[2113]Janssen,ib., 1, p. 60.[2114]Paues, “A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version,” Cambridge, 1902. Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” 1900, and in the “Dublin Review,” 1894. Cp. “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 66, 1904, p. 349 ff.—Mandonnet, “Dict. de la Bible,” 2, Art. Dominicains. Cp. “Katholik,” 1902, 2, p. 289 ff.[2115]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 13.[2116]“Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,” etc., 1521, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 641; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.[2117]“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p. 376 ff.[2118]Cochlæus wrote (“Commentarius de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 54): “Quis satis enarrare queat, quantus dissidiorum turbationumque et ruinarum fomes et occasio fuerit ea novi Testamenti translatio. In qua vir iurgiorum data opera contra veterem et probatam ccclesiæ lectionem multa immutavit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit et in alium sensum detorsit, multas adiecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque cavillosas, et in præfationibus nihil malignitatis omisit, ut in partes suas traheret lectorem.” He concludes by saying that many persons had collected more than a thousand errors in the translation.[2119]Second ed., 1875, p. 529.[2120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 659 (N. 3, p. 282).[2121]Franz Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 90. Earlier than this we find five Latin Bibles printed at Mayence, Strasburg, and, perhaps, Bamberg.[2122]Falk, “Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche,” 1879, pp. 29 and 80. Do., “Die Bibel,” etc., pp. 32, 61.[2123]Ib., p. 33.[2124]“Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des MA.,” 1889-92.[2125]“Die Waldenserbibeln und Meister Johannes Rellach” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 771 ff.), p. 792. On the other side see W. Walther in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1896, Hft. 3, p. 194 ff. Cp. also Nestle in the “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche,” and the work of R. Schellhorn there mentioned.[2126]G. Grupp gave a critical account of the results of Walther’s researches in the “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 115, 1895, p. 931, which amongst other things considerably raises Walther’s estimate of the number of manuscript and printed copies.[2127]See above, p. 495.[2128]P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,” p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in “Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.[2129]“Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther,ib., p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.[2130]Ib., p. 1.[2131]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.[2132]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.[2133]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut tale, quid possem quale vellem.”[2134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.[2135]Ib., 62, p. 311.[2136]Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical character of his chronology.[2137]Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258), and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows himself a true poet.”[2138]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 311. Table-Talk.[2139]Above, p. 342 ff.[2140]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, pp. 155, 158.[2141]Ph. Wackernagel, “Das deutsche Kirchenleid von der ältesten Zeit bis zum 17. Jahr.,” 3, 1870, p. 20. Cp. ‘“Form und Ordnung gaystlicher Gesang,” etc., Augsburg, 1529. Cp. Wackernagel,ib., p. 20, the text of the first High German reproduction of the Wittenberg Hymnbook, and the less accurate reprint, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., and Nelle, “Gesch. des deut. ev. Kirchenliedes,”¹ 1904, p. 24 (2nd ed., 1909).[2142]In an advertisement of Will Vesper, “Luthers Dichtungen,” Munich, 1905.[2143]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 26. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 354.[2144]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.[2145]At the beginning of the “Geistliche Gesangbüchlein” of Johann Walther. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 538.[2146]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 167.[2147]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541.[2148]G. Gervinus, “Gesch. der deutschen Dichtung,” 35, 1871, p. 20.[2149]Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg,” p. 372. W. Bäumker, “Das kathol. Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen,” 1, 1886, p. 32, makes a similar distinction. Cp. p. 16 ff.[2150]On the above see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 536 ff.[2151]In Luther’s hymns for public worship modelled on the Psalms “no poetic enthusiasm is apparent.” Spitta,ib., p. 355. He also assigns the lowest place to the translations of the Latin hymns.[2152]In the Preface to the new edition of his hymnbook (1529). Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.[2153]Migne, “P.L.,” 185, p. 391. E. Michael (“Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des MA.”, 4³, 1906, p. 327 ff.) shows not only that German psalmody existed in the 13th century, but also that it can be traced back with certainty to the 11th and 12th centuries. Cp. also Bäumker, “KL.,” art. “Kirchenlied,” 7², p. 602.[2154]Bäumker,ib., p. 604.[2155]Ib., p. 605.[2156]“Confess. Aug.,” art. 24 de missa.—Cp. for the foregoing, Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 264 ff.[2157]According to Heinr. v. Stephan, “Luther als Musiker,” Bielefeld (1899), p. 16, he was even “the reformer of German music.”[2158]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541 f. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 242 ff.[2159]“Vil falscher Meister itzt Lieder dichtenSiehe dich für und lern sie recht richten.Wo Gott hinbawet sein Kirch und sein Wort,Da wil der Teuffel sein mit Trug und Mord.”[2160]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 30.[2161]Loesch, “Mathesius,” 2, p. 214 ff. “Historien,” Bl. 179: “I brought him the song with which the children (in the Joachimsthal) drive out the Pope in Mid-Lent.... This song he published and himself wrote the title: ‘Ex montibus et vallibus, ex sylvis et campestribus.’” The broadsheet of 1541 mentioned by Schamelius in his “Lieder-Commentarius,” 1757, p. 57, if it ever existed, must have preceded Luther’s publication, and be by some unknown author.[2162]Cp., for instance, the May-song in the Baden Collection, by A. Barner, Hft. 2, No. 14, p. 15.[2163]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 31.[2164]Wackernagel,ib., p. 30. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 286.[2165]Cp., for instance, L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff., more particularly p. 179 f. (The 2nd art. is quoted below as II.) With regard to the Protestant theologians (G. Uhlhorn and others) Feuchtwanger says, p. 180: “In their hands the question of the care for the poor since 1500 has degenerated into a sectarian controversy on priority, and thus the way to the solution of the problem has been blocked by a falsification of the true question.” He regards Uhlhorn’s work as written from an “extreme sectarian” standpoint. To Feuchtwanger, as it had been to Strindberg, it is a marvel, how, “as soon as you begin to speak of God and charity, your voice grows hard and your eyes become filled with hate.”[2166]“Gesch. der sozialen Politik,” etc., II., p. 207.[2167]Ib., p. 221.[2168](Munich and Berlin, 1906), pp. 13, 41, 49, reprinted from “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 97, 1906, p. 1 ff., republished in 1911 in an enlarged form.[2169]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 644; Erl. ed., 22, p. 169. “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc., 1526.[2170]Ib., 30, 2, p. 138=31, p. 67 f.[2171]Ib., 19, p. 634=22, p. 258. Those who emigrate become “faithless and break their oath to their rulers”; “they do not bear in mind the divine command, that they are bound to remain obedient until they are prevented by force or are put to death”; they are “robbing their sovereign of his rights and authority” over them. On such general grounds Luther concludes that it was not lawful to desert and join the Turks.[2172]Pages 17, 26.[2173]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 1. Cp. “M. Luthers Werke,” “revised and edited for the German people,” by Julius Boehmer, Stuttgart, 1907, Introd., p. ix, where the theological editor says: “With Luther a new era begins. He has been and is considered the author of a new civilisation, different from that of the Middle Ages and of antiquity.... The emancipation of the human intellect began in the domain of religion and has gradually extended thence into other spheres in spite of obstacles and difficulties.”[2174]See, for instance, above, pp. 45 f., 476 f., and vol. iv., p. 472 ff.[2175]See above, vol. i., p. 49 f.[2176]H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 133, however, calls it a “great exaggeration” when Eberlin of Günzburg, the former Franciscan who afterwards became a follower of Luther, asserts that in Germany only one man in fifteen did any work. He has also the best of reasons for disbelieving Agricola’s statement, that the monks and nuns in Germany then numbered over 1,400,000 souls.[2177]Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff), particularly p. 746 ff.[2178]Cp. above, pp. 49-60.[2179]E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers,”² 1875, where the above and other texts are quoted.[2180]Ib., pp. 81, 88.[2181]For the passages see Luthardt,ib.[2182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 94.[2183]F. M. Schiele, “Christliche Welt,” 1908, No. 37.[2184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.[2185]Above, vol. iii., p. 22 ff.[2186]Second ed., p. 124.[2187]Luthardt refers here to Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f., where the latter says in his exposition of Psalm lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 1530: “Because the rulers, besides their other duties, must promote God’s Word and its preachers,” “they must punish public blasphemers”; among these were the false teachers and those who teach that each one must himself make satisfaction for his sins (he means the Catholics). “Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else they must go,” i.e. the rulers must compel those Catholics who were living amongst Protestants to emigrate. “The offender was acting contrary to the Gospel and the common article of the creed which we recite: ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ Such articles held by the whole of Christendom have already been sufficiently examined, proved and decided by Scripture and the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles and sealed with the blood of the martyrs.”[2188]In the continuation of the above passage Luther says of such controversies: “Let the rulers step in and examine the case and whichever party is not in agreement with Scripture, let him be commanded to be silent.... For it is not good for the people to hear contradictory preaching in the parish or district,” etc. Luther, however, not only demands, as Luthardt says, that these “heretics” should be banished, but also that they should be punished as public blasphemers. Cp. below, p. 578.[2189]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 97.[2190]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 538; Erl. ed., 17², p. 392. Luther, however, emphasises the true preaching office so much that he represents his pure Gospel teaching as alone capable of preserving peace, a fact which is usually passed over. “No University, institution or monastery” had been able to accomplish what the preaching office was now able to do; the “blind bloodhounds abandoned the preaching office and gave themselves up to lies.”[2191]“Werke,”ib., p. 555=402.[2192]Ib., p. 537 f.=392.[2193]Reference is made here to the passage in the Home-Postils, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 450. Here we read, p. 449, that the “rulers must promote matrimony and the management of the home, and see that the young are properly educated”; for this reason theirs was “a divine and holy state.”[2194]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 388, in the Home-Postils.[2195]Cp. the passages in Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 321.[2196]Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 153; Erl. ed., 21, p. 60.[2197]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 294.[2198]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10. See below, p. 577, n. 1.[2199]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 240.[2200]“Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” Jena, 1898, No. 22 (“Sammlung nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen,” 21.)[2201]See above, vol. ii., pp. 297 ff., 307 f.[2202]Ib., p. 302 f.[2203]Above, p. 58 f.[2204]P. 15.[2205]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73.[2206]Ib., p. 262 f. = 82 ff. Cp. p. 269 ff. = 92 ff.[2207]Ib., p. 271 = p. 94.[2208]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 281. Cp. Weim. ed., 18, p. 307; Erl. ed., 24², p. 282.[2209]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 259; Erl. ed., 22, p. 78 f. In order to understand the phrase “let himself be fleeced” it should be noted that those Lutherans who lived under the rule of Catholic princes were unable to escape the action of the Edict of Worms.[2210]He here says: “God hangs, breaks on the wheel, strangles and makes war; all this is His work.”Ib., 19, p. 626 = 22, p. 250.[2211]Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg, “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,” 1909 (“Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft,” 24), p. 168.[2212]Ib., p. 57.[2213]Ib., 166.[2214]E. Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauungen vom Staate,” 1901, p. 13 f. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 258; Erl. ed., 22, p. 77 f.: “His kingdom [Christ’s] is not made up of ploughmen, princes, hangmen or jailers, nor does it include the sword or secular law, but only the Word of God and His Spirit; by it His subjects are governed in their hearts inwardly.” All the successors of the Apostles and “spiritual rulers” were to be satisfied with the Word.—Erl. ed., 39, p. 330: “The secular government has only to rule over bodily and temporal possessions.”—P. 331: “Whoever wishes to become learned and wise in secular government let him study the heathen books and writings, these have indeed described and painted it most beautifully and fully.”[2215]K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 20.[2216]See above, vol. ii., p. 301: The bishops must “restrain heretics.”[2217]Holl,ib., p. 20 f. Luther’s words are from “De capt, babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 533; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 64. Cp “Nisi hæc adsit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus imo obest, non solum tum cum suscipitur, sed toto post tempore vitæ.”Ib., p. 527 f.=57. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487.[2218]“He protests against the war with the Turks being carried on under the pretext of Christianity, ‘as though our people could be termed an army of Christians fighting the Turks,’ when in ‘the whole army there are perhaps barely five Christians [real Lutheran believers].’ ... Thus he deliberately calls into question the Christianity of the German people and hence demands that the war should be undertaken as a merely secular thing.” Holl,ib., p. 22, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 37, and to a letter to Spalatin, Dec. 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333. Cp. above, p. 402, and vol. iii., p. 77 ff.[2219]Above, vol. ii., p. 108.[2220]See our examination of the “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” in vol. ii., pp. 297-306.[2221]The passages are cited below, p. 577, n. 2.[2222]Luther’s answer to the question he raises, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 207, in the Table-Talk: “Whether it be lawful to kill a tyrant, who at his own pleasure acts contrary to right and justice” is aimed at absolutism. He replies confidently: Yes, where the latter really oppresses his subjects by crying deeds of wrong and where the “citizens and subjects unite together” to make an end of him as they would of any “other murderer or highwayman.” In his “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526, Luther does not sanction private revenge nor any disorderly or violent action on the part of the mob, “whereby the people rise and depose their lord or strangle him.” He emphasises in this passage as the reason the absence of legal proceedings: “It does not do to pipe too much to the mob, or it will only too readily lose its head.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259.[2223]To the Elector Johann, Feb. 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 368 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318), on the introduction of Lutheranism into Altenburg. Cp. vol. ii., p. 315 f.; the principal reason why the ruler was to intervene was, that he might not deliberately tolerate “idolatry.”[2224]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Luther’s preface to the Instructions of the Visitors, 1528.[2225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48. “Eyn trew Vormanung ... sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung,” 1522. In connection with this the author says: It is not lawful for the individual to rebel against “Endchrist,” i.e. the Papacy, and to make use of force, but the secular authorities and the nobles “ought from a sense of duty to use their regular authority for this purpose, each prince and ruler in his own land,” etc. This he wrote on the eve of composing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” according to which the prince was not to trouble at all about the religion of his country.[2226]Above, vol. ii., p. 88 f.; vol. iv., p. 510 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 7 ff.[2227]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.[2228]Ib., p. 252.[2229]Paul Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. für Theol. and Kirche,” 1908, Ergänzungsheft), p. 99. Cp. p. 90.[2230]Cp. Luther’s statements, in Paulus,loc. cit., p. 25 ff.[2231]Drews,ib., p. 100.[2232]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 313 ff.[2233]Ib., p. 320.[2234]P. 323.[2235]P. 324 f.[2236]P. 327 f.[2237]P. 358 f.[2238]The expression is H. Boehmer’s (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹) 1906, p. 135.[2239]To the Elector Johann, Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.387 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).[2240]P. 17.[2241]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 164.[2242]Ib., p. 166; 1st ed., p. 135.[2243]1st ed., p. 135.[2244]Frank Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” p. 15. On p. 17, he says that according to Luther “all ecclesiastical functions and relations, in so far as they concern external things, are subject to the State.”[2245]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” in “Theol. Arbeiten aus dem rhein.—wissensch. Predigerverein, N.F.,” Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, p. 47 f.[2246]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 504.[2247]“Joh. Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorie,”² Breslau, 1902, p. 64 f. Paulus,ib., p. 349.[2248]Ib.[2249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f.[2250]See vol. ii., p. 297 f., from the writing, “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”[2251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. Cp. letter to the Elector Frederick, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[2252]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. “Ipsos principes vincemus et contemnemus.”[2253]Words of P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 28.[2254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 35.[2255]Ib., Erl. ed., 31, p. 236, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” See vol. ii., p. 294. Cp.ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 625; Erl. ed., 22, p. 248, where he says, already in 1526, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc.: “So that I should like to boast that, since the time of the Apostles, the secular sword and authority has never been so clearly and grandly described and extolled as by me, as even my foes must admit.”[2256]See vol. ii., p. 295, n. 1.[2257]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 284 f.[2258]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 63.[2259]Above, p. 140 ff.; vol. ii., p. 332 f.[2260]To Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 10, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10: “constitutis ecclesiis ... laceris autem ita rebus,” etc. Only after the Churches had been constituted could the ban be introduced as his friend wished.—For earlier Visitations see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 176 ff.[2261]See above, p. 140 ff., and vol. iii., p. 28 ff.[2262]Printed in E. Sehling, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff., and, before this, by A. E. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 77 ff.[2263]Both in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 26, p. 195 ff., and Erl. ed., 23, p. 1 ff.[2264]Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). Enders says of this work: “Almost all the proposals Luther makes here with the object of stimulating the project of a Visitation which had come to a standstill are again found in the Instructions to the Visitors.” From Luther’s previous letters Müller proves that he approved the Instructions,ib., p. 69 ff.[2265]Thus the Weimar editors in their Introduction to the “Instructions of the Visitors,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 179.[2266]Ib., p. 177.[2267]In the Preface to the reader: “Visitator nova mitra infulatur, novum ambiens papatum,” etc.[2268]Aug. 10, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 337.[2269]Words of K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 71 f. He also gives a survey of the Instructions.[2270]For the text see Sehling,ib., p. 143.[2271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 197; Erl. ed., 23, p. 5.[2272]Müller,ib., p. 67. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 14.[2273]Ib.[2274]See Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 69 f.[2275]Ib., p. 38.[2276]Carl Holl, “Luther und das Landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“1 Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche”), Tübingen, 1911, p. 54, against C. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther.” Holl says: “The two documents cannot be reconciled, for each attempts not merely to describe or emphasise one side of the matter, but to set forth the whole, and this they do from totally different points of view. One seeks to represent the Visitation as the outcome of the paternal care of the Elector, the other as an act of self-help on the part of the Church. It is impossible to harmonise these two points of view.”[2277]Reference to the title of his writing, “Deuttung ... des Munchkalbs zu Freyberg,” 1523. See above, vol. iii., p. 149 f.[2278]The latter saying occurs in the “Unterricht,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 212; Erl. ed., 23, p. 28.[2279]There is no call to lay so much stress on the Preface as to be obliged to say with Holl,ib., 54: It “necessarily assumes the significance of a silent protest.... Luther is defending the Church’s independence of the State by painting the Visitation in its true light.” Holl also says, p. 59, that Luther, here, entered upon “a struggle for the integrity of his whole work.” “To him it was of vital importance whether the ruler of the land was obeyed as the highest member of the congregation, or as a Christian Prince.” P. 60: “All the efforts directed to-day towards greater independence of the Church and larger liberty within the Church have a good right to appeal to Luther on this question.”[2280]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). See above, p. 581. The other passages mentioned here are quoted by P. Drews,ib., pp. 95 ff., 98.[2281]See above, vol. iv., pp. 413 and 418 f., for the corroborative statements of Scheel and Seeberg.[2282]Vol. iii., pp. 48 ff. and 58 ff.[2283]See Holl,ib., p. 9, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 289 (Weim. ed., 6, p. 413), on the Christian who, according to Mt. xviii., summons the culprit before the congregation: “If I am to accuse him before the congregation, I must first assemble the congregation.”[2284]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413; Erl. ed., 21, p. 290.[2285]Ib., p. 440 = 322. Holl,ib., p. 16. It is to Holl’s credit that he so strongly emphasises this tendency of Luther’s in favour of the independent rights of the congregation.[2286]Cp. his letter to Spalatin, May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 378 f.: “Faciat princeps et aula hac in re quod voluerint, ego Spiritui sancto non resistam ipsi viderint.” See also “Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 381 and 561.[2287]C. Muller,ib., p. 54, who emphasises Luther’s bias towards the State government of the Church with as much reason as Holl (see above, p. 596, n. 3) does his ideas on the independence of the Church.[2288]Müller,ib., p. 61.[2289]P. 79.[2290]Vol. ii., p. 358.[2291]Cp. above, pp. 135 f., 139 f.[2292]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68. “De capt. babylonica.”[2293]Cp. Holl,ib., p. 19 f. Müller,ib., p. 74 ff. See above, 55 f.[2294]See below, p. 602 f.[2295]P. 77.[2296]See above, vol. ii., p. 329.[2297]Cp. above, p. 181 ff.[2298]See above, p. 191.[2299]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 184.[2300]To Tileman Schnabel, etc., June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317.[2301]P. Drews,ib., p. 101 f.[2302]P. 580.[2303]Wilhelm Hans, quoted in full, vol. ii., p. 312. What he says is corroborated by Emil Friedberg, the authority of law, who, speaking of the work of Carl Müller so often quoted above, says, that it is a “difficult business to determine Luther’s views,” since they are not always the same in his various writings, and since, under stress of circumstances, Luther sometimes said things that went directly against the principles elsewhere advocated by him. “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 20, 1911, p. 414.[2304]The vacillation which characterised Luther’s attitude towards the State-Church system and which came from his early ideas concerning the true Christians who had no need of any authority over them, has recently been set forth as follows by the Protestant lawyer and historian Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg: “Luther’s true Christians were Utopian persons and hence his Church was the same. In his idealistic confidence in God he had expected too much from them. And thus there came for his Reformation an era of hesitancy and groping, which refused for a while to make way for more stable conditions. The Church which Luther had characterised as a necessary expedient for furthering the kingdom of God on earth now itself needed to be assisted and supported from without, if it was to suffice for its task. To achieve this we find Luther leaving no means untried. But his schemes were not very satisfactory. He put a patch here and another one there, appealed to the princes and then to the peasants, seeking to curry favour of one and the other simply for the sake of some small concession and in order to interest them in his Church.... At last Luther thought he had found a remedy: this was that the Church should seek support in the secular power. When quite at the end of his resources he had begun to remind the princes of their duties as rulers. From mere occasional allusions he soon passed on to energetic admonitions addressed to the ‘great ones,’ accompanied by his customary threats and abuse. It had indeed gone against the grain to summon the authorities to carry out his wishes, hence, at every opportunity, he insists on his independence of them.... Luther had in the event to submit to reproaches which he could not always honestly shift on to the shoulders of the ‘false priestlings and factious spirits.’”Of Luther’s later years Schulthess-Rechberg says: “An era dawns when Luther can no longer see an ounce of good in the State; when he even tells the unworthy servant of God [the prince] to mind his own business. It is then that we find Luther declaring that the secular authorities have no power to watch over souls or to exercise the teaching office, that they have no authority over the clergy, etc. Here we see plainly how he, more than any other reformer, was driven by force of circumstances, and this again is a proof that Luther’s work was really more than he had bargained for. Luther ... never succeeded in viewing the relations between Church and State objectively. This and his constant efforts to disengage himself from Rome frequently gave an unexpected turn to his views. For instance, when he insists at times that heresy and unbelief do not concern the authorities (Erl. ed., 22, pp. 90, 93). Hardly has he said this than he finds himself compelled to hedge and practically to eat his words.” “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin,” etc (above, p. 573, n. 4), pp. 170-172.[2305]In an article against P. Drews (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 478 ff.), p. 488. Hermelink adds: (p. 489) “It is true that the system of an established Church did not correspond with Luther’s ideal, but it was a political necessity and therefore seemed to him willed by God.” Hermelink’s reference to the false ideals and eschatology which influenced Luther’s theory of Church and State may be admitted as in part correct. He is also right when he says: Luther, according to his frequent statement, wished to assemble the Christians from the kingdom of Antichrist before the end of the world.Ib., p. 313.[2306]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81.
[2113]Janssen,ib., 1, p. 60.[2114]Paues, “A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version,” Cambridge, 1902. Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” 1900, and in the “Dublin Review,” 1894. Cp. “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 66, 1904, p. 349 ff.—Mandonnet, “Dict. de la Bible,” 2, Art. Dominicains. Cp. “Katholik,” 1902, 2, p. 289 ff.[2115]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 13.[2116]“Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,” etc., 1521, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 641; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.[2117]“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p. 376 ff.[2118]Cochlæus wrote (“Commentarius de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 54): “Quis satis enarrare queat, quantus dissidiorum turbationumque et ruinarum fomes et occasio fuerit ea novi Testamenti translatio. In qua vir iurgiorum data opera contra veterem et probatam ccclesiæ lectionem multa immutavit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit et in alium sensum detorsit, multas adiecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque cavillosas, et in præfationibus nihil malignitatis omisit, ut in partes suas traheret lectorem.” He concludes by saying that many persons had collected more than a thousand errors in the translation.[2119]Second ed., 1875, p. 529.[2120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 659 (N. 3, p. 282).[2121]Franz Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 90. Earlier than this we find five Latin Bibles printed at Mayence, Strasburg, and, perhaps, Bamberg.[2122]Falk, “Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche,” 1879, pp. 29 and 80. Do., “Die Bibel,” etc., pp. 32, 61.[2123]Ib., p. 33.[2124]“Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des MA.,” 1889-92.[2125]“Die Waldenserbibeln und Meister Johannes Rellach” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 771 ff.), p. 792. On the other side see W. Walther in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1896, Hft. 3, p. 194 ff. Cp. also Nestle in the “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche,” and the work of R. Schellhorn there mentioned.[2126]G. Grupp gave a critical account of the results of Walther’s researches in the “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 115, 1895, p. 931, which amongst other things considerably raises Walther’s estimate of the number of manuscript and printed copies.[2127]See above, p. 495.[2128]P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,” p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in “Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.[2129]“Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther,ib., p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.[2130]Ib., p. 1.[2131]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.[2132]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.[2133]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut tale, quid possem quale vellem.”[2134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.[2135]Ib., 62, p. 311.[2136]Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical character of his chronology.[2137]Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258), and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows himself a true poet.”[2138]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 311. Table-Talk.[2139]Above, p. 342 ff.[2140]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, pp. 155, 158.[2141]Ph. Wackernagel, “Das deutsche Kirchenleid von der ältesten Zeit bis zum 17. Jahr.,” 3, 1870, p. 20. Cp. ‘“Form und Ordnung gaystlicher Gesang,” etc., Augsburg, 1529. Cp. Wackernagel,ib., p. 20, the text of the first High German reproduction of the Wittenberg Hymnbook, and the less accurate reprint, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., and Nelle, “Gesch. des deut. ev. Kirchenliedes,”¹ 1904, p. 24 (2nd ed., 1909).[2142]In an advertisement of Will Vesper, “Luthers Dichtungen,” Munich, 1905.[2143]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 26. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 354.[2144]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.[2145]At the beginning of the “Geistliche Gesangbüchlein” of Johann Walther. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 538.[2146]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 167.[2147]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541.[2148]G. Gervinus, “Gesch. der deutschen Dichtung,” 35, 1871, p. 20.[2149]Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg,” p. 372. W. Bäumker, “Das kathol. Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen,” 1, 1886, p. 32, makes a similar distinction. Cp. p. 16 ff.[2150]On the above see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 536 ff.[2151]In Luther’s hymns for public worship modelled on the Psalms “no poetic enthusiasm is apparent.” Spitta,ib., p. 355. He also assigns the lowest place to the translations of the Latin hymns.[2152]In the Preface to the new edition of his hymnbook (1529). Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.[2153]Migne, “P.L.,” 185, p. 391. E. Michael (“Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des MA.”, 4³, 1906, p. 327 ff.) shows not only that German psalmody existed in the 13th century, but also that it can be traced back with certainty to the 11th and 12th centuries. Cp. also Bäumker, “KL.,” art. “Kirchenlied,” 7², p. 602.[2154]Bäumker,ib., p. 604.[2155]Ib., p. 605.[2156]“Confess. Aug.,” art. 24 de missa.—Cp. for the foregoing, Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 264 ff.[2157]According to Heinr. v. Stephan, “Luther als Musiker,” Bielefeld (1899), p. 16, he was even “the reformer of German music.”[2158]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541 f. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 242 ff.[2159]“Vil falscher Meister itzt Lieder dichtenSiehe dich für und lern sie recht richten.Wo Gott hinbawet sein Kirch und sein Wort,Da wil der Teuffel sein mit Trug und Mord.”[2160]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 30.[2161]Loesch, “Mathesius,” 2, p. 214 ff. “Historien,” Bl. 179: “I brought him the song with which the children (in the Joachimsthal) drive out the Pope in Mid-Lent.... This song he published and himself wrote the title: ‘Ex montibus et vallibus, ex sylvis et campestribus.’” The broadsheet of 1541 mentioned by Schamelius in his “Lieder-Commentarius,” 1757, p. 57, if it ever existed, must have preceded Luther’s publication, and be by some unknown author.[2162]Cp., for instance, the May-song in the Baden Collection, by A. Barner, Hft. 2, No. 14, p. 15.[2163]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 31.[2164]Wackernagel,ib., p. 30. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 286.[2165]Cp., for instance, L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff., more particularly p. 179 f. (The 2nd art. is quoted below as II.) With regard to the Protestant theologians (G. Uhlhorn and others) Feuchtwanger says, p. 180: “In their hands the question of the care for the poor since 1500 has degenerated into a sectarian controversy on priority, and thus the way to the solution of the problem has been blocked by a falsification of the true question.” He regards Uhlhorn’s work as written from an “extreme sectarian” standpoint. To Feuchtwanger, as it had been to Strindberg, it is a marvel, how, “as soon as you begin to speak of God and charity, your voice grows hard and your eyes become filled with hate.”[2166]“Gesch. der sozialen Politik,” etc., II., p. 207.[2167]Ib., p. 221.[2168](Munich and Berlin, 1906), pp. 13, 41, 49, reprinted from “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 97, 1906, p. 1 ff., republished in 1911 in an enlarged form.[2169]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 644; Erl. ed., 22, p. 169. “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc., 1526.[2170]Ib., 30, 2, p. 138=31, p. 67 f.[2171]Ib., 19, p. 634=22, p. 258. Those who emigrate become “faithless and break their oath to their rulers”; “they do not bear in mind the divine command, that they are bound to remain obedient until they are prevented by force or are put to death”; they are “robbing their sovereign of his rights and authority” over them. On such general grounds Luther concludes that it was not lawful to desert and join the Turks.[2172]Pages 17, 26.[2173]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 1. Cp. “M. Luthers Werke,” “revised and edited for the German people,” by Julius Boehmer, Stuttgart, 1907, Introd., p. ix, where the theological editor says: “With Luther a new era begins. He has been and is considered the author of a new civilisation, different from that of the Middle Ages and of antiquity.... The emancipation of the human intellect began in the domain of religion and has gradually extended thence into other spheres in spite of obstacles and difficulties.”[2174]See, for instance, above, pp. 45 f., 476 f., and vol. iv., p. 472 ff.[2175]See above, vol. i., p. 49 f.[2176]H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 133, however, calls it a “great exaggeration” when Eberlin of Günzburg, the former Franciscan who afterwards became a follower of Luther, asserts that in Germany only one man in fifteen did any work. He has also the best of reasons for disbelieving Agricola’s statement, that the monks and nuns in Germany then numbered over 1,400,000 souls.[2177]Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff), particularly p. 746 ff.[2178]Cp. above, pp. 49-60.[2179]E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers,”² 1875, where the above and other texts are quoted.[2180]Ib., pp. 81, 88.[2181]For the passages see Luthardt,ib.[2182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 94.[2183]F. M. Schiele, “Christliche Welt,” 1908, No. 37.[2184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.[2185]Above, vol. iii., p. 22 ff.[2186]Second ed., p. 124.[2187]Luthardt refers here to Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f., where the latter says in his exposition of Psalm lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 1530: “Because the rulers, besides their other duties, must promote God’s Word and its preachers,” “they must punish public blasphemers”; among these were the false teachers and those who teach that each one must himself make satisfaction for his sins (he means the Catholics). “Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else they must go,” i.e. the rulers must compel those Catholics who were living amongst Protestants to emigrate. “The offender was acting contrary to the Gospel and the common article of the creed which we recite: ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ Such articles held by the whole of Christendom have already been sufficiently examined, proved and decided by Scripture and the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles and sealed with the blood of the martyrs.”[2188]In the continuation of the above passage Luther says of such controversies: “Let the rulers step in and examine the case and whichever party is not in agreement with Scripture, let him be commanded to be silent.... For it is not good for the people to hear contradictory preaching in the parish or district,” etc. Luther, however, not only demands, as Luthardt says, that these “heretics” should be banished, but also that they should be punished as public blasphemers. Cp. below, p. 578.[2189]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 97.[2190]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 538; Erl. ed., 17², p. 392. Luther, however, emphasises the true preaching office so much that he represents his pure Gospel teaching as alone capable of preserving peace, a fact which is usually passed over. “No University, institution or monastery” had been able to accomplish what the preaching office was now able to do; the “blind bloodhounds abandoned the preaching office and gave themselves up to lies.”[2191]“Werke,”ib., p. 555=402.[2192]Ib., p. 537 f.=392.[2193]Reference is made here to the passage in the Home-Postils, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 450. Here we read, p. 449, that the “rulers must promote matrimony and the management of the home, and see that the young are properly educated”; for this reason theirs was “a divine and holy state.”[2194]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 388, in the Home-Postils.[2195]Cp. the passages in Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 321.[2196]Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 153; Erl. ed., 21, p. 60.[2197]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 294.[2198]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10. See below, p. 577, n. 1.[2199]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 240.[2200]“Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” Jena, 1898, No. 22 (“Sammlung nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen,” 21.)[2201]See above, vol. ii., pp. 297 ff., 307 f.[2202]Ib., p. 302 f.[2203]Above, p. 58 f.[2204]P. 15.[2205]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73.[2206]Ib., p. 262 f. = 82 ff. Cp. p. 269 ff. = 92 ff.[2207]Ib., p. 271 = p. 94.[2208]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 281. Cp. Weim. ed., 18, p. 307; Erl. ed., 24², p. 282.[2209]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 259; Erl. ed., 22, p. 78 f. In order to understand the phrase “let himself be fleeced” it should be noted that those Lutherans who lived under the rule of Catholic princes were unable to escape the action of the Edict of Worms.[2210]He here says: “God hangs, breaks on the wheel, strangles and makes war; all this is His work.”Ib., 19, p. 626 = 22, p. 250.[2211]Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg, “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,” 1909 (“Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft,” 24), p. 168.[2212]Ib., p. 57.[2213]Ib., 166.[2214]E. Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauungen vom Staate,” 1901, p. 13 f. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 258; Erl. ed., 22, p. 77 f.: “His kingdom [Christ’s] is not made up of ploughmen, princes, hangmen or jailers, nor does it include the sword or secular law, but only the Word of God and His Spirit; by it His subjects are governed in their hearts inwardly.” All the successors of the Apostles and “spiritual rulers” were to be satisfied with the Word.—Erl. ed., 39, p. 330: “The secular government has only to rule over bodily and temporal possessions.”—P. 331: “Whoever wishes to become learned and wise in secular government let him study the heathen books and writings, these have indeed described and painted it most beautifully and fully.”[2215]K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 20.[2216]See above, vol. ii., p. 301: The bishops must “restrain heretics.”[2217]Holl,ib., p. 20 f. Luther’s words are from “De capt, babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 533; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 64. Cp “Nisi hæc adsit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus imo obest, non solum tum cum suscipitur, sed toto post tempore vitæ.”Ib., p. 527 f.=57. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487.[2218]“He protests against the war with the Turks being carried on under the pretext of Christianity, ‘as though our people could be termed an army of Christians fighting the Turks,’ when in ‘the whole army there are perhaps barely five Christians [real Lutheran believers].’ ... Thus he deliberately calls into question the Christianity of the German people and hence demands that the war should be undertaken as a merely secular thing.” Holl,ib., p. 22, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 37, and to a letter to Spalatin, Dec. 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333. Cp. above, p. 402, and vol. iii., p. 77 ff.[2219]Above, vol. ii., p. 108.[2220]See our examination of the “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” in vol. ii., pp. 297-306.[2221]The passages are cited below, p. 577, n. 2.[2222]Luther’s answer to the question he raises, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 207, in the Table-Talk: “Whether it be lawful to kill a tyrant, who at his own pleasure acts contrary to right and justice” is aimed at absolutism. He replies confidently: Yes, where the latter really oppresses his subjects by crying deeds of wrong and where the “citizens and subjects unite together” to make an end of him as they would of any “other murderer or highwayman.” In his “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526, Luther does not sanction private revenge nor any disorderly or violent action on the part of the mob, “whereby the people rise and depose their lord or strangle him.” He emphasises in this passage as the reason the absence of legal proceedings: “It does not do to pipe too much to the mob, or it will only too readily lose its head.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259.[2223]To the Elector Johann, Feb. 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 368 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318), on the introduction of Lutheranism into Altenburg. Cp. vol. ii., p. 315 f.; the principal reason why the ruler was to intervene was, that he might not deliberately tolerate “idolatry.”[2224]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Luther’s preface to the Instructions of the Visitors, 1528.[2225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48. “Eyn trew Vormanung ... sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung,” 1522. In connection with this the author says: It is not lawful for the individual to rebel against “Endchrist,” i.e. the Papacy, and to make use of force, but the secular authorities and the nobles “ought from a sense of duty to use their regular authority for this purpose, each prince and ruler in his own land,” etc. This he wrote on the eve of composing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” according to which the prince was not to trouble at all about the religion of his country.[2226]Above, vol. ii., p. 88 f.; vol. iv., p. 510 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 7 ff.[2227]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.[2228]Ib., p. 252.[2229]Paul Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. für Theol. and Kirche,” 1908, Ergänzungsheft), p. 99. Cp. p. 90.[2230]Cp. Luther’s statements, in Paulus,loc. cit., p. 25 ff.[2231]Drews,ib., p. 100.[2232]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 313 ff.[2233]Ib., p. 320.[2234]P. 323.[2235]P. 324 f.[2236]P. 327 f.[2237]P. 358 f.[2238]The expression is H. Boehmer’s (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹) 1906, p. 135.[2239]To the Elector Johann, Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.387 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).[2240]P. 17.[2241]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 164.[2242]Ib., p. 166; 1st ed., p. 135.[2243]1st ed., p. 135.[2244]Frank Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” p. 15. On p. 17, he says that according to Luther “all ecclesiastical functions and relations, in so far as they concern external things, are subject to the State.”[2245]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” in “Theol. Arbeiten aus dem rhein.—wissensch. Predigerverein, N.F.,” Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, p. 47 f.[2246]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 504.[2247]“Joh. Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorie,”² Breslau, 1902, p. 64 f. Paulus,ib., p. 349.[2248]Ib.[2249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f.[2250]See vol. ii., p. 297 f., from the writing, “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”[2251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. Cp. letter to the Elector Frederick, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[2252]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. “Ipsos principes vincemus et contemnemus.”[2253]Words of P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 28.[2254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 35.[2255]Ib., Erl. ed., 31, p. 236, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” See vol. ii., p. 294. Cp.ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 625; Erl. ed., 22, p. 248, where he says, already in 1526, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc.: “So that I should like to boast that, since the time of the Apostles, the secular sword and authority has never been so clearly and grandly described and extolled as by me, as even my foes must admit.”[2256]See vol. ii., p. 295, n. 1.[2257]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 284 f.[2258]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 63.[2259]Above, p. 140 ff.; vol. ii., p. 332 f.[2260]To Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 10, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10: “constitutis ecclesiis ... laceris autem ita rebus,” etc. Only after the Churches had been constituted could the ban be introduced as his friend wished.—For earlier Visitations see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 176 ff.[2261]See above, p. 140 ff., and vol. iii., p. 28 ff.[2262]Printed in E. Sehling, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff., and, before this, by A. E. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 77 ff.[2263]Both in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 26, p. 195 ff., and Erl. ed., 23, p. 1 ff.[2264]Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). Enders says of this work: “Almost all the proposals Luther makes here with the object of stimulating the project of a Visitation which had come to a standstill are again found in the Instructions to the Visitors.” From Luther’s previous letters Müller proves that he approved the Instructions,ib., p. 69 ff.[2265]Thus the Weimar editors in their Introduction to the “Instructions of the Visitors,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 179.[2266]Ib., p. 177.[2267]In the Preface to the reader: “Visitator nova mitra infulatur, novum ambiens papatum,” etc.[2268]Aug. 10, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 337.[2269]Words of K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 71 f. He also gives a survey of the Instructions.[2270]For the text see Sehling,ib., p. 143.[2271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 197; Erl. ed., 23, p. 5.[2272]Müller,ib., p. 67. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 14.[2273]Ib.[2274]See Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 69 f.[2275]Ib., p. 38.[2276]Carl Holl, “Luther und das Landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“1 Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche”), Tübingen, 1911, p. 54, against C. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther.” Holl says: “The two documents cannot be reconciled, for each attempts not merely to describe or emphasise one side of the matter, but to set forth the whole, and this they do from totally different points of view. One seeks to represent the Visitation as the outcome of the paternal care of the Elector, the other as an act of self-help on the part of the Church. It is impossible to harmonise these two points of view.”[2277]Reference to the title of his writing, “Deuttung ... des Munchkalbs zu Freyberg,” 1523. See above, vol. iii., p. 149 f.[2278]The latter saying occurs in the “Unterricht,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 212; Erl. ed., 23, p. 28.[2279]There is no call to lay so much stress on the Preface as to be obliged to say with Holl,ib., 54: It “necessarily assumes the significance of a silent protest.... Luther is defending the Church’s independence of the State by painting the Visitation in its true light.” Holl also says, p. 59, that Luther, here, entered upon “a struggle for the integrity of his whole work.” “To him it was of vital importance whether the ruler of the land was obeyed as the highest member of the congregation, or as a Christian Prince.” P. 60: “All the efforts directed to-day towards greater independence of the Church and larger liberty within the Church have a good right to appeal to Luther on this question.”[2280]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). See above, p. 581. The other passages mentioned here are quoted by P. Drews,ib., pp. 95 ff., 98.[2281]See above, vol. iv., pp. 413 and 418 f., for the corroborative statements of Scheel and Seeberg.[2282]Vol. iii., pp. 48 ff. and 58 ff.[2283]See Holl,ib., p. 9, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 289 (Weim. ed., 6, p. 413), on the Christian who, according to Mt. xviii., summons the culprit before the congregation: “If I am to accuse him before the congregation, I must first assemble the congregation.”[2284]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413; Erl. ed., 21, p. 290.[2285]Ib., p. 440 = 322. Holl,ib., p. 16. It is to Holl’s credit that he so strongly emphasises this tendency of Luther’s in favour of the independent rights of the congregation.[2286]Cp. his letter to Spalatin, May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 378 f.: “Faciat princeps et aula hac in re quod voluerint, ego Spiritui sancto non resistam ipsi viderint.” See also “Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 381 and 561.[2287]C. Muller,ib., p. 54, who emphasises Luther’s bias towards the State government of the Church with as much reason as Holl (see above, p. 596, n. 3) does his ideas on the independence of the Church.[2288]Müller,ib., p. 61.[2289]P. 79.[2290]Vol. ii., p. 358.[2291]Cp. above, pp. 135 f., 139 f.[2292]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68. “De capt. babylonica.”[2293]Cp. Holl,ib., p. 19 f. Müller,ib., p. 74 ff. See above, 55 f.[2294]See below, p. 602 f.[2295]P. 77.[2296]See above, vol. ii., p. 329.[2297]Cp. above, p. 181 ff.[2298]See above, p. 191.[2299]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 184.[2300]To Tileman Schnabel, etc., June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317.[2301]P. Drews,ib., p. 101 f.[2302]P. 580.[2303]Wilhelm Hans, quoted in full, vol. ii., p. 312. What he says is corroborated by Emil Friedberg, the authority of law, who, speaking of the work of Carl Müller so often quoted above, says, that it is a “difficult business to determine Luther’s views,” since they are not always the same in his various writings, and since, under stress of circumstances, Luther sometimes said things that went directly against the principles elsewhere advocated by him. “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 20, 1911, p. 414.[2304]The vacillation which characterised Luther’s attitude towards the State-Church system and which came from his early ideas concerning the true Christians who had no need of any authority over them, has recently been set forth as follows by the Protestant lawyer and historian Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg: “Luther’s true Christians were Utopian persons and hence his Church was the same. In his idealistic confidence in God he had expected too much from them. And thus there came for his Reformation an era of hesitancy and groping, which refused for a while to make way for more stable conditions. The Church which Luther had characterised as a necessary expedient for furthering the kingdom of God on earth now itself needed to be assisted and supported from without, if it was to suffice for its task. To achieve this we find Luther leaving no means untried. But his schemes were not very satisfactory. He put a patch here and another one there, appealed to the princes and then to the peasants, seeking to curry favour of one and the other simply for the sake of some small concession and in order to interest them in his Church.... At last Luther thought he had found a remedy: this was that the Church should seek support in the secular power. When quite at the end of his resources he had begun to remind the princes of their duties as rulers. From mere occasional allusions he soon passed on to energetic admonitions addressed to the ‘great ones,’ accompanied by his customary threats and abuse. It had indeed gone against the grain to summon the authorities to carry out his wishes, hence, at every opportunity, he insists on his independence of them.... Luther had in the event to submit to reproaches which he could not always honestly shift on to the shoulders of the ‘false priestlings and factious spirits.’”Of Luther’s later years Schulthess-Rechberg says: “An era dawns when Luther can no longer see an ounce of good in the State; when he even tells the unworthy servant of God [the prince] to mind his own business. It is then that we find Luther declaring that the secular authorities have no power to watch over souls or to exercise the teaching office, that they have no authority over the clergy, etc. Here we see plainly how he, more than any other reformer, was driven by force of circumstances, and this again is a proof that Luther’s work was really more than he had bargained for. Luther ... never succeeded in viewing the relations between Church and State objectively. This and his constant efforts to disengage himself from Rome frequently gave an unexpected turn to his views. For instance, when he insists at times that heresy and unbelief do not concern the authorities (Erl. ed., 22, pp. 90, 93). Hardly has he said this than he finds himself compelled to hedge and practically to eat his words.” “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin,” etc (above, p. 573, n. 4), pp. 170-172.[2305]In an article against P. Drews (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 478 ff.), p. 488. Hermelink adds: (p. 489) “It is true that the system of an established Church did not correspond with Luther’s ideal, but it was a political necessity and therefore seemed to him willed by God.” Hermelink’s reference to the false ideals and eschatology which influenced Luther’s theory of Church and State may be admitted as in part correct. He is also right when he says: Luther, according to his frequent statement, wished to assemble the Christians from the kingdom of Antichrist before the end of the world.Ib., p. 313.[2306]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81.
[2113]Janssen,ib., 1, p. 60.[2114]Paues, “A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version,” Cambridge, 1902. Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” 1900, and in the “Dublin Review,” 1894. Cp. “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 66, 1904, p. 349 ff.—Mandonnet, “Dict. de la Bible,” 2, Art. Dominicains. Cp. “Katholik,” 1902, 2, p. 289 ff.[2115]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 13.[2116]“Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,” etc., 1521, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 641; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.[2117]“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p. 376 ff.[2118]Cochlæus wrote (“Commentarius de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 54): “Quis satis enarrare queat, quantus dissidiorum turbationumque et ruinarum fomes et occasio fuerit ea novi Testamenti translatio. In qua vir iurgiorum data opera contra veterem et probatam ccclesiæ lectionem multa immutavit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit et in alium sensum detorsit, multas adiecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque cavillosas, et in præfationibus nihil malignitatis omisit, ut in partes suas traheret lectorem.” He concludes by saying that many persons had collected more than a thousand errors in the translation.[2119]Second ed., 1875, p. 529.[2120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 659 (N. 3, p. 282).[2121]Franz Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 90. Earlier than this we find five Latin Bibles printed at Mayence, Strasburg, and, perhaps, Bamberg.[2122]Falk, “Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche,” 1879, pp. 29 and 80. Do., “Die Bibel,” etc., pp. 32, 61.[2123]Ib., p. 33.[2124]“Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des MA.,” 1889-92.[2125]“Die Waldenserbibeln und Meister Johannes Rellach” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 771 ff.), p. 792. On the other side see W. Walther in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1896, Hft. 3, p. 194 ff. Cp. also Nestle in the “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche,” and the work of R. Schellhorn there mentioned.[2126]G. Grupp gave a critical account of the results of Walther’s researches in the “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 115, 1895, p. 931, which amongst other things considerably raises Walther’s estimate of the number of manuscript and printed copies.[2127]See above, p. 495.[2128]P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,” p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in “Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.[2129]“Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther,ib., p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.[2130]Ib., p. 1.[2131]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.[2132]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.[2133]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut tale, quid possem quale vellem.”[2134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.[2135]Ib., 62, p. 311.[2136]Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical character of his chronology.[2137]Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258), and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows himself a true poet.”[2138]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 311. Table-Talk.[2139]Above, p. 342 ff.[2140]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, pp. 155, 158.[2141]Ph. Wackernagel, “Das deutsche Kirchenleid von der ältesten Zeit bis zum 17. Jahr.,” 3, 1870, p. 20. Cp. ‘“Form und Ordnung gaystlicher Gesang,” etc., Augsburg, 1529. Cp. Wackernagel,ib., p. 20, the text of the first High German reproduction of the Wittenberg Hymnbook, and the less accurate reprint, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., and Nelle, “Gesch. des deut. ev. Kirchenliedes,”¹ 1904, p. 24 (2nd ed., 1909).[2142]In an advertisement of Will Vesper, “Luthers Dichtungen,” Munich, 1905.[2143]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 26. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 354.[2144]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.[2145]At the beginning of the “Geistliche Gesangbüchlein” of Johann Walther. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 538.[2146]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 167.[2147]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541.[2148]G. Gervinus, “Gesch. der deutschen Dichtung,” 35, 1871, p. 20.[2149]Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg,” p. 372. W. Bäumker, “Das kathol. Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen,” 1, 1886, p. 32, makes a similar distinction. Cp. p. 16 ff.[2150]On the above see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 536 ff.[2151]In Luther’s hymns for public worship modelled on the Psalms “no poetic enthusiasm is apparent.” Spitta,ib., p. 355. He also assigns the lowest place to the translations of the Latin hymns.[2152]In the Preface to the new edition of his hymnbook (1529). Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.[2153]Migne, “P.L.,” 185, p. 391. E. Michael (“Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des MA.”, 4³, 1906, p. 327 ff.) shows not only that German psalmody existed in the 13th century, but also that it can be traced back with certainty to the 11th and 12th centuries. Cp. also Bäumker, “KL.,” art. “Kirchenlied,” 7², p. 602.[2154]Bäumker,ib., p. 604.[2155]Ib., p. 605.[2156]“Confess. Aug.,” art. 24 de missa.—Cp. for the foregoing, Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 264 ff.[2157]According to Heinr. v. Stephan, “Luther als Musiker,” Bielefeld (1899), p. 16, he was even “the reformer of German music.”[2158]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541 f. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 242 ff.[2159]“Vil falscher Meister itzt Lieder dichtenSiehe dich für und lern sie recht richten.Wo Gott hinbawet sein Kirch und sein Wort,Da wil der Teuffel sein mit Trug und Mord.”[2160]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 30.[2161]Loesch, “Mathesius,” 2, p. 214 ff. “Historien,” Bl. 179: “I brought him the song with which the children (in the Joachimsthal) drive out the Pope in Mid-Lent.... This song he published and himself wrote the title: ‘Ex montibus et vallibus, ex sylvis et campestribus.’” The broadsheet of 1541 mentioned by Schamelius in his “Lieder-Commentarius,” 1757, p. 57, if it ever existed, must have preceded Luther’s publication, and be by some unknown author.[2162]Cp., for instance, the May-song in the Baden Collection, by A. Barner, Hft. 2, No. 14, p. 15.[2163]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 31.[2164]Wackernagel,ib., p. 30. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 286.[2165]Cp., for instance, L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff., more particularly p. 179 f. (The 2nd art. is quoted below as II.) With regard to the Protestant theologians (G. Uhlhorn and others) Feuchtwanger says, p. 180: “In their hands the question of the care for the poor since 1500 has degenerated into a sectarian controversy on priority, and thus the way to the solution of the problem has been blocked by a falsification of the true question.” He regards Uhlhorn’s work as written from an “extreme sectarian” standpoint. To Feuchtwanger, as it had been to Strindberg, it is a marvel, how, “as soon as you begin to speak of God and charity, your voice grows hard and your eyes become filled with hate.”[2166]“Gesch. der sozialen Politik,” etc., II., p. 207.[2167]Ib., p. 221.[2168](Munich and Berlin, 1906), pp. 13, 41, 49, reprinted from “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 97, 1906, p. 1 ff., republished in 1911 in an enlarged form.[2169]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 644; Erl. ed., 22, p. 169. “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc., 1526.[2170]Ib., 30, 2, p. 138=31, p. 67 f.[2171]Ib., 19, p. 634=22, p. 258. Those who emigrate become “faithless and break their oath to their rulers”; “they do not bear in mind the divine command, that they are bound to remain obedient until they are prevented by force or are put to death”; they are “robbing their sovereign of his rights and authority” over them. On such general grounds Luther concludes that it was not lawful to desert and join the Turks.[2172]Pages 17, 26.[2173]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 1. Cp. “M. Luthers Werke,” “revised and edited for the German people,” by Julius Boehmer, Stuttgart, 1907, Introd., p. ix, where the theological editor says: “With Luther a new era begins. He has been and is considered the author of a new civilisation, different from that of the Middle Ages and of antiquity.... The emancipation of the human intellect began in the domain of religion and has gradually extended thence into other spheres in spite of obstacles and difficulties.”[2174]See, for instance, above, pp. 45 f., 476 f., and vol. iv., p. 472 ff.[2175]See above, vol. i., p. 49 f.[2176]H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 133, however, calls it a “great exaggeration” when Eberlin of Günzburg, the former Franciscan who afterwards became a follower of Luther, asserts that in Germany only one man in fifteen did any work. He has also the best of reasons for disbelieving Agricola’s statement, that the monks and nuns in Germany then numbered over 1,400,000 souls.[2177]Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff), particularly p. 746 ff.[2178]Cp. above, pp. 49-60.[2179]E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers,”² 1875, where the above and other texts are quoted.[2180]Ib., pp. 81, 88.[2181]For the passages see Luthardt,ib.[2182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 94.[2183]F. M. Schiele, “Christliche Welt,” 1908, No. 37.[2184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.[2185]Above, vol. iii., p. 22 ff.[2186]Second ed., p. 124.[2187]Luthardt refers here to Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f., where the latter says in his exposition of Psalm lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 1530: “Because the rulers, besides their other duties, must promote God’s Word and its preachers,” “they must punish public blasphemers”; among these were the false teachers and those who teach that each one must himself make satisfaction for his sins (he means the Catholics). “Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else they must go,” i.e. the rulers must compel those Catholics who were living amongst Protestants to emigrate. “The offender was acting contrary to the Gospel and the common article of the creed which we recite: ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ Such articles held by the whole of Christendom have already been sufficiently examined, proved and decided by Scripture and the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles and sealed with the blood of the martyrs.”[2188]In the continuation of the above passage Luther says of such controversies: “Let the rulers step in and examine the case and whichever party is not in agreement with Scripture, let him be commanded to be silent.... For it is not good for the people to hear contradictory preaching in the parish or district,” etc. Luther, however, not only demands, as Luthardt says, that these “heretics” should be banished, but also that they should be punished as public blasphemers. Cp. below, p. 578.[2189]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 97.[2190]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 538; Erl. ed., 17², p. 392. Luther, however, emphasises the true preaching office so much that he represents his pure Gospel teaching as alone capable of preserving peace, a fact which is usually passed over. “No University, institution or monastery” had been able to accomplish what the preaching office was now able to do; the “blind bloodhounds abandoned the preaching office and gave themselves up to lies.”[2191]“Werke,”ib., p. 555=402.[2192]Ib., p. 537 f.=392.[2193]Reference is made here to the passage in the Home-Postils, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 450. Here we read, p. 449, that the “rulers must promote matrimony and the management of the home, and see that the young are properly educated”; for this reason theirs was “a divine and holy state.”[2194]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 388, in the Home-Postils.[2195]Cp. the passages in Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 321.[2196]Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 153; Erl. ed., 21, p. 60.[2197]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 294.[2198]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10. See below, p. 577, n. 1.[2199]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 240.[2200]“Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” Jena, 1898, No. 22 (“Sammlung nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen,” 21.)[2201]See above, vol. ii., pp. 297 ff., 307 f.[2202]Ib., p. 302 f.[2203]Above, p. 58 f.[2204]P. 15.[2205]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73.[2206]Ib., p. 262 f. = 82 ff. Cp. p. 269 ff. = 92 ff.[2207]Ib., p. 271 = p. 94.[2208]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 281. Cp. Weim. ed., 18, p. 307; Erl. ed., 24², p. 282.[2209]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 259; Erl. ed., 22, p. 78 f. In order to understand the phrase “let himself be fleeced” it should be noted that those Lutherans who lived under the rule of Catholic princes were unable to escape the action of the Edict of Worms.[2210]He here says: “God hangs, breaks on the wheel, strangles and makes war; all this is His work.”Ib., 19, p. 626 = 22, p. 250.[2211]Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg, “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,” 1909 (“Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft,” 24), p. 168.[2212]Ib., p. 57.[2213]Ib., 166.[2214]E. Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauungen vom Staate,” 1901, p. 13 f. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 258; Erl. ed., 22, p. 77 f.: “His kingdom [Christ’s] is not made up of ploughmen, princes, hangmen or jailers, nor does it include the sword or secular law, but only the Word of God and His Spirit; by it His subjects are governed in their hearts inwardly.” All the successors of the Apostles and “spiritual rulers” were to be satisfied with the Word.—Erl. ed., 39, p. 330: “The secular government has only to rule over bodily and temporal possessions.”—P. 331: “Whoever wishes to become learned and wise in secular government let him study the heathen books and writings, these have indeed described and painted it most beautifully and fully.”[2215]K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 20.[2216]See above, vol. ii., p. 301: The bishops must “restrain heretics.”[2217]Holl,ib., p. 20 f. Luther’s words are from “De capt, babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 533; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 64. Cp “Nisi hæc adsit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus imo obest, non solum tum cum suscipitur, sed toto post tempore vitæ.”Ib., p. 527 f.=57. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487.[2218]“He protests against the war with the Turks being carried on under the pretext of Christianity, ‘as though our people could be termed an army of Christians fighting the Turks,’ when in ‘the whole army there are perhaps barely five Christians [real Lutheran believers].’ ... Thus he deliberately calls into question the Christianity of the German people and hence demands that the war should be undertaken as a merely secular thing.” Holl,ib., p. 22, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 37, and to a letter to Spalatin, Dec. 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333. Cp. above, p. 402, and vol. iii., p. 77 ff.[2219]Above, vol. ii., p. 108.[2220]See our examination of the “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” in vol. ii., pp. 297-306.[2221]The passages are cited below, p. 577, n. 2.[2222]Luther’s answer to the question he raises, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 207, in the Table-Talk: “Whether it be lawful to kill a tyrant, who at his own pleasure acts contrary to right and justice” is aimed at absolutism. He replies confidently: Yes, where the latter really oppresses his subjects by crying deeds of wrong and where the “citizens and subjects unite together” to make an end of him as they would of any “other murderer or highwayman.” In his “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526, Luther does not sanction private revenge nor any disorderly or violent action on the part of the mob, “whereby the people rise and depose their lord or strangle him.” He emphasises in this passage as the reason the absence of legal proceedings: “It does not do to pipe too much to the mob, or it will only too readily lose its head.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259.[2223]To the Elector Johann, Feb. 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 368 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318), on the introduction of Lutheranism into Altenburg. Cp. vol. ii., p. 315 f.; the principal reason why the ruler was to intervene was, that he might not deliberately tolerate “idolatry.”[2224]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Luther’s preface to the Instructions of the Visitors, 1528.[2225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48. “Eyn trew Vormanung ... sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung,” 1522. In connection with this the author says: It is not lawful for the individual to rebel against “Endchrist,” i.e. the Papacy, and to make use of force, but the secular authorities and the nobles “ought from a sense of duty to use their regular authority for this purpose, each prince and ruler in his own land,” etc. This he wrote on the eve of composing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” according to which the prince was not to trouble at all about the religion of his country.[2226]Above, vol. ii., p. 88 f.; vol. iv., p. 510 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 7 ff.[2227]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.[2228]Ib., p. 252.[2229]Paul Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. für Theol. and Kirche,” 1908, Ergänzungsheft), p. 99. Cp. p. 90.[2230]Cp. Luther’s statements, in Paulus,loc. cit., p. 25 ff.[2231]Drews,ib., p. 100.[2232]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 313 ff.[2233]Ib., p. 320.[2234]P. 323.[2235]P. 324 f.[2236]P. 327 f.[2237]P. 358 f.[2238]The expression is H. Boehmer’s (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹) 1906, p. 135.[2239]To the Elector Johann, Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.387 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).[2240]P. 17.[2241]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 164.[2242]Ib., p. 166; 1st ed., p. 135.[2243]1st ed., p. 135.[2244]Frank Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” p. 15. On p. 17, he says that according to Luther “all ecclesiastical functions and relations, in so far as they concern external things, are subject to the State.”[2245]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” in “Theol. Arbeiten aus dem rhein.—wissensch. Predigerverein, N.F.,” Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, p. 47 f.[2246]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 504.[2247]“Joh. Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorie,”² Breslau, 1902, p. 64 f. Paulus,ib., p. 349.[2248]Ib.[2249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f.[2250]See vol. ii., p. 297 f., from the writing, “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”[2251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. Cp. letter to the Elector Frederick, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).[2252]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. “Ipsos principes vincemus et contemnemus.”[2253]Words of P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 28.[2254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 35.[2255]Ib., Erl. ed., 31, p. 236, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” See vol. ii., p. 294. Cp.ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 625; Erl. ed., 22, p. 248, where he says, already in 1526, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc.: “So that I should like to boast that, since the time of the Apostles, the secular sword and authority has never been so clearly and grandly described and extolled as by me, as even my foes must admit.”[2256]See vol. ii., p. 295, n. 1.[2257]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 284 f.[2258]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 63.[2259]Above, p. 140 ff.; vol. ii., p. 332 f.[2260]To Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 10, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10: “constitutis ecclesiis ... laceris autem ita rebus,” etc. Only after the Churches had been constituted could the ban be introduced as his friend wished.—For earlier Visitations see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 176 ff.[2261]See above, p. 140 ff., and vol. iii., p. 28 ff.[2262]Printed in E. Sehling, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff., and, before this, by A. E. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 77 ff.[2263]Both in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 26, p. 195 ff., and Erl. ed., 23, p. 1 ff.[2264]Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). Enders says of this work: “Almost all the proposals Luther makes here with the object of stimulating the project of a Visitation which had come to a standstill are again found in the Instructions to the Visitors.” From Luther’s previous letters Müller proves that he approved the Instructions,ib., p. 69 ff.[2265]Thus the Weimar editors in their Introduction to the “Instructions of the Visitors,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 179.[2266]Ib., p. 177.[2267]In the Preface to the reader: “Visitator nova mitra infulatur, novum ambiens papatum,” etc.[2268]Aug. 10, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 337.[2269]Words of K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 71 f. He also gives a survey of the Instructions.[2270]For the text see Sehling,ib., p. 143.[2271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 197; Erl. ed., 23, p. 5.[2272]Müller,ib., p. 67. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 14.[2273]Ib.[2274]See Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 69 f.[2275]Ib., p. 38.[2276]Carl Holl, “Luther und das Landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“1 Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche”), Tübingen, 1911, p. 54, against C. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther.” Holl says: “The two documents cannot be reconciled, for each attempts not merely to describe or emphasise one side of the matter, but to set forth the whole, and this they do from totally different points of view. One seeks to represent the Visitation as the outcome of the paternal care of the Elector, the other as an act of self-help on the part of the Church. It is impossible to harmonise these two points of view.”[2277]Reference to the title of his writing, “Deuttung ... des Munchkalbs zu Freyberg,” 1523. See above, vol. iii., p. 149 f.[2278]The latter saying occurs in the “Unterricht,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 212; Erl. ed., 23, p. 28.[2279]There is no call to lay so much stress on the Preface as to be obliged to say with Holl,ib., 54: It “necessarily assumes the significance of a silent protest.... Luther is defending the Church’s independence of the State by painting the Visitation in its true light.” Holl also says, p. 59, that Luther, here, entered upon “a struggle for the integrity of his whole work.” “To him it was of vital importance whether the ruler of the land was obeyed as the highest member of the congregation, or as a Christian Prince.” P. 60: “All the efforts directed to-day towards greater independence of the Church and larger liberty within the Church have a good right to appeal to Luther on this question.”[2280]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). See above, p. 581. The other passages mentioned here are quoted by P. Drews,ib., pp. 95 ff., 98.[2281]See above, vol. iv., pp. 413 and 418 f., for the corroborative statements of Scheel and Seeberg.[2282]Vol. iii., pp. 48 ff. and 58 ff.[2283]See Holl,ib., p. 9, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 289 (Weim. ed., 6, p. 413), on the Christian who, according to Mt. xviii., summons the culprit before the congregation: “If I am to accuse him before the congregation, I must first assemble the congregation.”[2284]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413; Erl. ed., 21, p. 290.[2285]Ib., p. 440 = 322. Holl,ib., p. 16. It is to Holl’s credit that he so strongly emphasises this tendency of Luther’s in favour of the independent rights of the congregation.[2286]Cp. his letter to Spalatin, May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 378 f.: “Faciat princeps et aula hac in re quod voluerint, ego Spiritui sancto non resistam ipsi viderint.” See also “Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 381 and 561.[2287]C. Muller,ib., p. 54, who emphasises Luther’s bias towards the State government of the Church with as much reason as Holl (see above, p. 596, n. 3) does his ideas on the independence of the Church.[2288]Müller,ib., p. 61.[2289]P. 79.[2290]Vol. ii., p. 358.[2291]Cp. above, pp. 135 f., 139 f.[2292]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68. “De capt. babylonica.”[2293]Cp. Holl,ib., p. 19 f. Müller,ib., p. 74 ff. See above, 55 f.[2294]See below, p. 602 f.[2295]P. 77.[2296]See above, vol. ii., p. 329.[2297]Cp. above, p. 181 ff.[2298]See above, p. 191.[2299]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 184.[2300]To Tileman Schnabel, etc., June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317.[2301]P. Drews,ib., p. 101 f.[2302]P. 580.[2303]Wilhelm Hans, quoted in full, vol. ii., p. 312. What he says is corroborated by Emil Friedberg, the authority of law, who, speaking of the work of Carl Müller so often quoted above, says, that it is a “difficult business to determine Luther’s views,” since they are not always the same in his various writings, and since, under stress of circumstances, Luther sometimes said things that went directly against the principles elsewhere advocated by him. “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 20, 1911, p. 414.[2304]The vacillation which characterised Luther’s attitude towards the State-Church system and which came from his early ideas concerning the true Christians who had no need of any authority over them, has recently been set forth as follows by the Protestant lawyer and historian Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg: “Luther’s true Christians were Utopian persons and hence his Church was the same. In his idealistic confidence in God he had expected too much from them. And thus there came for his Reformation an era of hesitancy and groping, which refused for a while to make way for more stable conditions. The Church which Luther had characterised as a necessary expedient for furthering the kingdom of God on earth now itself needed to be assisted and supported from without, if it was to suffice for its task. To achieve this we find Luther leaving no means untried. But his schemes were not very satisfactory. He put a patch here and another one there, appealed to the princes and then to the peasants, seeking to curry favour of one and the other simply for the sake of some small concession and in order to interest them in his Church.... At last Luther thought he had found a remedy: this was that the Church should seek support in the secular power. When quite at the end of his resources he had begun to remind the princes of their duties as rulers. From mere occasional allusions he soon passed on to energetic admonitions addressed to the ‘great ones,’ accompanied by his customary threats and abuse. It had indeed gone against the grain to summon the authorities to carry out his wishes, hence, at every opportunity, he insists on his independence of them.... Luther had in the event to submit to reproaches which he could not always honestly shift on to the shoulders of the ‘false priestlings and factious spirits.’”Of Luther’s later years Schulthess-Rechberg says: “An era dawns when Luther can no longer see an ounce of good in the State; when he even tells the unworthy servant of God [the prince] to mind his own business. It is then that we find Luther declaring that the secular authorities have no power to watch over souls or to exercise the teaching office, that they have no authority over the clergy, etc. Here we see plainly how he, more than any other reformer, was driven by force of circumstances, and this again is a proof that Luther’s work was really more than he had bargained for. Luther ... never succeeded in viewing the relations between Church and State objectively. This and his constant efforts to disengage himself from Rome frequently gave an unexpected turn to his views. For instance, when he insists at times that heresy and unbelief do not concern the authorities (Erl. ed., 22, pp. 90, 93). Hardly has he said this than he finds himself compelled to hedge and practically to eat his words.” “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin,” etc (above, p. 573, n. 4), pp. 170-172.[2305]In an article against P. Drews (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 478 ff.), p. 488. Hermelink adds: (p. 489) “It is true that the system of an established Church did not correspond with Luther’s ideal, but it was a political necessity and therefore seemed to him willed by God.” Hermelink’s reference to the false ideals and eschatology which influenced Luther’s theory of Church and State may be admitted as in part correct. He is also right when he says: Luther, according to his frequent statement, wished to assemble the Christians from the kingdom of Antichrist before the end of the world.Ib., p. 313.[2306]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81.
[2113]Janssen,ib., 1, p. 60.
[2114]Paues, “A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version,” Cambridge, 1902. Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” 1900, and in the “Dublin Review,” 1894. Cp. “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 66, 1904, p. 349 ff.—Mandonnet, “Dict. de la Bible,” 2, Art. Dominicains. Cp. “Katholik,” 1902, 2, p. 289 ff.
[2115]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 13.
[2116]“Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,” etc., 1521, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 641; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.
[2117]“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p. 376 ff.
[2118]Cochlæus wrote (“Commentarius de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 54): “Quis satis enarrare queat, quantus dissidiorum turbationumque et ruinarum fomes et occasio fuerit ea novi Testamenti translatio. In qua vir iurgiorum data opera contra veterem et probatam ccclesiæ lectionem multa immutavit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit et in alium sensum detorsit, multas adiecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque cavillosas, et in præfationibus nihil malignitatis omisit, ut in partes suas traheret lectorem.” He concludes by saying that many persons had collected more than a thousand errors in the translation.
[2119]Second ed., 1875, p. 529.
[2120]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 659 (N. 3, p. 282).
[2121]Franz Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 90. Earlier than this we find five Latin Bibles printed at Mayence, Strasburg, and, perhaps, Bamberg.
[2122]Falk, “Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche,” 1879, pp. 29 and 80. Do., “Die Bibel,” etc., pp. 32, 61.
[2123]Ib., p. 33.
[2124]“Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des MA.,” 1889-92.
[2125]“Die Waldenserbibeln und Meister Johannes Rellach” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 771 ff.), p. 792. On the other side see W. Walther in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1896, Hft. 3, p. 194 ff. Cp. also Nestle in the “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche,” and the work of R. Schellhorn there mentioned.
[2126]G. Grupp gave a critical account of the results of Walther’s researches in the “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 115, 1895, p. 931, which amongst other things considerably raises Walther’s estimate of the number of manuscript and printed copies.
[2127]See above, p. 495.
[2128]P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,” p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in “Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.
[2129]“Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther,ib., p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.
[2130]Ib., p. 1.
[2131]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.
[2132]“Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.
[2133]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut tale, quid possem quale vellem.”
[2134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.
[2135]Ib., 62, p. 311.
[2136]Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical character of his chronology.
[2137]Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258), and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows himself a true poet.”
[2138]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 311. Table-Talk.
[2139]Above, p. 342 ff.
[2140]Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, pp. 155, 158.
[2141]Ph. Wackernagel, “Das deutsche Kirchenleid von der ältesten Zeit bis zum 17. Jahr.,” 3, 1870, p. 20. Cp. ‘“Form und Ordnung gaystlicher Gesang,” etc., Augsburg, 1529. Cp. Wackernagel,ib., p. 20, the text of the first High German reproduction of the Wittenberg Hymnbook, and the less accurate reprint, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., and Nelle, “Gesch. des deut. ev. Kirchenliedes,”¹ 1904, p. 24 (2nd ed., 1909).
[2142]In an advertisement of Will Vesper, “Luthers Dichtungen,” Munich, 1905.
[2143]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 26. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 354.
[2144]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.
[2145]At the beginning of the “Geistliche Gesangbüchlein” of Johann Walther. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 538.
[2146]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 167.
[2147]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541.
[2148]G. Gervinus, “Gesch. der deutschen Dichtung,” 35, 1871, p. 20.
[2149]Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg,” p. 372. W. Bäumker, “Das kathol. Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen,” 1, 1886, p. 32, makes a similar distinction. Cp. p. 16 ff.
[2150]On the above see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 536 ff.
[2151]In Luther’s hymns for public worship modelled on the Psalms “no poetic enthusiasm is apparent.” Spitta,ib., p. 355. He also assigns the lowest place to the translations of the Latin hymns.
[2152]In the Preface to the new edition of his hymnbook (1529). Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.
[2153]Migne, “P.L.,” 185, p. 391. E. Michael (“Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des MA.”, 4³, 1906, p. 327 ff.) shows not only that German psalmody existed in the 13th century, but also that it can be traced back with certainty to the 11th and 12th centuries. Cp. also Bäumker, “KL.,” art. “Kirchenlied,” 7², p. 602.
[2154]Bäumker,ib., p. 604.
[2155]Ib., p. 605.
[2156]“Confess. Aug.,” art. 24 de missa.—Cp. for the foregoing, Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 264 ff.
[2157]According to Heinr. v. Stephan, “Luther als Musiker,” Bielefeld (1899), p. 16, he was even “the reformer of German music.”
[2158]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541 f. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 242 ff.
[2159]
“Vil falscher Meister itzt Lieder dichtenSiehe dich für und lern sie recht richten.Wo Gott hinbawet sein Kirch und sein Wort,Da wil der Teuffel sein mit Trug und Mord.”
[2160]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 30.
[2161]Loesch, “Mathesius,” 2, p. 214 ff. “Historien,” Bl. 179: “I brought him the song with which the children (in the Joachimsthal) drive out the Pope in Mid-Lent.... This song he published and himself wrote the title: ‘Ex montibus et vallibus, ex sylvis et campestribus.’” The broadsheet of 1541 mentioned by Schamelius in his “Lieder-Commentarius,” 1757, p. 57, if it ever existed, must have preceded Luther’s publication, and be by some unknown author.
[2162]Cp., for instance, the May-song in the Baden Collection, by A. Barner, Hft. 2, No. 14, p. 15.
[2163]Wackernagel,ib., 3, p. 31.
[2164]Wackernagel,ib., p. 30. Cp. Janssen,ib.(Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 286.
[2165]Cp., for instance, L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff., more particularly p. 179 f. (The 2nd art. is quoted below as II.) With regard to the Protestant theologians (G. Uhlhorn and others) Feuchtwanger says, p. 180: “In their hands the question of the care for the poor since 1500 has degenerated into a sectarian controversy on priority, and thus the way to the solution of the problem has been blocked by a falsification of the true question.” He regards Uhlhorn’s work as written from an “extreme sectarian” standpoint. To Feuchtwanger, as it had been to Strindberg, it is a marvel, how, “as soon as you begin to speak of God and charity, your voice grows hard and your eyes become filled with hate.”
[2166]“Gesch. der sozialen Politik,” etc., II., p. 207.
[2167]Ib., p. 221.
[2168](Munich and Berlin, 1906), pp. 13, 41, 49, reprinted from “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 97, 1906, p. 1 ff., republished in 1911 in an enlarged form.
[2169]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 644; Erl. ed., 22, p. 169. “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc., 1526.
[2170]Ib., 30, 2, p. 138=31, p. 67 f.
[2171]Ib., 19, p. 634=22, p. 258. Those who emigrate become “faithless and break their oath to their rulers”; “they do not bear in mind the divine command, that they are bound to remain obedient until they are prevented by force or are put to death”; they are “robbing their sovereign of his rights and authority” over them. On such general grounds Luther concludes that it was not lawful to desert and join the Turks.
[2172]Pages 17, 26.
[2173]“Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 1. Cp. “M. Luthers Werke,” “revised and edited for the German people,” by Julius Boehmer, Stuttgart, 1907, Introd., p. ix, where the theological editor says: “With Luther a new era begins. He has been and is considered the author of a new civilisation, different from that of the Middle Ages and of antiquity.... The emancipation of the human intellect began in the domain of religion and has gradually extended thence into other spheres in spite of obstacles and difficulties.”
[2174]See, for instance, above, pp. 45 f., 476 f., and vol. iv., p. 472 ff.
[2175]See above, vol. i., p. 49 f.
[2176]H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 133, however, calls it a “great exaggeration” when Eberlin of Günzburg, the former Franciscan who afterwards became a follower of Luther, asserts that in Germany only one man in fifteen did any work. He has also the best of reasons for disbelieving Agricola’s statement, that the monks and nuns in Germany then numbered over 1,400,000 souls.
[2177]Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff), particularly p. 746 ff.
[2178]Cp. above, pp. 49-60.
[2179]E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers,”² 1875, where the above and other texts are quoted.
[2180]Ib., pp. 81, 88.
[2181]For the passages see Luthardt,ib.
[2182]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 94.
[2183]F. M. Schiele, “Christliche Welt,” 1908, No. 37.
[2184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.
[2185]Above, vol. iii., p. 22 ff.
[2186]Second ed., p. 124.
[2187]Luthardt refers here to Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f., where the latter says in his exposition of Psalm lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 1530: “Because the rulers, besides their other duties, must promote God’s Word and its preachers,” “they must punish public blasphemers”; among these were the false teachers and those who teach that each one must himself make satisfaction for his sins (he means the Catholics). “Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else they must go,” i.e. the rulers must compel those Catholics who were living amongst Protestants to emigrate. “The offender was acting contrary to the Gospel and the common article of the creed which we recite: ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ Such articles held by the whole of Christendom have already been sufficiently examined, proved and decided by Scripture and the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles and sealed with the blood of the martyrs.”
[2188]In the continuation of the above passage Luther says of such controversies: “Let the rulers step in and examine the case and whichever party is not in agreement with Scripture, let him be commanded to be silent.... For it is not good for the people to hear contradictory preaching in the parish or district,” etc. Luther, however, not only demands, as Luthardt says, that these “heretics” should be banished, but also that they should be punished as public blasphemers. Cp. below, p. 578.
[2189]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 97.
[2190]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 538; Erl. ed., 17², p. 392. Luther, however, emphasises the true preaching office so much that he represents his pure Gospel teaching as alone capable of preserving peace, a fact which is usually passed over. “No University, institution or monastery” had been able to accomplish what the preaching office was now able to do; the “blind bloodhounds abandoned the preaching office and gave themselves up to lies.”
[2191]“Werke,”ib., p. 555=402.
[2192]Ib., p. 537 f.=392.
[2193]Reference is made here to the passage in the Home-Postils, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 450. Here we read, p. 449, that the “rulers must promote matrimony and the management of the home, and see that the young are properly educated”; for this reason theirs was “a divine and holy state.”
[2194]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 388, in the Home-Postils.
[2195]Cp. the passages in Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 321.
[2196]Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 153; Erl. ed., 21, p. 60.
[2197]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 294.
[2198]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10. See below, p. 577, n. 1.
[2199]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 240.
[2200]“Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” Jena, 1898, No. 22 (“Sammlung nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen,” 21.)
[2201]See above, vol. ii., pp. 297 ff., 307 f.
[2202]Ib., p. 302 f.
[2203]Above, p. 58 f.
[2204]P. 15.
[2205]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73.
[2206]Ib., p. 262 f. = 82 ff. Cp. p. 269 ff. = 92 ff.
[2207]Ib., p. 271 = p. 94.
[2208]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 281. Cp. Weim. ed., 18, p. 307; Erl. ed., 24², p. 282.
[2209]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 259; Erl. ed., 22, p. 78 f. In order to understand the phrase “let himself be fleeced” it should be noted that those Lutherans who lived under the rule of Catholic princes were unable to escape the action of the Edict of Worms.
[2210]He here says: “God hangs, breaks on the wheel, strangles and makes war; all this is His work.”Ib., 19, p. 626 = 22, p. 250.
[2211]Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg, “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,” 1909 (“Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft,” 24), p. 168.
[2212]Ib., p. 57.
[2213]Ib., 166.
[2214]E. Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauungen vom Staate,” 1901, p. 13 f. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 258; Erl. ed., 22, p. 77 f.: “His kingdom [Christ’s] is not made up of ploughmen, princes, hangmen or jailers, nor does it include the sword or secular law, but only the Word of God and His Spirit; by it His subjects are governed in their hearts inwardly.” All the successors of the Apostles and “spiritual rulers” were to be satisfied with the Word.—Erl. ed., 39, p. 330: “The secular government has only to rule over bodily and temporal possessions.”—P. 331: “Whoever wishes to become learned and wise in secular government let him study the heathen books and writings, these have indeed described and painted it most beautifully and fully.”
[2215]K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 20.
[2216]See above, vol. ii., p. 301: The bishops must “restrain heretics.”
[2217]Holl,ib., p. 20 f. Luther’s words are from “De capt, babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 533; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 64. Cp “Nisi hæc adsit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus imo obest, non solum tum cum suscipitur, sed toto post tempore vitæ.”Ib., p. 527 f.=57. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487.
[2218]“He protests against the war with the Turks being carried on under the pretext of Christianity, ‘as though our people could be termed an army of Christians fighting the Turks,’ when in ‘the whole army there are perhaps barely five Christians [real Lutheran believers].’ ... Thus he deliberately calls into question the Christianity of the German people and hence demands that the war should be undertaken as a merely secular thing.” Holl,ib., p. 22, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 37, and to a letter to Spalatin, Dec. 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333. Cp. above, p. 402, and vol. iii., p. 77 ff.
[2219]Above, vol. ii., p. 108.
[2220]See our examination of the “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” in vol. ii., pp. 297-306.
[2221]The passages are cited below, p. 577, n. 2.
[2222]Luther’s answer to the question he raises, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 207, in the Table-Talk: “Whether it be lawful to kill a tyrant, who at his own pleasure acts contrary to right and justice” is aimed at absolutism. He replies confidently: Yes, where the latter really oppresses his subjects by crying deeds of wrong and where the “citizens and subjects unite together” to make an end of him as they would of any “other murderer or highwayman.” In his “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526, Luther does not sanction private revenge nor any disorderly or violent action on the part of the mob, “whereby the people rise and depose their lord or strangle him.” He emphasises in this passage as the reason the absence of legal proceedings: “It does not do to pipe too much to the mob, or it will only too readily lose its head.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259.
[2223]To the Elector Johann, Feb. 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 368 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318), on the introduction of Lutheranism into Altenburg. Cp. vol. ii., p. 315 f.; the principal reason why the ruler was to intervene was, that he might not deliberately tolerate “idolatry.”
[2224]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Luther’s preface to the Instructions of the Visitors, 1528.
[2225]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48. “Eyn trew Vormanung ... sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung,” 1522. In connection with this the author says: It is not lawful for the individual to rebel against “Endchrist,” i.e. the Papacy, and to make use of force, but the secular authorities and the nobles “ought from a sense of duty to use their regular authority for this purpose, each prince and ruler in his own land,” etc. This he wrote on the eve of composing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” according to which the prince was not to trouble at all about the religion of his country.
[2226]Above, vol. ii., p. 88 f.; vol. iv., p. 510 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 7 ff.
[2227]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.
[2228]Ib., p. 252.
[2229]Paul Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. für Theol. and Kirche,” 1908, Ergänzungsheft), p. 99. Cp. p. 90.
[2230]Cp. Luther’s statements, in Paulus,loc. cit., p. 25 ff.
[2231]Drews,ib., p. 100.
[2232]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 313 ff.
[2233]Ib., p. 320.
[2234]P. 323.
[2235]P. 324 f.
[2236]P. 327 f.
[2237]P. 358 f.
[2238]The expression is H. Boehmer’s (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹) 1906, p. 135.
[2239]To the Elector Johann, Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.387 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).
[2240]P. 17.
[2241]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 164.
[2242]Ib., p. 166; 1st ed., p. 135.
[2243]1st ed., p. 135.
[2244]Frank Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” p. 15. On p. 17, he says that according to Luther “all ecclesiastical functions and relations, in so far as they concern external things, are subject to the State.”
[2245]“Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” in “Theol. Arbeiten aus dem rhein.—wissensch. Predigerverein, N.F.,” Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, p. 47 f.
[2246]“Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 504.
[2247]“Joh. Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorie,”² Breslau, 1902, p. 64 f. Paulus,ib., p. 349.
[2248]Ib.
[2249]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f.
[2250]See vol. ii., p. 297 f., from the writing, “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”
[2251]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. Cp. letter to the Elector Frederick, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).
[2252]To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. “Ipsos principes vincemus et contemnemus.”
[2253]Words of P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 28.
[2254]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 35.
[2255]Ib., Erl. ed., 31, p. 236, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” See vol. ii., p. 294. Cp.ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 625; Erl. ed., 22, p. 248, where he says, already in 1526, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc.: “So that I should like to boast that, since the time of the Apostles, the secular sword and authority has never been so clearly and grandly described and extolled as by me, as even my foes must admit.”
[2256]See vol. ii., p. 295, n. 1.
[2257]Cp. above, vol. i., p. 284 f.
[2258]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 63.
[2259]Above, p. 140 ff.; vol. ii., p. 332 f.
[2260]To Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 10, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10: “constitutis ecclesiis ... laceris autem ita rebus,” etc. Only after the Churches had been constituted could the ban be introduced as his friend wished.—For earlier Visitations see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 176 ff.
[2261]See above, p. 140 ff., and vol. iii., p. 28 ff.
[2262]Printed in E. Sehling, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff., and, before this, by A. E. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 77 ff.
[2263]Both in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 26, p. 195 ff., and Erl. ed., 23, p. 1 ff.
[2264]Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). Enders says of this work: “Almost all the proposals Luther makes here with the object of stimulating the project of a Visitation which had come to a standstill are again found in the Instructions to the Visitors.” From Luther’s previous letters Müller proves that he approved the Instructions,ib., p. 69 ff.
[2265]Thus the Weimar editors in their Introduction to the “Instructions of the Visitors,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 179.
[2266]Ib., p. 177.
[2267]In the Preface to the reader: “Visitator nova mitra infulatur, novum ambiens papatum,” etc.
[2268]Aug. 10, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 337.
[2269]Words of K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 71 f. He also gives a survey of the Instructions.
[2270]For the text see Sehling,ib., p. 143.
[2271]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 197; Erl. ed., 23, p. 5.
[2272]Müller,ib., p. 67. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 14.
[2273]Ib.
[2274]See Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 69 f.
[2275]Ib., p. 38.
[2276]Carl Holl, “Luther und das Landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“1 Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche”), Tübingen, 1911, p. 54, against C. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther.” Holl says: “The two documents cannot be reconciled, for each attempts not merely to describe or emphasise one side of the matter, but to set forth the whole, and this they do from totally different points of view. One seeks to represent the Visitation as the outcome of the paternal care of the Elector, the other as an act of self-help on the part of the Church. It is impossible to harmonise these two points of view.”
[2277]Reference to the title of his writing, “Deuttung ... des Munchkalbs zu Freyberg,” 1523. See above, vol. iii., p. 149 f.
[2278]The latter saying occurs in the “Unterricht,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 212; Erl. ed., 23, p. 28.
[2279]There is no call to lay so much stress on the Preface as to be obliged to say with Holl,ib., 54: It “necessarily assumes the significance of a silent protest.... Luther is defending the Church’s independence of the State by painting the Visitation in its true light.” Holl also says, p. 59, that Luther, here, entered upon “a struggle for the integrity of his whole work.” “To him it was of vital importance whether the ruler of the land was obeyed as the highest member of the congregation, or as a Christian Prince.” P. 60: “All the efforts directed to-day towards greater independence of the Church and larger liberty within the Church have a good right to appeal to Luther on this question.”
[2280]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). See above, p. 581. The other passages mentioned here are quoted by P. Drews,ib., pp. 95 ff., 98.
[2281]See above, vol. iv., pp. 413 and 418 f., for the corroborative statements of Scheel and Seeberg.
[2282]Vol. iii., pp. 48 ff. and 58 ff.
[2283]See Holl,ib., p. 9, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 289 (Weim. ed., 6, p. 413), on the Christian who, according to Mt. xviii., summons the culprit before the congregation: “If I am to accuse him before the congregation, I must first assemble the congregation.”
[2284]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413; Erl. ed., 21, p. 290.
[2285]Ib., p. 440 = 322. Holl,ib., p. 16. It is to Holl’s credit that he so strongly emphasises this tendency of Luther’s in favour of the independent rights of the congregation.
[2286]Cp. his letter to Spalatin, May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 378 f.: “Faciat princeps et aula hac in re quod voluerint, ego Spiritui sancto non resistam ipsi viderint.” See also “Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 381 and 561.
[2287]C. Muller,ib., p. 54, who emphasises Luther’s bias towards the State government of the Church with as much reason as Holl (see above, p. 596, n. 3) does his ideas on the independence of the Church.
[2288]Müller,ib., p. 61.
[2289]P. 79.
[2290]Vol. ii., p. 358.
[2291]Cp. above, pp. 135 f., 139 f.
[2292]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68. “De capt. babylonica.”
[2293]Cp. Holl,ib., p. 19 f. Müller,ib., p. 74 ff. See above, 55 f.
[2294]See below, p. 602 f.
[2295]P. 77.
[2296]See above, vol. ii., p. 329.
[2297]Cp. above, p. 181 ff.
[2298]See above, p. 191.
[2299]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 184.
[2300]To Tileman Schnabel, etc., June 26, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317.
[2301]P. Drews,ib., p. 101 f.
[2302]P. 580.
[2303]Wilhelm Hans, quoted in full, vol. ii., p. 312. What he says is corroborated by Emil Friedberg, the authority of law, who, speaking of the work of Carl Müller so often quoted above, says, that it is a “difficult business to determine Luther’s views,” since they are not always the same in his various writings, and since, under stress of circumstances, Luther sometimes said things that went directly against the principles elsewhere advocated by him. “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 20, 1911, p. 414.
[2304]The vacillation which characterised Luther’s attitude towards the State-Church system and which came from his early ideas concerning the true Christians who had no need of any authority over them, has recently been set forth as follows by the Protestant lawyer and historian Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg: “Luther’s true Christians were Utopian persons and hence his Church was the same. In his idealistic confidence in God he had expected too much from them. And thus there came for his Reformation an era of hesitancy and groping, which refused for a while to make way for more stable conditions. The Church which Luther had characterised as a necessary expedient for furthering the kingdom of God on earth now itself needed to be assisted and supported from without, if it was to suffice for its task. To achieve this we find Luther leaving no means untried. But his schemes were not very satisfactory. He put a patch here and another one there, appealed to the princes and then to the peasants, seeking to curry favour of one and the other simply for the sake of some small concession and in order to interest them in his Church.... At last Luther thought he had found a remedy: this was that the Church should seek support in the secular power. When quite at the end of his resources he had begun to remind the princes of their duties as rulers. From mere occasional allusions he soon passed on to energetic admonitions addressed to the ‘great ones,’ accompanied by his customary threats and abuse. It had indeed gone against the grain to summon the authorities to carry out his wishes, hence, at every opportunity, he insists on his independence of them.... Luther had in the event to submit to reproaches which he could not always honestly shift on to the shoulders of the ‘false priestlings and factious spirits.’”
Of Luther’s later years Schulthess-Rechberg says: “An era dawns when Luther can no longer see an ounce of good in the State; when he even tells the unworthy servant of God [the prince] to mind his own business. It is then that we find Luther declaring that the secular authorities have no power to watch over souls or to exercise the teaching office, that they have no authority over the clergy, etc. Here we see plainly how he, more than any other reformer, was driven by force of circumstances, and this again is a proof that Luther’s work was really more than he had bargained for. Luther ... never succeeded in viewing the relations between Church and State objectively. This and his constant efforts to disengage himself from Rome frequently gave an unexpected turn to his views. For instance, when he insists at times that heresy and unbelief do not concern the authorities (Erl. ed., 22, pp. 90, 93). Hardly has he said this than he finds himself compelled to hedge and practically to eat his words.” “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin,” etc (above, p. 573, n. 4), pp. 170-172.
[2305]In an article against P. Drews (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 478 ff.), p. 488. Hermelink adds: (p. 489) “It is true that the system of an established Church did not correspond with Luther’s ideal, but it was a political necessity and therefore seemed to him willed by God.” Hermelink’s reference to the false ideals and eschatology which influenced Luther’s theory of Church and State may be admitted as in part correct. He is also right when he says: Luther, according to his frequent statement, wished to assemble the Christians from the kingdom of Antichrist before the end of the world.Ib., p. 313.
[2306]“Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 81.