Chapter XXVIII: The New Dogmas in an Historical and Psychological Light (7)

It is a relief, after such lamentable utterances which could only have been accepted by people whom prejudice in Luther’s favour had rendered blind, to recall the clear statements--so full of conviction--on the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which occur in the very writings in which Luther attacks the Mass. Our second volume concluded with a cheering confession on the part of the Wittenberg Professor of his faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, a confession which both did him honour and expressed those consoling and incontrovertible truths which constitute the common treasure of the Christian creeds. The present volume also, after the sad pictures of dissent of which it is only too full, may charitably end with the words in which Luther voices his belief in the Sacrament of the Altar, the lasting memorial of Divine Love, in which our Lord never ceases to pray for unity amongst those bidden as guests to His table.

“I hereby confess before God and the whole world that I believe and do not doubt, and with the help and grace of my dear Lord Jesus Christ will maintain even to that Day, that where Mass is celebrated according to Christ’s ordinance whether amongst us Lutherans or in the Papacy, or in Greece or in India (even though under one kind only--though that is wrong and an abuse), there is present under the species of the Bread, the true Body of Christ given for us on the cross, and, under the species of wine, the true Blood of Christ shed for us; nor is it a spiritual or fictitious Body and Blood, but the true natural Body and Blood taken of the holy, virginal, and really human body of Mary, without the intervention of any man but conceived of the Holy Ghost alone; which Body and Blood of Christ now sitteth at the right hand of the Majesty of God in the Divine Person, which is Christ Jesus, true, real, and eternal God, with the Father of Whom He is begotten from all eternity, etc. And that same Body and Blood of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, not only the Saints and those who are worthy, but also sinners and the unworthy truly handle and receive, bodily though invisibly, with hands, mouth, chalice, paten, corporal, or whatever else be used when it is given and received in the Mass.”

“This is my faith, this I know, and no one shall take it from me.”

He had always, so he insists, by his testimony upheld the “clear, plain text of the Gospel” against heresies old and new, and withstood the “devil’s malice and work in the service and for the betterment of my dear brothers and sisters, in accordance with Christian charity.”[1853]

END OF VOL. IV

FOOTNOTES:

[1] On Clement the Seventh’s earlier hesitation to come to a decision, see Ehses in “Vereinsschr. der Görresgesell.,” 1909, 3, p. 7 ff., and the works there referred to; also Paulus, “Luther und die Polygamie” (on Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92, n.) in the “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 48, and “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 135, 1905, p. 89 ff.; Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), 10, pp. 238-287. See below, p. 6 f.

[2] To Robert Barnes, Sep. 3, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 9, pp. 87-8. At the commencement we read: “_Prohibitio uxoris demortui fratris est positivi iuris, non divini_.” A later revision of the opinion also under Sep. 3, _ibid._, pp. 92-8.

[3] “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 88. In the revision the passage still reads much the same: “Rather than sanction such a divorce I would permit the King to marry a second Queen ... and, after the example of the olden Fathers and Kings, to have at the same time two consorts or Queens” (p. 93).

[4] See vol. iii., p. 259.

[5] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 87 _seq._

[6] Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 91, n. 15. Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 214, n. 1, and below, p. 17, n. 2.

[7] Memorandum of Aug. 23, 1531, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 520 _seq._; see particularly p. 526: Bigamy was allowable in the King’s case, “_propter magnam utilitatem regni, fortassis etiam propter conscientiam regis.... Papa hanc dispensationem propter caritatem debet concedere._” Cp. G. Ellinger, “Phil. Melanchthon,” 1902, p. 325 f., and Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 208 ff.

[8] Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, 1892, p. 577, where he refers to the after-effect of Melanchthon’s memorandum, instanced in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 352, and to the material on which Bucer relied to win over the Wittenbergers to the Landgrave’s side (“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851 _seq._).

[9] “Wie in Ehesachen und den Fällen, so sich derhalben zutragen, nach göttlichem billigem Rechten christenlich zu handeln sei,” 1531. Fol. D. 2b and D. 3a. Cp. Rockwell, p. 281, n. 1.

[10] The Preface reprinted in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 305.

[11] Enders, “Luther’s Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 92.

[12] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 199: “_Suasimus Anglo, tolerabiliorem ei esse concubinatum quam_” to distract his whole country and nation, “_sed tandem eam repudiavit_.”

[13] Cp. Paulus in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 90.

[14] [Though, of course, the hesitation evinced previously by St. Augustine (“_De bono conjugali_,” “P.L.,” xl., col. 385) must not be lost sight of. _Note to English Edition._]

[15] Cp. Paulus, _ibid._, 147, 1911, p. 505, where he adds: “And yet mediæval casuistry is alleged to have been the ‘determining influence’ in Luther’s sanction of bigamy! Had Luther allowed himself to be guided by the mediæval theory and practice, he would never have given his consent to the Hessian bigamy.”

[16] “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 409. Of Clement VII, Köhler writes (_ibid._): “Pope Clement VII, who had to make a stand against Henry VIII of England in the question of bigamy, never suggested a dispensation for a second wife, though, to all appearance, he was not convinced that such a dispensation was impossible.”

[17] “Theol. JB. für 1905,” Bd. 25, p. 657, with reference to “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, p. 85.

[18] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Eng. Trans., 6, pp. 1 ff.

[19] Letter published by Th. Kolde in the “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 605.

[20] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 106, in 1540. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 995.

[21] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 928. Melanchthon’s language, and Luther’s too, changed when, later, Henry VIII caused those holding Lutheran opinions to be executed. See below, p. 12 f.

[22] Beginning of Dec., 1535. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 275: “_Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent!_”

[23] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1032, n. 1383. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 369.

[24] Thus G. Mentz, the editor of the “Wittenberger Artickel,” drawn up for the envoys from England (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Prot.,” Hft. 2, 1905), pp. 3 and 4. He points out, p. 7, that King Henry, in a reply to Wittenberg (March 12, 1536, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 48), requested “support in the question of the divorce” and desired certain things to be modified in the “_Confessio_” and the “_Apologia_.’”

[25] For full particulars concerning the change, see Rockwell, _loc. cit._, 216 ff. The latter says, p. 217: “Luther’s opinion obviously changed [before March 12, 1536].... Yet he expressed himself even in 1536 against the divorce [Henry the Eighth’s]; the prohibition [of marriage with a sister in-law] from which the Mosaic Law admitted exceptions, might be dispensed, whereas the prohibition of divorce could not be dispensed,” and, p. 220: “In the change of 1536 the influence of Osiander is unmistakable.... Cranmer, when at Ratisbon in 1532, had visited Osiander several times at Nuremberg, and finally won him over to the side of the King of England.” At the end Rockwell sums up as follows (p. 222): “The expedient of bigamy ... was approved by Luther, Melanchthon, Grynæus, Bucer and Capito, but repudiated by Œcolampadius and Zwingli. Hence we cannot be surprised that Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer should regard favourably the Hessian proposal of bigamy, whereas Zwingli’s successors at Zürich, viz. Bullinger and Gualther, opposed it more or less openly.”

[26] On Feb. 16, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 436. Cp. _ibid._, p. 584, Letter of Jan. 18, 1545.

[27] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 152, in 1540.

[28] Mentz, _loc. cit._, p. 11.

[29] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 52, p. 133 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 327).

[30] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 174, in 1540.

[31] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 324.

[32] _Ibid._, p. 326.

[33] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 400, with reference to “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1076.

[34] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 537, where the words have been transferred to July 10, 1539.

[35] Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 1029.

[36] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 178.

[37] _Ibid._, p. 145.

[38] _Ibid._, p. 198.

[39] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 145. On account of his cruelty he says of Henry VIII, in Aug., 1540: “I look upon him not as a man but as a devil incarnate. He has added to his other crimes the execution of the Chancellor Cromwell, whom, a few days previously, he had made Lord Chief Justice of the Kingdom” (_ibid._, p. 174).

[40] For Luther’s previous statements in favour of polygamy, see vol. iii., p. 259 ff.; and above, p. 4.

[41] To Philip of Hesse, Nov. 28, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 411 f.

[42] “Briefwechsel des A. Corvinus,” ed. Tschackert, 1900, p. 81.

[43] “Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmütigen von Hessen mit Bucer, hg. und erläutert von Max Lenz” (“Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven,” Bd. 5, 28 und 47 = 1, 2, 3), 1, 1880, p. 345. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911 (p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) p. 504.

[44] We quote the instructions throughout from the most reliable edition, viz. that in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12 (1910, p. 301 ff.), which G. Kawerau continued and published after the death of Enders.

[45] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 352.

[46] Best given in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319 ff. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 258 ff.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 237, which gives only the Latin version; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 851 _seq._; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 18, 1846, p. 236 ff.

[47] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.

[48] W. Köhler, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen” (“Histor. Zeitschr.,” 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.), p. 399, 400.

[49] Luther’s letter, June, 1540, to the Elector of Saxony (below, p. 37) ed. Seidemann from a Kiel MS. in his edition of “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff.

[50] Thus Philip to his friend, Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg, Oct., 1540, when seeking to obtain his agreement to the bigamy. Ulrich, however, advised him to give up the project, which would be a great blow to the Evangel. F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog von Württemberg,” 3, p. 226 ff.

[51] Cp. above, p. 3 ff.; also Enders’ “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 308, where it is pointed out that in the copy of the letter to Henry VIII sent to Hesse (_ibid._, 9, p. 81 ff.) the passage in question concerning bigamy was omitted; the Landgrave Philip, however, learnt the contents of the passage, doubtless from Bucer.

[52] Letter of Luther to the Elector of Saxony. See above, p. 16, n. 3, and below, p. 37 f.

[53] Cp. W. W. Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen,” Marburg, 1904, p. 30 ff.

[54] This error has been confuted by Th. Brieger on good grounds in the “Untersuchungen über Luther und die Nebenehe des Landgrafen Philipp,” in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 29, p. 174 ff.; _ibid._, p. 403 ff. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 405 (N. Paulus).

[55] Dec. 10, 1539, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 326.

[56] [Unless the reference be to certain reputed _consulta_ of Gregory II or of Alexander III. Cp. “P.L.,” lxxxix., 525, and Decr. IV, 15, iii. _Note to English Ed._]

[57] See above, p. 14.

[58] Cp. Luther’s “Consideration,” dated Aug. 23, 1527, concerning the husband of a leprous wife, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 406 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 80), where he says: “I can in no wise prevent him or forbid his taking another wedded wife.” He here takes for granted the consent of the leprous party.

[59] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 141.

[60] Cp. the remarks in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 327 f., and Brieger, _loc. cit._, p. 192.

[61] Seckendorf, “Commentarius de Lutheranismo,” 3, 1694, p. 278.

[62] E. Brandenburg, “Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs Moritz von Sachsen,” 2, 1903, p. 101.

[63] Sailer to Philip of Hesse, Nov. 6, 1539, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 345; above, p. 15. Other similar statements by contemporaries are to be found in the article of N. Paulus (above, p. 15, n. 1).

[64] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 301.

[65] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 356 ff., and Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 388.

[66] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 308. Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 30.

[67] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 31.

[68] _Ibid._, p. 37.

[69] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 326 and 328.

[70] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 43.

[71] _Ibid._, p. 41 f.

[72] Melanchthon to Camerarius, Sep. 1, 1540, first fully published by Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 194.

[73] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. To Chancellor Brück, soon after Jan. 10, 1542, _ibid._, 4, p. 296. Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich on Dec. 11, 1541, concerning Lening: “_Monstroso corpore et animo est_.”

[74] Thus Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 48 f.

[75] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 362 f. Rockwell’s statement, p. 45, that Luther had been offered 200 Gulden by the Landgrave as a present, but had refused the gift, is, in both instances, founded on a misunderstanding. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 1905, p. 405.

[76] Luther to the Landgrave, Aug. 22, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 389.

[77] “Briefwechsel des Corvinus,” (see p. 14, n. 2), p. 79. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 563.

[78] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 1, p. 394.

[79] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, p. 397.

[80] Account of the Marshal in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 335.

[81] To Anthony von Schönberg, in Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 51, according to information taken from the archives.

[82] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 53.

[83] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 60.

[84] “_Carolina_,” ed. Köhler, 1900, p. 63. Cp. the Imperial Law “_Neminem_” in “_Corp. iur. civ., Cod. Iustin._,” ed. Krüger, 1877, p. 198. Bucer pointed out to the Landgrave, that “according to the common law of the Empire such things were punished by death.” “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 177; cp. pp. 178, 180.

[85] He declared on Jan. 3, 1541: “This much and not more the law may take from us.”

[86] On July 8, 1540, _ibid._, p. 178 ff. Before this, on June 15, he had exhorted the Landgrave to hush up the matter as far as possible so that the whole Church may not be “defiled” by it. _Ibid._, p. 174, Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 507.

[87] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 185 f.

[88] _Ibid._, p. 183.

[89] _Ibid._, p. 341.

[90] “_Analecta Lutherana_,” ed. Kolde, p. 353 _seq._ Cp. Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 71, n. 1.

[91] E. Friedberg remarks in the “Deutsche Zeitschr. f. KR.,” 36, 1904, p. 441, that the Wittenbergers “did not even possess any power of dispensing.”

[92] Cp. N. Paulus, “Das Beichtgeheimnis und die Doppelehe Philipps usw.,” “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 317 ff.

[93] Cp. Rockwell, _loc. cit._, pp. 154, 156.

[94] Yet in a later missive to Philip of Hesse (Sep. 17, 1540) he too speaks of the “counsel given in Confession in case of necessity.” Here, however, he bases his injunction of silence on other considerations.

[95] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 208.

[96] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 394.

[97] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 79.

[98] Ed. by Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196 ff., with the notice, “Written in April or June, 1540.” Rockwell gives the date more correctly, as, probably, June 10 (pp. 138, 364).

[99] Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 82, n. 4, the remark of G. Kawerau. “The regret felt by Luther was caused by the knowledge that the Landgrave had already a ‘concubine of his own’ and had not been satisfying his lusts merely on ‘common prostitutes’; had he known this at the time he gave his advice he would certainly have counselled the Landgrave to contract a sort of spiritual marriage with this concubine.” Köstlin had seen a difficulty in Luther’s later statement, that he would not have given his counsel (the advice tendered did not specify the lady) had he known that the Landgrave had “long satisfied, and could still satisfy, his craving on others,” etc. That there is really a difficulty involved, at least in Luther’s use of the plural “others,” seems clear unless, indeed, Kawerau would make Luther counsel the Landgrave to contract “spiritual marriage” with all these several ladies. Elsewhere Luther describes as a “harlot” a certain Catharine whom Kawerau (_ibid._) surmises to have been this same Essweg. By her Philip had a daughter named Ursula whom, in 1556, he gave in marriage to Claus Ferber.

[100] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 160. The Landgrave to Bucer. He was to tell his sister “that she must surely recollect having told him that he should keep a concubine instead of having recourse to numerous prostitutes; if she was willing to allow what was contrary to God’s law, why not allow this, which is a dispensation of God?”

[101] “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 267 f., and, better, in Rockwell, p. 165, after the original.

[102] “Briefe,” 6, p. 263 _seq._ For the address see Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 166, where the date is fixed between July 7 and 15, 1540.

[103] Cp. vol. iii., p. 30 ff.

[104] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 397 f.

[105] Thus Gualther from Frankfort, Sep. 15, 1540, to Bullinger, in Fueslin, “_Epistolæ_,” p. 205. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 176.

[106] The chief passage will be found in Kroker (Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 156 f.) more correctly than in Loesche (Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 117 ff.). It is headed “_De Macedonico negotio_,” because in Luther’s circle Philip of Hesse was known as the “Macedonian.” Where no other reference is given our quotations are taken from this passage.

[107] On the sign, see present work, vol. iii., p. 231.

[108] Philip’s father and his uncle William I (the elder brother) died insane. (See below, p. 61.)

[109] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143.

[110] On the Marcolfus legend (again to be mentioned on the next page), cp. vol. iii., p. 268, n. 4; F. H. von der Hagen, “Narrenbuch,” Halle, 1811, p. 256 ff., and Rockwell, pp. 160 and 163, where other instances are given of Luther’s use of the same figure.

[111] “‘_Ipsi tamen occidunt homines_ [heretics], _nos laboramus pro vita et ducimus plures uxores.’ Hæc lætissimo vultu dixit, non sine magno risu._”

[112] Cp. _ibid._, p. 139.

[113] _Ibid._, p. 133. He speaks in the same way of the Emperor on p. 160.

[114] _Ibid._, p. 139. May 21 to June 11, 1540.

[115] For the quotations from Terence, see Rockwell, p. 164. Cp. Kroker, _ibid._, p. 158.

[116] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 153.

[117] _Ibid._, p. 138.

[118] To Johann Lang, July 2, 1540, “Briefe,” 4, p. 298: “_miraculo Dei manifesto vivit_.”

[119] Ratzeberger, p. 102 f. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 162.

[120] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 526.

[121] _Ibid._, p. 478.

[122] Thus Hassencamp, vol. i., p. 507, though he was using the earlier editions of the Table-Talk, which are somewhat more circumspect.

[123] Vol. xviii., p. 461.

[124] “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 403 f.

[125] Gualther, in Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 186, n. 1.

[126] _Ibid._

[127] _Ibid._

[128] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 369 f.

[129] _Ibid._, p. 373. Concerning the notes which the editor calls the “Protokoll,” see N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. B1.,” 135, 1905, p. 323 f.

[130] _Ibid._, p. 375.

[131] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 179. The Protestant theologian Th. Brieger says (“Luther und die Nebenehe,” etc., “Preuss. Jahrb.,” 135, 1909, p. 46): “As is known, in the summer of 1540, when the matter had already been notorious for months, Luther gave the Landgrave the advice, that he should give a flat denial of the step he had taken.... ‘A lie of necessity was not against God; He was ready to take that upon Himself.’--Just as in our own day men of the highest moral character hold similar views concerning certain forms of the lie of necessity.”

[132] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373.

[133] P. 182.--Rockwell (p. 181, n. 4) also reminds us that Luther had written to the Elector: “In matters of Confession it is seemly that both the circumstances and the advice given in Confession” should be kept secret. Luther, in “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 196, see p. 37, n. 2. The Elector wrote to the Landgrave in a letter dated June 27, 1540 (quoted by Rockwell, _ibid._, from the archives), that the marriage could not be openly discussed, because, otherwise, “the Seal of Confession would be broken in regard to those who had given the dispensation.” In this he re-echoes Luther.--Rockwell, p. 182 (cp. p. 185, n. 3), thinks, that Luther was following the “more rigorous” theologians of earlier days, who had taught that it was “a mortal sin for the penitent to reveal what the priest had told him.” This is not the place to rectify such misunderstandings.

[134] Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 175, with a reference to Luther’s statement of July 17: If the Landgrave would not be content with a dispensation, “and claimed it as a right, then they were quit of their advice” (“Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 375). It is difficult to follow Luther through all his attempts to evade the issue.

[135] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 373 f. “Anal. Luth.,” ed. Kolde, p. 356 _seq._

[136] “Bichte,” not “Bitte,” is clearly the true reading here.

[137] “Briefe,” 6, p. 272 f., dated July 20, 1540.

[138] Kolde, _loc. cit._, p. 357-360.

[139] Kolde, _loc. cit._, p. 362 _seq._

[140] Dated July 18, 1540, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 380 ff.

[141] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 273 ff.

[142] On July 27, “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 385 ff.

[143] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 190. Cp. p. 61.

[144] _Ibid._, p. 192, from Philip’s letter to Luther, on July 18.

[145] Rockwell, _loc. cit._, p. 193.

[146] _Ibid._, p. 194.

[147] “_Alcibiadea natura non Achillea._” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. 4, p. 116. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 194.

[148] “_Hæc sunt principia furoris._” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 143. Above, p. 45.

[149] _Ibid._, on the same day (June 11, 1540), Luther’s statement. Above, p. 44.

[150] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 159, n. 2; p. 4, n. 1.

[151] _Ibid._, p. 102.

[152] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 175, 7-24 Aug., 1540.

[153] To the Elector Johann Frederick, March, 1543, see Rockwell p. 199 f., from archives. Rockwell quotes the following from a passage in which several words have been struck out: “I have always preferred that he [...?] should deal with the matter, than that he should altogether [...?].” Was the meaning: He preferred that Luther should be involved in such an affair rather than that he [the Landgrave] should desert their party altogether? Other utterances of Melanchthon’s and Luther’s, given above, would favour this sense.

[154] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 194. Text of Camerarius in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1077 _seq._

[155] _Ibid._, p. 103.

[156] “Ergründete ... Duplicä ... wider des Churfürsten von Sachsen Abdruck,” etc. The work is directed primarily against the Elector Johann Frederick, the “drunken Nabal of Saxony,” as the author terms him.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 58.

[158] _Ibid._, p. 77: “Concerning the Landgrave, whom he abuses as bigamous, an Anabaptist and even as having submitted to re-baptism, though in such ambiguous terms as to suit a cardinal or a weather-cock, so that were his proofs asked for he could twist his tongue round and say, that he was not sure it was so, but merely suspected it ... of this I will not now say much. The Landgrave is man enough and has learned men about him. I know of one Landgravine in Hesse [one only bore the title], who is and is to be styled wife and mother in Hesse, and, in any case, no other will be able to bear young Princes and suckle them; I refer to the Duchess, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. And if her Prince has strayed, that was owing to your bad example, which has brought things to such a pass, that the very peasants do not look upon it as sin, and have made it difficult for us to maintain matrimony in honour and esteem, nay, to re-establish it. From the very beginning none has abused matrimony more grievously than Harry of Wolffenbüttel, the holy, sober man.” That is all Luther says of the Hessian bigamy.

[159] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 107, on the writing of “Justinus Warsager” against the Landgrave, with a reference to “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 112.

[160] Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 108.

[161] “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, 1891, p. 186, n. 1.

[162] On Dec. 11, 1541. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 117, n. 1.

[163] To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 426. Cp. above, p. 25 f., for Luther’s opinion that Lening had been the first to suggest the plan of the bigamy to the Landgrave. For other points in the text, see Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 117 f. Koldewey remarks of Lening, that “his wretched servility and his own lax morals had made him the advocate of the Landgrave’s carnal lusts.” (“Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 57, 1884, p. 560.)

[164] The Landgrave to Sailer, Aug. 27, 1541, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 148, and to Melanchthon.

[165] See above, note 163.

[166] In the letter to Melanchthon, quoted p. 66, note 2, Philip says, that if Luther’s work had not yet appeared Melanchthon was to explain to him that the Dialogue of Neobulus tended rather to dissuade from, than to permit bigamy, “so that he might forbear from such [reply], or so moderate it that it may not injure us or what he himself previously sanctioned and wrote [i.e. in the Wittenberg testimony].”

[167] Printed in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 206 ff.

[168] Luther to the Electoral Chancellor, Brück, “shortly after Jan. 10,” “Briefe,” 6, p. 296, where he also approvingly notes that Menius had not written “‘_contra necessitatem et casualem dispensationem individuæ personæ_,’ of which we, as confessors, treated”; he only “inveighed ‘_contra legem et exemplum publicum polygamiæ_,’ which we also do.” Still, he finds that Menius “excuses the old patriarchs too feebly.”

[169] Cp. his outburst against “those who teach polygamy” in his “In evangelium s. Mt. Commentaria,” Tiguri, 1543, p. 179.

[170] To Oswald Myconius, Sep. 13, 1540, in Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 325: “_pudet imprimis inter theologos talium authores, tutores et patronos posse reperiri_.”

[171] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (_Engl. Trans._), 6, p. 149 f.; and Rockwell, _ibid._, pp. 130, 132.

[172] Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 497.

[173] Max Lenz, in “Philipps Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 499.

[174] “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 368 f.

[175] Feige to the Landgrave, July 19, 1541, published by Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 331; cp. p. 100 f.

[176] No. 35, August 30, 1906.

[177] “Das politische Archiv des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen; Repertorium des landgräfl. polit. Archivs,” Bd. 1. (Publikationen aus den Kgl. preuss. Staatsarchiven, Bd. 78). Year 1556, No. 27.

[178] Köln. Volksztng., 1906, No. 758.

[179] K. v. Weber, “Anna Churfürstin zu Sachsen,” Leipzig, 1865, p. 401 f. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 132 f.

[180] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 133. William IV wrote a curious letter to Cœlestin on this “great book of discord and on the ‘_dilaceratio ecclesiarum_’”; see G. Th. Strobel, “Beiträge zur Literatur, besonders des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, 1786, p. 162.

[181] “_Theologos Witenbergenses et in specie Megalandrum nostrum Lutherum consilio suo id factum suasisse vel approbasse, manifeste falsum est._” Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 134.

[182] Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 131.

[183] Altenburg ed., 8, p. 977; Leipzig ed., 22, p. 496; Walch’s ed., 10, p. 886. (Cp. Walch, 10², p. 748.) See De Wette in his edition of Luther’s Letters, 5, p. 236, and Enders-Kawerau, in “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 319.

[184] Page 221.

[185] “Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, Introd., p. xvi.

[186] Bd. 94, 1905, p. 385 ff.

[187] “Studien über Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” Schaffhausen, 1857 (anonymous), p. 104.

[188] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.

[189] “Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre,” Göttingen, 1910, p. 271.

[190] That the death penalty for bigamy also dated from the Middle Ages need hardly be pointed out.

[191] For the proofs which follow we may refer to the selection made by N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 503 ff., 561 ff.) in the article “Die hessische Doppelehe im Urteile der protest. Zeitgenossen.”

[192] Amsdorf’s “Bedenken,” probably from the latter end of June, 1540, published by Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 324.

[193] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, pp. 394, 396. Above, p. 27, n. 1. Further details in Paulus, _ibid._, p. 562.

[194] Jonas, _ibid._, p. 397.

[195] P. Tschackert, “Briefwechsel des Anton Corvinus,” 1900, p. 79. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 563.

[196] G. T. Schmidt, “Justus Menius über die Bigamie.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol.,” 38, 1868, p. 445 ff. More from it in Paulus, p. 565. Cp. Rockwell, _ibid._, p. 126.)

[197] Th. Pressel, “_Anecdota Brentiana_,” 1868, p. 210: “_Commaculavit ecclesiam temeritate sua fœdissime_.”

[198] Paulus, _ibid._, p. 569 f.

[199] _Ibid._, p. 570 ff.

[200] Fr. Roth, “Augsburgs Reformationsgesch.,” 3, 1907, p. 56.

[201] _Ibid._, p. 95.

[202] _Ibid._, p. 154.

[203] See above, p. 18, 21 f., 46, 62 n. 2.

[204] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 475. Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 489, and “RE. für prot. Theol.,” 15³, p. 310.

[205] “_Defectionem etiam minitabatur, si nos consulere ei nollemus._” To Camerarius, Aug. 24, 1540, “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1079. Cp. p. 863. Above, p. 62.

[206] “_Hoc fere tantumdem est ac si minatus esset, se ab Evangelio defecturum._” Pressel, p. 211.

[207] Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3³, p. 146 f.

[208] The scandal lay rather elsewhere. According to Kawerau Luther’s “principal motive was his desire to save the Landgrave’s soul by means of an expedient, which, though it did not correspond with the perfect idea of marriage, was not directly forbidden by God, and in certain circumstances had even been permitted. The questionable nature of this advice is, however, evident,” etc.

[209] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 378, 382.

[210] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 393 ff.

[211] O. Clemen, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 30, 1909, p. 389 f. Cp. the views of the Protestant historians, K. Wenck, H. Virck and W. Köhler, adduced by Paulus (_loc. cit._, p. 515), who all admit the working of political pressure.

[212] “Phil. Melanchthon,” pp. 382, 383.

[213] Bd., 2, p. 488 f.

[214] Page 736.

[215] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 403.

[216] The larger portion of the present chapter appeared as an article in the “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 29, 1905, p. 417 ff.

[217] See above, p. 51.

[218] W. Walther, “Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1904, No. 35. Cp. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 425 ff.

[219] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 306.

[220] _Ibid._, 39, p. 356.

[221] Fuller proofs will be found scattered throughout our earlier volumes.

[222] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 450.

[223] _Ibid._, p. 316.

[224] To Christoph Scheurl, _ibid._, p. 348.

[225] To Johann Lang, _ibid._, p. 410.

[226] To Willibald Pirkheimer, _ibid._, p. 436.

[227] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 444. Concerning the date and the keeping back of the letter, see Brieger, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 15, 1895, p. 204 f.

[228] Strange to say, this document has not been taken into consideration by G. Sodeur, in “Luther und die Lüge, eine Schutzschrift” (Leipzig, 1904). In the same way other sources throwing light on Luther’s attitude towards lying have been passed over. That his object, viz. Luther’s vindication, is apparent throughout, is perhaps only natural. How far this object is attained the reader may see from a comparison of our material and results with those of the “Schutzschrift.” The same holds of W. Walther’s efforts on Luther’s behalf in his art. “Luther und die Lüge,” and in his “Für Luther.” See above, p. 81, n. 1. See also N. Paulus, “Zu Luthers Doppelzüngigkeit” (“Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.,” 1904, No. 33); “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 168 f.; “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 1905, 135, 323 ff.; “Wissenschaftl. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 33, 35.

[229] On May 22, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 149.

[230] On Feb. 15, 1518, _ibid._, p. 155.

[231] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 469.

[232] July 10, 1520, _ibid._, p. 432.

[233] _Ibid._, Schauenburg’s letter, _ibid._, p. 415.

[234] _Ibid._, p. 433.

[235] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.

[236] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 72.

[237] _Ibid._, p. 70, 68 f.

[238] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 284; Erl. ed., 24², p. 367. On indulgences for the departed, see our vol. i., p. 344.

[239] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 432.

[240] Historien (1566), p. 11.

[241] Ed. Cyprian., p. 20.

[242] “Reformationsgesch. von H. Bullinger,” ed. Hottinger u. Vögeli, 1, 1838, p. 19.

[243] One such tale put in circulation by the Lutherans in the 16th century has been dealt with by N. Paulus in “Gibt es Ablässe für zukünftige Sünden?” (“Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1905, No. 43.) Here, in view of some modern misapprehensions of the so-called Confession and Indulgence letters, he says: “They referred to future sins, only inasmuch as they authorised those who obtained them to select a confessor at their own discretion for their subsequent sins, and promised an Indulgence later, provided the sins committed had been humbly confessed. In this sense even our modern Indulgences promised for the future may be said to refer to future sins.”

[244] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.

[245] To Count Sebastian Schlick, July 15, 1522, “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 385 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 433).

[246] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, from Eisenach, May 9, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 74 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 144).

[247] To Spalatin, (11) October, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 491: “_credo veram et propriam esse bullam_.”

[248] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29 ff.

[249] _Ibid._, p. 138=27, p. 80, in February, 1520.

[250] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 214, 759.

[251] The letter was written after Oct. 13, 1520, but is dated Sep. 6, the Excommunication having been published on Sep. 21. Cp. Miltitz to the Elector of Saxony, Oct. 14, 1520, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 495, n. 3.

[252] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 441 f.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 323 f.

[253] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 279: “It was much better and safer to declare them damned than saved.”

[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, 1906, p. 133, sermons here printed for the first time.

[255] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 240.

[256] Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, p. 223.

[257] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 37 f.

[258] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 658; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 360

[259] _Ibid._, p. 601=p. 278.

[260] _Ibid._, 1, p. 323=1, p. 338; 1, p. 534=2, p. 142.

[261] Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 44. Denifle has shown that the passage in question occurs in the form of a prayer in St. Bernard’s “Sermo XX in Cantica” “P.L.,” 183, col. 867: “_De mea misera vita suscipe (Deus), obsecro, residuum annorum meorum; pro his vero (annis) quos vivendo perdidi, quia perdite vixi, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicias. Dies mei sicut umbra declinaverunt et præterierunt sine fructu. Impossibile est, ut revocem; placeat, ut recogitem tibi eos in amaritudine animæ meæ._” Denifle points out that the sermon in question was preached about 1136 or 1137, about sixteen years before Bernard’s death, thus certainly not in his last illness.

[262] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 249.

[263] _Ibid._, p. 145; cp. p. 204.

[264] “Luther als Kirchenhistoriker,” Gütersloh, 1897, p. 391, referring to Sabellicus, “Rhapsod. hist. Ennead.,” 9, 8.

[265] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 766, p. 350, n. 1. For the literature dealing with the Ulrich fable, see N. Paulus, “Die Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” p. 253; and particularly J. Haussleiter, “Beiträge zur bayerischen KG.,” 6, p. 121 f.

[266] Cp. Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 40, and Flacius Illyricus in his two separate editions of the letter. Flacius also incorporated the Ulrich letter in his “Catalogus testium veritatis” and repeatedly referred to it in his controversial writings. See J. Niemöller’s article on the mendacity of a certain class of historical literature in the 16th century, “Flacius und Flacianismus” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 12, 1888, pp. 75-115, particularly p. 107 f.).

[267] Cp. Knaake, “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362.

[268] Cp. Kolde on Luther’s “private print,” in Müller, “Bekenntnisschriften”^[10], p. xxvi., n. 1.

[269] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.

[270] For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p. 226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.

[271] “Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.

[272] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.

[273] Joh. Karl Seidemann, “Beiträge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.

[274] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.

[275] Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.

[276] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.

[277] K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of Luther’s assertions in the “_De servo arbitrio_,” that “he was led away by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p. 79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla, ‘_De libero arbitrio_’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p. 2).--H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polémique sur le libre arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done to Erasmus by Luther.

[278] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii., p. 398 f.

[279] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. our vol. i., p. 400 f.

[280] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 41.

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391 (“Tischreden”).

[282] Cp. e.g. the summarised teaching of an eminent theologian, Denis the Carthusian, in Krogh-Tonning, “Der letzte Scholastiker,” 1904.

[283] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 391.

[284] From Kleindienst, “Ein recht catholisch Ermanung an seine lieben Teutschen,” Dillingen, 1560, Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., 1903, p. 276.

[285] To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461: “_Nos hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi sedem, in cuius deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur._” This must not be translated “to their deceiving and destruction,” but, “against their trickery and malice.” The passage strictly refers to his passionate work “An den christlichen Adel,” but seems also to be intended generally.

[286] To Melanchthon, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235. Cp. vol. ii., p. 386. Luther says: “_dolos et lapsus nostros facile emendabimus_”; thus assuming his part of the responsibility. The explanation that he is speaking merely of the mistakes which Melanchthon might make, and simply wished “to console and sympathise with him,” is too far-fetched to be true. In his edition of the “Briefwechsel” Enders has struck out the word “_mendacia_” after “_dolos_,” though wrongly, as we shall see in vol. vi., xxxvi., 4. According to Enders the handwriting is too faint for it to be accepted as genuine. As there is no original of the letter the question remains how it came into the old copies which were in Lutheran hands. In any case, such an interpolation would be more difficult to understand than its removal. Cp. also Luther’s own justification of such _mendacia_ in 1524 and 1528, given below on p. 109 ff.

[287] To the apostate Franciscan Johann Briesmann, July 4, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 360. These instructions to the preacher who was to work for the apostasy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are characteristic of Luther’s diplomacy. Cp. the directions to Martin Weier (above, vol. ii., p. 323).

[288] “Briefe,” 6, p. 386 ff.

[289] Cp. v. Druffel in the “SB. der bayer. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl.,” 2, 1888, and “Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.,” 25, p. 71.

[290] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 693, p. 612, n. 1.

[291] _Ibid._, p. 612.

[292] “Briefe,” 6, p. 401.

[293] _Ibid._, p. 386.

[294] _Ibid._

[295] _Ibid._, p. 387.

[296] _Ibid._, p. 391.

[297] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 592; Erl. ed., 24², p. 29.

[298] _Ibid._, 26, p. 532 f. = 63, p. 276.

[299] G. Buchwald, “Simon Wilde” (“Mitt. der deutschen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung vaterländ. Sprache und Altertums in Leipzig,” 9, 1894, p. 61 ff.), p. 95: “_libellum calumniis refertissimum_.”

[300] “Zwinglii Opp.,” 8, p. 165: “_calumniandi magister et sophistarum princeps_.”

[301] Letter to J. Vadian, April 14, 1528, “Die Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 4, p. 101. “Mitt. zur vaterl. Gesch. von St. Gallen,” 28, 1902.

[302] “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” Hft. 118, 1893, pp. 19, 29, etc.

[303] Cp. Münzer in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 374, n. 6. _Ibid._, p. 373, n. 1, “the mendacious Luther.”

[304] “Vergleichung D. Luthers und seines Gegenteiles vom Abendmahl Christi,” 1528, p. 23.

[305] “Vadianische Briefsammlung,” 6, p. 16 (“Mitt. z. v. G. v. S.G.”, 30, 1, 1906): Pappus calls the book: “_librum famosissimum, plaustra et carros convitiorum. Misereor huius tam felicissimi ingenii, quod tantis se immiscet sordibus; et profecto, ut est Lutherus vertendo et docendo inimitabilis, ita mihi iam quoque videtur calumniando non parem habere._” Letter of April 13, 1541. Pappus was Burgomaster of Lindau.

[306] E. Thiele, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1907, p. 265 f.

[307] “Ep.,” 1, 18; “Opp.,” 3, col. 1056.

[308] “_Hyperaspistes_,” 1, 9, col. 1043.

[309] Letter to George Agricola, in Buchwald, “Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 5, Leipzig, 1884, p. 56.

[310] “Antwort auf das Büchlein,” 1531. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89.

[311] “_De votis monasticis_,” 1, 2, Colon., 1524, Bl. S 5´: “_Omnium mendacissimus, qui sub cœlo vivunt, hominum_.”

[312] “Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. E 2´. The author was Abbot of Altzelle.

[313] “Ein Maulstreich dem lutherischen lügenhaften, weit aufgesperrten Rachen,” Dresden, 1534.

[314] See above, vol. ii., p. 147.

[315] See vol. ii., p. 40: “_Quum ita frontem perfricuerit, ut a nullo abstineat mendacio_,” etc.

[316] Letter of George, in Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des deutschen Krieges Karls V,” pp. 604, 606. Denifle, 1², p. 126, n. 3.

[317] Vol. ii., p. 395 f.

[318] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.

[319] _Ibid._, p. 86.

[320] _Ibid._, p. 210. The last three passages are from sermons preached by Luther at Wittenberg in 1528 when doing duty for Bugenhagen.

[321] “Luther,” 1², p. 400 ff. We may discount the objection of Protestant controversialists who plead that Luther at least described correctly the popular notions of Catholics. The popular works then in use, handbooks and sermons for the instruction of the people, prayer-books, booklets for use in trials and at the hour of death, etc., give a picture of the then popular piety, and the best refutation of Luther’s statements.

[322] “Werke,” Erl. ed.. 5², p. 378.

[323] Cp. “Comment. in Gal.,” 2, p. 175. “Opp. lat, exeg.,” 16, p. 197 _seq._ Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 218.

[324] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 255.

[325] _Ibid._

[326] _Ibid._, p. 256. “The Pope’s teaching and all the books and writings of his theologians and decretalists did nothing but revile Christ and His Baptism, so that no one was able to rejoice or comfort himself therewith”; this he knew, having been himself fifteen years a monk. _Ibid._, 19², p. 151, in a sermon of 1535, “On Holy Baptism.”

Even in the learned disputations of his Wittenberg pupils similar assertions are found: The Papists have ever taught that the powers of man after the Fall still remained unimpaired (“_adhuc integras_”), and that therefore he could fulfil the whole law; doctrines no better than those of the Turks and Jews had been set up (“_non secus apud Turcas et Iudæos_,” etc.). “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 340.

And so Luther goes on down to the last sermon he preached at Eisleben just before his death: The Pope destroyed Baptism and only left works, tonsures, etc., in the Church (_ibid._, 20², 2, p. 534); the “purest monks” had usually been the “worst lewdsters” (p. 542); the monks had done nothing for souls, but “merely hidden themselves in their cells” (p. 543); “the monks think if they keep their Rule they are veritable saints” (p. 532).

In his accusations against the religious life we find him making statements which, from his own former experience, he must have known to be false. For instance, when he says, that, in their hypocritical holiness, they had regarded it as a mortal sin to leave their cell without the scapular (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 347; 38, p. 203; 60, p. 270). Denifle proves convincingly (1², p. 54), that all monks were well aware that such customs, prescribed by the Constitutions, were not binding under sin, but merely exposed transgressors to punishment by their superiors.--Luther also frequently declared, that in the Mass every mistake in the ceremonies was looked upon as a mortal sin, even the omission of an “_enim_” or an “_æterni_” in the Canon (_ibid._, 28, p. 65), and that the incorrect use of the frequently repeated sign of the cross had caused such apprehension, that they were “plagued beyond measure with the Mass” (_ibid._, 59, p. 98). And yet his own words (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 164) show he was aware that such involuntary mistakes were no sin: “_cum casus quispiam nullum peccatum fuerit_.”

[327] “Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 221.

[328] “Cinquante raisons,” Munich, 1736, 29, p. 37. Above, vol. iii., p. 273, n. 2.

[329] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 395 ff.

[330] Cp. _ibid._, 31, p. 279.

[331] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 227.

[332] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5², p. 430 f.: “Yet how few can ever have had such a thought, much less expressed it?” Denifle-Weiss, 17², p. 774. Speaking of this passage, Denifle rightly remarks: “I have frequently pointed out that it was Luther’s tactics to represent wicked Catholics as typical of all the rest.” Here again Denifle might have quoted Luther against Luther, as indeed he often does. In one passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 412) Luther points out quite correctly, that to make all or even a class responsible for the faults of a few is to be guilty of injustice.

[333] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.

[334] “There are passionate natures gifted with a strong imagination, who gradually, and sometimes even rapidly, come to take in good faith that for true, which their own spirit of contradiction, or the desire to vindicate themselves and to gain the day, suggests. Such a one was Luther.... It was possible for him to persuade himself of things which he had once regarded in quite a different light.” Thus Alb. M. Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 424. Ad. Hausrath rightly characterises much of what Luther says that he had learnt of Rome on his trip thither, as the “product of a self-deception which is readily understood” (“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 79). “During a quarrel,” aptly remarks Fénelon, “the imagination becomes heated and a man deceives himself.”

[335] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 510 f.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, p. 200 _seq._

[336] In his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 241 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 152 ff.), he frequently asserts this principle.

[337] “_Si mentiris, etiam quod verum dicis mentiris._” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 214 in “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.”

[338] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 15; Erl. ed., 35, p. 18. The passage in vindication of the Egyptian midwives was not merely added later.

[339] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 18.

[340] _Ibid._, 3, p. 139 _seq._

[341] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 420. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 85: “_Mentiri et fallere differunt, nam mendacium est falsitas cum studio nocendi, fallacia vero est simplex_.”

[342] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 12, Sermon of Jan. 5, 1528.

[343] “Summa theol.,” 2-2, Q. 111, a. 3.

[344] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 288.

[345] “Corp. iur. can.,” ed. Friedberg, 2, p. 812. Yet a champion of Luther’s “truthfulness” has attempted to prove of Alexander III, that “the objectivity of good was foreign to him,” and that he taught that the end justifies the means. As K. Hampe has pointed out in the “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 93, 1904, p. 415, the letter from the Pope to Thomas Becket (“P.L.,” 200, col. 290), here referred to, has been “quite misunderstood.” The same is the case with a letter of Gregory VII to Alphonsus of Castile, which has also been alleged to show that a Pope “had not unconditionally rejected lying, nay, had even made use of it.” Gregory on the contrary declares that even “a lie told for a pious object and for the sake of peace” was a sin (“_illud peccatum esse non dubitaveris, in sacerdotibus quasi sacrilegium coniicias_.” “P.L.,” 148, col. 604). Cp. Hampe, _ibid._, p. 385 ff.; N. Paulus, “Lit. Beilage der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 51.

[346] “N. Lehrb. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1825, p. 354. Sodeur (“Luther und die Lüge”) says that in his teaching on lies Luther led the way to “a more profound understanding of the problem” (p. 2), he taught us “to act according to simple and fundamental principles”; “under certain conditions” it became “a duty to tell untruths, not merely on casuistic grounds as formerly [!], but on principle; Luther harked back to the all embracing duty of charity which constitutes the moral life of the Christian” (p. 30); he desired “falsehood to be used only to the advantage of our neighbour,” “referring our conduct in every instance to the underlying principle of charity” (p. 32 f.). Chr. Rogge, another Protestant, says of all this (“Türmer,” Jan., 1906, p. 491): “I wish Sodeur had adopted a more decided and less apologetic attitude.”

W. Walther, in the article quoted above (p. 81, n. 1), admits that Luther taught “in the clearest possible manner that cases might occur where a departure from truth became the Christian’s duty.... It is probable that many Evangelicals will strongly repudiate this thesis, but, in our opinion, almost everybody follows it in practice”; if charity led to untruth then the latter was no evil act, and it could not be said that Luther accepted the principle that the end justifies the means. It was not necessary for Walther, having made Luther’s views on lying his own, to assure us, “that they were not shared by every Christian, not even by every Evangelical.” As regards the end justifying the means, Walther should prove that the principle does not really underlie much of what Luther says (cp. also above, p. 94 f.). Cp. what A. Baur says, with praiseworthy frankness, in a work entitled “Johann Calvin” (“Religionsgeschichtl. Volksb.,” Reihe 4, Hft. 9), p. 29, concerning the reformer of Geneva whom he extols: “Consciously, or unconsciously, the principle that the end justifies the means became necessarily more and more deeply rooted in Calvin’s mind, viz. the principle that the holy purpose willed by God justifies the use of means--the employment of which would otherwise appear altogether repugnant and reprehensible to a refined moral sense--at least when no other way presents itself for the attainment of the end. To renounce the end on account of the means appeared to Calvin a betrayal of God’s honour and cause.” And yet it is clear that only a theory which “transcends good and evil” can approve the principle that the end justifies the means.

We may add that, according to Walther (“Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 11 f.), Luther, in view of the exalted end towards which the means he used were directed, “gradually resolved” to set the law of charity above that of truth; he did not, however, do this in his practical writings, fearing its abuse; yet Luther still contends that Abraham was permitted to tell an untruth in order “to prevent the frustration of God’s Will,” i.e. from love of God (_ibid._, p. 13).

[347] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289.

[348] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 139-144.

[349] To Johann Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, above, p. 95, n. 3.

[350] See vol. ii., p. 384 ff.

[351] “Corp. ref.,” 20, p. 573.

[352] The document in “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 578.

[353] “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” Münster, 1910, p. 75.

[354] Cp. Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 320.

[355] _Loc. cit._, p. 74 f.

[356] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 156 _seq._ N. Paulus in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 147, 1911, p. 509.

[357] “_Quod defendam ipsum facinus, equidem nullum [scriptum] scripsi aut subscripsi._” Paulus, _ibid._, p. 511.

[358] F. W. Hassenkamp, “Hessische KG.,” 1, p. 510. Paulus, _ibid._, p. 512.