Chapter XXXV: Luther’s Attitude Towards Society and Education (6)

[1839] He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the elevation. “_Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari._” The dignity of the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p. 146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.

[1840] “If I am right,” says G. Kawerau, “the peculiar Melanchthonian form of the doctrine of the sacrament is pretty widely spread at the present time among Evangelicals, whether theologians or laity, as the form under which Luther’s religious views on the sacrament are to be accepted,” etc. “Luthers Stellung” (above, p. 445, n. 4), p. 41. On this point Melanchthon, as is notorious, really agreed with Zwingli. Of Zwingli, owing to his denial of the Real Presence, Luther wrote: “I, for my part, regard Zwingli as an unbeliever” (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 342; Erl. ed., 30, p. 225), and for the same cause he “would show him only that charity which we are bound to display even to our foes.” To J. Probst, June 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 354 f.

[1841] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 f.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 f.

[1842] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 872.

[1843] P. 830 f. Cp. above, p. 44 ff.

[1844] P. 855, n. 1.

[1845] Freiburg, 1887, p. 3.

[1846] _Ib._

[1847] “DG.,” 3^[4], p. 866.

[1848] _Ib._, cp. p. 865: “Luther believed he was fighting merely against the errors and abuses of the mediæval Church. It is true he frequently declared that he was not pleased with the ‘dear Fathers,’ and that all of them had gone astray; he was not, however, clear-sighted enough to say to himself, that, if the Fathers of the Church had erred, then their definitions at the Councils could not possibly embody the truth.... Unconsciously he himself still laboured under the after-effects of the theory that the outward Church is the real authority.”

[1849] _Ib._, p. 834.

[1850] P. 819.

[1851] P. 834.

[1852] P. 820.

[1853] P. 861.

[1854] P. 871.

[1855] P. 875.

[1856] P. 896. Harnack takes great care to prevent his criticism of Luther giving rise to any impression that he himself is favourably disposed or indifferent towards Catholic dogma and Catholic life. He is shocked at the attitude of Erasmus, the defender of the Catholic view of man’s free will even under Divine Grace, and declares his Diatribe against the “_servum arbitrium_” a “profoundly irreligious work,” whereas Luther “had restored religion to religion” (see above, vol. ii., p. 292, n. 4).—He asks: “What does original sin represent to Catholics?” (“Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 749), as though Catholic dogma discarded it. He mocks at the “whole, half and quarter dogmas” of Catholics (_ib._, p. 764) and at their handbooks of theology (p. 763). The Catholic “system of religion,” so Harnack teaches, gave rise to “a perversion of the moral principles” (p. 749); “this system still works disaster both in theology and in ethics.... Since the 17th century the imparting of forgiveness of sins has been made a regular art.” “But conscience is able to discover God even in its idol” (_ib._). In other passages he places “devotion to the Sacred Heart” and “Mariolatry” on a par with the veneration of idols, though he admits that in Catholics “the Christian sense is not actually stifled by their idols” (p. 748). Only in these devotions and in the anxiety-breeding confessional does piety still live (_ib._).

Of the Pope he exclaims: “The Church has an infallible master, she has no need to trouble about her history, the living voice alone is right.” He asks whether “the mediæval doctrine, now condemned to insignificance, would not gradually disappear,” whether in time the Pope would not be credited “with a peculiar miraculous power,” and whether ultimately he would not be regarded as a “sort of incarnation of the Godhead,” etc. (p. 759).

“The saintly and so holy Liguori is the very opposite of Luther.... All his mortifications only entangled him more and more in the conviction that no conscience can find rest save in the authority of a confessor.... Thanks to Liguori, absolute ethical scepticism now prevailed, not only in morals but even in theology.... In a number of questions, adultery, perjury and murder inclusive, he had known how to make light of what was really most serious” (p. 755). The doctrine of Probabilism was to blame for this, according to Harnack. Cp. J. Mausbach, “Die kath. Moral und ihre Gegner,” 1911, p. 163 ff., and the “Kölnische Volksztng.,” 1910, Nos. 485 and 571. The latter passage contains further proofs from Harnack’s “Dogmengesch.” of his insulting language and his lamentable ignorance of Catholic doctrines, practices and institutions.

[1857] Of the Church-Postils the first half of the winter part up to the Epiphany had been published by Luther as early as 1522, and then continued down to Easter. The second part (summer portion) had been brought out in 1527 by his friend Stephen Roth. The sermons on the Epistles were only included in the collection in 1543, when the new edition appeared. W. Köhler begins his critical edition of the book of Church-Postils in Weim. ed., 10 (1911).

[1858] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 401 ff.

[1859] Cp. his words to Wolfgang Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247: “_Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et catechismum._” Cp. above, p. 370 f.

[1860] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[1861] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 18 ff.

[1862] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 23, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 148. “Das diese Wort ... noch fest stehen.”

[1863] To Nicholas Gerbel at Strasburg, Nov. 24, 1535 (1536?), “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 127.

[1864] Vol. i., p. 175 ff.

[1865] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 548; Erl. ed., 45, p. 217.

[1866] _Ib._, p. 573=250.

[1867] _Ib._, 2, pp. 128-130=45, pp. 204-207.

[1868] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 28 ff.

[1869] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189.

[1870] _Ib._, p. 34 f.=195 f.

[1871] _Ib._, p. 37=199.

[1872] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 2, p. 80 ff., 9, p. 122 ff.; Erl. ed., 21, p. 159 ff.

[1873] _Ib._, 15², p. 318 ff.

[1874] _Ib._, 23, p. 215 ff.

[1875] _Ib._, p. 221.

[1876] _Ib._, 32, p. 75 ff.

[1877] _Ib._, p. 89 f. Cp. above, p. 418 ff.

[1878] _Ib._

[1879] P. 77.

[1880] P. 84.

[1881] P. 97.

[1882] “Briefe,” 5, p. 169, Feb., 1539.

[1883] “Werke,” Erl, ed., 7², p. 21.

[1884] _Ib._, p. 22.

[1885] _Ib._, 15², p. 319.

[1886] _Ib._, 23, p. 217.

[1887] _Ib._, p. 222.

[1888] P. 223.

[1889] P. 215.

[1890] Cp. _ib._, p. 215 f.

[1891] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 126; Erl. ed., 21, p. 28.

[1892] _Ib._, 7, pp. 551 ff., 558, 565 f., 568, 580, 596, 599, 602=45, pp. 222 ff., 231, 240 f., 244, 259, 280, 285, 289.

[1893] _Ib._, p. 584=265; cp. p. 586=267.

[1894] _Ib._, 2, p. 80=21, p. 160.

[1895] Cp. _ib._, 30, 1, p. 160 ff.=21, p. 69 ff.

[1896] Above, p. 84 ff.

[1897] Great Catechism. Preface of 1530. See below, n. 6.

[1898] _Ib._

[1899] To Martin Görlitz, Jan. 15, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 43: “_pro rudibus paganis_.”

[1900] See above, vol. iv., p. 234.

[1901] The passage first given by G. Buchwald, now in the Weim. Luther ed., 30, 1, p. 428 f.

[1902] Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 239 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 5 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 349 ff., etc.

[1903] Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 375 ff.

[1904] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).

[1905] Preface to the Smaller Catechism.

[1906] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 2, quoted by the editor in the Introduction to the Catechisms.

[1907] Cp. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 442 f. On the new Confession see above, vol. iv., p. 248 ff.

[1908] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 134 f., 188, 190; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 36 f., 101, 103.

[1909] Cp. vol. i., p. 187 ff., etc.

[1910] Cp. the “Bibliographie zum Grossen Katechismus,” by O. Albrecht and J. Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 499 ff.; cp. _ib._, p. 666 ff.

[1911] For proofs, see Th. Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. lxiii.

[1912] “Historien,” Bl. 63´.

[1913] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 655.

[1914] “Symbol. Bücher,”^[10] p. 518.

[1915] We may recall his statement that he would like to see all his books destroyed except two: “_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum_.” To Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247. See above, p. 471, n. 2.

[1916] New edition by Buchwald, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 1 ff.

[1917] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 444.

[1918] Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 61: “Just as at Wittenberg and in many other churches the useful custom still prevails of preaching on this Catechism four times a year for a fortnight, and of daily assembling for that purpose the children, servants and artisans. Many ministers also teach the Catechism on Sundays in addition to the Gospel, and assemble the children in summer for the recitation and explaining of the Catechism, as is, thanks be to God, the custom with us to-day.”

[1919] _Ib._, Bl. 62´.

[1920] O. Albrecht, “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers vom Jahre 1536,” 1905, p. 94.

[1921] Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 441.

[1922] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl. ed., 22, p. 232 (cp. p. 75=231, and Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 434).

[1923] Thus Albrecht in his introduction to his new edition of the two Catechisms of Luther, Weim. ed., p. 435; he refers also to Falk’s and Battenberg’s editions of Wolff’s “Beichtbüchlein” (see vol. iv., p. 254) and to J. Greving’s “Zum vorreformatorischen Beichtunterricht” (“Veröffentl. aus dem K.-h. Seminar zu München,” 3, 1, 1907, pp. 46-81).

[1924] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 436.

[1925] _Ib._

[1926] Cp. Weim. ed., 26, p. 237.

[1927] “Historien,” Bl. 63. Mathesius, however, will only admit that, on the whole, “some fragments of the Catechism” had been retained in Popery. Luther’s admirer cannot even recall that in Popery he “had ever heard ... the Ten Commandments, Creed, Our Father or Baptism spoken of from the pulpit.... Of the absolution and consolation arising from a believing reception of the Body and Blood of Christ I had to my knowledge never heard a word all my days before I came to Wittenberg, either in the churches or the schools, just as I cannot recall having seen any written or printed explanation of the Catechism in Popery” (Bl. 63 and 63´).—The ignorance of the facts of the case revealed in the latter statement is met with elsewhere in the rest of the passage of Mathesius’s writing; he may have been unfortunate in his own personal experience, but he certainly exaggerates. That, before Luther’s day, preaching was not everywhere sufficiently supplemented by catechetical instruction was undoubtedly to be regretted.

[1928] Albrecht, _ib._, referring to P. Bahlmann, “Deutschlands Katechismen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrh.,” 1894, p. 38, and F. Cohrs, “Evangel. Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion,” (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.,” vol. 20 ff.; vol. 23, 1902, pp. 233, 271). For popular religious instruction before Luther’s day, see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 1, p. 25 ff.; F. Cohrs, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, p. 135 ff., and F. J. Knecht, “KL.,” 7², 1891, p. 288 ff.; cp. 249 ff.

[1929] See above, p. 134 f., and vol. iv., p. 251.

[1930] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 444.

[1931] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 212; Erl. ed., 21, p. 128.

[1932] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 445, referring to Geffcken’s “Der Bilderkatechismus des ausgehenden MA.,” 1855, pp. 86, 98 f., 108, 177, etc., and particularly to Thalhofer, “Die katechetischen Lehrstücke im MA.,” (“Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. deutsche Erziehungs- und Schulgesch.,” 15, 1905, p. 188 ff.)

[1933] Cp. Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 454.

[1934] “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 643 (1523).

[1935] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 454 f.

[1936] F. J. Knecht, _loc. cit._, p. 292 f. The “Discipulus” was compiled as early as 1416. Cp. “Zeitschr. f. kath. Th.,” 1902, p. 419 ff.

[1937] Albrecht, _ib._, p. 561.

[1938] Facsimile, _ib._, p. 241, and better still in Otto Albrecht’s “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers,” 1905.

[1939] “Katechismusversuche” (see above, p. 491, n. 1), p. 241.

[1940] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 435-437.

[1941] _Ib._, 30, 3, p. 567; Erl. ed., 26², p. 383 f.

[1942] _Ib._, 30, 1, p. 130=21, p. 31. Cp. above, p. 147 f., the passage taken from Luther’s “Deudsche Messe.”

[1943] To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “_Bibliam græcam et hebræam lego_.” To the same, June 10, 1521, _ib._, p. 171: “_Hebraica et Græca disco et sine intermissione scribo_.”

[1944] To Johann Lang, _ib._, p. 256.

[1945] _Ib._, p. 271.

[1946] _Ib._, p. 325.

[1947] Cp. _ib._, n. 4 in Enders.

[1948] Dec. 12 (?), 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 37: “_Bestias istas describas et nomines per species suas_.” There follows the list.

[1949] See the list of Luther’s writings at the end of our vol. vi.

[1950] Feb. 23, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 300.

[1951] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” 1530, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 636; Erl. ed., 65, p. 109.

[1952] “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 277, n. 4.

[1953] June 14, 1528, _ib._, p. 291.

[1954] Paul Pietsch, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., “Deutsche Bibel,” 2.

[1955] _Ib._, p. xxiv, in the preface by K. Drescher, the present chief editor of the Weimar edition.

[1956] Pastor Risch, “Welche Aufgabe stellt die Lutherbibel der wissenschaftl. Forschung?” (“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, pp. 59 ff., 116 ff.), p. 129 f. “Die deutsche Bibel in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung,” 1907, by the same author.

[1957] Cp. Risch, _ib._, p. 121 f. O. Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel” (“RGl. Volksbücher,” iv., 13, 1910), pp. 8, 14, 24, 31, 44.

[1958] Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 32.

[1959] “Historien,” Bl. 160´ ff. G. Lœsche, “Joh. Mathesius’ Ausgewählte Werke,” 3 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” 9), p. 315 ff.

[1960] Discovered at Jena by Buchwald, but only known so far in extracts. See p. 501, n. 3, and “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 353, n. 12.

[1961] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 139 _sqq._

[1962] _Ib._, p. 142. See vol. iv., p. 109.

[1963] Cp. what O. Reichert says in “Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1521 bis 1541,” in Koffmane, “Die hds. Ueberlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1, 1907, p. 97 ff., and Risch’s Articles (above, p. 499, n. 1), p. 78 ff.

[1964] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 41, where examples are given from the notes and emendations to be published later.

[1965] Weim. ed., 1 and 2.

[1966] Reichert says, _ib._, p. 26: “There is hardly a more interesting document to be found in the domain of research concerned with Luther’s German Bible.” He gives a facsimile of Ps. xlv. (xliv.), xlvi. (xlv.). Four facsimiles in Thiele, vol. 2.

[1967] _Ib._, 65, p. 110, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” Sep. 8, 1530. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 14, p. 401 ff.

[1968] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 313. Table-Talk.

[1969] _Ib._, p. 421. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 378.

[1970] K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer, “Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 8-12 Jahrh.,” 1864, p. xxix.

[1971] Cp. Risch, p. 138, in the article mentioned above, p. 499, n. 1.

[1972] H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” 1907, p. 30, remarks: The orthodox period of Lutheranism venerated “Luther’s translation of the Bible with an admiration as boundless and naive as had it been a palladium.”

[1973] Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 143, who there (in the first edition, though not in the second) points out that even Grimm’s colleagues and successors did not share his own warm appreciation of the language of the German Bible. According to Müllenhoff the foundation of New High German had been laid a century and a half before Luther, who represents, not its beginning but its zenith period (see pp. 504, note 3). “If in spite of this,” says Böhmer, “it cannot be denied that the German of Luther played an important part in reducing the German language to unity, still this was not Luther’s doing.” “The stress laid by Protestants on the language of Luther undoubtedly did more to hamper than to further the victory of the common language” (p. 144). “Luther himself was the first to protest against being considered the founder of a new German tongue” (p. 145).

[1974] _Ib._, p. 132 f.

[1975] Preface to the first volume of the Bible, p. x.

[1976] Müllenhoff, etc., _ib._, p. xxvii ff.

[1977] P. 223 f.

[1978] P. 224.

[1979] P. 222.

[1980] Cp. Zerener Holm, “Studien über das beginnende Eindringen der Lutherischen Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Literatur,” 1911 (“Archiv. f. RG.,” Ergänzungsband, 4).

[1981] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.

[1982] _Ib._

[1983] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 150.

[1984] Jakob Grimm, “Deutsche Grammatik,” 1, 1², 1870, Preface, p. x.

[1985] In the articles referred to above, p. 499, n. 1 (p. 137 f.).

[1986] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114. “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.” Before this he had said: “Of what an art and labour translating is I have full experience, and therefore I will allow no Pope-ass or Mule-ass, who has never attempted it, to set himself up as judge or critic.... If there is to be any faultfinding, I will attend to it myself.” And later: “Their abuse is my highest praise and glory. I am resolved to be a Doctor ... and they shall not rob me of this title till the Judgment Day; this much I know for certain.”

[1987] “Historien,” p. 82.

[1988] _Ib._

[1989] F. W. Nippold, “Christian Josias Freiherr von Bunsen,” Leipzig, 1868-1871, 3, p. 483.

[1990] “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen,” p. 72.

[1991] “Mitteilungen,” vol. 3, Göttingen, p. 1899, p. 335 ff. (reprint of the art. in the “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1885, 2).

[1992] P. 359 ff.

[1993] P. 365.

[1994] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” p. 642=117.

[1995] Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 142 f. Theodore Zahn the Protestant exegete says: “Luther by adding the words ‘The righteousness which is acceptable to God’ (here and iii. 21, x. 3; cp. iii. 22) exceeded the task of a translator by implying that the recognition of this righteousness by God is merely the consequence of its origin in God. ‘A righteousness that comes from God,’ as in Phil. iii. 9, would be less open to objection, though here again Luther goes beyond his text.” “Brief des Paulus an die Römer,” Leipzig, 1910, p. 82.

[1996] De Lagarde (p. 358) rightly refers to Döllinger, _ib._, pp. 140-144, where the latter quotes another passage which calls for revision: “The commandments are given _only_ in order that man may be made aware of his inability to do what is good and thus learn to despair of himself.”

[1997] Döllinger, _ib._, p. 144.

[1998] Many other passages could be given where the sense is weakened owing to Luther’s want of accuracy. For instance, John vi. 56: “My flesh is the true meat and my blood is the true drink,” whereas Christ says: “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς) and my blood is drink indeed.”

[1999] Riehm, “Luther als Bibelübersetzer,” “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 57, 1884, p. 306; cp. p. 312 f. On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 401 ff.

[2000] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 103 ff.; the accompanying letter to Link dated Sept. 12, 1530, in “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 257.

[2001] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 637; Erl. ed., 65, p. 110.

[2002] P. 640 ff.=115-117.

[2003] P. 643=118 f.

[2004] P. 638=112.

[2005] P. 634=106.

[2006] P. 633=104 f.

[2007] Pp. 636, 639=108, 109, 113 f.

[2008] P. 635=107. The passage was given verbally above, vol. iv., p. 345 f. The words of St. Paul which he plays upon occur in 2 Cor. xi. 18 ff.: “They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are the seed of Abraham, so am I.”

[2009] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 197.

[2010] _Ib._, p. 194.

[2011] “Auss was Grund uund Ursach Luthers Dolmatschung über das Newe Testament dem gemeinen Man billich verbotten worden sey,” Leipzig, 1523, Bl. 3.—In Bl. 2´ Emser, having instanced the formal theological decision, goes on to remark, that Luther declared the secular authorities had no right to forbid books concerning the faith, although he and his preachers were in the habit of teaching that all were subject to the secular power. “Thus the man can never handle a matter with moderation, but either goes too far or else not far enough”; the authorities had a perfect right to punish, in life and property, “those whom the Church publicly proclaimed to be heretics.” He vainly urged the German bishops at the end of the book, “to summon one, or ten, learned, experienced and God-fearing men and to see that a trustworthy, reliable and uniform German Bible was made from the old and new [Lutheran] translation.”

[2012] Soffner, “Ein Lutherspiel aus alter Zeit,” 1889, p. 16. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783. On Hasenberg see vol. iv., p. 173 f.

[2013] G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 61), 1898, p. 65.

[2014] In the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f. Luther’s charge against Emser, the “Dresen Scribbler,” in which he says: He “wrote his _name_, a preface and glosses to it and thus sold my New Testament under his own name,” is not grounded on fact. Still more unjust and insulting to the deceased was the statement he made later to some of his friends: The miscreant “knew the truth better than he wrote it”; “he altered a word here and there against his conscience” in order to retain the favour of the Duke. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 79. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 149.

[2015] _Ib._, p. 72.

[2016] L. Lemmens, O.F.M., “Aus ungedruckten Franziskanerbriefen des 16. Jahrh.” (“RGl. Studien,” ed. H. Greving, Hft. 20), 1911, p. 38.

[2017] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 429 f.

[2018] Janssen, _ib._

[2019] _Ib._

[2020] Dec. 28, 1534, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 2, p. 224: “_Fatetur se parum syncere biblia vertisse et eam interpretationem tantum non revocat_.”

[2021] A. Räss, “Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation,” 7, p. 99 f., with the list.

[2022] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 145 f.

[2023] In the Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 153.

[2024] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” _ib._, p. 169.

[2025] Preface of 1545, _ib._, p. 159. This preface replaced the former one, but, in it, he still leaves it “doubtful” whether the Apocalypse was to be taken as one of the books of the Bible or not.

[2026] Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² Leipzig, 1900, p. 84.

[2027] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 158.

[2028] Preface of 1522, _ib._, p. 156.

[2029] _Ib._

[2030] “Truly an Epistle of straw as compared with them” (the Gospel and 1st Epistle of John, the epistles of Paul, particularly to the Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter). These were the “best” books of the New Testament because in them “faith in Christ” is “painted in a masterly manner.” _Ib._, 114 f.—The conclusion of the preface in question was omitted in Luther’s own later editions but was often reintroduced later.

[2031] M. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Zeugnis seiner Anhänger” (“Bibl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1905), p. 273 ff. Cp. the same author, “Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Überlieferung” (“Bibl. Studien”), 10, Hft. 1-3, 1905.

[2032] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 227, on Gen. xxii. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik,” etc., _ib._

[2033] “Werke,” Walchs ed., 9, p. 2774 ff. Cp. Walther, “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 66, 1, 1893, p. 595 ff. Meinertz, _ib._

[2034] Meinertz, _ib._, p. 278.

[2035] H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 1, p. 197 f. Carlstadt himself was doubtful as to who was the author.

[2036] Meinertz, _ib._, p. 276.

[2037] Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² p. 84.

[2038] Barge, _ib._, p. 197 f.

[2039] His mediæval predecessors, however, usually had behind them tradition and the authority of the Church.

[2040] W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, No. 16.

[2041] Nestle, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche” in “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ p. 73.

[2042] In the article on the “revised” Luther Bible of 1883, in “Göttinger Gel. Anziegen,” 1885, Hft. 2, reprinted in De Lagarde’s “Mitteilungen,” 3, 1889, 335 ff. Cp. above, p. 512.

[2043] Oettli, “Die revidierte Lutherbibel,” 1908.

[2044] P. lix.

[2045] _Ib._

[2046] De Lagarde, art. quoted, p. 524, n. 2.

[2047] _Ib._

[2048] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 3.

[2049] _Ib._, p. 5.

[2050] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 633; Erl. ed., 65, p. 104.

[2051] Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 108.

[2052] _Ib._, p. 112 f.

[2053] _Ib._, p. 9.

[2054] Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 141.

[2055] In the preface to the work “Auss was Grund,” etc. Above, p. 519, n. 1. G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser,” p. 60.

[2056] Kawerau, _ib._, p. 66.

[2057] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 95 f.

[2058] _Ib._, p. 137.

[2059] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349.

[2060] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 123.

[2061] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 6.

[2062] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 136.

[2063] “Comment. de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 55. Cochlæus laments in this passage the disputations which the common people entered upon with the clergy, and describes the universal Bible reading of the unlearned as one of the causes of the spread of the apostasy. Nor does he conceal the fact that some of the laity were able in controversy to quote Scripture with greater fluency than the Catholic priests and monks.

[2064] “Christenliche Underrichtung Dr. Johann Fabri,” etc., Dresden, 1528. Bl. Biij., Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783.

[2065] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256.

[2066] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.

[2067] _Ib._, p. 640=115.

[2068] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 63, p. 24 f. Preface to the Old Testament.

[2069] _Ib._, p. 25.

[2070] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 265.

[2071] _Ib._, p. 265 f.

[2072] “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f.

[2073] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 213.

[2074] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 4, Table-Talk.

[2075] To Nic. Hausmann, Jan. 21, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 349: “_Recudimus iam psalterium germanicum pro calumniatoribus irritandis_.” Cp. to the same, Feb. 25, 1530, _ib._, 7, p. 232, on the fresh edition of the New Testament then undertaken with Melanchthon: “_Novam furiam concitaturi contra nos apud papistas_,” and to Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 15, 1531, _ib._, 8, p. 345: “_Dabimus operam ... ut (David) purius Germanum sonet, multam occasionem calumniatoribus dantes, ut habeant, quo in translationem nostram suam rabidam invidiam exerceant et acuant, nec tamen exsaturent_.”

[2076] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 121.

[2077] _Ib._, p. 121 f.

[2078] _Ib._, p. 175.

[2079] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.

[2080] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 115.

[2081] Cp. Preface of 1539, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 405.

[2082] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 384.

[2083] Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 291.

[2084] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 240. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.

[2085] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 273.

[2086] Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.

[2087] _Ib._, p. 281.

[2088] Do., “Tischreden,” p. 145, 1540.

[2089] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 4.

[2090] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 569.

[2091] _Ib._

[2092] _Ib._

[2093] “_Dignissimum opus gratitudine, qua me hactenus excepit barbara hæc et vere bestialis natio._”

[2094] See the next section.

[2095] See below, p. 541, his statement against Emser.

[2096] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.”

[2097] The saying appears in this shape in Reisch’s “Margarita philosophica,” Argentorati, 1508. See Nestle, “Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.,” 1877, p. 668. In fact it is there described as a common “_proverbium inter theologos_.” Another later form ran: “_Si Lyra non lyrasset, totus mundus delyrasset_.”

[2098] Kropatscheck, “Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,” 1, 1904, p. 163.—On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.

[2099] F. Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung,” Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.

[2100] Falk, _ib._, p. 27 ff.

[2101] Cp. Moureck, “SB. der kgl. Böhm. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch., Phil. Kl.,” 1892, p. 176 ff.

[2102] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 141.

[2103] E. v. Dobschütz, “Deutsche Rundschau,” 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk, _ib._, p. 86.

[2104] E. Schröder, “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, p. 253.

[2105] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 606; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,” p. 61.

[2106] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.

[2107] _Ib._, 63, pp. 401, 402.

[2108] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270; “_Annis 30 ante biblia erant incognita, prophetæ innominati_,” etc.

[2109] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous “bench” cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.

[2110] “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 32.

[2111] Walther, p. 742. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 303. Walther also observes: “Thus it was not from the Church that the translations emanated; it was not the Church that recommended the study of the Bible to the laity. This would indeed have been contrary to her principles. But neither did the Church show herself hostile at the outset to every translation. So long as it contained nothing to promote ‘divisions’ or to undermine reverence for the Church and her doctrines she permitted this movement, as she did every other that did not infringe her authority.” _Ib._

[2112] Cp. Franz Falk, _ib._, pp. 33-66.

[2113] Janssen, _ib._, 1, p. 60.

[2114] Paues, “A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version,” Cambridge, 1902. Gasquet, “The Eve of the Reformation,” 1900, and in the “Dublin Review,” 1894. Cp. “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 66, 1904, p. 349 ff.—Mandonnet, “Dict. de la Bible,” 2, Art. Dominicains. Cp. “Katholik,” 1902, 2, p. 289 ff.

[2115] W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 13.

[2116] “Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,” etc., 1521, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 641; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.

[2117] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p. 376 ff.

[2118] Cochlæus wrote (“Commentarius de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 54): “_Quis satis enarrare queat, quantus dissidiorum turbationumque et ruinarum fomes et occasio fuerit ea novi Testamenti translatio. In qua vir iurgiorum data opera contra veterem et probatam ccclesiæ lectionem multa immutavit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit et in alium sensum detorsit, multas adiecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque cavillosas, et in præfationibus nihil malignitatis omisit, ut in partes suas traheret lectorem._” He concludes by saying that many persons had collected more than a thousand errors in the translation.

[2119] Second ed., 1875, p. 529.

[2120] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 659 (N. 3, p. 282).

[2121] Franz Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 90. Earlier than this we find five Latin Bibles printed at Mayence, Strasburg, and, perhaps, Bamberg.

[2122] Falk, “Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche,” 1879, pp. 29 and 80. Do., “Die Bibel,” etc., pp. 32, 61.

[2123] _Ib._, p. 33.

[2124] “Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des MA.,” 1889-92.

[2125] “Die Waldenserbibeln und Meister Johannes Rellach” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 771 ff.), p. 792. On the other side see W. Walther in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1896, Hft. 3, p. 194 ff. Cp. also Nestle in the “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche,” and the work of R. Schellhorn there mentioned.

[2126] G. Grupp gave a critical account of the results of Walther’s researches in the “Hist.-pol. Blätter,” 115, 1895, p. 931, which amongst other things considerably raises Walther’s estimate of the number of manuscript and printed copies.

[2127] See above, p. 495.

[2128] P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,” p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in “Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.

[2129] “Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther, _ib._, p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.

[2130] _Ib._, p. 1.

[2131] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.

[2132] “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.

[2133] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “_Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut tale, quid possem quale vellem_.”

[2134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.

[2135] _Ib._, 62, p. 311.

[2136] Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical character of his chronology.

[2137] Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258), and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows himself a true poet.”

[2138] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 311. Table-Talk.

[2139] Above, p. 342 ff.

[2140] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, pp. 155, 158.

[2141] Ph. Wackernagel, “Das deutsche Kirchenleid von der ältesten Zeit bis zum 17. Jahr.,” 3, 1870, p. 20. Cp. ‘“Form und Ordnung gaystlicher Gesang,” etc., Augsburg, 1529. Cp. Wackernagel, _ib._, p. 20, the text of the first High German reproduction of the Wittenberg Hymnbook, and the less accurate reprint, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., and Nelle, “Gesch. des deut. ev. Kirchenliedes,”¹ 1904, p. 24 (2nd ed., 1909).

[2142] In an advertisement of Will Vesper, “Luthers Dichtungen,” Munich, 1905.

[2143] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 26. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 354.

[2144] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.

[2145] At the beginning of the “Geistliche Gesangbüchlein” of Johann Walther. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 538.

[2146] Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 167.

[2147] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541.

[2148] G. Gervinus, “Gesch. der deutschen Dichtung,” 3^5, 1871, p. 20.

[2149] Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg,” p. 372. W. Bäumker, “Das kathol. Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen,” 1, 1886, p. 32, makes a similar distinction. Cp. p. 16 ff.

[2150] On the above see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 536 ff.

[2151] In Luther’s hymns for public worship modelled on the Psalms “no poetic enthusiasm is apparent.” Spitta, _ib._, p. 355. He also assigns the lowest place to the translations of the Latin hymns.

[2152] In the Preface to the new edition of his hymnbook (1529). Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 587.

[2153] Migne, “P.L.,” 185, p. 391. E. Michael (“Gesch. des deutschen Volkes vom 13. Jahrh. bis zum Ausgang des MA.”, 4³, 1906, p. 327 ff.) shows not only that German psalmody existed in the 13th century, but also that it can be traced back with certainty to the 11th and 12th centuries. Cp. also Bäumker, “KL.,” art. “Kirchenlied,” 7², p. 602.

[2154] Bäumker, _ib._, p. 604.

[2155] _Ib._, p. 605.

[2156] “Confess. Aug.,” art. 24 de missa.—Cp. for the foregoing, Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 264 ff.

[2157] According to Heinr. v. Stephan, “Luther als Musiker,” Bielefeld (1899), p. 16, he was even “the reformer of German music.”

[2158] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 541 f. Cp. Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 242 ff.

[2159]

“Vil falscher Meister itzt Lieder dichten Siehe dich für und lern sie recht richten. Wo Gott hinbawet sein Kirch und sein Wort, Da wil der Teuffel sein mit Trug und Mord.”

[2160] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 30.

[2161] Loesch, “Mathesius,” 2, p. 214 ff. “Historien,” Bl. 179: “I brought him the song with which the children (in the Joachimsthal) drive out the Pope in Mid-Lent.... This song he published and himself wrote the title: ‘_Ex montibus et vallibus, ex sylvis et campestribus_.’” The broadsheet of 1541 mentioned by Schamelius in his “Lieder-Commentarius,” 1757, p. 57, if it ever existed, must have preceded Luther’s publication, and be by some unknown author.

[2162] Cp., for instance, the May-song in the Baden Collection, by A. Barner, Hft. 2, No. 14, p. 15.

[2163] Wackernagel, _ib._, 3, p. 31.

[2164] Wackernagel, _ib._, p. 30. Cp. Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.), 11, p. 286.

[2165] Cp., for instance, L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff., more particularly p. 179 f. (The 2nd art. is quoted below as II.) With regard to the Protestant theologians (G. Uhlhorn and others) Feuchtwanger says, p. 180: “In their hands the question of the care for the poor since 1500 has degenerated into a sectarian controversy on priority, and thus the way to the solution of the problem has been blocked by a falsification of the true question.” He regards Uhlhorn’s work as written from an “extreme sectarian” standpoint. To Feuchtwanger, as it had been to Strindberg, it is a marvel, how, “as soon as you begin to speak of God and charity, your voice grows hard and your eyes become filled with hate.”

[2166] “Gesch. der sozialen Politik,” etc., II., p. 207.

[2167] _Ib._, p. 221.

[2168] (Munich and Berlin, 1906), pp. 13, 41, 49, reprinted from “Hist. Zeitschr.,” 97, 1906, p. 1 ff., republished in 1911 in an enlarged form.

[2169] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 644; Erl. ed., 22, p. 169. “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc., 1526.

[2170] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 138=31, p. 67 f.

[2171] _Ib._, 19, p. 634=22, p. 258. Those who emigrate become “faithless and break their oath to their rulers”; “they do not bear in mind the divine command, that they are bound to remain obedient until they are prevented by force or are put to death”; they are “robbing their sovereign of his rights and authority” over them. On such general grounds Luther concludes that it was not lawful to desert and join the Turks.

[2172] Pages 17, 26.

[2173] “Das Zeitalter der Reformation,” Jena, 1907, p. 1. Cp. “M. Luthers Werke,” “revised and edited for the German people,” by Julius Boehmer, Stuttgart, 1907, Introd., p. ix, where the theological editor says: “With Luther a new era begins. He has been and is considered the author of a new civilisation, different from that of the Middle Ages and of antiquity.... The emancipation of the human intellect began in the domain of religion and has gradually extended thence into other spheres in spite of obstacles and difficulties.”

[2174] See, for instance, above, pp. 45 f., 476 f., and vol. iv., p. 472 ff.

[2175] See above, vol. i., p. 49 f.

[2176] H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 133, however, calls it a “great exaggeration” when Eberlin of Günzburg, the former Franciscan who afterwards became a follower of Luther, asserts that in Germany only one man in fifteen did any work. He has also the best of reasons for disbelieving Agricola’s statement, that the monks and nuns in Germany then numbered over 1,400,000 souls.

[2177] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff), particularly p. 746 ff.

[2178] Cp. above, pp. 49-60.

[2179] E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers,”² 1875, where the above and other texts are quoted.

[2180] _Ib._, pp. 81, 88.

[2181] For the passages see Luthardt, _ib._

[2182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 94.

[2183] F. M. Schiele, “Christliche Welt,” 1908, No. 37.

[2184] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.

[2185] Above, vol. iii., p. 22 ff.

[2186] Second ed., p. 124.

[2187] Luthardt refers here to Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f., where the latter says in his exposition of Psalm lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 1530: “Because the rulers, besides their other duties, must promote God’s Word and its preachers,” “they must punish public blasphemers”; among these were the false teachers and those who teach that each one must himself make satisfaction for his sins (he means the Catholics). “Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else they must go,” i.e. the rulers must compel those Catholics who were living amongst Protestants to emigrate. “The offender was acting contrary to the Gospel and the common article of the creed which we recite: ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ Such articles held by the whole of Christendom have already been sufficiently examined, proved and decided by Scripture and the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles and sealed with the blood of the martyrs.”

[2188] In the continuation of the above passage Luther says of such controversies: “Let the rulers step in and examine the case and whichever party is not in agreement with Scripture, let him be commanded to be silent.... For it is not good for the people to hear contradictory preaching in the parish or district,” etc. Luther, however, not only demands, as Luthardt says, that these “heretics” should be banished, but also that they should be punished as public blasphemers. Cp. below, p. 578.

[2189] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 97.

[2190] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 538; Erl. ed., 17², p. 392. Luther, however, emphasises the true preaching office so much that he represents his pure Gospel teaching as alone capable of preserving peace, a fact which is usually passed over. “No University, institution or monastery” had been able to accomplish what the preaching office was now able to do; the “blind bloodhounds abandoned the preaching office and gave themselves up to lies.”

[2191] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 555=402.

[2192] _Ib._, p. 537 f.=392.

[2193] Reference is made here to the passage in the Home-Postils, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 3², p. 450. Here we read, p. 449, that the “rulers must promote matrimony and the management of the home, and see that the young are properly educated”; for this reason theirs was “a divine and holy state.”

[2194] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 4², p. 388, in the Home-Postils.

[2195] Cp. the passages in Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 321.

[2196] Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 153; Erl. ed., 21, p. 60.

[2197] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 50, p. 294.

[2198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10. See below, p. 577, n. 1.

[2199] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 240.

[2200] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” Jena, 1898, No. 22 (“Sammlung nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen,” 21.)

[2201] See above, vol. ii., pp. 297 ff., 307 f.

[2202] _Ib._, p. 302 f.

[2203] Above, p. 58 f.

[2204] P. 15.

[2205] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73.

[2206] _Ib._, p. 262 f. = 82 ff. Cp. p. 269 ff. = 92 ff.

[2207] _Ib._, p. 271 = p. 94.

[2208] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 281. Cp. Weim. ed., 18, p. 307; Erl. ed., 24², p. 282.

[2209] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 259; Erl. ed., 22, p. 78 f. In order to understand the phrase “let himself be fleeced” it should be noted that those Lutherans who lived under the rule of Catholic princes were unable to escape the action of the Edict of Worms.

[2210] He here says: “God hangs, breaks on the wheel, strangles and makes war; all this is His work.” _Ib._, 19, p. 626 = 22, p. 250.

[2211] Gustav v. Schulthess-Rechberg, “Luther, Zwingli und Calvin in ihren Ansichten über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche,” 1909 (“Zürcher Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft,” 24), p. 168.

[2212] _Ib._, p. 57.

[2213] _Ib._, 166.

[2214] E. Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauungen vom Staate,” 1901, p. 13 f. Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 258; Erl. ed., 22, p. 77 f.: “His kingdom [Christ’s] is not made up of ploughmen, princes, hangmen or jailers, nor does it include the sword or secular law, but only the Word of God and His Spirit; by it His subjects are governed in their hearts inwardly.” All the successors of the Apostles and “spiritual rulers” were to be satisfied with the Word.—Erl. ed., 39, p. 330: “The secular government has only to rule over bodily and temporal possessions.”—P. 331: “Whoever wishes to become learned and wise in secular government let him study the heathen books and writings, these have indeed described and painted it most beautifully and fully.”

[2215] K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911, p. 20.

[2216] See above, vol. ii., p. 301: The bishops must “restrain heretics.”

[2217] Holl, _ib._, p. 20 f. Luther’s words are from “De capt, babyl.,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 533; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 64. Cp “_Nisi hæc adsit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus imo obest, non solum tum cum suscipitur, sed toto post tempore vitæ_.” _Ib._, p. 527 f.=57. Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 487.

[2218] “He protests against the war with the Turks being carried on under the pretext of Christianity, ‘as though our people could be termed an army of Christians fighting the Turks,’ when in ‘the whole army there are perhaps barely five Christians [real Lutheran believers].’ ... Thus he deliberately calls into question the Christianity of the German people and hence demands that the war should be undertaken as a merely secular thing.” Holl, _ib._, p. 22, with a reference to “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 37, and to a letter to Spalatin, Dec. 21, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 333. Cp. above, p. 402, and vol. iii., p. 77 ff.

[2219] Above, vol. ii., p. 108.

[2220] See our examination of the “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt” in vol. ii., pp. 297-306.

[2221] The passages are cited below, p. 577, n. 2.

[2222] Luther’s answer to the question he raises, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 207, in the Table-Talk: “Whether it be lawful to kill a tyrant, who at his own pleasure acts contrary to right and justice” is aimed at absolutism. He replies confidently: Yes, where the latter really oppresses his subjects by crying deeds of wrong and where the “citizens and subjects unite together” to make an end of him as they would of any “other murderer or highwayman.” In his “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden,” 1526, Luther does not sanction private revenge nor any disorderly or violent action on the part of the mob, “whereby the people rise and depose their lord or strangle him.” He emphasises in this passage as the reason the absence of legal proceedings: “It does not do to pipe too much to the mob, or it will only too readily lose its head.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259.

[2223] To the Elector Johann, Feb. 9, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 368 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318), on the introduction of Lutheranism into Altenburg. Cp. vol. ii., p. 315 f.; the principal reason why the ruler was to intervene was, that he might not deliberately tolerate “idolatry.”

[2224] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Luther’s preface to the Instructions of the Visitors, 1528.

[2225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 679; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48. “Eyn trew Vormanung ... sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung,” 1522. In connection with this the author says: It is not lawful for the individual to rebel against “Endchrist,” i.e. the Papacy, and to make use of force, but the secular authorities and the nobles “ought from a sense of duty to use their regular authority for this purpose, each prince and ruler in his own land,” etc. This he wrote on the eve of composing his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” according to which the prince was not to trouble at all about the religion of his country.

[2226] Above, vol. ii., p. 88 f.; vol. iv., p. 510 f. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrh.,” 1911, p. 7 ff.

[2227] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.

[2228] _Ib._, p. 252.

[2229] Paul Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” (“Zeitschr. für Theol. and Kirche,” 1908, Ergänzungsheft), p. 99. Cp. p. 90.

[2230] Cp. Luther’s statements, in Paulus, _loc. cit._, p. 25 ff.

[2231] Drews, _ib._, p. 100.

[2232] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 313 ff.

[2233] _Ib._, p. 320.

[2234] P. 323.

[2235] P. 324 f.

[2236] P. 327 f.

[2237] P. 358 f.

[2238] The expression is H. Boehmer’s (“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹) 1906, p. 135.

[2239] To the Elector Johann, Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p.387 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406).

[2240] P. 17.

[2241] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 164.

[2242] _Ib._, p. 166; 1st ed., p. 135.

[2243] 1st ed., p. 135.

[2244] Frank Ward, “Darstellung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat,” p. 15. On p. 17, he says that according to Luther “all ecclesiastical functions and relations, in so far as they concern external things, are subject to the State.”

[2245] “Der Zusammenhang von Reformation und politischer Freiheit” in “Theol. Arbeiten aus dem rhein.—wissensch. Predigerverein, N.F.,” Hft. 12, Tübingen, 1910, p. 47 f.

[2246] “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig, 1904, p. 504.

[2247] “Joh. Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorie,”² Breslau, 1902, p. 64 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 349.

[2248] _Ib._

[2249] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 34 f.

[2250] See vol. ii., p. 297 f., from the writing, “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”

[2251] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 680; Erl. ed., 22, p. 48 f. Cp. letter to the Elector Frederick, March 7, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 111 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 298).

[2252] To Wenceslaus Link, March 19, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 315. “_Ipsos principes vincemus et contemnemus._”

[2253] Words of P. Drews, “Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?” p. 28.

[2254] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 109; Erl. ed., 31, p. 35.

[2255] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 31, p. 236, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” See vol. ii., p. 294. Cp. _ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 625; Erl. ed., 22, p. 248, where he says, already in 1526, in the writing “Ob Kriegsleutte,” etc.: “So that I should like to boast that, since the time of the Apostles, the secular sword and authority has never been so clearly and grandly described and extolled as by me, as even my foes must admit.”

[2256] See vol. ii., p. 295, n. 1.

[2257] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 284 f.

[2258] “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910, p. 63.

[2259] Above, p. 140 ff.; vol. ii., p. 332 f.

[2260] To Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 10, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 10: “_constitutis ecclesiis ... laceris autem ita rebus_,” etc. Only after the Churches had been constituted could the ban be introduced as his friend wished.—For earlier Visitations see “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 176 ff.

[2261] See above, p. 140 ff., and vol. iii., p. 28 ff.

[2262] Printed in E. Sehling, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1902, p. 142 ff., and, before this, by A. E. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1846, p. 77 ff.

[2263] Both in Luther’s Works, Weim. ed., 26, p. 195 ff., and Erl. ed., 23, p. 1 ff.

[2264] Nov. 22, 1526, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 406). Enders says of this work: “Almost all the proposals Luther makes here with the object of stimulating the project of a Visitation which had come to a standstill are again found in the Instructions to the Visitors.” From Luther’s previous letters Müller proves that he approved the Instructions, _ib._, p. 69 ff.

[2265] Thus the Weimar editors in their Introduction to the “Instructions of the Visitors,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 179.

[2266] _Ib._, p. 177.

[2267] In the Preface to the reader: “_Visitator nova mitra infulatur, novum ambiens papatum_,” etc.

[2268] Aug. 10, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 337.

[2269] Words of K. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” p. 71 f. He also gives a survey of the Instructions.

[2270] For the text see Sehling, _ib._, p. 143.

[2271] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 197; Erl. ed., 23, p. 5.

[2272] Müller, _ib._, p. 67. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 14.

[2273] _Ib._

[2274] See Th. Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 69 f.

[2275] _Ib._, p. 38.

[2276] Carl Holl, “Luther und das Landesherrliche Kirchenregiment” (“1 Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche”), Tübingen, 1911, p. 54, against C. Müller, “Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther.” Holl says: “The two documents cannot be reconciled, for each attempts not merely to describe or emphasise one side of the matter, but to set forth the whole, and this they do from totally different points of view. One seeks to represent the Visitation as the outcome of the paternal care of the Elector, the other as an act of self-help on the part of the Church. It is impossible to harmonise these two points of view.”

[2277] Reference to the title of his writing, “Deuttung ... des Munchkalbs zu Freyberg,” 1523. See above, vol. iii., p. 149 f.

[2278] The latter saying occurs in the “Unterricht,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 212; Erl. ed., 23, p. 28.