calvinists’ attitude to the matter is dealt with.[1049]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 305.[1050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; cp. p. 127=28 ff.[1051]Ib., p. 211=127.[1052]Ib., p. 205=121.[1053]Ib., p. 134=36.[1054]Ib., Erl. ed., 3², p. 477 f., in the first Sermon on the Angels.[1055]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 590 f.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 359. In the editions from 1522 to 1540 the word “conjugal” is inserted before “members.”[1056]Ib.[1057]Ib., 32, p. 112 ff.=18², p. 64 ff.[1058]Ib., p. 120=76.[1059]Ib., 34, 2, p. 263 f.=19², p. 75.[1060]Ib., 32, p. 114=18², p. 68.[1061]“Drey Sermon, Von den Heiligen Engeln, Vom Teufel, Von der Menschen Seele,” Wittenberg, 1563. In the sermon “Vom Teufel.” See N. Paulus, “Augsburger Postztng.,” 1903, May 8.[1062]July 26, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 147.[1063]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 331.[1064]On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299. Cp. Mathesius,ib., p. 179: “Nothing is more certain than that the insane are not without their devils; these make them madder; the devil knows those who are of a melancholy turn, and of this tool he makes use.” Thus Luther in 1540.[1065]“Sic informat [diabolus] animam et corpus, ut obsessi nihil audiant, videant, sentiant; sed ipse est iis pro anima.” Mathesius,ib., p. 198 (in 1540). Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13, with reference to 1 Cor. v. 5. The passage occurs in the Table-Talk, ch. 24, No. 68. Cp. Erl. ed., vol. 59, p. 289 to vol. 60, p. 75. This chapter is followed by others on similar subjects. Demonology occupies altogether a very large place. Ch. 59, “On the Angels,” comprises hardly four pages.[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 326 (in 1543).[1067]Dec. 1, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 699 f.[1068]July 25, 1542: “quum ipse occiderit eos et imaginatione animis impressa coegerit eos putare, quod se ipsos suspenderent.”[1069]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 59. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 198.[1070]Mathesius,ib.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 127.[1071]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 24; cp. pp. 25, 27.[1072]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 269; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 300.[1073]Mathesius, in both the passages quoted. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 105 (1538): “habuit fœdus cum Sathana ipse et pater eius, et fœdissima scortatione occubuit securissime.”[1074]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 207, under the heading “Spectra.” In the same volume pp. 218-242 treat of the devil under the heading “Diabolus, illius natura, conatus, insidiæ, figura, expulsio.” In the second volume the ch. on “tentationes,” pp. 287-320, and, in the third, that on “fascinationes et incantationes,” pp. 9-14, are important.[1075]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 224 f. (1540).[1076]Ib., p. 402: “dixit de machinis bellicis et bombardis,” etc. (1537).[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 23.[1078]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262 (1542-43).[1079]Ib., p. 380 (1536).[1080]Ib., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291: “We see how the milk thieves and other witches often do great mischief” (1543). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.[1081]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117 (1532).[1082]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 304.[1083]Ib., 60, p. 73.[1084]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 322 (1543).[1085]Ib., p. 412 f.[1086]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 130; Erl. ed., 18², p. 70 (1530).[1087]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 395 f. (1537).[1088]Ib., p. 198 (1540).[1089]Ib., p. 240.[1090]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.[1091]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed. 10², p. 354.[1092]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. Cp. p. 31 and Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1093]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.[1094]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1095]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.[1096]Ib., 59, p. 348.[1097]Ib.[1098]Ib., 60, p. 70.[1099]Ib., 59, p. 348.[1100]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279, in the fuller Commentary on Galatians (1535). Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 357: “In Antinomis furit Sathan”(1539).Ib., p. 206: “Anabaptistæ non intelligunt iram Dei, sic excæcantur a diabolo; quare non anguntur, ut sancti, qui hæc omnia sentiunt; diabolus enim ipsorum aures et animos tenet occupatos,” etc. (1540).[1101]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279.[1102]Ib.[1103]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 505 f.; Irmischer, 3, p. 251, in the first Commentary on Galatians.[1104]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 97 (1540). Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 23, in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1518.[1105]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 321.[1106]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, pp. 315, 317, 319; Irmischer, 1, pp. 278, 280, 283; Erl. ed., 49, p. 19, in the Exposition of St. John xiv.-xvi. Erl. ed., 59, p. 335.[1107]Cp., for instance, Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 55, 111. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 97, 130, 174, 198, 279, 380, 436. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 317, 320-323; 60, pp. 24, 27, 57, 63, 71, etc.[1108]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560.[1109]Ib., 29, p. 401. Sermon of 1529. Similarly in the sermon of July 2, 1536,ib., 41, p. 633. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), p. 31.[1110]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 136. Sermon on Oculi Sunday.[1111]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 248.[1112]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 22. Cp. p. 38 f.[1113]Ib., 11², p. 136.[1114]Ib., 59, p. 287.[1115]Ib., p. 324.[1116]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 110. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 108.[1117]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179; “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 87, 127.[1118]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13.[1119]Ib., 59, p. 287. There ever was a widespread tendency to connect the Evil One with the water.[1120]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380 (1536).[1121]Ib., p. 118 (1540).[1122]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340.[1123]Ib., 60, pp. 64, 66[1124]Ib., 59, p. 138.[1125]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1126]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 129. The account assures us that he claimed to have seen the apparition himself.[1127]Ib., 31, p. 363.[1128]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 140, in the shorter Exposition of Isaias iii. 21.[1129]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 71.[1130]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 300 (1542-44).[1131]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 73.[1132]Ib., 59, p. 294; cp. 60, p. 123. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 235, 318. For an explanation of the word here used see Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 132, n. 3.[1133]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 281 f.[1134]Ib., 32, p. 291 in “Vom Schem Hamphoras,” 1543.[1135]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 258 (1542-43).[1136]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 208.[1137]Ib., p. 218.[1138]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 211 f., in the Exposition of John i. and ii. (1537-38).[1139]Ib., 60, p. 70.[1140]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 315; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sq.[1141]“Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), pp. 45, 67.[1142]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1909, p. 147. Paulus,ib., p. 46.[1143]Leipzig, 1904, p. 518. Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-10.[1144]Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-19.[1145]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 3sqq.[1146]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540): “hoc malum (sagarum) invalescit iterum.” In 1519 he had lamented that “this evil is noticeably on the increase.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426, first Commentary on Galatians.[1147]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 7.[1148]Ib., p. 406 f.=16.[1149]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 57 (heading).[1150]Ib., p. 79.[1151]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1152]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 406 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 20.[1153]Ib., 12, p. 345. Sermon of 1523.[1154]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 190.[1155]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426.[1156]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156; Nov. 4, 1538.[1157]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 314 ff.; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sqq., detailed Commentary on Galatians which is fuller on the question of sorcery than the Commentary of 1519 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426).[1158]Ib., 40, 1, p. 314; Irmischer, 1, p. 277.[1159]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1160]See Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 117, for both.[1161]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 162; Erl. ed., 33, p. 161. Cp. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 37, 39.[1162]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198 (1540). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 39 f.[1163]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 40.[1164]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1165]Ib., p. 380 (1536).[1166]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1167]Lauterbach,ib.[1168]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129.[1169]Ib.: there is no “motus de loco,” etc., all this “phantasmata sunt.” Similarly in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 17sq.: the metamorphosis of old women into tom-cats and the nocturnal excursions of the witches to banquets are “delusions of the devil, not actual occurrences”; he, however, admits the possibility.[1170]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.[1171]See Paulus,ib., pp. 25 ff., 49.[1172]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.[1173]Ib., p. 117, Aug. 20, 1538.[1174]Ib., p. 121, Aug. 25, 1538. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 79.[1176]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 551 (“occidantur,” etc.).[1177]See Paulus,ib., p. 43 f., where he quotes Luther’s “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539), in support of the duty of burning witches on account of their compact with the devil, quite apart from the harm they may cause—“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 441 f.: The witches or “devil’s whores, who are burnt at the stake whenever they are caught, as is right, not for stealing milk but because of the blasphemy by which they strengthen the cause of the devil, his sacraments and Churches.”[1178]Cp. the Eisleben edition (1569), pp. 280, 280´: “They should be hurried to the stake. The lawyers require too many witnesses and proofs, they despise these open, etc.” The same occurs in the Frankfurt edition (1568), p. 218´.[1179]“Pythonissa,” Frankfurt, 1660, pp. 471, 472, from Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 58, p. 129 (above, p. 287).[1180]“Hexenwahn,” p. 75 ff.[1181]Ib., p. 54 ff.[1182]See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xvi., pp. 269 to 526, a very full account of the Witch trials, etc.[1183]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129. From May 21 to June 11, 1540. See above, p. 290, n. 3.[1184]Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” pp. 52, 66.[1185]Karl Adolf Menzel, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 3², 1854, p. 65, is of opinion that the reformers of the 16th century lent the whole weight of their position and convictions to strengthening the belief in witches. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,”loc. cit.: “Through Luther and his followers belief in the power and influence of the devil, who was active in all men and who exercised his arts especially through witches and sorcerers, received an impetus and spread in a manner never known before.” J. Hansen, “Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess im MA.,” 1900, p. 536 f., also admits that Protestantism had increased the readiness to accept such belief. Cp. the admissions of Riezler, v. Bezold and Steinhausen quoted by Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” p. 48 f.[1186]Cp. J. Diefenbach, “Der Zauberglaube des 16. Jahrh. nach den Katechismen Luthers und Canisius,” 1900.[1187]To Catherine Bora, Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.[1188]See below, vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.[1189]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295 (1542). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.[1190]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.[1191]Ib., p. 267, speaking of a case of long-continued adulterous incest between brother and sister (1542): “This was the work of the devil himself,” etc.[1192]“Satanicum tempus et sæculum.” To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703.[1193]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 774.[1194]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174 (1540).[1195]On the great tragedy between God and Satan in which he (particularly in 1541) is so prominently entangled, see the letter to Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.
[969]Cp. “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 523.[970]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 394.[971]On March 9, 1559, to the Elector August of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766sq.Cp. “RE.,”ib., p. 525.[972]As early as Aug. 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917.[973]Sep. 8, 1544, to Peter Medmann,ib., 5, p. 478.[974]Oct. 6, 1538,ib., 3, p. 594.[975]See Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 354, and 3, p. 270.[976]See above, vol. iii., p. 421 f.[977]Kolde in the Preface to the “Symbol. Bücher,”10, p. xxvi., No. 3. The Articles of Agreement were published in full by G. Mentz in 1905, “Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2). Letter to the Elector, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 128; “Briefe,” 4, p. 683 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 315, where Enders, as late as 1903, had to admit: “The doctrinal articles herewith transmitted are not known”). On the negotiations with the English, see vol. iv., p. 10 f.[978]Thus Mentz, the editor, p. 11. Some theses from these Articles of Agreement proposed by the Wittenbergers but not accepted by the English deserve to be quoted from the new sources; their divergence from Luther’s ordinary teaching is self-evident. Of good works: “Bona opera non sunt precium pro vita æterna, tamen sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia sunt debitum, quod necessario reconciliationem sequi debet.” In support of this Mt. xix. 17 is quoted: “Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata.” Again: “Docemus requiri opera a Deo mandata et quidem non tantum externa civilia opera, sed etiam spirituales motus, timorem Dei, fiduciam,” etc. (p. 34).—“Hæc obedientia in reconciliatis fide iam reputatur esse iustitia et quædam legis impletio” (p. 40).—“Docendæ sunt ecclesiæ de necessitate et de dignitate huius obedientiæ, videlicet quod ... hæc obedientia seu iusticia bonæ conscientiæ sit necessaria quia debitum est, quod necessario sequi reconciliationem debet” (p. 42).—Merit, at least in a certain restricted sense, is also admitted: “Ad hæc bona opera sunt meritoria iuxta illud(1 Cor. iii. 8):Unusquisque accipiet mercedem iuxta proprium laborem.” (Cp. the Apologia of the Confession of Augsburg, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 120, 148.) “Etsi enim conscientia non potest statuere, quod propter dignitatem operum detur vita æterna, sed nascimur filii Dei et hæredes per misericordiam(which is also the Catholic teaching)tamen hæc opera in filiis merentur præmia corporalia et spiritualia et gradus præmiorum,” etc. (p. 46). The ambiguity concerning Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (p. 62) is due to Melanchthon, not to Luther.[979]Kolde,ib.[980]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 497.[981]To Melanchthon, June 18, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 293; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 91; “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 102 ff.; “Corp. ref.,” 3, pp. 1060sq., 1077, 1081. To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,”ib., p. 297; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 109: “mortuum enim invenimus; miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.” See vol. iii., p. 162.[982]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 689; “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 402; “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 522.[983]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 524.[984]Cp., for instance, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 106, 116, 123, etc.; 13, pp. 282, 318.[985]Discourse of Feb. 22, 1546, “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 726sqq.[986]“Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 59.[987]For further details, see below, vol. vi., xl., 3.[988]On what follows, see Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 867 f.[989]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 554.[990]Ib., p. 569.[991]Cp. the report of Peter Canisius to Lainez, General of the Jesuits, Braunsberger, “Epistulæ b. Petri Canisii,” 2, p. 176sq.[992]Ellinger,ib., p. 570.[993]Ib., p. 571.[994]Thus the Protestant theologian Nitzsch, see “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 525. Loofs,4, p. 904. “The religious conference suffered shipwreck from want of unity amongst the Evangelicals.” The Gnesio-Lutherans demanded (Sep. 27) that all errors on “the Supper” should be condemned, “ whether emanating from Carlstadt, Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Calvin or others.” Calvin’s doctrine was, however, substantially identical with Melanchthon’s at that time.[995]“RE.,”ib.[996]To Camerarius, Feb. 16, 1559, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 744.[997]Ib., p. 822. As a Humanist he was fond of conjuring up heaven under the image of the Academy. In his address to the students on Luther’s death he says, the former had been snatched away “in æternam scholam et in æterna gaudia.”[998]To Buchholzer, Aug. 10, 1559,ib., p. 898.[999]Ib., p. 1098.[1000]Thus in his “Testament” of April 18, 1560,ib., p. 1099.[1001]Reprinted in “Opera Ph. Melanchtonis,” t. 1, Vitebergæ, 1562, p. 364sqq.[1002]Jan. 28, 1538, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 20, p. 247 ff. G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kathol. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 73), p. 43.[1003]To Vergerio, June 1, 1534, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 19, p. 222. Kawerau,ib., p. 79.[1004]To Bishop Cricius, June 2, 1534, in his “Velitatio in Apologiam Ph. Melanchthonis,” 1534, Bl. A. 6 ff. Kawerau,ib., p. 23 f.[1005]“Velitatio,” Bl A. 4. Kawerau, p. 25.[1006]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 18, p. 424. Kawerau, p. 64 f.[1007]Vol. ii., p. 438 ff., and above, p. 266. Cp. vol. iii., p. 447 (Cologne Book of Reform).[1008]Cp. above, p. 265, n. 6.[1009]The authors of the Article on Melanchthon in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, say, p. 535: “A Humanist mode of thought forms the background of his theology”; Melanchthon strove for a kind of compromise between Christian truth and ancient philosophy.[1010]“Versuche,” p. 83, with the above example taken from “Corp. ref.,” 12, p. 269.[1011]Cp., for instance, the letter of May 12, 1536, to Erasmus, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68sq.Kawerau,ib., p. 32.[1012]Cp. the Article quoted, p. 268, n. 2.[1013]Ib., and pp. 532, 537 of the “Realenzyklopädie.”[1014]F. X. Funk in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212 f.[1015]For a supposed remark of Luther’s to Catherine Bora which would seem even more clearly to admit the uncertainty of the new faith, see below, p. 372 f.[1016]“L’Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle,” l. 2, ch. 9 (Rouen, 1648), p. 166: “On éscrit, qu’éstant sur le poinct de rendre l’âme, l’an 1560, sa mère,” etc. The author is quite uncritical (see below, p. 271).[1017]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083, Melanchthon to Camerarius. C. G. Strobel, “Melanchthoniana,” 1771, p. 9.[1018]Cp. N. Müller, “Jakob Schwarzerd,” 1908 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Nos. 96-97), p. 42, on “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 563. Müller assumes (p. 41) that the visit took place in 1524.[1019]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1, 1830, p. 119 ff., “Die Schwarzerd.”[1020]P. 122.[1021]In the collection of essays published by the Wittenberg “Academy,” “Memoria Ph. Melanchthonis, finito post eius exitum sæculo II.”[1022]3rd ed., Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531.[1023]G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 191. F. X. Funk remarks in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212: Melanchthon, “after having made her [his mother] repeat her prayers, is said to have assured her, that if she continued thus to believe and to pray, she might well live in hopes of being saved.”[1024]“Des Teutschen ... Rekreation,” Munich, 1612, 4, p. 143. The author, who died in 1620, is no authority on historical matters beyond his own times and surroundings.[1025]“Vitæ theologorum,” p. 333.[1026]“RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531, with reference to Melanchthon’s “Postille,” 2, p. 477.[1027]Above, p. 270, n. 5, p. 41.[1028]“Historia comitiorum a. 1530 Augustæ celebratorum,” 3, p. 20.[1029]Gotha, 1876, p. 191.[1030]J. B. Hablitzel, “Liter. Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1905, No. 40 f.[1031]Printed in the Jena edition of Luther’s German works, 5, 1557, p. 41.[1032]“Apologia,” Ingolstadii, 1542, p. clii.[1033]Willibald Pirkheimer, who was then on Luther’s side, is usually regarded as the author of this screed published under the pseudonym of J. F. Cottalambergius. Like some others, K. Bauer (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 272) rejects his authorship. The passage in question appears in Böcking’s edition, “Hutteni opp.,” 4, 1860, p. 533.[1034]“Johannes Eck,” 1865, p. 275 f.[1035]1906, p. 885.[1036]To Melanchthon, Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 227.[1037]To Melanchthon, Nov. 21, 1540,ib., p. 215.[1038]To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.[1039]To Jonas, Jan. 23, 1542,ib., p. 429.[1040]To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543,ib., pp. 551, 552.[1041]To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543,ib., p. 569.[1042]To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542,ib., p. 487 f.[1043]To Cordatus, Dec. 3, 1544,ib., p. 702.[1044]To Probst, Jan. 17 (the year of his death), 1546,ib., p. 778.[1045]To Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543,ib., p. 591: “quorum glorias pro stercore diaboli habeo.”[1046]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 426, on “Master Grickel,” i.e. Agricola.[1047]To Caspar Schwenckfeld’s messenger (1543), “Briefe,” 5, p. 614: “Increpet Dominus in te, Satan,” etc.[1048]Cp. for what follows N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, where not only Luther’s (pp. 20 ff., 48 ff.) but also the Zwinglians’ and Calvinists’ attitude to the matter is dealt with.[1049]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 305.[1050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; cp. p. 127=28 ff.[1051]Ib., p. 211=127.[1052]Ib., p. 205=121.[1053]Ib., p. 134=36.[1054]Ib., Erl. ed., 3², p. 477 f., in the first Sermon on the Angels.[1055]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 590 f.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 359. In the editions from 1522 to 1540 the word “conjugal” is inserted before “members.”[1056]Ib.[1057]Ib., 32, p. 112 ff.=18², p. 64 ff.[1058]Ib., p. 120=76.[1059]Ib., 34, 2, p. 263 f.=19², p. 75.[1060]Ib., 32, p. 114=18², p. 68.[1061]“Drey Sermon, Von den Heiligen Engeln, Vom Teufel, Von der Menschen Seele,” Wittenberg, 1563. In the sermon “Vom Teufel.” See N. Paulus, “Augsburger Postztng.,” 1903, May 8.[1062]July 26, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 147.[1063]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 331.[1064]On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299. Cp. Mathesius,ib., p. 179: “Nothing is more certain than that the insane are not without their devils; these make them madder; the devil knows those who are of a melancholy turn, and of this tool he makes use.” Thus Luther in 1540.[1065]“Sic informat [diabolus] animam et corpus, ut obsessi nihil audiant, videant, sentiant; sed ipse est iis pro anima.” Mathesius,ib., p. 198 (in 1540). Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13, with reference to 1 Cor. v. 5. The passage occurs in the Table-Talk, ch. 24, No. 68. Cp. Erl. ed., vol. 59, p. 289 to vol. 60, p. 75. This chapter is followed by others on similar subjects. Demonology occupies altogether a very large place. Ch. 59, “On the Angels,” comprises hardly four pages.[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 326 (in 1543).[1067]Dec. 1, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 699 f.[1068]July 25, 1542: “quum ipse occiderit eos et imaginatione animis impressa coegerit eos putare, quod se ipsos suspenderent.”[1069]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 59. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 198.[1070]Mathesius,ib.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 127.[1071]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 24; cp. pp. 25, 27.[1072]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 269; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 300.[1073]Mathesius, in both the passages quoted. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 105 (1538): “habuit fœdus cum Sathana ipse et pater eius, et fœdissima scortatione occubuit securissime.”[1074]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 207, under the heading “Spectra.” In the same volume pp. 218-242 treat of the devil under the heading “Diabolus, illius natura, conatus, insidiæ, figura, expulsio.” In the second volume the ch. on “tentationes,” pp. 287-320, and, in the third, that on “fascinationes et incantationes,” pp. 9-14, are important.[1075]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 224 f. (1540).[1076]Ib., p. 402: “dixit de machinis bellicis et bombardis,” etc. (1537).[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 23.[1078]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262 (1542-43).[1079]Ib., p. 380 (1536).[1080]Ib., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291: “We see how the milk thieves and other witches often do great mischief” (1543). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.[1081]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117 (1532).[1082]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 304.[1083]Ib., 60, p. 73.[1084]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 322 (1543).[1085]Ib., p. 412 f.[1086]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 130; Erl. ed., 18², p. 70 (1530).[1087]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 395 f. (1537).[1088]Ib., p. 198 (1540).[1089]Ib., p. 240.[1090]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.[1091]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed. 10², p. 354.[1092]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. Cp. p. 31 and Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1093]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.[1094]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.[1095]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.[1096]Ib., 59, p. 348.[1097]Ib.[1098]Ib., 60, p. 70.[1099]Ib., 59, p. 348.[1100]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279, in the fuller Commentary on Galatians (1535). Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 357: “In Antinomis furit Sathan”(1539).Ib., p. 206: “Anabaptistæ non intelligunt iram Dei, sic excæcantur a diabolo; quare non anguntur, ut sancti, qui hæc omnia sentiunt; diabolus enim ipsorum aures et animos tenet occupatos,” etc. (1540).[1101]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279.[1102]Ib.[1103]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 505 f.; Irmischer, 3, p. 251, in the first Commentary on Galatians.[1104]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 97 (1540). Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 23, in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1518.[1105]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 321.[1106]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, pp. 315, 317, 319; Irmischer, 1, pp. 278, 280, 283; Erl. ed., 49, p. 19, in the Exposition of St. John xiv.-xvi. Erl. ed., 59, p. 335.[1107]Cp., for instance, Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 55, 111. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 97, 130, 174, 198, 279, 380, 436. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 317, 320-323; 60, pp. 24, 27, 57, 63, 71, etc.[1108]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560.[1109]Ib., 29, p. 401. Sermon of 1529. Similarly in the sermon of July 2, 1536,ib., 41, p. 633. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), p. 31.[1110]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 136. Sermon on Oculi Sunday.[1111]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 248.[1112]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 22. Cp. p. 38 f.[1113]Ib., 11², p. 136.[1114]Ib., 59, p. 287.[1115]Ib., p. 324.[1116]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 110. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 108.[1117]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179; “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 87, 127.[1118]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13.[1119]Ib., 59, p. 287. There ever was a widespread tendency to connect the Evil One with the water.[1120]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380 (1536).[1121]Ib., p. 118 (1540).[1122]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340.[1123]Ib., 60, pp. 64, 66[1124]Ib., 59, p. 138.[1125]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1126]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 129. The account assures us that he claimed to have seen the apparition himself.[1127]Ib., 31, p. 363.[1128]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 140, in the shorter Exposition of Isaias iii. 21.[1129]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 71.[1130]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 300 (1542-44).[1131]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 73.[1132]Ib., 59, p. 294; cp. 60, p. 123. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 235, 318. For an explanation of the word here used see Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 132, n. 3.[1133]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 281 f.[1134]Ib., 32, p. 291 in “Vom Schem Hamphoras,” 1543.[1135]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 258 (1542-43).[1136]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 208.[1137]Ib., p. 218.[1138]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 211 f., in the Exposition of John i. and ii. (1537-38).[1139]Ib., 60, p. 70.[1140]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 315; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sq.[1141]“Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), pp. 45, 67.[1142]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1909, p. 147. Paulus,ib., p. 46.[1143]Leipzig, 1904, p. 518. Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-10.[1144]Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-19.[1145]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 3sqq.[1146]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540): “hoc malum (sagarum) invalescit iterum.” In 1519 he had lamented that “this evil is noticeably on the increase.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426, first Commentary on Galatians.[1147]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 7.[1148]Ib., p. 406 f.=16.[1149]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 57 (heading).[1150]Ib., p. 79.[1151]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1152]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 406 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 20.[1153]Ib., 12, p. 345. Sermon of 1523.[1154]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 190.[1155]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426.[1156]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156; Nov. 4, 1538.[1157]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 314 ff.; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sqq., detailed Commentary on Galatians which is fuller on the question of sorcery than the Commentary of 1519 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426).[1158]Ib., 40, 1, p. 314; Irmischer, 1, p. 277.[1159]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1160]See Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 117, for both.[1161]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 162; Erl. ed., 33, p. 161. Cp. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 37, 39.[1162]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198 (1540). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 39 f.[1163]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 40.[1164]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).[1165]Ib., p. 380 (1536).[1166]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1167]Lauterbach,ib.[1168]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129.[1169]Ib.: there is no “motus de loco,” etc., all this “phantasmata sunt.” Similarly in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 17sq.: the metamorphosis of old women into tom-cats and the nocturnal excursions of the witches to banquets are “delusions of the devil, not actual occurrences”; he, however, admits the possibility.[1170]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.[1171]See Paulus,ib., pp. 25 ff., 49.[1172]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.[1173]Ib., p. 117, Aug. 20, 1538.[1174]Ib., p. 121, Aug. 25, 1538. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 79.[1176]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 551 (“occidantur,” etc.).[1177]See Paulus,ib., p. 43 f., where he quotes Luther’s “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539), in support of the duty of burning witches on account of their compact with the devil, quite apart from the harm they may cause—“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 441 f.: The witches or “devil’s whores, who are burnt at the stake whenever they are caught, as is right, not for stealing milk but because of the blasphemy by which they strengthen the cause of the devil, his sacraments and Churches.”[1178]Cp. the Eisleben edition (1569), pp. 280, 280´: “They should be hurried to the stake. The lawyers require too many witnesses and proofs, they despise these open, etc.” The same occurs in the Frankfurt edition (1568), p. 218´.[1179]“Pythonissa,” Frankfurt, 1660, pp. 471, 472, from Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 58, p. 129 (above, p. 287).[1180]“Hexenwahn,” p. 75 ff.[1181]Ib., p. 54 ff.[1182]See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xvi., pp. 269 to 526, a very full account of the Witch trials, etc.[1183]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129. From May 21 to June 11, 1540. See above, p. 290, n. 3.[1184]Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” pp. 52, 66.[1185]Karl Adolf Menzel, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 3², 1854, p. 65, is of opinion that the reformers of the 16th century lent the whole weight of their position and convictions to strengthening the belief in witches. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,”loc. cit.: “Through Luther and his followers belief in the power and influence of the devil, who was active in all men and who exercised his arts especially through witches and sorcerers, received an impetus and spread in a manner never known before.” J. Hansen, “Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess im MA.,” 1900, p. 536 f., also admits that Protestantism had increased the readiness to accept such belief. Cp. the admissions of Riezler, v. Bezold and Steinhausen quoted by Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” p. 48 f.[1186]Cp. J. Diefenbach, “Der Zauberglaube des 16. Jahrh. nach den Katechismen Luthers und Canisius,” 1900.[1187]To Catherine Bora, Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.[1188]See below, vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.[1189]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295 (1542). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.[1190]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.[1191]Ib., p. 267, speaking of a case of long-continued adulterous incest between brother and sister (1542): “This was the work of the devil himself,” etc.[1192]“Satanicum tempus et sæculum.” To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703.[1193]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 774.[1194]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174 (1540).[1195]On the great tragedy between God and Satan in which he (particularly in 1541) is so prominently entangled, see the letter to Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.
[969]Cp. “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 523.
[970]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 394.
[971]On March 9, 1559, to the Elector August of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766sq.Cp. “RE.,”ib., p. 525.
[972]As early as Aug. 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917.
[973]Sep. 8, 1544, to Peter Medmann,ib., 5, p. 478.
[974]Oct. 6, 1538,ib., 3, p. 594.
[975]See Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 354, and 3, p. 270.
[976]See above, vol. iii., p. 421 f.
[977]Kolde in the Preface to the “Symbol. Bücher,”10, p. xxvi., No. 3. The Articles of Agreement were published in full by G. Mentz in 1905, “Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2). Letter to the Elector, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 128; “Briefe,” 4, p. 683 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 315, where Enders, as late as 1903, had to admit: “The doctrinal articles herewith transmitted are not known”). On the negotiations with the English, see vol. iv., p. 10 f.
[978]Thus Mentz, the editor, p. 11. Some theses from these Articles of Agreement proposed by the Wittenbergers but not accepted by the English deserve to be quoted from the new sources; their divergence from Luther’s ordinary teaching is self-evident. Of good works: “Bona opera non sunt precium pro vita æterna, tamen sunt necessaria ad salutem, quia sunt debitum, quod necessario reconciliationem sequi debet.” In support of this Mt. xix. 17 is quoted: “Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata.” Again: “Docemus requiri opera a Deo mandata et quidem non tantum externa civilia opera, sed etiam spirituales motus, timorem Dei, fiduciam,” etc. (p. 34).—“Hæc obedientia in reconciliatis fide iam reputatur esse iustitia et quædam legis impletio” (p. 40).—“Docendæ sunt ecclesiæ de necessitate et de dignitate huius obedientiæ, videlicet quod ... hæc obedientia seu iusticia bonæ conscientiæ sit necessaria quia debitum est, quod necessario sequi reconciliationem debet” (p. 42).—Merit, at least in a certain restricted sense, is also admitted: “Ad hæc bona opera sunt meritoria iuxta illud(1 Cor. iii. 8):Unusquisque accipiet mercedem iuxta proprium laborem.” (Cp. the Apologia of the Confession of Augsburg, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 120, 148.) “Etsi enim conscientia non potest statuere, quod propter dignitatem operum detur vita æterna, sed nascimur filii Dei et hæredes per misericordiam(which is also the Catholic teaching)tamen hæc opera in filiis merentur præmia corporalia et spiritualia et gradus præmiorum,” etc. (p. 46). The ambiguity concerning Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (p. 62) is due to Melanchthon, not to Luther.
[979]Kolde,ib.
[980]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 497.
[981]To Melanchthon, June 18, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 293; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 91; “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 102 ff.; “Corp. ref.,” 3, pp. 1060sq., 1077, 1081. To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,”ib., p. 297; “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 109: “mortuum enim invenimus; miraculo Dei manifesto vivit.” See vol. iii., p. 162.
[982]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 689; “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 402; “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 522.
[983]“Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 524.
[984]Cp., for instance, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 106, 116, 123, etc.; 13, pp. 282, 318.
[985]Discourse of Feb. 22, 1546, “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 726sqq.
[986]“Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 59.
[987]For further details, see below, vol. vi., xl., 3.
[988]On what follows, see Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 867 f.
[989]Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 554.
[990]Ib., p. 569.
[991]Cp. the report of Peter Canisius to Lainez, General of the Jesuits, Braunsberger, “Epistulæ b. Petri Canisii,” 2, p. 176sq.
[992]Ellinger,ib., p. 570.
[993]Ib., p. 571.
[994]Thus the Protestant theologian Nitzsch, see “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 525. Loofs,4, p. 904. “The religious conference suffered shipwreck from want of unity amongst the Evangelicals.” The Gnesio-Lutherans demanded (Sep. 27) that all errors on “the Supper” should be condemned, “ whether emanating from Carlstadt, Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Calvin or others.” Calvin’s doctrine was, however, substantially identical with Melanchthon’s at that time.
[995]“RE.,”ib.
[996]To Camerarius, Feb. 16, 1559, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 744.
[997]Ib., p. 822. As a Humanist he was fond of conjuring up heaven under the image of the Academy. In his address to the students on Luther’s death he says, the former had been snatched away “in æternam scholam et in æterna gaudia.”
[998]To Buchholzer, Aug. 10, 1559,ib., p. 898.
[999]Ib., p. 1098.
[1000]Thus in his “Testament” of April 18, 1560,ib., p. 1099.
[1001]Reprinted in “Opera Ph. Melanchtonis,” t. 1, Vitebergæ, 1562, p. 364sqq.
[1002]Jan. 28, 1538, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 20, p. 247 ff. G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kathol. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 73), p. 43.
[1003]To Vergerio, June 1, 1534, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 19, p. 222. Kawerau,ib., p. 79.
[1004]To Bishop Cricius, June 2, 1534, in his “Velitatio in Apologiam Ph. Melanchthonis,” 1534, Bl. A. 6 ff. Kawerau,ib., p. 23 f.
[1005]“Velitatio,” Bl A. 4. Kawerau, p. 25.
[1006]“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 18, p. 424. Kawerau, p. 64 f.
[1007]Vol. ii., p. 438 ff., and above, p. 266. Cp. vol. iii., p. 447 (Cologne Book of Reform).
[1008]Cp. above, p. 265, n. 6.
[1009]The authors of the Article on Melanchthon in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, say, p. 535: “A Humanist mode of thought forms the background of his theology”; Melanchthon strove for a kind of compromise between Christian truth and ancient philosophy.
[1010]“Versuche,” p. 83, with the above example taken from “Corp. ref.,” 12, p. 269.
[1011]Cp., for instance, the letter of May 12, 1536, to Erasmus, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68sq.Kawerau,ib., p. 32.
[1012]Cp. the Article quoted, p. 268, n. 2.
[1013]Ib., and pp. 532, 537 of the “Realenzyklopädie.”
[1014]F. X. Funk in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212 f.
[1015]For a supposed remark of Luther’s to Catherine Bora which would seem even more clearly to admit the uncertainty of the new faith, see below, p. 372 f.
[1016]“L’Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle,” l. 2, ch. 9 (Rouen, 1648), p. 166: “On éscrit, qu’éstant sur le poinct de rendre l’âme, l’an 1560, sa mère,” etc. The author is quite uncritical (see below, p. 271).
[1017]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083, Melanchthon to Camerarius. C. G. Strobel, “Melanchthoniana,” 1771, p. 9.
[1018]Cp. N. Müller, “Jakob Schwarzerd,” 1908 (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Nos. 96-97), p. 42, on “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 563. Müller assumes (p. 41) that the visit took place in 1524.
[1019]“Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1, 1830, p. 119 ff., “Die Schwarzerd.”
[1020]P. 122.
[1021]In the collection of essays published by the Wittenberg “Academy,” “Memoria Ph. Melanchthonis, finito post eius exitum sæculo II.”
[1022]3rd ed., Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531.
[1023]G. Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 191. F. X. Funk remarks in the “KL.,”², Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 1212: Melanchthon, “after having made her [his mother] repeat her prayers, is said to have assured her, that if she continued thus to believe and to pray, she might well live in hopes of being saved.”
[1024]“Des Teutschen ... Rekreation,” Munich, 1612, 4, p. 143. The author, who died in 1620, is no authority on historical matters beyond his own times and surroundings.
[1025]“Vitæ theologorum,” p. 333.
[1026]“RE. f. prot. Th.,”³, Art. “Melanchthon,” p. 531, with reference to Melanchthon’s “Postille,” 2, p. 477.
[1027]Above, p. 270, n. 5, p. 41.
[1028]“Historia comitiorum a. 1530 Augustæ celebratorum,” 3, p. 20.
[1029]Gotha, 1876, p. 191.
[1030]J. B. Hablitzel, “Liter. Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1905, No. 40 f.
[1031]Printed in the Jena edition of Luther’s German works, 5, 1557, p. 41.
[1032]“Apologia,” Ingolstadii, 1542, p. clii.
[1033]Willibald Pirkheimer, who was then on Luther’s side, is usually regarded as the author of this screed published under the pseudonym of J. F. Cottalambergius. Like some others, K. Bauer (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, p. 272) rejects his authorship. The passage in question appears in Böcking’s edition, “Hutteni opp.,” 4, 1860, p. 533.
[1034]“Johannes Eck,” 1865, p. 275 f.
[1035]1906, p. 885.
[1036]To Melanchthon, Dec. 7, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 227.
[1037]To Melanchthon, Nov. 21, 1540,ib., p. 215.
[1038]To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.
[1039]To Jonas, Jan. 23, 1542,ib., p. 429.
[1040]To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543,ib., pp. 551, 552.
[1041]To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543,ib., p. 569.
[1042]To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542,ib., p. 487 f.
[1043]To Cordatus, Dec. 3, 1544,ib., p. 702.
[1044]To Probst, Jan. 17 (the year of his death), 1546,ib., p. 778.
[1045]To Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543,ib., p. 591: “quorum glorias pro stercore diaboli habeo.”
[1046]To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 426, on “Master Grickel,” i.e. Agricola.
[1047]To Caspar Schwenckfeld’s messenger (1543), “Briefe,” 5, p. 614: “Increpet Dominus in te, Satan,” etc.
[1048]Cp. for what follows N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.,” 1910, where not only Luther’s (pp. 20 ff., 48 ff.) but also the Zwinglians’ and Calvinists’ attitude to the matter is dealt with.
[1049]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 305.
[1050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; cp. p. 127=28 ff.
[1051]Ib., p. 211=127.
[1052]Ib., p. 205=121.
[1053]Ib., p. 134=36.
[1054]Ib., Erl. ed., 3², p. 477 f., in the first Sermon on the Angels.
[1055]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 590 f.; Erl. ed., 10², p. 359. In the editions from 1522 to 1540 the word “conjugal” is inserted before “members.”
[1056]Ib.
[1057]Ib., 32, p. 112 ff.=18², p. 64 ff.
[1058]Ib., p. 120=76.
[1059]Ib., 34, 2, p. 263 f.=19², p. 75.
[1060]Ib., 32, p. 114=18², p. 68.
[1061]“Drey Sermon, Von den Heiligen Engeln, Vom Teufel, Von der Menschen Seele,” Wittenberg, 1563. In the sermon “Vom Teufel.” See N. Paulus, “Augsburger Postztng.,” 1903, May 8.
[1062]July 26, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 147.
[1063]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 331.
[1064]On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299. Cp. Mathesius,ib., p. 179: “Nothing is more certain than that the insane are not without their devils; these make them madder; the devil knows those who are of a melancholy turn, and of this tool he makes use.” Thus Luther in 1540.
[1065]“Sic informat [diabolus] animam et corpus, ut obsessi nihil audiant, videant, sentiant; sed ipse est iis pro anima.” Mathesius,ib., p. 198 (in 1540). Cp. also “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13, with reference to 1 Cor. v. 5. The passage occurs in the Table-Talk, ch. 24, No. 68. Cp. Erl. ed., vol. 59, p. 289 to vol. 60, p. 75. This chapter is followed by others on similar subjects. Demonology occupies altogether a very large place. Ch. 59, “On the Angels,” comprises hardly four pages.
[1066]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 326 (in 1543).
[1067]Dec. 1, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 699 f.
[1068]July 25, 1542: “quum ipse occiderit eos et imaginatione animis impressa coegerit eos putare, quod se ipsos suspenderent.”
[1069]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 59. Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 198.
[1070]Mathesius,ib.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 127.
[1071]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 24; cp. pp. 25, 27.
[1072]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 269; “Aufzeichn.,” p. 300.
[1073]Mathesius, in both the passages quoted. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 105 (1538): “habuit fœdus cum Sathana ipse et pater eius, et fœdissima scortatione occubuit securissime.”
[1074]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 207, under the heading “Spectra.” In the same volume pp. 218-242 treat of the devil under the heading “Diabolus, illius natura, conatus, insidiæ, figura, expulsio.” In the second volume the ch. on “tentationes,” pp. 287-320, and, in the third, that on “fascinationes et incantationes,” pp. 9-14, are important.
[1075]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 224 f. (1540).
[1076]Ib., p. 402: “dixit de machinis bellicis et bombardis,” etc. (1537).
[1077]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 23.
[1078]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262 (1542-43).
[1079]Ib., p. 380 (1536).
[1080]Ib., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 291: “We see how the milk thieves and other witches often do great mischief” (1543). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.
[1081]Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 117 (1532).
[1082]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 304.
[1083]Ib., 60, p. 73.
[1084]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 322 (1543).
[1085]Ib., p. 412 f.
[1086]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 130; Erl. ed., 18², p. 70 (1530).
[1087]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 395 f. (1537).
[1088]Ib., p. 198 (1540).
[1089]Ib., p. 240.
[1090]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.
[1091]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed. 10², p. 354.
[1092]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. Cp. p. 31 and Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.
[1093]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.
[1094]Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.
[1095]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.
[1096]Ib., 59, p. 348.
[1097]Ib.
[1098]Ib., 60, p. 70.
[1099]Ib., 59, p. 348.
[1100]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279, in the fuller Commentary on Galatians (1535). Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 357: “In Antinomis furit Sathan”(1539).Ib., p. 206: “Anabaptistæ non intelligunt iram Dei, sic excæcantur a diabolo; quare non anguntur, ut sancti, qui hæc omnia sentiunt; diabolus enim ipsorum aures et animos tenet occupatos,” etc. (1540).
[1101]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316; Irmischer, 1, p. 279.
[1102]Ib.
[1103]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 505 f.; Irmischer, 3, p. 251, in the first Commentary on Galatians.
[1104]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 97 (1540). Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 23, in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1518.
[1105]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 321.
[1106]Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, pp. 315, 317, 319; Irmischer, 1, pp. 278, 280, 283; Erl. ed., 49, p. 19, in the Exposition of St. John xiv.-xvi. Erl. ed., 59, p. 335.
[1107]Cp., for instance, Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 55, 111. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 97, 130, 174, 198, 279, 380, 436. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, pp. 317, 320-323; 60, pp. 24, 27, 57, 63, 71, etc.
[1108]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 560.
[1109]Ib., 29, p. 401. Sermon of 1529. Similarly in the sermon of July 2, 1536,ib., 41, p. 633. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), p. 31.
[1110]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 136. Sermon on Oculi Sunday.
[1111]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 248.
[1112]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 22. Cp. p. 38 f.
[1113]Ib., 11², p. 136.
[1114]Ib., 59, p. 287.
[1115]Ib., p. 324.
[1116]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 110. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 108.
[1117]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179; “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 87, 127.
[1118]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 13.
[1119]Ib., 59, p. 287. There ever was a widespread tendency to connect the Evil One with the water.
[1120]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380 (1536).
[1121]Ib., p. 118 (1540).
[1122]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 340.
[1123]Ib., 60, pp. 64, 66
[1124]Ib., 59, p. 138.
[1125]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).
[1126]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 129. The account assures us that he claimed to have seen the apparition himself.
[1127]Ib., 31, p. 363.
[1128]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 140, in the shorter Exposition of Isaias iii. 21.
[1129]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 71.
[1130]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 300 (1542-44).
[1131]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 73.
[1132]Ib., 59, p. 294; cp. 60, p. 123. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 235, 318. For an explanation of the word here used see Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 132, n. 3.
[1133]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 281 f.
[1134]Ib., 32, p. 291 in “Vom Schem Hamphoras,” 1543.
[1135]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 258 (1542-43).
[1136]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 208.
[1137]Ib., p. 218.
[1138]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 211 f., in the Exposition of John i. and ii. (1537-38).
[1139]Ib., 60, p. 70.
[1140]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 315; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sq.
[1141]“Hexenwahn” (see above, p. 278, n. 1), pp. 45, 67.
[1142]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1909, p. 147. Paulus,ib., p. 46.
[1143]Leipzig, 1904, p. 518. Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-10.
[1144]Cp. Paulus,ib., pp. 1-19.
[1145]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 3sqq.
[1146]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540): “hoc malum (sagarum) invalescit iterum.” In 1519 he had lamented that “this evil is noticeably on the increase.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426, first Commentary on Galatians.
[1147]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 7.
[1148]Ib., p. 406 f.=16.
[1149]Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 57 (heading).
[1150]Ib., p. 79.
[1151]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).
[1152]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 406 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 20.
[1153]Ib., 12, p. 345. Sermon of 1523.
[1154]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 190.
[1155]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426.
[1156]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 156; Nov. 4, 1538.
[1157]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 314 ff.; Irmischer, 1, p. 277sqq., detailed Commentary on Galatians which is fuller on the question of sorcery than the Commentary of 1519 (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 590; Irmischer, 3, p. 426).
[1158]Ib., 40, 1, p. 314; Irmischer, 1, p. 277.
[1159]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 380. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.
[1160]See Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 117, for both.
[1161]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 162; Erl. ed., 33, p. 161. Cp. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 37, 39.
[1162]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198 (1540). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 39 f.
[1163]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 198. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 40.
[1164]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129 (1540).
[1165]Ib., p. 380 (1536).
[1166]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.
[1167]Lauterbach,ib.
[1168]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129.
[1169]Ib.: there is no “motus de loco,” etc., all this “phantasmata sunt.” Similarly in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 409; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 17sq.: the metamorphosis of old women into tom-cats and the nocturnal excursions of the witches to banquets are “delusions of the devil, not actual occurrences”; he, however, admits the possibility.
[1170]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.
[1171]See Paulus,ib., pp. 25 ff., 49.
[1172]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 111.
[1173]Ib., p. 117, Aug. 20, 1538.
[1174]Ib., p. 121, Aug. 25, 1538. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 12.
[1175]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 79.
[1176]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 551 (“occidantur,” etc.).
[1177]See Paulus,ib., p. 43 f., where he quotes Luther’s “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539), in support of the duty of burning witches on account of their compact with the devil, quite apart from the harm they may cause—“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 441 f.: The witches or “devil’s whores, who are burnt at the stake whenever they are caught, as is right, not for stealing milk but because of the blasphemy by which they strengthen the cause of the devil, his sacraments and Churches.”
[1178]Cp. the Eisleben edition (1569), pp. 280, 280´: “They should be hurried to the stake. The lawyers require too many witnesses and proofs, they despise these open, etc.” The same occurs in the Frankfurt edition (1568), p. 218´.
[1179]“Pythonissa,” Frankfurt, 1660, pp. 471, 472, from Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 58, p. 129 (above, p. 287).
[1180]“Hexenwahn,” p. 75 ff.
[1181]Ib., p. 54 ff.
[1182]See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xvi., pp. 269 to 526, a very full account of the Witch trials, etc.
[1183]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 129. From May 21 to June 11, 1540. See above, p. 290, n. 3.
[1184]Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” pp. 52, 66.
[1185]Karl Adolf Menzel, “Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen,” 3², 1854, p. 65, is of opinion that the reformers of the 16th century lent the whole weight of their position and convictions to strengthening the belief in witches. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,”loc. cit.: “Through Luther and his followers belief in the power and influence of the devil, who was active in all men and who exercised his arts especially through witches and sorcerers, received an impetus and spread in a manner never known before.” J. Hansen, “Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess im MA.,” 1900, p. 536 f., also admits that Protestantism had increased the readiness to accept such belief. Cp. the admissions of Riezler, v. Bezold and Steinhausen quoted by Paulus, “Hexenwahn,” p. 48 f.
[1186]Cp. J. Diefenbach, “Der Zauberglaube des 16. Jahrh. nach den Katechismen Luthers und Canisius,” 1900.
[1187]To Catherine Bora, Feb. 7, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 787.
[1188]See below, vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.
[1189]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295 (1542). “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 117.
[1190]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 317.
[1191]Ib., p. 267, speaking of a case of long-continued adulterous incest between brother and sister (1542): “This was the work of the devil himself,” etc.
[1192]“Satanicum tempus et sæculum.” To Jakob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 703.
[1193]To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546,ib., p. 774.
[1194]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174 (1540).
[1195]On the great tragedy between God and Satan in which he (particularly in 1541) is so prominently entangled, see the letter to Melanchthon, April 4, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 291.