Chapter XX: Attempts at Union in View of the Proposed Council (2)

A shorter memorandum of Melanchthon’s, appended to the above, referred to the “Power and jurisdiction of the Bishops.”[1473] This in the clearest and most decided fashion marks the breakdown of all the author’s earlier seeming concessions concerning the retention of the episcopate. “Since the bishops,” he says towards the close, “in their dependence on the Pope defend his godless doctrine and godless worship ... second the Pope’s cruelty and tyrannically abuse the jurisdiction they have wrenched from the clergy ... the churches must not acknowledge them as bishops.”

At the end there is a hint at the wealth of the bishops, doubtless not unwelcome to the Princes: “The bishops can no longer hold their lands and revenues with a good conscience” because they do not make use of them for the good of souls; their possessions ought rather to be employed “for the Church,” “to provide for the preachers [ministers], to support students and the poor, and in particular to assist the law-courts, especially the matrimonial courts.” Here we have his sanction to the Church’s spoliation.

We may be certain that Melanchthon never came to use such language, so similar to Luther’s, concerning the Papal Antichrist, idolatry and murder, solely as the result of pressure on the part of the Princes, who had been enraged by the invitation to attend the Council, and were determined to crush once and for all every hope of conciliation. We may take it that his new frame of mind was partly due to Luther’s serious illness. Luther believed that his end was nigh, he adjured the Princes and his friends manfully to tackle Antichrist, and he cursed the dissensions that had broken out amongst his theologians, and promised soon to ruin his life’s work. This made a great impression on Melanchthon. As a matter of fact the relations between him and Luther, subsequent to the latter’s recovery, became closer than they had been for years.

The change in Melanchthon at Schmalkalden was immortalised by his frightful document on the Pope and the Bishops being subscribed to by thirty-two of the theologians and preachers there present.[1474] When, at a later date, the formulæ of Concord were drawn up, it was included amongst the “symbolical books” of Lutheranism.[1475] As such, along with the others, it appears down to the present day, even in the latest edition (1907), at the head of which is printed the traditional motto of the whole series: “One Lord, one faith, one Baptism” (Eph. iv. 5).

At the Schmalkalden Conference, Melanchthon, in spite of what he had written concerning the Pope, declared himself, like Luther, in favour of accepting with due reserves the invitation to the Council, as otherwise they would be rendering their position more difficult and would make the whole world think that they had rudely refused the olive-branch. The rejection of his proposal annoyed him, as also did the discourteous treatment—described by Melanchthon as “very vulgar”—which the Papal Legate endured at the hands of the Elector Johann Frederick. His fit of indignation does not, however, seem to have lasted long, as he did not refuse the invitation to draw up a statement, addressed in the name of the Assembly to all Christian Princes, in which the Council was repudiated in the strongest terms. The refusal to take any part in it, so it declares, was rendered imperative by the clear intention of the Pope to suppress heresy.[1476]

His hostility and his irritation against, the Papacy repeatedly found expression in after years.

It was quite in Luther’s style, when, in a little work which appeared at Wittenberg in 1539, he called the Pope, with his bishops and defenders, “the tyrants and persecutors of Christ,” who “are not the Church; neither are those who support them or approve such acts of violence.”[1477]

Before the War of Schmalkalden he republished several times Luther’s inflammatory pamphlet, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” of 1531 (see vol. ii., p. 391), in order to move public opinion against the Empire. To these new editions of the booklet against the Popish “bloodhounds”[1478]—one of the most violent the author ever wrote—Melanchthon added a preface in which he shows himself “animated and carried away by Luther’s words.”[1479] In reading it we feel the warmth of the fiery spirit which glows in Luther’s writings, for instance, when he classes his opponents with the “cut-throats of the streets,” whom “to resist was a work well-pleasing to God.”[1480] The Pope, according to him, is anxious “to re-establish his idolatry and his errors by dint of bloodshed, murder, everlasting devastation of the German nation and the destruction of the Electoral and Princely houses.” Thus “Spaniards and Italians, and perhaps even possibly the Turks,” will break into the German cities. “The devils rage and cause all manner of desolation.” Our enemies are “knowingly persecutors of the truth and murderers of the Saints.” Whoever is about to die let him consider, that the death of the righteous is more pleasing to God than “the life of Cain and the luxury and power of all the bishops and cardinals.”

Hence it was but natural that violent measures of defence should appear to Melanchthon both called-for and meritorious.

As a just measure of defence and resistance he regarded his own suggestion made to the Elector of Saxony through his Chancellor on the occasion of the Protestantising of the town of Halle, the residence of Albert of Brandenburg, viz. that Albert’s whole diocese of Halle and Magdeburg should be taken possession of by the Elector. Owing to Luther’s dissuasion this act of violence, which would have had momentous consequences, was, however, prevented. Melanchthon’s advice was, that they “should, as opportunity arose, seize the bishoprics, in order that the priests might be emboldened to abstain from knavish practices, to co-operate in bringing about a lasting peace, and to leave the Word of God unmolested for the future.”[1481]

In this way Melanchthon more than once gave the lie to those who extol his kindliness. Luther once said, that, whereas he stabbed with a hog-spear, Philip preferred to use goads and needles, though his little punctures turned out more painful and difficult to heal; the “little man” (Melanchthon was of small stature) was pious, and, even when he did wrong, meant no ill; he sinned because he was too lenient and allowed himself to be taken in; but this sort of thing was of little use; he, on the other hand, thought it best to speak out to the knaves; for clods a pick-axe was very useful; Philip allowed himself to be devoured, but he, on the contrary, devoured everything and spared no one.[1482]

In his controversial writings and memoranda, written in well-turned and polished language, Melanchthon went on as before to accuse the Catholic theologians and the Popes of holding doctrines and opinions, of which, as Döllinger rightly said, “no theologian had ever thought, but the opposite of which all had taught.”[1483]

He refused to recognise what was good and just in the long-looked-for proposals for the amelioration of the Church which the Papal commission submitted to Paul III. in 1537. They were made known at Wittenberg through their publication by Johann Sturm of Strasburg.

Luther at once took the field against them with his favourite weapons, the “pick-axe” and the “hog-spear.”[1484] Melanchthon mentions them, but has “not a word to say in favour of the important reforms they proposed.... The fact, however, that one of Erasmus’s writings was therein characterised as harmful, incensed him against Sadolet [one of the Cardinals whose signatures were appended].” “With good reason, and, from the schoolmaster’s point of view, quite justly,”[1485] they say of the “_Colloquia familiaria_” of Erasmus, that “this book should be forbidden in the schools,” as it might do harm to young minds.[1486] This greatly displeased Melanchthon, himself a writer on pedagogy;[1487] and yet the “_Colloquia_” in question are so permeated with indecent elements that they have been rightly instanced to prove how lax were the views then prevalent in Humanistic circles.[1488] Luther himself strongly disapproved of the “_Colloquia_” of Erasmus, declaring it a godless book, and forbidding his children to read it; therein the author put his own antichristian ideas in the mouths of others.[1489] “Erasmus, the scoundrel,” he says, gives vent to his contempt for religion “more particularly in his ‘_Colloquia_.’”[1490] “He is an incarnate scamp, as is shown by his books, notably by the ‘_Colloquia_.’”[1491]

In the Antinomian controversy at home, between Johann Agricola and Luther, it was Melanchthon who sought by means of adroit formulæ and memoranda to achieve the impossible, viz. to square Agricola’s views with Luther’s teaching at that time. In reality Melanchthon was merely working for the success of his own milder version of Luther’s view of the law, to which moreover the latter had already given his assent. To Agricola, Melanchthon wrote feelingly: “In all that Luther does there is a certain Achillean violence, of which you are not the only victim.”[1492]

On the outbreak of the Osiander controversy on Confession, the ever-ready Melanchthon again set to work, endeavouring to pour oil on the troubled waters. He assured Osiander that “were I able to bind down with chains of adamant the tempers of all the clergy, I should assuredly make this the goal of my most earnest endeavour.”[1493]

Melanchthon’s 1540 edition of the Augsburg Confession, the so-called “_Confessio variata_,” was a good sample of his elasticity and power of adaptation in the domain of dogma. The “_Variata_” caused, however, quite a commotion amongst the representatives of the innovations.

In the “_Confessio Variata_” Melanchthon, in order to curry favour with the Swiss and the adherents of the _Tetrapolitana_, with whom his party was politically leagued, set aside the “semblance of Transubstantiation” contained in the Article concerning the Supper (Art. x.) and struck out the words “_quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint_,” as well as the rejection of the contrary belief. For these was substituted: “Together with the bread and wine in the Supper the communicants are shown [’_exhibeantur_’ instead of the former ‘_adsint et distribuantur_’] the Body and Blood of Christ.” This was practically to abandon the Real Presence. “Neither the doctrine of Bucer [who was a Zwinglian] on the Supper, nor that of Calvin, is excluded.”[1494]

At a later date, in 1575, Nicholas Selnecker, a Leipzig professor, whilst actual witnesses were yet living, declared that he had been informed by officials of high standing that the alterations concerning the Supper in the “_Variata_” were due to Philip of Hesse’s epistolary representations to Melanchthon. The former had held out the hope that he, and also the Swiss, would accept the Confession should his suggestion be accepted.[1495] We may call to mind that about that same time, i.e. about December, 1539, the Landgrave was desirous of yet another concession in his favour, viz. of sanction for his bigamy, and that Bucer, who had been sent by him to Wittenberg, threw out the hint that, were permission refused, the Prince would forsake the Evangelical cause.

Melanchthon also obliterated in the “_Variata_” several other “traces of a too diplomatic attempt to conciliate the Romanists.... Melanchthon’s clearer perception of the doctrine of Justification also made some alteration necessary.” The Article “_De iustificatione_” (Art. iv.) was accordingly revised, and likewise the Article “_De bonis operibus_” (Art. xx.), that both might correspond with the doctrine already embodied in the 1535 edition of the “_Loci_.” In Article iv. the brief “_hanc fidem imputat Deus pro iustitia_” was removed and replaced by: “_homines iustos pronuntiari, id est reconciliari_,” by the imputation of righteousness, this being explained at considerable length. A new interpretation was also given to the doctrine of good works, i.e. by the thesis, that obedience to the law is necessary on the part of the justified.[1496] In conversion, the necessity of contrition, and that not merely passive, previous to Justification by faith is asserted, the Divine Will that all men be saved is openly advocated, that God is the author of sin is more strongly denied than before.[1497]

In spite of all these alterations, which, more particularly that concerning the Supper, might have wounded Luther’s susceptibilities, “Melanchthon was never reproved on account of the ‘_Variata_’ either by Luther or by others [of the sect]; what we hear to the contrary is nothing but an invention of the anti-Philippians. The truth is that the ‘_Variata_’ was generally accepted without question and made use of officially, for instance, at the religious conferences.”[1498] In January, 1541, the Augsburg Confession was to be made the basis of the first religious conference at Worms. When Melanchthon appealed to the “_Variata_,” Eck drew particular attention to the difference between the new and the old version. Melanchthon, however, insisted on the identity of their contents and would only admit that, in the “_Variata_,” he had toned down and chosen his expressions more carefully.[1499] As Eck, in order to come to the point, desisted from any further objections, the diversity was passed over. The conference, owing to other causes, was a failure, and so was the next, held at Ratisbon in April of the same year, which was fruitless owing to Melanchthon’s own conduct. Calvin, who was present, wrote on May 12 of the practices of the Protestant leaders: “Melanchthon and Bucer drew up equivocating and ambiguous formulæ on Transubstantiation, seeking to hoodwink their adversaries. They were not afraid to deal in equivocal phrases though there is nothing more mischievous.”[1500]

In connection with the eventual fate of the “_Variata_” we may here refer to the deep animosity which the more zealous Lutherans, with Flacius Illyricus at their head, displayed towards Melanchthon on account of the alterations in the Augsburg Confession. So serious did the rupture become that the dissension between the Protestant theologians actually rendered impossible any public negotiations with the Catholics. This fact proves how little Melanchthon, the then leader of the Protestants, had been successful in welding together with “chains of adamant” the theologians of his party.

The standpoint of the amended Confession of 1540, however, enlisted all Bucer’s sympathies on Melanchthon’s behalf.

With Bucer’s smooth ways Melanchthon had already found himself in harmony during the negotiations in view of the Wittenberg Concord. Mentally the two had much in common. Melanchthon had worked with Bucer at Bonn in 1543, making use of every kind of theological artifice and enlisting the service of those who were in revolt against the moral laws of the Church, in order to bring about the apostasy of Cologne, though their efforts were fruitless. Want of success here was, however, not due to any half-measures on Melanchthon’s part, for the latter repeatedly spoke against any toleration being shown to the ancient “errors.” In his reply to Eberhard Billick he attacked, for instance, the “idolatry” which prevailed in the Rhineland, witnessed to by the invocation of Saints, the veneration of images, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Processions of the Sacrament.[1501]

By this attack on the citadel of Catholicism in the Rhine Province he again reaped a harvest of trouble and anxiety, in consequence of his and Bucer’s differences with Luther on the doctrine of the Supper.

In the text of the “Cologne Book of Reform,” composed by both, Luther failed to find expressed his doctrine of the Presence of Christ, but rather the opposite. For this reason an outbreak on his part was to be feared, and Melanchthon trembled with anxiety, since, as he says in one of his letters,[1502] Luther had already begun to “stir up strife” in his sermons. He fully expected to have to go into exile. It was said that Luther was preparing a profession of faith which all his followers would have to sign. But, this time again, Melanchthon was spared, though Bucer was not so fortunate; in Luther’s furious writing against the deniers of the Sacrament, the latter was pilloried, but not Melanchthon.[1503] Outwardly Luther and Melanchthon remained friends. In the Swiss camp they were well aware of the difficulties of the scholar who refused to place himself blindly under the spell of Luther’s opinions. Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor at Zürich, invited him to come there and promised to see that the magistrates provided him with a suitable stipend. Calvin declared later, in 1560, that Melanchthon had several times told him sorrowfully, that he would much rather live in Geneva than in Wittenberg.[1504] Concerning Melanchthon’s views on the Eucharist, Calvin said: “I can assure you a hundred times over, that to make out Philip to be at variance with me on this doctrine is like tearing him away from his own self.”[1505] This explains why Melanchthon always sought to evade the theological question as to how Christ is present in the Sacrament.

One of the last important works he carried out with Luther was the so-called “Wittenberg Reformation,” a writing drawn up at the Elector’s request. The document, which was presented by Luther and the Wittenberg theologians on January 14, 1545, was intended, in view of the anticipated Diet, to express theologically the position of the Reformers with regard to a “Christian Settlement.” Here Melanchthon found himself in his own element. In this work he distinguished himself, particularly by his cleverly contrived attempts to make out the new doctrine to be that of the old and real Church Catholic, by his stern aversion to Popish “idolatry” and by his repudiation of anything that might be regarded as a concession, also by the unfeasible proposal he made out of mockery, that the bishops, in order to make it possible for the Protestants to join their congregations, should “begin by introducing the pure evangelical doctrine and Christian distribution of the Sacraments,” in which case Protestants would obey them.[1506]

The Wittenbergers, in other words, offered to recognise the episcopate under the old condition, upon which they were ever harping, though well aware that it was impossible for the bishops to accept it.[1507]

They thus showed plainly how much store was to be set on the tolerance of certain externals promised by the wily Melanchthon. In this document he “retained certain outward forms to which the people were accustomed, proposing, however, to render them innocuous by imbuing them with a new spirit, and to use them as means of religious and moral education in the interests of the Evangelical cause. It was in the same sense that he was ready to recognise the episcopate.”[1508] In reality it was the merest irony to demand, that all the bishops of Christendom should prepare the way for and welcome the innovations. Such was, however, the spirit and tone of Melanchthon’s “very mild reform,” as Brück the Chancellor described it to the Elector. Luther, however, in order as it were to furnish a commentary on its real sense, at that very time put his pen to his last and most revolting work against the Papacy.[1509]

END OF VOL. III

PRINTED BY
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD.
PLYMOUTH

FOOTNOTES:

[1] According to Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” p. 235, Luther “fell back from the position he had assumed from 1519 to the beginning of 1521 owing to the subjective, and also objective, impossibility [of proceeding in so radical a way as previously.]” H. Lang, a Protestant, whose “M. Luther, ein religiöses Charakterbild,” 1870, he quotes, goes still further, and ascribes to Luther the entire abandonment of his own principles; he is also of opinion that Luther does not disguise the fact that [in the Anabaptist business] he would have considered all in order had the reforms been carried out by himself. “That he was vexed to see others reap where he had sown, is only human nature,” says Lang; thus he “sided with the reactionaries,” though he had really taught what the fanatics were putting in practice; from that time forward he advocated a “mediæval ecclesiasticism,” deprived the Congregations of the management of the reform, which they had set about so vigorously, and transferred it to the rulers. Such a view is widely held among Protestant historians to-day.

[2] Cp. vol. ii., p. 398 f.

[3] J. Schmidlin, in the article “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” in the “Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1909, Nos. 14-16, p. 117. The writer even speaks of the “Klotz-Abhängigkeit” on God which was Luther’s ideal.

[4] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 436 ff.; Erl. ed., “Comment. in Galat.,” 1, p. iii. ff.; 3, p. 121 f.

[5] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275 f.

[6] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen” (Loesche, p. 75 ff.).

[7] Cp. Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott, etc., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 214; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15: “Faith is divided into three principal parts, according to the three persons of the Holy Trinity,” etc.

[8] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 41 ff., 143 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 322 _seq._, 329 _seq._

[9] _Ibid._, pp. 686, 689; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 259, 261. In the latter passage he refers to the “sign of Grace,” which is “Christ on the Cross and all His dear Saints.”

[10] In “Bull. de littér. ecclésiast.,” 1909, p. 198 f.

[11] O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus” (“Prolegomena. Biblicismus und Traditionalismus in der altprotest. Theol.”), 1908, p. 98.

[12] _Ibid._, pp. 102, 103, 105.

[13] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 63. Cp. _ibid._, p. 7 and p. 100 and other passages where similar phrases occur. He says, for instance, of belief: “The Articles of Faith are contrary to all philosophy, geometry, arithmetic and indeed to all reason. It is a question of ‘_est_,’ ‘_non_,’ yes and no. This no one can reconcile.” For this reason he would not come to any “agreement” with Zwingli, who thought otherwise.

[14] Ritschl, _ibid._, p. 79.

[15] “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 136, 1909, p. 35, in dealing with Luther’s “thisworldliness.”

[16] “De captivitate babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 536; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 68.

[17] From the writing “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 23, 27 f.; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 179, 185 f.

[18] “De capt. bab.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 70.

[19] _Ibid._, p. 536 f.=68, 70.

[20] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 258 ff.; Erl. ed., 13², p. 228 f.

[21] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 157; Erl. ed., 27, p. 343.

[22] “Since Christ never commanded that the Sacrament should be received by everyone, it is permissible not only to receive only under one kind, but under neither.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 79; Erl. ed., 27, p. 72. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 507: “_Cum Christus non praecepisset ulla (specie) uti_”.

[23] The Larger Catechism of 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 129: “Here (in Scripture) we have God’s command and institution”; hence it is “seriously and strictly commanded that we be baptised on pain of not being saved.”

[24] To Haupold and others on September 17, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 257, and _ibid._, 53, p. 77 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 236).

[25] The editor of the Weimar ed., 8, p. 132.

[26] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 127 (omitted in the 2nd edition). In 1524 Luther, when engaged with Münzer, still held that “all should preach stoutly and freely as they were able and against whomsoever they pleased.... Let the spirits fall upon one another and fight it out. Should some be led astray, so much the worse.” True doctrine being the fittest would nevertheless survive and prevail. To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 265 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). The contradiction involved in the freedom which Luther apparently concedes to him was pointed out by Münzer in his “Schutzrede,” Fol. C. III., “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375. Hence when Luther counselled that the revolt should be put down by force of arms, those who considered the war unjust, for instance because they happened to hold Anabaptist views, could well appeal to Luther and refuse to lend their assistance. (See present work, vol. ii., p. 311 f.)

[27] A. Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum,” Denifle, vol. ii., 1909, p. 251 f.

[28] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.

[29] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 12², p. 221.

[30] Though it might be urged that he subordinates the first too much to the second even in his earlier period. In the “Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott,” etc. (1520), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 215; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15, he teaches: “that there are two ways of believing: First, concerning God, when I believe what is said of God to be true, just as I believe that to be true which is said of the Turks, of the devil, or of hell; this faith is more a sort of knowledge, or observation, than real faith. According to the other we believe _in_ God (_Credo in Deum_), i.e. when I not only believe that to be true which is said of God, but place my trust in Him.... It is only such a faith which hazards all on God ... which makes a Christian.... This is a living faith ... and this none can give but God alone.” The Catholic Church, however, had always required a “living faith,” one working by charity (_fides caritate formata_). It is remarkable how much, in the above passage, Luther allows the formal principle of historical faith, viz. the authority of the Revealing God, to recede into the background.

[31] O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch. des Protestantismus,” 1, p. 81.

[32] “Histor. Zeitschrift,” 97, p. 1 ff. Art.: “Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der modernen Welt,” p. 28: “It is evident that Protestantism cannot be regarded as directly paving the way for the modern world. On the contrary, it appears rather as an entire reversion to mediæval fashions of thought. It is shown that Protestantism was and yet is, at least to some extent, a hindrance to the development of the modern world.”

[33] “Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 830, n.

[34] Letter of December, 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266). There we read: “God is older than all the Councils and the Fathers.” “Are we to send God to school and prune the feathers (quill pens) of the Holy Ghost?” “We hazard all on the Word ... against all the Churches.” _Ibid._, p. 235-238=21-25.

[35] “Theolog. Literaturztg.,” 1884, p. 37 _seq._

[36] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 228. Church postils.

[37] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391.

[38] _Ibid._, 6, p. 540=5, p. 74.

[39] Through the “Reformer sent by God,” the Father had “revealed” the mystery of His Son. Thus Bugenhagen, on February 22, 1546. Cp. vol. vi., XL., 2.

[40] “Die Renaissance des Christentums im 16 Jahrh.,” 1904, p. 30 ff.

[41] “Die christliche Religion” in “Kultur der Gegenwart,” 1, p. 4, 397. _Ibid._: “The final result is the recognition by Protestantism of an internal antinomy of religion and Church, which are unable to subsist without each other nor yet to suffer each other, from which conflict there can only spring a fresh presentment of the purer, churchless, Christian idea.”

[42] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 689 (1², p. 723).

[43] “Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, p. 74 _seq._, 147 _seq._

[44] “Christliche Welt,” 1904, No. 26.

[45] “Monatskorr. des Evangel. Bundes,” 1908, No. 9.

[46] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. vii. f.

[47] “An den christlichen Adel,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 428; Erl. ed., 21, p. 307.

[48] _Ibid._, 429=308.

[49] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 258; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 197 f.: “Seeing that Bishops and Prelates remain quiescent, do not resist, care but little and so leave Christendom to go to destruction, we must humbly implore God’s help to oppose the evil, and after that put our own hands to the job.... It is not right that we should support the servants and menials of the Pope and even his court fools and harlots to the harm and injury of our souls.... These, surely, are the real Turks whom the King, the Princes and the Nobles ought to attack first,” just as a father of a family who has gone out of his mind “must be placed under restraint and controlled.... The best and only thing to do was, for the King, Princes, Nobles, townships and parishes to put their hands to the business and make an end of it themselves, so that the bishops and clergy, who are so timorous, may be able to follow.... Nor must any attention be paid to the ban and the threats by means of which they fancy they can save their skins.”

[50] In strange contrast, to the last passage quoted, he goes on to inculcate the most respectful obedience to the secular authorities: “Even though they do what is wrong, still God wills that they should be obeyed without subterfuge or danger” (p. 259=198). They have “nothing to do with the preaching and the faith.” “They must not be resisted even though they do what is unjust” (_ibid._). “There are many abuses prevalent amongst the secular authorities,” etc. (p. 260=199). He is accordingly very anxious for their improvement.

[51] To Spalatin, February 27, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 90.

[52] Preface to the writing “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt wie weytt man yhr Gehorsam schuldig sey” (1523). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.

[53] “Vom Missbrauch der Messen,” 1521-1522, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139. To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 219: “_Principem esse et non aliqua parte latronem esse, aut non aut vix possibile est, eoque maiorem, quo maior princeps fuerit_.” This he says in excuse of his acceptance of the hospitality of the Wartburg offered him by the Elector.

[54] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”

[55] To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 210 f.; Erl. ed., 55, p. 256 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). Cp. for above passages P. Drews “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” in “Zeitschrift für Theol. und Kirche,” 18, 1908, Ergänzungsheft, p. 31 ff.

[56] Drews, _ibid._, p. 34.

[57] Cp. vol. ii., p. 113.

[58] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 245 f. Church Postils. Sermon for Easter Monday, published in 1523. Order and instruction [how henceforward the sacrament is to be received]. Cp. _ibid._, p. 197. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 298, where Luther says: “Those who do not believe do not belong to the kingdom of Christ, but to the kingdom of the world.”

[59] “Troubled consciences” alone would appreciate the consolation in his chief doctrine, viz. that of Justification, for which reason Melanchthon in the apology of the Augsburg Confession (“Symbol. Bücher^[10],” pp. 87, 90, 118, 120, 174) is fond of representing Justification by faith alone under the aspect of a solace and consolation amidst the terrors of conscience caused by the consciousness of sin. Whoever had not experienced such fears could have no real understanding of Justification. Such a view of Justification, K. Holl, a Protestant theologian, remarks had its value while it was still a question of winning over Catholics to the new teaching, since, according to Luther, the Catholic trust in works necessarily led to “despair.” But, in the new generation, who had grown up as Lutherans, “consciences were already comforted before ever they experienced any terrors”; nor did Luther make it at all plain how often, i.e. whether “once only or more frequently,” it was necessary to experience the consoling power of the Gospel amidst terrors of conscience in order to arrive at the full assurance of Justification. “Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906, p. 14.

[60] “Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne ... Macht habe alle Lere zu urteylen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 401 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 140 ff.

[61] We have indicated in the above our own position with respect to two opposing views recently put forward concerning the development of the early Lutheran Church, viz. P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (see above, p. 24, n. 4), and H. Hermelink, “Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,” in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., with epilogue on Drews. See also vol. v., xxx., 2, on State and State Church according to Luther’s views and complaints. While Drews emphasises the “congregations of true believers” as “Luther’s ideal” (p. 103), Hermelink lays stress on the fact that Luther always believed that in the last instance the Christian authorities would be forced to introduce and see to the uniformity of worship in their lands. The disagreement on so vital an historical question only emphasises anew the want of consistency in Luther and the contradictions contained in his statements. See vol. ii., p. 112, n. 1. Cp. p. 294 ff., and the quotation (from W. Hans): “The contradictions in the theory [Luther’s] and between his theory and practice can never be explained.”

[62] Cp. Melanchthon’s tract “_De potestate papæ_” added to the Schmalkalden Articles in “Die symbolischen Bücher,”^[10] 1907, ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 339: “_Imprimis autem oportet præcipua membra ecclesiæ, reges et principes, consulere ecclesiæ.... Prima enim cura regum esse debet, ut ornent gloriam Dei._” Above all, he says, referring to the Papacy, they must not make use of their power “_ad confirmandam idolatriam et cetera infinita flagitia et ad faciendas cædes sanctorum_.”

[63] R. Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 561, who appeals to passages in Luther’s “Von guten Wercken,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 259 ff.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 198 f. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 299.

[64] Sohm, _ibid._, p. 579.

[65] Melanchthon even describes it as the first duty of the principal member of the Church: “_curare, ut errores tollantur et conscientiæ sanentur_.” “Symbolische Bücher,” _ibid._

[66] Sohm, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, 1892, p. 579.

[67] _Ibid._, p. 615, where the passages from Jonas’s writings are given.

[68] _Ibid._, pp. 630, 618; for further details on the Consistories and Luther’s relations to them, see our vol. v., xxx., 3; cp. xxxv., 2.

[69] Wilhelm Hans, a Protestant theologian, quoted in our vol. ii., p. 312.

[70] First edition, p. 127. In the second edition the passage commencing with the words “The so-called” has been altered.

[71] “Luthers Anschauung vom Staate und der Gesellschaft” (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.”), 1901, p. 25. Elsewhere Luther speaks otherwise. We must remember that in the above writing he has in mind chiefly the Catholic authorities who were opposing the new Evangel.

[72] _Ibid._

[73] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 183.

[74] _Ibid._, p. 185.

[75] Brandenburg, p. 24, from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 257. Commentary on Psalm lxxxii.

[76] “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 267 ff., 479 ff.

[77] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 344 f.

[78] On the development of Luther’s idea of the Church, see vol. vi., xxxviii., 3 and 4. On the shaping of the relations between Church and State by Luther, see vol. v., xxxv., 2.

[79] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 259).

[80] On November 30, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 337 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 277 ff.).

[81] C. A. Burkhardt, “Gesch. der sächsischen Kirchen-und Schulvisitation von 1524 bis 1545,” 1879, p. 16.

[82] To Johann, Elector of Saxony, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[83] To the Elector Johann in the letter quoted above.

[84] To Spalatin, on March 19, 1520 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 263).

[85] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[86] Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 114.

[87] In the work “An den christlichen Adel” of 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 285. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 296.

[88] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 413=290.

[89] To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372).

[90] To the Elector Johann, November 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[91] To Spalatin at Altenburg, January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 2 ff. Spalatin had resigned the Court Chaplaincy on the death of the Elector Frederick and become pastor of Altenburg. From this time Luther’s letters to him assume a different character, the consideration for the Court and the desire to work on it through Spalatin being no longer apparent. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 23.

[92] To Amsdorf, January 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 532.

[93] See below, xvii., 5, and vol. iv., xxii., 5.

[94] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 205; Erl. ed., 23, p. 93. “Von Ehesachen,” 1530.

[95] “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 204, art. 13.

[96] _Ibid._, p. 343.

[97] On January 7, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 6.

[98] _Ibid._, pp. 6, 7.

[99] “Werke,” Wittenberg ed., 9, p. 244. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 8, n. 1.

[100] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 240. “Table-Talk.”

[101] On January 18, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716 f.

[102] On January 1, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 4.

[103] Will of January 6, 1542, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422.

[104] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 469; Erl. ed., 25², p. 126. Dating from the commencement of 1531.

[105] _Ibid._, p. 447=111.

[106] See vol. ii., p. 391.

[107] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332 _seq._ “Table-Talk.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 133 of the year 1540.

[108] On May 8, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 5 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274).

[109] On same date, _ibid._, p. 6 (“Briefwechsel,” _ibid._).

[110] On March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[111] In the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8. It is true that this and the following statement belong to the period subsequent to the Diet of Augsburg, but they also throw light on the earlier period.

[112] In a Latin memorandum which Enders with some probability assigns to the latter half of August, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76: “_Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus; pacem enim ad ima tartara relegandam esse dico, quæ cum evangelii iactura redimitur_.” There are no grounds for doubting Luther’s authorship, but the original was probably written in German.

[113] W. Walther, “Luthers Waffen,” 1886, p. 158, and his “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 246 ff., 278 ff.

[114] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of the Gospel of St. John, 1530-1532. Cp. Walther, _ibid._

[115] Walther, _ibid._, p. 170.

[116] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.

[117] _Ibid._, p. 224.

[118] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 621; Erl. ed., 24², p. 46, in the work “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists,” 1520.

[119] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 330 in the “Kirchenpostille.”

[120] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121, “Kirchenpostille.”

[121] An earlier explanation of Luther’s as to the way in which he understood destruction only shows that then, in 1522, he was averse to the carrying out of such a project: “This destruction and annihilation I would not have understood as meaning the use of violence and the sword. For they are not worthy of such chastisement nor would anything be gained by it—but as Daniel viii. teaches: Antichrist shall be destroyed without hands, when everyone teaches, speaks and holds God’s Word against him.... This is a true Christian destruction.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178. Even H. Preuss recognises in his “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist,” p. 115, that, in Luther’s replies to Alveld and in his epitome of Silvester Prierias, “there smoulders such anger as shows that recourse to arms was imminent.” Cp. passages from Luther’s writings referred to in vol. ii., p. 190, n. 3.

[122] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 180 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 105), in a “Memorandum on the abolition of the Mass and monastic life, etc.,” dated July 13, and assigned by Enders to the year 1530.

[123] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. trans.), 5, p. 288.

[124] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 76 _seq._, where will be found the opinions of Link, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen and Amsdorf, given at the same time as to “whether a ruler may protect his subjects against religious persecution by the Emperor or other Princes by engaging in war?” Cp. the printed form of Luther’s opinion given in G. Berbig, “Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” Hft. 5, Leipzig, 1908, p. 98 f.

[125] “_(Oportet) ut id vocante aliquo singulari spiritu et fide faciat; alias omnino cedere debet et ipse gladio superiori et cum christianis, quos patitur, mori._” Instead of “_patitur_,” as Enders has it, Berbig has “_fatetur_,” which is certainly better.

[126] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, pp. 1 and 55, p. 264 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231) (March 28, 1528).

[127] To Chancellor Brück, March 28, 1528, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 266 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 231).

[128] v. Schubert, “Beiträge zur Gesch. der evangel. Bekenntnis-und Bündnisbildung, 1529-1530,” “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 29, 1908, p. 273 f., an article giving interesting details concerning the earlier history of the League of Schmalkalden.

[129] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxiii., and, still better, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette (Seidemann), 6, p. 105 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 192). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 647 f.

[130] v. Schubert, _ibid._, p. 306 f.

[131] Cp. Melanchthon in the letter to Bugenhagen, Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 248.

[132] v. Schubert, _ibid._, p. 313.

[133] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 138 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 239).

[134] _Ibid._, p. 142.

[135] _Ibid._, p. 140 f. On the memorandum destined to become famous, cp. O. Clemen’s article in “Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.

[136] Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 20.

[137] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[138] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 284.

[139] Reprinted by Enders in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 286. Written on October 21, 1530.

[140] Luther to Lazarus Spengler, February 15, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361): “It happened that they disputed sharply with us at Torgau.”

[141] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 295.

[142] See vol. ii., p. 391 ff.

[143] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 265.

[144] _Ibid._, p. 266 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296, dated “end of October, 1530”).

[145] Cp. Enders “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 299 f.

[146] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[147] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344. See below, p. 60.

[148] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 225. Enders (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298) gave reasons for dating it at the “end of October, 1530.”

[149] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 249.

[150] Text in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 296 f. For above date see also O. Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund, 1530-1532, und der Nürnberger Religionsfriede,” 1892, p. 271.

[151] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 298, from M. M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 78.

[152] Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22; Mayer, _ibid._, p. 73.

[153] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 469.

[154] _Ibid._, p. 471.

[155] Enders, 8, p. 322.

[156] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 344.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 290, in the “Hauspostille,” Second Sermon for the 5th Sunday after Epiphany (_c._ 1532).

[158] To Lazarus Spengler, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 213 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 361). Cp. Ludw. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volks im Luthertum und im Calvinismus des 16. Jahrhunderts, Diss.,” 1903, pp. 6-18.

[159] To a Nuremberg burgher, March 18, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 221 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 378).

[160] Winckelmann, “Der Schmalkaldische Bund,” p. 91. Cp. Enders, 8, p. 361, n. 2.

[161] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 22.

[162] From the Gotha Cod., 399, fol. 139, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 242.

[163] Sammelschrift ohne Gesamttitel, Dresden, 1532. Vorne: Innhalt dieses Büchleins. 1. Ein Auszug usw.; 2. Rathschlag M. Luthers an den Churfürsten von Sachsen; 3. Erklärung usw.

[164] For further particulars of the criticism of Cochlæus, see Enders, 7, p. 242 ff.

[165] Cp. the extract given by Enders, _ibid._, 244.

[166] See vol. ii., p. 171 f. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 277.

[167] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. Enders refers it to the “latter half of August, 1531.”

[168] On December 12, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 204 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 331).

[169] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 3^[18], p. 292 ff.

[170] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 332 and Mathesius “Tischreden,” p. 133. Account given in his own words.

[171] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 334 _seq._

[172] On July 14, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 63.

[173] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 134.

[174] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 362.

[175] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 334, “Tischreden.”

[176] _Ibid._

[177] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 363 _seq._

[178] _Ibid._, p. 366 _seq._: “_Ita ut nos habeamus gladium traditum possessorium. Cæsar vero tantum in nobis habet gladium petitorium_, these are not times _ut tempore martyrum, ubi Diocletianus solus regebat_.”

[179] The passage from “indeed if one” to “as a tyrant” was omitted by Rebenstock in his Table-Talk and is differently worded in the German Table-Talk, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 194 f.

[180] “Colloquia,” l.c., pp. 365, 367: “_Papæ adimo gladium, non cæsari, quia papa non debet esse magistratus neque tyrannus_.”

[181] In the “Tischreden” of Mathesius (p. 80), Luther says: “We shall never be successful against them [the Turks] unless we fall upon them and the priests at the right moment and smite them dead.” The editor remarks: “By this he can only mean the priests in general, not those only of the two small bishoprics.” See vol. ii., p. 324. Cp. vol. ii., p. 325, and N. Paulus, “Luther über die Tötung katholischer Geistlichen” (Histor.-polit. Blätter 147, 1911), p. 92 ff.

[182] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 402.

[183] Commencement of December, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “_Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ qui illos occiderent._”

[184] See xv., 4. For reply see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.

[185] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78, and Letters ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 223.

[186] Thus the editor of the memorandum, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 80 f., with a reference to the document in question in the Weimar Archives, and to Seckendorf, 3, pp. 200, 252.

[187] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” p. 6, 60 f.

[188] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87; “Briefe,” 5, p. 159.

[189] “That given under the Elector Johann,” says Luther, i.e. that of March, 1530 (above, p. 52), in which Luther had declared that armed resistance against the Emperor “can in no way be reconciled with Scripture.”

[190] “Briefe,” 5, p. 188. The passage concludes with a translation of the Latin text appended by a later hand.

[191] On June 11, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 165; “Briefe,” 5, p. 188.

[192] On December 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 313; “Briefe,” 5, p. 233.

[193] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 245 ff., where he gives extracts from the publication in question. According to him, Luther’s friend, J. Menius, also introduces the memorandum with the words: “An old writing _said to be_ by the Reverend D. M. L.” “On self-defence,” 1547.

[194] The tract is printed by Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges,” 2, Gotha, 1645, p. 39 ff., and the passage in question (p. 50) runs: “D. Pommer and Melanchthon have repudiated D. Martin’s counsels to the Elector Johann ... in a public writing, and not only declare that they are not D. Martin’s but have condemned them as false, and contrary to the plain truth of God’s Word.” P. Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 134, says: “Naturally the repudiation of this memorandum of Luther’s of March, 1530, on the part of theologians of the standing of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, who had actually sanctioned it themselves, was not of a nature to enhance the reputations of those theologians amongst such as had read Luther’s early writings on the behaviour to be observed towards the secular authority.” Cp. O. Clemen, “Bemerkungen zu Luthers Rathschlag an Kurfürst Johann von Sachsen vom 6. März 1530,” in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1909, p. 471 ff.

[195] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, 2^[18], p. 355 ff. The passage in question is also reprinted in Luther’s “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 273 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 241 f.

[196] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 40 ff.

[197] _Ibid._, p. 41. In Köstlin-Kawerau also (1, p. 600) it is pointed out that Luther “warns against any compliance with the [Emperor’s] call.”

[198] _Ibid._

[199] “_Ne susciperetur ullo modo bellum huiusmodi._” Cp. Luther to Spalatin, December 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333.

[200] _Ibid._

[201] Propos., 34. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”^[9], p. 178. P. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” 1905, seeks the actual source of the proposition condemned. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 352, merely quotes the passage from the Resolutions in which Luther incidentally speaks of the “Great lords in the Church,” “who dream of nothing but war against the Turks [for which purpose the Pope was at that time imposing taxes], and, instead of fighting sin, withstand God’s chastisement for sin and thus resist God Himself.”

[202] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 108 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f. “On the Turkish War,” 1529.

[203] _Ibid._, p. 110=35 f.

[204] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 708 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 18; “Bul. of the Evening Feed of our most Holy Lord the Pope.”

[205] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 f. “On the Turkish War.” “I fear that Germany will fall to the Turks. But I, poor Luther, am supposed to be to blame for everything; even the Peasant Revolt and the denial of the Sacrament are laid to my charge.” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 392, and Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[206] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 32 ff.

[207] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 160 ff.=80 ff. The Turk as a “Maker of Martyrs,” p. 175=96.

[208] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 205 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 248 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 514 _seq._

[209] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396 f. “Table-Talk.”

[210] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.

[211] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 397.

[212] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 115; Erl. ed., 31, p. 40. “On the Turkish War.”

[213] _Ibid._, p. 196=119. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 149: “_Ego credo Turcicum regnum non posse vi opprimi_” (a. 1540).

[214] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 197=121.

[215] _Ibid._, p. 113=39. Even the taking of Rome in 1527 proves the proposition which the Pope had condemned. “Christ has determined to teach them to understand my Article, that Christians must not fight; the condemned Article is now avenged” (p. 115=41).

[216] _Ibid._, p. 111=36.

[217] _Ibid._, p. 148=79. At the Diet of Spires in 1529.

[218] _Ibid._, p. 148=79.

[219] “Werke,” p. 195=118. This he continued to assert to the very end of his life. In 1545 he writes: “The Turk also seduces the world, but he does not sit in the Temple of God, does not take the name of Christ and St. Peter ... but this destroyer in our midst pretends to be a friend, wants to be styled father, and is twice as bad as the Turk. This is the abomination of desolation,” etc. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 211. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom, vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[220] _Ibid._, p. 195=119.

[221] _Ibid._, p. 148=79. It is impossible to concur in the unconditional praise usually bestowed upon Luther by Protestants on account of his attitude in the midst of the Turkish peril. It was even said that he gave expression in powerful language, and without any thought of personal interest, to what God required “of every Christian and every German” in this emergency. Nor is it correct to state “that the contradiction with his later views was merely apparent” when he expressed himself at first as against the campaign. How real the contradiction is can be seen not only from the above and from what follows, but also from his later recommendations based on religious motives in favour of the war. Thus he says in the “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken” of the year 1541 (see vol. v., xxxiv. 2): “We are fighting to preserve God’s Word and His Church,” etc. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 95 f.).

[222] “Dialogue de bello contra Turcas, in antilogias Lutheri.”

[223] On December 16, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 205. For Brück’s reply, cp. Hassencamp, “Hessische Kirchengesch.,” 1, p. 215, 1.

[224] To Melanchthon, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 303. At the end are greetings to the two other friends referred to. The latter would inform the Elector of the anxieties and prayers of the writer.

[225] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 396.

[226] On Ezechiel xxxviii.-xxxix., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 219 ff., Erl. ed., 41, p. 220 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 200.

[227] Cp. A. Westermann, “Die Türkenhilfe und die politischkirchlichen Parteien auf dem Reichstag zu Regensburg 1532,” Heidelberg, 1910.

[228] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 389. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 405, concerning the news of an impending attack by the Turks in 1538: “I look upon it as a fresh invention of Ferdinand’s; he is planning another tax such as he devised before.”

[229] _Ibid._, p. 401.

[230] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 401.

[231] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 393.

[232] _Ibid._, 55, p. 202 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 370).

[233] On Ferdinand’s reason for not seeking the Elector’s help, see Enders on the letter referred to, p. 371.