[1664]Preface and Warnung in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 189 ff.[1665]Ib., p. 200. Warnung.[1666]Ib.[1667]Ib., p. 192.[1668]P. 199.[1669]P. 202 ff.[1670]Cp. our vol. iii., pp. 78 ff., 91 f.[1671]“Werke,”ib., p. 196 f.[1672]This he said, according to Wanckel’s Notes in the Wittenberg copy of the caricatures; cp. C. Wendeler, “Archiv f. Literaturgesch.,” 14, 1, 1886, p. 18: “Et sint meum testamentum.” From “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 951.[1673]May 8, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 740: “De tribus furiis nihil habebam in animo, cum eas papæ appingerem, nisi ut atrocitatem abominationis papalis atrocissimis verbis in lingua latina exprimerem.” The word “appingere,” of course, merely means that he suggested the scene. See below, p. 427 f.[1674]Cp. P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern,” Berlin, 1892. This writer says, p. 71: “Unfortunately our knowledge of Cranach compels us to say that the pictures, as they have come down to us, cannot be regarded as Cranach’s work,” etc. See allusion below to “Master Lucas,” p. 429.[1675]Copies of the set of pictures with nine, or ten, woodcuts are to be found in the Marienbibliothek at Halle, in the Lutherhalle at Wittenberg and in the Lutherbibliothek at Worms. No. 562* f. 28 in the British Museum withfourteenpictures is a made-up copy, four cuts of which are not uniform with the rest of the set. [Note of the English Editor.][1676]Cp. Köstlin, “M. Luther”², p. 614. In the 5th edition the passage is worded otherwise.[1677]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.[1678]The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 840.[1679]“Martin Luther”², p. 614, without the verse. The 5th ed., 2, p. 602, again runs differently.[1680]See vol. iii., pp. 151 f., 355 f. The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 837.[1681]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 177. Above, p. 383 f.—According to the Table-Talk (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239) Luther was once shown a picture of the Pope being hanged on his keys. Possibly this is the same caricature of the Pope, which, according to Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 64, he altered and amended with “technæ veraces et odiosæ” on Good Friday, 1538. It has no connection with the present picture on which the keys do not appear.[1682]Luther wrote a special work in 1545 on the supposed deed of Alexander III. Others with less reason take the picture to represent Gregory VII and Henry IV; the verses are of quite a general character. [Was it not rather suggested by an incident in the pontificate of Alexander’s English predecessor, viz. Adrian IV? Note to English Edition.][1683]Bl. 177´ and 178.[1684]Wendeler (above, p. 422, n. 1), p. 33. Lehfeldt (above, p. 422, n. 3), p. 71.[1685]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 170; Erl. ed., 26², p. 316, in “Von der Widdertauffe,” 1528.[1686]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 701 ff.Ib., the pictures. This ridicule of the Papacy greatly appealed to him (“mire placet”), as he writes to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 162).[1687]“Werke,”ib., 19, p. 7 ff., with the woodcuts in which the pig plays a part.[1688]Pp. 67, 69.[1689]April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 727.[1690]Wendeler, p. 30. From Sermon 12 in “Lutherus Theander,” 1569.[1691]“Erklerung der schendlichen Sünde derjenigen,” etc. Eight pages, 1548.[1692]Bl. A2. Denifle-Weiss, p. 841.[1693]He spoke in much the same way to Wanckel according to the passage cited on p. 422, n. 1.[1694]The letter cited on p. 422, n. 2. On the strength of this letter, Lehfeldt (ib., p. 71) comes to the conclusion that Luther gave the draughtsman detailed instructions for his work.[1695]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.[1696]Wanckel’s statement, see p. 422, n. 1.[1697]July 1, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743. “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 952.[1698]“Imaginationes diræ,” for which reason Jonas had decided to give up wine.Ib.[1699]June 15, 1545, “Briefe,”ib.: He had just started on the continuation of the “Wider das Bapstum” when, “ecce irruit calculus meus, utinam non meus sed etiam papæ et Gomorrhæorum cardinalium!”[1700]To Lauterbach, July 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 745.[1701]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 742. When he here speaks of “Master Lucas” and, in the following letter, of “Lucas pictor,” he is certainly alluding to the celebrated Lucas Cranach. On his part in the matter see above. Luther’s words mean no more than that the Master had something to do with the particular woodcut under consideration.[1702]June 15, 1545,ib., p. 743.[1703]Above, vol. ii., p. 152 f.; iii., p. 233 ff., and in particular, iv., p. 322 ff.[1704]To Prior Leib of Rebdorf, 1529, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1², p. 588, and J. Schlecht, “Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien,” 1909, p. 12.[1705]A. Harnack, “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 861.[1706]Cp. the Protestants already quoted, vol. iii., pp. 8, 15-19; vol. iv., p. 483 ff.; see also above, p. 9 ff.[1707]Ib., p. 861.[1708]The words still occur in the 3rd ed. of the “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 810. In the 4th the ending is different.[1709]Ib., 34, p. 682 ff.[1710]Ib., p. 684.[1711]P. 685.[1712]“Evang. Kirchenztng.,” 1830, p. 20.[1713]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, pp. 88 f., 60 f. Cp. 1, pp. 80 f., 93 f.[1714]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 814. Harnack’s statement concerning the “life” of the old formulas of the faith in Protestantism is significant: “We have to thank Luther, that the formulas of the faith possess a living force in Protestantism to-day, and, indeed, in the West, nowhere else. Here men live in them, vindicate them or oppose them.”Ib.[1715]See above, p. 356 ff. Cp. vol. iv., p. 398 ff.[1716]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 683, n. 1.[1717]Ib., p. 858.[1718]“Leitfaden der DG.”4, 1906, p. 743.[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 230, Kirchenpostille.[1720]Ib., p. 745 f.[1721]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 827 f.[1722]Ib., p. 868.[1723]P. 879.[1724]P. 879.[1725]P. 858.[1726]For the reason why, see J. Mausbach, “Die kathol. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, pp. 215 ff., 229 f.[1727]“DG.,” 34, p. 852.[1728]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 137 ff.[1729]“DG.,” 34, p. 868.[1730]P. 851.[1731]P. 855.[1732]P. 856.[1733]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 243 ff.[1734]“DG.,” 34, p. 834.[1735]P. 869.[1736]P. 870 f. Harnack congratulates Luther on his opposition to the fanatics, and concludes: “The German Reformation banished the fanatics, but, in their stead, it had to face the rationalists, the atheists and modern positive theology,” p. 871.[1737]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 747.[1738]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 134 f. Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.[1739]“DG.,” 34, p. 849.[1740]Ib., p. 835.[1741]P. 836.[1742]P. 859 f. Harnack refers here to the passage in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 16, p. 217; Erl. ed., 35, p. 207 f. (Exposition of certain chapters of Exodus): “The sophists [Schoolmen] depicted Christ as God and as Man.... But Christ is not called Christ because He has two natures. What does this matter to me? But He bears this grand and consoling name on account of the office and work He undertook. That He is by nature God and Man concerns Himself, but that He is my Saviour and Redeemer is for my comfort and salvation.”[1743]“DG.,” 34, p. 860.[1744]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit und Ausrüstung des natürlichen Menschen bis 1525. Eine dogmatische Kritik,” Göttingen, 1901, pp. 19 f., 49.[1745]Cp. A. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900, Introd., p. 1 ff., where the quotations in question occur.[1746]Ib.[1747]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 124 f.[1748]“DG.,” 34, p. 684 f.[1749]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 463.[1750]Ib., p. 698 f.[1751]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 112. Preface to the New Testament.[1752]“Luthers Stellung zu Erasmus, Zwingli,” etc. (reprint from the “Deutsch-evang. Blätter,” 1906, Heft 1-3), p. 28.[1753]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343.[1754]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 136.[1755]“Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., Suppl. vol. ii., p. 44, N. 54 to Luther’s “De votis monasticis,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 583, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252: “Si quis Mariam neget virginem, aut alium quemvis singularem articulum fidei non crediderit, damnatur, etiam si alioqui ipsius Virginis et virginitatem et sanctitatem haberet.”[1756]Ib., p. 44 f.[1757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 414 f. Kurtz Bekenntnis. A similar passage occurs in “Comm. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, pp. 334,seq., 336.[1758]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 399.[1759]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 189.[1760]“Formerly it had not been the way with Martinus Eleutherius to make eternal salvation depend on agreement with a single dogma, and even in the Preface to Romans he had meant by justifying faith something very different.”[1761]Ib., p. 189.[1762]P. 222.[1763]P. 197.[1764]P. 189.[1765]“Luthers Stellung” (see p. 445, n. 4), p. 28.[1766]Ib., p. 27 f.[1767]P. 28.[1768]From p. 808.[1769]From p. 871.[1770]“DG.,” 34, p. 864, n.[1771]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 740 f. Quoted by Harnack, p. 864.[1772]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit,” etc. (p. 443, n. 1), p. 47.[1773]Ib., p. 48.[1774]“DG.,” 34, p. 877 f.[1775]See above, p. 7 ff.[1776]P. 843 n.[1777]P. 884.[1778]Above, p. 443, n. 2, p. 6.[1779]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 719 ff.[1780]“DG.,” 34, p. 883 f.[1781]Ib., p. 884 f.[1782]P. 887. Harnack here quotes a passage to the point from “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 51seq., where the “Instruction” seeks to pacify those who fancied that, by the above statement, “our previous teaching was being repudiated.” Melanchthon says that, “the rude, common man” must learn to accept “commandment, law, fear,” etc., as “articles of faith” which precede penance.[1783]“DG.,” 34, p. 884.[1784]Above vol. iii., p. 323 ff.[1785]P. 885 f.[1786]P. 886.[1787]“DG.,” 34, p. 886.[1788]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 775 ff.[1789]Cp. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral,” pp. 214 ff., 226 ff.[1790]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 237 ff.[1791]Ib., p. 774. Cp. pp. 702, 706, 721, 769.[1792]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 239. Cp.ib., 63, p. 112, where Luther points out that the Gospel condemns works in so far as they are intended to make us pious and to save us.[1793]P. 233.[1794]P. 228.[1795]P. 237.[1796]Ib.[1797]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 769 f. Cp. “Comm. in Gal.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 415 f. Irmischer, 1, p. 382seq.[1798]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, p. 367 f.: “Whoever works more and suffers more will also have a more glorious reward.”Ib., 58, p. 354 f.: “Opera ... accidentaliter glorificabunt personam.”[1799]Ib., p. 771, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, pp. 361, 366.[1800]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 259.[1801]Ib., p. 237.[1802]And yet Luther, on June 1, 1537, boldly denounced the Thesis “Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem.” “Disputationen,” ed. Drews,ib., p. 159. Loofs,ib., pp. 770, 857.[1803]Ib., p. 770.[1804]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 178 ff.[1805]Ib., p. 179.[1806]He also defends the Law in the same way against the Antinomians, speaking very much in Melanchthon’s style. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 861.[1807]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 181.[1808]Ib., p. 183. Cp. above, p. 26 f.[1809]Cp.ib., 63, pp. 113 ff., 125, 134. Preface to the translation of Romans.[1810]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 566, on this Preface. See also above, pp. 39 f., 47 ff.[1811]Ib., p. 771.[1812]Ib., p. 778.[1813]P. 781 f.[1814]P. 771.[1815]Sermo 158, c. 2.[1816]“Leitfaden,”4, p. 773 f.[1817]“DG.,” 34, p. 870.[1818]Ib., p. 900.[1819]P. 770.[1820]P. 856 f. Cp. G. Kruger’s opinion, vol. iii., p. 352, n. 2.[1821]P. 857.[1822]P. 868.[1823]Harnack (p. 880) refers to Müller,ib., p. 321 f., i.e. to Luther’s Schmalkalden Articles of 1537, where we read (“Symbol. Bücher,” par. 3, Art. 8, ed. Müller-Kolde10): “Ita præmuniamus nos adversum enthusiastas ... quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta.” But similar passages occur in the book Harnack also quotes, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten” (1525), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 62 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 134 ff., particularly 136 ff.=208 ff.[1824]“DG.,” 34, p. 879 f.[1825]Ib., p. 881.[1826]P. 881 f.[1827]“Where faith is not present [baptism] remains nothing but a barren sign.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 221; Erl. ed., 21, p. 140. Larger Catechism, Part IV: on Baptism.[1828]“We bring the child for this [Baptism], thinking and hoping that it believes, and praying God to give it the faith.”[1829]Ib., p. 882. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487 ff., the works of the Protestant theologians: J. Gottschick, O. Scheel, E. Rietschel, E. Haupt, W. Herrmann and E. Bunge, on how Baptism suffered in Luther’s system.[1830]Ib., p. 894.[1831]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 224; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143.[1832]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 223. Cp. on Zwingli, vol. iii., p. 379 ff., and below, p. 465, n. 1.[1833]Of the doctrine of Impanation, Loofs (“Leitfaden,” p. 905) says, that the famous formulary on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ:sub pane, in pane, cum pane, cannot be traced to Luther, but was only gathered after his day from the Larger and Smaller Catechism (Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 223, 315; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143, 19).[1834]“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 894.[1835]Ib., p. 875. Loofs speaks (p. 920) of the “christological enormities inseparable from Luther’s doctrine of the sacrament.”[1836]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 811.[1837]Cp. Luther’s letter to Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 295, where he expresses himself opposed to such private communions, though tolerating them for the time being. Communion in the church three or four times a year would suffice in order to be able to die “fortified by the Word.” In a time of public sickness, such as the plague, the communion of the sick would become an insupportable burden, and further the Church must not be enslaved (“facere servilem”) to the sacraments, particularly in the case of those who had previously despised them.[1838]In the work “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts” (1523) Luther says that “each one should be left free to adore or not, and that those who do not adore the sacrament are not to be termed heretics, for it is not commanded, Christ not being there in His glory as He is in heaven.” Those do best who forget “their duty towards the sacrament” and therefore do not adore, because there is “danger” in adoration. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 448 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 410 f.—Still, in 1544, writing to the Princes Johann, George and Joachim of Anhalt, he says: “Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia tractaretur et adoraretur etiam?” Prince Joachim declared that he “had seen Luther kneel down and reverently adore the sacrament at the elevation.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 (Notes by Besold, 1544).[1839]He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the elevation. “Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari.” The dignity of the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p. 146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.[1840]“If I am right,” says G. Kawerau, “the peculiar Melanchthonian form of the doctrine of the sacrament is pretty widely spread at the present time among Evangelicals, whether theologians or laity, as the form under which Luther’s religious views on the sacrament are to be accepted,” etc. “Luthers Stellung” (above, p. 445, n. 4), p. 41. On this point Melanchthon, as is notorious, really agreed with Zwingli. Of Zwingli, owing to his denial of the Real Presence, Luther wrote: “I, for my part, regard Zwingli as an unbeliever” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 342; Erl. ed., 30, p. 225), and for the same cause he “would show him only that charity which we are bound to display even to our foes.” To J. Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 354 f.[1841]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 f.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 f.[1842]“DG.,” 34, p. 872.[1843]P. 830 f. Cp. above, p. 44 ff.[1844]P. 855, n. 1.[1845]Freiburg, 1887, p. 3.[1846]Ib.[1847]“DG.,” 34, p. 866.[1848]Ib., cp. p. 865: “Luther believed he was fighting merely against the errors and abuses of the mediæval Church. It is true he frequently declared that he was not pleased with the ‘dear Fathers,’ and that all of them had gone astray; he was not, however, clear-sighted enough to say to himself, that, if the Fathers of the Church had erred, then their definitions at the Councils could not possibly embody the truth.... Unconsciously he himself still laboured under the after-effects of the theory that the outward Church is the real authority.”[1849]Ib., p. 834.[1850]P. 819.[1851]P. 834.[1852]P. 820.[1853]P. 861.[1854]P. 871.[1855]P. 875.[1856]P. 896. Harnack takes great care to prevent his criticism of Luther giving rise to any impression that he himself is favourably disposed or indifferent towards Catholic dogma and Catholic life. He is shocked at the attitude of Erasmus, the defender of the Catholic view of man’s free will even under Divine Grace, and declares his Diatribe against the “servum arbitrium” a “profoundly irreligious work,” whereas Luther “had restored religion to religion” (see above, vol. ii., p. 292, n. 4).—He asks: “What does original sin represent to Catholics?” (“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 749), as though Catholic dogma discarded it. He mocks at the “whole, half and quarter dogmas” of Catholics (ib., p. 764) and at their handbooks of theology (p. 763). The Catholic “system of religion,” so Harnack teaches, gave rise to “a perversion of the moral principles” (p. 749); “this system still works disaster both in theology and in ethics.... Since the 17th century the imparting of forgiveness of sins has been made a regular art.” “But conscience is able to discover God even in its idol” (ib.). In other passages he places “devotion to the Sacred Heart” and “Mariolatry” on a par with the veneration of idols, though he admits that in Catholics “the Christian sense is not actually stifled by their idols” (p. 748). Only in these devotions and in the anxiety-breeding confessional does piety still live (ib.).Of the Pope he exclaims: “The Church has an infallible master, she has no need to trouble about her history, the living voice alone is right.” He asks whether “the mediæval doctrine, now condemned to insignificance, would not gradually disappear,” whether in time the Pope would not be credited “with a peculiar miraculous power,” and whether ultimately he would not be regarded as a “sort of incarnation of the Godhead,” etc. (p. 759).“The saintly and so holy Liguori is the very opposite of Luther.... All his mortifications only entangled him more and more in the conviction that no conscience can find rest save in the authority of a confessor.... Thanks to Liguori, absolute ethical scepticism now prevailed, not only in morals but even in theology.... In a number of questions, adultery, perjury and murder inclusive, he had known how to make light of what was really most serious” (p. 755). The doctrine of Probabilism was to blame for this, according to Harnack. Cp. J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, p. 163 ff., and the “Kölnische Volksztng.,” 1910, Nos. 485 and 571. The latter passage contains further proofs from Harnack’s “Dogmengesch.” of his insulting language and his lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrines, practices and institutions.[1857]Of the Church-Postils the first half of the winter part up to the Epiphany had been published by Luther as early as 1522, and then continued down to Easter. The second part (summer portion) had been brought out in 1527 by his friend Stephen Roth. The sermons on the Epistles were only included in the collection in 1543, when the new edition appeared. W. Köhler begins his critical edition of the book of Church-Postils in Weim. ed., 10 (1911).[1858]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 401 ff.[1859]Cp. his words to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et catechismum.” Cp. above, p. 370 f.[1860]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.[1861]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 18 ff.[1862]Ib., Weim. ed., 23, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 148. “Das diese Wort ... noch fest stehen.”[1863]To Nicholas Gerbel at Strasburg, Nov. 24, 1535 (1536?), “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 127.[1864]Vol. i., p. 175 ff.[1865]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 548; Erl. ed., 45, p. 217.[1866]Ib., p. 573=250.[1867]Ib., 2, pp. 128-130=45, pp. 204-207.[1868]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 28 ff.[1869]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189.[1870]Ib., p. 34 f.=195 f.[1871]Ib., p. 37=199.[1872]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 80 ff., 9, p. 122 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 159 ff.[1873]Ib., 15², p. 318 ff.[1874]Ib., 23, p. 215 ff.[1875]Ib., p. 221.[1876]Ib., 32, p. 75 ff.[1877]Ib., p. 89 f. Cp. above, p. 418 ff.[1878]Ib.[1879]P. 77.[1880]P. 84.[1881]P. 97.[1882]“Briefe,” 5, p. 169, Feb., 1539.[1883]“Werke,” Erl, ed., 7², p. 21.[1884]Ib., p. 22.[1885]Ib., 15², p. 319.[1886]Ib., 23, p. 217.[1887]Ib., p. 222.[1888]P. 223.[1889]P. 215.[1890]Cp.ib., p. 215 f.
[1664]Preface and Warnung in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 189 ff.[1665]Ib., p. 200. Warnung.[1666]Ib.[1667]Ib., p. 192.[1668]P. 199.[1669]P. 202 ff.[1670]Cp. our vol. iii., pp. 78 ff., 91 f.[1671]“Werke,”ib., p. 196 f.[1672]This he said, according to Wanckel’s Notes in the Wittenberg copy of the caricatures; cp. C. Wendeler, “Archiv f. Literaturgesch.,” 14, 1, 1886, p. 18: “Et sint meum testamentum.” From “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 951.[1673]May 8, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 740: “De tribus furiis nihil habebam in animo, cum eas papæ appingerem, nisi ut atrocitatem abominationis papalis atrocissimis verbis in lingua latina exprimerem.” The word “appingere,” of course, merely means that he suggested the scene. See below, p. 427 f.[1674]Cp. P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern,” Berlin, 1892. This writer says, p. 71: “Unfortunately our knowledge of Cranach compels us to say that the pictures, as they have come down to us, cannot be regarded as Cranach’s work,” etc. See allusion below to “Master Lucas,” p. 429.[1675]Copies of the set of pictures with nine, or ten, woodcuts are to be found in the Marienbibliothek at Halle, in the Lutherhalle at Wittenberg and in the Lutherbibliothek at Worms. No. 562* f. 28 in the British Museum withfourteenpictures is a made-up copy, four cuts of which are not uniform with the rest of the set. [Note of the English Editor.][1676]Cp. Köstlin, “M. Luther”², p. 614. In the 5th edition the passage is worded otherwise.[1677]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.[1678]The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 840.[1679]“Martin Luther”², p. 614, without the verse. The 5th ed., 2, p. 602, again runs differently.[1680]See vol. iii., pp. 151 f., 355 f. The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 837.[1681]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 177. Above, p. 383 f.—According to the Table-Talk (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239) Luther was once shown a picture of the Pope being hanged on his keys. Possibly this is the same caricature of the Pope, which, according to Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 64, he altered and amended with “technæ veraces et odiosæ” on Good Friday, 1538. It has no connection with the present picture on which the keys do not appear.[1682]Luther wrote a special work in 1545 on the supposed deed of Alexander III. Others with less reason take the picture to represent Gregory VII and Henry IV; the verses are of quite a general character. [Was it not rather suggested by an incident in the pontificate of Alexander’s English predecessor, viz. Adrian IV? Note to English Edition.][1683]Bl. 177´ and 178.[1684]Wendeler (above, p. 422, n. 1), p. 33. Lehfeldt (above, p. 422, n. 3), p. 71.[1685]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 170; Erl. ed., 26², p. 316, in “Von der Widdertauffe,” 1528.[1686]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 701 ff.Ib., the pictures. This ridicule of the Papacy greatly appealed to him (“mire placet”), as he writes to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 162).[1687]“Werke,”ib., 19, p. 7 ff., with the woodcuts in which the pig plays a part.[1688]Pp. 67, 69.[1689]April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 727.[1690]Wendeler, p. 30. From Sermon 12 in “Lutherus Theander,” 1569.[1691]“Erklerung der schendlichen Sünde derjenigen,” etc. Eight pages, 1548.[1692]Bl. A2. Denifle-Weiss, p. 841.[1693]He spoke in much the same way to Wanckel according to the passage cited on p. 422, n. 1.[1694]The letter cited on p. 422, n. 2. On the strength of this letter, Lehfeldt (ib., p. 71) comes to the conclusion that Luther gave the draughtsman detailed instructions for his work.[1695]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.[1696]Wanckel’s statement, see p. 422, n. 1.[1697]July 1, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743. “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 952.[1698]“Imaginationes diræ,” for which reason Jonas had decided to give up wine.Ib.[1699]June 15, 1545, “Briefe,”ib.: He had just started on the continuation of the “Wider das Bapstum” when, “ecce irruit calculus meus, utinam non meus sed etiam papæ et Gomorrhæorum cardinalium!”[1700]To Lauterbach, July 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 745.[1701]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 742. When he here speaks of “Master Lucas” and, in the following letter, of “Lucas pictor,” he is certainly alluding to the celebrated Lucas Cranach. On his part in the matter see above. Luther’s words mean no more than that the Master had something to do with the particular woodcut under consideration.[1702]June 15, 1545,ib., p. 743.[1703]Above, vol. ii., p. 152 f.; iii., p. 233 ff., and in particular, iv., p. 322 ff.[1704]To Prior Leib of Rebdorf, 1529, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1², p. 588, and J. Schlecht, “Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien,” 1909, p. 12.[1705]A. Harnack, “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 861.[1706]Cp. the Protestants already quoted, vol. iii., pp. 8, 15-19; vol. iv., p. 483 ff.; see also above, p. 9 ff.[1707]Ib., p. 861.[1708]The words still occur in the 3rd ed. of the “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 810. In the 4th the ending is different.[1709]Ib., 34, p. 682 ff.[1710]Ib., p. 684.[1711]P. 685.[1712]“Evang. Kirchenztng.,” 1830, p. 20.[1713]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, pp. 88 f., 60 f. Cp. 1, pp. 80 f., 93 f.[1714]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 814. Harnack’s statement concerning the “life” of the old formulas of the faith in Protestantism is significant: “We have to thank Luther, that the formulas of the faith possess a living force in Protestantism to-day, and, indeed, in the West, nowhere else. Here men live in them, vindicate them or oppose them.”Ib.[1715]See above, p. 356 ff. Cp. vol. iv., p. 398 ff.[1716]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 683, n. 1.[1717]Ib., p. 858.[1718]“Leitfaden der DG.”4, 1906, p. 743.[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 230, Kirchenpostille.[1720]Ib., p. 745 f.[1721]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 827 f.[1722]Ib., p. 868.[1723]P. 879.[1724]P. 879.[1725]P. 858.[1726]For the reason why, see J. Mausbach, “Die kathol. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, pp. 215 ff., 229 f.[1727]“DG.,” 34, p. 852.[1728]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 137 ff.[1729]“DG.,” 34, p. 868.[1730]P. 851.[1731]P. 855.[1732]P. 856.[1733]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 243 ff.[1734]“DG.,” 34, p. 834.[1735]P. 869.[1736]P. 870 f. Harnack congratulates Luther on his opposition to the fanatics, and concludes: “The German Reformation banished the fanatics, but, in their stead, it had to face the rationalists, the atheists and modern positive theology,” p. 871.[1737]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 747.[1738]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 134 f. Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.[1739]“DG.,” 34, p. 849.[1740]Ib., p. 835.[1741]P. 836.[1742]P. 859 f. Harnack refers here to the passage in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 16, p. 217; Erl. ed., 35, p. 207 f. (Exposition of certain chapters of Exodus): “The sophists [Schoolmen] depicted Christ as God and as Man.... But Christ is not called Christ because He has two natures. What does this matter to me? But He bears this grand and consoling name on account of the office and work He undertook. That He is by nature God and Man concerns Himself, but that He is my Saviour and Redeemer is for my comfort and salvation.”[1743]“DG.,” 34, p. 860.[1744]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit und Ausrüstung des natürlichen Menschen bis 1525. Eine dogmatische Kritik,” Göttingen, 1901, pp. 19 f., 49.[1745]Cp. A. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900, Introd., p. 1 ff., where the quotations in question occur.[1746]Ib.[1747]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 124 f.[1748]“DG.,” 34, p. 684 f.[1749]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 463.[1750]Ib., p. 698 f.[1751]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 112. Preface to the New Testament.[1752]“Luthers Stellung zu Erasmus, Zwingli,” etc. (reprint from the “Deutsch-evang. Blätter,” 1906, Heft 1-3), p. 28.[1753]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343.[1754]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 136.[1755]“Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., Suppl. vol. ii., p. 44, N. 54 to Luther’s “De votis monasticis,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 583, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252: “Si quis Mariam neget virginem, aut alium quemvis singularem articulum fidei non crediderit, damnatur, etiam si alioqui ipsius Virginis et virginitatem et sanctitatem haberet.”[1756]Ib., p. 44 f.[1757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 414 f. Kurtz Bekenntnis. A similar passage occurs in “Comm. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, pp. 334,seq., 336.[1758]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 399.[1759]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 189.[1760]“Formerly it had not been the way with Martinus Eleutherius to make eternal salvation depend on agreement with a single dogma, and even in the Preface to Romans he had meant by justifying faith something very different.”[1761]Ib., p. 189.[1762]P. 222.[1763]P. 197.[1764]P. 189.[1765]“Luthers Stellung” (see p. 445, n. 4), p. 28.[1766]Ib., p. 27 f.[1767]P. 28.[1768]From p. 808.[1769]From p. 871.[1770]“DG.,” 34, p. 864, n.[1771]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 740 f. Quoted by Harnack, p. 864.[1772]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit,” etc. (p. 443, n. 1), p. 47.[1773]Ib., p. 48.[1774]“DG.,” 34, p. 877 f.[1775]See above, p. 7 ff.[1776]P. 843 n.[1777]P. 884.[1778]Above, p. 443, n. 2, p. 6.[1779]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 719 ff.[1780]“DG.,” 34, p. 883 f.[1781]Ib., p. 884 f.[1782]P. 887. Harnack here quotes a passage to the point from “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 51seq., where the “Instruction” seeks to pacify those who fancied that, by the above statement, “our previous teaching was being repudiated.” Melanchthon says that, “the rude, common man” must learn to accept “commandment, law, fear,” etc., as “articles of faith” which precede penance.[1783]“DG.,” 34, p. 884.[1784]Above vol. iii., p. 323 ff.[1785]P. 885 f.[1786]P. 886.[1787]“DG.,” 34, p. 886.[1788]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 775 ff.[1789]Cp. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral,” pp. 214 ff., 226 ff.[1790]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 237 ff.[1791]Ib., p. 774. Cp. pp. 702, 706, 721, 769.[1792]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 239. Cp.ib., 63, p. 112, where Luther points out that the Gospel condemns works in so far as they are intended to make us pious and to save us.[1793]P. 233.[1794]P. 228.[1795]P. 237.[1796]Ib.[1797]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 769 f. Cp. “Comm. in Gal.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 415 f. Irmischer, 1, p. 382seq.[1798]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, p. 367 f.: “Whoever works more and suffers more will also have a more glorious reward.”Ib., 58, p. 354 f.: “Opera ... accidentaliter glorificabunt personam.”[1799]Ib., p. 771, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, pp. 361, 366.[1800]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 259.[1801]Ib., p. 237.[1802]And yet Luther, on June 1, 1537, boldly denounced the Thesis “Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem.” “Disputationen,” ed. Drews,ib., p. 159. Loofs,ib., pp. 770, 857.[1803]Ib., p. 770.[1804]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 178 ff.[1805]Ib., p. 179.[1806]He also defends the Law in the same way against the Antinomians, speaking very much in Melanchthon’s style. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 861.[1807]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 181.[1808]Ib., p. 183. Cp. above, p. 26 f.[1809]Cp.ib., 63, pp. 113 ff., 125, 134. Preface to the translation of Romans.[1810]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 566, on this Preface. See also above, pp. 39 f., 47 ff.[1811]Ib., p. 771.[1812]Ib., p. 778.[1813]P. 781 f.[1814]P. 771.[1815]Sermo 158, c. 2.[1816]“Leitfaden,”4, p. 773 f.[1817]“DG.,” 34, p. 870.[1818]Ib., p. 900.[1819]P. 770.[1820]P. 856 f. Cp. G. Kruger’s opinion, vol. iii., p. 352, n. 2.[1821]P. 857.[1822]P. 868.[1823]Harnack (p. 880) refers to Müller,ib., p. 321 f., i.e. to Luther’s Schmalkalden Articles of 1537, where we read (“Symbol. Bücher,” par. 3, Art. 8, ed. Müller-Kolde10): “Ita præmuniamus nos adversum enthusiastas ... quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta.” But similar passages occur in the book Harnack also quotes, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten” (1525), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 62 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 134 ff., particularly 136 ff.=208 ff.[1824]“DG.,” 34, p. 879 f.[1825]Ib., p. 881.[1826]P. 881 f.[1827]“Where faith is not present [baptism] remains nothing but a barren sign.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 221; Erl. ed., 21, p. 140. Larger Catechism, Part IV: on Baptism.[1828]“We bring the child for this [Baptism], thinking and hoping that it believes, and praying God to give it the faith.”[1829]Ib., p. 882. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487 ff., the works of the Protestant theologians: J. Gottschick, O. Scheel, E. Rietschel, E. Haupt, W. Herrmann and E. Bunge, on how Baptism suffered in Luther’s system.[1830]Ib., p. 894.[1831]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 224; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143.[1832]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 223. Cp. on Zwingli, vol. iii., p. 379 ff., and below, p. 465, n. 1.[1833]Of the doctrine of Impanation, Loofs (“Leitfaden,” p. 905) says, that the famous formulary on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ:sub pane, in pane, cum pane, cannot be traced to Luther, but was only gathered after his day from the Larger and Smaller Catechism (Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 223, 315; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143, 19).[1834]“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 894.[1835]Ib., p. 875. Loofs speaks (p. 920) of the “christological enormities inseparable from Luther’s doctrine of the sacrament.”[1836]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 811.[1837]Cp. Luther’s letter to Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 295, where he expresses himself opposed to such private communions, though tolerating them for the time being. Communion in the church three or four times a year would suffice in order to be able to die “fortified by the Word.” In a time of public sickness, such as the plague, the communion of the sick would become an insupportable burden, and further the Church must not be enslaved (“facere servilem”) to the sacraments, particularly in the case of those who had previously despised them.[1838]In the work “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts” (1523) Luther says that “each one should be left free to adore or not, and that those who do not adore the sacrament are not to be termed heretics, for it is not commanded, Christ not being there in His glory as He is in heaven.” Those do best who forget “their duty towards the sacrament” and therefore do not adore, because there is “danger” in adoration. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 448 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 410 f.—Still, in 1544, writing to the Princes Johann, George and Joachim of Anhalt, he says: “Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia tractaretur et adoraretur etiam?” Prince Joachim declared that he “had seen Luther kneel down and reverently adore the sacrament at the elevation.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 (Notes by Besold, 1544).[1839]He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the elevation. “Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari.” The dignity of the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p. 146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.[1840]“If I am right,” says G. Kawerau, “the peculiar Melanchthonian form of the doctrine of the sacrament is pretty widely spread at the present time among Evangelicals, whether theologians or laity, as the form under which Luther’s religious views on the sacrament are to be accepted,” etc. “Luthers Stellung” (above, p. 445, n. 4), p. 41. On this point Melanchthon, as is notorious, really agreed with Zwingli. Of Zwingli, owing to his denial of the Real Presence, Luther wrote: “I, for my part, regard Zwingli as an unbeliever” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 342; Erl. ed., 30, p. 225), and for the same cause he “would show him only that charity which we are bound to display even to our foes.” To J. Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 354 f.[1841]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 f.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 f.[1842]“DG.,” 34, p. 872.[1843]P. 830 f. Cp. above, p. 44 ff.[1844]P. 855, n. 1.[1845]Freiburg, 1887, p. 3.[1846]Ib.[1847]“DG.,” 34, p. 866.[1848]Ib., cp. p. 865: “Luther believed he was fighting merely against the errors and abuses of the mediæval Church. It is true he frequently declared that he was not pleased with the ‘dear Fathers,’ and that all of them had gone astray; he was not, however, clear-sighted enough to say to himself, that, if the Fathers of the Church had erred, then their definitions at the Councils could not possibly embody the truth.... Unconsciously he himself still laboured under the after-effects of the theory that the outward Church is the real authority.”[1849]Ib., p. 834.[1850]P. 819.[1851]P. 834.[1852]P. 820.[1853]P. 861.[1854]P. 871.[1855]P. 875.[1856]P. 896. Harnack takes great care to prevent his criticism of Luther giving rise to any impression that he himself is favourably disposed or indifferent towards Catholic dogma and Catholic life. He is shocked at the attitude of Erasmus, the defender of the Catholic view of man’s free will even under Divine Grace, and declares his Diatribe against the “servum arbitrium” a “profoundly irreligious work,” whereas Luther “had restored religion to religion” (see above, vol. ii., p. 292, n. 4).—He asks: “What does original sin represent to Catholics?” (“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 749), as though Catholic dogma discarded it. He mocks at the “whole, half and quarter dogmas” of Catholics (ib., p. 764) and at their handbooks of theology (p. 763). The Catholic “system of religion,” so Harnack teaches, gave rise to “a perversion of the moral principles” (p. 749); “this system still works disaster both in theology and in ethics.... Since the 17th century the imparting of forgiveness of sins has been made a regular art.” “But conscience is able to discover God even in its idol” (ib.). In other passages he places “devotion to the Sacred Heart” and “Mariolatry” on a par with the veneration of idols, though he admits that in Catholics “the Christian sense is not actually stifled by their idols” (p. 748). Only in these devotions and in the anxiety-breeding confessional does piety still live (ib.).Of the Pope he exclaims: “The Church has an infallible master, she has no need to trouble about her history, the living voice alone is right.” He asks whether “the mediæval doctrine, now condemned to insignificance, would not gradually disappear,” whether in time the Pope would not be credited “with a peculiar miraculous power,” and whether ultimately he would not be regarded as a “sort of incarnation of the Godhead,” etc. (p. 759).“The saintly and so holy Liguori is the very opposite of Luther.... All his mortifications only entangled him more and more in the conviction that no conscience can find rest save in the authority of a confessor.... Thanks to Liguori, absolute ethical scepticism now prevailed, not only in morals but even in theology.... In a number of questions, adultery, perjury and murder inclusive, he had known how to make light of what was really most serious” (p. 755). The doctrine of Probabilism was to blame for this, according to Harnack. Cp. J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, p. 163 ff., and the “Kölnische Volksztng.,” 1910, Nos. 485 and 571. The latter passage contains further proofs from Harnack’s “Dogmengesch.” of his insulting language and his lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrines, practices and institutions.[1857]Of the Church-Postils the first half of the winter part up to the Epiphany had been published by Luther as early as 1522, and then continued down to Easter. The second part (summer portion) had been brought out in 1527 by his friend Stephen Roth. The sermons on the Epistles were only included in the collection in 1543, when the new edition appeared. W. Köhler begins his critical edition of the book of Church-Postils in Weim. ed., 10 (1911).[1858]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 401 ff.[1859]Cp. his words to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et catechismum.” Cp. above, p. 370 f.[1860]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.[1861]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 18 ff.[1862]Ib., Weim. ed., 23, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 148. “Das diese Wort ... noch fest stehen.”[1863]To Nicholas Gerbel at Strasburg, Nov. 24, 1535 (1536?), “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 127.[1864]Vol. i., p. 175 ff.[1865]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 548; Erl. ed., 45, p. 217.[1866]Ib., p. 573=250.[1867]Ib., 2, pp. 128-130=45, pp. 204-207.[1868]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 28 ff.[1869]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189.[1870]Ib., p. 34 f.=195 f.[1871]Ib., p. 37=199.[1872]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 80 ff., 9, p. 122 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 159 ff.[1873]Ib., 15², p. 318 ff.[1874]Ib., 23, p. 215 ff.[1875]Ib., p. 221.[1876]Ib., 32, p. 75 ff.[1877]Ib., p. 89 f. Cp. above, p. 418 ff.[1878]Ib.[1879]P. 77.[1880]P. 84.[1881]P. 97.[1882]“Briefe,” 5, p. 169, Feb., 1539.[1883]“Werke,” Erl, ed., 7², p. 21.[1884]Ib., p. 22.[1885]Ib., 15², p. 319.[1886]Ib., 23, p. 217.[1887]Ib., p. 222.[1888]P. 223.[1889]P. 215.[1890]Cp.ib., p. 215 f.
[1664]Preface and Warnung in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 189 ff.[1665]Ib., p. 200. Warnung.[1666]Ib.[1667]Ib., p. 192.[1668]P. 199.[1669]P. 202 ff.[1670]Cp. our vol. iii., pp. 78 ff., 91 f.[1671]“Werke,”ib., p. 196 f.[1672]This he said, according to Wanckel’s Notes in the Wittenberg copy of the caricatures; cp. C. Wendeler, “Archiv f. Literaturgesch.,” 14, 1, 1886, p. 18: “Et sint meum testamentum.” From “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 951.[1673]May 8, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 740: “De tribus furiis nihil habebam in animo, cum eas papæ appingerem, nisi ut atrocitatem abominationis papalis atrocissimis verbis in lingua latina exprimerem.” The word “appingere,” of course, merely means that he suggested the scene. See below, p. 427 f.[1674]Cp. P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern,” Berlin, 1892. This writer says, p. 71: “Unfortunately our knowledge of Cranach compels us to say that the pictures, as they have come down to us, cannot be regarded as Cranach’s work,” etc. See allusion below to “Master Lucas,” p. 429.[1675]Copies of the set of pictures with nine, or ten, woodcuts are to be found in the Marienbibliothek at Halle, in the Lutherhalle at Wittenberg and in the Lutherbibliothek at Worms. No. 562* f. 28 in the British Museum withfourteenpictures is a made-up copy, four cuts of which are not uniform with the rest of the set. [Note of the English Editor.][1676]Cp. Köstlin, “M. Luther”², p. 614. In the 5th edition the passage is worded otherwise.[1677]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.[1678]The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 840.[1679]“Martin Luther”², p. 614, without the verse. The 5th ed., 2, p. 602, again runs differently.[1680]See vol. iii., pp. 151 f., 355 f. The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 837.[1681]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 177. Above, p. 383 f.—According to the Table-Talk (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239) Luther was once shown a picture of the Pope being hanged on his keys. Possibly this is the same caricature of the Pope, which, according to Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 64, he altered and amended with “technæ veraces et odiosæ” on Good Friday, 1538. It has no connection with the present picture on which the keys do not appear.[1682]Luther wrote a special work in 1545 on the supposed deed of Alexander III. Others with less reason take the picture to represent Gregory VII and Henry IV; the verses are of quite a general character. [Was it not rather suggested by an incident in the pontificate of Alexander’s English predecessor, viz. Adrian IV? Note to English Edition.][1683]Bl. 177´ and 178.[1684]Wendeler (above, p. 422, n. 1), p. 33. Lehfeldt (above, p. 422, n. 3), p. 71.[1685]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 170; Erl. ed., 26², p. 316, in “Von der Widdertauffe,” 1528.[1686]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 701 ff.Ib., the pictures. This ridicule of the Papacy greatly appealed to him (“mire placet”), as he writes to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 162).[1687]“Werke,”ib., 19, p. 7 ff., with the woodcuts in which the pig plays a part.[1688]Pp. 67, 69.[1689]April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 727.[1690]Wendeler, p. 30. From Sermon 12 in “Lutherus Theander,” 1569.[1691]“Erklerung der schendlichen Sünde derjenigen,” etc. Eight pages, 1548.[1692]Bl. A2. Denifle-Weiss, p. 841.[1693]He spoke in much the same way to Wanckel according to the passage cited on p. 422, n. 1.[1694]The letter cited on p. 422, n. 2. On the strength of this letter, Lehfeldt (ib., p. 71) comes to the conclusion that Luther gave the draughtsman detailed instructions for his work.[1695]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.[1696]Wanckel’s statement, see p. 422, n. 1.[1697]July 1, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743. “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 952.[1698]“Imaginationes diræ,” for which reason Jonas had decided to give up wine.Ib.[1699]June 15, 1545, “Briefe,”ib.: He had just started on the continuation of the “Wider das Bapstum” when, “ecce irruit calculus meus, utinam non meus sed etiam papæ et Gomorrhæorum cardinalium!”[1700]To Lauterbach, July 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 745.[1701]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 742. When he here speaks of “Master Lucas” and, in the following letter, of “Lucas pictor,” he is certainly alluding to the celebrated Lucas Cranach. On his part in the matter see above. Luther’s words mean no more than that the Master had something to do with the particular woodcut under consideration.[1702]June 15, 1545,ib., p. 743.[1703]Above, vol. ii., p. 152 f.; iii., p. 233 ff., and in particular, iv., p. 322 ff.[1704]To Prior Leib of Rebdorf, 1529, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1², p. 588, and J. Schlecht, “Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien,” 1909, p. 12.[1705]A. Harnack, “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 861.[1706]Cp. the Protestants already quoted, vol. iii., pp. 8, 15-19; vol. iv., p. 483 ff.; see also above, p. 9 ff.[1707]Ib., p. 861.[1708]The words still occur in the 3rd ed. of the “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 810. In the 4th the ending is different.[1709]Ib., 34, p. 682 ff.[1710]Ib., p. 684.[1711]P. 685.[1712]“Evang. Kirchenztng.,” 1830, p. 20.[1713]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, pp. 88 f., 60 f. Cp. 1, pp. 80 f., 93 f.[1714]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 814. Harnack’s statement concerning the “life” of the old formulas of the faith in Protestantism is significant: “We have to thank Luther, that the formulas of the faith possess a living force in Protestantism to-day, and, indeed, in the West, nowhere else. Here men live in them, vindicate them or oppose them.”Ib.[1715]See above, p. 356 ff. Cp. vol. iv., p. 398 ff.[1716]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 683, n. 1.[1717]Ib., p. 858.[1718]“Leitfaden der DG.”4, 1906, p. 743.[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 230, Kirchenpostille.[1720]Ib., p. 745 f.[1721]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 827 f.[1722]Ib., p. 868.[1723]P. 879.[1724]P. 879.[1725]P. 858.[1726]For the reason why, see J. Mausbach, “Die kathol. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, pp. 215 ff., 229 f.[1727]“DG.,” 34, p. 852.[1728]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 137 ff.[1729]“DG.,” 34, p. 868.[1730]P. 851.[1731]P. 855.[1732]P. 856.[1733]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 243 ff.[1734]“DG.,” 34, p. 834.[1735]P. 869.[1736]P. 870 f. Harnack congratulates Luther on his opposition to the fanatics, and concludes: “The German Reformation banished the fanatics, but, in their stead, it had to face the rationalists, the atheists and modern positive theology,” p. 871.[1737]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 747.[1738]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 134 f. Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.[1739]“DG.,” 34, p. 849.[1740]Ib., p. 835.[1741]P. 836.[1742]P. 859 f. Harnack refers here to the passage in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 16, p. 217; Erl. ed., 35, p. 207 f. (Exposition of certain chapters of Exodus): “The sophists [Schoolmen] depicted Christ as God and as Man.... But Christ is not called Christ because He has two natures. What does this matter to me? But He bears this grand and consoling name on account of the office and work He undertook. That He is by nature God and Man concerns Himself, but that He is my Saviour and Redeemer is for my comfort and salvation.”[1743]“DG.,” 34, p. 860.[1744]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit und Ausrüstung des natürlichen Menschen bis 1525. Eine dogmatische Kritik,” Göttingen, 1901, pp. 19 f., 49.[1745]Cp. A. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900, Introd., p. 1 ff., where the quotations in question occur.[1746]Ib.[1747]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 124 f.[1748]“DG.,” 34, p. 684 f.[1749]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 463.[1750]Ib., p. 698 f.[1751]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 112. Preface to the New Testament.[1752]“Luthers Stellung zu Erasmus, Zwingli,” etc. (reprint from the “Deutsch-evang. Blätter,” 1906, Heft 1-3), p. 28.[1753]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343.[1754]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 136.[1755]“Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., Suppl. vol. ii., p. 44, N. 54 to Luther’s “De votis monasticis,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 583, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252: “Si quis Mariam neget virginem, aut alium quemvis singularem articulum fidei non crediderit, damnatur, etiam si alioqui ipsius Virginis et virginitatem et sanctitatem haberet.”[1756]Ib., p. 44 f.[1757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 414 f. Kurtz Bekenntnis. A similar passage occurs in “Comm. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, pp. 334,seq., 336.[1758]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 399.[1759]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 189.[1760]“Formerly it had not been the way with Martinus Eleutherius to make eternal salvation depend on agreement with a single dogma, and even in the Preface to Romans he had meant by justifying faith something very different.”[1761]Ib., p. 189.[1762]P. 222.[1763]P. 197.[1764]P. 189.[1765]“Luthers Stellung” (see p. 445, n. 4), p. 28.[1766]Ib., p. 27 f.[1767]P. 28.[1768]From p. 808.[1769]From p. 871.[1770]“DG.,” 34, p. 864, n.[1771]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 740 f. Quoted by Harnack, p. 864.[1772]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit,” etc. (p. 443, n. 1), p. 47.[1773]Ib., p. 48.[1774]“DG.,” 34, p. 877 f.[1775]See above, p. 7 ff.[1776]P. 843 n.[1777]P. 884.[1778]Above, p. 443, n. 2, p. 6.[1779]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 719 ff.[1780]“DG.,” 34, p. 883 f.[1781]Ib., p. 884 f.[1782]P. 887. Harnack here quotes a passage to the point from “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 51seq., where the “Instruction” seeks to pacify those who fancied that, by the above statement, “our previous teaching was being repudiated.” Melanchthon says that, “the rude, common man” must learn to accept “commandment, law, fear,” etc., as “articles of faith” which precede penance.[1783]“DG.,” 34, p. 884.[1784]Above vol. iii., p. 323 ff.[1785]P. 885 f.[1786]P. 886.[1787]“DG.,” 34, p. 886.[1788]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 775 ff.[1789]Cp. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral,” pp. 214 ff., 226 ff.[1790]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 237 ff.[1791]Ib., p. 774. Cp. pp. 702, 706, 721, 769.[1792]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 239. Cp.ib., 63, p. 112, where Luther points out that the Gospel condemns works in so far as they are intended to make us pious and to save us.[1793]P. 233.[1794]P. 228.[1795]P. 237.[1796]Ib.[1797]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 769 f. Cp. “Comm. in Gal.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 415 f. Irmischer, 1, p. 382seq.[1798]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, p. 367 f.: “Whoever works more and suffers more will also have a more glorious reward.”Ib., 58, p. 354 f.: “Opera ... accidentaliter glorificabunt personam.”[1799]Ib., p. 771, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, pp. 361, 366.[1800]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 259.[1801]Ib., p. 237.[1802]And yet Luther, on June 1, 1537, boldly denounced the Thesis “Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem.” “Disputationen,” ed. Drews,ib., p. 159. Loofs,ib., pp. 770, 857.[1803]Ib., p. 770.[1804]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 178 ff.[1805]Ib., p. 179.[1806]He also defends the Law in the same way against the Antinomians, speaking very much in Melanchthon’s style. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 861.[1807]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 181.[1808]Ib., p. 183. Cp. above, p. 26 f.[1809]Cp.ib., 63, pp. 113 ff., 125, 134. Preface to the translation of Romans.[1810]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 566, on this Preface. See also above, pp. 39 f., 47 ff.[1811]Ib., p. 771.[1812]Ib., p. 778.[1813]P. 781 f.[1814]P. 771.[1815]Sermo 158, c. 2.[1816]“Leitfaden,”4, p. 773 f.[1817]“DG.,” 34, p. 870.[1818]Ib., p. 900.[1819]P. 770.[1820]P. 856 f. Cp. G. Kruger’s opinion, vol. iii., p. 352, n. 2.[1821]P. 857.[1822]P. 868.[1823]Harnack (p. 880) refers to Müller,ib., p. 321 f., i.e. to Luther’s Schmalkalden Articles of 1537, where we read (“Symbol. Bücher,” par. 3, Art. 8, ed. Müller-Kolde10): “Ita præmuniamus nos adversum enthusiastas ... quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta.” But similar passages occur in the book Harnack also quotes, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten” (1525), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 62 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 134 ff., particularly 136 ff.=208 ff.[1824]“DG.,” 34, p. 879 f.[1825]Ib., p. 881.[1826]P. 881 f.[1827]“Where faith is not present [baptism] remains nothing but a barren sign.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 221; Erl. ed., 21, p. 140. Larger Catechism, Part IV: on Baptism.[1828]“We bring the child for this [Baptism], thinking and hoping that it believes, and praying God to give it the faith.”[1829]Ib., p. 882. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487 ff., the works of the Protestant theologians: J. Gottschick, O. Scheel, E. Rietschel, E. Haupt, W. Herrmann and E. Bunge, on how Baptism suffered in Luther’s system.[1830]Ib., p. 894.[1831]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 224; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143.[1832]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 223. Cp. on Zwingli, vol. iii., p. 379 ff., and below, p. 465, n. 1.[1833]Of the doctrine of Impanation, Loofs (“Leitfaden,” p. 905) says, that the famous formulary on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ:sub pane, in pane, cum pane, cannot be traced to Luther, but was only gathered after his day from the Larger and Smaller Catechism (Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 223, 315; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143, 19).[1834]“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 894.[1835]Ib., p. 875. Loofs speaks (p. 920) of the “christological enormities inseparable from Luther’s doctrine of the sacrament.”[1836]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 811.[1837]Cp. Luther’s letter to Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 295, where he expresses himself opposed to such private communions, though tolerating them for the time being. Communion in the church three or four times a year would suffice in order to be able to die “fortified by the Word.” In a time of public sickness, such as the plague, the communion of the sick would become an insupportable burden, and further the Church must not be enslaved (“facere servilem”) to the sacraments, particularly in the case of those who had previously despised them.[1838]In the work “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts” (1523) Luther says that “each one should be left free to adore or not, and that those who do not adore the sacrament are not to be termed heretics, for it is not commanded, Christ not being there in His glory as He is in heaven.” Those do best who forget “their duty towards the sacrament” and therefore do not adore, because there is “danger” in adoration. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 448 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 410 f.—Still, in 1544, writing to the Princes Johann, George and Joachim of Anhalt, he says: “Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia tractaretur et adoraretur etiam?” Prince Joachim declared that he “had seen Luther kneel down and reverently adore the sacrament at the elevation.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 (Notes by Besold, 1544).[1839]He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the elevation. “Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari.” The dignity of the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p. 146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.[1840]“If I am right,” says G. Kawerau, “the peculiar Melanchthonian form of the doctrine of the sacrament is pretty widely spread at the present time among Evangelicals, whether theologians or laity, as the form under which Luther’s religious views on the sacrament are to be accepted,” etc. “Luthers Stellung” (above, p. 445, n. 4), p. 41. On this point Melanchthon, as is notorious, really agreed with Zwingli. Of Zwingli, owing to his denial of the Real Presence, Luther wrote: “I, for my part, regard Zwingli as an unbeliever” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 342; Erl. ed., 30, p. 225), and for the same cause he “would show him only that charity which we are bound to display even to our foes.” To J. Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 354 f.[1841]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 f.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 f.[1842]“DG.,” 34, p. 872.[1843]P. 830 f. Cp. above, p. 44 ff.[1844]P. 855, n. 1.[1845]Freiburg, 1887, p. 3.[1846]Ib.[1847]“DG.,” 34, p. 866.[1848]Ib., cp. p. 865: “Luther believed he was fighting merely against the errors and abuses of the mediæval Church. It is true he frequently declared that he was not pleased with the ‘dear Fathers,’ and that all of them had gone astray; he was not, however, clear-sighted enough to say to himself, that, if the Fathers of the Church had erred, then their definitions at the Councils could not possibly embody the truth.... Unconsciously he himself still laboured under the after-effects of the theory that the outward Church is the real authority.”[1849]Ib., p. 834.[1850]P. 819.[1851]P. 834.[1852]P. 820.[1853]P. 861.[1854]P. 871.[1855]P. 875.[1856]P. 896. Harnack takes great care to prevent his criticism of Luther giving rise to any impression that he himself is favourably disposed or indifferent towards Catholic dogma and Catholic life. He is shocked at the attitude of Erasmus, the defender of the Catholic view of man’s free will even under Divine Grace, and declares his Diatribe against the “servum arbitrium” a “profoundly irreligious work,” whereas Luther “had restored religion to religion” (see above, vol. ii., p. 292, n. 4).—He asks: “What does original sin represent to Catholics?” (“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 749), as though Catholic dogma discarded it. He mocks at the “whole, half and quarter dogmas” of Catholics (ib., p. 764) and at their handbooks of theology (p. 763). The Catholic “system of religion,” so Harnack teaches, gave rise to “a perversion of the moral principles” (p. 749); “this system still works disaster both in theology and in ethics.... Since the 17th century the imparting of forgiveness of sins has been made a regular art.” “But conscience is able to discover God even in its idol” (ib.). In other passages he places “devotion to the Sacred Heart” and “Mariolatry” on a par with the veneration of idols, though he admits that in Catholics “the Christian sense is not actually stifled by their idols” (p. 748). Only in these devotions and in the anxiety-breeding confessional does piety still live (ib.).Of the Pope he exclaims: “The Church has an infallible master, she has no need to trouble about her history, the living voice alone is right.” He asks whether “the mediæval doctrine, now condemned to insignificance, would not gradually disappear,” whether in time the Pope would not be credited “with a peculiar miraculous power,” and whether ultimately he would not be regarded as a “sort of incarnation of the Godhead,” etc. (p. 759).“The saintly and so holy Liguori is the very opposite of Luther.... All his mortifications only entangled him more and more in the conviction that no conscience can find rest save in the authority of a confessor.... Thanks to Liguori, absolute ethical scepticism now prevailed, not only in morals but even in theology.... In a number of questions, adultery, perjury and murder inclusive, he had known how to make light of what was really most serious” (p. 755). The doctrine of Probabilism was to blame for this, according to Harnack. Cp. J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, p. 163 ff., and the “Kölnische Volksztng.,” 1910, Nos. 485 and 571. The latter passage contains further proofs from Harnack’s “Dogmengesch.” of his insulting language and his lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrines, practices and institutions.[1857]Of the Church-Postils the first half of the winter part up to the Epiphany had been published by Luther as early as 1522, and then continued down to Easter. The second part (summer portion) had been brought out in 1527 by his friend Stephen Roth. The sermons on the Epistles were only included in the collection in 1543, when the new edition appeared. W. Köhler begins his critical edition of the book of Church-Postils in Weim. ed., 10 (1911).[1858]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 401 ff.[1859]Cp. his words to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et catechismum.” Cp. above, p. 370 f.[1860]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.[1861]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 18 ff.[1862]Ib., Weim. ed., 23, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 148. “Das diese Wort ... noch fest stehen.”[1863]To Nicholas Gerbel at Strasburg, Nov. 24, 1535 (1536?), “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 127.[1864]Vol. i., p. 175 ff.[1865]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 548; Erl. ed., 45, p. 217.[1866]Ib., p. 573=250.[1867]Ib., 2, pp. 128-130=45, pp. 204-207.[1868]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 28 ff.[1869]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189.[1870]Ib., p. 34 f.=195 f.[1871]Ib., p. 37=199.[1872]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 80 ff., 9, p. 122 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 159 ff.[1873]Ib., 15², p. 318 ff.[1874]Ib., 23, p. 215 ff.[1875]Ib., p. 221.[1876]Ib., 32, p. 75 ff.[1877]Ib., p. 89 f. Cp. above, p. 418 ff.[1878]Ib.[1879]P. 77.[1880]P. 84.[1881]P. 97.[1882]“Briefe,” 5, p. 169, Feb., 1539.[1883]“Werke,” Erl, ed., 7², p. 21.[1884]Ib., p. 22.[1885]Ib., 15², p. 319.[1886]Ib., 23, p. 217.[1887]Ib., p. 222.[1888]P. 223.[1889]P. 215.[1890]Cp.ib., p. 215 f.
[1664]Preface and Warnung in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 189 ff.
[1665]Ib., p. 200. Warnung.
[1666]Ib.
[1667]Ib., p. 192.
[1668]P. 199.
[1669]P. 202 ff.
[1670]Cp. our vol. iii., pp. 78 ff., 91 f.
[1671]“Werke,”ib., p. 196 f.
[1672]This he said, according to Wanckel’s Notes in the Wittenberg copy of the caricatures; cp. C. Wendeler, “Archiv f. Literaturgesch.,” 14, 1, 1886, p. 18: “Et sint meum testamentum.” From “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 951.
[1673]May 8, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 740: “De tribus furiis nihil habebam in animo, cum eas papæ appingerem, nisi ut atrocitatem abominationis papalis atrocissimis verbis in lingua latina exprimerem.” The word “appingere,” of course, merely means that he suggested the scene. See below, p. 427 f.
[1674]Cp. P. Lehfeldt, “Luthers Verhältnis zu Kunst und Künstlern,” Berlin, 1892. This writer says, p. 71: “Unfortunately our knowledge of Cranach compels us to say that the pictures, as they have come down to us, cannot be regarded as Cranach’s work,” etc. See allusion below to “Master Lucas,” p. 429.
[1675]Copies of the set of pictures with nine, or ten, woodcuts are to be found in the Marienbibliothek at Halle, in the Lutherhalle at Wittenberg and in the Lutherbibliothek at Worms. No. 562* f. 28 in the British Museum withfourteenpictures is a made-up copy, four cuts of which are not uniform with the rest of the set. [Note of the English Editor.]
[1676]Cp. Köstlin, “M. Luther”², p. 614. In the 5th edition the passage is worded otherwise.
[1677]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.
[1678]The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 840.
[1679]“Martin Luther”², p. 614, without the verse. The 5th ed., 2, p. 602, again runs differently.
[1680]See vol. iii., pp. 151 f., 355 f. The picture in Denifle-Weiss, p. 837.
[1681]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 177. Above, p. 383 f.—According to the Table-Talk (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239) Luther was once shown a picture of the Pope being hanged on his keys. Possibly this is the same caricature of the Pope, which, according to Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 64, he altered and amended with “technæ veraces et odiosæ” on Good Friday, 1538. It has no connection with the present picture on which the keys do not appear.
[1682]Luther wrote a special work in 1545 on the supposed deed of Alexander III. Others with less reason take the picture to represent Gregory VII and Henry IV; the verses are of quite a general character. [Was it not rather suggested by an incident in the pontificate of Alexander’s English predecessor, viz. Adrian IV? Note to English Edition.]
[1683]Bl. 177´ and 178.
[1684]Wendeler (above, p. 422, n. 1), p. 33. Lehfeldt (above, p. 422, n. 3), p. 71.
[1685]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 170; Erl. ed., 26², p. 316, in “Von der Widdertauffe,” 1528.
[1686]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 701 ff.Ib., the pictures. This ridicule of the Papacy greatly appealed to him (“mire placet”), as he writes to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 162).
[1687]“Werke,”ib., 19, p. 7 ff., with the woodcuts in which the pig plays a part.
[1688]Pp. 67, 69.
[1689]April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 727.
[1690]Wendeler, p. 30. From Sermon 12 in “Lutherus Theander,” 1569.
[1691]“Erklerung der schendlichen Sünde derjenigen,” etc. Eight pages, 1548.
[1692]Bl. A2. Denifle-Weiss, p. 841.
[1693]He spoke in much the same way to Wanckel according to the passage cited on p. 422, n. 1.
[1694]The letter cited on p. 422, n. 2. On the strength of this letter, Lehfeldt (ib., p. 71) comes to the conclusion that Luther gave the draughtsman detailed instructions for his work.
[1695]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.
[1696]Wanckel’s statement, see p. 422, n. 1.
[1697]July 1, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743. “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1712, p. 952.
[1698]“Imaginationes diræ,” for which reason Jonas had decided to give up wine.Ib.
[1699]June 15, 1545, “Briefe,”ib.: He had just started on the continuation of the “Wider das Bapstum” when, “ecce irruit calculus meus, utinam non meus sed etiam papæ et Gomorrhæorum cardinalium!”
[1700]To Lauterbach, July 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 745.
[1701]June 3, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 742. When he here speaks of “Master Lucas” and, in the following letter, of “Lucas pictor,” he is certainly alluding to the celebrated Lucas Cranach. On his part in the matter see above. Luther’s words mean no more than that the Master had something to do with the particular woodcut under consideration.
[1702]June 15, 1545,ib., p. 743.
[1703]Above, vol. ii., p. 152 f.; iii., p. 233 ff., and in particular, iv., p. 322 ff.
[1704]To Prior Leib of Rebdorf, 1529, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1², p. 588, and J. Schlecht, “Kilian Leibs Briefwechsel und Diarien,” 1909, p. 12.
[1705]A. Harnack, “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 861.
[1706]Cp. the Protestants already quoted, vol. iii., pp. 8, 15-19; vol. iv., p. 483 ff.; see also above, p. 9 ff.
[1707]Ib., p. 861.
[1708]The words still occur in the 3rd ed. of the “Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 810. In the 4th the ending is different.
[1709]Ib., 34, p. 682 ff.
[1710]Ib., p. 684.
[1711]P. 685.
[1712]“Evang. Kirchenztng.,” 1830, p. 20.
[1713]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, pp. 88 f., 60 f. Cp. 1, pp. 80 f., 93 f.
[1714]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 814. Harnack’s statement concerning the “life” of the old formulas of the faith in Protestantism is significant: “We have to thank Luther, that the formulas of the faith possess a living force in Protestantism to-day, and, indeed, in the West, nowhere else. Here men live in them, vindicate them or oppose them.”Ib.
[1715]See above, p. 356 ff. Cp. vol. iv., p. 398 ff.
[1716]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 683, n. 1.
[1717]Ib., p. 858.
[1718]“Leitfaden der DG.”4, 1906, p. 743.
[1719]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 230, Kirchenpostille.
[1720]Ib., p. 745 f.
[1721]“Lehrb. der DG.,” 34, p. 827 f.
[1722]Ib., p. 868.
[1723]P. 879.
[1724]P. 879.
[1725]P. 858.
[1726]For the reason why, see J. Mausbach, “Die kathol. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, pp. 215 ff., 229 f.
[1727]“DG.,” 34, p. 852.
[1728]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 137 ff.
[1729]“DG.,” 34, p. 868.
[1730]P. 851.
[1731]P. 855.
[1732]P. 856.
[1733]Cp. Mausbach,ib., p. 243 ff.
[1734]“DG.,” 34, p. 834.
[1735]P. 869.
[1736]P. 870 f. Harnack congratulates Luther on his opposition to the fanatics, and concludes: “The German Reformation banished the fanatics, but, in their stead, it had to face the rationalists, the atheists and modern positive theology,” p. 871.
[1737]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 747.
[1738]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 134 f. Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.
[1739]“DG.,” 34, p. 849.
[1740]Ib., p. 835.
[1741]P. 836.
[1742]P. 859 f. Harnack refers here to the passage in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 16, p. 217; Erl. ed., 35, p. 207 f. (Exposition of certain chapters of Exodus): “The sophists [Schoolmen] depicted Christ as God and as Man.... But Christ is not called Christ because He has two natures. What does this matter to me? But He bears this grand and consoling name on account of the office and work He undertook. That He is by nature God and Man concerns Himself, but that He is my Saviour and Redeemer is for my comfort and salvation.”
[1743]“DG.,” 34, p. 860.
[1744]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit und Ausrüstung des natürlichen Menschen bis 1525. Eine dogmatische Kritik,” Göttingen, 1901, pp. 19 f., 49.
[1745]Cp. A. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900, Introd., p. 1 ff., where the quotations in question occur.
[1746]Ib.
[1747]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 124 f.
[1748]“DG.,” 34, p. 684 f.
[1749]Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 463.
[1750]Ib., p. 698 f.
[1751]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 112. Preface to the New Testament.
[1752]“Luthers Stellung zu Erasmus, Zwingli,” etc. (reprint from the “Deutsch-evang. Blätter,” 1906, Heft 1-3), p. 28.
[1753]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 181; Erl. ed., 24², p. 343.
[1754]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 136.
[1755]“Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., Suppl. vol. ii., p. 44, N. 54 to Luther’s “De votis monasticis,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 583, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252: “Si quis Mariam neget virginem, aut alium quemvis singularem articulum fidei non crediderit, damnatur, etiam si alioqui ipsius Virginis et virginitatem et sanctitatem haberet.”
[1756]Ib., p. 44 f.
[1757]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 414 f. Kurtz Bekenntnis. A similar passage occurs in “Comm. in Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 2, pp. 334,seq., 336.
[1758]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 399.
[1759]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 189.
[1760]“Formerly it had not been the way with Martinus Eleutherius to make eternal salvation depend on agreement with a single dogma, and even in the Preface to Romans he had meant by justifying faith something very different.”
[1761]Ib., p. 189.
[1762]P. 222.
[1763]P. 197.
[1764]P. 189.
[1765]“Luthers Stellung” (see p. 445, n. 4), p. 28.
[1766]Ib., p. 27 f.
[1767]P. 28.
[1768]From p. 808.
[1769]From p. 871.
[1770]“DG.,” 34, p. 864, n.
[1771]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 740 f. Quoted by Harnack, p. 864.
[1772]“Luthers Lehre über Freiheit,” etc. (p. 443, n. 1), p. 47.
[1773]Ib., p. 48.
[1774]“DG.,” 34, p. 877 f.
[1775]See above, p. 7 ff.
[1776]P. 843 n.
[1777]P. 884.
[1778]Above, p. 443, n. 2, p. 6.
[1779]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 719 ff.
[1780]“DG.,” 34, p. 883 f.
[1781]Ib., p. 884 f.
[1782]P. 887. Harnack here quotes a passage to the point from “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 51seq., where the “Instruction” seeks to pacify those who fancied that, by the above statement, “our previous teaching was being repudiated.” Melanchthon says that, “the rude, common man” must learn to accept “commandment, law, fear,” etc., as “articles of faith” which precede penance.
[1783]“DG.,” 34, p. 884.
[1784]Above vol. iii., p. 323 ff.
[1785]P. 885 f.
[1786]P. 886.
[1787]“DG.,” 34, p. 886.
[1788]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 775 ff.
[1789]Cp. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral,” pp. 214 ff., 226 ff.
[1790]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 237 ff.
[1791]Ib., p. 774. Cp. pp. 702, 706, 721, 769.
[1792]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 239. Cp.ib., 63, p. 112, where Luther points out that the Gospel condemns works in so far as they are intended to make us pious and to save us.
[1793]P. 233.
[1794]P. 228.
[1795]P. 237.
[1796]Ib.
[1797]“Leitfaden der DG.,”4, p. 769 f. Cp. “Comm. in Gal.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 415 f. Irmischer, 1, p. 382seq.
[1798]Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, p. 367 f.: “Whoever works more and suffers more will also have a more glorious reward.”Ib., 58, p. 354 f.: “Opera ... accidentaliter glorificabunt personam.”
[1799]Ib., p. 771, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 43, pp. 361, 366.
[1800]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 259.
[1801]Ib., p. 237.
[1802]And yet Luther, on June 1, 1537, boldly denounced the Thesis “Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem.” “Disputationen,” ed. Drews,ib., p. 159. Loofs,ib., pp. 770, 857.
[1803]Ib., p. 770.
[1804]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 178 ff.
[1805]Ib., p. 179.
[1806]He also defends the Law in the same way against the Antinomians, speaking very much in Melanchthon’s style. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 861.
[1807]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 181.
[1808]Ib., p. 183. Cp. above, p. 26 f.
[1809]Cp.ib., 63, pp. 113 ff., 125, 134. Preface to the translation of Romans.
[1810]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 566, on this Preface. See also above, pp. 39 f., 47 ff.
[1811]Ib., p. 771.
[1812]Ib., p. 778.
[1813]P. 781 f.
[1814]P. 771.
[1815]Sermo 158, c. 2.
[1816]“Leitfaden,”4, p. 773 f.
[1817]“DG.,” 34, p. 870.
[1818]Ib., p. 900.
[1819]P. 770.
[1820]P. 856 f. Cp. G. Kruger’s opinion, vol. iii., p. 352, n. 2.
[1821]P. 857.
[1822]P. 868.
[1823]Harnack (p. 880) refers to Müller,ib., p. 321 f., i.e. to Luther’s Schmalkalden Articles of 1537, where we read (“Symbol. Bücher,” par. 3, Art. 8, ed. Müller-Kolde10): “Ita præmuniamus nos adversum enthusiastas ... quod Deus non velit nobiscum aliter agere nisi per vocale verbum et sacramenta.” But similar passages occur in the book Harnack also quotes, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten” (1525), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 62 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 134 ff., particularly 136 ff.=208 ff.
[1824]“DG.,” 34, p. 879 f.
[1825]Ib., p. 881.
[1826]P. 881 f.
[1827]“Where faith is not present [baptism] remains nothing but a barren sign.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 221; Erl. ed., 21, p. 140. Larger Catechism, Part IV: on Baptism.
[1828]“We bring the child for this [Baptism], thinking and hoping that it believes, and praying God to give it the faith.”
[1829]Ib., p. 882. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487 ff., the works of the Protestant theologians: J. Gottschick, O. Scheel, E. Rietschel, E. Haupt, W. Herrmann and E. Bunge, on how Baptism suffered in Luther’s system.
[1830]Ib., p. 894.
[1831]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 224; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143.
[1832]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 223. Cp. on Zwingli, vol. iii., p. 379 ff., and below, p. 465, n. 1.
[1833]Of the doctrine of Impanation, Loofs (“Leitfaden,” p. 905) says, that the famous formulary on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ:sub pane, in pane, cum pane, cannot be traced to Luther, but was only gathered after his day from the Larger and Smaller Catechism (Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 223, 315; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143, 19).
[1834]“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 894.
[1835]Ib., p. 875. Loofs speaks (p. 920) of the “christological enormities inseparable from Luther’s doctrine of the sacrament.”
[1836]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 811.
[1837]Cp. Luther’s letter to Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 295, where he expresses himself opposed to such private communions, though tolerating them for the time being. Communion in the church three or four times a year would suffice in order to be able to die “fortified by the Word.” In a time of public sickness, such as the plague, the communion of the sick would become an insupportable burden, and further the Church must not be enslaved (“facere servilem”) to the sacraments, particularly in the case of those who had previously despised them.
[1838]In the work “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts” (1523) Luther says that “each one should be left free to adore or not, and that those who do not adore the sacrament are not to be termed heretics, for it is not commanded, Christ not being there in His glory as He is in heaven.” Those do best who forget “their duty towards the sacrament” and therefore do not adore, because there is “danger” in adoration. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 448 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 410 f.—Still, in 1544, writing to the Princes Johann, George and Joachim of Anhalt, he says: “Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia tractaretur et adoraretur etiam?” Prince Joachim declared that he “had seen Luther kneel down and reverently adore the sacrament at the elevation.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 (Notes by Besold, 1544).
[1839]He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the elevation. “Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari.” The dignity of the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p. 146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.
[1840]“If I am right,” says G. Kawerau, “the peculiar Melanchthonian form of the doctrine of the sacrament is pretty widely spread at the present time among Evangelicals, whether theologians or laity, as the form under which Luther’s religious views on the sacrament are to be accepted,” etc. “Luthers Stellung” (above, p. 445, n. 4), p. 41. On this point Melanchthon, as is notorious, really agreed with Zwingli. Of Zwingli, owing to his denial of the Real Presence, Luther wrote: “I, for my part, regard Zwingli as an unbeliever” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 342; Erl. ed., 30, p. 225), and for the same cause he “would show him only that charity which we are bound to display even to our foes.” To J. Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 354 f.
[1841]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 f.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 f.
[1842]“DG.,” 34, p. 872.
[1843]P. 830 f. Cp. above, p. 44 ff.
[1844]P. 855, n. 1.
[1845]Freiburg, 1887, p. 3.
[1846]Ib.
[1847]“DG.,” 34, p. 866.
[1848]Ib., cp. p. 865: “Luther believed he was fighting merely against the errors and abuses of the mediæval Church. It is true he frequently declared that he was not pleased with the ‘dear Fathers,’ and that all of them had gone astray; he was not, however, clear-sighted enough to say to himself, that, if the Fathers of the Church had erred, then their definitions at the Councils could not possibly embody the truth.... Unconsciously he himself still laboured under the after-effects of the theory that the outward Church is the real authority.”
[1849]Ib., p. 834.
[1850]P. 819.
[1851]P. 834.
[1852]P. 820.
[1853]P. 861.
[1854]P. 871.
[1855]P. 875.
[1856]P. 896. Harnack takes great care to prevent his criticism of Luther giving rise to any impression that he himself is favourably disposed or indifferent towards Catholic dogma and Catholic life. He is shocked at the attitude of Erasmus, the defender of the Catholic view of man’s free will even under Divine Grace, and declares his Diatribe against the “servum arbitrium” a “profoundly irreligious work,” whereas Luther “had restored religion to religion” (see above, vol. ii., p. 292, n. 4).—He asks: “What does original sin represent to Catholics?” (“Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 749), as though Catholic dogma discarded it. He mocks at the “whole, half and quarter dogmas” of Catholics (ib., p. 764) and at their handbooks of theology (p. 763). The Catholic “system of religion,” so Harnack teaches, gave rise to “a perversion of the moral principles” (p. 749); “this system still works disaster both in theology and in ethics.... Since the 17th century the imparting of forgiveness of sins has been made a regular art.” “But conscience is able to discover God even in its idol” (ib.). In other passages he places “devotion to the Sacred Heart” and “Mariolatry” on a par with the veneration of idols, though he admits that in Catholics “the Christian sense is not actually stifled by their idols” (p. 748). Only in these devotions and in the anxiety-breeding confessional does piety still live (ib.).
Of the Pope he exclaims: “The Church has an infallible master, she has no need to trouble about her history, the living voice alone is right.” He asks whether “the mediæval doctrine, now condemned to insignificance, would not gradually disappear,” whether in time the Pope would not be credited “with a peculiar miraculous power,” and whether ultimately he would not be regarded as a “sort of incarnation of the Godhead,” etc. (p. 759).
“The saintly and so holy Liguori is the very opposite of Luther.... All his mortifications only entangled him more and more in the conviction that no conscience can find rest save in the authority of a confessor.... Thanks to Liguori, absolute ethical scepticism now prevailed, not only in morals but even in theology.... In a number of questions, adultery, perjury and murder inclusive, he had known how to make light of what was really most serious” (p. 755). The doctrine of Probabilism was to blame for this, according to Harnack. Cp. J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, p. 163 ff., and the “Kölnische Volksztng.,” 1910, Nos. 485 and 571. The latter passage contains further proofs from Harnack’s “Dogmengesch.” of his insulting language and his lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrines, practices and institutions.
[1857]Of the Church-Postils the first half of the winter part up to the Epiphany had been published by Luther as early as 1522, and then continued down to Easter. The second part (summer portion) had been brought out in 1527 by his friend Stephen Roth. The sermons on the Epistles were only included in the collection in 1543, when the new edition appeared. W. Köhler begins his critical edition of the book of Church-Postils in Weim. ed., 10 (1911).
[1858]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 401 ff.
[1859]Cp. his words to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247: “Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et catechismum.” Cp. above, p. 370 f.
[1860]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.
[1861]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 18 ff.
[1862]Ib., Weim. ed., 23, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 148. “Das diese Wort ... noch fest stehen.”
[1863]To Nicholas Gerbel at Strasburg, Nov. 24, 1535 (1536?), “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 127.
[1864]Vol. i., p. 175 ff.
[1865]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 548; Erl. ed., 45, p. 217.
[1866]Ib., p. 573=250.
[1867]Ib., 2, pp. 128-130=45, pp. 204-207.
[1868]Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 28 ff.
[1869]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189.
[1870]Ib., p. 34 f.=195 f.
[1871]Ib., p. 37=199.
[1872]Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 80 ff., 9, p. 122 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 159 ff.
[1873]Ib., 15², p. 318 ff.
[1874]Ib., 23, p. 215 ff.
[1875]Ib., p. 221.
[1876]Ib., 32, p. 75 ff.
[1877]Ib., p. 89 f. Cp. above, p. 418 ff.
[1878]Ib.
[1879]P. 77.
[1880]P. 84.
[1881]P. 97.
[1882]“Briefe,” 5, p. 169, Feb., 1539.
[1883]“Werke,” Erl, ed., 7², p. 21.
[1884]Ib., p. 22.
[1885]Ib., 15², p. 319.
[1886]Ib., 23, p. 217.
[1887]Ib., p. 222.
[1888]P. 223.
[1889]P. 215.
[1890]Cp.ib., p. 215 f.