Chapter XX: Attempts at Union in View of the Proposed Council (5)

[974] To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[975] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. O. Vogt, 1888, p. 64 ff.

[976] To Spalatin, August 15, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 218.

[977] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141. Cp. vol. ii., p. 133 f.

[978] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29, 1904), p. 303 ff., p. 306.

[979] _Ibid._, p. 311 f.

[980] _Ibid._, p. 306.

[981] The “Itinerarium,” in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 229. From the Bern Archives.

[982] The dots are Kolde’s.

[983] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 96.

[984] Letter of February 27, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 155.

[985] A passage from a letter of Melanchthon’s to Veit Dietrich, dated March 15, 1537 (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 327), deserves consideration: “_Secuta est hos agones_ (his mental struggles or temptations), _ut fit, magna debilitas; accessit etiam cruditas, quam vigiliae, vomitus et caetera incommoda multa auxerunt_.”

[986] The context is unfortunately not given by Kolde, no more here than in the case of Musculus. A copy of the letter is, he says, found in the Baum Thesaurus of the Strasburg University Library.

[987] “Clag etlicher Brüder,” etc., ed. Enders (“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 118, 1893), p. 48.

[988] “Hochverursachte Schutzrede,” etc., ed. Enders, _ibid._, p. 18 ff.

[989] “De consideratione praesentium temporum,” Venetiis, 1547. Cochlæus’s “De persona et doctrina M. Lutheri iudicium fratris A. Catharini,” etc., Moguntiae, 1548, gives the words on fol. C. 2a.

[990] Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” p. 170; “alla quale (ebrietà) è deditissimo.”

[991] “Helluone in crapula et ebrietate cervisiaria, ut audio, foedior.”

[992] Cp. “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” “Texte und Untersuchungen,” 3 Jahrg., Hft. 1, p. 79, article by P. Kalkoff, “Römische Urteilo über Luther und Erasmus im Jahre 1521.” See our vol. ii., p. 133.

[993] “Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 43; “_Tui Wittenbergenses velut quotidie communicant et mox cerevisia inebriantur, ut sese aliquando non cognoscant, ita enim fertur._”

[994] _Ibid._, pp. 58-68.

[995] Barge, “Karlstadt,” 2, p. 558.

[996] Henr. Sedulius, O.S.F., “Praescriptiones adv. haereses,” Antwerp, 1606, p. 210. It was he who published the false document concerning Luther’s alleged suicide (see vol. vi., xxxix. 3).

[997] Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” 1898, p. 70.

[998] “De mensuris,” Basileae, 1550, pp. 4, 338.

[999] Luther to Katey, February 7, 1546, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 788.

[1000] Grimm, “Deutsches Wörterbuch,” 8, p. 700.

[1001] Cp. the letter addressed to Katey on February 1, 1546, p. 786: “I drink Neunburgish beer.”

[1002] On July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” ed. Burkhardt, p. 357.

[1003] On July 16, 1540, Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 298. De Wette’s edition of this letter is not altogether trustworthy. Cp. Burkhardt, “Briefe Luthers,” p. 358.

[1004] On February 6, 1546, _ibid._, p. 786.

[1005] From the written notes of Veit Dietrich (the “most reliable authority on the Table-Talk”), see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 498. Cp. a parallel passage in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 135.

[1006] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, p. 151.

[1007] Mathesius, “Historien,” 1566, p. 152.

[1008] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 451 (“Tischreden”).

[1009] Letter of 1530 (July?), “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 _seq._

[1010] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 516, from Veit Dietrich’s MS.

[1011] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.

[1012] _Ibid._, p. 95. Cp. Mathesius’s notes in Loesche, “Analecta Lutherana et Melanthoniana,” p. 100: “Then I would permit you a good drink; _nam ebrietudo est ferenda, non ebriositas_.” Forcellini’s definition: “_ebriositas=propensio in ebrictatem_.” According to Loesche, Luther himself invented the word “_ebrietudo_.” Luther says of the Elector Johann Frederick in his work, “Wider Hans Worst”: “Sometimes he takes a drink too much, which we are sorry to see,” but it was untrue that he was “a drunkard and led a disorderly life” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 74).

[1013] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.

[1014] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 294.

[1015] _Ibid._, pp. 294, 296.

[1016] _Ibid._, p. 297; cp. p. 292.

[1017] _Ibid._, p. 293.

[1018] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 295.

[1019] _Ibid._, 39, p. 353.

[1020] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.

[1021] “Vita Lutheri” (“_Vitæ quatuor reformatorum_,” ed. A. T. Neander-n. 5, p. 5).

[1022] “Historien,” 1566, p. 151. Then follows the passage referred to on p. 305 concerning Luther and the Elector.

[1023] See Loesche’s Introduction to the edition mentioned in the following note.

[1024] G. Mathesius, “Hochzeitspredigten,” ed. Loesche, Prague, 1897 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” Bd. 6). The sermon in question was delivered in a castle in 1553 (pp. 311-335). Loesche says of the same: “It is not necessary to be a rabid teetotaller to feel that Urbanus—from the title of the sermon—treads dangerous ground, and would to-day be considered quite scandalously lax.” Cp. N. P[aulus] in the Köln. Volksztng., 1904, No. 623: on Luther’s admission “I also tipple.”

[1025] Letter of February 20, 1510, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431: “_expositus et involutus ... crapulae_.” Cp. our vol. i., p. 368. Luther uses the word “_crapulatus_” in the sense of “_ebrius_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 559 and 596. In the larger Commentary on Galatians, however, a distinction is made between “_ebrietas_” and “_crapula_,” 3, pp. 47 and 53; cp. the smaller Commentary (1519), Weim. ed., 2, p. 591: “_Commessatio, quae_ Lc. xxi. 34 [_crapula_] _dicitur; sicut ebrietas nimium bibendo, ita crapula nimium comedendo gravat corda_.”

[1026] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154. Cp. our vol. ii., pp. 82, 87, 94.

[1027] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 497.

[1028] See above, p. 219.

[1029] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 337 (“Tischreden”): “A glass with three ridges ... down to the first the Ten Commandments, down to the second the Creed, the third with the [Our Father of the] Catechism in full.”

[1030] S. Keil, “Des seligen Zeugen Gottes Dr. M. Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” 3, Leipzig, 1764, p. 156 f. He considers that the latter statements in the text were “inventions”; at any rate “there was no harm in the matter itself,” and the “conclusion of the Papists that Luther was a drunkard” were therefore false. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510. On the famous but almost legendary “Luther-beakers,” F, Küchenmeister has an article with interesting sketches in the “Ill. Zeitung,” 1879, November 1.

[1031] Letter of May 12, 1532, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 359: “_Fateor culpam meam et conscius mihi sum, effudisse me verba_,” etc.

[1032] Cp. “Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” ed. Lenz, 1, pp. 326, 336, 362 f., 389.

[1033] “Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” Berlin, 1904, p. 70 f.

[1034] “Farrago,” etc., cod. chart. Goth., 402, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 681, n. 498.

[1035] “Evangelisch-kirchl. Anzeiger,” _ibid._

[1036] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[1037] Cod. Ottobon., n. 3029.

[1038] “Luther in rationalistischer und christl. Beleuchtung,” p. 77, n. 3.

[1039] “Christl. Welt,” 1904, No. 6, p. 128.

[1040] “Martin Luther,” 1, Beilage. Cp. _ibid._, p. v. Evers was the first to read “_Doctor plenus_.”

[1041] W. Walther (“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1906, p. 473), on the strength of a photograph, now declares “_Johannes_” to be “the most likely” reading, and rightly excludes “_plenus_” on p. 586 of his book, “Für Luther.” H. Böhmer (“Luther,”², p. 116) is also in favour of “_Johannes_.” G. Kawerau for his part thought, judging from the photograph, that “_plures_” might be read instead of “_plenus_,” in which N. Müller agrees with him; he could not, however, understand what “_plures_” meant here. “Studien und Kritiken,” 1908, p. 603. On re-examination of the original I was forced to decide against “_plures_.” K. Löffler (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 317) proposes “_Doctor parvus_,” but this is excluded by the characters, though the sense would be reasonable enough. “_Johannes_” may quite well be the reading, since from 1527 Luther was in the habit of adding greetings from Katey and Hans in his letters.

[1042] To Link at Nuremberg, January 15, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 345.

[1043] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 649, n. 195.

[1044] _Ibid._

[1045] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, October 2, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).

[1046] To Agricola. Letter published by Kawerau in the “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” 1881, p. 67 ff.

[1047] Cp. Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (see above, p. 299, n. 1), p. 308 ff.

[1048] To Gabriel Zwilling at Torgau, June 19, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 11.

[1049] In the letter quoted above.

[1050] To Melanchthon, August 24, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204 f.

[1051] To Justus Jonas, August 28, 1530, _ibid._, p. 237.

[1052] Letters, ed. De Wette, 5, p. 784.

[1053] _Ibid._, p. 470.

[1054] G. Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus, Zwingli und Melanchthon” (reprinted from “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1-3), p. 31.

[1055] “Loci Communes Phil. Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt,” ed. (with commentaries) Th. Kolde, 3rd ed., 1900.

[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, more particularly 343. Cp. F. Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 186 f. Further particulars of the work will be found amongst the statements concerning Luther’s relations with the schools (vol. v., xxxv. 3).

[1057] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 322.

[1058] _Ibid._, 4, p. 230.

[1059] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 68; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 493.

[1060] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15, 18.

[1061] To Spalatin, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 417.

[1062] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 448 and 451, where he again calls Luther Elias in letters written in 1521 to Spalatin.

[1063] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 763. To the Elector of Saxony.

[1064] _Ibid._

[1065] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 821, memorandum for the Landgrave of Hesse.

[1066] _Ibid._, p. 995. To Balth. During, about September, 1528.

[1067] _Ibid._, p. 981. To Fr. Myconius, June 5, 1528: “_Ego sic angor, ut nihil supra vel cogitari possit, quum considero horum temporum conditionem._” Similar statements of Melanchthon’s in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 366 ff.

[1068] _Ibid._, p. 938. Letter of September 13, 1528.

[1069] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1013. To Myconius, December 1, 1528: “_Meum scriptum ostendas consulibus ut permittant nubere mulierculæ._”

[1070] Cp. _ibid._, p. 839. “_Iudicium_” of 1526.

[1071] “Apologia confess. August.,” art. 23. “Symbolische Bücher,”^[10] ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 242.

[1072] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 979. Cp. “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 274.

[1073] See below, xx. 4, his Preface to his new edition of Luther’s “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.”

[1074] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 113 f.

[1075] _Ibid._

[1076] “Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 1 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 1 ff.). The appended exposition of Psalm vii. probably told greatly on many, more particularly on pious readers.

[1077] On January 9, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1023. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 115.

[1078] To his friend Camerarius from Spires, April 21, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1060, “_Habes rem horribilem_.”

[1079] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1070.

[1080] To Justus Jonas, June 14, 1529, p. 1076; “_Una res nocuit nobis, quam diutius procrastinati sumus, cum postularetur a nobis, ut damnaremus Zinglianos. Hinc ego in tantam incidi perturbationem, ut mortem oppetere malim, quam has miserias ferre. Omnes dolores interni_ (read _inferni_) _oppresserunt me. Sed tamen spero Christum remedia his rebus ostensurum esse._”

[1081] To Philip of Hesse, June 22, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1078. Cp. p. 1075 _seq._

[1082] On November 14, 1529.

[1083] “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 262 f.

[1084] See Luther’s own doctrine, vol. ii., pp. 223 ff., 265 ff., 291 ff.

[1085] Cp. Kolde in J. J. Müller, “Symbolische Bücher”^[10], Introduction, p. ix.: “There was no mention therein of the Papal power and it was left to the ‘pleasure of His Imperial Majesty, should he see any reason, to attack the Papacy’”—thus the Strasburg envoys in 1537 in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 297; for, as Melanchthon openly admitted to Luther, the Articles must be accommodated to the needs of the moment.

[1086] Kolde, _ibid._ (“Symbol. Bücher”), p. viii. f. Luther to the Elector of Saxony, May 15, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 145 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 335): “I see nothing I can improve upon or alter, nor would this be fitting seeing that I am unable to proceed so softly and quietly.”

[1087] On the “Gospel-proviso,” our vol. ii., p. 385 ff.

[1088] Cp. Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxiv. ff. K. Müller, “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889, p. 121 ff.), points out why Luther looked askance at any Symbolic Books; the fact is he did not recognise any Church having “a legal and ordered constitution and laws such as would call for Symbolic Books.” G. Krüger says (“Philipp Melanchthon,” 1906, p. 18 f.): “The Confession and its Apology were wrongly interpreted by the narrow-minded orthodoxy of later years as laws binding on faith. And yet why did Melanchthon go on improving and polishing them if he did not regard them as his own personal books, which he was free to alter just as every author may when he publishes a new edition of his work?” Yet they were “the genuine charter of evangelical belief as understood by our Reformers.”

[1089] Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,” Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “_Confutatio_” is reprinted in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the ‘_Augustana_’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on the ‘_Confutatio_.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.” Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”^[10], p. 47): “_Hæc fere summa est doctrinæ apud nos_ [Harnack: _suos_] _in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est_.” On p. 684 Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in the _Augustana_ I cannot admit. The _Augustana_ was the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him.”

As regards the position of the _Augustana_ in the history of Protestantism, Harnack remarks on the same page, that the free teaching of the Reformation then began to develop into a “Rule of Faith.” “When to this was added the pressure from without, and when, under the storms which were gathering (fanatics, Anabaptists), courage to say anything _quod discrepet ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est_, faded away, then the movement terminated in the Confession of Augsburg, which while not actually denying the principle of evangelical freedom, nevertheless begins to pour the new wine into old vessels (cp. even the Articles of Marburg). Did the Reformation (of the sixteenth century) do away with the old dogma? It is safer to answer this question in the negative than in the affirmative. But if we admit that it attacked its foundations, as our Catholic opponents rightly accuse us of doing, and that it was a mighty principle rather than a new system of doctrine, then it must also be admitted that the altogether conservative attitude of the Reformation towards ancient dogma, inclusive of its premisses, for instance, Original Sin and the Fall, belongs, not to its principle, but simply to its history.”

[1090] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 280 ff., with a more detailed appreciation of the _Apologia_.

[1091] Reprinted in the “Symb. Bücher,” p. 73 ff. Cp. Kolde’s Introduction, p. xl. f.

[1092] Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 281.

[1093] “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 9, p. 18 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 501.

[1094] Kolde, _ibid._, p. xxi., on the Latin edition which appeared at the end of April or the beginning of May, being followed by the German edition (probably) in the autumn.

[1095] “Symb. Bücher,” p. 45. The Latin text runs: “_Tota hæc causa habet testimonia patrum. Nam Augustinus multis voluminibus defendit gratiam et iustitiam fidei contra merita operum. Et similia docet Ambrosius.... Quamquam autem haec doctrina (iustificationis) contemnitur ab imperitis, tamen experiuntur piæ ac pavidæ conscientiæ plurimam eam consolationis afferre._”

[1096] In the letter to Brenz mentioned above.

[1097] Cp. the passages, “Symb. Bücher,” pp. 92, 104, 151, 218. On p. 104 in the article _De iustificatione_ he quotes Augustine, _De spir. et litt._, in support of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. On p. 218 he foists this assertion on the Catholics, “_homines sine Spiritu Sancto posse ... mereri gratiam et iustificationem operibus_,” and says, that this was refuted by Augustine, “_cuius sententiam supra in articulo de iustificatione recitavimus_.”

[1098] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 173; cp. p. 169.

[1099] G. Kawerau, “Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” 1902, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xix. 3.

[1100] On January 28, 1538. Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 44. Cp. G. Ellinger, “Philipp Melanchthon,” Berlin, 1902, pp. 362 ff., 598.

[1101] To Veit Dietrich, July 8, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 174.

[1102] To Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola at Augsburg, July 15, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 113.

[1103] To Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45.

[1104] On August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233. “_Obsecro te, ut Amsdorfice respondeas in aliquem angulum_: ‘Dass uns der Papst und Legat wollten im Ars lecken.’”

[1105] From Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of June 27, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35; “_tuas miserrimas curas, quibus te scribis consumi_.” This was really due to the “greatness of our want of faith.”

[1106] He writes to Melanchthon on June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51: “_Si nos ruemus, ruet Christus una! Esto ruat, malo ego cum Christo ruere quam cum Cæsare stare._” His cause was without “_temeritas_” and quite pure, “_quod testatur mihi Spiritus ipse_.” _Ibid._: “_Ego pro te oro, oravi et orabo nec dubito, quin sim exauditus; sentio illud Amen in corde meo_.” The entire letter mirrors his frame of mind during his stay at the Castle of Coburg.

[1107] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 280.

[1108] To Spengler, September 15, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 372.

[1109] In his “_spes transactionis_” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 261) Melanchthon even described the previous tampering with the Church as “_temerarii motus_” (_ibid._, p. 246 _seq._). Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 112.

[1110] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 297.

[1111] Luther to Melanchthon, June 29, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 45: “_Sicuti semper scripsi, omnia sis concedere paratus, tantum solo evangelio nobis libere permisso_.”

[1112] August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235: “_dolos ac lapsus nostros facile emendabimus_,” etc. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386. For proof that “_mendacia_” should be read after “_dolos_” see Grisar, “Stimmen aus M.L.,” 1913, p. 286 ff.

[1113] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.

[1114] “_Ubique enim et semper excipimus libertatem et puritatem doctrinæ, qua obtenta tune dominationem episcoporum detrectares?_”

[1115] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 362.

[1116] Cp. Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, August 26, 1530, and previous ones to Melanchthon, July 13; to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon and Agricola, July 15; to Melanchthon, July 27. “Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 219, 100, 112, 136.

[1117] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.

[1118] “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 5, p. 282. Spoken at the termination of the historic Diet of Augsburg the words of the theologians gain added interest, though this was not the first time similar language was heard. Cp. G. Krüger, “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” p. 14 f. Even in 1527 the Visitations had been “arranged by the Elector for the amendment of the conditions” which Luther had exposed “to his sovereign with a heavy heart, viz. ‘how the parsonages are in a state of misery, no one giving or paying anything’; the common man heeds neither preacher nor parson, so that, unless some strong measures are taken by Your Electoral Highness for State maintenance of pastors and preachers, there will soon be neither parsonages, nor schools, nor scholars, and so God’s Word and service will come to an end.”

[1119] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 282: “neither were they at all impressed by the declaration of the Emperor that ‘the Word of God, the Gospel and every law, civil and canonical, forbade a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.’”

[1120] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 342.

[1121] Letter of August 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 233.

[1122] Luther to the Landgrave, September 11, 1530, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. xxvii. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 253): “I heartily thank H.R.H. for his gracious and consoling offer to afford me shelter.”

[1123] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 319 ff.

[1124] “Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, pp. 283 f., 286, 287.

[1125] _Ibid._, p. 596.

[1126] “Ph. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 251.

[1127] _Ibid._, p. 343.

[1128] “Ph. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” xiv. 3), p. 90 f. Campeggio, in H. Laemmer, “Monumenta Vaticana,” p. 51.

[1129] Third ed. Art. “Melanchthon,” by († Landerer, † Herrlinger and) Kirn, pp. 518, 529.

[1130] “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358 ff. The page-heading reads: “Melanchthons absichtliche und öffentliche Unwahrheit.”

[1131] Sell, _ibid._, p. 98.

[1132] To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51.

[1133] On August 26, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 219. Cp. his letters of July 13 to Melanchthon, of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin and Melanchthon.

[1134] On September 11, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 252: “_Utinam episcopi eam (iurisdictionem) accepissent sub istis conditionibus! Sed ipsi habent nares in suam rem._”

[1135] To Camerarius, November 2, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1126.

[1136] Cp. his “_Apologia_” of the Augsburg Confession, Art. iv., “Symb. Bücher,” p. 87, where, on the doctrine of Justification, the old German translation runs: “Because the gainsayers know not nor understand what the words of Scripture mean, what forgiveness of sins, or grace, or faith, or justice is ... they have miserably robbed poor souls, to whom it was a matter of life and death, of their eternal consolation.” Page 90: “They do not know what the fear of death or the assaults of the devil are ... when the heart feels the anger of God or the conscience is troubled ... but the affrighted conscience knows well that it is impossible to merit either _de condigno_ or _de congruo_, and therefore soon sinks into distrust and despair,” etc. Page 95: The new teaching alone was able “to raise up our hearts even amidst the terrors of sin and death,” etc. Hence Melanchthon insists in his “_Brevis discendæ theologiæ ratio_” (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 458), that Bible study served “_ad usum et ad tentationes superandas comparanda cognitio_.”

[1137] See Kawerau, “Luthers Stellung,” etc. (above p. 319, n. 1), p. 32. Cp. Kawerau, “Studien und Kritiken,” 1897, p. 678 f.

[1138] Plitt-Kolde,³, 1900.

[1139] Melanchthon to Spalatin, September, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 674, after the publication of the “_Diatribe_”: “_Diu optavi Luthero prudentem aliquem de hoc negotio antagonistam contingere_.” “His own testimony (in 1536) is decisive as to the effect of Erasmus on his opinion regarding free-will.” Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 199. On the “_Diatribe_,” see our vol. ii., p. 261 ff.

[1140] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 202. In this he was of course inconsequent, for, as Ellinger says, where it is a question of the religious life, he traces everything back to the action of God. “It is easy to see, that, here, as in Luther’s case (where the _Deus absconditus_ plays a part), we have merely an expedient.” _Ibid._

[1141] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 175 f.

[1142] Above, p. 324. He was being attacked on account of the stress he laid on good works, so he wrote to Camerarius in December, 1536, but though so many preachers were now shouting in stentorian tones that it was erroneous to demand works, “posterity will be astonished that an age so mad could ever have been, when such folly met with applause.” Cp. “_Pezelii Obiectiones et resp. Melanchthonis_,” 5, p. 289, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 373.

[1143] To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383.

[1144] To the Landgrave of Hesse in 1524, under the title “_Epitome renovatæ ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ_” (“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 704): “_Iustitia vere christiana est, cum confusa conscientia per fidem in Christum erigitur et sentit, se accipere remissionem peccatorum propter Christum_.” In the same “_Epitome_,” p. 706: “_Ipsissimam iustitiam esse, credere quod per Christum remittantur peccata sine nostra satisfactione, sine nostris meritis_.”

[1145] Cp. the passages in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 291.

[1146] Letter of August or September, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 158.

[1147] Even in his “_Discendæ theologiæ ratio_” of 1530 (“Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 457), Melanchthon had said: “_Multa sunt in illis (Locis) adhuc rudiora, quæ decrevi mutare_.”

[1148] To Veit Dietrich, June 22, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “_Scio, re ipsa Lutherum sentire eadem_.”

[1149] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”^[4], 1906, p. 857. He says, that Melanchthon “was deceiving himself” in asserting that Luther’s teaching was the same.

[1150] “Phil. Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze,” 1906, p. 3.

[1151] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 837 f.

[1152] _Ibid._, p. 838. He had even ceased to be a true interpreter since 1527, so we read on p. 842.

[1153] Loofs, p. 842.

[1154] _Ibid._, p. 844.

[1155] _Ibid._

[1156] _Ibid._, p. 845.

[1157] _Ibid._, p. 845 ff.

[1158] _Ibid._, p. 853 f.

[1159] J. Haussleiter, “Aus der Schule Melanchthons, Theologische Disputationen usw., 1546 bis 1560,” Greifswald, 1897, p. 35.

[1160] _Ibid._, p. 39.

[1161] Cp. Loofs, _loc. cit._, p. 855.

[1162] Haussleiter, _loc. cit._, p. v. Also Loofs, _loc. cit._ Cp. above, p. 332, n.

[1163] “Die Symbole des Luthertums” (“Preuss. Jahrb.,” 63, 1889), p. 121 ff.

[1164] Cp. above, p. 3 ff. It should be pointed out in order to supplement the above statements of Haussleiter and Müller that Luther nevertheless looks on faith as the acceptance of certain dogmas (cp. above, p. 14, and vol. v., xxxiv. 1), and thus in some sense recognises a “rule of faith,” and that not seldom in the most peremptory fashion he demands obedience to the “injunctions of faith.”

[1165] Page vi.

[1166] Karl Müller (“Symbole,” p. 127 f.) points out very truly that Melanchthon was in the habit of appealing to Luther’s authority, who, for his part, “claimed immutability for his own view of the Gospel”; and further that later followers of Luther, for instance, Flacius, thanks to this very principle, reverted to the real Luther, and furiously assailed Melanchthon for his deformation of the Reformer. According to G. Krüger, “Melanchthon,” p. 12, Melanchthon “in his revisions (of the ‘_Loci_’) cut himself more and more adrift from Luther, not always happily, but rather to the detriment of the cause.” Page 25: “Many are of opinion that the glorious seed of the German Reformation would have borne much richer fruit had Melanchthon been different from what he was.” Yet Krüger also says: “Should the Luther for whom we long ever come, then let us hope that a Melanchthon will be his right-hand man, that, with the advent of the Titan who overthrows the old and founds the new, the spirit of peace and kindliness may still prevail to the blessing to our Fatherland and Church.” What the aims of the new Luther and new Melanchthon are to be, the author fails to state.

[1167] Above, p. 8 ff.

[1168] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 69.

[1169] Krüger, “Ph. Melanchthon,” p. 12: “Although Melanchthon, the academician, did not look upon himself as a born theologian, although he likened himself to the donkey in the mystery-play, yet he became the father of evangelical theology.”

[1170] To Camerarius, January 10, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 822: “_meam sententiam noli nunc requirere fui enim nuncius alienæ causæ_.”

[1171] Loofs, _ibid._, p. 865.

[1172] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 358. He gives no references.

[1173] Above, p. 150 ff.

[1174] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 378; Erl. ed., 29, p. 5.

[1175] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 29, p. 7.

[1176] Vol. v., xxxi. 1 and 4.

[1177] “Anal. Lutherana et Melanchthoniana. Tischreden Luthers und Aussprüche Melanchthons,” 1892 (usually quoted here as “Mathesius, Aufzeichnungen”).

[1178] Page 178.

[1179] Page 158.

[1180] Page 143.

[1181] Page 178.

[1182] Page 186. On Melanchthon’a belief in devils and witches see K. Hartfelder, “Hist. Taschenbuch,” 1889, p. 252 ff. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert,” 1910, pp. 27, 41, 121.

[1183] Page 184.

[1184] Page 160.

[1185] Page 161.

[1186] “Vita Melanchthonis,” c. 22.

[1187] Page 177.

[1188] Page 19.

[1189] Page 159.

[1190] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400.

[1191] “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 133, in a work against Thamer. Cp. N. Paulus, “Servets Hinrichtung im lutherischen Urteil,” “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 161 ff., and “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1905, pp. 40-53; likewise “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911.

[1192] “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 362.

[1193] _Ibid._, p. 524.

[1194] _Ibid._, p. 852.

[1195] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 602.

[1196] Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” p. 47 ff. Paulus quotes from a pamphlet of Melanchthon’s—which escaped the notice of the editors of his works—entitled “Prozess, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Wiedertäufern,” and dated 1557. Here we read that even the Anabaptist articles which did not concern the secular government were to be punished as blasphemies, as for instance the rejection of infant baptism and the denial of the Trinity. Such articles were not to be regarded as of no account, “for the Jewish fallacy that Christ did not exist previous to His Incarnation is plainly blasphemous, and so is the denial of original sin,” etc. Then follows the list of penalties. The memorandum is signed by the theologians Melanchthon, J. Brenz, J. Marbach, J. Andreae, G. Karg, P. Eber, J. Pistorius and J. Rungius.

[1197] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 45: “No less than nine reasons are alleged to prove that Christian rulers, like the Jewish kings, are bound by Divine law to root out idolatry.”

[1198] Letter to the Margrave George of Brandenburg, September 14, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 538.

[1199] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 154. Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 5.

[1200] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 615.

[1201] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 157.

[1202] “Von der Freyheit eynes Christen Menschen,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 34 f., 29; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 195 f., 187.

[1203] Cp. above, p. 324 ff.

[1204] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, pp. 604, 608.

[1205] To Bishop Andreas Cricius, October 27, 1532, in Kawerau, “Die Versuche, Melanchthon zur kath. Kirche zurückzuführen,” p. 13, from T. Wierzbowski, “Materialy,” etc., Warsaw, 1900.

[1206] To Camerarius, November 27, 1539, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 840: “_dolores animi acerbissimi et continui_.”

[1207] To Bucer, August 28, 1544, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 474. In the same letter: “_noster Pericles_ [Luther] _rursus tonare cœpit vehementissime_”; Amsdorf was inciting him against the writer on account of the question of the Sacrament.

[1208] To Camerarius, October 31, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 683.

[1209] To the same, March 23, 1525, _ibid._, p. 729: “_Reliqui vulgus sunt_.”

[1210] To the same, July 4, 1526, _ibid._, p. 804. See his letter on Luther’s marriage in our vol. ii., p. 176.

[1211] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 619, p. 188, n. Melanchthon reminds Camerarius that they had “often censured” Luther’s [Greek: bômoloch’ia]. Cp. vol. ii., p. 178. Camerarius altered not only this letter in the printed edition, but also others; for instance, that mentioned above, p. 364, note 4, about the “_vulgus_.”

[1212] Cruciger to Veit Dietrich, August 4, 1537, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 398: “_Cum alia multa, tum maxime obstat_ [Greek: ê gunaikoturann’is].” K. Sell, “Phil. Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation,” 1898, p. 57: “The wives do not seem to have got on so well.”

[1213] “Many of the people,” he writes in 1524, “attach themselves to Luther as the champion of freedom; they are weary of the good old customs ... many of them think that Luther merely teaches contempt of human traditions.” (In the _Epitome_ addressed to the Landgrave of Hesse [above, p. 348, n. 1].) Cp. Döllinger, _loc. cit._, 3, p. 301. He laments in similar fashion the results of Luther’s behaviour in 1527, complaining that the people had become “over-confident and had lost the sense of fear” because they heard nothing about penance. This one-sided preaching of the Gospel resulted “in greater errors and sins than had ever existed before.” Döllinger, _ibid._, 3, p. 302. Melanchthon regarded the writings of his friend, particularly on account of their exaggeration, with “ever-increasing distrust.” “The great man’s boisterousness began to alarm him.... There is no doubt that it was from this quarter that the misgivings first arose which nipped and caused to wither the blossoms of their previous so intimate relationship.” Thus Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 187.

[1214] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 794.

[1215] May 12, 1536. _Ibid._, 3, p. 68 _seq._

[1216] Caspar Aquila, as early as 1527, accused him of abandoning Christianity and of being a Papist. Cp. Melanchthon to Aquila, November 17, 1527. “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 961. Cp. the letter to the same of the middle of November, 1527, _ibid._, p. 959.

[1217] To the Saxon minister Carlowitz, April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879 _seq._

[1218] To Justus Jonas, November 25, 1527, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 913: “_quam si vivus in eiusmodi miserias incideret_.”

[1219] See above, p. 321.

[1220] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 241.

[1221] On June 13, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 35.

[1222] On June 30, 1530, p. 50.

[1223] “Die Versuche,” p. 65.

[1224] _Ibid._, p. 10.

[1225] This proposition stands at the head of the 1535 edition of the “_Loci_.” He had intended in this work, so he says, “_colligere doctrinam catholicam ecclesiae Christi_,” as taught by those witnesses. “Corp. ref.,” 21, p. 333. In 1540 he declared further that the Churches accepting the Augsburg Confession held fast to the “_perpetuus consensus veræ ecclesiæ omnium temporum_,” as to that of the Prophets and Apostles; Ambrose, Augustine, etc., agreed with them—if only they were rightly understood. “Corp. ref.,” 11, p. 494.

[1226] Paolo Vergerio, January 13, 1541, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 22.

[1227] Kawerau, “Versuche,” p. 66 f.

[1228] _Ibid._, p. 33. Cordatus to Cruciger, August 20, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 159. In a letter to the latter of September 17, 1536, he bases his blame of Melanchthon on his praise of Luther (“_Præceptor noster, qui est doctor doctorum theologiæ. Amen._”), to whose doctrine it was necessary to hold fast.

[1229] “_Vita Erasmi_,” ed. Lugd. Batav., 1615, p. 259. Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 17.

[1230] Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 31.

[1231] “_In plerisque controversiis iudicandis meam opinionem ad tuam sententiam libenter adiungo._” Letter of May 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 68 _seq._

[1232] His theses on the Primacy and his other polemical statements (see below, xx. 4) are scarcely “better-sounding.” A good resolution here made runs as follows: “_Ad has materias tractandas afferam aliquanto plus curæ ac studii quam antea._”

[1233] Kawerau’s opinion, p. 33.

[1234] To Camerarius, November 30, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 193. After mentioning the report Melanchthon adds: “_Nihil mihi obicitur, nisi quod dicor plusculum laudare bona opera_”; all the truth in this was that “_quædam minus horride dico quam ipsi_,” i.e. than Luther and his more enthusiastic followers.

[1235] With the expression “unhappy fate” we may compare his lament over the “_rixæ religionum, in quas meo quodam fato incidi_” (To the Imperial Secretary Obernburger, June 23, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 602). Kawerau remarks (p. 15): “It is indeed sad to find Luther’s greatest friend speaking of his having been involved in the ecclesiastical struggles of his time as a misfortune.”

[1236] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 313: “He probably made use here of an intentionally ambiguous phrase in order to curry favour with the Bishop, for it is clear that he never meant to promote a restoration of the hierarchical order, though Cricius may well have supposed this from his letter. Hence we see that in the execution of his plans, Melanchthon was not above having recourse to craft.”

[1237] Letter of October 27, 1532. For its publication by T. Wierzbowski see Kawerau, p. 78, n. 17. Kawerau rightly emphasises the fact that, according to the text of the letter, Melanchthon refuses to break with Luther merely “on the weak ground that he, as a right-minded man (_vir bonus_), could not make up his mind to approve, let alone admire, the cruel and bloodthirsty plans of the Romanists.... Should the ‘_moderata consilia_’ prevail amongst the Catholic bishops, then he would be quite willing to come to terms.... We cannot but see how gladly he would have taken refuge in a haven where he would be safe from the theological storm. This letter shows him as a moderate, and, at the same time, as a true representative of Humanist interests.” For the further efforts of Cricius, who wrote in 1535, that he was acting on behalf of, or at least with the express sanction of, the Pope and the Cardinals, see Kawerau, p. 18 ff. Melanchthon’s writing of August, 1532, to the Elector-Cardinal Albert of Mayence, in which, in the most respectful terms, he begs the Primate of Germany, so hated by Luther, “to procure a milder remedy (cp. ‘_moderata consilia_’) for the dissensions in the Churches,” is also of importance; all right-minded men in Europe (_boni omnes_) were looking to him. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 611 _seq._ In these letters we see his earnest efforts “to bring about peace and avert civil war,” as he writes to Erasmus.

[1238] On January 31, 1532, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 567.

[1239] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 353.

[1240] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 _seq._

[1241] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 266.

[1242] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 349.

[1243] _Ibid._, p. 351 f.

[1244] Ellinger, p. 414. The exclamation was called forth by his sad experience over the Naumburg bishopric (see below, p. 375, and vol. v., xxx. 4).

[1245] This tendency is also manifest in Melanchthon’s many labours for the promotion of education. In place of the old, independent Universities of the Middle Ages, enjoying ecclesiastical freedom and partaking of a quasi-international character, there sprang up, wherever Melanchthon’s influence prevailed, High Schools with a more limited horizon destined to supply the sovereign of the land with servants for the State, officials and preachers, but, above all, to safeguard the true Evangel. “All the reformed Universities established at Melanchthon’s instance,” remarks Carl Sell, a Protestant theologian, “Marburg, Tübingen, Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Leipzig, Königsberg, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Rostock, Jena, and finally Helmstädt, were State Universities, and, like Wittenberg, intended as citadels of the pure faith. Hence their professors were all bound by the new Confession.... The old, unfettered liberty of the Church’s Universities was now subordinated to the ends and needs of the State.” “Philip Melanchthon als Lehrmeister des protest. Deutschland,” 1897, p. 19. _Ibid._, p. 11, Sell thus characterises the State-Church promoted by Melanchthon and by Luther likewise: “The German Reformation never succeeded in producing a new ecclesiasticism. What grew up beneath its sway was rather a confessional State, which declared itself at one with that form of the Christian religion which the head of the State regarded as right.”

[1246] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 281. “Symbol. Bücher,^[10]” p. 339 (in the Articles of Schmalkalden, “_Tractatus de potestate papæ_”).

[1247] Thus Kolde in the Introduction to his edition of the “Symbol. Bücher^[10]” just referred to, p. xxv., n. 2, adding: “A preliminary to this is possibly to be found in ‘Corp. ref.,’ 3, p. 240 _seq._”

[1248] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, pp. 354, 364.

[1249] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 422.

[1250] Ellinger, _ibid._, p. 377.

[1251] On this “miracle,” see above, p. 162.

[1252] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578 _seq._ “Zeitschr. für die hist. Theol.,” 28, 1858, 606 f. On Melanchthon’s insincerity cp. also O. Ritschl, “Dogmengesch.,” 1, 1908, p. 232.

[1253] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 411.

[1254] _Ibid._, p. 26.

[1255] _Ibid._, p. 16.

[1256] To Julius Pflug, August 20, 1531, “_Erasmi Opp._,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1412. Kawerau, “_Versuche_,” p. 31.

[1257] “_B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ_,” etc., ed. O. Braunsberger, 1, p. 359 _seq._

[1258] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 383: “_Equidem studeo omni officio tueri concordiam nostræ academiæ, et scis me etiam hoc genere artis aliquid adhibere solere_,” etc. It is possible that the above reference to a “_plaga_,” or some other similar passage, gave rise to the singular misapprehension of certain polemics, viz. that Luther had been in the habit of coercing Melanchthon by striking him and boxing his ears, surely one of the most curious, and at the same time baseless, of all the legends concerning Luther.

[1259] On November 4, 1543, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 218.

[1260] Ellinger, _loc. cit._, p. 433. Cp. Melanchthon to Johann Sturm, August 28, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 917: The Court had prevailed on him not to leave Wittenberg, chiefly because it regarded his presence as indispensable owing to his power for mediating: “_me putant aliquanto minus vehementem aut pertinacem esse quam sunt alii_.” He regrets, with a hint at the Luther-enthusiasts, the “_democratia aut tyrannis indoctorum_” prevalent in both Catholic and Lutheran camps.... “_Non dissimulo evectos etiam esse nostros interdum [Greek: hyper ta eskammena], et multa mitigavi._”

[1261] “_Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili_,” he says in the letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 879.

[1262] See n. 3 of last page.

[1263] Hipler, “Beiträge zur Gesch. des Humanismus,” p. 45. Kawerau, “_Versuche_,” p. 31.

[1264] Explanation of Article xviii., “Werke,” 2, 1908, p. 147.

[1265] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 34 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 11. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 310. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 63.

[1266] See below, p. 409.

[1267] “Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister,” 1527, “Werke,” _ibid._, 38 ff.=14 ff.

[1268] Fragment in Migne’s “P.L.,” 5, col. 348 _seq._

[1269] “_De Trinitate_,” 18, c. 14. “P.L.,” 10, col. 247.

[1270] “_Ep. ad Smyrnæos_,” 7. Migne, “P.G.,” 5, col. 714. Instead of the passages here quoted, certain others were preferred in that controversy.

[1271] We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u. K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation. Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation as any obstacle to joining his party (“_nihil morati si quis eam alibi credat vel non_”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.

[1272] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.

[1273] _Ibid._, p. 130.

[1274] _Ibid._, p. 108.

[1275] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.

[1276] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.

[1277] “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.

[1278] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.

[1279] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.

[1280] See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.

[1281] To Prior Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” 1907 (with a discussion of G. Barge’s “Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt”), and “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.

[1282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 340; Erl. ed., 64, p. 394 f., from the “Report” on their meeting.

[1283] “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 165.

[1284] _Ibid._, p. 86=162: He points out why Andrew Carlstadt, “so far as my prayers may avail, shall not be permitted to come in again, but shall again depart should he secure admittance, unless he becomes a new Andrew, to which may God help him.” He had not interpreted the law of Moses aright nor applied it to the authorities, but to the common people. The authorities ought to forbid the country to such preachers as did not teach quietly but drew the mob to them, pulled down images and destroyed churches at their pleasure behind the backs of the authorities. Carlstadt’s spirit and that of his followers was a “spirit of murder and revolt.” Here he does not refer to the difference on the doctrine of the Sacrament. Cp. Karl Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” pp. 175-178. For the circumstances attending his banishment, see below, p. 391 f.

[1285] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 676.

[1286] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 125; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205. The first part was in print at the end of 1524, the second part about the end of January, 1525. Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 685.

[1287] Luther to the Elector of Saxony, September 12, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 327 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 240).

[1288] Carlstadt to Luther, previous to September 12, 1525, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 5, p. 239: “_Fui olim frater (tuus) fortasse non nimium commodus sed posthac mancipium ero et obsequibile et suspiciens._” He describes to Luther the poverty to which he, with his wife and child, were reduced.

[1289] See passage from Alberus, in Enders, “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 240, n. 1.

[1290] K. Müller, “Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 194.

[1291] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.

[1292] _Ibid._, p. 161.

[1293] _Ibid._, p. 144.

[1294] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 88.

[1295] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 124.

[1296] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 37.

[1297] On September 13, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 23.

[1298] To Jacob Probst, March 26, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 452.

[1299] To Amsdorf, April 13, 1542, _ibid._, p. 463.

[1300] To Probst, as above.

[1301] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 213; Erl. ed., 29, 296.

[1302] _Ibid._, p. 134=206.

[1303] In “Thomas Zweifels Rothenburg im Bauernkrieg,” ed. Baumann (“Bibl. des Litt. Vereins in Stuttgart,” 139), p. 20.

[1304] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, pp. 271, 273.

[1305] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 112 ff.; Erl. ed., p. 29, p. 190 ff.

[1306] _Ibid._, p. 114=193.

[1307] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 116; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.

[1308] Ickelsamer, “Clag,” etc. (ed. Enders, “Neudrucke,” No. 118, 1893). Cp. for instance “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24, p. 209; 53, p. 274.

[1309] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 687.

[1310] “Summa theol.,” 1-2, q. C. a. 3.

[1311] In a letter to Spalatin as early as May 29, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377.

[1312] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 164; Erl. ed., 29, p. 241.

[1313] _Ibid._, p. 182 f.=261.

[1314] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 115; Erl. ed., 29, p. 194.

[1315] Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” p. 53. For the Prophecy see above, p. 165 f.

[1316] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 134; Erl. ed., 29, p. 205.

[1317] _Ibid._, 15, p. 394=53, p. 274.

[1318] Sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 80.

[1319] _Ibid._, p. 287.

[1320] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 391; Erl. ed., 53, p. 271 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).

[1321] _Ibid._, 18, p. 214=29, p. 297.

[1322] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 390 f.=53, p. 276 f. (“An die Christen zu Straspurg”).

[1323] Sermon of March 25, 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 76 _seq._

[1324] Ickelsamer, “Neudrucke,” pp. 43, 44, 45.

[1325] Glatz to Luther, January 18, 1525, in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 107.

[1326] To Link at Altenburg on February 7, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 122.

[1327] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 376. Cp. _ibid._, p. 372 ff.

[1328] Förstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Reformation,” 1, p. 322.

[1329] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.

[1330] _Ibid._, p. 138.

[1331] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.

[1332] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[1333] O. Clemen, “Johann Sylvius Egranus” (“Mitt. des Altertumsvereins für Zwickau und Umgegend,” 1899, Hft. 6 and 7; Sonderabd., 1 and 2), 1, p. 28.

[1334] “Historien,” p. 222.

[1335] _Ibid._, p. 79.

[1336] M. J. Weller, “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” Chemnitz, 1760 ff., 2, p. 783. Weller, 1, p. 177, gives one of Egranus’s letters of 1523, in which he says: “_propter Lutherum neque evangelium neque Christum ... nominare tutum est_.”

[1337] Clemen, _ibid._, 2, p. 11 f.

[1338] Bl. A. 3a. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 135.

[1339] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 488.

[1340] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343 (in 1544).

[1341] _Ibid._, p. 90.

[1342] _Ibid._, p. 207.

[1343] To Wolfgang Wiebel, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 208 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 367).

[1344] Clemen, _ibid._, p. 16, with a reference to Loesche’s “Leben des Mathesius,” 1, 1895, p. 88.

[1345] Plentiful proofs in N. Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende,” p. 1 ff.

[1346] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.

[1347] For these passages and some others, see Döllinger, _ibid._, p, 136 f. Cp. Clemen, _ibid._, 2, p. 14.

[1348] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 267.

[1349] _Ibid._, p. 266 _seq._

[1350] _Ibid._, p. 267.

[1351] L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.

[1352] Reprint of Luther’s _Praefatio_ in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502 _seq._

[1353] First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener Staatsbibl.).

[1354] p. 2.

[1355] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter, which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538 (_illo die_).

[1356] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.

[1357] _Ibid._, p. 412.

[1358] “Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”

[1359] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).

[1360] _Ibid._, p. 381.

[1361] H. Kawerau, “RE. für prot. Theol.,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”

[1362] See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 528, where the “contravention of the rights of the Chapter” is admitted.

[1363] To Bugenhagen, November 24, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 127.

[1364] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 147 f. See above, p. 204.

[1365] Mathesius, _ibid._, p. 274.

[1366] In the work called “_Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Iesu Christi_” (end of August, 1525). See “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 447. Zwingli replied to Bugenhagen in a writing of October, 1525. In the “Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmal Christi,” which Zwingli published in February, 1526, in vindication of his denial of the Real Presence, he, as in his previous writings, avoided naming Luther. Since at Basle in September, 1525, [Œcolampadius also advocated the figurative sense of the words of institution in his writing, “_De genuina verborum Domini expositione_,” and Caspar Schwenckfeld and Valentine Krautwald sought to propagate the same in Silesia, while Carlstadt was winning adherents by his attacks upon the Sacrament, Bugenhagen’s work was all the more timely. Johann Brenz espoused his cause, in opposition to the figurative interpretation, in his “Syngramma” of October, 1525, and so did Jacob Strauss. The “Sacramentarian” movement had grown before Luther followed up his vigorous refutation of Carlstadt’s denial of the Sacrament (in his book “Widder die hymelischen Propheten,” and in his sermon of 1526 on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ against the fanatics) by his polemical Tractate against Zwingli and [Œcolampadius on the words of Christ, “This is My Body” (1527). See above, p. 379 f.]

[1367] Spengler to Veit Dietrich, in Mayer’s “Spengleriana,” p. 153. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 141.

[1368] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 25.

[1369] _Ibid._, p. 89.

[1370] E. Hörigk, “Joh. Bugenhagen und die Protestantisierung Pommerns,” Mainz, 1895, p. 19 f.

[1371] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. Cp. p. 220. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 10, where Luther relates how Bugenhagen calmed him when the devil almost choked him with the passage 1 Timothy v. 11, and drove him “from _gratia in disputationem legis_.”

[1372] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 115.

[1373] Bugenhagen to Luther, Jonas and Melanchthon (beginning of November, 1530), “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 304 ff.: “The words [of the devil] Acts xxix.[15] came to my mind: ‘Jesus I know and Paul I know,’ etc. He has often troubled me ... I have not yet forgotten what he sought to do through the Sacramentarians of Silesia (see p. 409, n. 3). In the matter of other sins he may have seemed to triumph over me, but, thanks be to Christ, he may indeed have come to me, but has not been able to remain. I again exhort you herewith that you pray for me,” etc.

[1374] In the letter, p. 307.

[1375] “Zwo wunderbarliche Hystorien zu Bestettigung der Lere des Evangelii, Johann Pomer, Philipp Melanchthon.” According to Enders, 8, p. 304, probably published at Nuremberg (by Luther’s friend, W. Link) in 1530 or the beginning of 1531.

[1376] Cp. B. Heyne, “Uber Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 52 ff.

[1377] To Wenceslaus Link, December, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.

[1378] Wolfgang Musculus (“Itinerar.,” May 25, 1536), in Kolde, “Analecta Lutherana,” p. 220.

[1379] On July 5, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” p. 245.

[1380] July 26, 1537, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 183 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 250).