Chapter XX: Attempts at Union in View of the Proposed Council (3)

[234] Cp., for instance, Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 257: “Pray! _Quia non est spes amplius in armis, sed in Deo._ If anyone is to beat the Turk, it will surely be the little children, who say the Our Father,” etc. (1542).

[235] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 394.

[236] To Amsdorf, June 13, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 196.

[237] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 396. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 406.

[238] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 399.

[239] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 113; Erl. ed., 31, p. 39. “On the Turkish War,” 1529. “The angels are arming themselves for the fight and are determined to overthrow the Turk, together with the Pope, and to cast them both into hell” (1540). Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 244.

[240] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, p. 395 _seq._; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 379. Other instances of the hatred which caused him to compare Pope with Turk are to be found in the “Table-Talk” ed. by Kroker, according to the collection of Mathesius: “_Propter crudelitatem_, Philippus [Melanchthon] is hostile to the Turk ... but Philippus is not yet sufficiently angry with the Pope,” p. 307 (1542-1543). “_Deus hunc articulum (incarnationis) defendit hodie contra Turcam et papam semperque miraculis approbat_,” p. 94 (1540).

[241] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 401.

[242] _Ibid._, 403.

[243] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391.

[244] This is the only possible explanation of the following prayer contained in the solemn service for the Ordination of Ministers which he had drafted: “That Thou wouldst at length restrain and put an end to the wicked atrocities of the Pope and Mahometh and other factious spirits, who blaspheme Thy Name, destroy Thy Kingdom and resist Thy Will” (_ibid._, 64, p. 292).

[245] _Ibid._, 62, p. 389.

[246] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 31, p. 33.

[247] _Ibid._, 19, p. 631, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526.

[248] _Ibid._, 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[249] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406 f. “Tischreden.”

[250] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231. “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottisdiensts,” 1526. In connection with Luther’s favourite expression “We Germans,” we may here remark that Luther’s opponents at Leipzig spread the report that he was really of Bohemian origin. This they did when, in his Sermon on the Body of Christ, preached in 1519, he had demanded the general use of the chalice at communion, as did the Utraquists of Bohemia. As to this statement that “I was born in Bohemia, educated at Prague and instructed in Wiclif’s writings,” Luther replied in his writing: “Erklerung etlicher Artickel yn seynem Sermon von dem heyligen Sacrament,” 1520, that this was a “piece of folly.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 81 f.

[251] Cp. “Tischreden.” c. 76: “Von Landen und Städten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 405 ff. Before this we read, _ibid._, p. 390: “Germany has always been the best land and nation; but what befell Troy will also befall her,” etc.

[252] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 406.

[253] Cp. above p. 55, p. 71 f. and p. 77, the passages against the Emperor, who “boasts so shamelessly of being the true, chief protector of the Christian faith,” though he is but “a poor bag of worms,” and against his blind and hidden falsehoods. Other abuse of the Emperor, interspersed with praise, will be quoted below (p. 104 f.).

[254] To Johann Ludicke, Pastor at Cottbus, on February 8, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 87. Cp. above, p. 72 f.

[255] To the Elector Johann Frederick in January, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 78. Cp. above, p. 70 f.

[256] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 281 f., 300 f.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 10 f., 30.

[257] _Ibid._, p. 290=22.

[258] Doctor Johann Mensing, O.P., a literary opponent of Luther’s, in dedicating a polemical tract of 1526, defends the Catholics’ sense of patriotism, speaking of Luther as the “destroyer of our fair German land” (see “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 478). Another Dominican, Thomas Rhadinus Todischus, in 1520, in the title of a work published at Rome, describes him as “violating the glory of the nation” (“_nationis gloriam violans_”). The latter work was attributed by Luther and Melanchthon to Emser, who, however, repudiated the authorship. Cp. _ibid._, 7, p. 259.

[259] See vol. i., p. 403.

[260] _Ibid._

[261] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 289; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 9 f.

[262] “Luthers Stellung zu Concil und Kirche,” 1876, p. 69.

[263] H. Meltzer, “Luther als deutscher Mann,” Tübingen, 1905, p. 56.

[264] Cp. above, p. 45 f. “Let things take their course and do their worst, whether it be war or rebellion, as God’s anger may decree.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[265] On November 10, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 407: “_Ego pæne de Germania desperavi_,” etc. Of this passage we read in Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 572): “The exaltation which had been experienced by every grade of the nation during the first period of the Reformation had, as a matter of fact, largely died out, and now the lowest motives held sway.”

[266] On March 7, 1543, _ibid._, p. 548: “_Neque bene habebit Germania, sive regnet Turca sive nostrates_,” etc.

[267] See vol. v., xxxv., 6.

[268] _Ibid._, xxxv., 3.

[269] _Ibid._

[270] “Deutsche Literaturztg.,” 1905, No. 10, Scheel’s Review of H. Meltzer’s “Luther als deutscher Mann” (see above, p. 98, n. 1).

[271] Meltzer, _ibid._, 56.

[272] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57.

[273] “Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat,” p. 10, 386 f.

[274] “Vorträge über die Wiedervereinigung der chr. Kirchen,” authentic edition, 1888, p. 53 f. Cp. E. Michael, “Döllinger,³” p. 230 ff. Michael rightly quotes the following striking passage of the earlier Döllinger as descriptive of the attitude of the Church towards Luther: “May not the time come, nay, be already at hand, when [Protestant] preachers and theologians will take a calmer view of things and realise that the Catholic Church in Germany only did what she could not avoid doing? All the reproaches and charges made against this Church amount in fine to this, that she rejected the demand made of her in the name of the Reformation to break with her past, that she remained faithful to her traditions, that she persisted in developing along the lines originally laid down, and resolved to fulfil her task while holding fast to the uninterrupted continuity of her ecclesiastical life and her connection with the other portions of the Church” (“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 490).

[275] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 14, p. 408 f.

[276] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 77, in “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”

[277] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222. “Zwey keyserliche ... Gepott,” 1524.

[278] In the same way that he here abuses the Emperor, so he also knows how to bestow praise upon him; for instance, in the official writing referred to above (p. 89) to the Electoral Prince Joachim of Brandenburg and in his “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” where he declares, strangely enough, that “our beloved Emperor Carol” has shown himself hitherto, and last of all at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, such, that he has won the respect and love of the whole world and deserves that no trouble should befall him, and that our people should only speak in praise of his Imperial virtue (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23), and yet, even there, in consequence of his edict against the new faith at the Diet of Augsburg, he puts the Emperor with the Pope, as the originators of a resolution which “must prove an eternal blot upon all the Princes and the whole Empire, and make us Germans blush for shame before God and the whole world,” so that “even the Turk, the ‘Tattars’ and ‘Moscobites’ despise us.” “Who under the whole expanse of heaven will for the future fear us or think well of us when they hear that we allow ourselves to be hoaxed, mocked, treated as children, as fools, nay, even as clods and blocks by the cursed Pope and his tools [who hold the Emperor in leading strings]?... Every German may well regret that he was born a German and is called a German” (_ibid._, p. 285=15). On the strength of the words quoted above in praise of the Emperor we find Luther credited in Protestant works of history with “the old, loyal sentiments of a good, simple German for his Emperor,” nay, even with “the language of charity which according to Holy Scripture believes all things, hopes all things.” And yet Luther in his letters to his confidential friends spoke after this of Charles V. in the following terms: “The Emperor was, is, and shall ever remain a servant of the servants of the devil,” and the worst of it is, that he “lends the devil his services knowingly” (to Jonas, etc., March or April, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 275). “God’s wrath has come upon him and his friends.... We have prayed enough for him, if he does not want a blessing, then let him take our curse.” He accuses him of hypocrisy (“_purus hypocrita_”) and of breach of faith with the Turks after his stay at Vienna; he had swallowed up the Bishopric of Liège and intended to do the same with all the bishoprics along the Rhine (to Melanchthon, June 17, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 370). “I suspect the Emperor is a miscreant (‘_quod sit nequam_’) and his brother Ferdinand is an abominable bounder” (to Amsdorf, October 21, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 764).

[279] Commencement of the work: “Zwey keyserliche Gepott,” 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 221.

[280] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22 in the “Warnunge” referred to above.

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 75. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.”

[282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 463 f; Erl. ed., 21, p. 352 f. “An den christl. Adel.”

[283] It will not be possible to enter one by one into the somewhat remarkable reasons assigned in the popular Protestant biographies of Luther as to why Luther should be regarded as the type of the German character. We there read, that the stamp of the German character is to be found in the fact that he “always acted upon impulse”—which seems to be based on the correct view of Luther as a child of impulse, who allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. The following reason is less clear, viz. that he was “A German through and through because he sought for the roots of all life, of the family, the race, the State and civilisation, in personality as directly determined by feeling.” Reference is frequently made to Luther’s frank and upright character and to his undaunted love of truth. The facts bearing upon this point, already adduced, or to be dealt with in chapter xxii. of the present work (vol. iv.), dispense us from treating of this matter here. To base Luther’s claim to being a typical German on his manner of speech is to run the risk of bringing Germans into disrepute, if we recall the rude invective in which he often indulges and which he employs when, as he says, he is speaking plain German to his opponents. “This is the German way of speaking,” he constantly repeats after explosions of anger and vulgar abuse. This, for instance, is the way in which he gives the “Romans a German answer.” On one occasion he describes in a repulsive manner how the “strumpet church of the Pope” behaves: “She plays the whore with everyone,” is an “apostate, runaway, wedded whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore”; compared with her “light women are holy, for she is the devil’s own whore,” who makes of many of the faithful virgins of Christ, born in baptism, arch-whores. “This is what I call plain German speaking, and you and everyone can understand what I mean.” On the same page he continues: “It has happened to them [the Papists] according to the proverb: the dog has returned to his vomit and the sow that was washed to wallow in the mire. That is what you are, and what I once was. There you have your new, apostate, runaway churches described for you in plain German.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26² p. 46. “Wider Hans Worst,” 1541.

[284] Cp. vol. i., p. 396 f., his statements concerning the incident in the Tower. See also vol. i., p. 166 ff., and p. 280 ff.

[285] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. “_Hanc doctrinam mihi (Deus) revelavit per gratiam suam._” In 1527.

[286] Cochlæus in his account (June 12, 1521) of his conversation with Luther at Worms: “_Est mihi revelatum_,” etc. In Enders’ reprint, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 176; in the new edition by Greving (“Flugschriften aus der Reformationszeit,” 4, 3, 1910), p. 19.

[287] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23 (a. 1523).

[288] “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 81, n.

[289] Khummer in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 62, n.: “_Doctor Martinus Lutherus indignus sum, sed dignus fui creari ... redimi ... doceri a filio Dei et Spiritu sancto, fui (dignus) cui ministerium verbi crederetur, fui qui pro eo tanta paterer, fui qui in tot malis servarer, fui cui præciperetur ista credere, fui cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem_.” Cp. “Briefe,” 5, p. 324, and 6, p. 520, n. 6.

[290] On March 5, 1522, at Borna, on the journey from the Wartburg to Wittenberg. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[291] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379, in the work: “Antwort auff König Henrichs Buch,” 1522.

[292] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 276. “Table-Talk.”

[293] See vol. vi., xxxvi. 4.

[294] See vol. v., xxxii.

[295] See, for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641: “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162 _seq._ “_De servo arbitrio_,” 1525.

[296] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 4, p. 314. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 208.

[297] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315.

[298] See, for instance, iv., xxvi., 2.

[299] Cp. for instance, his letter to Nicholas Amsdorf, about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 23.

[300] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261, in the work “Widder den Radschlag der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.”

[301] To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 344: “_Data est mihi notio futuræ alicuius insignis turbulæ.... Vidi cogitationes eius (Satanæ) artificiosissimas_,” etc.

[302] To Spalatin, July 9, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 429 f.

[303] In 1519, after February 24, _ibid._, 2, p. 6.

[304] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6.

[305] To Wenceslaus Link on June 20, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201.

[306] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 185.

[307] To Christoph Scheurl, February 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 433: “_Dei consilium_.”

[308] To Staupitz, February 20, 1519, _ibid._, 1, p. 431.

[309] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 109 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[310] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 280; Erl. ed., 27, p. 217. In 1521.

[311] _Ibid._, p. 281=219.

[312] _Ibid._, p. 281=218.

[313] To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.

[314] To the Archbishop of Mayence, December 1, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 251).

[315] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 53. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.

[316] See below, p. 153 ff.

[317] _Ibid._

[318] To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, in July, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 263 f. He admits that he has not “the _fulness_ of the Spirit.”

[319] Mathesius, “Historien,” pp. 195´, 196.

[320] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 156.

[321] P. 150.

[322] See especially vol. v., xxxi. Many other proofs will be found scattered throughout our volumes.

[323] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 348; 60, p. 31, 70; 53, p. 342 (Letter of the beginning of April, 1525, to the Christians at Antwerp, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 151, and “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547).

[324] His intention was to collect the “_portenta Satanæ_” in order to make the “_salutaria miracula Evangelii quotidie inundantia_” known everywhere. Thus to Justus Jonas on January 23, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 429.

[325] Regarding his psychic troubles and hallucinations, see vol. vi., xxxvi.

[326] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 99.

[327] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. Link, as Staupitz’s successor in the Vicariate of the Order, had proclaimed at the commencement of the year in the Augustinian chapter at Wittenberg the freedom of religious to forsake their convents and the abolition of the so-called “Corner-Masses,” which Luther refers to in the letter in question as being a singular “deed of the Holy Ghost.”

[328] To Staupitz at Salzburg, Wittenberg, June 27, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406.

[329] Beginning of April, “Letters,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 339. Cp. a similar statement made to the Elector on June 24, 1541, _ibid._, p. 373: “God, Who has begun it without our strength or reason, will carry it out as He sees best” (of the Ratisbon Interim).

[330] _Ibid._, pp. 339, 340.

[331] On April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” _ibid._, p. 341 f.

[332] On March 26, 1542, to Jacob Probst, “Briefe,” 5, p. 451. Similarly on December 3, 1544, to Cordatus, _ibid._, p. 702.

[333] From the letter to Justus Jonas of September 20, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 268.

[334] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 26², p. 8, in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[335] “Considerations on the proposed Conditions of Peace,” of August, 1531(?), “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 76. See above, p. 45, n. 5.

[336] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 606; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342, in the Exposition of St. John’s Gospel, 1530-1532.

[337] _Ibid._, p. 605 _seq._=342.

[338] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 253; Erl. ed., 7², p. 222.

[339] _Ibid._, 6, p. 621=24², p. 46.

[340] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 121.

[341] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, pp. 298, 304).

[342] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 691; Erl. ed., 24², p. 168.

[343] _Ibid._, p. 709=189.

[344] _Ibid._

[345] Thus it is that he excuses the blustering character of his writings against those who defended the Church.

[346] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 176, 229, 242, in the work “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[347] _Ibid._, p. 242.

[348] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.

[349] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 147.

[350] _Ibid._, p. 163 f.

[351] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 195 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 119.

[352] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 25², p. 283.

[353] _Ibid._, 60, p. 180.

[354] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 404 _seq._

[355] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 288; Erl. ed., 27, p. 91.

[356] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 27, p. 77.

[357] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 77.

[358] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 263.

[359] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 106.

[360] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 260.

[361] _Ibid._, p. 263.

[362] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 155.

[363] _Ibid._, 20², p. 233.

[364] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 83.

[365] _Ibid._, p. 404.

[366] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432.

[367] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 269.

[368] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5, p. 346 f.

[369] _Ibid._, 46, p. 10.

[370] The passages quoted stand in the following order: pp. 77, 81, 82, 77, 78, 82. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 18 f.

[371] P. 81.

[372] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 8.

[373] Letter in 1521 to “the poor little flock of Christ at Wittenberg,” before August 12, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 213; Erl. ed., 39, p. 128 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 217).

[374] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14, p. 158.

[375] _Ibid._, 26², p. 145.

[376] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 307.

[377] Cp. vol. iv., xxiii., 1, where Luther’s attitude to Erasmus subsequent to the publication of “_De servo arbitrio_” (1525) is treated of more fully.

[378] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 301.

[379] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489 f.

[380] Luther to Amsdorf about March 11, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 8 ff. The letter was published by Luther.

[381] “_Quodsi Martinus illud sibi proposuit, persuadere mundo Erasmum hoc agere callidis artibus et insidiosis cuniculis, ut omnes Christianos adducat in odium veræ religionis, frustra nititur. Citius enim persuaserit omnibus se aut odio lymphatum esse aut mentis morbo teneri, aut a sinistro quopiam agitari genio._” “_Purgatio adversus Epistolam non sobriam Martini Lutheri._” “Opp.,” Lugd. Batav., t. 10, col. 1557.

[382] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 104 ff.

[383] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 264.

[384] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 641; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 162.

[385] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 406 f.

[386] To Spalatin, May 18, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 193.

[387] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 527: “_Christus viderit, suane sint an mea_.”

[388] Vol. ii., p. 41 f.

[389] “Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie,” 2, Frankfurt, 1699, p. 42 (with the epitaph quoted above), and p. 75.

[390] “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in vol. xxiv. of his edition of Luther, pp. 379, 376.

[391] How little this view of Luther fits in with his own estimate of himself may be seen from the following statements which occur in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1531, vol. i., in Irmischer’s ed.): Heretics, owing to a delusion of Satan, consider their doctrines as absolutely certain; founders of sects, more particularly, will never allow themselves to be converted by our proofs from Scripture, as we see in the case of the fanatics; so well does the devil know how to assume the shape of Christ. “I, however, am persuaded by the Spirit of Christ, that my doctrine of Christian righteousness is true and certain (_sum certus et persuasus per spiritum Christi_, p. 288); therefore I cannot listen to anything to the contrary.” Hence “the Pope, the Cardinals, bishops, and monks and the whole synagogue of Satan, and in particular the founders of the Religious Orders (some of whom, nevertheless, God was able to save by a miracle), confuse men’s consciences and are worse than false apostles” (p. 83). Like St. Paul he pronounces anathema on all angels and men who rise up to destroy the Gospel preached by Paul; of such subverters the world is now, alas, full (p. 89). By the fanatics, he says (p. 90), he too was accounted such a one, though he only paid homage to pure Scripture as to his “Queen” (p. 93). “Like Paul I declare with the utmost certainty every doctrine to be anathema which differs from my own.... Its founder is the messenger of Satan, and is anathema.” “_Sic nos cum Paulo securissime et certissime pronuntiamus, omnem doctrinam esse maledictam, quæ cum nostra dissonat.... Qui igitur aliud evangelium vel contrarium nostro docet, missum a diabolo et anathema esse confidenter dicimus_” (p. 94).

Just as in Paul’s day the Galatians had become inconstant, so “some, who at the outset had accepted the Word with joy and among whom were many excellent men, had now suddenly fallen away,” because the Lord had withdrawn His Grace (p. 99). They bring forward as objections against us the belief of the Church and of antiquity. But “should Peter and Paul themselves, or an angel from heaven, teach differently, yet I know for a certainty that my teaching is not human but Divine, i.e. that I ascribe all to God and nothing to man” (p. 102). “It is true that this very argument prejudices our cause to-day more than anything else. If we are to believe only him who teaches the pure Word of God, not the Pope, or the Fathers, or Luther, whom then are we to believe? Who is to reassure man’s conscience as to where the true Word of God is preached, whether amongst us or amongst our opponents? For the latter also boast of having and teaching the true Word of God. We do not believe the Papists because they do not and cannot teach the Word of God. They, on the other hand, declare us to be the greatest heretics. What then is to be done? Is every fanatic to be permitted to teach whatever comes into his head, while the world refuses to hear us or to endure our teaching?” In spite of our assurances of the certainty of our teaching, he complains, they call our boasting devilish; if we yield, then they, the Papists and the fanatics, grow proud and become still more settled in their error. “Therefore let each one see that he is convinced of the truth of his own calling and doctrine, so that, like Paul, he may venture to say with absolute certainty and conviction: ‘If an angel from heaven,’ etc.” The revelation of the Gospel is made to each one individually, and is “effected by God Himself, yet the outward Word must precede and then the inward Spirit will follow.... The Holy Ghost is given for the revealing of the Word, but the outward Word must first have been heard” (p. 114).

In opposition to the fanatics Luther is fond of tracing back his own great illumination, which had brought salvation to the world, to the preliminary action, of the outward Word of Holy Scripture on his mind. Towards the end of his life he wrote (on May 7, 1545) to Amsdorf: “I glory in the certainty that the Son of God is seated at the right hand of the Father and most sweetly speaks to us here below by His Spirit even as He spoke to the Apostles, and that therefore we are His disciples, and hear the Word from His lips.... We hear the Divine Majesty speaking through the word of the Gospel. The angels and the whole creation of God congratulate us on this, while the Pope, that monster of the devil, wobbles in sadness and fear and all the gates of hell tremble with him” (“Briefe,” 5, p. 737). At an earlier date, in 1522, he had declared: “This is what you must say: Whether Luther is a saint or a scamp does not matter to me; his doctrine is not his, but Christ’s ... leave the man out of the question, but acknowledge the doctrine” (“Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40). “I don’t care in the very least whether a thousand Augustines or a thousand Harry-Churches are against me, but I am convinced that the true Church clings to the Word of God as I do” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 256; Erl. ed., 28, p. 379. “Against King Henry VIII.”) “I was he to whom God first revealed it” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8).

J. A. Möhler rightly remarks: “Seeing that it was Luther’s design to break with the existing, visible Church, it was essential that he should give the first place to the invisible Church and look on himself as directly sent by God.” He points out that Calvin also appealed to a direct mission, and quotes from his answer to Sadolet’s letter to the inhabitants of Geneva: “_ministerium meum, quod Dei vocatione fundatum ac sanctum fuisse non dubito_”; “_ministerium meum, quod quidem a Christo esse novi_.” “Opusc.,” pp. 106, 107 (“Symbolik,” 49, n 1).

[392] To Nicholas Amsdorf, November 7, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 600, Jer. li. 9.

[393] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 477; Erl. ed., 24², p. 16 (in 1520). Here again we find the “she-ass that rebuked the prophet.” This enables us to understand his asseveration in the same year (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 277; Erl. ed., 27, p. 213), that he was ready to die for his doctrine. Döllinger says of such assurances as the above: “Such a tone of unshaken firmness was in Luther’s case largely due to the excitement caused by his polemics ... and to the sense of his natural superiority” (“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53; also “Kirchenlexikon,” 8², col. 340). He points out that Luther had formed his peculiar views “during a period of painful confusion of mind and trouble of conscience,” and that at times when Holy Scripture did not entirely satisfy him he would even seemingly set Christ against Scripture, as in the following passage: “You Papist, you insist much on Scripture, but it is no more than a servant of Christ, and to it I will not listen. But I am strong in Christ, Who is the true Lord and Emperor over Scripture. I care nothing for any texts of Scripture, even though you should bring forward many more against me; for I have the Lord and Master of Scripture on my side,” etc. (_ibid._, p. 59=col. 344).

[394] Daniel viii. 17 ff.

[395] 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 2 Tim. iv. 3 ff.; 2 Peter ii. 1 ff.

[396] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 392 _seq._, at the end of the “_Responsio ad librum Ambrosii Catharini_.”

[397] “_Id quod hac Danielis explanatione arbitror me præstitisse egregie._” _Ibid._ Hence what he wrote was intended in all seriousness and in no sense as a joke.

[398] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 777; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p, 392. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 399, and our vol. ii., p. 56 f.

[399] Cp. H. Preuss, “Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik,” Leipzig, 1906. See our vol. ii., p. 56, n. 1.

[400] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.

[401] “_Epitome_” against Prierias, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 328; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 79.

[402] To Spalatin, February, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 345.

[403] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 262; cp. _ibid._, n. 3.

[404] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332.

[405] “_Ne quid monstrosissimi monstri desit_,” etc.

[406] To Spalatin (previous to June 8), 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 414.

[407] “_Epitome_” against Prierias, _loc. cit._

[408] To Spalatin, August 3, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 456.

[409] To the same, August 5, 1520, _ibid._, p. 457.

[410] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 498, 537; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 17, 70.

[411] See vol. ii., p. 49. The Latin text appeared a little before the German.

[412] “Symbolische Bücher,^[10]” pp. 308, 324, 337, and in particular p. 336, No. 39.

[413] In the so-called “Lufft Bible,” Luther applies Daniel xii. to the Papal Antichrist. Kawerau, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1884, p. 269.

[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 719; Erl. ed., 24², p. 203, at the beginning of the work “_Bulla Cœnæ Domini_” of 1522. See other references in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 646, 696; _ibid._, 2, pp. 156, 283, 529, 586.

[415] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1278.

[416] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 14, p. 1265 f.

[417] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 397.

[418] January 12, 1523, _ibid._, 4, p. 62.

[419] Cp. “Analecta Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 242, and the notes of Enders (in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 18) on the letter of the Frankfurt preacher Andreas Ebert to Luther, dealing with these phenomena. See also N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage” to the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, No. 30.

[420] “Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg funden. Philippus Melanchthon. Doctor Martinus Luther.” Wittenberg, 1523. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.

[421] To Camerarius, April 16, 1525. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 738.

[422] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.

[423] _Ibid._, 10², p. 65.

[424] “Oh, dear little Pope-Ass, don’t try to lick ... for you might fall and break a leg or do something else, and then all the world would laugh at you and say: For shame, look what a mess the Pope-Ass has got itself into.” “You are a rude ass, you Pope-Ass, and that you will ever remain.” “When I [the Pope-Ass] bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith ... but all is sealed with devil’s ordure—in the Decretals—and written in the Pope-Ass’s dung” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², pp. 148 _seq._, 169). One word, used in this connection, and spelt by Luther “Fartz,” he employs in endless variations. Pope Paul III. he calls “Eselfartz-Bapst,” “Bapst Fartzesel,” “Fartzesel-Bapst” and “Eselbapstfartz.” “We see,” remarks Conrad Lange, “how the apparition of the Roman monstrosity continued to act upon his imagination, and how, even at the close of his life, it still appeared to him suited to excite the masses in the religious struggle.” “Der Papstesel, ein Beitrag zur Kultur-und Kunstgesch. des Reformationszeitalters.” With four illustrations, Göttingen, 1891, p. 88.

[425] “Abbildung des Bapstum,” by Martin Luther, 1545. The verses run as follows:

“Was Gott selbs von dem Bapstum helt,
Zeigt dis schrecklich Bild hie gestellt.
Dafur jederman grawen solt,
Wenn ers zu Hertzen nemen wolt.”

[426] Cp. Lange, _ibid._, p. 92 ff.

[427] “Annali Veneti” (“Archivio storico italiano,” 7, p. 422). Lange, _ibid._, p. 18.

[428] Picture in Lange, _ibid._, plate 2.

[429] _Ibid._, plate 1.

[430] P. 84 _seq._

[431] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724: “_In malam rem abeat._” Cp. in general the Wittenberg sermons against Carlstadt and the fanatics which appeared under the title “Acht Sermone,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 202 ff.

[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724.

[433] To the Council and congregation of Mühlhausen, August 21, 1524, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 240; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377).

[434] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 5.

[435] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 205 ff.

[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 248; Erl ed., 50, p. 292, in the exposition of John xviii.

[437] Cp., for instance, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict.”

[438] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 369 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 2 ff.

[439] I. Andreæ, “_Oratio de studio sacr. litt. in acad. Lipsiensi recitata_,” Tübing., 1577, c. 2.

[440] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 12, p. 218-221. Cp. Erl. ed., 12², p. 235-238; Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145.

[441] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184: “All the world is astonished and is obliged to confess that we have the Gospel almost as pure and unchanged as in the time of the Apostles, in fact, in its primitive purity.”

[442] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 141 ff. Cp. _ibid._, 15, p. 39 ff.=22, pp. 184, 186; 8, p. 117=27, p. 331; 15, p. 584 ff.=19, p. 186 ff. “Hence it is plain that the Councils are uncertain and not to be counted on. For not one was so pure that it did not add to or take away from the faith.... The Council of the Apostles, though the first and purest, left something to be desired, though it did no harm.”

[443] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 36; Erl. ed., 35, p. 61.

[444] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 386=25², p. 87.

[445] Cp. _ibid._, 10, 2, p. 105 _seq._=28, p. 143. Cp. _ibid._, 28, p. 248=50, p. 292: “Because I am a doctor of Holy Scripture I have a right to do so [even to interfere in the office of the bishops]; for I have sworn to teach the truth.” Continuation of the passage quoted above, p. 154, n. 3. Thomas Münzer he reproaches with having no call. Of the necessity of a call he says: “If things went ill in my house and my next-door neighbour were to break in and claim a right to settle matters, surely I should have something to say.”

[446] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 139 f.

[447] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144, at the commencement of the work “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”

[448] _Ibid._, 15, p. 86 _seq._=29, p. 103 ff.: “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawê ausgelffen hat.”

[449] _Ibid._, p. 93=112.

[450] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 87=104.

[451] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 46, p. 205 ff.

[452] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 25, p. 120.

[453] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 145 f.; Erl. ed., 12², p. 201, in the Church-postils.

[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 20, p. 724. See above, p. 153.

[455] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 12; Erl. ed., 28, p. 288. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes,” 1522.

[456] See vol. iv., xxi. 2, towards the end.

[457] “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” in his edition of Luther, 24, p. 357.

[458] _Ibid._, p. 359 f.

[459] To Myconius, January 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.

[460] P. 361, where he quotes Mathesius’s Sermons on Luther, 13, p. 148 (Nuremberg edition, 1566, p. 157). Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 11, and what Weller says (vol. vi., xxxviii. 2) of the two dead people raised to life by Luther. In the German “Table-Talk” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 3) Luther says of prayer: “The prayer of the Church performs great miracles. In our own time it has restored three dead men to life; first me, for often I was sick unto death, then my housekeeper Katey, who was also sick unto death, finally Philip Melanchthon, who, anno 1540, lay sick unto death at Weimar. Though _Liberatio a morbis et corporalibus periculis_ is not the best of miracles, yet it must not be allowed to pass unheeded _propter infirmitatem in fide_. To me it is a much greater miracle that God Almighty should every day bestow the grace of baptism, give Himself in the Sacrament of the altar and absolve _et liberat a peccato, a morte et damnatione æterna_. These are great miracles.” Cp. Förstemann’s notes, “Tischreden,” 2, p. 230.

[461] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 169.

[462] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 324, and _ibid._, quotation from Rebenstock’s Latin Colloquies. Seidemann in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch” also quotes Khummer’s MS., p. 397.

[463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 362.

[464] _Ibid._, 14², p. 399.

[465] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “_Vaticinium Lutheri de seditione nobilium in Germania._”

[466] “Unschuldige Nachrichten,” 1718, p. 316, with quotation from “Church Agenda, p. 52.”

[467] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 217.

[468] Walch, 23, p. 1132.

[469] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 186.

[470] Walch, 23, p. 688 f.

[471] _Ibid._, 14, p. 1360: “_Vaticinium mense Augusto_, _a._ 1532.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 391 f.

[472] _Ibid._, 7, p. 1353; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23, in the sermon of 1531 on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Walch’s edition under the heading: “Luther’s Prophecy concerning Germany,” “Luther’s Prophecy on Wittenberg and its magistrates.”

[473] _Ibid._, 12, p. 1865, Sermon on the Gospel for the 8th Sunday after Trinity, Luke xix. 41. In his “Ausführliche Nachricht von M. Luthero,” Walch, however, expressly admits that Luther “had not the gift of predicting; if he has been spoken of as a prophet, this depended on the sense in which the word was used; he had rightly foreseen much of what would happen to the German Church,” etc. “Neither did God bestow on him the gift of working miracles,” but he did not need it, since he preached no new doctrine and what he taught he proved sufficiently from Holy Scripture; indeed, the Reformation as a whole was not miraculous, since God had not intervened in it in any extraordinary manner.

[474] “Postilla,” pars. iii., Dom. 3, post Adv. “Corp. ref.,” 25, p. 916.

[475] “Of the horrible monstrosities and many other similar signs of the wrath of God at this time, a veracious account by a minister of the Holy Evangel,” 1562, Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 6^[16], p. 470.

[476] In addition to the passage quoted, p. 155, n. 1, cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 83, at the end of Luther’s edition of “Etliche Briefe Johann Hussens,” 1537. See also Luther on the swan, xix. 2, and vol. iv., xxvi. 4.

[477] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 438. “Tischreden,” Cp. Khummer in Lauterbach’s “Tischreden,” p. 36, n., and Mathesius, “Historien,³” p. 199. Cp. p. 211´.

[478] “Symbolische Bücher,”^[10], p. 270 f.

[479] “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 171.

[480] Reply of Myconius, December 2, 1529, _ibid._, p. 194.

[481] Cp. the account of an apostate friar, who had been a comrade of Hilten’s and who was with him during his last days, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 198; cp. also the literature quoted by Enders. Hilten’s prophecy, and likewise that of the Roman Franciscan, was nevertheless, in 1872, quoted in Luther’s favour by C. F. Kahnis, Professor of Theology at the University of Leipzig, in his “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, p. 178. He says: “What the Spirit of God in him bore witness to in condemnation of the fallen Church of the Middle Ages, was attested by prophetic utterances.” “While Luther was at school at Eisenach, a monk named Hilten languished in the prison of the Franciscan convent,” etc. He appeals to Mathesius, “Historien,” Predigt, 15, p. 319; V. E. Löscher, “Vollständige Reformationsacta,” 1, 1720, p. 148, and K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassstreite,” 1, 1846, p. 295.

[482] Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 250 ff. Lichtenberger’s book was re-translated in this edition by Stephen Roth.

[483] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 145.

[484] Preface, p. 253.

[485] _Ibid._, p. 258.

[486] _Ibid._, 2, p. 641, n. 1, to p. 145.

[487] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 561; Erl. ed., 28, p. 139 f. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen.” The passage commences: “When a child I frequently heard a prophecy current in the country, viz. that an Emperor Frederick would rescue the Holy Sepulchre.” This had been misunderstood and applied to the tomb at Jerusalem; but it is “of the nature of prophecies to be fulfilled before being understood.” The passage on Frederick also occurs in the Latin text of this work, published previously under the title “_De abroganda missa_.” In “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 475, we there read: “_Videtur mihi ista (prophetia) in hoc Fridrico nostro impleta._” Luther then proceeds to recount in a pleasant vein certain doubtful interpretations.

[488] Bonaventura, “Expos. in cap. ix. Lucæ.”

[489] To the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony, January 4, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 195; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 95 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323).

[490] Reprinted in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 38 _seq._ That the author was J. Findling has been proved by N. Paulus in his work “Kaspar Schatzgeyer,” 1898, p. 137 f. Cp. “Katholik,” 1900, ii., p. 90 ff. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 3, p. 65, n. 1, should be corrected from this.

[491] See Enders, _ibid._

[492] _Ibid._, p. 56.

[493] See Enders, p. 52 f.

[494] _Ibid._, p. 60.

[495] _Ibid._, p. 49.

[496] Cp. Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 53 (“KL.,” 8², col. 340).

[497] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 57.

[498] _Ibid._, p. 55.

[499] _Ibid._, p. 48.

[500] “Hyperaspistes,” 1, “Opp.,” ed. Ludg., 10, col. 1327.

[501] _Ibid._, col. 1335.

[502] Cp. col. 1334.

[503] To Duke George of Saxony, June 30, 1530, “Opp.,” col. 1293.

[504] “Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 374 ff., communicated by Joh. Fijalek.

[505] “Gesch. des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 2, p. 135.

[506] In July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, 159-161. In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date.

[507] “_Utinam possem aliquid insigne peccati designare modo ad eludendum diabolum!_” “_Designare_” may mean “to paint.” According to Forcelli it also sometimes means “to perform,” “to do.” Cp. Horace, “Ep.,” 1, 5, 16: “_Quid non ebrietas designat_,” and Terence “Ad.,” 1, 2, 7: “_Quid designavit? Fores effregit._”

[508] Those, i.e., who are unwilling to feel that they are sinners. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 9.

[509] _Ibid._, p. 20.

[510] _Ibid._, p. 88. In May, 1532. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 308.

[511] Schlaginhaufen, p. 88.

[512] _Ibid._, p. 9. Here and in what follows, according to Preger, the MS. notes of Veit Dietrich agree with Schlaginhaufen’s account.

[513] _Ibid._, p. 11.

[514] _Ibid._

[515] _Ibid._, p. 88 f. “Papst und Bischof haben mir die Hände gesalbt, und ich habe sie beschissen im Dreck, do ich den Ars wuschet.”

[516] _Ibid._, p. 89

[517] “Tagebuch über M. Luther,” by C. Cordatus, ed. by H. Wrampelmeyer, 1883, p. 450: “_Etiam in complexus veni coniugis, ut saltem ille pruritus auferret illas cogitationes satanæ.... Laborandum est omnibus modis, ut vehementiore aliquo affectu pellantur._”

[518] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. The Halle MS. on which Bindseil bases his work really depends on the statements of Luther’s pupil Lauterbach. Here Luther’s words run: “_Quoties meam uxorem complexus sum, nudam contrectavi, ut tantum sathanæ cogitationes illo pruritu pellerem._ But all to no purpose, _nolebat cedere_,” etc.

[519] “Colloquia, meditationes, consolationes, etc. M. Lutheri,” Francof., 1571, 2, p. 225´ (=125´).

[520] As to this, Wrampelmeyer, a Protestant, remarks (p. 451) in his edition of Cordatus’s Diary, mentioned above: “The German ‘Table-Talk,’ which agrees almost entirely with the Latin version, does not, in Erl. ed., 60, p. 110, and Förstemann, 3, p. 122, contain these words, but replaces them by the following: ‘I have frequently made use of various means in order to drive away Satan, but it was of no use.’ It is clear that words so compromising gave offence and that others were substituted instead of those given in the Latin text, which formed the basis of the German ‘Table-Talk.’ According to the Notes of Cordatus, however, Luther’s words appear in quite a different light.” “The words of the Latin ‘Table-Talk’: ‘_ut de puella pulchra, avaritia, ebrietate_,’ have also been replaced in the German version by more harmless expressions.”

[521] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 11.

[522] “Opp.,” Antwerpiæ, 1706, 3, p. 242 _seq._; p. 589 _seq._ Aug. Hardeland (“Gesch. der speziellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation,” Berlin, 1898, p. 261) remarks: “The idea that we must always do the exact opposite of what the devil suggests, is the leading one in Gerson’s Tractate ‘_De remediis contra pusillanimitatem_.’” He is of opinion that, in advising Weller to sin, Luther was “using this maxim of Gerson’s, and probably only meant: ‘Do not be afraid to do what, from the standpoint of your scrupulosity, appears to be sinful.’” Luther’s advice, however, was not intended for a scrupulous person predisposed to exaggeration or to narrowness of heart, but for all those who despaired of their salvation and were unable to believe in Luther’s doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and in his assurance of salvation. “_Cogitationes immanissimæ_,” Luther calls Weller’s ideas, “_quando diabolus reos (nos) egerit mortis et inferni.... In æternum condemnaberis?_” Weller, the disciple, has first to learn: “_novi quendam, qui passus est pro me ac satisfecit_,” etc.

[523] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 254.

[524] _Ibid._, 50, p. 248.

[525] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 360.

[526] _Ibid._, 51, p. 284.

[527] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 367; Erl. ed., 33, p. 5.

[528] Cp. vol. iv., xxviii. 3 and 4. Luther’s famous “_pecca fortiter_” is discussed at length below (p. 199 ff.), and all that might tend to explain the words is passed in review.

[529] See J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², 1901, p. 215.

[530] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.

[531] Cp. passages quoted by Köstlin, _ibid._

[532] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 58.

[533] _Ibid._, p. 59.

[534] See above, p. 26.

[535] H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, 1905, p. 73.

[536] _Ibid._, 2, p. 156.

[537] _Ibid._, p. 292.

[538] _Ibid._, p. 430.

[539] _Ibid._, 1, p. 213.

[540] “Geist und Schrift bei Sebastian Franck,” Freiburg, 1892, p. 24 f.

[541] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 188. Luther does not admit the “_timor servilis_” of Catholic theology, and in his arbitrary fashion he represents it as equivalent to mere “fear of the gallows,” “_timor serviliter servilis_.”

[542] _Ibid._, p. 190.

[543] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 506; Erl. ed., 31, p. 181.

[544] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 189.

[545] Council of Trent, Sess. VI., “_decretum de iustificatione_,” c. 6.

[546] _Ibid._, c. 15.

[547] _Ibid._, c. 14.

[548] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 529; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 59, in the work “_De captivitate babylonica_.”

[549] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 157, in the “Hauspostille.”

[550] _Ibid._, 4, p. 131, “Hauspostille.” Cp. Weim. ed., 36, p. 187.

[551] _Ibid._, p. 132, “Hauspostille.”

[552] _Ibid._, 62, p. 267, “Tischreden.”

[553] Cp. vol. i., p. 289 ff.

[554] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 248.

[555] _Ibid._

[556] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370.

[557] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 369.

[558] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 691 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 231 _seq._, “_De servo arbitrio_.”

[559] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 359.

[560] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 263, “_De servo arbitrio_.”

[561] _Ibid._, p. 711=p. 258.

[562] Cp. Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 355.

[563] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 359. Köstlin admits the “questionable character” of the doctrine, though in rather mild language, e.g. p. 370.

[564] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.

[565] “_Prussia est plena dæmonibus_,” etc. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.

[566] “The devil is in the world, _vel potius ipse mundus concretive vel abstractive_.” Letter of January 3, 1534, to Amsdorf, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 376.

[567] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20, 1², p. 163.

[568] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 65.

[569] To Justus Jonas, December 29, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 163: “_Christus infirmus per vestras orationes adhuc superat vel saltem pugnat fortiter_.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 173.

[570] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 165, “Table-Talk.”

[571] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 133. The passage will be given in detail later.

[572] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; Erl. ed., 33, p. 374.

[573] _Ibid._, p. 341=359.

[574] _Ibid._, p. 342=360.

[575] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 356 f.

[576] Cp., _ibid._, p. 279 ff.

[577] Letter to Reissenbusch, March 27, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 277; Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 145).

[578] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.

[579] _Ibid._

[580] See below, p. 196.

[581] “Der rechte Weg. Welche Weg oder Strass der Glaubig wandeln soll,” etc. Dillingen, 1553. The passages are quoted by N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 252.

[582] “Christl. Predigt. an S. Matthei Tag,” Mainz, 1557, in Paulus, _ibid._, p. 168.

[583] “Predigten über die erste Canon. Epistel Johannis,” Cologne, 1571. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 173.

[584] “Vormeldunge der Unwahrheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt a.d. Oder, 1532, Paulus, _ibid._, p. 33. The three writers above quoted were all Dominicans. Luther’s Catholic contemporaries cannot have been acquainted with his “_Pecca fortiter_,” otherwise their language would have been even stronger.

[585] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208. The letter no longer exists in its entirety. One portion, however, became known and was published by Joh. Aurifaber in 1556 in the first vol. of Luther’s letters (p. 343) and described as “_Fragmentum epistolæ D.M. Lutheri ad Philippum Melanchthonem ex Pathmo scriptæ, a. MDXXI., repertum in bibliotheca Georgii Spalatini_.” Melanchthon had possibly sent the extract to Spalatin when the latter was troubled regarding his own salvation.

[586] (See below.) “_Vides quantis urgear æstibus_,” etc. To Melanchthon, August 3, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 213.

[587] See vol. ii., p. 82 f.

[588] Passages tallying with the “_Esto peccator_” are to be found elsewhere in Luther’s writings. Cp. for instance his letter of 1516 (vol. i., p. 88 f.) to Spenlein, where he says: “_Cave, ne aliquando ad tantam puritatem aspires, ut peccator tibi videri nolis, imo esse. Christus enim nonnisi in peccatoribus habitat.... Igitur nonnisi in illo pacem invenies._” In “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236 _seq._, it is likewise explained why one must be a great sinner; he insists that “_credenti omnia sunt auctore Christo possibilia_” and condemns strongly “_affectus propriæ iustitiæ_,” until he arrives at the paradox, “_Ideo est peccatum, ut in peccatis apti ad spem simus_” (p. 239). In perfect harmony with such early statements is the letter he wrote towards the end of his life to Spalatin when the latter was sunk in melancholy; here he says: “_Nimis tener hactenus fuisti peccator.... Iunge te nobis veris magnis et duris peccatoribus_”; he must, so Christ speaking through Luther tells him, hold alone to faith in the Divine mercy. August 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.

[589] “Symbolik,” § 16, p. 161.

[590] 1, p. 301. Other Protestant writers, such as Carové “Alleinseligmachende Kirche,” 2, p. 434 (see K. A. Hase, “Polemik,”^[4] p. 267), declared it to be “a downright calumny to say that so shocking a doctrine occurred in a work of Luther’s.”

[591] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 58.

[592] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” Tübingen, 1904, pp. 38-45.

[593] Köhler here quotes Denifle (“Luther,” p. 442; ed. 2, p. 465), who gives these words in their full context from Luther’s MS. Commentary on Romans. We may point out that Denifle quotes an abundance of similar passages from Luther’s works, amongst which those taken from his early Commentary on Romans are particularly interesting.

[594] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 27; Erl. ed., 27, p. 185; Köhler, _ibid._, p. 43 f.

[595] _Ibid._, p. 25=181=44.

[596] On June 29, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 44. Melanchthon had told Luther his fears and anxieties on account of the impending discussion of the point of faith before the Diet of Augsburg. Luther is encouraging him.

[597] To Melanchthon, June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.

[598] In the letter quoted above, n. 1 (p. 43): “_carnificem illum spiritus_.”

[599] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 98.