Chapter XXXV: Luther’s Attitude Towards Society and Education (3)

And similarly: “The principles which guided him [in his scheme and arrangement of the Visitation] are precisely the same as appear in his earlier writings.” “It is evident that Luther’s opinions, though ever in a state of growth, were yet in their fundamental lines always the same.”

The opinion expressed by another Protestant theologian comes closer to the truth; he declares openly: The want of logic in Luther’s mode of thought is perhaps “nowhere more apparent than in his views on the authorities and their duty towards religion.... It will never be possible to get away from the contradictions in his theory and between his theory and his practice.”[2303]

It only remains to add, that, of the diverging currents, that one is always the strongest which seems most likely to promote his work, the diffusion of his doctrine and the growth of his Church. A glance at the weathercock of expediency will tell us which tendency we may expect to find predominant, for, as a rule, it is the prospect of success that decides him. At the same time it must be admitted, that, in his zeal for his cause, he is at times hardly aware of the extent to which he is proving untrue to his original plans.

The present-day observer of such vacillation even in matters so far-reaching and fundamental will naturally ask himself how it was that Luther’s fickleness failed to discourage his followers. The answer is, however, not far to seek. He himself, as a general rule, concealed the actual state of the case under the veil of his eloquence, and his partisans were either not aware of how things really stood or else followed him with a blind enthusiasm for the common aims and the common struggle which all his changes and contradictions could not avail to quench. This was the origin of the picture which so many German Protestants cherish of Luther. To them he was a champion of the Church and the State, faithful to his principles to the last. Such a portrait differs widely from that which the historian draws from an impartial study of Luther’s writings and correspondence.[2304]

A Protestant Church-historian, H. Hermelink, recently attempted to place Luther side by side with the “greatest politicians” of our nation.[2305] Although worldly diplomacy and organisation were not Luther’s strong point, still there is much truth in this idea. All that we have said tends to confirm this, though possibly not quite in the sense intended by Hermelink. At the same time what Carl Müller says is also not without its justification: “Luther lacked an insight into the character of the secular government, which, once it has been pushed in a given direction, cannot be expected to stand still at the point which he fixes as the limit of its powers. Thus the longer he lived the more reason he had to complain of the lawyers, and, when he was dead, the process went on even further.”[2306]

END OF VOL. V.

PRINTED BY
WM. BRENDON AND SON, LTD,
PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “Gesch. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1908, p. 209.

[2] Cp. the passages quoted in Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 11.

[3] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 516; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.

[4] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 295=16², p. 532.

[5] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 7.

[6] Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther’s own words, _passim_, in our previous volumes.

[7] Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.

[8] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 495; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 436.

[9] _Ib._, p. 495=91.

[10] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.

[11] W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908, p. 310.

[12] Braun, _ib._, p. 310-312.

[13] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.

[14] “Leitfaden zum Stud. der DG,” Halle, 1906, p. 722.

[15] _Ib._, pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.

[16] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 771, n. 4.

[17] But cp. what Loofs says, _ib._, p. 772, n. 5.

[18] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153.

[19] _Ib._, 10², p. 96.

[20] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 721 f.

[21] “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 159; cp. _ib._, pp. 126, 136 f., 156.

[22] “_Dixi ... quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus._” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f.; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.

[23] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 238 f.

[24] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 24, p. 10; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 764, n. 2.

[25] Loofs, _ib._, p. 773, where he cites the “Comm. on Gal.” (1535), Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.

[26] “_Quia Paulus hic versatur in loco iustificationis, ... necessitas postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui possumus._” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144. “_Conscientia perterrefacta ... nihil de lege et peccato scire debet, sed tantum de Christo._” _Ib._, p. 207 f.=p. 173 _sq._ Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. (“Tischreden”) and “Opp. lat. var.” 4, p. 427.

[27] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20; vii. 9, etc.

[28] “_Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab ea discedat._” “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 284.

[29] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 498; 40, 1, p. 208; Irmischer, 3, p. 236; 1, p. 173.

[30] Loofs, _ib._, p. 775 f.

[31] “_Quæ (conscientia) sæpe ad desperationem, ad gladium et ad laqueum homines adigit._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141 _sq._

[32] P. 737, n.

[33] Mt. xi. 30; Ps. cxviii. 165.

[34] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 392. Luther frequently uses the term “_conteri lege_.”

[35] “_Dices enim: Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed sunt aliena, Christi videlicet; non ergo me lædere poterunt._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141.

[36] “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.

[37] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 723; Erl. ed., 16², p. 48.

[38] _Ib._, 10, 1, l. p. 338 f. = 7², p. 259 ff.

[39] See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.

[40] Vol. i., p. 317 f. and _passim_.

[41] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 260.—Ammon (“Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre,” 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther “regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror,” and that according to him “the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not in moral perfection, but in faith.” De Wette, “Christl. Sittenlehre,” 2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, “but that Luther was not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible.”

[42] Mathesius, _ib._ The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.

[43] “Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 91 f.

[44] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 261.

[45] Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv. _passim_.

[46] It was Luther himself who published the Antinomian theses in two series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 420 _sqq._ The most offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola’s teaching and attributed them to one of the latter’s pupils; Agricola, however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther’s earlier and later teaching on the Law, proceeds: “He paid no heed to the fact that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer, though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and what others carried to extremes: in the one he already saw the other embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther’s way of conducting controversy.”

[47] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).

[48] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352.

[49] _Ib._

[50] _Ib._, p. 357.

[51] _Ib._, p. 403.

[52] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after Trinity, and _ib._, 14², p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers,” 3, p. 108 ff. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.

[53] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323.

[54] Cp. Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” pp. 382, 388, 394; G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” 1881, p. 194.

[55] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 430 _sq._

[56] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.

[57] “Briefe,” _ib._, p. 154.

[58] To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 84.

[59] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 462 f.

[60] (In March, 1540) see C. E. Förstemann, “N. Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Kirchenreformation,” 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.

[61] _Ib._, p. 321 ff.; also in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.

[62] Förstemann, _ib._, p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” “RE. f. prot. Theol.”

[63] Förstemann, _ib._, p. 349.

[64] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.

[65] E. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” 1906, p. 280, from Agricola’s Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.

[66] Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.

[67] “Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.

[68] Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560, publ. by Nic. Müller in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 139.

[69] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 90. For other statements of Luther’s see our vol. iii., p. 401.

[70] Loofs, _ib._, p. 858.

[71] On Luther’s attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff., 196.

[72] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 424.

[73] See above, p. 11, n. 2.

[74] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 842.

[75] Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 860, n. 2 and 4; 790, n. 7, and Harnack, _ib._

[76] Harnack (_loc. cit._) points out that Luther’s statements on the subject do not agree when examined in detail.

[77] E.g., Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1892.

[78] E.g., Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900.

[79] To the latter passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer draws attention (“Luthers Sermo de pœnitentia von 1518,” 1906, p. 36). Galley (_loc. cit._, p. 20) had also referred to the same as being a further development of Luther’s doctrine on penance.—On Luther’s shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.

[80] “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 452.

[81] _Ib._, p. 402.

[82] _Ib._, pp. 402-404.

[83] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 127.

[84] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 15², p. 40.

[85] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 36; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.

[86] _Ib._, p. 30=189.

[87] “Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.,” 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).

[88] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.

[89] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.

[90] _Ib._, 6, p. 269 f.=16², p. 212, “Sermon von den guten Wercken,” 1520.

[91] Our account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His faithful rendering of Luther’s thought shows how actual grace is excluded.

[92] 3^[4], p. 460.

[93] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Cp. _ib._, Erl. ed., 7², p. 257.

[94] Walther, _ib._, p. 99.

[95] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 249; Erl. ed., 16², p. 184.

[96] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith “then does all the needful,” and that works are a natural product of faith is summed up thus: “_Opera propter fidem fiunt_.”

[97] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 386; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523, on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 18², pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on 1 John iv. 17.

[98] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 273.

[99] _Ib._, 13², p. 97.

[100] Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.

[101] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 219 f.

[102] _Ib._, 14², p. 257.

[103] Cp. Loofs, “DG.,” ^[4], p. 737. Hence Luther also says: “_Dum bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel incredulitate oritur_.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 62; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 239.

[104] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 220.

[105] See below, ch. xxxii., 6.

[106] Printed, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 524.

[107] The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, “might well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther’s] doctrine.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 501.

[108] “Werke,” Erl. ed., _ib._, p. 551.

[109] _Ib._, p. 552.

[110] _Ib._, p. 551.

[111] _Ib._, p. 554.

[112] “Comm. on Gal.,” 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).

[113] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 559; Erl. ed., 12², p. 175. “Comm. on Gal.” (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.

[114] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 17², p. 94; 49, p. 348.

[115] _Ib._, 58, pp. 343, 347.

[116] See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.

[117] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.

[118] _Ib._, p. 548.

[119] _Ib._

[120] _Ib._, p. 549.

[121] _Ib._, p. 554.

[122] _Ib._, p. 555.

[123] Cp. p. 552: “Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and exalt Thy Son.”

[124] Köstlin’s summary, _ib._, p. 206.

[125] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 40. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, p. 144.

[126] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 207.

[127] Cp. vol. i., _passim_.

[128] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 204.

[129] In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.

[130] On Luther’s attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see xxix., 5.

[131] Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff.

[132] See above, p. 32, n. 4.

[133] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 206.

[134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 346.

[135] _Ib._, 20², 2, p. 548.

[136] _Ib._, p. 545.

[137] _Ib._, p. 549 f.

[138] _Ib._, p. 551.

[139] Luther’s opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter under consideration, is expressed by Köstlin (_ib._, p. 126 f.) as follows: Luther “does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act which is contrary to God’s will, nor even on the determination to commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay, in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior to any conscious motion.... We do not find in his writings any further information on the other questions here involved” (e.g. of the children who die unbaptised, etc.).

[140] In the Eisleben sermons, _ib._, p. 551.

[141] _Ib._, p. 546.

[142] “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 385. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.

[143] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 153.

[144] _Ib._, 13², p. 307.

[145] _Ib._, p. 305 ff.

[146] _Ib._, 15², p. 524. Köstlin, _ib._, p. 213.

[147] Cp. _ib._, 43, p. 362 ff.

[148] The headings in W. Walther’s “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above.

[149] Above, p. 32 f.

[150] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 304 f.

[151] Walther, _ib._, p. 102.

[152] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.

[153] _Ib._, 12², p. 219.

[154] _Ib._, 8², p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “And though I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am nothing.”

[155] _Ib._, 15², p. 40.

[156] Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following statement of the Catholic teaching: “We know that free-will of itself without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service. We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts with grace.... But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast, take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy,” etc. “Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 375 _sqq._, in Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.

[157] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.

[158] Feb. 2, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 408.

[159] See vol. iii., p. 462 ff.

[160] Adolf Harnack, “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 850.

[161] Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.

[162] Harnack, _ib._, p. 831 f.

[163] “Confutatio calumn. resp.,” E 2a. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 39.

[164] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 208.

[165] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 33.

[166] Köstlin, _ib._, pp. 284, 295.

[167] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Köstlin, however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.

[168] “Werke,” _ib._, 7², p. 68.

[169] _Ib._, 10², p. 108.

[170] On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 and _passim_.

[171] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 108.

[172] _Ib._

[173] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 206.

[174] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 25. Cp. on Luther’s restriction of good works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above, p. 26, 38 f.

[175] Chr. E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundzügen,”², 1875, p. 70.

[176] Cp. “Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat. O.P.,” V. cap. ult.

[177] Quoted from Luthardt, _ib._, pp. 70-73.

[178] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 68.

[179] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.

[180] _Ib._, pp. 507, 509=370, 372.

[181] Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 705.

[182] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 15², p. 60. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 273 _sqq._; 19, p. 18; 24, p. 463, _sq._ “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.

[183] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 169 f., the passages quoted.

[184] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340; Erl. ed., 7², p. 261.—For the theological and psychological influences which led him to these statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.

[185] Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16: It depends entirely “on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be good or evil,” and “Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its own nature evil,” etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.

[186] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 109, “In Genesim,” c. 3.

[187] See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1.

[188] Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 528, n. 2.

[189] Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f.

[190] “In 2 Sent.,” dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 482, n. 1. Cp. Luther’s frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint: Good works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.

[191] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, _ib._, p. 598.

[192] Denifle-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks: “Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace.”

[193] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 60. After the words quoted above follows the remarkable passage: One builds churches, another makes pilgrimages, etc. “These are self-chosen works which God has not commanded.... Such self-chosen works are nought ... are sin.”

[194] _Ib._, p. 61 f.

[195] “Symb. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde,^[10], p. 599 f.

[196] _Ib._ The Thesis of man’s lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther’s larger Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593), and to Augustine’s “Confessions” (p. 596).

[197] The last remark is from Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii., p. 348 ff. and _passim_.

[198] “Symb. Bücher,” _ib._, p. 601.

[199] _Ib._

[200] _Ib._, p. 602.

[201] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.

[202] Quoted from Loofs, “DG.,”^[4], p. 758. On the statement “without on that account being unjust” see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.

[203] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 675; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 207. Cp. Loofs, _ib._, p. 757.

[204] Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.

[205] The above largely reproduces Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81 ff.

[206] See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.

[207] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 439; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60: A prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian is dead to the world.

[208] “Werke,” _ib._

[209] “Jugenderinnerungen aus seinem Nachlasse,” Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.

[210] Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff.; vol. iii., p. 187 ff.; vol. iv., p. 130 f.

[211] Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81.

[212] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 280 f.

[213] Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther’s earlier idea of the “holy brotherhood of spirits,” in which “_omnia sunt indifferentia et libera_.” See also vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.

[214] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 108.

[215] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.

[216] _Ib._

[217] _Ib._, p. 252=70.

[218] _Ib._, p. 251=68.

[219] “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 451.

[220] _Ib._, p. 445.

[221] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.

[222] Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², pp. 93-96.

[223] Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the period previous to Luther’s. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff.).

[224] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 42 f.

[225] Cp. W. Walther, “Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 50, where Ritschl’s opinion is disputed. The above complaint of Luther’s “uncertain way” is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make it; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (“Opp. lat. exeg,.” 19, p. 109 _sq._) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.

[226] “Symbolik,” § 25.

[227] _Ib._, § 26.

[228] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.

[229] _Ib._

[230] p. 111.

[231] Owing to his assertion of man’s unfreedom and passivity, Luther found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner voice, the “synteresis,” that urges us to what is good and reproves what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice; this we see from his first Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his Commentary on Romans he characterised the “synteresis,” and the assumption of any freedom of choice on man’s part, as the loophole through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)

[232] Cp. W. Walther, “Die christl. Sittlichkeit,” p. 31.

[233] Above, vol. iv., p. 227. “You are to believe without doubting what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God’s authority and commission to speak to and to comfort you.”

[234] Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680: “Believe me, Christ speaks through me.”

[235] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220: “_persuasi mihi, esse de coelo vocem Dei_.”

[236] Letter of March 8, 1544, “Briefe,” _ib._, p. 636.

[237] In the letter quoted in n. 2, _ib._, p. 679 f.

[238] _Ib._

[239] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 337.

[240] On July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” ed. Enders, 6, p. 300 f.

[241] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. vol. i., p. 319.

[242] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 290 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 209. For fuller quotations see vol. ii., p. 58 f.

[243] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.

[244] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 21, p. 324.

[245] _Ib._, 28, p. 224.

[246] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 237; Erl. ed., 29, p. 25.

[247] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 29, p. 23; cp. above, vol. iii., p. 262 ff.

[248] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 653; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 176 _sq._

[249] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 58, pp. 394-398.

[250] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 232; Erl. ed., 39, p. 111. Should a preacher be unable thus to “boast,” he is to “hold his tongue,” so we read there.

[251] See, e.g., vol. iii., pp. 110 ff.-158 f.

[252] “Vita Lutheri,” Coloniæ, 1622, p. 141.

[253] Above, vol. iii., p. 111.

[254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.

[255] _Ib._, p. 70=20.

[256] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 22.

[257] On July 24, 1540, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 274. Above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[258] To Chancellor Brück, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282: “_Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac certum per verbum Dei, sibi hæc licere_.” Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 259 f.

[259] Letter to Jonas, May 4, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 556.

[260] Text in G. Berbig (“Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” Leipzig, 1908), p. 277 (cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 76 f.). This statement completes what was said in vol. iii., p. 55.

[261] Karl Stange, “Die ältesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers,” 1904, p. vii.

[262] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.—“He ventured, relying on Christ,” says Adolf Harnack (“DG.,” 3^[4], p. 824), “to lay hold on God Himself, and, by this exercise of his faith, in which he saw God’s work, his whole being gained in independence and firmness, and he acquired such confidence and joy as no man in the Middle Ages had ever known.” Of Luther’s struggles of conscience, to be examined more closely in ch. xxxii., Harnack says nothing. On the other hand, however, he quotes, on p. 825, n. 1, the following words of Luther’s: “Such a faith alone makes a Christian which risks all on God whether in life or death.”

[263] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 253 f.

[264] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 248 f.

[265] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch”: “_in quotidiana versor lucta_.” On Feb. 26.

[266] “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, Leipzig, 1885, 3, p. 245. Sermon of March 16, 1538.

[267] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 56.

[268] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 411.

[269] To Amsdorf, Oct. 18(?), 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 173.

[270] Cp. A. Zahn, “Calvins Urteile über Luther” (“Theol. Stud. aus Württemberg,” 4, 1883), p. 187. Pighius had written against Luther in 1543 on the servitude of the will. Cp., _ib._, p. 193, Calvin’s remark against Gabriel de Saconay.

[271] The words can be better understood when we bear in mind that they occur in the dedication to Duke Johann of Saxony, of his “Sermon von den guten Wercken” (March 29, 1520). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 203; Erl. ed., 16², p. 122 f.

[272] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 273 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 83). Here also we must remember that he is speaking to preachers, some of whom differed from him.

[273] _Ib._, 53, p. 276.

[274] _Ib._, p. 272.

[275] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², 1896, p. 174, n.

[276] F. Sawicki, “Kath. Kirche und sittliche Persönlichkeit,” Cologne, 1907, pp. 86, 88, and “Das Problem der Persönlichkeit und des Übermenschen,” Paderborn, 1909; J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,³”, Cologne, 1911. Part 2, particularly pp. 125 ff., 223 ff.

[277] See vol. iv., p. 118 ff.

[278] “A study of the earliest Letters of C. Schwenckfeld,” Leipzig, 1907 (vol. i. of the “Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum”), p. 268. Karl Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” Berlin, 1911, p. 58.

[279] Cp. Ecke, _ib._, p. 59. Ecke (p. viii.) speaks of this writing as a “first-rate source.”

[280] “Epistolar Schwenckfelds,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 94 ff. For full title see Ecke, _ib._, p. 11. Cp. Th. Kolde, “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff. Cp. below, p. 138 f.

[281] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 383 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 337).

[282] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 123; Erl. ed., 53, p. 362 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 302).

[283] “Epistolar,” _ib._, p. 645. Ecke, p. 87.

[284] Ecke takes these words as his motto on the title-page.

[285] “Epistolar,” 1, 1566, p. 200. Cp. on the “experience,” Ecke, p. 48 ff.

[286] Ecke, p. 118 f.

[287] See above, p. 79, n. 1.

[288] P. 222.

[289] Thus G. Kawerau in his sketch of Schwenckfeld in Möller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 475.

[290] _Ib._, p. 478.

[291] Ecke, p. 217.

[292] “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 579: “_Heri Stenckfeldianum librum contra me scriptum accepi.... Talis sophistica principum severitate compescenda est._” To G. Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558.

[293] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 337.

[294] Cp. below, and above, p. 82, n. 5; also Ecke, p. 218.

[295] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 54.

[296] _Ib._, 57, p. 51.

[297] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 167.

[298] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 613. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 29. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 335.

[299] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” _ib._

[300] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.

[301] “Werke,” _ib._, 32, p. 411.

[302] 1520 or beginning of 1521. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 37. Cp., however, Ender’s remark on the authorship.

[303] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 204; Erl. ed., 16² p. 123.

[304] On March 25, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 366.

[305] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 291.

[306] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 209; Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.

[307] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 288.

[308] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 214=138.

[309] Much the same in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1528), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 485; Erl. ed., 36, p. 100.

[310] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 203; Erl. ed., 16², p. 122.

[311] _Ib._, pp. 243-245=177-179.

[312] _Ib._, p. 247 f.=182 f. Cp. the similar statements in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1528), pp. 480 f., 484 f.=93 f., 96 f.

[313] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 245 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180.

[314] Cp. _ib._, p. 246=181.

[315] P. 247=182.

[316] Elsewhere, however, he treats of the other forms of prayer.

[317] Cp. p. 237=168 f., 238 f.=170 f., 247 f.=182 f.

[318] See vol. iv., p. 501 f.

[319] P. 232=162.

[320] P. 262=202.

[321] P. 258=197.

[322] P. 246=180.

[323] P. 207=127.

[324] _Ib._

[325] P. 236.

[326] P. 271.

[327] Kaftan speaks of a theological want which he had attempted to supply in his own “Dogmatik.” In reality, however, he has practice equally in view, and, from his statements we may infer that the want which had been apparent from Luther’s day was more than a mere defect in the theory.

[328] P. 281.

[329] P. 276.

[330] P. 278.

[331] Cp. the letter to Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159; Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” pp. 11, 89, etc.; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See our vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[332] See vol. ii., p. 339; iii., p. 180 ff.; above, p. 9 ff.

[333] Above, vol. iii., p. 185 f.

[334] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 155 ff.

[335] Cp. our vol. iii., p. 176 f.

[336] Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

[337] Cp. on Luther’s prayer, vol. iii., p. 206 f.; iv., p. 274 ff.

[338] Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

[339] Vol. iii., p. 207 f.; iv., p. 311.

[340] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553. Cp. pp. 554, 558.

[341] _Ib._, p. 552.

[342] W. Walther, “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” p. 63.

[343] The Explanation of the Our Father in 1518, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 74 ff; 9, p. 122 ff; Erl. ed., 21, p. 156 ff; 45, p. 203 ff. Noteworthy additions to it were made by Luther in 1519, _ib._, 6, pp. 8 ff., 20 ff.=45, p. 208 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 116 f., 291 f.

[344] Above, vol. iii., pp. 169 f., 211 f.

[345] Vol. iii., p. 200 ff.

[346] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, pp. 416-477; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 304-361.

[347] _Ib._, pp. 420=308 f.

[348] P. 448 f.=335 f.

[349] P. 444=331.

[350] P. 452=339.

[351] P. 449 ff.=336 ff.

[352] P. 447=334.

[353] To Melanchthon from the Coburg, July 31, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 157: “_ex arce dæmonibus plena_.”

[354] To the same, April 23, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 308: “_Hæc satis pro ioco, sed serio et necessario ioco, qui mihi irruentes cogitationes repelleret, si tamen repellet_.”

[355] To the same, May 12, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 333: “_Eo die, quo literæ tuæ e Norimberga venerunt, habuit satan legationem suam apud me_,” etc. See vol. ii., p. 390. Cp. to the same, June, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 43), where he calls the devil his torturer, and to the same, June 30, 1530, _ib._, p. 51, where he speaks of his “private struggles with the devil.”

[356] To the same, July 31, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 157.

[357] Cp. to the same, April 23, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 303.

[358] To the same, May 12, 1530, _ib._, p. 333.

[359] To the same, May 15, 1530, _ib._, p. 335.

[360] To the same, Aug. 15, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 190: “_Christus vivit et regnat. Fiant sane dæmones, si ita volunt, monachi vel nonnæ quoque. Nec forma melior eos decet, quam qua sese mundo hactenus vendiderunt adorandos._” The “monks or nuns” is an allusion to the appearance of the “spectre-monks” at Spires just before the Diet of Augsburg; see vol. ii., p. 389 f.

[361] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 424; Erl. ed., 18², p. 313 f.

[362] _Ib._, p. 423=312.—The so-called “Sermon on Love” (above, p. 96 f.) seeks to demonstrate in the above words the value of love of our neighbour, and, that this necessarily resulted from true faith. It abounds in beautiful sayings concerning the advantage of this virtue. Cruciger had his reasons for publishing it, one being, as he says in the dedication, to stop the mouths of those who never cease to cry out against our people as though we neither taught nor practised anything concerning love and good works. (Erl. ed., 18², p. 305.) Köstlin-Kawerau remarks (2, p. 273): “The fundamental evil was that the new Church included amongst its members so many who were indifferent to such preaching; they had joined it not merely without any real interior conversion, but without any spiritual awakening or sympathy, purely by reason of outward circumstances.” It must be added that the Sermon, though intended as a remedy, suffers from the defect of being permeated through and through with a spirit of bitter hate against the Church Catholic; in the very first pages we find the speaker complaining, that the devil, “who cannot bear the Word,” “attacks us ... in order to murder us by means of his tyrants”; “we are, however, forced to have the devil for our guest,” who molests us “with his crew.” Weim. ed., 36, p. 417 f.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 306 f.

[363] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 356 ff.

[364] To Melanchthon, May 12, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 332.

[365] To the same, April 29, 1530, _ib._, p. 313: “_Oratio mea ad clerum procedit; crescit inter manus et materia et impetus, ut plurimos Landsknechtos prorsus vi repellere cogar, qui insalutati non cessant obstrepere_.” Cp. Kolde, “Luther,” 2, p. 330.

[366] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199.

[367] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 391 ff.

[368] _Ib._, p. 395 f.

[369] _Ib._, p. 406.

[370] _Ib._, p. 396 f.

[371] Cp. our vol. iii., p. 435.

[372] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144.

[373] To Eobanus Hessus, April 23, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 301. Cp. n. 2 in Enders, who suggests the above translation of “_tu habes malam vocem_.” We read in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199: “We must admit, that, judging by the tone of this tract [the ‘Vermanũg’] Luther’s ‘voice’ would have been out of place at Augsburg, as he admits in his letter to Eobanus Hessus.”

[374] On June 5, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 367.

[375] See vol. iv., p. 338 f.

[376] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 364.

[377] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 363 f.

[378] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 361; cp. p. 396.

[379] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 313; Erl. ed., 33, p. 331. Sermons on Genesis, 1527.

[380] _Ib._, p. 312 f.=330 f.

[381] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 108. From the year 1540.

[382] To Jacob Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 353 f.

[383] To Bucer, July 12, 1532, in “Anal. Lutherana,” ed. Kolde, p. 203.

[384] “Anal.,” _loc. cit._

[385] Leo Judae, 1. c., 203.

[386] _Ib._, p. 204.

[387] See our vol. iv., p. 87.

[388] H. Barge, “Carlstadt,” see our vol. ii., p. 154.

[389] F. Hülsse, “Card. Albrecht und Hans Schenitz,” “Magdeburger Geschichtsblätter,” 1889, p. 82; cp. Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 10, p. 182, who remarks of F. W. E. Roth’s review in the “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 118, 1896, p. 160 f.: “The author does not seem to be acquainted with Hülsse’s work and therefore condemns Albert.”

[390] Enders, _ib._, p. 181.

[391] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 419.

[392] Enders, _ib._

[393] On July 31, 1535, and Jan.-Feb., 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, pp. 98 and 125 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, pp. 180 and 296).

[394] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 420.

[395] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 297; Hülsse, p. 61.

[396] On March 10, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 442.

[397] To Johann Göritz, judge at Leipzig, Jan. 29, 1544, _ib._, p. 625. Cp. for the account of Rosina, vol. iii., pp. 217 f., 280 f.

[398] Vol. i., p. 59. “_Stupidæ litteræ_” here perhaps means “indignant” rather than “amazed” letters.

[399] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

[400] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.” (Loesche), p. 200. Cp. above vol. iii., p. 437 f.

[401] To Catherine, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 753.

[402] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127. Cp. above vol. iv., p. 276.

[403] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127. “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” 1531.

[404] _Ib._, 26², p. 242, “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” 1545.

[405] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 33, p. 605; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342. Expos. of John vi.-viii., 1530-1532.

[406] _Ib._, p. 341.

[407] Feb. 7, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 83 f.

[408] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 427, 428 f.; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 305 and 307. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520. Cp. above p. 88 f.

[409] “_Utinam haberent plures reges Angliæ, qui illos occiderent._” Cp. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 17 ff.

[410] Dec., 1535, “Briefwechsel” 10, p. 275.

[411] Feb. 3, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 410; cp. to Spalatin, Feb. 7, 1519, _ib._, p. 412.

[412] 4-9 Dec., 1521, _ib._, 3´, p. 253: “_Exacerbabitur mihi spiritus, ut multo vehementiora deinceps in eam rem nihilominus moliar_.”

[413] Vol. iv., p. 329 ff.

[414] Oswald Myconius to Simon Grynæus, Nov. 8, 1534, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 665, from a MS. source: “_Doctiorem se esse, quam qui ab eiusmodi hominibus doceri velit_”; this showed his “_tyrannica superbia_.”

[415] To Amsdorf, April 14, 1545, “Briefe” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 728.

[416] To Caspar Güttel, March 30, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 326.

[417] Vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[418] _Ib._, p. 3 ff.

[419] Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386: “For when once we have evaded the peril and are at peace, then we can easily atone for our tricks and lapses (‘_dolos ac lapsus nostros_’), because His [God’s] mercy is over us,” etc., for the word _mendacia_ after _dolos_ see vol. iv., p. 96.

[420] See vol. iv., p. 95: “_In cuius [Antichristi] deceptionem et nequitiam ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur_.”

[421] _Ib._, p. 81 f.

[422] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 388 f. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 166 ff.

[423] _Ib._, p. 391. “Even should the Pope, the bishops, the canons and the people wish to remain in the state of celibacy, or the state of whores and knaves—and even the heathen poet admits that fornicators and whoremongers are loath to take wives—still I hope you will take pity on the poor pastors and those who have the cure of souls and allow them to marry.”

[424] Cordatus, “Tageb.,” p. 364.

[425] Cp. vol. iv., p. 102 f.

[426] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.

[427] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 287.

[428] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 364.

[429] _Ib._, p. 365.

[430] _Ib._, p. 364.

[431] _Ib._, p. 361.

[432] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291; Erl. ed., 25², p. 23.

[433] _Ib._, p. 285-14 f.

[434] “Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss,” Bl. 9´.

[435] _Ib._

[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 290; Erl. ed., 25², p. 22.

[437] “Opp.” 10, col. 1558. “Adv. ep. Lutheri.”

[438] _Ib._, 1555.

[439] _Ib._, 1334. “Hyperaspistes.”

[440] Vol. iv., p. 228 ff.

[441] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 442.

[442] Dec. 8, 1534, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 71 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 88 f.); “Briefe,” 4, p. 567 ff.: “To set ourselves up as judges and ourselves to judge is assuredly wrong, and the wrath of God will not leave it unpunished.” “If you desire my advice, as you write, I counsel you to accept peace, however you reach it, and rather to suffer in your goods and your honour than to involve yourself further in such an undertaking where you will have to take upon yourself all the crimes and wickedness that are committed.... You must consider for how much your conscience will have to answer if you knowingly bring about the destruction of so many people.”

[443] Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 159. “Briefwechsel,” 12, pp. 84-102; 13, p. 13.

[444] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 444.

[445] Cp. C. A. Burkhardt, “Der historische Hans Kohlhase,” 1864.

[446] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178 ff. In “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt,” 1522.

[447] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 84. In the sermons on Mt. xviii.-xxiii.

[448] See xxix., 8.

[449] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 651 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 511. In the “Defensio contra Eccii iudicium.”

[450] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 15, p. 183; Erl. ed., 24², p. 251. “Widder den newen Abgott und allten Teuffel der zu Meyssen sol erhaben werden.”

[451] _Ib._, p. 194 f.=264.

[452] _Ib._, p. 175=249.

[453] Cp. vol. iii., p. 191 f.; 211 f. and Joh. Wieser in “Luther und Ignatius von Loyola” [“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 7 (1883) and 8 (1884), particularly 8, p. 365 ff.].

[454] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 54.

[455] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 231.

[456] Cp. Janssen, _ib._

[457] July, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 188.

[458] Cp. my “Hist. of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages” (Engl. Trans., i., pp. 9-26).

[459] In what follows we have drawn largely on J. Wieser (see above, p. 124, n. 1).

[460] Wieser rightly points out that Luther claimed above all to be a “National Prophet”; he was fond of saying that he had brought the Gospel “to the Saxons,” or “to the Germans.” _Ib._, 8, pp. 143 f., 356.

[461] _Ib._, 8, p. 352.

[462] Above, pp. 3 ff. and 66 ff.

[463] Cp. Wieser, _ib._, 8, p. 353.

[464] Wieser, _ib._, 8, p. 387.

[465] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 174.

[466] See above, vol. iii., p. 25 ff.

[467] Vol. ii., p. 111. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 _sqq._

[468] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 192=p. 528.

[469] _Ib._, p. 194=532.

[470] “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1908, Suppl., p. 38.) The striking new works of Hermelink, K. Müller, etc., have already been referred to elsewhere. In addition we must mention K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1911, Suppl.), where the writer takes a view of the much-discussed question different from that of K. Müller.

[471] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 484 f.; Erl. ed., 11², p. 205 f. Cp. _ib._, p. 481=201 f., and Erl. ed., 11², p. 82 f.

[472] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 12, p. 215 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, 13. On the “_Formula missæ_,” see below, xxix., 9.

[473] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 11, p. 210. The Latin version reads: “_Si Dominus dederit in cor vestrum, ut simul probetis_,” etc.

[474] _Ib._, 12, p. 693; cp. 697. On the Wittenberg Poor Box see below, vol. vi. xxxv., 4.

[475] P. Drews, p. 55.

[476] Vol. ii., p. 113; cp. vol. iii., p. 27.

[477] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 70.

[478] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.

[479] _Ib._, p. 35 ff=153 ff.

[480] _Ib._, 11, p. 408 ff.=22, p. 141 ff. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens,” 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.

[481] See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4.

[482] Above, p. 78 ff.

[483] “Schwenckfelds Epistolar,” 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 ff. Cp. K. Ecke, “Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Reformation,” 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39, are given, showing that Schwenckfeld “noted down the whole affair from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory.”

[484] Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.

[485] “Epistolar,” _ib._, pp. 39, 43.

[486] “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 13, p. 552 ff.

[487] See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

[488] Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523, _ib._, Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.

[489] In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231: “In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it of my own initiative.”

[490] “Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 65. Drews adds: “He was afraid of doing something contrary to God’s will.” That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also stated by K. Müller (“Luther und Karlstadt,” p. 121).

[491] “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10.

[492] As late as June 26, 1533 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 317), he wrote: “_In hoc sæculo tam turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda disciplina idoneo non ausim consulere tam subitam innovationem_.” Cp. p. 142, below.

[493] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 32), p. 399.

[494] P. 67.

[495] The plan as Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had been formed “mainly on elements previously brought forward by Luther.”

[496] Reprinted in A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 56.

[497] Jan. 7, 1527. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 9).

[498] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.

[499] F. Feuchtwanger: “Gesch. der sozialen Politik ... im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.,” 33, 1909), p. 193.

[500] Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.

[501] June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.

[502] _Ib._, p. 68.

[503] Below, xxxv., 2.

[504] To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.

[505] To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.

[506] Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.

[507] Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.

[508] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2 _sqq._

[509] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

[510] To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, “Vita Spalatini,” p. 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.

[511] “Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular power also urges me to it.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 14², p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, “Lehrb. der Liturgik,” Berlin, 1900, p. 278.

[512] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 95; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.

[513] For Luther’s writing: “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet,” see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.

[514] For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, p. 239, and Kawerau, in Möller, “KG,” 3³, p. 401.

[515] See below, xxxiv., 4.

[516] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains that the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the “Te Deum” he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in the sense in which he taught it. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.

[517] W. Germann, “Johann Forster” (“N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen Altertums,” Hft. 12), 1894.

[518] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 72; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.

[519] _Ib._, 12, p. 37=22, p. 156.

[520] _Ib._, 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.

[521] _Ib._

[522] _Ib._, p. 75=230 f.

[523] _Ib._, 74 ff.=229 ff.

[524] _Ib._, p. 72=228.

[525] Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.

[526] Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.

[527] On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[528] Kawerau in the “Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”

[529] J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.

[530] Cp. Kawerau’s quotations in his article in the “Göttinger Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 115.

[531] June 17, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 315 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen’s letter see “Briefwechsel,” p. 207, for Hofmann’s, _ib._, p. 213.

[532] Kawerau, in Möller, “KG.,” 3³, p. 400; “The influence of the Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and that it culminated in this ‘office.’ This, even in the 16th century, gave rise to difficulties.”

[533] To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above, p. 145, n. 2.

[534] Kawerau, _ib._, p. 401.

[535] _Ib._, p. 400. Luther says: “_Diligens verbi Dei prædicatio est proprius cultus novi testamenti_.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 161.

[536] Gottschick.

[537] This is Kawerau’s opinion, _ib._, p. 401.