Chapter XL: At the Grave (9)

[1273] See vol. iv., p. 329. Cp. vol. iii., p. 436 f.

[1274] Jan. 9, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 327.

[1275] Dec. 2, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 701.

[1276] To Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 17, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 714.

[1277] May 7, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 737.

[1278] _Ib._, p. 735.

[1279] P. 733.

[1280] P. 737.

[1281] P. 738.

[1282] P. 739.

[1283] See below, p. 355 ff.

[1284] “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.

[1285] _Ib._, p. 742.

[1286] P. 743.

[1287] _Ib._, 6, p. 379.

[1288] _Ib._, 5, p. 380.

[1289] P. 739.

[1290] P. 745.

[1291] P. 746.

[1292] P. 746.

[1293] P. 750.

[1294] Pp. 744, 750 f.

[1295] P. 751.

[1296] P. 754. To Ratzeberger, Court Physician to the Elector, Aug. 6, 1545: “_credo, nos esse tubam illam novissimam, qua præparatur e præcurritur adventus Christi_.” Cp. above, vol. v., p. 239.

[1297] P. 740.

[1298] See below, p. 352.

[1299] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 606.

[1300] To Amsdorf, June 15, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 743.

[1301] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 513. Cp. also the passage quoted above, vol. v., p. 237.

[1302] For the breaking off of the sermons in 1530 see above, p. 168. We read in the “Historien” of Mathesius, that Luther “In [15]39 said wildly that he would never again get up in the pulpit.”

[1303] “Briefe,” 5, p. 752 f.

[1304] On Catherine’s position at Wittenberg the following words speak volumes: “After my death the four elements [Faculties] at Wittenberg will most likely not put up with you, hence it would be better that what there is to do were done during my lifetime.” Luther was right in his anticipations. After his decease “the sad fate of a poor parson’s widow was not spared her. In countless petitions to the King of Denmark, ‘Dr. Martin’s widow’ had year by year to beg for support now that ‘everyone looks at me askance and no one comes to my assistance.’” Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 497 f.

[1305] Cp. Cruciger, “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 313.

[1306] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” p. 125.

[1307] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 608. What Aurifaber relates in the German Table-Talk of a conversation of Luther’s on the bigamy of Philip of Hesse “at Leipzig in 1545 during a convivial gathering” (Erl. ed., 61, p. 302) rests on a false chronology and only repeats a conversation which took place much earlier. For the incorrectness of the date given, see Cristiani in the “Revue des questions historiques,” 91, 1912, p. 113.

[1308] “Briefwechsel,” ed. Burkhardt, p. 482 f.

[1309] In Latin in “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 480 _sqq._ German according to the Wittenberg original ed. of 1545, in Erl. ed., 65, p. 170 ff.

[1310] See above, vol. iii., p. 268.

[1311] Theses 31 and 32, p. 173.

[1312] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 609.

[1313] Letter of Jan. 17, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 778.

[1314] See vol. iii., p. 147.

[1315] “Briefe,” 5, p. 761

[1316] Above, vol. v., p. 394 f.

[1317] Cp. “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1894, p. 771 f.

[1318] “Briefe,” 5, p. 764 f.

[1319] Aug. 19, 1545, _ib._, p. 757.

[1320] _Ib._, p. 768.

[1321] P. 769.

[1322] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 325.

[1323] To Amsdorf, Jan. 19, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 780.

[1324] To Prince George, Administrator of Merseburg, Oct., 1545, _ib._, p. 759.

[1325] To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 6, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 771.

[1326] Hausrath, “Leben Luthers,” 2, p. 483.

[1327] See above, vol. v., p. 261.

[1328] “Orthodoxa Tigurinæ ecclesiæ ministrorum confessio … cum responsione ad vanas et offendiculi plenas D. Martini calumnias, condemnationes et convicia, etc.,” 1545.

[1329] To Jakob Probst, Jan. 17, 1546, “Briefe,” 4, p. 778. Cp. Ps. 1, 1: “_Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit et in cathedra pestilentiæ non sedit_.”

[1330] April 14, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 728.

[1331] Hausrath, _ib._, 2, p. 469.

[1332] See Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 570. He was referring to Luther’s attitude towards the lawyers. On Melanchthon’s earlier plan of leaving the town, see above, vol. iii., p. 370 f.

[1333] Cp. No. 16 of the Theses “Wider die Theologisten zu Löven,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 171, and the passage from Mathesius quoted in the following note.

[1334] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 with Kroker’s remarks; the latter places this important utterance recorded by Besold (1544) in its right chronological setting, as against Lœsche and Köstlin. Here Luther says, in condemnation of processions: “_Alia res est circumferri, alia elevari_.” The Wittenberg Concord says evasively: “The Body of Christ is present when the bread is received, and is truly given.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 346.

[1335] Hausrath, “Leben Luthers,” 2, p. 475. The latter says of the charges made by the Zwinglians: “It is not surprising that his opponents found that his (Luther’s) obstinacy and his hatred of everything Zwinglian was leading him into palpable self-contradiction.”

[1336] Hausrath, _ib._, p. 465.

[1337] Hausrath, _ib._, p. 477 f.

[1338] “Briefe,” 5, p. 715.

[1339] [The 4th Commandment, with the Lutherans as with the Catholics, is that known as the 5th by Anglicans and the English sects. Note to the English edition.]

[1340] Köstlin-Kawerau (above, vol. iv., p. 288).

[1341] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 207: Erl. ed., 23, p. 95 f.

[1342] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469 f.

[1343] See vol. iv., p. 289 f.

[1344] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 292.

[1345] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 614.

[1346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 570. The text is embodied in the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 62, p. 240. See in vol. iii., p. 39 ff. some further utterances of Luther’s on the marriages in question. The allusion above to “the paternal consent that follows” is probably to be understood as referring to the unlawfulness of any subsequent ratification by the parents. Such in any case was Luther’s view: “In his eyes the secret betrothals were sinful, even when the consent was obtained afterwards, nay actually invalid,” Kawerau, 2, p. 570. After Luther’s “victory” in 1545 it was, however, decided that such marriages should be null and void until the parents gave their consent, or until the Consistories had determined whether the parents’ refusal was based on valid, important or sufficient grounds.

[1347] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 571, 687, n. “_Fax domestica_,” see above, vol. iii., p. 216.

[1348] To Spalatin, Jan. 30, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 626.

[1349] To Caspar Beier, Jan. 27, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 721: “_Responde amori te amantis et anxie expectantis, nihil moratus Satanæ et Satanicorum verba, quorum mundus plenus_.”

[1350] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 340. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 355 f. and Erl. ed., 62, pp. 95 and 282.

[1351] Erl. ed., 62, p. 214 ff. and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 287 _sqq._

[1352] Erl. ed., 62, p. 245.

[1353] To Melanchthon, Feb. 6, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 785.

[1354] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 3.

[1355] _Ib._, p. 14, and see above, vol. iv., p. 289 f.

[1356] Schlaginhaufen, _ib._, p. 81.

[1357] From the sermon of Feb. 23, 1539, “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295.

[1358] Jan. 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 712.

[1359] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 284.

[1360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 193.

[1361] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 290.

[1362] To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, “Briefe,” 5, p. 399.

[1363] To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 10, 1541, _ib._, p. 407.

[1364] To Duke Maurice of Saxony, 1541 (not dated), _ib._, p. 417.

[1365] To a Town Councillor, Jan. 27, 1543, _ib._, p. 537.

[1366] To Amsdorf, July 21, 1544, _ib._, p. 675.

[1367] To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, _ib._, p. 552.

[1368] To Justus Menius, May 1, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 467.

[1369] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 124.

[1370] Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[1371] Erl. ed., 62, p. 245.

[1372] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 131.

[1373] Erl. ed., 62, p. 234.

[1374] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 132.

[1375] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 472 ff.

[1376] _Ib._, p. 479 f.

[1377] P. 479.

[1378] P. 475. This is not the only passage in which Luther labels the concupiscence “which everyone feels” as a “sin.”

[1379] P. 481.

[1380] P. 480.

[1381] P. 482.

[1382] Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773: “_Spiritus Munsterianus post rusticos nunc nobiles invasit_,” etc.

[1383] Feb. 10, 1546, _ib._, p. 789.

[1384] To Beier, see above, p. 359, n. 3.

[1385] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.

[1386] Erl. ed., 62, p. 287. Cp. the chapter of the Table-Talk dealing with the “schools and universities” (_ib._, pp. 285-308), and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, pp. 13-20 where many excellent thoughts are found.

[1387] See above, vol. iv., p. 228 f.

[1388] Erl. ed., 62, p. 291 f.

[1389] Hausrath, 2, p. 487 f.

[1390] _Ib._, p. 488.

[1391] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 87.

[1392] _Ib._, p. 135.

[1393] The fragmentary work, ed. E. Thiele in the “Neudrucken deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 76, according to the Cod. Ottobon. 3029 in the Vat. Library. For an older ed. see “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 14, p. 1365 f.—Cp. Luther’s praise of Æsop and hints on its use, in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 379.

[1394] End of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753. See above, vol iii., pp. 280 f., 307.

[1395] Feb. 7, 1546, _ib._, p. 787.

[1396] Erl. ed., 32, p. 426. The Latin verses begin: “_Dura lues pestis, sed mors est durior illa_.” One may well ask whether the broadside, which bears no date, was not perhaps written in Germany by friends of Luther’s to afford a pretext for inveighing anew against the Catholics.

[1397] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 323 f., 12, 113.

[1398] Erl. ed., 61, p. 435.

[1399] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 115.

[1400] To Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 439.

[1401] Mathesius, _ib._, p. 113.

[1402] _Ib._, p. 384.

[1403] _Ib._, p. 113.

[1404] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87.

[1405] Erl. ed., 52, p. 36.

[1406] _Ib._, 61, p. 432; 64, p. 289. Cp. _ib._, 3², p. 418 f.; 11², p. 148; Weim. ed., 16, p. 418 f.=Erl. ed., 36, p. 27. “Briefe,” 6, p. 411.

[1407] “Briefe,” 5, p. 780. For the devil’s preference for water see above, vol. v., p. 285.

[1408] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 483 ff.

[1409] Hausrath, 2, p. 493. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 618.

[1410] To Catherine Bora, Feb. 14, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 792.

[1411] “Briefe,” 5, p. 783 f.

[1412] _Ib._, p. 789 f.

[1413] Erl. ed., 65, 187 ff.

[1414] March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 725.

[1415] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 282.*

[1416] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 619.

[1417] Above, p. 132.

[1418] “Briefe,” 5, p. 791 f.

[1419] _Ib._, p. 792.

[1420] Erl. ed., 61, p. 437.

[1421] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 614.

[1422] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 773.

[1423] The phrase was a popular one and, though not above a suspicion of frivolity, was certainly not “blasphemous.” The account here is that of Jonas.

[1424] “Briefe,” 6, p. 414: “_Scripturas sacras sciat se nemo degustasse satis, nisi centum annis cum prophetis, ut Elia et Elisæo, Ioanne Baptista, Christo et Apostolis ecclesias gubernavit. Hanc tu ne Æneida tenta, sed vestigia pronus adora ~[cf. Statius, _Thebaid._ l. 12, v. 816 _sq._]. We are beggars,~ hoc est verum. 16 Februarii anno 1546._”

[1425] The following narrative is based on the account of witnesses who were present at the death or called in immediately after, viz. on the letter of Jonas to the Elector of Saxony dated in the night of Luther’s death (Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 177 ff.), the letters of Count Albert of Mansfeld and Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt to the same and sent on the same day (Förstemann, “Denkmale,” 1846, p. 17 f.), the letter of Johann Aurifaber to Michael Gutt, also of the same date (Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 427); then on the panegyric of Michael Cœlius on Feb. 20 at Eisleben, published together with the panegyric of Jonas at Wittenberg, 1546, and reprinted together with other matter in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 274* ff. and particularly, the “Historia” of the death written by Jonas, Cœlius and Aurifaber which appeared at Wittenberg in the middle of March, 1546. It is also reprinted in Walch, _ib._, p. 280* ff. For the report of the apothecary Johann Landau see below, p. 379. Of no importance for the account of the death is the so-called “Neues Fragment zu Luthers Tod,” given by G. L. Burr in the “Americ. Hist. Rev.” (July, 1911, pp. 723-736), as it is merely a repetition by one of Melanchthon’s pupils of the latter’s funeral address. The account, first made public at Philadelphia by A. Spaeth, and printed in the “Lutherkalender” for 1911 (p. 88), likewise contains nothing substantially new.

[1426] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” p. 138. That the idea embodied in the verse was familiar to Luther is clear from other sayings: cp. above, vol. v., p. 102 and below, p. 394. Ratzeberger’s narrative cannot, however, compare in value with the other authorities quoted above, p. 376, n. 2, and Catholic writers have lent too much credence to it. Luther’s prayer, for instance, which Ratzeberger quotes as having been overheard by a servant, Johann Sickell, is given only by him (p. 140).

[1427] With the silence of the witnesses present it is rather difficult to square the statement contained in an Autograph of Paul, Luther’s son, which according to Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 695) lies in the library at Rudolstadt; it tells how he, and his brother Martin, while standing by their father’s bedside had heard him repeat three times the text, John iii. 16.

[1428] In Cochlæus, “Ex compendio actorum M. Lutheri caput ultimum, etc.,” Moguntiæ, 1548. In 1565 the account was embodied in the larger work of Cochlæus: “De actis et scriptis M. Lutheri.” To N. Paulus (below, p. 381, n. 2) belongs the credit of having examined in detail the report (p. 67 ff.) and pointed out the author.

[1429] For some further remarks of the apothecary see above, vol. iii., p. 304.

[1430] “_Visa enim est tortura oris et dexterum latus totum infuscatum._”

[1431] On the grave see Köstlin, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1894, p. 630 ff, 1897, pp. 192 ff., 824 ff. and in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 11³, p. 752 f. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 626.

[1432] Paulus, “Luthers Lebensende, eine kritische Untersuchung” (“Erläuterungen und Erganzungen zu Janssens Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” vol. i., Hft. 1), 1898, p. 63.

[1433] Paulus, _ib._, pp. 67-82. It may be added that, in the 2nd decade of the 17th century the fable had no support at Munich, for Ægidius Albertinus in his work “Der Teutschen Recreation,” printed there in 1613 (which contains many falsehoods about Luther), says he “died a sudden death”; it is said that “a stroke, _apoplexia_, or the hand of God, smote him” (p. 85 f.). That his sudden death as the result of a stroke was known abroad is also plain from the account of Pedro de Gante, Secretary to the Duke of Najera. This contemporary of Luther’s writes in his “Relaciones” (Madrid, 1873), p. 149: Luther went to bed without feeling ill, but, “early in the morning he was found dead in his bed, wearing such a dreadful countenance that it was impossible to look at him without being dismayed.” Cp. “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 454.

[1434] See above, vol. iv., p. 304.

[1435] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 236. Paulus (p. 27) notes that, according to Aurifaber in Luther’s Table-Talk (Eisleben, 1566), p. 586, and Spangenberg in his “Theander Lutherus,” p. 191´, the Papists had told the same tale of Luther whilst he was still alive. Thus Luther’s own methods were applied to himself.

[1436] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83. Erl. ed., 60, p. 327.

[1437] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 329.

[1438] See the chapter of the Table-Talk entitled “The end of the enemies of God’s Word,” _ib._, p. 327 ff.

[1439] _Ib._, p. 328.

[1440] Paulus, p. 5 ff.

[1441] Erl. ed., 31, p. 318. Cp. Kawerau, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 116. Paulus, _ib._, p. 7.

[1442] “Rechte Ausslegung der geheymen Offenbarung” (no place), 1589, p. 19; Paulus, _ib._, p. 21. Staphylus, as Paulus points out, really died a very edifying death.

[1443] Paulus, _ib._, p. 61, n. 2.

[1444] _Ib._, p. 61 f.

[1445] _Ib._, p. 60, n. 6.

[1446] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 _sq._

[1447] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., p. 365* ff.

[1448] _Ib._, p. 329* ff.

[1449] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans., 6, p. 419). Cp. on the medals M. C. Juncker, “Vita Lutheri nummis illustrata,” Francof. et Lipsiæ, 1699, e.g. p. 176 (Plate II), and p. 459. Juncker enlarged this work and published it in German as “Das Guldene und Silberne Ehrengedächtniss Lutheri,” Franc. and Leipsig, 1706. Cp. on p. 212 the medal of 1546. On p. 260 he says that at the Wittenberg Schlosskirche there was “an altar over which was a life-size effigy of Luther as he stood in the pulpit”; beside him was Melanchthon baptising a child and Bugenhagen sitting in the confessional. On another picture in the parish church see F. S. Keil, “Luthers merkwürdige Lebensumstände,” Leipsig, 1764, p. 280.—Albertinus (above, p. 382, n.) speaks, p. 87, of a wooden effigy of Luther in the Schlosskirche bearing the inscription: “_Divus et sanctus doctor Martinus Lutherus, propheta Germaniæ_.”

[1450] We find them in reprints of 1519, 1520 and 1521. One edition with the Wittenberg imprint contains the picture, but was really printed at Strasburg. Thomas Murner, writing from Strasburg, refers to the picture in 1520. See below, section 4.

[1451] “Historien von des ehrwirden in Gott seligen thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris M. Lutheri Anfang, Lehr, Leben und Sterben,” Nürnberg, 1566, Bl. 200.

[1452] _Ib._, Preface.

[1453] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit,” 1874, p. 211.

[1454] See above, vol. iii., p. 228.

[1455] Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.

[1456] Account of Hieronymus Mencel, dated Nov. 1, 1562, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 695.

[1457] “Theander Lutherus,” Ursel, pp. 45, 193.

[1458] Flacius, “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” Magdeburgi, 1549, end of cap. 15.

[1459] “Luthers Werke,” Jena ed., 1555 ff., vol. i., Preface.

[1460] That the proposition “‘Good works are harmful to salvation’ is a right, true and Christian one, taught and preached by Saints Paul and Luther.” 1559.

[1461] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 24, p. 250.

[1462] _Ib._, 21, p. 380.*

[1463] H. Lietzmann, “Zu Luthers Grabschrift,” in “Zietschr. f. wiss. Th.,” 1911, p. 171 f., points out that as there can be no doubt that Luther was born on Nov. 10, 1483, his age as given in the epitaph ANN. LXIII M(enses) II D(ies) X is “quite wrong,” but that the error can be explained by the fact that the writer or the workman transposed one of the strokes from the months to the years; it should read: ANN. LXII M. III D. X.

[1464] Reprinted in Walch, 24, p. 250 ff. The poem begins: “_Hic prope Martini rursus victuri Lutheri_.”

[1465] Walch, 24, p. 253 f.

[1466] Walch, 24, p. 258, commencing “_Hœc erat effigies operose facta Luthero_.”

[1467] Vol. ii., p. 355; vol. v., p. 341.

[1468] Above, p. 29.

[1469] Vol. ii., p. 253; vol. iv., p. 354.

[1470] Vol. ii., p. 335.

[1471] De Rossi, “Inscriptiones christ. Urbis Romæ,” 2, 1, p. 147.

[1472] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279 f.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.

[1473] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 66.

[1474] K. L. Grube, in the “KL.,” 12², Sp. 1720.

[1475] Weim. ed., 15, p. 254; Erl. ed., 24², p. 222.

[1476] Erl. ed., 65, p. 221.

[1477] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

[1478] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119. The Bible passage alluded to (Rom. vi. 7) says rather that, in the man who is justified, the old man being crucified with Christ is dead to sin.

[1479] “Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 383.*

[1480] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 74.

[1481] Weim. ed., 23, p. 36; Erl. ed., 30, p. 13.

[1482] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 49, p. 359 ff., 1538.

[1483] Weim. ed., 33, p. 626 f; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358 f.

[1484] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 10.

[1485] To Justus Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 591.

[1486] Weim. ed., 23, p. 32; Erl. ed., 30, p. 8.

[1487] _Ib._, p. 27 ff.=2 ff.

[1488] _Ib._, p. 27=3.

[1489] _Ib._, 33, p. 630=48, p. 361.

[1490] _Ib._, p. 634 f.=365.

[1491] Weim. ed. 10, 2, p. 105; Erl. ed. 28, p. 143.

[1492] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 54.

[1493] See above, vol. iv., p. 44.

[1494] To Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 598.

[1495] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 119.

[1496] “Luther, eine Skizze,” pp. 51, 57; “KL.,” col. 339, 343.

[1497] Dec. 22, 1525, to Duke George of Saxony (?), Erl. ed., 53, p. 340 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281). Cp. Weim. ed., 7, p. 274; Erl. ed., 27, p. 210, where the assertion also occurs that, my doctrine “is not mine but God’s,” “because it is the very Gospel itself” (1521). The allusion is of course to Galatians, i. 1 ff.

[1498] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 f.

[1499] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 159.

[1500] Cp. the 18th-century Protestant historian, G. J. Planck, “Gesch. der Entstehung des protestant. Lehrbegriffs,” 1², Leipsig, 1791, pp. 2, 3, 41.

[1501] Above, vol. i., p. 45 ff.

[1502] Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 53.

[1503] _Ib._, p. 684=54.

[1504] On the ecclesiastical and social disorders see above, vol. i. and ii., _passim_.

[1505] Weim. ed., 10, 1, p. 707 ff.: Erl. ed., 10², p. 464 f.

[1506] _Ib._

[1507] For Luther’s strange idea that the rapid spread of his doctrine was really a “miracle,” see above, vol. iii., p. 156, etc.

[1508] See, for instance, the passages from Aurifaber and Spangenberg, below, p. 416.

[1509] See above, vol. v., p. 393.

[1510] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1898, p. 1005.

[1511] M. Spahn, “J. Cochläus,” 1898, p. 90.

[1512] Cp. J. Schlecht, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 19, 1898, p. 938, quoted from Cochlæus’s “Vorrede zu Hertzog Georgs Entschuldigung,” 1533.

[1513] “De Actis,” etc., Moguntiæ, 1549, Preface.

[1514] Letter to Pirkheimer, Sep. 5, 1525. Quoted by Schlecht, “Jahrb.,” _ib._

[1515] “De Actis,” etc., p. 318.

[1516] Preface.

[1517] _Ib._

[1518] “De Actis,” p. 317.

[1519] “De Actis,” p. 318.

[1520] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” Engl. Trans, vii., p. 304.

[1521] See above, vol. iv., p. 475. Characteristic of Amsdorf is his assurance in the Preface to vol. i. of the Jena ed. of Luther’s works (1555), that Luther, whose books “could not be paid for with all the world’s goods and gold,” was especially deserving of praise because he had eradicated “the worst and most pernicious heresy that had ever appeared on earth, viz. that good works are necessary for salvation.”

[1522] Kawerau, “RE. f. prot. Th.”³, Art. “Menius.”

[1523] The only one of all the “reformers” who did not regard the Pope as Antichrist was, according to R. Mumm (“Die Polemik des Martin Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trient,” Part I., p. 41), the Calvinist theologian Zanchi. The latter, however, protested against such a “calumny,” as he called it; see Paulus, against Mumm, in the “Theolog. Revue,” 1906, p. 17.

[1524] “Luthers Werke,” Jena ed., vol. i., 1555.

[1525] To Ehrhard Schnepf, Nov. 10, 1553, “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 171.

[1526] “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 798.

[1527] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 157.

[1528] “Theander Lutherus, Vom werthen Gottes Manne D.M. Luther,” 12.

[1529] A. Kluckhohn, “Briefe Friedrich des Frommen, Kurfürsten von der Pfalz,” 1, p. 478.

[1530] _Ib._, p. 587. Of Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature the Prince says, “it degrades the manhood of Christ and makes it something so intangible that it exists in all stones, wood, leaves, grass, apples, pears and in all that lives, also in the stinking swine and, as someone had admitted to the old Landgrave, in the great wine-tun at Stuttgart.”

[1531] Janssen, _ib._, 8, 175.

[1532] Janssen, _ib._, p. 176.

[1533] Janssen, _ib._, p. 176 f. Cp. the 1571 inscription under Luther’s memorial at Jena where the Latin verses on the founder of the University run as follows:

“_Esset ut hæc sanctæ doctrinæ strenue custos_
_Condidit ad Salæ pulcra fluenta scholam_
_Quæ tumidos docto confunderet ore sophistas,_
_Nec sineret falsis dogmata vera premi,_
_Sed quia mox ætas mundi trahet ægra ruinam,_
_Pullulat errorum nunc numerosa seges_, etc.”

[1534] “Tischreden,” Eisleben, 1566, Preface.

[1535] Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” Preface.

[1536] V. E. Löscher, “Ausführliche Historia motuum zwischen den Evangelisch-Lutherischen und reformierten,” 3², 1723-1724, p. 158.

[1537] H. Heppe, “Gesch. des deutschen Prot. in den Jahren 1555-1581,” 2, Marburg, 1852, ff., p. 419 f.

[1538] L. Hutter, “Concordia concors,” Wittenbergæ, 1614, c. 8. R. Calinich, “Kampf und Untergang des Melanchthonismus,” Leipzig, 1866, p. 128 ff.

[1539] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 8, p. 189 f.

[1540] G. J. Planck, “Gesch. der Entstehung, usw., des prot. Lehrbegriffs”, vol. v., Part 2, Leipzig, 1781 ff., p. 600 f.

[1541] Janssen, _ib._, p. 190.

[1542] _Ib._, p. 192.

[1543] _Ib._, p. 193.

[1544] Wagenmann, Art. “Peucer,” “Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” 25, p. 555. An attempt has been made of recent years to exonerate Peucer from the charge of pure Calvinism. This may possibly prove successful, but his guilt lay in the fact that, “under the semblance of Lutheranism, he abandoned Luther’s Christology and his doctrine of the Supper and advocated something so closely resembling Calvinism that it was easily mistaken for it.” Kawerau, “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³ Art. “Peucer.”

[1545] See above, vol. v., p. 592 f.

[1546] J. A. Dorner, “Gesch. der prot. Th.,” (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in Deutschland,” vol. v.), Munich, 1867, p. 370 f.

[1547] Janssen, _ib._ (Engl. Trans.) 8, p. 406.

[1548] Cp. “Beiträge zur evangel. Concordie,” “Festschrift,” etc., by Chr. G., no place, 1717, p. 42 f. Janssen, _ib._, p. 413.

[1549] The Landgrave demanded, e.g. that it should be pointed out to him where in Holy Scripture it was stated that the Body of Christ was not in heaven, that the Virgin Mary did not bring forth like another woman, or that the human nature of Christ was everywhere; “all these are new-fangled dogmas, let them smear and daub them with Luther’s excrement as much as they please”; “the poor old spoonbill goose did not know what he was writing about.” Report of the envoys, in L. Hutter, “Concordia concors,” 1614, p. 215 _sq._ Janssen _ib._, p. 420 f.

[1550] “Symbol. Bücher,”¹⁰ ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 702.

[1551] Heppe, “Gesch. des Prot.,” 3, p. 116.

[1552] _Ib._, 4, p. 150. Janssen, _ib._, p. 419.

[1553] Heppe, _ib._, 3, p. 299 ff. Janssen, _ib._, p. 429.

[1554] Janssen, _ib._, p. 414 f.

[1555] _Ib._, p. 415.

[1556] J. C. Johannsen, “Pfalzgraf Johann Kasimir und sein Kampf gegen die Concordienformel,” in Niedner’s “Zeitschrift f. hist. Th.,” 31, 1861 (pp. 419-476), p. 461 ff. Janssen, _ib._, p. 436.

[1557] Aurifaber, “Tischreden,” Eisleben, 1566, Cap. I. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 19, and “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 47, 48.

[1558] Above, p. 419.

[1559] “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 160 f.

[1560] H. Grauert, “P. Denifle, ein Wort zum Gedächtnis,” etc., p. 6: “The strength and energy of Luther’s personality it was that for centuries kept wide circles of his followers true to the belief in the Redeemer of the world, the God-man, Jesus Christ. With a practical and highly significant inconsequence, for all his principles of freedom Luther transmitted to his followers a relatively fixed doctrinal system, and, with it, a summary of the articles of faith which have preserved even to the present day a certain spiritual community of faith between the believing Protestant world and Catholicism.”

[1561] Words of Canisius in the passage quoted below, p. 429.

[1562] A. Ehrhard, “Der Katholizismus und das 20ste. Jahrh.,”¹² 1902, p. 126.

[1563] “Votorum monast. Tutor,” in Cod. lat. Monac., 2886, fol. 35´ Denifle, _ib._, 1², p. 9.

[1564] Lemmens, “Pater Augustin von Alfeld,” 1899, p. 72. Denifle, _ib._

[1565] Grauert, _ib._, p. 37.

[1566] The “Exercises” were approved by Pope Paul III in 1540. Cp. the “Regulæ ad sentiendum vere, sicut debemus, in ecclesia militante,” which St. Ignatius appended as early as 1541 to the Exercises, reg. 1 and 13. Without naming the new heresy the author gives in these rules practical hints as to how to counteract the spirit of the age. He urges that all the commandments of the Church should be zealously upheld, that the respect due to the authorities both spiritual and temporal should not be diminished by seditious public censure, since efforts after reform were more effectual when carried out quietly; also that the traditional learning of the Church, Scholasticism and positive studies should be held in honour (“a right understanding of Holy Scripture and the saintly Doctors is of great advantage to the modern theologians of the schools,” etc., Reg. 11); prudence too should be exercised in the matter of controversy, for instance, in sermons and writings grace should not be exalted at the expense of free-will, or faith emphasised so as to depreciate good works; the motive of the pure love of God should be recommended, but at the same time the fear of punishment admitted, because a “childlike fear is pious and holy and bound up with the love of God, whilst servile fear, if a man is unable to rise any higher, at least helps him to forsake mortal sin and to rise to a childlike fear.” At the same time he recommends all the usual Catholic devotions, not merely the frequent reception of the sacraments but also the keeping of the feasts and fasts, the veneration of relics, office in choir, processions, the use of lights and the beautifying of the churches. Above all, in harmony with the spirit of the Exercises, the interior virtues are extolled and vows, virginity and the inward and outward works of penance recommended. Thus did the founder of the Order, whose ideal was the extension of the Kingdom of Christ to the utmost limits, provide for the needs of the day. That the Jesuit Order was founded in order to oppose Protestantism can only be maintained by one who has not read the first pages of the Constitutions of St. Ignatius.

[1567] “Memoriale b. Petri Fabri, primi S. Ignatii alumni,” ed. M. Bouix, Lut. Paris. 1873, p. 19. Cochlæus too wished to go through the Exercises under Favre. The latter informs Ignatius in a letter from Spires dated Jan. 23, 1541, that after he had discussed with Cochlæus the distinction between “_scientia_” and “_sensus spiritualis_” (enjoyment of the higher truths) the latter, “_subridens cœlesti lætitia_,” had said; “_gaudeo quod tandem magistri circa affectus inveniantur_.” Braunsberger, “Canisii Epistulæ,” 1, p. 77 note 2.

[1568] To Francis Borgia from Dillingen, Sep. 8, 1570. Janssen, 8, p. 241. Canisius also pointed out to his General, Aquaviva, the necessity of “publicly defending the Catholic truths with the pen and thus meeting with prudence the demands of our day; such a work was of no less importance than the conversion of the wild Indians.” F. Sachinus, “De vita Petri Canisii.” Ingolstadii, 1616, p. 361 _sq._

[1569] To the General of the Order, Lainez, April 22, 1559. Janssen, _ib._, p. 237. Braunsberger, _ib._, 2, 398.

[1570] Memo. for the General of the Order, Aquaviva, Janssen, _ib._, p. 235 f.

[1571] “Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 658: “_Ut insanum sit, omnia probare quæ scripsit aut scripturus sit Lutherus, ita non placet, odio auctoris damnare quæ vera sunt, ea depravare quæ recta sunt_.”

[1572] _Ib._, 9, p. 1084, “Hyperaspistes,” 1, 1: “_Quis enim est tam malus scriptor, ut non aliquid admisceat probandum_.”

[1573] _Ib._, 10, col. 1251.

[1574] To the Emperor’s brother Ferdinand, Nov. 20, 1524, _ib._, 3, col. 826.

[1575] To Auerbach, Dec. 10, 1524, _ib._, col. 833.

[1576] To Duke George of Saxony, Dec. 12, 1524, _ib._, col. 838.

[1577] May 20, 1520, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 15, 1894, p. 378 (ed. J. Fijalyek). On the last sentence cp. John viii. 21 and Ez. xxxvi. 25.

[1578] “An den grossmechtigsten.… Adel tütscher Nation,” etc., Strasburg, 1520 (anonymously published), Bl. K 1´. Murner attributes the contempt for the Ban to its abuse (D 4) and says, it would be better were some of the precepts and some of the numerous Church holidays done away with (H 1´).

[1579] “De actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 29. He adds, however, that the good was often all sham.

[1580] _Ib._, p. 55 _sqq._ German ed., Dillingen, 1611, p. 109 ff. Cp. “Lutheri Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 146. “_Nunc omnes artes illustratæ florescunt._ So too God has now made us a present of the press, _præcipue ad premendum papam_.” Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, pp. 498-533.

[1581] W. Friedensburg in the art. “Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der Reformationsgesch.” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59), p. 40, where it is true, he says of Cochlæus that “Vanity as a rule played a great part in his character.”

[1582] “Vormeldunge der Unwarheit Lutherscher Clage,” Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, 1532.

[1583] Cp. for instance Falk, “Pfarramtliche Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu St. Christoph in Mainz, 1491-1518” (“Erläuterungen u. Erg. zu Janssen,” vol. iv., Hft. 3). Falk, _ib._, p. 5: “The family was at that time responsible for the religious instruction of the young.” In many of the schools the Catechism was taught, but the schools were not as yet generally attended.

[1584] Otto, “Joh. Cochläus,” Breslau, 1874, p. 3.

[1585] He only advises a “_consilium plebani_” when the result of the instructions to the Communicants was doubtful. “Sermones,” Hagenau, 1510, “De festivitatibus Christi,” xix., “on Maundy Thursday,” “on preparation for communion.”

[1586] In the “Deudsche Messe,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl, ed., 22, p. 232. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 50.

[1587] O. Braunsberger, “Entstehung und erste Entwicklung der Katechismen des sel. Petrus Canisius” (“Ergänzungshefte zu den Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” No. 57, 1893). Cp. J. Fijalyek, “Über das wahre Jahr der Erstlingsgabe des Grossen Katechismus des sel. Petrus Canisius” in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 17, 1896, p. 804 ff.

[1588] Published in 1556 as shown by N. Paulus, “Zeitsch. f. kath. Th.,” 27, 1903, p. 172.

[1589] K. Kehr, “Gesch. der Methodik des deutschen Volksunterrichts,” 1, 1877 ff., p. 33.

[1590] Sess. 24, “De reform.,” c. 4.

[1591] See Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xiii., _passim_.

[1592] Janssen, _ib._, p. 58 ff.

[1593] Janssen, _ib._, p. 129.

[1594] See the statements of Albert of Mayence, of Pflug and Wicel, in Janssen, _ib._, p. 58.

[1595] W. Bäumker, in Wetzer and Welte’s “KL.,” 7², p. 606 f.

[1596] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 287 ff.

[1597] To Cardinal Otto Truchsess (Dec. 7, 1560) (Cod. Vat. 6417): “_Abundat Roma viris doctis et historiarum peritis. Magni profecto referret, ex his deligi aliquem ad conscribendas pontificum vitas. Nunc sectarii quæ volunt effingunt, nobis plane stertentibus. Iudicet Rᵐᵃ D.V. quomodo succurri possit non modo præsenti sed etiam sequenti ecclesiæ. Ita de catechismis et postillis quoque dixerim, salvo semper iudicio sapientium. Sed opus plane videtur, ut ad huius ætatis rationem docendi modus accommodetur_,” etc. Cp. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii epist.,” 3, p. 30, and Jos. Schmid, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 17, 1896, p. 79.

[1598] And yet it would have been better had even Panvinius and Baronius shown themselves more critical, particularly in dealing with the Saints, relics, etc. The Council of Trent itself had been most urgent in demanding the removal of false relics; nor were preachers to be allowed to relate untrue stories about the souls in Purgatory for filthy lucre’s sake (“_incerta vel quæ specie falsi laborant, evulgari ac tractari non permittant_”; Sess. 25; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 983). The false indulgences were among the abuses condemned by the Council of Trent in the Decree “De indulgentiis” (Sess. 25): “_abusus qui in his irrepserunt et quorum occasione insigne hoc indulgentiarum nomen ab hæreticis blasphematur_.”

[1599] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 530 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 _sqq._ Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252 f.

[1600] “Bibliotheca sanctorum Patrum,” Paris, 1575-79, in 9 folio volumes.

[1601] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3⁴, p. 810.

[1602] To Thomas Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambr. und Thom. Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 42 ff.

[1603] Cp. Horst Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” Giessen, 1907 (“Stud. zur Gesch. des neueren Protestantismus,” Hft. 1). This book has been largely utilised in what follows. Cp. J. Schmidlin, “Luther im Luthertum,” in the “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 441 ff. The words we quote in inverted commas without further reference are from H. Stephan.

[1604] Stephan, _ib._, pp. 17, 34, 67.

[1605] Schmidlin, _ib._, col. 445.

[1606] Stephan, _ib._, p. 126.

[1607] “Martin Luther und seine Bedeutung für die Wissenschaft und Bildung,” Giessen, 1883. New ed. 1911, p. 4.

[1608] Stephan, _ib._, pp. 15, 18, 22.

[1609] Stephan, _ib._, p. 23 calls the prophecy on Luther (Rev. xiv. 6) “that most frequently used from Styfel’s time down to Löscher’s ‘Unschuldige Nachrichten.’”

[1610] Sermon of Reisner, pastor of Mittweida near Chemnitz, printed 1677. _Ib._, p. 24. Joh. Alb. Fabricius appeals in his “Centifolium Lutheranum” (Hamburg, 1728), p. 331, to Bugenhagen’s funeral oration on Luther where the passage is taken to refer to Luther, and remarks quite seriously that Samuel Benedict Carpzov had seen in the other two angels mentioned there Flacius Illyricus and Martin Chemnitz.

[1611] In the “Centifolium Lutheranum” just mentioned, p. 339, Fabricius quotes from Theophrastus Paracelsus, “Descriptio Carinthiæ” (Argentor. 1616, p. 250), the inscription in question, said to be in a church at Ingingen in Carinthia, to which some statues had been presented by the Emperor.—The swan is mentioned in Bugenhagen’s funeral address and in Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 199.

[1612] Stephan, _ib._, p. 25. Cp. Hutter, “Compendium locorum theologicorum,” 1610, and “Concordia concors,” 1614.

[1613] Stephan, _ib._, p. 21. Claius, “Grammatica Germanicæ linguæ, ex bibliis Lutheri,” etc., Lipsiæ, 1578, Præf.

[1614] “Centifolium Lutheranum,” p. 330 ff.

[1615] “Gesch. der deutschen Reformation,” 1, Leipzig, 1872, pp. 178, 179, 399.

[1616] “Unparteiische Kirchenhistorie,” Part II, Frankfurt, 1699-1700, pp. 42, 45, 48. See the epitaph above, p. 393.

[1617] Zierold, rector at Stargard, quoted by Stephan, _ib._, p. 36.

[1618] See above, vol. v., p. 147 f. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 16. Stephan, _ib._, p. 34, here rightly draws on Ritschl, “Gesch. des Pietismus.”

[1619] Stephan, _ib._, p. 34.

[1620] _Ib._, pp. 35-38, 43.

[1621] See above, vol. iii., p. 293.

[1622] “Werke,” ed. Suphan, 7, p. 258.

[1623] “Werke,” ed. Suphan, 7, p. 500.

[1624] “Rettungen des Lemnius und Cochläus,” 1754, Stephan, _ib._, p. 73. Cp. below, p. 448.

[1625] Stephan, _ib._, p. 54.

[1626] _Ib._, p. 46.

[1627] In Nicolai, “Allg. deut. Bibliothek,” 1797. G. Frank, “Luther im Spiegel seiner Kirche” (“Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,” 1905, p. 465 ff.), p. 475.

[1628] Ritschl, “Gesch. des Pietismus,” 2, p. 575. Stephan, _ib._, p. 58. Ritschl adds that, according to this view (Büsching’s), “religion was a matter of the individual and only incidentally of the congregation.”

[1629] Stephan’s words, _ib._, p. 59.

[1630] _Ib._, p. 74; cp. _ib._, p. 72, Lessing’s high opinion of Luther.

[1631] “Pantheon der Deutschen,” 1, Chemnitz, 1794, p. 232.

[1632] Conversation with Eckermann, March 11, 1832.

[1633] “Novalis’ Schriften,” 2, ed. Minor, Jena, 1907, p. 27 f.

[1634] See vol. i., p. xxxv, f.

[1635] Quoted by Franck, “Gesch. d. prot. Theol.,” 4, p. 144.

[1636] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. xiii.

[1637] Of the legendary traits common in the popular literature on Luther there is no lack in Köstlin’s “Martin Luther.” G. Kawerau, who, after the author’s death, finished the latest edition of the book already in the press, would doubtless have depicted many things differently had he had a free hand.

In the long discussion of Luther’s monastic days his later utterances are accepted implicitly without being submitted to criticism. Thus his account of his penitential martyrdom, by which he even “endangered his life,” is taken at its face value, and so is his testimony to his own saintliness. “Of any more evangelical conception of the road to salvation,” Luther heard nothing at Erfurt, indeed there was “no Christian preaching at all,” etc., etc. “In the convent he was left practically to himself.” “The lax standard by which his scholastic teachers judged of sin [the motions of concupiscence] did not alleviate what he had to endure,” viz. “the standard of the law.” In the theological lectures he heard nothing of “how, in the Man Christ, the Godhead descends to us”; on the contrary they led him to turn away in terror from the Master and Judge. It was a cause of deep grief to him that forgiveness was made “to depend on the worthiness and the works of the sinner himself,” etc., etc. The Church gave him no “insight into the meaning of the Mediatorship of Christ.” Even at Erfurt the Bible “had led him to see many errors in the Papal Church,” but the most important thing was that, by means of this same Bible he attained “by the gracious dispensation of God” to the “overthrow of all proud self-righteousness.” His flying for refuge simply to the merciful Love of God became the salvation of the quiet, laborious, struggling monk, whose destiny was to mould the world’s history (pp. 55, 60-66, 72, 75, 77 f.).

According to Köstlin Luther began “this attack on ecclesiastical abuses straightforwardly, conscientiously, with moderation and prudence” (1, 142). “At last he came forward from the ‘corner’ where he would gladly have remained and entered upon the struggle” (2, 626). During the struggle itself he was calm and peaceful, etc., “what would ensue he did not know, but committed it to Him Who sits on High” (1, 354). This grand tranquillity was permanent with him. “Of good courage, inwardly peaceful and confident, we see Luther (after his marriage) living his new life” (738). Köstlin indeed repeatedly mentions his inward struggles, but, according to him, Luther conquers the burden of his temptations with “a bold faith” (2, 178). “He warns his followers against the belief that the Papacy was to be overthrown by the use of force” (1, 583). He also demands that no constraint should be used in the “purely interior domain of faith”; the heretics were to “be resisted only by the Word,” so long at least as they did not “outwardly manifest” their errors (1, 584), which, however, they nearly always did.

Luther’s sovereign “merely looked on while the Word and the Spirit did the work” (1, 603). Luther never “imposed on him either the duty or the right to protect him and his work against Emperor and Empire.” “Never did he lend a hand to measures that might have been of advantage to the furtherance of the evangelical cause, but which would have militated against his principles” (2, 522).

No trace of false enthusiasm dominates Luther, but rather a “conscientious sobriety”; the passion that urges him on is merely “fiery enthusiasm for the faith and his absolute confidence” (cp. 2, 517).

“It is from the religious foundations on which his life is based that proceeds the freedom to which he has attained with regard to temporal things, his joyousness in using them and the calmness with which he renounces them and awaits what is better” (2, 512). “The faith with which he embraces God, holds intercourse with Him and seeks strength and victory through Him alone bears a character of childlike simplicity” (2, 513). It is a “bold faith,” a courageous faith, that animates him. “In heartfelt prayer lies for Luther all his strength” (2, 514).

His “modesty as to his theological achievements” (2, 512) ought not to be overlooked. He had no fears as to the permanency of his Evangel. “That it was the Evangel of God for which he was working and that He would not let His Evangel fall to the ground, of this he was quite sure” etc. (2, 522).

At the time of his death “true religious interests were once more paramount and Rome’s domination, till then all-powerful, was for ever shaken to its foundation” (2, 626).

[1638] “Stud. und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Ref.,” Leipzig, 1874, Introd. and pp. 208, 212 f., 237. Cp. above, vol. i, p. xxix.

[1639] (Anonymous) Schaffhausen, 1857, pp. 104, 111, 113.

[1640] This was the opinion of H. Boehmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 115.

[1641] See above, vol. v., p. 432 ff.

[1642] Cp. C. Stange, “Die ältesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers,” 1900, p. vi. ff.

[1643] 4th edition, 1906, Preface, p. vii. f.

[1644] Troeltsch, “Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit,” in “Kultur der Gegenwart,” 1, vol. iv.,²; Stephan, _ib._, p. 128 f.

[1645] J. Schmidlin, “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage der Germania,” 1909, No. 15), pp. 117, 119.

[1646] “Leitfaden der Dogmengesch.,”³ p. 535.

[1647] Stephan, _ib._, p. 69.

[1648] _Ib._, p. 110 ff.

[1649] Boehmer, _ib._, p. 120.

[1650] _Ib._, 2nd ed., p. 140.

[1651] _Ib._, 2nd ed., p. 153.

[1652] Boehmer, _ib._, p. 153.

[1653] Stephan, _ib._, p. 93.

[1654] In the lecture quoted above, p. 441, n. 4.

[1655] “Fröhliche Wissenschaft,” Pocket edition, 6, p. 202. Stephan, _ib._, p. 120.

[1656] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” 1905, p. 52 f.

[1657] W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 303.

[1658] Cp. also H. Boehmer, _ib._,¹ p. 136.

[1659] _Ib._, p. 100; 2nd. ed., p. 139 f.

[1660] _Ib._, p. 10.

[1661] In the lecture mentioned above, p. 441, n. 4.

[1662] “With this knowledge the Holy Ghost inspired me in this cloaca on the tower.”

INDEX

In this Index “L.” stands for “Luther.”

Abailard, i. 401

Abbots, Prince-, ii. 120, iii. 262 f.

Abel, i. 43

Abortions.
_See_ Misbirths

Abraham, iv. 109, 111, 156, v. 124, 413, vi. 74;
“I am A.,” iii. 273;
his “lie,” iv. 109, 113, v. 501, vi. 514;
his idolatry, iii. 192, v. 124

Absolution.
_See_ Confession

Abstinence.
_See_ Fasts

Abuses in the Church, i. 26, 45 ff., 53, 70, 84, 123 f., 130 ff.,
226 ff., 272, 325, 350 f., ii. 3, 123 ff., 127, 190 ff., 222,
312 f., 338, v. 120 f., vi. 404

Abusive language, i. 69, 72, 83, 209 f., 284, ii. 152 ff., 396,
iii. 172, iv. 188 f., 192, 300, 306-326, 365, 370, v. 88, 116,
342, 383 f., 395, 398 f., 411 f., vi. 109, 214 f.;
shocks Bullinger, v. 409;
Melanchthon, iii. 364 f.;
Zwingli, iii. 380.
_See_ Unseemliness

Acceptation, i. 155.
_See_ Imputation

Accolti, P., ii. 46

Acta Augustana, i. 359

Activity.
_See_ Work

Actual sin.
_See_ Sin

Actus matrimonialis, iv. 137, 151 f., v. 48

Adam, ii. 271, 282 f.

⸺ Melchior, v. 271 f.

Adiaphora, v. 263, vi. 410 ff.

Adrian.
_See_ Hadrian

Adulteration of wine, iii. 297, 313

Adultery, ii. 33, iii. 245, 247, 254 ff., iv. 158 f., 165, 208, v. 25

Ægidius Romanus, i. 13, 129

⸺ Viterbiensis, vi. 497, 503

Æpinus, J., vi. 82, 408

Æsop’s Fables, iv. 246, vi. 16 ff., 368 f.;
“A New F.,” iv. 177

Agnus Dei, iv. 123

Agonies.
_See_ Temptations

Agony in the Garden, v. 363

Agricola, George, ii. 242, iii. 304

⸺ Johann, as L.’s helper, v. 181, 563, n.;
against L., ii. 370, iii. 301 f., iv. 100, 309, vi. 280 f.;
L. on A., iii. 219, 278, 400, 407, 475, v. 15, 25, 238, 276, vi. 281,
289, 343, 354, 398;
and Bugenhagen, v. 275;
and Bora, iii. 216, v. 21;
and Jonas, iii. 414;
and Melanchthon, iii. 444, v. 22.
_See_ Antinomians

⸺ Stephen, iv. 514

⸺ Wolfgang, iii. 284 ff.

Ailly, Cardinal P. d’, i. 13, 132, 141, 155, 157, 161 f., 243

Ailments:
apoplexy, vi. 107, 376 ff., 379 f.;
calculus, ii. 161, iii. 434 f., v. 348, vi. 109, 341, 345;
catarrh, iii. 297, vi. 109;
constipation, ii. 81 f., 95, 164, n., vi. 109, 177;
ear-trouble, ii. 161, v. 236, vi. 104, 106 ff.;
epilepsy?, i. 17, vi. 101;
eye-trouble, iv. 261;
fainting-fits, i. 16 f., ii. 170, vi. 103 ff., 373;
giddiness, i. 278, ii. 161, vi. 106;
gout?, ii. 162, n., vi. 176 f.;
headache, etc., ii. 161, iii. 124, 299, 317 f., v. 346, vi. 130, 170,
341, 371;
heart-trouble, vi. 100 f., 103, 178, 341, 376 f.;
hemorrhoids, vi. 109, 177;
influenza, vi. 110;
insanity? iii. 136, iv. 183, 353, n., vi. 170-186;
nerve-trouble, ii. 390, iii. 299, 317, v. 226, vi. 105 ff., 111;
running wound, vi. 109, 132 f.;
sleeplessness, ii. 163, iii. 305 f., 310;
sweat (English), vi. 109;
syphilis?, i. 37, ii. 161 ff.;
tears as a relief, vi. 104, 108, 132, 169;
vomiting, iii. 300 f.
_See_ Pessimism, Temptations

Alber, Erasmus, iii. 402, 409, iv. 74, 357, vi. 493

Albert of Brandenburg, v. 220

⸺ Mansfeld, ii. 137, 289 f., vi. 350 f., 372, 379 f.

⸺ Mayence; concern in the Indulgence, i. 328, 348 ff.;
L. invites him to wed, ii. 141, 205;
attacks him, ii. 6, 70, 214 f., iv. 98, 292, 319 f., v. 307 f.,
vi. 188, 350;
his “relics,” iv. 292, v. 307 f.;
A. and Erasmus, ii. 248;
and Lemnius, vi. 287;
and Melanchthon, iii. 370;
and Schönitz, iv. 319 f., v. 106;
and Erfurt, ii. 354 f., 359 f.;
residence, vi. 485;
on the schools, vi. 436

⸺ Prussia, ii. 223, iii. 423, iv. 196, vi. 253, 408

Albertinus, Æ., v. 271, vi. 382, n.

Albertus, L., iv. 226

⸺ Magnus, i. 162

Albrecht, B., v. 295

Alderspach, vi. 29 f.

Aleander, ii. 6, 61, 71, 78 f., 256, iii. 303, iv. 355, 357

Alemann, A., ii. 139, 141

Alexander III, iv. 109 f., v. 424, vi. 494

⸺ VI, i. 55, iv. 90 (cp. correction, vi. 516)

⸺ of Hales, i. 162, vi. 503

Alfeld.
_See_ Alveld

Allstedt, ii. 364, iv. 172

Alms.
_See_ Poor-Relief

Altenburg, ii. 314 ff., vi. 49, 52, 240

Alveld, i. 366, ii. 11, iii. 145, iv. 288, v. 124, 307, 520, vi. 426

Ambiguity.
_See_ Dishonesty

Ambrose, St., iii. 250, iv. 335, v. 586;
pseudo-, iv. 174 f., 177

Amen, L.’s use of the word, vi. 511.
_See_ Pope-Ass

Amerbach, B. and V., iv. 183, 364, vi. 170

America, vi. 515

Amsdorf, N., as L.’s henchman, i. 39, 91, 278, 304, 311, ii. 169,
iii. 405;
against good works, iv. 475, vi. 392;
matrimonial agent, ii. 137, 139;
dealings with spirits, v. 282, 315 f.;
“consecration,” v. 191 ff.;
edits L.’s works, ii. 55;
coarseness, iii. 336;
quarrels, vi. 409 ff.;
and Agricola, v. 20;
and Erasmus, iv. 181 f.;
and Melanchthon, iii. 366, v. 257;
ejected from his bishopric, vi. 408

Anabaptists:
their rise, iii. 418 f.;
effect on L., ii, 93, vi. 75 f., 86, 312;
Melanchthon denies their existence, iii. 374, iv. 113;
L. attacks them, ii. 363 ff., iii. 419;
appeals to tradition, iv. 488;
condemns them to death, ii. 365 f., v. 349, vi. 249, 275;
their strictures on L., ii. 130, 367 f., 377, iii. 275.
_See_ Fanatics, Münzer

Andreæ, J., iv. 200, vi. 275, 419, 421, 424

Angels, v. 381, 395, vi. 127 f., 131;
A. guardian, i. 19, v. 279 f., 297, 309, 327, vi. 374;
visions of A.
_See_ Ghosts

Anger.
_See_ Passion

Anhalt, Adolf of, i. 22

⸺ Johann, vi, 226.
_See_ Wolfgang, etc.

Anne, devotion to St., i. 4, iv. 140, vi. 223

Anointing, Last, iii. 7, vi. 410

Antichrist, i. 359, 385, ii. 13, 56 f., 80, 260, iii. 142-148, 355,
431, 436, 439, iv. 81 f., v. 243 f., 420, vi. 154 f.
_See_ Pope

Antinomians, ii. 289, iv. 245, 475, v. 15 ff., 158 f., vi. 279 f.
_See_ Agricola

Antwerp, ii. 167, v. 172, vi. 43

Apel, J., ii. 174, 183

Apocalypse, v. 521 f.

Apocalyptics, ii. 103, iii. 84, 92 f., 140-152, iv. 296, 313 f.

Apocrypha, v. 497, 521 f.
_See_ Bible (Canon)

Apostasy, i. 62 ff., 120 f., 258 f., 385 ff.;
concealment of, i. 146 ff., ii. 15 ff.;
later description of, vi. 187-205

Apostate monks and priests, ii. 115 ff., 123 ff., 138, 317 ff., 342

Apostles described, iii. 191 f., v. 124;
L.’s belief about them, vi. 515

Apothecaries, i. 245, v. 235.
_See_ Landau

Apparitions.
_See_ Ghosts

Appeal to Pope, i. 258;
to Council, i. 356, 359, iii. 432 f., 443, v. 376 f.

Appearance of L., i. 279, ii. 157 ff., iii. 428 f., iv. 230.
_See_ Dress, Eyes, Portrait

Apriolus.
_See_ Eberlin

Aquila, C., iii. 366, vi. 410

Aquinas, i. 85, 131, 137, 141 f., 150, 162 f., 243 f., 270, 370,
iii. 143, vi. 236

Arcimboldi, i. 344, 352

Argula, ii. 173

Aristotle, i. 22, 77, 85 f., 127, 136 f., 149 ff., 159, 211 f., 244,
305, 313, 339, 370, ii. 269, iii. 143, iv. 102, 336, 346, v. 50,
113, 390, 518, vi. 20 f., 235

Arndt, E. M., vi. 456 f.

Arnold, G., iii. 138, iv. 205, vi. 443 ff.

Arnoldi, B.
_See_ Usingen

⸺ F., ii. 392, 396, iv. 101, 191, 306, 355, iv. 267

Arnstadt, iv. 15, vi. 139

Art, works of, ii. 351 f., iv. 198 f., v. 203-224

Asceticism, v. 87.
_See_ Mortification

Astrology, ii. 168, iii. 118, 166, 356, iv. 267.
_See_ Superstition

Athanasius, i. 10, ii. 398 f., vi. 206, 438

Attrition, i. 292 ff.
_See_ Contrition.

Augsburg, Diets of, i. 340 f., ii. 284 f., 383 ff., iii. 65, 123,
328-343, 420 f.;
trial of L., i. 66, 340, 355-359, 384 f., ii. 39, 367, iv. 388,
vi. 190, 299;
Confession, ii. 384, iii. 329 ff., vi. 281

August of Saxony, iv. 209, vi. 413, 415-419