diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/54811-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/54811-0.txt | 30896 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 30896 deletions
diff --git a/old/54811-0.txt b/old/54811-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f621416..0000000 --- a/old/54811-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,30896 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Luther, vol. 6 of 6, by Hartmann Grisar - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Luther, vol. 6 of 6 - -Author: Hartmann Grisar - -Editor: Luigi Cappadelta - -Translator: E. M. Lamond - -Release Date: May 30, 2017 [EBook #54811] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LUTHER, VOL. 6 OF 6 *** - - - - -Produced by David Garcia, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe and -the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian -Libraries) - - - - - -TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES: - -—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected. - -—Italic text is indicated _like this_, upright text within italic -passages ~like this~, bold =like this=. - -—The transcriber of this project created the book cover image using -the title page of the original book. The image is placed in the public -domain. - - - - -LUTHER - - - - - - IMPRIMATUR - EDM. CAN. SURMONT, - _Vic. Gen._ - - _Westmonasterii, die 12 Martii, 1917._ - - - - - LUTHER - - BY - - HARTMANN GRISAR, S.J. - - PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK - - - AUTHORISED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN BY - - E. M. LAMOND - - - EDITED BY - - LUIGI CAPPADELTA - - - VOLUME VI - - LONDON - KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD. - BROADWAY HOUSE 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C. - 1917 - - - - -A FEW PRESS OPINIONS OF VOLUMES I-V. - - - “His most elaborate and systematic biography … is not merely a book - to be reckoned with; it is one with which we cannot dispense, if only - for its minute examination of Luther’s theological writings.”—_The - Athenæum_ (Vol. I). - - “The second volume of Dr. Grisar’s ‘Life of Luther’ is fully as - interesting as the first. There is the same minuteness of criticism - and the same width of survey.”—_The Athenæum_ (Vol. II). - - “Its interest increases. As we see the great Reformer in the thick - of his work, and the heyday of his life, the absorbing attraction - of his personality takes hold of us more and more strongly. His - stupendous force, his amazing vitality, his superhuman interest in - life, impress themselves upon us with redoubled effect. We find him - the most multiform, the most paradoxical of men.… The present volume, - which is admirably translated, deals rather with the moral, social, - and personal side of Luther’s career than with his theology.”—_The - Athenæum_ (Vol. III). - - “Father Grisar has gained a high reputation in this country through - the translation of his monumental work on the History of Rome and the - Popes in the Middle Ages, and this first instalment of his ‘Life of - Luther’ bears fresh witness to his unwearied industry, wide learning, - and scrupulous anxiety to be impartial in his judgments as well as - absolutely accurate in matters of fact.”—_Glasgow Herald._ - - “This ‘Life of Luther’ is bound to become standard … a model of every - literary, critical, and scholarly virtue.”—_The Month._ - - “Like its two predecessors, Volume III excels in the minute analysis - not merely of Luther’s actions, but also of his writings; indeed, - this feature is the outstanding merit of the author’s patient - labours.”—_The Irish Times._ - - “This third volume of Father Grisar’s monumental ‘Life’ is full of - interest for the theologian. And not less for the psychologist; for - here more than ever the author allows himself to probe into the - mind and motives and understanding of Luther, so as to get at the - significance of his development.”—_The Tablet_ (Vol. III). - - “Historical research owes a debt of gratitude to Father Grisar for the - calm unbiased manner in which he marshals the facts and opinions on - Luther which his deep erudition has gathered.”—_The Tablet_ (Vol. IV). - - “We have nothing but commendation for the translation.”—_The Tablet_ - (Vol. V). - - “Another volume of Father Grisar’s ‘Life of Martin Luther’ … - confirms the belief that it will remain the standard ‘Life,’ and - rank amongst the most valuable contributions to the history of the - Reformation.”—_Yorkshire Post._ - - - - -CONTENTS - - - CHAPTER XXXV. LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIETY AND - EDUCATION (_continued from Vol. V._) _pages_ 3-98 - - 3. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND HIGHER EDUCATION. - - Luther’s appeals on behalf of the schools; polemical - trend of his appeals; his ideal of elementary - education; study of the Bible and the classics. The - decline in matters educational after the introduction - of the innovations; higher education before Luther’s - day; results achieved by Luther _pages_ 3-41 - - - 4. BENEVOLENCE AND RELIEF OF THE POOR. - - Organised charity in late mediæval times. Luther’s - attempts to arrange for the relief of the poor; the - “Poor-boxes”; Bugenhagen’s work; the sad effects of the - confiscation of Church-property; and of the doctrine - that good works are valueless _pages_ 42-65 - - 5. LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS WORLDLY CALLINGS. - - Whether Luther’s claim can stand that he was the - first to preach the dignity of worldly callings? His - depreciation of the several classes of the nation due - to his estrangement from them. Attitude towards the - merchant-class. His Old-Testament ideas react on his - theories about usury and interest; his views on the - lawfulness of permanent investments, etc. _pages_ 65-98 - - - CHAPTER XXXVI. THE DARKER SIDE OF LUTHER’S INNER LIFE. - HIS AILMENTS _pages_ 99-186 - - 1. EARLY SUFFERINGS, BODILY AND MENTAL. - - Fits of fear, palpitations, swoons, nervousness; his - temptations no mere morbid phenomena _pages_ 99-112 - - 2. PSYCHIC PROBLEMS OF LUTHER’S RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT. - - Temptations to despair. The shadow of pseudo-mysticism. - Temptations of the flesh _pages_ 112-122 - - 3. GHOSTS, DELUSIONS, APPARITIONS OF THE DEVIL. - - The statements regarding Luther’s intercourse with the - beyond and his visions of the devil. The misunderstood - reference to his disputation with the devil on the - Mass. His belief in possession and exorcism _pages_ 122-140 - - 4. REVELATION AND ILLUSION. MORBID TRAINS OF THOUGHT. - - His conviction that he was the recipient of a special - revelation; his apparent withdrawals of this claim. His - so-called “temptations” viewed by him as confirming his - mission; his persuasion that the Pope is Antichrist, - that his opponents are all egged on by the devil and - that no man on earth can compare with him. His tendency - to self-contradiction; his changeableness, his feverish - polemics _pages_ 141-171 - - 5. LUTHER’S PSYCHOLOGY ACCORDING TO PHYSICIANS AND - HISTORIANS. - - Whether Luther’s mind was abnormal, or whether all - his symptoms are to be explained by uric acid, or by - degeneracy _pages_ 172-186 - - - CHAPTER XXXVII. LUTHER’S LATER EMBELLISHMENT - OF HIS EARLY LIFE _pages_ 187-236 - - 1. LUTHER’S LATER PICTURE OF HIS CONVENT-LIFE AND - APOSTASY. - - The legend about his first appearance on the field - of history. His supposed excessive holiness-by-works - during his monastic days _pages_ 187-205 - - 2. THE REALITY. LUTHER’S FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY. - - Inward peace and happiness in his monastic days; his - vows and their breach; some peculiarities of his - humility; his feverish addiction to his work; the facts - around which his later legend grew _pages_ 205-229 - - 3. THE LEGEND RECEIVES ITS LAST TOUCH; HOW IT WAS USED. - - Forged in the solitude of the Coburg. His - characteristic passage from the “I” to the “we.” His - monkish “experience” useful to him _pages_ 229-236 - - - CHAPTER XXXVIII. END OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE - CHURCH-UNSEEN AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH-BY-LAW _pages_ 237-340 - - 1. FROM RELIGIOUS LICENCE TO RELIGIOUS CONSTRAINT. - - Freedom as Luther’s early watchword. Intolerance - towards Catholics, in theory, and in practice. - Sanguinary threats against all papists; the - death-penalty pronounced against “sectarians” at home; - his justification: blasphemy must be put down. The - people driven to the new preaching; no freedom of - conscience allowed: Luther’s intolerance imitated by - his friends _pages_ 237-279 - - 2. LUTHER AS JUDGE. - - The pigheadedness and arrogance of all the - “sectarians.” None of them are sure of their cause; - none of them can work miracles _pages_ 279-289 - - 3. THE CHURCH-UNSEEN, ITS ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY. - - Luther’s invisible Church; her marks; only the - predestined are members; his shifting theory _pages_ 290-308 - - 4. THE CHURCH BECOMES VISIBLE. ITS ORGANISATION. - - The Church materialises in Articles and a Ministry - set up by Wittenberg with the sovereign as - “emergency-bishop.” The results of State-interference _pages_ 309-325 - - 5. LUTHER’S TACTICS IN QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CHURCH. - - The Erfurt preachers at variance with the Town-Council. - Luther shifts his ground in his controversies with - the Catholics. How the Church, in spite of Christ’s - promises, contrived to remain plunged in error for over - a thousand years. Luther’s interpretation of Christ’s - words “On this rock” _pages_ 325-340 - - - CHAPTER XXXIX. END OF LUTHER’S LIFE _pages_ 341-386 - - 1. THE FLIGHT FROM WITTENBERG. - - His depression gets the better of him and he leaves the - town “for ever.” Change of air sweetens his temper and - he returns and resumes his work with new ardour _pages_ 341-351 - - 2. LAST TROUBLES AND CARES. - - Quarrels with the Swiss and with New Believers nearer - home; with the lawyers regarding clandestine marriages; - the State proves a cause of vexation on account of its - interference in matters which concern the preachers. - Luther’s fears for the future; encroachments of human - reason; the coming collapse of morals _pages_ 351-369 - - 3. LUTHER’S DEATH AT EISLEBEN (1546). - - Thoughts of death. His last visit to Mansfeld, to act - as arbitrator between the Counts. The versions of his - last moments _pages_ 370-381 - - 4. IN THE WORLD OF LEGEND. - - The tale of Luther’s suicide, of the disappearance of - his body, etc. Who was responsible for the habit of - concocting such stories _pages_ 381-386 - - - CHAPTER XL. AT THE GRAVE _pages_ 387-462 - - 1. LUTHER’S FAME AMONG THE FRIENDS HE LEFT BEHIND. - - Extracts from the panegyrics and early biographies; - medals struck in his honour; his epitaphs _pages_ 387-394 - - 2. LUTHER’S MEMORY AMONG THE CATHOLICS. THE QUESTION - OF HIS GREATNESS. - - Luther’s defiance of the whole world, whilst evoking - their wonder, failed to secure the admiration of - Catholics. Whether Luther’s undoubted strength of will - makes of him a “great man.” The part played by other - factors in the movement he inaugurated _pages_ 394-407 - - 3. LUTHER’S FATE IN THE FIRST STRUGGLES FOR HIS - SPIRITUAL HERITAGE. - - Defeat of the Schmalkalden Leaguers. Osiandric, - Majorite, Adiaphoristic, Synergistic and - Cryptocalvinist controversies _pages_ 407-423 - - 4. MUTUAL INFLUENCE OF THE TWO CAMPS. GROWING - STRENGTH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. - - The Lutherans are induced to adopt the Formula of - Concord as a counterblast against the Council of Trent. - Catholic theology benefits by the new controversies; - the Church’s religious life is deepened; progress in - catechetical instruction, in matters educational, - Bible-study and Church-history _pages_ 423-439 - - 5. LUTHER AS DESCRIBED BY THE OLDEN “ORTHODOX” - LUTHERANS. - - Their “mediæval” attitude. Luther the “Prophet of the - Germans,” a New Elias and John the Baptist _pages_ 440-444 - - 6. LUTHER AS SEEN BY THE PIETISTS AND RATIONALISTS. - - Each in their own way make of Luther their forerunner - and breathe into him their own ideals _pages_ 444-448 - - 7. THE MODERN PICTURE OF LUTHER. - - The Romanticists; liberal theologians; independent - historians; the Janus-Luther, with one face looking - back on the Middle Ages and the other turned to the - coming world. Ritschl, E. M. Arndt. Luther the hero - of Kultur? Houston S. Chamberlain’s picture of the - “Political Luther.” Conclusion _pages_ 449-462 - - - XLI. APPENDIX I. LUTHER’S WRITINGS AND THE - EVENTS OF THE DAY, ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL - ORDER _pages_ 465-495 - - - XLII. APPENDIX II. ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS _pages_ 496-516 - - 1-2. LUTHER’S VISIT TO ROME. - - The Scala Santa; the General Confession; Oldecop’s - account of Luther’s petition to be secularised; the - outcome for the Order of Luther’s visit to Rome _pages_ 496-497 - - 3. LUTHER’S CONCEPTION OF “OBSERVANCE” AND HIS - CONFLICT WITH HIS BROTHER FRIARS _pages_ 497-501 - - 4. ATTACK UPON THE “SELF-RIGHTEOUS” _pages_ 501-503 - - 5. THE COLLAPSE OF THE AUGUSTINIAN CONGREGATION _pages_ 503-504 - - 6. THE TOWER INCIDENT _pages_ 504-510 - - 7. THE INDULGENCE-THESES _page_ 510 - - 8. THE TEMPTATIONS AT THE WARTBURG _page_ 511 - - 9. PRAYER AT THE WARTBURG _pages_ 511-512 - - 10. LUTHER’S STATE DURING HIS STAY AT THE COBURG _page_ 512 - - 11. LUTHER’S MORAL CHARACTER _pages_ 512-513 - - 12. LUTHER’S VIEWS ON LIES _pages_ 513-515 - - 13. LUTHER’S LACK OF THE MISSIONARY SPIRIT _pages_ 515-516 - - 14. Notes: Pope Alexander VI “the Maraña”; from Bishop - Maltitz’s letters to Bishop Fabri _page_ 516 - - - General Index to the six volumes _pages_ 517-551 - - - - -VOL. VI - -SURVEY OF LUTHER’S WORK. HIS AILMENTS. HIS DEATH - - - - -LUTHER - - - - -CHAPTER XXXV (_Continued_) - -LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIETY AND EDUCATION - - -3. Elementary Schools and Higher Education - - -_Luther’s Appeals on Behalf of the Schools_ - -In a pamphlet of 1524, on the need of establishing schools, Luther spoke -some emphatic and impressive words.[1] - -There could be nothing worse, he declared, than to abuse and neglect the -precious souls of the little ones; even a hundred florins was not too -much to pay to make a good Christian of a boy; it was the duty of the -magistrates and authorities to whom the welfare of the town was confided -to see to this, the parents being so often either not pious or worthy -enough to perform this office, or else too unlearned or too much hampered -by their business or the cares of their household. The well-being of -a town was not to be gauged by its fine buildings, but rather by the -learning, good sense, and honourable behaviour of the burghers; given -this the other sort of prosperity would never be lacking. Luther dwells -on the urgent need of studying languages and sees an act of Providence -in the dispersion of the Greeks whose presence in the West had been the -means of giving a fresh stimulus to the study of Greek, and even to the -cultivation of other languages. Without schools and learning no men would -be found qualified to rule in the ecclesiastical or even in the secular -sphere; even the management of the home and the duties of women to their -families and households called for some sort of instruction.[2] - -Owing to their innate leaning to savagery the German people, above all -others, could ill afford to dispense with the discipline of the school. -All the world calls us “German beasts”; too long have we been German -beasts, let us therefore now learn to use our reason.[3] - -He speaks of the educational value not only of languages but of history, -mathematics and the other arts, but above all of religion, which, now -that the true Evangel is preached, must take root in the hearts of the -young, but which could not be maintained unless care was taken to ensure -a supply of future preachers. - -He gives an excellent answer to the objection: “What is the good of going -to school unless we are thinking of becoming parsons?” The wholesale -secularisation of ecclesiastical benefices had resulted in a great -falling off in the number of scholars, the parents often thinking too -much of the worldly prospects of their children. Luther, however, points -out that even the secular offices deserve to be filled with men of -education. “How useful and called for it is, and how pleasing to God, -that the man destined to govern, whether as Prince, lord, councillor -or otherwise, should be learned and capable of performing his duty as -becomes a Christian.”[4] - - * * * * * - -This booklet, which is of great interest for the history of the schools, -was translated into Latin in the same year by Vincentius Obsopœus (Koch) -and published at Hagenau, with a preface by Melanchthon.[5] It also -became widely known throughout Germany, being frequently reprinted in the -original tongue. As the title shows, Luther addressed himself in the work -“To the Councillors of _all_ the townships,” viz. even to the Catholic -magistrates among whom he stood in disfavour. He declares that it was a -question of the “salvation and happiness of the whole German land. And -were I to hit upon something good, even were I myself a fool, it would be -no disgrace to anyone to listen to me.”[6] - -In thus calling for the founding of schools Luther was but reiterating -the admonition contained in his writing “To the German Nobility.” Such -exhortations were always sure to win applause, and served to recommend -not only his own person but even, in the case of many, his undertaking -as a whole.[7] In his rules for the administration of the poor-box -at Leisnig Luther had been mindful of the claims of the schools, nor -did he forget them in the other regulations he drew up later. In his -sermons, too, he also dwelt repeatedly on the needs of the elementary -schools; when complaining of the decay of charity he is wont to instance -the straits, not only of the parsonages and the poor, but also of -the schools. “Only reckon up and count on your fingers what here [at -Wittenberg] and elsewhere those who bask in the Evangel give and do for -it, and see whether, were it not for us who are still living, there would -remain a single preacher or student.… Are there then no poor scholars who -ought to be studying and exercising themselves in the Word of God?” But -“hoarding and scraping” are now the rule, so that hardly a town can be -found “that collects enough to keep a schoolmaster or parson.”[8] - -Many wealthy towns had, however, to Luther’s great joy, taken in hand the -cause of the schools. Their efforts were to prove very helpful to the new -religious system. - -In the same year that the above writing appeared steps were taken at -Magdeburg for the promotion of education, and Cruciger, Luther’s own -pupil, was summoned from Wittenberg to assume the direction. Melanchthon -and Luther repaired to Eisleben in 1525, where Count Albert of Mansfeld -had founded a Grammar School. In some towns the Councillors carried -out Luther’s proposals, in others, where the town-council was opposed -to the innovators and their schools, the burghers “set at naught the -Council,” as Luther relates, and erected “schools and parsonages”; in -other words, they established schools as the best means to further -the new Evangel.[9] At Nuremberg Melanchthon, a zealous promoter of -education, exerted himself for the foundation of a “Gymnasium” which was -to serve as a model of the new humanistic schools of the Evangelicals, -and which was generously provided for by the town. May 6, 1526, saw the -opening of this new school. Learned masters were appointed, for instance, -Melanchthon’s friend Camerarius, the poet Eobanus Hessus and the humanist -Michael Roting. In 1530 Luther speaks of it in words meant to flatter the -Nurembergers as “a fine, noble school,” for which the “very best men” -had been selected and appointed. He even tells all Germany, that “no -University, not even that of Paris itself, was ever so well provided in -the way of lecturers”; it was in no small measure owing to this school -that “Nuremberg now shone throughout the whole of Germany like a sun, -compared with which others were but moon and stars.”[10] - -Yet it was certain disagreeable happenings at Nuremberg itself which -led him to write in 1530 his second booklet in favour of the schools. -In the flourishing commercial city there were many wealthy burghers who -refused to send their children to the “Gymnasium,” thinking that, instead -of learning ancient languages, they would be more usefully occupied in -acquiring other elements of knowledge more essential to the mercantile -calling; by so doing they had raised a certain feeling against the new -school. Many were even disposed to scoff at all book-learning and roundly -declared, as Luther relates, “If my son knows how to read and reckon then -he knows quite enough; we now have plenty German books,” etc.[11] - -In July of the above year, Luther, in the loneliness of the Coburg, -penned a sermon having for its title “That children must be kept at -school.” The sermon grew into a lengthy work; Luther himself was, later -on, to bewail its long-windedness.[12] This writing, taken with that of -1524, supplies the gist of Luther’s teaching with regard to the schools. - - In the preface, printed before the body of the work, he dedicates the - writing to the Nuremberg “syndic” or town-clerk, Lazarus Spengler, - an ardent promoter of the new teaching. A town like Nuremberg, he - there says, “must surely contain more men than merchants, and also - others who can do more than merely reckon, or read German books. - German books are principally intended for the common people to read at - home; but for preaching, governing and administering justice in both - ecclesiastical and temporal sphere all the arts and languages in the - world are not sufficient.” Already in the preface he inveighs against - those who assert that arithmetic and a knowledge of German were quite - enough: These small-minded worshippers of Mammon failed to take into - consideration what was essential for “ruling”; both the civil and the - ecclesiastical office would suffer under such a system.[13] - - In this writing his style follows his mood, being now powerful, now - popular and not seldom wearisome. He dwells longest on the spiritual - office, expressing his fear, that, should the lack of interest in - the schools become general, and the people continue so niggardly in - providing for their support, there would result such a spiritual - famine with regard to the Word of God, that ten villages would be left - in the charge of a single parson. Passing on to the secular office - he points out how the latter upholds the “temporal, fleeting peace, - life and law.… It is an excellent gift of God Who also instituted and - appointed it and Who demands its preservation.” Of this office “It is - the work and glory that it makes wild beasts into men and keeps them - in this state.… Do you not think that if the poor birds and beasts - could speak and were able to see the action of the secular rule among - men they would say: Dear fellows, you are no men but gods compared - with us; how secure you sit and live, enjoying all good things, - whereas we are not safe from each other for a single hour as regards - our life, our home or our food.”[14] - - “Such rule cannot continue, but must go to rack and ruin unless the - law [the Roman law and the law of the land] is maintained. And what - is to maintain it? Fists and blustering cannot do so, but only brains - and books; we must learn to understand the wisdom and justice of our - secular rule.” Speaking of the lawyers’ office for which the young - must prepare themselves, he groups under it the “chancellors, clerks, - judges, advocates, notaries and all others who are concerned with - the law, not to speak of the great Johnnies who sport the title of - Hofrat.”[15] On the calling of the physician he only touches lightly, - showing that this “useful, consoling and health-giving” profession - demands the retention of the Latin schools, short of which it must - fall into decay. - - The following hint was a practical one: Seeing that, in Saxony - alone, about 4000 men of learning were needed—what with chaplains, - schoolmasters and readers—those who wished to study had good prospects - of “great honours and emoluments since two Princes and three townships - were all ready to fight for the services of one learned man.” He urges - that assistance should be given to poor parents out of the Church - property so as to enable them to send their children to school, and - that the rich should make foundations for this purpose. - - In this writing, as in that of 1524, he addresses himself to the - secular authorities and even demands that they should compel their - subjects to send their children to school in order that the supply - of capable men might not fail in the future. I consider, he says, - “that the authorities are bound to force those under them to see to - the schooling of their children, more particularly those just spoken - of [the more gifted]; for it is undoubtedly their duty to see to the - upkeep of the above-mentioned offices and callings.” If in time of war - they could compel their subjects to render assistance and resist the - enemy, much more had they the right to coerce them in respect of the - children, seeing that this was a war against the devil who wished to - despoil the land and the townships of able men, so as to be able “to - cheat and delude them as he pleased.”[16] - -As regards the question whether _all_ children were to be forced to -go to school, in this writing Luther does not speak of any universal -compulsion; only “when the authorities see a capable lad”[17] does he -wish coercion to be applied to the parents. In his first writing on the -schools likewise, he had not advocated universal compulsion but had -merely pointed out that it was “becoming” that the authorities should -interfere where the parents neglected their duty;[18] he does not -say how they are to “interfere,” but merely suggests that one or two -“schoolmasters” should be provided whose salary should not be grudged. - -“Hence it is incorrect,” rightly remarks Kawerau, “to represent Luther as -the harbinger of universal compulsory education.”[19] - -Fr. Lambert of Avignon, in his ecclesiastical regulations dating from -1526, indeed sought to establish national schools throughout Hesse, but -his proposals were never enforced. It was only at the beginning of the -17th century that Wolfgang Ratke (Ratichius, †1635), a pedagogue educated -in the Calvinistic schools, established the principle of universal -education which then was incorporated in the educational regulations -of Weimar in 1619.[20] But the Thirty Years’ War put an end to these -attempts, and it was only in the 18th century that the principle of -compulsory State education secured general acceptance, and then, too, -owing chiefly to non-Lutheran influences. - -Before entering further into the details of Luther’s educational plans -we must cast a glance at a factor which seems to permeate both the above -writings. - - -_Polemical Trend of Luther’s Pedagogics_ - -If we seek to characterise both the writings just spoken of we find -that they amount to an appeal called forth by the misery of those times -for some provision to be made to ensure a supply of educated men for -the future. Frederick Paulsen describes them, particularly the earlier -one, as nothing more than a “cry for help, wrung from Luther by the -sudden, general collapse of the educational system which followed on the -ecclesiastical upheaval.”[21] They were not dictated so much by a love -for humanistic studies as such or by the wish to further the interests -of learning in Germany, as by the desire to fill the secular-government -berths with able, “Christian” men, and, above all, to provide preachers -and pastors for the work Luther had commenced and for the struggle -against Popery. The schools themselves were unobtrusively to promote -the new Evangel amongst the young and in the home. Learning, according -to Luther, as a Protestant theologian expressed it, was to enter “into -the service of the Evangel and further its right understanding”; “the -religious standpoint alone was of any real interest to him.”[22] - -Melanchthon’s attitude to the schools was more broadminded. To some -extent his efforts supplied what was wanting in Luther.[23] His -object was the education of the people, whereas, in Luther’s eyes, -the importance of the schools chiefly lay in their being “_seminaria -ecclesiarum_,” as he once calls them. With him their aim was too much -the mere promoting of his specific theological interests, to the -“preservation of the Church.”[24] - - According to Luther the first and most important reason for - promoting the establishment of schools, was, as he points out to the - “Councillors of all the Townships,” to resist the devil, who, the - better to maintain his dominion over the German lands, was bent on - thwarting the schools; “if we want to prick him on a tender spot then - we may best do so by seeing that the young grow up in the knowledge of - God, spreading the Word of God and teaching it to others.”[25] “The - other [reason] is, as St. Paul says, that we receive not the grace of - God in vain, nor neglect the accepted time.” The “donkey-stables and - devil-schools” kept by monks and clergy had now seen their day; but, - now that the “darkness” has been dispelled by the “Word of God,” we - have the “best and most learned of the youths and men, who, equipped - with languages and all the arts, can prove of great assistance.” “My - dear, good Germans, make use of God’s grace and His Word now you have - it! For know this, the Word of God and His grace is indeed here.”[26] - - In many localities preachers of the new faith were in request, - moreover, many of the older clergy, who had passed over to Luther’s - side, had departed this life or had been removed by the Visitors on - account of their incapacity or moral shortcomings. Those who had - replaced them were often men of no education whatever. The decline of - learning gave rise to many difficulties. Schoolmasters were welcomed - not only as simple ministers but, as we have heard Luther declare, - even as the candidates best fitted for the post of superintendent.[27] - How frequently people of but slight education were appointed pastors - is plain from the lists of those ordained at Wittenberg from 1537 - onwards; amongst these we find men of every trade: clerks, printers, - weavers, cobblers, tailors, and even one peasant. Seven years later, - when the handicraftsmen had disappeared, we constantly find sextons - and schoolmasters being entrusted with the ministerial office.[28] - - This sad state of things must be carefully kept in mind if we are to - understand the ideas which chiefly inspired the above writings, and as - these have not so far been sufficiently emphasised we may be permitted - to make some reference to them. - - “We must have men,” says Luther in his first writing, viz. that - addressed to the councillors, “men to dispense to us God’s Word and - the sacraments and to watch over the souls of the people. But whence - are we to get them if the schools are allowed to fall to ruin and - other _more Christian_ ones are not set up?”[29] “Christendom has - always need of such prophets to study and interpret the Scriptures, - and, when the call comes, to conduct controversy.”[30] Similar appeals - occur even more frequently in the other writing, viz. that dedicated - by Luther to his friend at Nuremberg. Already in his first writing, - Luther, as the ghostly counsellor of Germany “appointed” in Christ’s - name, boldly faces all other teachers, telling the Catholics, that - what he was seeking was merely the “happiness and salvation” of - the Fatherland.[31] In the second he expressly states that it is - to all the German lands that he their “prophet” is speaking: “My - dear Germans, I have told you often enough that you have heard your - prophet. God grant that we may obey His Word.”[32] So entirely does - he identify the interests of his Church with those of the schools. - Well might those many Germans who did not hold with him—and at that - time Luther was an excommunicate outlaw—well might they have asked - themselves with astonishment whence he had the right to address them - as though he were the representative and mouthpiece of the whole of - Germany. Such exhortations have, however, their root in his usual - ideas of religion and in the anxiety caused by the urgent needs of the - time. - - At the Coburg the indifference, coldness and avarice of his followers - appears to him in an even darker light than usual. He well sees that - if the schools continue to be neglected as they have been hitherto - the result will be a mere “pig sty,” a “hideous, savage horde of - ‘Tatters’ and Turks.” Hence he fulminates against the ingratitude - displayed towards the Evangel and against the stinginess which, though - it had money for everything, had none to spare for the schools and the - parsons; the imagery to which he has recourse leaves far behind that - of the Old Testament Prophets. - - Here we have the real Luther whom, as he himself admits, though in - a different sense, stands revealed in this writing penned at the - Coburg.[33] “Is this not enough to arouse God’s wrath?… Verily it - would be no wonder were God to open wide the doors and windows of hell - and rain and hail on us nothing but devils, or were He to send fire - and brimstone down from heaven and plunge us all into the abyss of - hell like Sodom and Gomorrha … for they were not one-tenth as wicked - as Germany is now.”[34] Has then Christ, the Son of God, deserved - this of us, he asks, that so many care nothing for the schools and - parsonages, and “even dissuade the children from becoming ministers, - that this office may speedily perish, and the blood and passion of - Christ be no longer of any avail.”[35] Here again his chief reason - for maintaining the schools is his anxiety: “What is otherwise to - become of the ghostly office and calling.”[36] Only after he has - considered this question from all sides and demonstrated that his - Church’s edifice stands in need not merely of “worked stones” but - also of “rubble,” i.e. both of clever men and of others less highly - gifted,[37] does he come in the second place to the importance of - having learned men even in the secular office. - - He had begun this writing with an allusion to the devil, viz. to “the - wiles of tiresome Satan against the holy Evangel”; he also concludes - it in the same vein, speaking of the “tiresome devil,” who secretly - plots against the schools and thereby against the salvation of both - town and country.[38] - - The author goes at some length into the question of languages and - declares that the main reason for learning them was a religious one. - - Languages enable us “to understand Holy Scripture,” he says, “this was - well known to the monasteries and universities of the past, hence they - had always frowned on the study of languages”; the devil was afraid - that languages would make a hole “which afterwards it would not be - easy for him to plug.” But the providence of God has outreached him, - for, by “making over Greece to the Turks and sending the Greeks into - exile, their language was spread abroad and an impetus was given even - to the study of other tongues.” And now, thanks to the languages, the - Gospel has been restored to its “earlier purity.” Hence, for the sake - of the Bible and the Word of God, let us hark back to the languages. - His excellent observations on the importance of the study of languages - for those in secular authority, though perfectly honest, hold merely a - secondary place. The chief use of the languages is as a weapon against - the Papacy. “The dearer the Evangel is to us, the more let us hold - fast to the languages!” - - So anxious is he to see the future schools thoroughly “Christian,” - i.e. Evangelical and all devoted to the service of his cause, that he - expressly states that otherwise he “would rather that not a single - boy learnt anything but remained quite dumb.” Hence the earlier - “universities and monasteries” must be made an end of. Their way of - teaching and living “is not the right one for the young.” “It is - my earnest opinion, prayer and wish that these donkey-stables and - devil-schools should either sink into the abyss or else be transformed - into Christian schools. But now that God has bestowed His grace upon - us so richly and provided us with so many well able to teach and bring - up the young, we are actually in danger of flinging the grace of God - to the winds.” “I am of opinion that Germany has never heard so much - of God’s Word as now.… God’s Word is a streaming downpour, the like of - which must not be expected again.”[39] - -Hence the two writings differ but little from his usual polemical and -hortatory works. They do not make of Luther the “father of the national -schools,” as he has been erroneously termed, because, what he was after -was not the real education of the masses but something rather different; -still less do the booklets, with their every page reeking of the Word of -God which he preached, make him the father of the modern undenominational -schools.[40] - -In fact, elementary schools as such have scarcely any place in these -writings. What concerns him is rather the Latin grammar schools, and only -as an afterthought does he passingly allude to the other schools in which -children receive their first grounding.[41] - -Luther’s standpoint as to the Church’s need of Grammar Schools is always -the same, even when he speaks of them in the Table-Talk. - -“When we are dead,” he says for instance, “where will others be -found to take our place unless there are schools? For the sake of the -Churches we must have Christian schools and maintain them.”[42]—“When -the schools multiply, things are going well and the Church stands -firm.”[43]—“By means of such cuttings and saplings is the Church sown and -propagated.”—“The schools are of great advantage in that they undoubtedly -preserve the Churches.”[44] - -“Hence a reformation of the schools and universities is also called for,” -so he writes in a memorandum,[45] immediately after having declared, that -“it is necessary to have good and pious preachers; all will depend on men -who must be educated in the schools and universities.”[46] - -For this reason, viz. on account of the preparation they furnished, he -even has a kind word for the schools of former days. - -He recalls to mind, that, even in Popery “the schools supplied parsons -and preachers.” “In the schools the little boys learnt at least the Our -Father and the Creed and the Church was wonderfully preserved by means of -the tiny schools.”[47]—Of a certain hymn he remarks, that it was “very -likely written and kept by some good schoolmaster or parson. The schools -were indeed the all-important factor in the Church and the ‘_ecclesia_’ -of the parson.”[48] - - -_Luther’s Educational Plans_ - -When, in his exhortations, Luther so warmly advocated the study of -Latin and of languages generally, he was merely keeping to the approved -traditional lines. Although he values ancient languages chiefly as a -means for the better understanding of Scripture, he is so prepossessed -in their favour in “worldly matters” that he even praises Latin at the -expense of German. He is particularly anxious that Latin works should -be read; among themselves the boys were to speak Latin. Recommending -the study of tongues, he says: “If we make such a mistake, which God -forbid, as to give up the study of languages, we shall not only lose the -Gospel but come to such straits as to be unable to read or write aright -either Latin or German.” The education of earlier days had not only led -men away from the Gospel owing to the neglect of languages, but “the -wretched people became mere brutes, unable to read or write either Latin -or German correctly, nay, had almost lost the use of their reason.” -It was statements such as these which drew from Friedrich Paulsen the -exclamation: “Hence Christianity and education, nay, even sound common -sense itself, all depend on the knowledge of languages!”[49] - -Well founded as were Luther’s demands for a Latin education, yet we find -in him a notable absence of discrimination between schools and schools. - -Even in the preparatory schools he was anxious to see the study of -languages introduced, and that for the girls too. Boys and girls, he -says, ought to be instructed “in tongues and other arts and subjects.” -He was of opinion, that, in this way, it would be possible from the very -first to pick out those best fitted to pursue the study of languages and -to become later “schoolmasters, schoolmistresses or preachers.”[50] He -even appeals to the example of olden Saints such as Agnes, Agatha and -Lucy when urging that the more talented girls should receive a grounding -in languages.[51] “It would undoubtedly have been quite enough had the -less ambitious children been taught merely to reckon, and to read and -write German.” “Luther’s action in having as many children of the people -as possible taught languages … and his warfare against the use of German -in the schools, whether in the towns, the villages, or the hamlets, was -all very unpractical.… He had come to the conclusion that German schools, -for one reason or another, were unsuited to be nurseries for the Church -(‘_seminaria ecclesiæ_’), hence his effort to transplant into the Latin -grammar schools every sapling on which he could lay hands.”[52] - - The injunctions appended to Melanchthon’s Visitation rules (1538), - which were sanctioned and approved of by Luther, lay such stress on - the teaching of languages that the humbler schools were bound to - suffer. When dealing with “the schools” their only object seems to - be the “upbringing of persons fit to teach in the churches and to - govern.” And this aim, moreover, is pursued onesidedly enough, for - we read: “The schoolmasters are in the first place to be diligent - to teach the children only Latin, not German, or Greek, or Hebrew, - as some have hitherto done, thus overburdening the poor children’s - minds.” The regulations then proceed to prescribe in detail the - studies to be undertaken in the lowest form: “In order that the - children may get hold of many Latin words, they are to be made to - learn some words every evening, as was the way in the schools in - former days.” After the children have learnt to spell out the handbook - containing the “Alphabet, the Our Father, Creed and other prayers they - are to be set to Donatus and Cato … so that they may thus learn a - number of Latin words and gain a certain readiness of speech (‘_copia - dicendi_’).” Apart from this the lowest form is to be taught only - writing and “music.” - - The next class was to learn grammar (needless to say Latin grammar) - and to be exercised in Æsop’s Fables, the “_Pedologia_” of Mosellanus - and the “_Colloquia_” of Erasmus, such of the latter being selected - “as are useful for children and not improper.” “Once the children have - learnt Æsop they are to be given Terence, which they must learn by - heart.” There is no mention made here of any selection, this possibly - being left to the teacher; in the case of Plautus, who was to follow - Terence, this is expressly enjoined.—Of the religious instruction we - read: Seeing it is necessary to teach the children the beginnings of - a Godly, Christian life, “the schoolmaster is to catechise the whole - [2nd] class, making the children recite one after the other the Our - Father, the Creed and the Ten Commandments.” The schoolmaster was to - “explain” these and also to instil into the children such points as - were essential for living a good life, such as the “fear of God, - faith and good works.” The schoolmaster was not to get the children - into the habit of “abusing monks or others, as many incompetent - masters do.” Finally, it was also laid down that those Psalms which - exhort to the “fear of God, faith and good works” were to be learnt - by heart, especially Psalms cxii., xxxiv., cxxviii., cxxv., cxvii., - cxxxiii. (cxi., xxxiii., cxxvii., cxxiv., cxxvi., cxxxii.), the Gospel - of St. Matthew was also to be explained and perhaps likewise the - Epistles of Paul to Timothy, the 1st Epistle of John and the Book of - Proverbs. - - In the 3rd class, in addition to grammar, versification, dialectics - and rhetoric had to be studied, the boys being exercised in Virgil and - Cicero (the “_Officia_” and “_Epistolæ familiares_”). “The boys are - also to be made to speak Latin and the schoolmasters themselves are as - far as possible to speak nothing but Latin with them in order thus to - accustom and encourage them in this practice.”[53] - -In his two appeals for the schools in 1524 and 1530 Luther is less -explicit in his requirements than the regulations for the Visitation. -According to him, apart from the languages, it is the text of Scripture -which must form the basis of all the instruction. - -Holy Scripture, especially the Gospel, was to be everywhere “the chief -and main object of study.” “Would to God that every town had also a -school for girls where little maids might hear the Gospel for an hour a -day, either in German or in Latin.… Ought not every Christian at the age -of nine or ten to be acquainted with the whole of the Gospel? Young folk -throughout Christendom are pining away and being pitiably ruined for want -of the Gospel, in which they ought always to be instructed and exercised.” - -“I would not advise anyone to send his child where Holy Scripture is not -the rule. Where the Word of God is not constantly studied everything must -needs be in a state of corruption.”[54] - -In the event, the Bible, together with Luther’s Catechism which had to -be committed to memory, and the hymn-book, became the chief manuals in -the Lutheran schools. On these elements a large portion of the young -generation of Germany was brought up. - - For the study of languages Luther, like Melanchthon, recommended - the “_Disticha_” ascribed to Cato and Æsop’s Fables. “It is by the - special mercy of God,” he says, “that Cato’s booklet and the Fables - of Æsop have been preserved in the schools.”[55] We shall describe - elsewhere the efforts he himself made to expurgate the editions of - Æsop which had become corrupted by additions offensive to good morals. - Various Latin classics which Humanists were wont to put in the hands - of the scholars he characterised in his Table-Talk as unsuitable for - school use. “It would be well that the books of Juvenal, Martial, - Catullus and also Virgil’s ‘_Priapeia_’ were weeded out of the land - and the schools, banished and expelled, for they contain coarse and - shameless things such as the young cannot study without grievous - harm.”[56] Of the Roman writers (with the Greeks he is much less at - home) he extols Cicero, Terence and Virgil as useful and improving. - As a whole, however, Luther always remained “at heart a stranger to - true Humanism.… Though not altogether inappreciative of elegance of - style, he is far from displaying the enthusiasm of the Humanists.”[57] - Although he shows himself fairly well acquainted with the writings of - the three authors just mentioned, and though he owed this education - to his early training, yet, in his efforts to belittle the olden - schools, he complains, that “no one had taught him to read the poets - and historians,” but, that, on the other hand, he had been obliged to - study the “devil’s ordure and the philosophers.”[58] - - It must not be overlooked that he, like the Instructions for the - Visitors, recommends that Terence and other olden dramatists should - be given to the young to be read, and even acted, though, as he - admits, they “sometimes contain obscenities and love stories.” This - advice he further emphasised in 1537 by declaring that a Protestant - schoolmaster of Bautzen was in the right, when, regardless of the - scandal of many, he had Terence’s “_Andria_” performed. Luther agreed - with Melanchthon in thinking that the picture of morals given in this - piece was improving for the young; also that the disclosure of the - “cunning of women, particularly of light women,” was instructive; - the boys would thus learn how marriages were arranged, and, after - all, marriage was essential for the continuance of society: Even Holy - Scripture contained some love stories. “Thus our people ought not to - accuse these plays of immorality or declare that to read or act them - was prohibited to a Christian.”[59] - - The regulations for the Protestant schools, in following Luther - in this matter, merely trod in the footsteps of the older German - Humanists, who had likewise placed Terence and Plautus in the hands - of their pupils. On the contrary Jakob Wimpfeling, the “Teacher of - Germany,” was opposed to them and wished to see Terence banished from - the schools in the interests of morality. At a later date in the - Catholic Grammar schools this author was on moral grounds forbidden to - the more youthful pupils, and only read in excerpts.[60] - -In his suggestions on the instruction to be given in the Latin schools -(for in reality it was only of these that he was thinking) Luther -classes with languages and other arts and sciences “singing, music -and mathematics as a whole.”[61] Greek and Hebrew no less than Latin -would also be indispensable for future scholars. He further wished -the authorities to establish “libraries” to further the studies; not, -however, such libraries as the olden ones, containing “mad, useless, -harmful, monkish books”—“donkey’s dung introduced by the devil”—“but Holy -Scripture in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and German, and any other languages -in which it might have been published; besides these the best and -oldest commentaries in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, and furthermore such -books as served for the study of languages, for instance, the poets and -orators,” etc. “The most important of all were, however, the chronicles -and histories … for these are of wonderful utility in enabling us to -understand the course of events, for the art of governing, as also for -perceiving the wonderful works of God. Oh, how many fine stories we ought -to have about what has been done and enacted in the German lands, of -which we, sad to say, know nothing.” In his appreciation of the study -of history and of the proverbial philosophy of the people Luther was in -advance of his day. - -Owing to his polemics the judgment he passed on the olden libraries was -very unjust; the remaining traces of them and the catalogues which have -been published of those that have been dispersed show that, particularly -from the early days of Humanism, the better mediæval collections of books -had reached and even passed the standard Luther sets up in the matter of -history and literature. - -Very modest, not to say entirely inadequate, is the amount of time -Luther proposes that the children should daily spend in the schools. Of -the lower schools, in which Latin was already to be taught, he says, it -would be enough for “the boys to go to such a school every day for an -hour or two and work the rest of their time at learning a trade, or doing -whatever was required of them.… A little girl, too, could easily find -time to attend school for an hour daily and yet thoroughly perform her -duties in the house.” Only the “pick” of the children, those, namely, -who gave good promise, were to spend “more time and longer hours” in -study.[62] - -From all the above it is plain that there is good reason for not -accepting the extravagant statement that Luther’s writings on education -constitute the “charter of our national schools.” Others have extolled -him as the founder of the “Gymnasium” on account of his reference in -these works to the Latin schools. But even this is scarcely true, for, in -them, the author either goes beyond the field covered by the Gymnasium or -else fails to reach it. The Protestant pastor, Julius Boehmer, says in -the popular edition of Luther’s works:[63] “It will not do to regard the -work (”An die Radherrn“) as the ‘Charter of the Gymnasium,’ as has often -been done, seeing that, as stated above, it is concerned with both the -Universities and the lower-grade schools.”[64] - -As to attendance at the Universities, of which Luther also speaks, he -asks the authorities to forbid the matriculation of any but the “clever -ones,” though among the masses “every fellow wanted a doctorate.”[65] - -What he says of the various Faculties at the Universities is also -noteworthy. With the object of reforming philosophy and the Arts -course he wishes that of all the writings of Aristotle, that blind -heathen master, who had hitherto led astray the Universities, only the -“_Logica_,” “_Rhetorica_” and “_Poetica_” should be retained; “the -books: ‘_Physicorum_,’ ‘_Metaphysicæ_,’ ‘_De anima_’ and ‘_Ethicorum_’ -must be dropped”; curiously enough these are the very works on which -Melanchthon was later on to bestow so much attention. We know how hateful -Aristotle was to Luther, because, in his heathen way, he teaches nothing -of grace and faith, but, on the other hand, extols the natural virtues. -Luther’s impulsive and unmethodical mode of thought was also, it must be -said, quite at variance with the logical mind of the Stagirite. - -According to Luther “artistic education must be wholly rooted out as a -work of the devil; the very most that can be tolerated is the use of -those works which deal with form, but even these must not be commented on -or explained.”[66] - -“The physicians,” he says, “I leave to reform their own Faculty; I shall -see myself to the lawyers and theologians; and, first of all, I say -that it would be a good thing if the whole of Canon Law from the first -syllable to the last were expunged, more particularly the Decretals. -We are told sufficiently in the Bible how to conduct ourselves in all -matters.” Secular law, so he goes on, has also become a “wilderness,” and -accordingly he is in favour of drastic reforms. “Of sensible rulers in -addition to Holy Scripture there are plenty”; national law and national -usage ought certainly not to be subordinated to the Imperial common law, -or the land “governed according to the whim of the individual.… Justice -fetched from far afield was nothing but an oppression of the people.” -Theology, according to him, must above all be Biblical, though now -everything is made to consist in the study of the Book of Sentences of -the schoolman, Peter Lombard, and of his commentators, the Gospel in both -schools and courts of justice being left “forlorn” in the dust under the -bench.[67] - -He rightly commends the Disputations, sometimes termed “_circulares_,” -held at the Universities by the students under the direction of their -professor; it pleased him well that the students should bring forward -their own arguments, even though they were sometimes not sound; for -“stairs can only be ascended step by step.” The Disputations, in his -view, also accustomed young men to “reflect more diligently on the -subjects discussed.”[68] - -To conclude, we may say a few words concerning the incentives he uses -when urging parents to entrust their children to the schools. - -Here Luther considerably oversteps the limits. In one passage, for -instance, he thinks it his right to threaten the parents with the worst -punishments of hell should they refuse to allow gifted children to study, -in order to place them later at the service of the pure Word of God, or -of the Christian rulers, as though forsooth parents and children had no -right in the sight of God to choose their own profession. “Tell me what -hell can be deep and hot enough for such shameful wickedness as yours?” -“If you have a child who studies well, you are not free to bring him up -as you please, nor to treat him as you will, but must bear in mind that -you owe it to God to promote His two rules.” Should the father refuse to -allow the boy to become a preacher, he says, then, so far as in him lies, -he was really consigning to hell all those whom the budding preacher -might have assisted; compared with such a crime against the common weal -the “outbreaks of the rebellious peasants were mere child’s play.” This -he says in a printed letter addressed in 1529 to the town commandant, -Hans Metzsch of Wittenberg, which served as a prelude to his pamphlet -“Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.”[69] The writing is solely -dictated by Luther’s bitter annoyance at the dearth of pastors and the -indifference displayed within his fold. - -In this letter, as in both his works on the schools, Luther, whilst -dealing with the excuses of the parents, at the same time throws some -interesting sidelights on the decline in learning and its causes. - - -_The Decline of the Schools Following in the Wake of the Innovations_ - -In the above letter to Metzsch Luther briefly gives as follows the -principal reason for the decay of learning: People were in the habit of -saying, “If my son has learnt enough to gain his living then he is quite -learned enough.”[70] - -The contempt for learned studies was “largely due to the strongly -utilitarian temper of the age.” “Owing in the first place to the -flourishing state of the towns in the 13th and 14th century, and further -to the influence of the great political upheaval which resulted from -the discoveries and inventions of the day, a sober, practical spirit, -directed solely to material gain, had been aroused throughout a wide -section of the German nation. Preference was shown for the German schools -where writing and reckoning were taught and which prepared children for -the calling of the handicraftsman or the merchant.”[71] Against this -tendency of the day Luther enters the lists particularly in his second -work on the schools dedicated to the syndic of Nuremberg; at the same -time he deals, not in the best of tempers, with the objections advanced -by the merchant and industrial classes.[72] He speaks so harshly as -almost to place in the same category those who refused to bring up their -children “to art and learning” and those who turned them “into mere -gluttons and sucking pigs, intent on food alone” (to Metzsch). “The world -would thus become nothing but a pig-sty”; these “gruesome, noxious, -poisonous parents were bent on making simple belly servers of their -children,” etc.[73] - -It is a question, however, whether the development of the material trend, -so surprisingly rapid, with its destructive influence on study was not -furthered by the religious revolution with which it coincided. Luther had -sapped the respect which had obtained for the clerical life and for those -callings which aimed at perfection, while at the same time, by belittling -good works he loosened the inclinations of the purely natural man; by his -repudiation of authority he had produced an intellectual self-sufficiency -or rather self-seeking, which, in the case of many, passed into mere -material egotism, though, of course, Luther’s work cannot be directly -charged with the utilitarianism of the day. - -What, however, made his revolt to contribute so greatly to the decline -of learning was its destruction of the wealth of clergy and monks, and -its confiscation of so many livings and foundations established for -educational purposes. By far the greater number of students had always -consisted of such as wished to obtain positions in the Church among -her secular clergy, or to become priests in some monastery. The ranks -of these students had been thinned of late years now that the Catholic -posts no longer existed, that the foundations which formerly provided for -the upkeep of students had disappeared and that an avalanche of calumny -and abuse had descended on the monasteries, priests and monks.[74] In -addition to this there was the fear aroused in Catholic parents and -pastors by the unhappy controversies on religion, lest the young should -be infected in the higher schools these being so frequently hot-beds of -the modern spirit, of hypercriticism and apostasy. Then, again, there -was the distrust, springing from a similar motive, felt by the Catholic -authorities for the centres of learning, and their niggardliness in -making provision for them, an attitude which we meet with, for instance, -in Duke George of Saxony. This was encouraged in the case of the rulers -by the fear of social risings, such as they had experienced in the -Peasant War, and which they laid to the charge of the new ideas on -religion. - -Among those favourable to Lutheranism the Wittenberg professor himself -awakened a distaste for the Universities by telling them they must -not allow their sons to study where Holy Scripture “did not rule” and -“where the Word of God was not unceasingly studied.”[75] No one ever -depreciated the Universities as much as Luther, who principally because -their character was still Catholic, was never tired of calling them the -“gates of hell,” and places worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.[76] Nor did -he stop short at the condemnation of their religious attitude. Luther’s -antagonism to the whole system of philosophy, which the Universities, -following the example of Aristotle and the schoolmen, had been so -criminal as to admit, to the liberty they allowed to crazy human reason -in spiritual matters, and to their championship of natural truth and -natural morality as the basis of the life of faith, all this, when -carried to its logical conclusion, necessarily brought Lutheranism into -fatal conflict with the learned institutions. - - As Friedrich Paulsen points out: “Luther shared all the superstitions - of the peasant in their most pronounced form; the methods of natural - science were strange to him and any scattering of the prevalent - delusions he would have looked upon as an abomination.”[77] The latter - part of the quotation certainly holds good in those cases where Luther - fancied that Holy Scripture or his explanation of it was ever so - slightly impugned. When, on June 4, 1539, the conversation at table - turned on Copernicus and his new theory concerning the earth, of which - the latter had been convinced since 1507, Luther appealed (just as - later opponents of the theory were to do) to Holy Scripture, according - to which “Josue bade _the sun_ to stand still and _not the earth_.” - The new astronomer wants to prove that the earth moves. “But that is - the way nowadays: whoever wishes to seem clever, pays no attention to - what others do, but must needs advance something of his own; and what - he does must always be the best. The idiot is bent on upsetting the - whole art of astronomy.”[78] - - Luther’s condemnation of philosophy found a strong echo among the - Pietists, who were an offshoot of Lutheranism, and even claimed to - be its truest representatives. The loud denunciations of Aristotle - were, for instance, taken up by the theologian Zierold.[79] But even - from the common people who looked up to him we hear such sayings as - the following: “What is the use of our learning the Latin, Greek - and Hebrew tongues and other fine arts seeing we might just as well - read in German the Bible and the Word of God which suffices for our - salvation?” Luther was not at a loss for an answer. He says first: - “Yes, I know, alas, that we Germans must always remain beasts and - senseless animals.” Then he falls back on his usual plea, viz. that - languages “are profitable and advantageous” for a right understanding - of Scripture; he forgets that he has here to do with the common - people, and that a critical or philosophical interpretation of the - Bible was of small use to them. Such a thing might be profitable to - those who were being trained for the ministry, though many even of - the preachers themselves declared that the illumination from above - sufficed, together with the reading of the Bible.[80] - - Carlstadt was even opposed to the Wittenberg graduations because they - promoted pride of learning and the worldly spirit instead of humble - Bible faith. Melanchthon, at a time when he was still full of Luther’s - early ideas, i.e. in Feb., 1521, in a work written under the pseudonym - of Didymus Faventinus, attempted to vindicate against Hieronymus Emser - his condemnation of the whole philosophy of the universities; physics - as taught there consisted merely of monstrous terms and contradicted - the teaching of the Bible; metaphysics were but an impudent attempt - to storm the heavens under the leadership of the atheist Aristotle. - “My complaint is against that wisdom by which you have drawn away - Christians from Scripture to reason. Go on, he-goat,” he says to - Emser, “and deny that the philosophy of the schools is idolatry”; your - ethics is diametrically opposed to Christ; at the Universities human - reason had degraded the Church to Sodomitic vices. Nothing more wicked - and godless than the Universities had ever been invented; no pope, but - the devil himself was their author; this even Wiclif had declared, and - he could not have said anything wiser or more pious. The Jews offered - young men to Moloch, a prelude to our Universities where the young are - sacrificed to heathen idols.[81] - - To such an extent had the darksome pseudo-mysticism which seethed in - Luther’s mind laid hold for a while upon his comrade—glaringly though - it contradicted the humanistic tendency found in him both earlier and - later. - -If we look more closely into the decline of the schools, we shall find -that it came about with extraordinary rapidity, a fact which proves it to -have been the result of a movement both sudden and far-reaching. - - “The immediate effect of the Wittenberg preaching,” wrote in 1908 the - Protestant theologian F. M. Schiele in the “Preussische Jahrbücher” - of Berlin, in a strongly worded but perfectly true account of the - situation, “was the collapse of the educational system which had - flourished throughout Germany; the new zeal for Church reform, the - growth of prosperity, the ambition in the burghers, the pride and - fatherly solicitude of the sovereigns who were ever gaining strength, - had resulted in the foundation on all sides of school after school, - university after university. Students flocked to them in multitudes, - for the prospects of future gain were good. Scholasticism provided a - capable teaching staff, Humanism a brilliant one. Humanism also set up - as the new ideal of education a return to the fountain-head and the - reproduction of ancient civilisation by means of original effort on - similar lines. Wide tracts of Germany lay like a freshly sown field, - and many a harvest seemed to be ripening. Then, suddenly, before it - was possible to determine whether the new crops consisted of wheat - or of tares, a storm burst and destroyed all prospects of a harvest. - The upheaval that followed in the wake of the Reformation, and other - external causes which coincided with it, above all the reaction among - the utilitarian-minded laity against the unpopular scholarship of - the Humanists emptied the class rooms and lecture halls.… Now all is - over with the priestlings; why then should we bind our future to a - lost and despised cause?… Nor was this merely the passing result of a - misapprehension of Luther’s preaching, for it endured for scores of - years.”[82] - - As to the common opinion among Protestants, viz. that “Luther’s - reformation gave a general stimulus to the schools and to education - generally,” Schiele dismisses it in a sentence: “The alleged - ‘stimulus’ is seen to melt away into nothing.”[83] - -Eobanus Hessus, a Humanist friendly to Luther, who lectured at Erfurt -University, was so overcome with grief at sight of the decline that was -making itself felt there that, in 1523, he composed an Elegy on the decay -of learning entitled “_Captiva_” and sent it to Luther. The melancholy -poem of 428 verses was printed in the same year under the title “Circular -letter from the sorrowful Church to Luther.” Luther replied, praising the -poem and assuring the sender that he was favourably disposed towards the -humanistic studies and practices. He even speaks as though still full of -the expectation of a great revival; his depression is, however, apparent -from the very reasons he gives for his hopes: “I see that no important -revelation of the Word of God has ever taken place without a preliminary -revival and expansion of languages and erudition.” The present decline -might, however, he thought, be traced to the former state of things when -they did not as yet possess the “pure theology.”[84] - -But Hessus had complained, and with good reason, of the evil doings -of the new believers, instances of which had come under his notice at -Erfurt, and which had caused many to declare sadly: “We Germans are -becoming even worse barbarians than before, seeing that, in consequence -of our theology, learning is now going to the wall.”[85] At Erfurt the -Lutheran theology had won its way to the front amidst tumults and revolts -since the day when Crotus had greeted Luther on his way to Worms with his -revolutionary discourse.[86] Since then there had been endless conflicts -of the preachers with the Church of Rome and amongst themselves. Some -were to be met with who inveighed openly against the profane studies at -the Universities, and could see no educative value in anything save in -their own theology and the Word of God. Attendance at the University had -declined with giant strides since the spread of Lutheranism. Whereas from -May 1520 to 1521 the names of 311 students had been entered, their number -fell in the following year to 120 and in 1522 to 72; five years later -there were only 14. - -Hessus wrote quite openly in 1523: “On the plea of the Evangel the -runaway monks here in Erfurt have entirely suppressed the fine arts … our -University is despised and so are we.” - -His colleague, Euricius Cordus, a learned partisan of Luther, expresses -himself with no less disgust concerning the state of learning and -decline of morals among the students.[87] “All those who have any -talent,” we read in the Academic Year-Book in 1529, “are now forsaking -barren scholarship in order to betake themselves to more remunerative -professions, or to trade.”[88] - -As at Erfurt, so also at other Universities, a rapid diminution in the -number of students took place during those years. “It has been generally -remarked,” a writer who has made a special study of this subject says, -“that in the German Universities in the ’twenties of the 16th century -a sudden decrease in the number of matriculations becomes apparent.” -He proves from statistics that at the University of Leipzig from 1521 -to 1530 the number of those studying dropped from 340 to 100, at the -University of Rostock from 123 to 33, at Frankfurt-on-the-Oder from 73 -to 32 and, finally, at Wittenberg from 245 to 174.[89] The attendance -at Heidelberg reached its lowest figure between 1521 and 1565, “this -being due to the religious and social movements of the Reformation which -proved an obstacle to study.” Of the German Universities generally the -following holds good: “The religious and social disturbances of the -Reformation brought about a complete interruption in the studies. Some of -the Universities were closed down, at others the hearers dwindled down to -a few.”[90] - -“The Universities, Erfurt, Leipzig and the others stand deserted,” Luther -himself says as early as 1530, gazing from the Coburg at the ruins, “and -likewise here and there even the boys’ schools, so that it is piteous to -see them, and poor Wittenberg is now doing better than any of them. The -foundations and the monasteries, in my opinion, are probably also feeling -the pinch.”[91] He speaks at the same time of the decline of the Grammar -schools and the lower-grade schools which also to some extent shared the -fate of the Universities. - -In the Catholic parts of Germany the clergy schools and monastic schools -suffered severely under the general calamity, as Luther had shrewdly -guessed. Nor was the set-back confined to the Universities, but even the -elementary schools suffered. - -It was practically the universal complaint of the monasteries, so -Wolfgang Mayer, the learned Cistercian Abbot of Alderspach in Bavaria, -wrote in 1529, that they were unable to continue for lack of postulants; -“in consequence of the Lutheran controversy the schools everywhere are -standing empty and no one is willing any longer to devote himself to -study. The clerical and likewise the religious state is despised by all -and no one is inclined to offer himself for this life.” “Oh, God who -could ever have anticipated the coming of such a time! Everything is -ruined, everything is in confusion, and there is nothing but sunderings, -splits and heresies everywhere!” Yet these words come from the same -author, who, in 1518, in the introduction to his Annals of Alderspach, -had been so enthusiastic about the state of learning in Germany and had -said: “Germany is richly blessed with the gifts of Minerva and disputes -the palm in the literary arena with the Italians and the Greeks.” -Whereas, between the years 1460-1514 no less than eighty brethren had -entered Alderspach, Mayer, in his thirty years of office as Abbot, -clothed only seventeen novices with the habit of St. Bernard, and, of -these, five broke their vows and left the monastery. He expresses his -fear that soon his religious house will be empty and ascribes the lack of -novices largely to the fate which had overtaken the schools owing to the -innovations.[92] - -“Throughout the whole of the German lands,” as Luther himself admits: “No -one will any longer allow his children to learn or to study.”[93] At the -same time contemporaries bitterly bewailed the wildness of the students -who still remained at the Universities. With regard to Wittenberg -itself we have grievous complaints on this score from both Luther and -Melanchthon.[94] - -The disorder in the teaching institutions naturally had a bad effect on -the education of the people, so that Luther’s efforts on behalf of the -schools may readily be understood. The ecclesiastical Visitors of the -Saxon Electorate had been forced to adopt stern measures in favour of the -country schools. The Elector called to mind Luther’s admonitions, that -he, as the “principal guardian of the young,” had authority to compel -such towns and villages as possessed the means, to maintain schools, -pulpits and parsonages, just as he might compel them to furnish bridges, -high roads and footpaths.… “If, moreover, they have not the means,” -so Luther had said, “there are the monastic lands which most of them -were bestowed for this very purpose.”[95] But in spite of the measures -taken by the Elector and the urgent demands of the theologians for State -aid, even in towns like Wittenberg the condition of the intermediate -educational institutions was anything but satisfactory. In the case of -his own sons Luther had grudgingly to acknowledge that he was “at a loss -to find a suitable school.”[96] He accordingly had recourse to young -theologians as tutors. - -The disappointment of the Humanists was keen and their lot a bitter one. -They had cherished high hopes of the dawn of a new era for classical -studies in Germany. Many had rejoiced at the alliance which had at first -sprung up between the Humanist movement and the religious revolution, -believing it would clear the field for learning. They now felt it all -the more deeply seeing that the age, being altogether taken up with arid -theological controversies and the pressing practical questions of the -innovations, had no longer the slightest interest in the educational -ideals of antiquity. The violent changes in every department of life -which the religious upheaval brought with it could not but be prejudicial -to the calm intellectual labours of which the Humanists had dreamed; the -prospect of Mutian’s “_Beata tranquillitas_” had vanished. - -Mutian, at one time esteemed as the leader of the Thuringian Humanists, -retired into solitude and died in the utmost poverty (1526) after the -Christian faith had, as it would appear, once more awakened in him. -Eminent lawyers among the Humanists, Ulrich Zasius of Freiburg and -Christopher Scheurl of Nuremberg, openly detached themselves from the -Wittenbergers. Scheurl, who had once waxed so enthusiastic about the -light which had dawned in Saxony, now declared confidentially to Catholic -friends that Wittenberg was a cesspool of errors and intellectual -darkness.[97] The reaction which the recognition of Luther’s real aims -produced in other Humanists, such as Willibald Pirkheimer, Crotus -Rubeanus, Ottmar Luscinius and Henricus Glareanus, has already been -referred to.[98] It is no less true of the Humanists favourable to the -Church than of those holding Lutheran views, that German Humanism was -nipped in the bud by the ecclesiastical innovations. As Paulsen says: -“Luther usurped the leadership [from the Humanists] and theology [that of -the Protestants] drove the fine arts from the high place they had just -secured; at the very moment of their triumph the Humanists saw the fruits -of victory snatched from their grasp.”[99] - -The event of greatest importance for the Humanists was, however, -Erasmus’s open repudiation of Luther in 1523, and his attack on that -point so closely bound up with all intellectual progress, viz. Luther’s -denial of free-will. - -Quite independent of this attack were the many and bitter complaints -which the sight of the decline of his beloved studies drew from Erasmus: -“The Lutheran faction is the ruin of our learning.”[100] “We see that the -study of tongues and the love of fine literature is everywhere growing -cold. Luther has heaped insufferable odium on it.”[101] He regrets the -downfall of the schools at Nuremberg: “All this laziness came in with -the new Evangel.”[102] He wished to have nothing more to do with these -Evangelicals, he declares, because, through their doing, scholarship was -everywhere being ruined. “These people [the preachers] are anxious for a -living and a wife, for the rest they do not care a hair.”[103] - -In the above year, 1523, at the beginning of his public estrangement with -Erasmus, Luther had written: “Erasmus has done what he was destined to -do; he has introduced the study of languages and recalled us from godless -studies (‘_a sacrilegis studiis_’). He will in all likelihood die like -Moses, in the plains of Moab [i.e. never see the Promised Land]. He is -no leader to the higher studies, i.e. to piety”; in other words, unlike -Luther, he was not able to lead his followers into the land of promise, -where the enslaved will rules.[104] - -Luther’s use of the term “_sacrilega studia_” invites us to cast a glance -on the state of education before his day. - - -_Higher Education before Luther’s Day_ - -The condition of the schools before Luther, as described in our available -sources, was very different from what Luther pictured to his readers in -his works. - - According to Luther’s polemical writings, learning in earlier days - could not but be sacrilegious because Satan “was corrupting the young” - in “his own nests, the monasteries and clerical resorts”; “he, the - prince of this world, gave the young his good things and delights; - the devil spread out his nets, established monasteries, schools and - callings, in such a way that no boy could escape him.”[105] With this - fantastic view, met with only too frequently in Luther under all sorts - of shapes, goes hand in hand his wholesale reprobation and belittling - of the olden methods and system of education. The professors at the - close of the Middle Ages were only able, according to Luther, to - “train up profligates and greedy bellies, rude donkeys and blockheads; - all they could teach men was to be asses and to dishonour their wives, - daughters and maids.” “People studied twenty or forty years and yet - at the end of it all knew neither Latin nor German.” “Those ogres and - kidnappers” set up libraries, but they were filled “with the filth and - ordure of their obscene and poisonous books”; “the devil’s spawn, the - monks and the spectres of the Universities” when conferring doctorates - decked out “great fat loutish donkeys in red and brown hoods, like - a sow pranked out with gold chains and pearls.” “The pupils and - professors were as mad as the books on which they lectured. A jackdaw - does not hatch out doves nor can a fool beget wise offspring.” - - It is in his “An die Radherrn,” the object of which was to raise the - standard of education, that we find such coarse language. - - What is of more importance is that Luther seems here to be seeking to - conceal the decline in learning which he had brought about, and to lay - the blame solely on the olden schools. If the corruption had formerly - been so great then some excuse might be found for the ruin which had - followed his struggle with the Church.—Such an excuse, however, does - not tally with the facts. - -That, on the contrary, education, not only at the Universities, but -also in the Latin schools, which Luther had more particularly in view, -was in a flourishing condition and full of promise before it was so -rudely checked by the religious disturbances which emptied all the -schools, has been fully confirmed to-day by learned research. “The -increased attendance at the Universities in the course of the 15th and -the commencement of the 16th century is a very rapid one,” writes Franz -Eulenburg. “Hence the decline in the ’twenties of the latter century is -all the more noticeable.”[106] “At the beginning of the 16th century,” -says Friedrich Paulsen, “everyone of any influence or standing, strength -or courage, devoted himself to the new learning: prelates, sovereigns, -the townships and, above all, the young”; but, shortly after the outbreak -of the ecclesiastical revolution, “everything became changed.”[107] - -What had contributed principally to a salutary revival had been the -sterling work of the older Humanists. Eminent and thoroughly religious -men of the schools—men like Alexander Hegius and his pupils and -successors Rudolf von Langen, Ludwig Dringenberg, Johannes Murmellius -and, particularly, Jakob Wimpfeling, who, on account of his epoch-making -pedagogic work, was called the teacher of Germany—zealously made their -own the humanistic ideal of making of the classics the centre of the -education of the young, and of paving the way for a new intellectual -life, by means of the instruction given in the schools.[108] An attempt -was made to combine classical learning with devotion to the old religion -and respect for the Church. They also strove to carry out—though not -always successfully—the task which was assigned to the schools by the -Lateran Council held under Leo X; the aim of the teacher was to be not -merely to impart grammar, rhetoric and the other sciences, but at the -same time to instil into those committed to their charge the fear of God -and zeal for the faith.[109] The sovereigns and the towns placed their -abundant means at the disposal of the new movement and so did the Church, -which at that time was still a wealthy organisation. - -The number of the schools and scholars in itself proves the interest -taken by the nation in the relative prosperity of its education. - - To take some instances from districts with which Luther must have - been fairly well acquainted: Zwickau had a flourishing Latin school - which, in 1490, numbered 900 pupils divided into four classes. In - 1518 instruction was given there in Greek and Hebrew, and bequests, - ecclesiastical and secular, for its maintenance continued to be made. - The town of Brunswick had two Latin schools and, besides, three - schools belonging to religious communities. At Nuremberg, towards - the close of the 15th century, there were several Latin schools - controlled by four rectors and twelve assistants; a new “School of - Poetry” was added in 1515 under Johann Cochlæus. Augsburg also had - five Church schools at the commencement of the 16th century, and - besides this private teachers with a humanistic training were engaged - in teaching Latin and the fine arts. At Frankfurt-on-the-Main there - were, in 1478, three foundation schools with 318 pupils; the college - at Schlettstadt in Alsace numbered 900 pupils in 1517 and Geiler of - Kaysersberg and Jakob Wimpfeling were both educated there. At Görlitz - in Silesia, at the close of the 15th century, the number of scholars - varied between 500 and 600. Emmerich on the lower Rhine had, in 1510, - approximately 450 pupils in its six classes, in 1521 about 1500. - Münster in Westphalia, owing to the labours of its provost, Rudolf - von Langen, became the focus and centre of humanistic effort, and, - subsequent to 1512, had also its pupils divided into six classes.[110] - - The “Brothers of the Common Life” established their schools over the - whole of Northern Germany. Their institutions, with which Luther - himself had the opportunity of becoming acquainted at Magdeburg, sent - out some excellent schoolmasters. The schools of these religious at - Deventer, Zwolle, Liège and Louvain were famous. The school of the - brothers at Liège numbered in 1521 1600 pupils, assorted into eight - classes. - - In the lands of the Catholic princes many important grammar-schools - withstood the storms of the religious revulsion, so that Luther’s - statements concerning the total downfall of education cannot be - accepted as generally correct, even subsequent to the first decades of - the century. - - Nor were even the elementary schools neglected at the close of the - Middle Ages in most parts of the German Empire. Fresh accounts of such - schools, in both town and country, are constantly cropping up to-day - in the local histories. Constant efforts for their improvement and - multiplication were made at this time. About a hundred regulations - and charters of schools either in German, or in Dutch, dating from - 1400-1521 have been traced. The popular religious handbooks were - zealous in advocating the education of the people.[111] Luther himself - tells us it was the custom to stir up the schoolmasters to perform - their duty by saying that “to neglect a scholar is as bad as to seduce - a maid.”[112] - - -_Luther’s Success_ - -Did Luther, by means of the efforts described above, succeed in bringing -about any real improvement in the schools, particularly the Latin -schools? The affirmative cannot be maintained. At least it was a long -time before the reform which he desiderated came, and what reform took -place seems to have been the result less of Luther’s exhortations than of -Melanchthon’s labours. - -On the whole his hopes were disappointed. The famous saying of -Erasmus: “Wherever Lutheranism prevails, there we see the downfall of -learning,”[113] remained largely true throughout the 16th century, in -spite of all Luther’s efforts. - -Schiele says: Where Melanchthon’s school-regulations for the Saxon -Electorate were enforced without alteration, Latin alone was taught, -“but neither German nor Greek nor Hebrew,” that the pupils might not be -overtaxed. Instruction in history and mathematics was not insisted on at -all. Bugenhagen added the rudiments of Greek and mathematics. Only about -twenty years after Luther’s “An die Radherrn” do we hear something of -attempts being made to improve matters in the Lutheran districts. As a -rule all that was done even in the large towns was to amalgamate several -moribund schools and give them a new charter. “Even towns like Nuremberg -and Frankfurt were unable, in spite of the greatest sacrifices, to -introduce a well-ordered system into the schools. The two most eminent, -practical pedagogues of the time, Camerarius and Micyllus, could not -check the decline of their council schools.”[114] - -Nuremberg, the highly praised home of culture, may here be taken as a -case in point, because it was to the syndic of this city that Luther -addressed his second writing, praising the new Protestant gymnasium which -had been established there (above, p. 6). Yet, in 1530, after it had -been in existence some years, this same syndic, Lazarus Spengler, sadly -wrote: “Are there not any intelligent Christians who would not be highly -distressed that in a few short years, not Latin only, but all other -useful languages and studies have fallen into such contempt? Nobody, -alas, will recognise the great misfortune which, as I fear, we shall -soon suffer, and which even now looms in sight.”[115] In the Gymnasium, -which he had so much at heart, instruction was given free owing to the -rich foundations, nevertheless but very few pupils were found to attend -it. Eobanus Hessus, who was to have lent his assistance to promoting -the cause of Humanism, left the town again in 1533. When Hessus before -this complained to Erasmus that he had given offence to the town by his -complaints of the low standard to which the school had fallen (above, p. -32), the latter replied in 1531, that he had received his information -from the learned Pirkheimer and other friends of the professors there. -He had indeed written that learning seemed to be only half alive there, -in fact, at its last gasp, but he had done so in order by publishing the -truth to spur them on to renewed zeal. “This I know, that at Liège and -Paris learning is flourishing as much as ever. Whence then comes this -torpor? From the negligence of those who boast of being Evangelicals. -Besides, you Nurembergers have no reason to think yourselves particularly -offended by me, for such complaints are to be heard from the lips of -every honest man of every town where the Evangelicals rule.”[116] -Camerarius, whom Melanchthon wished to be the soul of the school, turned -his back on it in 1535 on account of the hopeless state of things. J. -Poliander said in 1540: In Nuremberg, that populous and well-built city, -there are rich livings and famous professors, but owing to the lack -of students the institution there has dwindled away. “The lecturers -left it, which caused much disgrace and evil talk to the people of -Nuremberg, as everybody knows.”[117] When Melanchthon stayed for a -while at Nuremberg in 1552 by order of the Elector, the Gymnasium -was a picture of desolation. In the school regulations issued by the -magistrates the pupils were reproached with contempt of divine service, -blasphemy, persistent defiance of school discipline, etc., and with being -“barbarous, rude, wild, wanton, bestial and sinful.” Camerarius even -wrote from Leipzig advising the town-council to break up the school.[118] - -There is no doubt that in other districts where Lutheranism prevailed -Latin schools were to be found where good discipline reigned and where -masters and pupils alike worked with zeal; the records, however, have -far more to say of the decline. - - Many statements of contemporaries well acquainted with the facts speak - most sadly of the then conditions. Melanchthon complained more and - more that shortsighted Lutheran theologians stood in the way of the - progress of the schools. Camerarius, in a letter to George Fabricius, - rector of Meissen, said in 1555 that it was plain everything was - conspiring for the destruction of Germany, that religion, learning, - discipline and honesty were doomed. As one of the principal causes - he instances “the neglect and disgust shown for that learning, - which, in reality, is the glory and ornament of man.” “It is looked - upon as tomfoolery and a thing fit only for children to play with.” - “Education, and life in general, too, has become quite other from what - we were accustomed to in our boyhood.” Of the Catholic times he speaks - with enthusiasm: “What zeal at one time inspired the students and in - what honour was learning held; what hardships men were ready to endure - in order to acquire but a modicum of scholarship is still to-day a - matter of tradition. Now, on the other hand, learned studies are so - little thought of owing to civil disturbances and inward dissensions - that it is only here and there that they have escaped complete - destruction.”[119] - - What he says is abundantly confirmed by the accounts of the failure of - educational effort at Augsburg, Esslingen, Basle, Stuttgart, Tübingen, - Ansbach, Heilbronn and many other towns. - - The efforts made were, however, not seldom ill-advised. If it be - really a fact that the Latin “_Colloquia_” of Erasmus, which Luther - himself had condemned for its frivolity, “played a principal part - in the education of the schoolboys,”[120] then, indeed, it is not - surprising that the results did not reach expectations. The crude - polemics against the olden Church and the theological controversies - associated with the names of Luther and Melanchthon, which penetrated - into the schools owing to the squabbles of the professors and - preachers, also had a bad effect. Again education was hampered by - being ever subordinated to the interests of a “pure faith” which was - regarded as its mainstay, but which was itself ever changing its shape - and doctrines.[121] - - “The form of education required for future ministers,” says Schiele, - “became the chief thing, and education as such was consequently - obliged to take a back seat.” “At the Universities it was only - theology that flourished,” the olden Hellenists died out and the - young were, in many places, only permitted to attend the “orthodox” - Universities. Among the Lutherans the Latin schools were soon no - longer able to compete with the colleges of the Jesuits and the - Calvinists. Not a single Lutheran rector or master of note is recorded - in the annals of the history of education. It is true that the - so-called Küster-schools spread throughout the land simultaneously - with the spread of orthodoxy. But when we see how the orthodox clergy - despised their catechetical duties as of secondary importance, - and hastened to delegate them as far as possible to the Küster - [parish-clerk], it becomes impossible for us to regard such schools - as a proof of any interest in education on the part of the orthodox, - rather the contrary. How otherwise can we explain, even when we take - into account the unfavourable conditions of the age, that, a hundred - years after Luther’s day, far fewer people were able to read his - writings than at the time when he first came forward.[122] - -In the elementary schools which gradually came into being the -parish-clerk gave instruction in reading and writing, and, in addition, -tried to teach the catechism by reciting it aloud and making the children -repeat it after him. The earliest definite regulations which imposed this -duty on the clerk in addition to the catechism were those issued by Duke -Christopher of Würtemberg in 1559, who also devoted his attention to the -founding of German schools. The latter, however, were not intended for -the smaller villages, nor did they receive any support from the “poor -box.” Nor did all the children attend the schools kept by the clerk. The -school regulations issued by the Protestant Duke were in themselves good, -but their effect was meagre.[123] In the Saxon Electorate it was only -in 1580 that the parish-clerks of the villages were directed to keep a -school.[124] - -Finally, to come to the Protestant Universities; it was only in the -latter part of the 16th century that the attendance, which, as we saw -above, had fallen so low, began once more to make a better show. - -In 1540 Melanchthon expressed himself as satisfied with the condition of -learning which prevailed in them.[125] But among others whose opinion -was less favourable we find Luther’s friend Justus Jonas, who, two -years before this, in 1538, wrote, that, since the Evangel had begun -to make its way through Germany, the Universities were silent as the -grave.[126] The testimony of Rudolf Walther, a Swiss, who had visited -many German Universities and been on terms of intimacy with eminent -Protestant theologians, must also receive special attention. In 1568 -he wrote—though his words may perhaps be somewhat discounted by his -own theological isolation—“The German Universities are now in such -a state that, to say nothing of the conceit and carelessness of the -professors and the impudent immorality which prevails, they are in no way -remarkable. Heidelberg, however, is praised more than the others, for the -attacks which menace her on all sides do not allow this University to -slumber.”[127] - -Heidelberg was the chief educational centre of those who held Calvinistic -views. Since 1580 the attendance at the University had notably increased -owing to the influx of students from abroad. Towards the close of the -century, with Wittenberg and Jena, it headed the list of the Universities -of the new faith in respect of the number of matriculations. Jena, like -its sister Universities of Marburg, Königsberg and Helmstädt, had been -founded as a seminary of Protestant theology and at the same time of -Roman law, which served to strengthen the absolutism of the princes. -Since the appointment of Flacius Illyricus in 1557 it had become a -stronghold of pure Lutheranism. The theological squabbles within the -bosom of Protestantism, here as in the other Universities, were, -however, disastrous to peace, and any healthy progress. Characteristic -of the treatment meted out to the professors by Protestant statesmen -of a different opinion, even when they were not summarily dismissed, -is the discourse of the Saxon Chancellor, Christian Brück, to the -professors of the theological Faculty at Jena in 1561: “You black, red -and yellow knaves and rascals! A plague upon you all you shameless -scamps and rebels! Would that you were knocked on the head, disgraced and -blinded!”[128] - -The University of Wittenberg now registered the largest number of -students. Although on Luther’s first public appearance crowds of students -had been attracted by the fame of his name, yet these decreased to such -an extent that between 1523 and 1533 not a single theological degree -was conferred. About 1550, however, the Faculties again numbered about -2000 students, thanks chiefly to Melanchthon. In 1598 the number is even -given as exceeding 2000. Throughout the whole of the century, from the -beginning of the ecclesiastical schism, a considerable percentage of -students had poured in from abroad. Of the wantonness of the Wittenberg -students of the various Faculties, contemporaries as well as official -documents wax so eloquent that the University would seem to have enjoyed -an unenviable notoriety in this respect among the Protestant educational -establishments.[129] The fact that, as just mentioned, the students -were largely recruited from other countries must be taken into account. -Wittenberg suffered more than the other Universities from the quarrels -which, according to Luther, tore to pieces Protestant theology. What was -said in a sermon in 1571 on the words “Peace be with you” is peculiarly -applicable to Wittenberg: “Only see what quarrelling and envy, hatred, -and persecution, and expulsion there has been, and still is, among the -professors at Wittenberg, Jena, Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, Königsberg and -indeed all the Universities which really should be flourishing in the -light of our beloved Evangel; it would indeed be a great and heavenly -work of God if all the young men at these Universities did not fall into -such vices, and even become utterly corrupted.”[130] - - -4. Benevolence and Relief of the Poor - -Luther’s attitude towards poor relief, which ever since the rise of -Protestantism has been the subject of extravagant eulogies, can only be -put in its true light by a closer examination of the state of things -before his day.[131] - - -_At the Close of the Middle Ages_ - -Indications of the provision made by the community for relief of the poor -are found in the Capitularies of Charles the Great, indeed even in the -6th century in the canons of a Council held at Tours in 567. Corporate -relief of the poor, later on carried out by means of the guilds, and -the care of the needy in each particular district undertaken by unions -of the parishes, were of a public and organised character. It has been -justly remarked concerning the working of the mediæval institutions: “The -results achieved by our insurance system were then attained by means of -family support, corporations, village clubs and unions of the lords of -the manors.… Such organised relief of the poor made any State relief -unnecessary. The State authorities concerned themselves only negatively, -viz. by prohibiting mendicancy and vagabondage.”[132] Private benevolence -occupied the first place, since the very nature of Christian charity -involves love of our neighbour. Its work was mainly done by means of the -ecclesiastical institutions and the monasteries. Special arrangements -also were made, under the direction of the Church, to meet the various -needs, and such were to be found in considerable numbers both in large -places and in small; all, moreover, was carried out on the lines of a -careful selection of deserving cases and a wise control of expenditure. - -The share taken by the Church in the whole work of charity was, generally -speaking, a guarantee that the work was managed conscientiously. - -Though among both monks and clergy scandalous instances of greed and -self-seeking were not wanting, yet there were many who lived up to their -profession and were zealous in assisting in the development of works -of charity. The mendicant Orders, by the very example of the poverty -prescribed by their rule, helped to combat all excessive avarice; their -voluntary privations taught people how to endure the trials of poverty -and they showed their gratitude for the alms bestowed on them by their -labours for souls in the pulpit and in the school, and by doing their -utmost to promote learning. - -Every Order was exhorted by its Rule to fly idleness and to perform works -of neighbourly charity. - -There are plentiful sermons and works of piety dating from the close of -the Middle Ages which prove how the faithful were not only urged to be -charitable to the needy, but also to obey God’s command and to labour, -this exhortation referring particularly to the poor themselves, who were -not unnecessarily to become a burden to others. Again and again are the -words of the Bible emphasised: “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat -thy bread,” and “Whoever will not work neither let him eat” (Gen. iii. -19; 2 Thes. iii. 10). - -In spite of this, lack of industrial occupation, the difficulty and even -sometimes the entire absence of public supervision, and, in part also, -the ease with which alms were to be had, bred a large crop of beggars, -who moved about from place to place and who, in late mediæval times, -became a perfect plague throughout the whole of Germany. Hence all the -greater towns in the 15th century and early years of the 16th issued -special regulations to deal with the poor. In the matter of these laws -for the regulation of charity the city-fathers acted independently, -strong in the growing consciousness of their standing and duties. Lay -Guardians of the Poor were appointed by the magistrates and poor-boxes -were established, the management of which devolved on the municipal -authorities. The Catholic Netherlands set an excellent example in this -respect by utilising the old hospital regulations and, with their help, -drawing up new and independent organisations. Antwerp, Brussels, Louvain, -Mechlin, Ghent, Bruges, Namur and other towns already possessed a -well-developed system of poor relief. - - “The admirable regulations for the relief of the poor at Ypres” - (1525), to which reference is so often made, “a work of social reform - of the first rank” (Feuchtwanger), sprang from such institutions, - and these, in turn, were by Charles V in 1531 made the basis of his - new Poor Law for the whole of the Netherlands. The Ypres regulations - declared, that, according to the divine command, everyone is obliged - to gain his living as far as he can. All begging was strictly - prohibited, charitable institutions and private almsgiving were not - allowed to have their way unchecked, admission of strangers was made - difficult and other salutary restrictions were enforced, yet, on the - other hand, Christian charity towards those unable to earn a living - was warmly welcomed and set in the right channels.[133] - - In the Netherlands, Humanism, which had made great progress in - Erasmus’s native land, co-operated in the measures taken, and it was - here that the important “_De subventione pauperum_” of Juan Ludovico - de Vives, a friend of Erasmus, of Pope Hadrian IV and of Sir Thomas - More, and a zealous opponent of Lutheranism, was published in 1526. - - In the Catholic towns of Germany, particularly in the south, it was - not merely the stimulus of Humanism but still more the economic and - political development which, towards the end of the Middle Ages and - during the transition to modern times, led to constant fresh efforts - in the domain of the public relief of the poor. The assistance of - the poor was, in fact, at that time “one of the principal social - questions, poor relief being identical with social politics. To - provide for the sick members of the guilds, for the serf incapable - of work, for the beggar in the street, for the guest in the hostel, - for the poor artisan to whom the city magistrates gave a loan free of - interest, for the burgher who received cheap grain from the council, - all this was, to give freely, to bestow alms and to perform works well - pleasing to God.”[134] - - The gaping rift in the German lands and the chaotic conditions which - accompanied the transition from the agrarian to the commercial system - of economy were naturally not favourable to the peaceful work of - alleviating poverty. It was, however, eventually to the advantage of - the towns to form themselves into separate administrations, able to - safeguard their own charitable institutions by means of an efficient - police system. Thus the town councils took over what had been formerly - to a great extent the function of the Church, but this they did - without any animosity towards her. They felt themselves to be acting - as beseemed “Christian authorities.” They were encouraged in this by - that interference, in what had once been the domain of the Church, of - the territorial princes and the cities, which had become the rule in - the 15th century. The more or less extensive suzerainty in Church - matters which had prevailed even previous to the religious schism in - Saxony, Brandenburg and many of the Imperial cities may be called to - mind. In towns such as Augsburg, Nuremberg, Strasburg and Ratisbon - the overwhelming increase which had taken place in the class which - lived from hand to mouth, called for the prohibitive measures against - beggary and the other regulations spoken of above. - - At Augsburg the town council issued orders concerning the poor-law - system in 1459, 1491 and 1498. Those of 1491 and 1498 sought to - regulate and prevent any overlapping in the distribution of the - municipal doles, the “holy alms which are compassionately given and - bestowed daily in many different parts and corners of the city”; to - these were subjoined measures for enforcing strict supervision of - those who received assistance and for excluding the undeserving; - whoever was able to work but refused to do so was shut out, in order - that the other poor people might not “be deprived of their bodily - sustenance.” A third and still better set of poor-law regulations - appeared in 1522. They provided for a stricter organisation of the - distribution of the monies, and made the supervision of those in - receipt of help easier by the keeping of registers of the poor and by - house to house visitations. Beggars at the church doors were placed - under special control. No breach with the ecclesiastical traditions of - the past is apparent in the rules of 1522, in spite of the influence - of the religious innovations in this town. From the civil standpoint, - however, they, like the poor laws generally drawn up at the close of - the Middle Ages, display a “thorough knowledge of the conditions and - are true to a well-tried tradition of communal policy.” The principal - author of this piece of legislation was Conrad Peutinger, the famous - lawyer and statesman who since 1497 had been town clerk. He died - greatly esteemed in 1547, after having done more to further than to - check the religious innovations in his native town by his uncertain - and vacillating behaviour. - - From the Nuremberg mendicancy regulations Johannes Janssen quotes - certain highly practical enactments which belong to the latter half of - the 14th century. The so-called “meat and bread foundations,” which - had been enriched by the Papal Indulgences granted to benefactors, - were not available for any public beggars, but only for the genuine - poor. In 1478 the town council issued a more minute mendicant - ordinance. Here we read: “Almsgiving is a specially praiseworthy, - virtuous work, and those who receive alms unworthily and unnecessarily - lay a heavy burden of guilt on themselves.” Those allowed to beg were - also obliged at least “to spin or perform some other work according to - their capacity.” Beggars from foreign parts were only permitted to beg - on certain fixed days in the year. Conrad Celtes, the Humanist, in his - work on Nuremberg printed in 1501, boasts of the ample provision for - widows and orphans made by the town, the granaries for the purpose of - giving assistance and other arrangements whereby it was distinguished - above all other towns; families of the better class who had met with - misfortunes received yearly a secret dole to tide them over their - difficult time.[135] - - New regulations concerning the poor, more comprehensive than the - former, appeared at Nuremberg in 1522. These deal with the actual - needs and are in close touch with the maxims of government and old - traditions of the Imperial cities. In them all the earlier charitable, - social and police measures are codified: the restriction of begging, - the management of the hospitals, the provision of work and tools, - advances to artisans in difficulties, granaries for future famines, - the distribution of alms, badges for privileged beggars, etc. The - whole is crowned by the Bible text, so highly esteemed in the Catholic - Middle Ages: “Blessed is he that hath pity on the poor and needy, - for the Lord will deliver him in the evil day.” “Our salvation,” so - we read when mention is made of the relief funds, “rests solely in - keeping and performing the commandments of God which oblige every - Christian to give such help and display such fraternal charity - towards his neighbour.”[136] At Nuremberg the new teaching had - already taken firm footing yet the olden Catholic conception of the - meritorious character of almsgiving is nevertheless recognisable in - the regulations of 1522.[137] - - At Strasburg a new system, dating from 1523, for regulating the - distribution of the “common alms” was established in harmony with the - great traditions of the 15th century, and above all with the spirit - and labours of the famous Catholic preacher Geiler of Kaysersberg - (†1510). Janssen has given us a fine series of witnesses, from - Geiler’s sermons and writings, of the nature at once religious and - practical of his exhortations to charity.[138] Charity, he insists, - must show itself not merely in the bestowal of temporal goods; it - is concerned above all with the “inward and spiritual goods, the - milk of sound doctrine, and instruction of the unlearned, the milk - of devotion, wisdom and consolation.” He repeatedly exhorts the - authorities to stricter regulations on almsgiving. - - After various improvements had been introduced in the poor law at - Strasburg subsequent to 1500, the magistrates—the clergy and the - monasteries not having shown themselves equal to their task—issued a - new enactment, though even this relied to a great extent on the help - of the clergy. The regulations of Augsburg and Nuremberg were the most - effectual. It was only later, after the work of Capito, Bucer and - Hedio at Strasburg, that, together with the new spirit, changes crept - into the traditional poor-law system of the town. - -All the enactments, dating from late mediæval times prior to the -religious innovations, for the poor of the other great German towns, for -instance, of Ratisbon (1523), Breslau (1525) and Würzburg (1533) are of -a more or less similar character. Thus, thanks to the economic pressure, -there was gradually evolved, in the centres of German prosperity and -commercial industry, a sober but practical and far-sighted poor-law -system.[139] - -It was not, indeed, so easy to get rid of the existing disorders; -to achieve this a lengthy struggle backed by the regulations just -established would have been necessary. Above all, the tramps and -vagabonds, who delighted in idleness and adventure and who often -developed dangerous proclivities, continued to be the pest of the land. -The cause of this economic disorder was a deep-seated one and entirely -escapes those who declare that beggary sprang solely from the idea -foisted on the Church, viz. that “poverty was meritorious and begging a -respectable trade.” - - -_Luther’s Efforts. The Primary Cause of their Failure_ - -The spread of Lutheranism had its effect on the municipal movement for -the relief of the poor, nor was its influence all for the good. - -In 1528 and 1529 Luther twice published an edition of the booklet “On the -Roguery of the False Beggars” (“_Liber vagatorum_”), a work dating from -the beginning of the 16th century; in his preface to it he says, that -the increase in fraudulent vagrancy shows “how strong in the world is -the rule of the devil”; “Princes, lords, town-magistrates and, in fact, -everybody” ought to see that alms were bestowed only on the beggars and -the needy in their own neighbourhood, not on “rogues and vagabonds” by -whom even he himself (Luther) had often been taken in. Everywhere in both -towns and villages registers should be kept of the poor, and strange -beggars not allowed without a “letter or testimonial.”[140] - -He was, however, not always so circumspect in his demands and principles. -In a passage of his work “An den Adel” he makes a wild appeal, which in -its practicability falls short of what had already been done in various -parts of Germany. The only really new point in it is, that, in order -to make an end of begging and poverty, the mendicant Orders should be -abolished, and the Roman See deprived of their collections and revenues. -Of the ordinary beggars he says, without being sufficiently acquainted -with the state of the case, that they “might easily be expelled,” and -that it would be an “easy matter to deal with them were we only brave and -in earnest enough.” To the objection that the result of violent measures -would be a still more niggardly treatment of the poor he replied in 1520: -“It suffices that the poor be fairly well provided for, so that they die -not of hunger or cold.” With a touch of communism he exaggerates, at the -expense of the well-to-do and those who did no work, an idea in itself -undoubtedly true, viz. that work is man’s portion: “It is not just that, -at the expense of another’s toil, a man should go idle, wallow in riches -and lead a bad life, whilst his fellow lives in destitution, as is now -the perverted custom.… It was never ordained by God that anyone should -live on the goods of another.”[141] - -In itself it could only have a salutary effect when Luther goes on to -speak, as he frequently does, against begging among the class whose duty -it was to work with their hands, and when he attempts both to check their -idleness and to rouse a spirit of charity towards the deserving.[142] -He even regards the Bible text, “Let there be no beggar or starving -person amongst you,” as universally binding on Christians. Only that -he is oblivious of the necessary limitations when he exclaims: “If God -commanded this even in the Old Testament how much more is it incumbent on -us Christians not to let anyone beg or starve!”[143] - -The latter words refer to those who are really poor but quite willing -to work (a class of people which will always exist in spite of every -effort); as for those who “merely eat” he demands that they be driven out -of the land. This he does in a writing of 1526 addressed to military men; -here he divides “all man’s work into two kinds,” viz. “agricultural work -and war work.” A third kind of work, viz. the teaching office, to which -he often refers elsewhere, is here passed over in silence. “As for the -useless people,” he cries, “who serve neither to defend us nor to feed -us, but merely eat and pass away their time in idleness, [the Emperor or -the local sovereign] should either expel them from the land or make them -work, as the bees do, who sting to death the drones that do not work but -devour the honey of the others.”[144] His unmethodical mind failed to see -to what dire consequences these hastily penned words could lead. - -With the object of alleviating poverty he himself, however, lent a hand -to certain charitable institutions, which, though they did not endure, -have yet their place in history. Such were the poor-boxes of Wittenberg, -Leisnig, Altenburg and some other townships. This institution was closely -bound up with his scheme of gathering together the “believing Christians” -into communities apart. These communities were not only to have their own -form of divine worship and to use the ecclesiastical penalties, but were -also to assist the poor by means of the common funds in a new and truly -Evangelical fashion. - -The olden poor-law ordinances of mediæval times had been revised at -Wittenberg and embodied in the so-called “Beutelordnung.”[145] Carlstadt -and the town-council, under the influence of Luther’s earlier ideas, -substituted for this on Jan. 24, 1522, a new “Order for the princely town -of Wittenberg”; at the same time they reorganised the common funds.[146] -These regulations Luther left in force, when, on his return from the -Wartburg, he annulled the rest of Carlstadt’s doings; the truth is, that -they were not at variance even with his newer ideals. - -In 1523 he himself promoted a similar but more highly developed -institution for the relief of the poor in the little Saxon town of -Leisnig on the Freiberg Mulde; this was to be in the hands of the -community of true believers into which the inhabitants had formed -themselves at the instigation of the zealous Lutheran, Sebastian von -Kötteritz. At Altenburg also, doubtless through Luther’s doing, his -friend Wenceslaus Link, the preacher in that town, made a somewhat -similar attempt to establish a communal poor-box. In many other places -efforts of a like nature were made under Lutheran auspices. - -How far such undertakings spread throughout the Protestant congregations -cannot be accurately determined. We know, however, the details of the -scheme owing to our still having the rules drawn up for Leisnig.[147] - - According to this the whole congregation, town-councillors, aldermen, - elders and all the inhabitants generally, were to bind themselves to - make a good use of their Christian freedom by the faithful keeping - of the Word of God and by submitting to good discipline and just - penalties. Ten coffer-masters were to be appointed over the “common - fund” and these were three times a year to give an account to the - “whole assembly thereto convened.” Into this fund was to be put not - merely the revenue of the earlier institutions which hitherto had - been most active in the relief of the poor, viz. the brotherhoods and - benevolent associations, as also that of most of the guilds, and, - moreover, the whole income drawn by the parish from the glebes, pious - foundations, tithes, voluntary offerings, fines, bridge dues and - private industrial concerns. Thus it was not merely a relief fund but - practically a trust comprising all the wealth of the congregation, - which chiefly consisted in the extensive Church property it had - annexed. In keeping with this is the manner in which the income was - to be apportioned. Only a part was devoted to the relief of the poor, - i.e. to the hospital, orphanage and guest-houses. Most of the money - was to go to defray the stipend of the Lutheran pastor and his clerk, - to maintain the schools and the church, and to allow of advances being - made to artisans free of interest; the rest was to be put by for times - of scarcity. The members of the congregation were also exhorted to - make contributions out of charity to their neighbour. - - The scheme pleased Luther so well that he advised the printing of the - rules, and himself wrote a preface to the published text in which - he said, he hoped that “the example thus set would prove a success, - be generally followed, and lead to a great ruin of the earlier - foundations, monasteries, chapels and all other such abominations - which hitherto had absorbed all the world’s wealth under a show of - worship.” - - Hence here once more his chief motive is a polemical one, viz. his - desire to injure Popery. - - He invites the authorities on this occasion to “lay hands on” such - property and to apply to the common fund all that remained over after - the obligations attaching to the property had been complied with, and - restitution made to such heirs of the donors as demanded it on account - of their poverty. In giving this advice he was anxious, as he says, - to disclaim any responsibility in the event of “such property as had - fallen vacant being plundered owing to the estates changing hands - and each one laying hold on whatever he could seize.” “Should avarice - find an entry what then can be done? It must not indeed be given up in - despair. It is better that avarice should take too much in a legal way - than that there should be such plundering as occurred in Bohemia. Let - each one [i.e. of the heirs of the donors] examine his own conscience - and see what he ought to take for his own needs and what he should - leave for the common fund!”[148] - - The setting up of such a “common fund” was also suggested in other - Lutheran towns as a means of introducing some sort of order into the - confiscation of the Church’s property. The direct object of the funds - was not the relief of the poor. This was merely included as a measure - for palliating and justifying the bold stroke which the innovators - were about to take in secularising the whole of the Church’s vast - properties. - - This, however, makes some of Luther’s admonitions in his preface to - the regulations for the Leisnig common fund sound somewhat strange, - for instance, his injunction that everything be carried out according - to the law of love. “Christian charity must here act and decide; laws - and enactments cannot settle the difficulties. Indeed I write this - counsel only out of Christian charity for the Christians.” Whoever - refuses to accept his advice, he says at the conclusion, may go his - own way; only a few would accept it, but one or two were quite enough - for him. “The world must remain the world and Satan its Prince. I - have done what I could and what it was my duty to do.” He was half - conscious of the unpractical character of his proposals, yet any - failure he was determined to attribute to the devil’s doing. - -His premonition of failure was only too soon realised at Leisnig. The -new scheme could not be made to work. The magistrates refused to resign -the rights they claimed of disposing of the foundations and similar -charitable sources of revenue or to hand over the incomings to the -coffer-masters, for the latter, they argued, were representatives, not -of the congregation but of the Church. Hence the fund had to go begging. -Luther came to words with the town-council, but was unable to have his -own way, even though he appealed to the Elector.[149] He lamented in 1524 -that the example of Leisnig had been a very sad one, though, as the first -of its kind,[150] it should have served as a model. Of Tileman Schnabel, -an ex-Augustinian and college friend of Luther’s at Erfurt, who had been -working at Leisnig as preacher and “deacon,” Luther wrote, that he would -soon find himself obliged to leave if he did not wish to die of hunger. -“Incidents such as these deprive the parsonages of their best managers. -Maybe they want to drive them back to their old monasteries.”[151] - -Thus the parochial fund of Leisnig, which some writers have extolled so -highly, really never came into existence. It lives only in the directions -given by Luther. - -So ill were parson and schoolmaster cared for at Leisnig, in spite of -all the Church property that had been sequestered, that, according to -the Visitation of 1529, the preacher there had been obliged to ply a -trade and gain a living by selling beer. In 1534, so the records of the -Visitations of that date declare, the schoolmaster had for five years -been paid no salary. - -Link, the Altenburg preacher, was also unsuccessful in his efforts to -carry out a similar scheme. He complained as early as 1523, in a writing -entitled “Von Arbeyt und Betteln,” that this Christian undertaking had -so far “not only not been furthered but had actually gone backward” in -spite of all his efforts from the pulpit. He, too, addresses himself to -the “rulers” and reminds them that it is their duty “to the best of their -ability to provide for the poverty of the masses.”[152] - -To Luther’s bitter grief and disappointment Wittenberg (see above, -p. 49) also furnished anything but an encouraging example. Here the -incentive to the introduction of the common fund by Carlstadt had been -the resolve of the town council “to seize on the revenues of the Church, -the brotherhoods and guilds and divert them into the common fund, to be -employed for general purposes, and for paying the Church officials.… -No less than twenty-one pious guilds were to be mulcted.”[153] Yet the -Wittenberg measures were so little a success, in spite of all Luther’s -efforts, that in his sermons he could not sufficiently deplore the -absence of charity and prevalence of avarice and greed amongst both -burghers and councillors.[154] The Beutelordnung continued indeed in -existence, but merely as an administrative department of the town council. - -It is not surprising therefore that Luther gave up for the while any -attempt at putting into practice the Leisnig project elsewhere; his -scheme for assembling the true Christians into a community had also -perforce to betake itself unto the land of dreams. Only in his “Deudsche -Messe” of 1526 does the old idea again force itself to the front: “Here -a general collection for the poor might be made among the congregation; -it should be given willingly and distributed amongst the needy after the -example of St. Paul, 2 Cor. ix.… If only we had people earnestly desirous -of being Christians, the manner and order would soon be settled.”[155] - -Subsequent to 1526, however, Bugenhagen drafted better regulations and -poor laws for Wittenberg and other Protestant towns, founded this time on -a more practical basis. (See below, p. 57 f.) - - * * * * * - -Luther, nevertheless, continued to complain of the Wittenbergers. The -indignation he expresses at the lack of all charitable endeavours -throughout the domain of the new Evangel serves as a suitable background -for these complaints. - -Want of charity and of neighbourly love was the primary and most -important cause of the failure of Luther’s efforts. - - “Formerly, when people served the devil and outraged the Blood of - Christ,” he says in 1530 in “Das man die Kinder zur Schulen halten - solle” (see above, p. 6), “all purses were open and there was no end - to the giving, for churches, schools and every kind of abomination; - but now that it is a question of founding true schools and churches - every purse is closed with iron chains and no one is able to give.” - So pitiful a sight made him beg of God a happy death so that he might - not live to see Germany’s punishment: “Did my conscience allow of it I - would even give my help and advice so as to bring back the Pope with - all his abominations to rule over us once more.”[156] - - What leads him to such admissions as, that, the Christians, “under the - plea of freedom are now seven times worse than they were under the - Pope’s tyranny,” is, in the first place, his bitter experience of the - drying up of charity, which now ceases to care even for the parsonages - and churches. Under the Papacy people had been eager to build churches - and to make offerings to be distributed in alms among the poor, but, - now that the true religion is taught, it is a wonder how everyone has - grown so cold.—Yet the people were told and admonished that it was - well pleasing to God and all the angels, but even so they would not - respond.—Now a pastor could not even get a hole in his roof mended - to enable him to lie dry, whereas in former days people could erect - churches and monasteries regardless of cost.—“Now there is not a - single town ready to support a preacher and there is nothing but - robbery and pilfering amongst the people and no one hinders them. - Whence comes this shameful plague? ‘From the doctrine,’ say the - bawlers, ‘which you teach, viz. that we must not reckon on works or - place our trust in them.’ This is, however, the work of the tiresome - devil who falsely attributes such things to the pure and wholesome - teaching,” etc.[157] - - He is so far from laying the blame on his teaching that he exclaims: - What would our forefathers, who were noted for their charity, not have - done “had they had the light of the Evangel which is now given to us”? - Again and again he comes back to the contrast between his and older - times: “Our parents and forefathers put us to shame for they gave - so generously and charitably, nay even to excess, to the churches, - parsonages and schools, foundations, hospitals,” etc.[158]—“Indeed - had we not already the means, thanks to the charitable alms and - foundations of our forefathers, the Gospel itself would long since - have been wiped out by the burghers in the towns, and the nobles and - peasants in the country, so that not one poor preacher would have - enough to eat and drink; for we refuse to supply them, and, instead, - rob and lay violent hands on what others have given and founded for - the purpose.”[159] - - To sum up briefly other characteristic complaints which belong - here, he says: Now that in accordance with the true Evangel we are - admonished “to give without seeking for honour or merit, no one can - spare a farthing.”[160]—No one now will give, and, “unless we had - the lands we stole from the Pope, the preachers would have but scant - fare”; they even try “to snatch the morsels out of the parson’s - mouth.” The way in which the “nobles and officials” now treat what - was formerly Church property amounts to “a devouring of all beggars, - strangers and poor widows; we may indeed bewail this, for they eat - up the very marrow of the bones. Since they raise a hue and cry - against the Papists let them also not forget us.… Woe to you peasants, - burghers and nobles who grab everything, hoard and scrape, and pretend - all the time to be good Evangelicals.”[161] - - He is only too well acquainted with the evils of mendicancy and - idleness, and knows that they have not diminished but rather - increased. Even towards the end of his life he alludes to the - “innumerable wicked rogues who pretend to be poor, needy beggars and - deceive the people”; they deserve the gallows as much as the “idlers,” - of whom there are “even many more” than before, who are well able - to work, take service and support themselves, but prefer to ask for - alms, and, “when these are not esteemed enough, to supplement them by - pilfering or even by open, bare-faced stealing in the courtyards, the - streets and in the very houses, so that I do not know whether there - has ever been a time when robbery and thieving were so common.”[162] - -Finally he recalls the enactments against begging by which the -“authorities forbade foreign beggars and vagabonds and also idlers.” This -brings us back to the attempts made, with the consent of the authorities -in the Lutheran districts, to obviate the social evils by means similar -to those adopted at Leisnig. - - -_A Second Stumbling Block: Lack of Organisation_ - -It was not merely lack of charity that rendered nugatory all attempts -to put in force regulations such as those drafted for Leisnig, but also -defects in the inner organisation of the schemes. First, to lump all -sorts of monies intended for different purposes into a single fund could -prove nothing but a source of confusion and diminish the amount to be -devoted directly to charitable purposes; this, too, was the effect of -keeping no separate account of the expenditure for the relief of the poor. - -Then, again, the intermingling of secular and spiritual which the -arrangement involved was very unsatisfactory. We can trace here more -clearly than elsewhere the quasi-mystic idea of the congregation of true -believers which retained so strong a hold on Luther’s imagination till -about 1525. With singular ignorance of the ways of the world he wished to -set up the common fund on a community based on faith and charity in which -the universal priesthood was supposed to have abolished all distinction -between the spiritual and secular authorities, nay, between the two very -spheres themselves. He took for granted that Evangelical rulers would be -altogether spiritual simply because they possessed the faith; faith, so -he seemed to believe, would of itself do everything in the members of the -congregation; under the guidance of the spirit everything would be “held -in common, after the example of the Apostles,” as he says in the preface -of the Leisnig regulations. But what was possible of accomplishment owing -to abundance of grace in Apostolic times was an impossible dream in the -16th century. “The old ideal of an ecclesiastical commonwealth on which, -according to the preface, Luther wished to construct a kind of insurance -society for the relief of the poor, could not subsist for a moment in the -keen atmosphere of a workaday world where men are what they are.”[163] - -Hence the latest writer on social politics and the poor law, from whom -the above words are taken, openly expresses his wonder at the “utopian, -religio-communistic foundation on which the Wittenberg and Leisnig -schemes, and those drawn up on similar lines, were based,” at the -“utopian efforts” with their “absurd system of expenditure,” which, owing -to their “fundamental defects and the mixing of the funds, were doomed -sooner or later to fail.” This “travesty of early Christianity” tended -neither to promote the moral and charitable sense of the people nor to -further benevolent organisation. “Any rational policy of poor law” was, -on the contrary, shut out by these early Lutheran institutions; the -relief of the poor was thereby placed on an “eminently unstable basis”; -the poor-boxes only served “to encourage idleness.” “Not in such a way -could the modern poor-law system, based as it is on impersonal, legal -principles, be called into being.” - -“No system of poor law has ever had less claim to be placed at the head -of a new development than this one [of Leisnig].”[164] - -The years 1525 and 1526 brought the turning point in Luther’s attitude -towards the question of poor relief, particularly owing to the effect of -the Peasant War on his views of society and the Church. - -The result of the war was to bring the new religious system into much -closer touch with the sovereigns and “thus practically to give rise to a -theocracy.”[165] In spite of the changes this produced, Luther’s schemes -for providing for the poor continued to display some notable defects. - - For all “practical purposes Luther threw over the principle of - the universal priesthood which the peasants had embraced as a - socio-political maxim, and, by a determined effort, cut his cause - adrift from the social efforts of the day.… He worked himself up - into a real hatred of the mob, of ‘Master Omnes,’ the ‘many-headed - monster,’ and indeed came within an ace of the socio-political - ideas of Machiavelli, who advised the rulers to treat the people so - harshly that they might look upon those lords as liberal who were not - extortionate.” After the abrogation of episcopal authority and canon - law, of hierarchy and monasteries “there came an urgent call for the - establishment of new associations with practical aims and for the - construction of the skeleton of the new Christian community; we now - hear no more of that ideal community of true believers which, thanks - to its heartfelt faith, was to carry on the social work of preventing - and alleviating poverty.” - -The whole of the outward life of the Church being now under the direction -of the Protestant sovereign, the system of poor relief began to assume -a purely secular character, having nothing but an outward semblance -of religion. The new regulations were largely the work of Bugenhagen, -who was a better organiser than Luther. The many enactments he was -instrumental in drafting for the North German towns embody necessary -provisions for the relief of the poor. - -Officials appointed by the sovereign or town-council directed, or -at least supervised, the management, while the “deacons,” i.e. the -ecclesiastical guardians of the fund, were obliged to find the necessary -money and, generally, to bear all the odium for the meagreness and -backwardness of the distribution. The members of the congregation had -practically no longer any say in the matter. The parish’s share in the -relief of the poor was made an end of even before it had lost the other -similar rights assigned to it by Luther, such as that of promulgating -measures of discipline, appointing clergy, administering the Church’s -lands, etc. Just as the organisation of the Church was solely in the -hands of the authorities to the complete exclusion of the congregations, -so poor relief and the ecclesiastical regulations on which it was based -became merely a government concern. - -What Bugenhagen achieved, thanks to the ecclesiastical regulations -for poor relief, for which he was directly or indirectly responsible, -gave “good hopes, at least at first, of bringing the difficult social -problem of those days nearer to a solution.” At any rate they were a -“successful attempt to bring some order into the whole system of relief, -by means of the authorities and on a scale not hitherto attempted by -the Church.”[166] It is true that he, like those who were working on -the same lines, e.g. Hedio, Rhegius, Hyperius, Lasco and others, often -merely transplanted into a new soil the rules already in vogue in the -Catholic Netherlands and the prosperous South German towns. Hedio of -Strasburg, for instance, translated into German the entire work of Vives, -the opponent of Lutheranism, and exploited it practically and also sought -to enter into epistolary communication with Vives. The prohibition of -mendicancy, the establishment of an independent poor-box apart from -the rest of the Church funds, and many other points were borrowed by -Bugenhagen and others from the olden Catholic regulations. - -Such efforts were in many localities supplemented by the kindliness of -the population and, thanks to a spirit of Christianity, were not without -fruit. - -As, however, everybody, Princes, nobles, townships and peasants, were -stretching out greedy hands towards the now defenceless possessions -of the olden Church, a certain reaction came, and the State, in the -interests of order, saw fit to grant a somewhat larger share to the -ecclesiastical authorities in the administration of Church property and -relief funds. The Lutheran clergy and the guardians of the poor were -thus allowed a certain measure of free action, provided always that -what they did was done in the name of the sovereign, i.e. the principal -bishop. The new institutions created by such men as Bugenhagen soon lost -their public, communal or State character, and sank back to the level -of ecclesiastical enterprises. Institutions of this stamp had, however, -“been more numerous and better endowed in the Middle Ages and were so -later in the Catholic districts.” - -Owing in part to a technical defect in the Protestant regulations, -dishonesty and carelessness were not excluded from the management and -distribution of the poor fund, the administration falling, as a matter -of course, into the hands of the lowest class of officials. Catholics -had good reason for branding it as a “usury and parson’s box.”[167] The -reason why, in Germany, Protestant efforts for poor relief never issued -in a satisfactory socio-political system capable of relieving the poor -and thus improving the condition of both Church and State, lay, not -merely in the economic difficulties of the time, but, “what is more -important, in the social and moral working of the new religion and new -piety which Luther had established.”[168] - - -_Influence of Luther’s Ethics. Robbery of Church Property Proves a Curse_ - -Not only had the Peasant Rising and the reprisals taken by the rulers -and the towns brought misery on the land and hardened the hearts of the -princes and magistrates, not only had the means available for the relief -of the poor been diminished, first by the founding of new parishes in -place of the old ones, which had in many cases been supported by the -monasteries and foundations, secondly, by the demands of Protestants for -the restitution of many ecclesiastical benefices given by their Catholic -forefathers, thirdly, by the drying up of the spring of gifts and -donations, but “the common fund, which had been swelled by the shekels of -the Church, had now to bear many new burdens and only what remained—which -often enough was not much—was employed for charitable purposes.” In -the same way, and to an even greater extent, must the Lutheran ethics -be taken into account. Luther’s views on justification by faith alone -destroyed “that impulse of the Middle Ages towards open-handed charity.” -This was “an ethical defect of the Lutheran doctrine”; it was only owing -to his “utter ignorance of the world” that Luther persisted in believing -that faith would, of itself and without any “law,” beget good works and -charity.[169] “It was a cause of wonder and anxiety to him throughout his -life that his assumption, that faith would be the best ‘taskmaster and -the strongest incentive to good works and kindliness,’ never seemed to -be realised.… The most notable result of Luther’s doctrine of grace and -denial of all human merit was, at least among the masses, an increase of -libertinism and of the spirit of irresponsibility.”[170] - -The dire effects of the new principles were also evident in the large -and wealthy towns, the exemplary poor-law regulations of which we have -considered above. After the innovations had made their way among them we -hear little more of provisions being made against mendicancy, for the -promotion of work and for the relief of poverty. Hence, as regards these -corporations … the change of religion meant, according to Feuchtwanger, -“a decline in the quality of their social philanthropy.” (Cp. above, vol. -iv., p. 477 ff.) - -From some districts, however, we have better reports of the results -achieved by the relief funds. In times of worst distress good Christians -were always ready to help. Much depended on the spirit of those concerned -in the work. In general, however, the complaints of the preachers of the -new faith, including Melanchthon, wax louder and louder.[171] They tell -us that the patrimony of the poor was being carried off by the rapacity -of the great or disappearing under the hands of avaricious and careless -administrators, whilst new voluntary contributions were no longer -forthcoming. We find no lack of those, who, like Luther’s friend Paul -Eber, are given to noting the visible, palpable consequences of the wrong -done to the monasteries, brotherhoods and churches.[172] - - A long list of statements from respected Protestant contemporaries - is given by Janssen, who concludes: “The whole system of poor relief - was grievously affected by the seizure and squandering of Church - goods and of innumerable charitable bequests intended not only for - parochial and Church use but also for the hospitals, schools and - poor-houses.”[173] The testimonies in question, the frankness of - which can only be explained by the honourable desire to make an end - of the crying evil, come, for instance, from Thomas Rorarius, Andreas - Musculus, Johann Winistede, Erasmus Sarcerius, Ambrose Pape and the - General Superintendent, Cunemann Flinsbach.[174] They tend to show - that the new doctrine of faith alone had dried up the well-spring of - self-sacrifice, as indeed Andreas Hyperius, the Marburg theologian, - Christopher Fischer, the General Superintendent, Daniel Greser, the - Superintendent, Sixtus Vischer and others state in so many words. - - The incredible squandering of Church property is proved by official - papers, was pilloried by the professors of the University of Rostock, - also is clear from the minutes of the Visitations of Wesenberg in - 1568 and of the Palatinate in 1556 which bewail “the sin against - the property set aside for God and His Church.”[175] And again, - “The present owners have dealt with the Church property a thousand - times worse than the Papists,” they make no conscience of “selling - it, mortgaging it and giving it away.” Princes belonging to the new - faith also raised their voice in protest, for instance, Duke Barnim - XI in 1540, Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg in 1540 and Elector - Johann George, 1573. But the sovereigns were unable to restrain their - rapacious nobles. “The great Lords,” the preacher Erasmus Sarcerius - wrote of the Mansfeld district in 1555, “seek to appropriate to - themselves the feudal rights and dues of the clergy and allow their - officials and justices to take forcible action.… The revenues of the - Church are spent in making roads and bridges and giving banquets, and - are lent from hand to hand without hypothecary security.”[176] The - Calvinist, Anton Prætorius, and many others not to mention Catholic - contemporaries, speak in similar terms. - - Of the falling off in the Church funds and poor-boxes in the 16th - century in Hesse, in the Saxon Electorate, in Frankfurt-on-the-Main, - in Hamburg and elsewhere abundant proof is met with in the official - records, and this is the case even with regard to Würtemberg in - the enactments of the Dukes from 1552 to 1562, though that country - constituted in some respects an exception;[177] at a later date Duke - Johann Frederick hazarded the opinion that the regulations regarding - the fund “had fallen into oblivion.” - - The growth of the proletariate, to remedy the impoverishment of which - no means had as yet been discovered, was in no small measure promoted - by Luther’s facilitation of marriage. - - Luther himself had written, that “a boy ought to have recourse to - matrimony as soon as he is twenty and a maid when she is from fifteen - to eighteen years of age, and leave it to God to provide for their - maintenance and that of their children.”[178] Other adherents of the - new faith went even further, Eberlin of Günsburg simply declared: - “As soon as a girl is fifteen, a boy eighteen, they should be given - to each other in marriage.” There were others like the author of a - “Predigt über Hunger- und Sterbejahre, von einem Diener am Wort” - (1571), who raised strong objections against such a course. Dealing - with the causes of the evident increase of “deterioration and ruin” in - “lands, towns and villages,” he says, that “a by no means slight cause - is the countless number of lightly contracted marriages, when people - come together and beget children without knowing where they will get - food for them, and so come down themselves in body and soul, and bring - up their children to begging from their earliest years.” “And I cannot - here approve of this sort of thing that Luther has written: A lad - should marry when he is twenty, etc. [see above]. No, people should - not think of marrying and the magistrates should not allow them to - do so before they are sure of being able at least to provide their - families with the necessaries of life, for else, as experience shows, - a miserable, degenerate race is produced.”[179] - - What this old writer says is borne out by modern sociologists. One - of them, dealing with the 16th and 17th centuries, says: “These - demands [of Luther and Eberlin] are obviously not practicable from - the economic point of view, but from the ethical standpoint also they - seem to us extremely doubtful. To rush into marriage without prospect - of sufficient maintenance is not trusting God but tempting Him. - Such marriages are extremely immoral actions and they deserve legal - punishment on account of their danger to the community.” “Greater evil - to the world can scarcely be caused in any way than by such marriages. - Even in the most favourable cases such early marriages must have a - deteriorating influence on the physical and intellectual culture of - posterity.”[180] - - Owing to the neglect of any proper care for the poor the plague of - vagabondage continued on the increase. Luther’s zealous contemporary, - Cyriacus Spangenberg, sought to counteract it by reprinting the - Master’s edition of the “_Liber vagatorum_.” He says: “False begging - and trickery has so gained the upper hand that scarcely anybody is - safe from imposture.” The Superintendent, Nicholas Selnecker, again - republished the writing with Luther’s preface in 1580, together with - some lamentations of his own. He complains that “there are too many - tramps and itinerant scholars who give themselves up to nothing but - knavery,” etc.[181] - -Adolf Harnack is only re-echoing the complaints of 16th century -Protestants when he writes: “We may say briefly that, alas, nothing of -importance was achieved, nay, we must go further: the Catholics are -quite right when they assert that they, not we, lived to see a revival -of charitable work in the 16th century, and, that, where Lutheranism -was on the ascendant, social care of the poor was soon reduced to a -worse plight than ever before.”[182] The revival in Catholic countries -to which Harnack refers showed itself particularly in the 17th century -in the activity of the new Orders, whereas at this time the retrograde -movement was still in progress in the opposite camp. “For a long time the -Protestant relief system produced only insignificant results.” It was not -till the rise of Pietism and Rationalism, i.e. until the inauguration -of the admirable Home Missions, that things began to improve. But -Pietism and Rationalism are both far removed from the original Lutheran -orthodoxy.[183] - - -_Some Recent Excuses_ - -It has been remarked in excuse of Luther and his want of success, that, -“with merit and the hope of any reward, there also vanished the stimulus -to strive after the attainment of salvation by means of works,” and that -this being so, it was “not surprising” that charity—the selfless fruit of -faith—was wanting in many; “for new, albeit higher moral motives, cannot -at once come into play with the same facility as the older ones which -they displace; there comes a time when the old motives have gone and when -the new ones are operative only in the case of a few; the leaven at first -only works gradually.” The history of the spread of “the higher motives -of morality” not only at the outset of Christianity but at all times, -shows, however, as a rule these to be most active under the Inspiration -of the Divine Spirit at the time when first accepted. Nor does the -comparison with the leaven in the passage quoted apply to a state of -decline and decay, where, for a change to be effected, outside and -entirely different elements were needed. We are told that the new motives -could not at once take effect, but, where the delay extends over quite a -century and a half, the blame surely cannot be laid on the shortness of -the time of probation. - -Again, when we hear great stress laid on the fact that Luther at least -paved the way for State relief of the poor and, thus, far outstrode -the mediæval Church, one is justified in asking, whether in reality -State relief of the poor, with compulsory taxation, non-intervention of -Christian charity, or individual effort, or without any morally elevating -influence, is something altogether ideal; whether, on the other hand, -voluntary charity, as practised particularly by associations, Orders or -ecclesiastics, does not deserve a much higher place and take precedence -of, or at least stand side by side with, the forced “charity” of the -State. Even to-day Protestantism is seeking to reserve a place for -voluntary charitable effort. Considerations as to the value of mere State -charity would, however, carry us too far. We must refer this matter to -experts.[184] - -That, before Luther’s day, the authorities took a reasonable and even -larger share in the relief of the poor than he himself demanded, is -evident from what has been said above (p. 43 ff.). - -As a matter of fact, judging by what has gone before, the assertion that -the system of State relief of the poor was originated by Luther or by -Protestantism calls for considerable “revision.” “The reformation,” so -the sociological authority we have so frequently quoted says, “created -neither the communal nor the governmental system of poor relief.”[185] -This he finds borne out by the different schemes for the relief of the -poor contained in the old ecclesiastical constitutions. It is true, he -says, that, “according to the idea in vogue, the origin of our present -Poor Law can be traced back directly” to the Reformation. Nevertheless, -the changes that took place in the social care of the poor subsequent to -Luther’s day, though certainly “far-reaching enough,” were “exclusively -negative”;[186] owing to his exertions the Church property and that -set aside for the relief of the poor was secularised, and the previous -free-handed method of distribution ceased; all further growth of -legislation on the subject in the prosperous and independent townships -was effectually hindered; out of the mass of property that passed into -alien hands only a few scraps could be spared by the secular rulers and -handed over to the ministers for the benefit of the poor. - -This was no State-regulation of poor relief as we now understand it. -Still, the way was paved for it in so far as the props of the olden -ecclesiastical system of relief had been felled and had eventually to be -replaced by something new. In this sense it may be said that Luther’s -work “paved the way” for the new conditions.[187] - - -5. Luther’s Attitude towards Worldly Callings - -An attempt has been made to prove the truth of the dictum so often met -with on the lips of Protestants, viz. that “Luther was the creator -of those views of the world and life on which both the State and our -modern civilisation rest,” by arguing, that, at least, he made an end -of contempt for worldly callings and exalted the humbler as well as -the higher spheres of life at the expense of the ecclesiastical and -monastic. What Luther himself frequently states concerning his discovery -of the dignity of the secular callings has elsewhere been placed in its -true light (and the unhistoric accounts of his admirers are all in last -resort based on his). This was done in the most suitable place, viz. when -dealing with “Luther and Lying,” and with his spiteful caricature of the -mediæval Church.[188] Still, for the sake of completeness, the claims -Luther makes in this respect, and some new proofs in refutation of them, -must be briefly called to mind in the present chapter. It is not unusual -for his admirers to speak with a species of awe of Luther’s achievements -in this respect: - - “_One of the most Momentous Achievements of the Reformation_” - -The claims Luther makes in respect of his labours on behalf of the -worldly callings are even greater than his admirers would lead one to -suppose. His actual words reveal their hyperbolical character, or rather -untruth, by their very extravagance. - -Luther we have heard say: “Such honour and glory have I by the grace of -God, that, since the time of the Apostles no doctor … has confirmed and -instructed the consciences of the secular estates so well and lucidly -as I.”[189]—It was quite different with the “monks and priestlings”! -They “damned both the laity and their calling.” These “revolutionary -blasphemers” condemned “all the states of life that God instituted and -ordained”; on the other hand, they extol their self-chosen and accursed -state as though outside of it no one could be saved.[190] - -The phantom of a Popish, monkish holiness-by-works never left him. In his -Commentary on Genesis, though he holds that he has already taught the -Papists more than they deserve on the right appreciation of the lower -callings and labours, yet he once more informs them of his discovery, -“that the work of the household and of the burgher,” such as hospitality, -the training of children, the supervision of servants, “despised though -they be as common and worthless,” are also well-pleasing to God. “Such -things must be judged according to the Word [of God], not according -to reason!… Let us therefore thank God that we, enlightened by the -Word, now perceive what are really good works, viz. obedience to those -in authority, respect for parents, supervision of the servants and -assistance of our brethren.” “These are callings instituted by God.” -“When the mother of a family provides diligently for her family, looks -after the children, feeds them, washes them and rocks them in the -cradle,” this calling, followed for God’s sake, is “a happy and a holy -one.”[191] - -Luther is never tired of claiming as his peculiar teaching that even -the most humble calling—that of the maid or day-labourer—may prove a -high and exalted road to heaven and that every kind of work, however -insignificant, performed in that position of life to which a man is -called is of great value in God’s sight when done in faith. He is fond -of repeating, that a humble ploughman can lay up for himself as great -a treasure in heaven by tilling his field, as the preacher or the -schoolmaster, by their seemingly more exalted labours. - -There is no doubt, that, by means of this doctrine, which undoubtedly -is not without foundation, he consoled many of the lower classes, and -brought them to a sense of their dignity as Christians. It is true that -it was his polemics against monasticism and the following of the counsels -of perfection which led him to make so much of the ordinary states of -life and to paint them in such glowing colours. Nevertheless, we must -admit that he does so with real eloquence and by means of comparisons and -figures taken from daily life which could not but lend attraction to the -truth and which differ widely from the dry, scholastic tone of some of -his Catholic predecessors in this field. - -He does not, however, really add a single fresh element to the olden -teaching, or one that cannot be traced back to earlier times. - -Either Luther was not aware of this, or else he conceals it from his -hearers and readers. It would have been possible to confront him with a -whole string of writers, ancient and mediæval, and even from the years -when he himself began his work, whose writings teach the same truths, -often, too, in language which leaves nothing more to be wished for on the -score of impressiveness and feeling.[192] So many proofs, from reason -as well as from revelation, had always been forthcoming in support of -these truths that it is hard for us now to understand how the idea gained -ground that Christians had forgotten them. Those who, down to the -present day, repeat Luther’s assertions make too little account of this -psychological riddle. - -Here we shall merely add to what has already been brought forward a few -further proofs from Luther’s own day. - - Andreas Proles (†1503), Vicar General of the Saxon Augustinian - Congregation and founder of the reformed branch which Luther himself - joined on entering the monastery, reminds the working classes in one - of his sermons of the honour, the duty, and the worth of work. “Since - man is born to labour as the bird to fly, he must work unceasingly - and never be idle.” He warmly exhorts the secular authorities to - prayer, but reminds them still more emphatically of the requirements - and the dignity of their calling: “The life of the mighty does not - consist in parade but in ruling and discharging their duties towards - their people.” He praises voluntary chastity and clerical celibacy, - but also points out powerfully that the married state “is for many - reasons honourable and praiseworthy in the sight of God and all - Christians.”[193] - - Gottschalk Hollen, the preacher of Westphalia, was also an - Augustinian. In his sermons published at Hagenau in 1517 he displays - the highest esteem for the worldly callings. Those classes who worked - with their hands did not seem to him in the least contemptible, on the - contrary the Christian could give glory to God even by the humblest - work; ordinary believers frequently allowed their calling to absorb - them in worldly things, but these are not evil or blameworthy. In - a special sermon on work he represents such cares as a means of - attaining to everlasting salvation. He insists everywhere on a man’s - performing the duties of his calling and will not allow of their being - neglected for the sake of prayer or of out-of-the-way practices, such - as pilgrimages.[194] - - Just before Luther made his public appearance two German works of - piety described the dignity and the honour of the working state and - at the same time insisted on the obligation of labour. They speak of - the secular callings as a source of moral and religious duty and the - foundation of a happy life well pleasing to God. - - The “Wyhegertlin,” printed at Mayence in 1509, says: “When work is - done diligently and skilfully both God and man take pleasure in it, - and it is a real good work when skilful artisans contribute to God’s - glory by their handicraft, by beautiful buildings and images of - every kind, and soften men’s hearts so that they take pleasure in the - beautiful, and regard every art and handicraft as a gift of God for - the profit, comfort and edification of man.”—“For seeing that the - Saints also worked and laboured, so shall the Christian learn from - their example that by honourable labour he can glorify God, do good - and, through God’s mercy, save his own soul.”[195] - - In an “Ermanung” of 1513, which also appeared at Mayence, we read: - “To work is to serve God according to His command and therefore all - must work, the one with his hands, in the field, the house or the - workshop, others by art and learning, others again as rulers of - the people or other authorities, others by fighting in defence of - their country, others again as ghostly ministers of Christ in the - churches and monasteries.… Whoever stands idle is a despiser of God’s - commands.”[196] - - These instances must suffice. Though many others could be quoted, - Protestants will, nevertheless, still be found to repeat such - statements as the following: “Any appreciation of secular work as - something really moral was impossible in the Catholic Church.” “The - Catholic view of the Church belittled the secular callings.” “The - ethical appreciation of one’s calling is a significant achievement - of the reformation on which rests the present division of society.” - Luther it was who “discovered the true meaning of callings … which has - since become the property of the civilised world.” “The modern ethical - conception of one’s calling, which is common to all Protestant nations - and which all others lack, was a creation of the reformation,” etc. - - Others better acquainted with the Middle Ages have argued, that, - though the olden theologians expressed themselves correctly on the - importance of secular callings, yet theirs was not the view of - the people.—But the above passages, like those previously quoted - elsewhere, do not hail from theologians quite ignorant of the world, - but from sermons and popular writings. What they reflect is simply the - popular ideas and practice. - - That errors were made is, of course, quite true. That, at a time - when the Church stood over all, the excessive and ill-advised zeal - of certain of the clergy and religious did occasionally lead them to - belittle unduly the secular callings may readily be admitted; what - they did furnished some excuse for the Lutheran reaction. - - What above all moved Luther was, however, the fact that he himself had - become a layman. - - To assert that even the very words “calling” or “vocation” in their - modern sense were first coined by him is not in agreement with the - facts of the case. - - On the contrary, Luther found the German equivalents already current, - otherwise he would probably not have introduced them into his - translation of the Bible, as he was so anxious to adapt himself to - the language in common use amongst the people so as to be perfectly - understood by them.[197] It is true that Ecclus. xi. 22, in the - pre-Lutheran Bible, e.g. that of Augsburg dating from 1487, was - rendered: “Trust God and stay in thy _place_,” whereas in Luther’s—and - on this emphasis has been laid—we read: “Trust in God and abide by - thy _calling_.” All that can be said is, however, that Luther’s - translation here brings out the same meaning rather better. That the - word was not coined by Luther, but was common with the people, is - clear from what Luther himself says incidentally when speaking of 1 - Cor. vii. 20, where the word _vocatio_ (κλῆσις) is used of the call - to faith. “And you must know,” he writes, “that the word ‘calling’ - does not here mean the state to which a man is called, as when we - say your calling is the married state, your calling is the clerical - state, etc., each one having his calling from God. It is not of such a - calling that the Apostle here speaks,” etc. The expression “as we say” - shows plainly that Luther is speaking of a quite familiar term which - there was no need for him to invent when translating Ecclus. xi. 22. - Much less did he, either then or at any time, invent the “conception - of a calling.” - - -_Luther’s Pessimism Regarding Various Callings. The Peasants_ - -When olden writers dealt with the relation between the Gospel and the -worldly callings as a rule they pointed out with holy pride, that -Christianity does not merely esteem every calling very highly but -embraces them all with holy charity and cherishes and fosters the various -states as sons of a common father. Nothing was so attractive in the -great exponents of the Gospel teaching and renovators of the Christian -people—for instance in St. Francis of Assisi—as their sympathy, respect -and tenderness for every class without exception. The Church’s great men -knew how to discover the good in every class, to further it with the -means at their disposal and indulgently to set it on its guard against -its dangers. They wished to place everything lovingly at the service of -the Creator. - -Had Luther in reality brought back to humanity the Gospel true and -undefiled, as he was so fond of saying, then he should surely have -striven, in the spirit of charity and good will, to make known its -supernatural social forces to all classes of men, and to become, as the -Apostle says, “All things to all men.” - -Now, although Luther uses powerful words to describe the dignity of the -different worldly callings, on the other hand, he tends at times to -depreciate whole classes, this being especially the case when he allows -his disappointment to get the better of him. Nor is the contempt openly -expressed here counterbalanced by any sufficient recognition of the -good, such as might have mollified his hearers and made them forget the -ungracious abuse he thundered from his pulpit. - - He speaks bitterly of the common people, the proletariate of to-day, - to which, according to him, belonged all the lower classes in the - towns. Although himself of low extraction he displays very little - sympathy for the people. “We must not pipe too much to the mob, for - they are fond of raging.… They have no idea of self-restraint or how - to exercise it, and each one’s skin conceals five tyrants.”[198] “A - donkey must taste the stick and the mob must be ruled by force; of - this God was well aware, hence in the hands of the authorities He - placed, not a fox’s brush, but a sword.”[199] - - He only too frequently accuses the artisan and merchant class, as - a whole, of cheating, avarice and laziness. At Wittenberg they - may possibly have been exceptionally bad, yet he does not speak - sufficiently of their less blameworthy side. - - For the soldiers, it is true, he has friendly words of appreciation of - their calling; it was for them that he wrote in 1526 a special work, - where he replied in the affirmative to the question contained in the - title: “Can even men-at-arms be in a state of grace?” Yet even here he - does not shrink from bringing forward charges against their calling: - “A great part of the men-at-arms are the devil’s own and some of them - are actually crammed with devils.… They imagine themselves fire-eaters - because they swear shamefully, perpetrate atrocities, and curse and - defy the God of Heaven.”[200] - - Of the nobles he says in 1523, wishing to promote more frequent - marriages between them and those of lower birth:[201] “Must all - princes and nobles who are born princes and nobles remain for ever - such? What harm is there if a prince takes a burgher’s daughter to - wife and contents himself with a burgher’s modest dowry? Or, why - should not a noble maid give her hand to a burgher? In the long run it - will not do for the nobles always to intermarry with nobles. Although - we are not all equal in the sight of the world yet before God we all - are equal, all of us children of Adam, creatures of God, and one man - as good as another.” These words certainly do not express any lively - conviction of the importance of the existing distinctions of rank for - society. - - It is perfectly true, that, occasionally, Luther has words of praise - and recognition for the good qualities of the “fine, pious nobles,” - if only on account of those who were inclined to accept his teaching. - But far more often he trounces them unmercifully because they either - failed to respond or were set on thwarting him. The language in - which he writes of them sometimes becomes unspeakably coarse. “They - are called nobles and ‘von so-and-so.’ But merd also comes ‘von’ - the nobles and might just as well boast of coming from their noble - belly, though it stinks and is of no earthly use. Hence this too has - a claim to nobility.” Then follows his favourite saying: “We Germans - are Germans and Germans we shall remain, i.e. swine and senseless - brutes.”[202] - - The rulers and the great ones of the Empire were the first to win - his favour. The writing “An den Adel,” the first of his so-called - “reformation writings,” he addresses to the nobles in the hope of - thus attaining his aims by storm. When, however, he was disappointed, - and they refused to meet him half-way, he abused the princes and all - the secular authorities in Germany and wrote: “God Almighty has made - our princes mad”; “such men were formerly rated as knaves, now we are - obliged to call them obedient, Christian princes.” To him they were - “fools,” simply because they were against him and thus belonged to the - multitude who “blasphemed” the Divine Majesty.[203] - -After the defeat of the peasants in 1525 he supported those princes -favourable to his teaching at the expense of the peasants, so that the -latter were loud in their complaints of him. In this connection, looking -back at the overthrow of the Peasant Revolt, he wrote to those in power: -“Who opposed the peasants more vigorously by word and writing than I? … -and, if it comes to boasting, I do not know who else was the first to -vanquish the peasants, or to do so most effectually. But now those who -did the least claim all the honour and glory of it.”[204] - -After the Peasant War he was so filled with hatred of the peasant class -and so conscious of their dislike for himself personally, as to be hardly -able to speak of them without blame and reproach. “The peasants do not -deserve,” he says, “the harvests and fruits that the earth brings forth -and provides.” - -Of all classes the peasants around Wittenberg incurred his displeasure -most severely. “They are all going to the devil,” he says when lamenting -that, “out of so many villages, only one man taught his household from -the Word of God”; with the young country folk “something” could be -done, but the old peasants had been utterly corrupted by the Pope; this -was also the complaint of the Evangelical deacons who came in touch -with them.[205]—“I am very angry with the peasants,” he wrote in 1529, -“who are anxious to govern themselves and who do not appreciate their -good fortune in being able to sleep in peace owing to the help and -protection of the rulers. You helpless, boorish yokels and donkeys,” he -says to them, “will you never learn to understand? May the lightning -blast you!—You have the best of it.… You have the Mark and yet are -so ungrateful as to refuse to pray for the rulers or to give them -anything.”[206] - -As a matter of fact, however, the great ones did not wait for the -peasants to “give” anything. - -They oppressed the country people and plundered them. Melanchthon wrote, -particularly after 1525, of the boundless despotism of the authorities -over the people on the land. Since the overthrow of the social revolution -very sad changes had taken place among the agriculturists. The violent -“laying of the yokels” became a general evil, and, in place of the small -holdings of the peasant class—the most virile and largest portion of -the nation—arose the large estates of the nobles. Not merely where the -horrors of war had raged, but even elsewhere, e.g. in the north-east -of Germany, the peasant found himself deprived of his rights and -left defenceless in the hands of the Junkers and knights.[207] “The -reformation-age made his rights to his property and his standing more -parlous than before.”[208] - -What Luther says of serfdom, the oppression and abuse of which had -led to the Peasant Rising, is worthy of record: “Serfdom,” he says, -“is not contrary to Christianity, and whoever says it is tells a -lie!”[209]—“Christ does not wish to abolish serfdom. What cares He how -the lords or princes rule [in secular matters]?”[210] - -He makes a strict application of this in his sermons on Genesis, where -he even represents serfdom as a desirable state. Luther delivered these -sermons in 1524 and they were printed from notes in 1527. In his preface -he declares, that he was “quite willing” they should be published -because they express his “sense and mind.” He relates in one passage how -Abimelech had bestowed “sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants” -on Abraham (xx. 14), and then goes on to say of the people made over: -“They too were all personal property like other cattle, so that their -owners might sell them as they liked, and it would verily be almost best -that this stage of things should be revived, for nobody can control -or tame the populace in any other way.” Abraham did not set free the -men-servants and maid-servants given him, and yet he was accounted -amongst the “pious and holy” and was “a just ruler.” He proceeds: “They -[the patriarchs] might easily have abolished it so far as they were -concerned, but that would not have been a good thing, for the serfs would -have become too proud had they been given so many rights, and would have -thought themselves equal to the patriarchs or to their children. Each -one must be kept in his place, as God has ordained, sons and daughters, -servants, maids, husbands, wives, etc.… If compulsion and the law of the -strong arm still ruled (in the case of servants and retainers) as in the -past, so that if a man dared to grumble he got a box on the ear—things -would fare better; otherwise it is all of no use. If they take wives, -these are impertinent people, wild and dissolute, whom no one can use or -have anything to do with.”[211] - - -_The Psychological Background. Luther’s Estrangement from Whole Classes -of Society_ - -Both in Luther’s treatment of the peasants of his day and in his whole -attitude to different classes of society, we find the traces of a -profound and general depression which had seized upon him and which -seems to accord ill with the sense of triumph one would have expected in -him at the continued progress of his work, and at the apostasy from the -Roman Church. Such expressions of dissatisfaction become more frequent as -years go by and serve to some extent to explain and excuse his pessimism -concerning the different classes. - -This feeling had its origin, apart from other causes, in the fact that -Luther little by little lost touch with whole classes of the people, -while to many of the new conditions he remained a stranger. He, who had -held in his hands the destiny of so many, was, in fact, becoming to a -great extent isolated, particularly since the actual direction of the -new Church had been taken out of his hands and vested in the princes or -municipal authorities. - -Not only did the rift which separated him from the peasants subsequent -to 1525 become ever more pronounced, but he found hostility and dislike -growing between himself and other classes of society. - -Under the influence of the adverse wind blowing from Wittenberg many of -the Humanists had given up their at one time enthusiastic friendship -and turned against him. Catholic scholars who had once been disposed -to favour the reform but had been disappointed in their hopes withdrew -from him in increasing numbers. In other districts which had been -recently Protestantised the country clergy remained faithful to the -olden Church, as we see, for instance, from a letter of Luther’s dated -Sep. 19, 1539, where he speaks of “over five hundred parsons, poisonous -Papists,” who had “been left unexamined and now are raising their horns -in defiance”—but who, he hopes, will soon be forcibly sent about their -business.[212] In his own camp, again, there were Anabaptists and other -sectarians; there were also theologians who refused to fall into line and -either failed to preach on faith and works as harshly as he wished, or, -running to the opposite extreme like the Antinomians, went much further -than he himself. In the Saxon Electorate Luther felt grievously the -decease of those Councillors, like Pfeffinger and Feilitzsch, who had -been well disposed towards him, whose places were now taken by “greedy -Junkers and skinflints, who looked upon the ecclesiastical revolution as -a good opportunity for increasing their family estates and for running -riot at others’ expense.”[213] Among the princes who had apostatised -from the Church he also detected to his bitter vexation an ever-growing -tendency to separate themselves from Wittenberg, partly owing to the -influence of Zwinglianism, partly in consequence of their independent -Church regulations. Such was, for instance, the action of Berlin, where -the Protestant Elector, Joachim II of Brandenburg, declared in an address -to his clergy: “As little as I mean to be bound to the Roman Church, -so little do I mean to be bound to the Church of Wittenberg. I do not -say: ‘_credo sanctam Romanam_’ or ‘_Wittenbergensem_,’ but ‘_catholicam -ecclesiam_,’ and my Church here at Berlin or at Cöllen is just as much a -true Christian Church as that of the Wittenbergers.”[214] - -In the sermon Luther preached at Wittenberg on June 18, 1531, he pours -forth the vials of his wrath on the nobles and peasants of the new -faith. He was then doing duty for Bugenhagen, the absent pastor, and -devoting himself to preaching, though he describes himself in a letter -as “old, sickly and tired of life,” and elsewhere, alluding to his many -employments, says: “I am not only Luther, but Pomeranus, Vicar-General, -Moses, Jethro and I know not who else besides.”[215] - - In this sermon the Gospel of Dives and Lazarus recalls to his mind the - fact that, in the Saxon Electorate, he and his preachers were being - treated very much as Lazarus, whom the rich man left lying at his gate - and who had to get his fill of the crumbs that fell from the rich - man’s table. “When we complain to the great, we get only kicks,” he - exclaims indignantly; “our foes would gladly put a stop to the Evangel - with the sword, whilst our own people would no less gladly cut off our - head, like John the Baptist, only that the sword they use is want, - misery and hunger.” If we preach against their wickedness they say - we are trying to defy and contradict them! Let the devil defy them. - They declare we want to set ourselves up against them, and to rule, - and to bring them under our feet. For preaching against the rebellious - peasants we are thanked by being called the Pope of Germany, as though - we were playing the master. Not indeed that they mean this in earnest, - but they are anxious to bring us to preach as they wish, otherwise - they punish us with starvation. “The poor preachers they tread - under foot, take the bread out of their mouths and abuse them most - shamefully.” “This ingratitude is worse than any tyranny!” He tells - them finally that their fate will be that of Dives, viz. hell-fire; - then they will long in vain even for a drop of water.[216] - - The world hates me, we read in another sermon, for it ever “hates the - good.” “They refuse to have anything to do with the ministers [of - religion], there is hardly a place where they suffer the preacher, - much less support him. My opponents declare that: Did I preach the - truth, the people would become pious.” This is the Anabaptists’ way of - concealing their own errors. “But do not wonder,” so he consoles his - hearers, for “the purer the Word, the worse almost all become; only a - few become good. This is a sure sign that the doctrine is true; … for - Satan, who is stung by the truth, tries to wreck it by corruption of - morals.… He it is who sets himself up in defiance of it.” “But there - are some few who are faithful and in earnest.” Nevertheless, the world - must heap ingratitude and bitterness upon us otherwise it would not be - the world. “By my preaching I have helped several, but what can I do? - If you wait till the world honours you, then you wait a long time and - only prepare a cross for yourself.”[217] - - In a sermon on Jan. 22 of the same year he had quoted a saying current - at that time about Rome, applying it to Wittenberg: “The nearer - to Rome, the worse the Christians.” “For wherever the Evangel is, - there it is despised.” “The Lord Himself says in to-day’s Gospel: ‘I - have not found such faith as this in Israel.’ The chosen people do - not believe, though some few do.… In other regions Christ may find - adherents with a stronger faith than any in our principalities.” “At - Court and elsewhere things go ill.… We tread the pearls under foot.” - “So great is their shamelessness, ingratitude and hate that it is a - sign that God is getting ready to show us something; the persecution - of the Evangel in our principality is worse than ever. I am already - sick of preaching (‘_iam tædet me prædicatio_’).” “Those who refuse - the offered kingdom may go to the devil, etc.”[218] The faults of the - government and the increase in the prices of necessaries drew from him - bitter words in a sermon of April 23 of the same year: “There is no - government, the biggest criminals (‘_pessimi nebulones_’) rule; this - we have deserved by our sins.” “When things become cheaper then war - and pestilence will come upon us.”[219] - -Thus the ill will gathering within him was poured forth, as occasion -offered, on the various classes indiscriminately. - -It seemed to him as though little by little the whole world was becoming -a hostel of which the devil was the landlord and where wickedness and -lust reigned supreme—above all because it was so slow to receive his -preaching.[220] Even the supreme Court of Justice of the Empire became in -1541 a “devil’s whore,”[221] because the judges and imperial authorities -were against him and stood for the old order of things. It was also at -this time that his pent-up anger broke out against the Jews.[222] Here it -will be sufficient to give a few new quotations. - - He put himself in the place of a ruler in whose lands the Jews - blasphemed Christianity and exclaimed: “I would summon all the - Jews and ask them,” whether they could prove their insulting - assertions. “If they could, I would give them a thousand florins; - if not I would have their tongues torn out by the root. In short, - we ought not to suffer Jews to live amongst us, nor eat or drink - with them.”[223]—“They are a shameful people,” he says on another - occasion, “they swallow up everything with their usury; where they - give a gentleman a thousand florins, they suck twenty thousand out of - his poor underlings.”[224] The demands with which his anger against - the Jews inspires him found only too strong an echo amongst his - followers. “It would be well,” wrote the Lutheran preacher Jodokus - Ehrhardt in 1558, after complaining of the usury of the Jews, “if - in all places they were proceeded with as Father Luther advised and - enjoined when, amongst other things, he wrote: ‘Let their synagogues - and schools be set on fire … and let who can throw brimstone.… Refuse - them safe conduct and all freedom to travel. Let all their ready money - and treasures of gold and silver, etc., be taken from them,’ etc. - Such faithful counsels and regulations were given by our divinely - enlightened Luther.”[225] - -After all that has been said it would be very rash to apply to Luther’s -attitude towards the different callings and professions the words which -St. Paul wrote of himself when considering humanity as a whole, i.e. -of the power of God by which he had striven with endless patience and -charity to bring home the Gospel to both Jew and Greek: “To the Greeks -and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish I am a debtor.” “I -have become all things to all men in order to save all.” - - -_The Merchant Class_ - -The opening up of many previously unknown countries, the discovery -of new trade routes, and the new industries called forth by new -inventions brought about a sudden and quite unforeseen revival in trade -and prosperity at the time of the religious schism. An alteration in -the earlier ideas on political economy was bound to supervene. The -upsetting of the mediæval notions which now could no longer hold and the -uncertainty as to what to build on in future led to a deal of confusion -in that period of transition. - -What was chiefly needed in the case of one anxious to judge of things -from their ethical and social side was experience and knowledge of -the world joined with prudence and the spirit of charity. Annoyance -was out of place; what was called for was a capacity to weigh matters -dispassionately. - -Among the Humanists there were some, who, because the new era of commerce -turned men’s minds from learning, condemned it absolutely. Thus Eobanus -Hessus of Nuremberg laments, that, there, people were bent on acquiring -riches rather than learning; the world dreamt of nothing but saffron and -pepper; he lived, as it were, among “empurpled monkeys” and would rather -make his home with the peasants of his Hessian fatherland than in his -present surroundings.[226]—What was Luther’s attitude towards the rising -merchant class and its undertakings? - -In his case it was not merely the injury done to the schools and to -“Christian” posterity, and the ever growing luxury that prejudiced -him against commerce, but, above all, the constant infringement of -the principles of morality, which, according to him, was a necessary -result of the new economic life and its traffic in wares and money. He -exaggerated the moral danger and failed entirely to see the economic side -of the case. We do not find in him, says Köstlin-Kawerau, “a sufficient -insight into the existing conditions and problems,”[227] nevertheless he -did not shrink from the harshest and most uncharitable censure. - -It was his deliberate intention, so he says, “to give scandal to many -more people on this point by setting up the true doctrine of Christ.” -This we find in a letter he wrote after the Leipzig Disputation when -putting the finishing touch to his first works on usury (1519).[228] -Because no attention was paid to his “Evangelical” ideas on usury he -came to the conclusion that, “now, in these days, clergy and seculars, -prelates and subjects are alike bent on thwarting Christ’s life, doctrine -and Gospel.”[229] Hence he must once again vindicate the Gospel. He, -however, distorts the Christian idea by making into strict commands -what Christ had proposed as counsels of perfection. There is reason to -believe that the mistake he here makes under the plea of zeal for the -principles of the Gospel is bound up not merely with his antipathy to the -idea of Evangelical Counsels,[230] but also with his older, pseudo-mystic -tendency and with his conception of the true Christian. We cannot help -thinking of his fanciful plan of assembling apart the real Christians -when we hear him in these very admonitions bewailing that “there are so -few Christians”; if anyone refused to lend gratis it was “a sign of his -deep unbelief,” since we are assured that by so doing “we become children -of the Most High and that our reward is great. Of such a consoling -promise he is not worthy who will not believe and act accordingly.”[231] - -In any case it was a quite subjective and unfounded application of Holy -Scripture, when, in his sermon on usury, he makes the following the chief -point to be complied with: - -“Christian dealings with temporal possessions,” he there says, “consist -in three things, in giving for nothing, lending free of interest and -lovingly allowing our belongings to be taken from us [Matt. v. 40, 42; -Luke vi. 30]; for there is no merit in your buying something, inheriting -it, or gaining possession of it in some other honest way, since, if this -were piety, then the heathen and Turks would also be pious.”[232] - -This extravagant notion of the Christian’s duties led to his rigid and -untimely vindication of the mediæval prohibition of the charging of -interest, of which we shall have to speak more fully later. It also led -him to assail all commercial enterprise. - -Greatly incensed at the action of the trading companies he set about -writing his “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher” (1524). - - Here, speaking of the wholesale traders and merchants, he says: “The - foreign trade that brings wares from Calicut, India and so forth, such - as spices and costly fabrics of silk and cloth of gold, which serve - only for display and are of no use, but merely suck the money out of - our country and people, would not be allowed had we a government and - real rulers.” The Old Testament patriarchs indeed bought and sold, he - says, but “only cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and such like; these - are God’s gifts which He raises from the earth and distributes among - men”; but the present trade means only the “throwing away of our gold - and silver into foreign countries.”[233] - - Traders were, according to him, in a bad case from the moral point - of view: “Let no one come and ask how he may with a good conscience - belong to one of these companies. There is no other counsel than - this: ‘Drop it’; there is no other way. If the companies are to go - on, then that will be the end of law and honesty; if law and honesty - are to remain, then the companies must cease.” The companies, so - he had already said, are through and through “unstable and without - foundation, all rank avarice and injustice, so that they cannot even - be touched with a good conscience.… They hold all the goods in their - hands and do with them as they please.” They aim “at making sure of - their profit in any case, which is contrary to the nature, not only of - commercial wares but of all temporal goods which God wishes to be ever - in danger and uncertainty. They, however, have discovered a means of - securing a sure profit even on uncertain temporal goods.” A man can - thus “in a short time become so rich as to be able to buy up kings and - emperors”; such a thing cannot possibly be “right or godly.”[234] - - As a further reason for condemning profit from trade and money - transactions he points out, that such profit does not arise from the - earth or from cattle.[235] - - With both these arguments he is, however, on purely mediæval ground. - He pays but little regard to the new economic situation, though he - has a keen eye for the abuses and the injustice which undoubtedly - accompanied the new commerce. Instead, however, of confining his - censure to these and pointing out how things might be improved, - he prefers to take his stand on an already obsolete theory—one, - nevertheless, which many shared with him—and condemn unconditionally - all such commercial undertakings with the violence and lack of - consideration usual in him.[236] - -In his remarks we often find interesting thoughts on the economic -conditions; we see the remarkable range of his intellect and occasionally -we may even wonder whence he had his vast store of information. It is -also evident, however, that the other work with which he was overwhelmed -did not leave him time to digest his matter. Often enough he is right -when he stigmatises the excesses, but on the whole he goes much too -far. As Frank G. Ward says: “Because he was incapable of passing a -discriminating judgment on the abuses that existed he simply condemned -all commerce off-hand.”[237] He was too fond of scenting evil usury -everywhere. A contemporary of his, the merchant Bonaventura Furtenbach, -of Nuremberg, having come across one of Luther’s writings on the subject, -possibly his “Von Kauffshandlung,” remarked sarcastically: “Were I to -try to write a commentary on the Gospel of Luke everyone would say, you -are not qualified to do so. So it is with Luther when he treats of the -interest on money; he has never studied such matters.”[238] A Hamburg -merchant also made fun of Luther’s economics, and, as the Hamburg -Superintendent Æpinus (Johann Hock) reported, quoted the instance of the -Peripatetician Phormion, who gave Hannibal a scholastic lecture on the -art of war, for which reason it is usual to dub him who tries to speak -of things of which he knows nothing, a new Phormion.[239] - -In his “An den Adel” Luther had shown himself more reticent, though even -here he inveighs against interest and trading companies, and says: “I am -not conversant with figures, but I cannot understand how, with a hundred -florins, it is possible to gain twenty annually.… I leave this to the -worldly wise. I, as a theologian, have only to censure the appearance of -evil concerning which St. Paul says [1 Thess. v. 22] ‘from all appearance -of evil refrain!’ This I know very well,” he continues, speaking from -the traditional standpoint, “that it would be much more godly to pay -more attention to tilling the soil and less to trade.” Yet, even in this -writing, he goes so far as to say: “It is indeed high time that a bit -were put in the mouth of the Fuggers and such-like companies.”[240] - -More and more plainly he was, however, forced to realise that it was -not within his power to check the new development of commerce; he, -nevertheless, stuck by his earlier views. He was also, and to some extent -justifiably, shocked at the growing luxury which had made its way into -the burgher class and into the towns generally in the train of foreign -trade. Instead of “staying in his place and being content with a moderate -living,” “everyone wants to be a merchant and to grow rich.”[241] - - “We despise the arts and languages,” he says, “but refuse to do - without the foreign wares which are neither necessary nor profitable - to us, but [the expenses of] which lay our very bones bare. Do - we not thereby show ourselves to be true Germans, i.e. fools and - beasts?”[242] God “has given us, like other nations, sufficient wool, - hair, flax and everything else necessary for suitable and becoming - clothing, but now men squander fortunes on silk, satin, cloth of gold - and all sorts of foreign stuffs.… We could also do with less spices.” - People might say he was trying to “put down the wholesale trade - and commerce. But I do my duty. If things are not improved in the - community, at least let whoever can amend.”[243] - - “I cannot see that much in the way of good has ever come to a country - through commerce.”[244] - - He refused to follow the more luxurious mode of living which had - become the rule in the towns as a result of trade, but insisted - on leading the more simple life to which he had throughout been - accustomed. For the good of the people, poverty or simplicity was - on the whole more profitable than riches. “People say, and with - truth, ‘It takes a strong man to bear prosperity,’ and ‘A man can - endure many things but not good fortune.’ … If we have food and - clothing let us esteem it enough. For the cities of the plain which - God destroyed it would have been better, if, instead of abounding in - wealth, everything had been of the dearest, and there had been less - superfluity.”[245]—“What worse and more wanton can be conceived of - than the mad mob and the yokels when they are gorged with food and - have the reins in their hands.”[246] - -Hence he took a “tolerable maintenance” as he expresses it, i.e. the -mode of living suitable to a man’s state, as the basis of a fair wage. -The question of wages must in the last instance, he thinks, depend on -the question of maintenance. Luther, like Calvin, did not go any further -in this matter. “Their conservative ideas saw in high wages only the -demoralisation of the working classes.”[247] - -Luther’s remarks on this subject “recall the words of Calvin, viz. that -the people must always be kept in poverty in order that they may remain -obedient.”[248] - -According to his view “the price of goods was synonymous with their -barter value expressed in money; money was the fixed, unchangeable -standard of things; it never occurred to anyone that an alteration in the -value of money might come, a mistake which led to much confusion. Again, -the barter value of a commodity was its worth calculated on the cost of -the material it contained and of the trouble and labour expended on its -manufacture. This calculation excluded the subjective element, just as -it ignored competition as a factor in the determining of prices.”[249] -Thus, according to Luther, the merchant had merely to calculate “how -many days he had spent in fetching and acquiring the goods, and how -great had been the work and danger involved, for much labour and time -ought to represent a higher and better wage”; he should in this “compare -himself to the common day-labourer or working-man, see what he earns in -a day, and calculate accordingly.” More than a “tolerable maintenance” -was, however, to be avoided in commerce, and likewise all such profit -“as might involve loss to another.”[250] It would have pleased him best -had the authorities fixed the price of everything, but, owing to their -untrustworthiness, this appeared to him scarcely to be hoped for. The -principle: “I shall sell my goods as dear as I can,” he opposed with -praiseworthy firmness; this was “to open door and window to hell.”[251] -He also inveighed rightly and strongly against the artificial creation of -scarcity. Here, too, we see that his ideas were simply those in vogue in -the ranks from which he came. - -“His economic views in many particulars display a retrograde -tendency.”[252]—“In the history of economics he cannot be considered -as either an original or a systematic thinker. We frequently find him -adopting views which were current without seriously testing their truth -or their grounds.… His exaggerations and inconsequence must be explained -by the fact that he took but little interest in worldly business. His -interpretation of things depended on his own point of view rather than on -the actual nature of the case.”[253] - -The worst of it is that his own “point of view” intruded itself far too -often into his criticisms of social conditions. - - -_Influence of Old-Testament Ideas_ - -Excessive regard for the Old-Testament enactments helped Luther to adopt -a peculiar outlook on things social and ethical. - - He says in praise of the Patriarchs: “They were devout and holy men - who ruled well even among the heathen; now there is nothing like - it.”[254] He often harks back to the social advantages of certain - portions of the Jewish law, and expressly regrets that there were no - princes who had the courage to take steps to reintroduce them for the - benefit of mankind. - - In 1524, under the influence of his Biblical studies, he wrote to - Duke Johann Frederick of Saxony, praising the institution of tithes - and even of fifths: “It would be a grand thing if, according to - ancient usage, a tenth of all property were annually handed over to - the authorities; this would be the most Godly interest possible.… - Indeed it would be desirable to do away with all other taxes and - impose on the people a payment of a fifth or sixth, as Joseph did in - Egypt.”[255] At the same time he is quite aware that such wishes are - impracticable, seeing that, “not the Mosaic, but the Imperial law is - now accepted by the world and in use.” - - Partly owing to the impossibility of a return to the Old Covenant, - partly out of a spirit of contradiction to the new party, he opposed - the fanatics’ demand that the Mosaic law should be introduced as - near as possible entire, and the Imperial, Roman law abrogated as - heathenish and the Papal, Canon law as anti-Christian. Duke Johann, - the Elector’s brother, was soon half won over to these fantastic ideas - by the Court preacher, Wolfgang Stein, but Luther and Melanchthon - succeeded in making him change his mind.[256] The necessity Luther - was under of opposing the Anabaptists here produced its fruits; his - struggle with the fanatics preserved him from the consequences of his - own personal preference for the social regulations of the Old Covenant. - - In what difficulties his Old-Testament ideas on polygamy involved him - the history of the bigamy of Philip of Hesse has already shown.[257] - Had such ideas concerning marriage been realised in society the - revolution in the social order would indeed have been great. - - Luther’s esteem for the social laws of the Old Testament finds its - best expression in his sermons on Genesis, which first saw the light - in 1527. - - He says, for instance, of the Jewish law of restitution and general - settlement of affairs, in the Jubilee Year: “It is laid down in Moses - that no one can sell a field in perpetuity but only until the Jubilee - Year, and when this came each one recovered possession of his field or - the property he had sold, and thus the lands remained in the family. - There are also some other fine laws in the Books of Moses which well - might be adopted, made use of and put in force.” He even wishes that - the Imperial Government would take the lead in re-enacting them “for - as long as is desired, but without compulsion.”[258] - -His views on interest and usury were likewise influenced by his one-sided -reading of certain Old- and New-Testament statements. - - -_Usury and Interest_ - -On the question of the lawfulness of charging interest Luther not only -laid down no “new principles” which might have been of help for the -future, but, on the contrary, he paved the way for serious difficulties. -He was not to be moved from the traditional, mediæval standpoint which -viewed the charging of any interest whatever on loans as something -prohibited. His foe, Johann Eck, on the other hand, in a Disputation at -Bologna, had defended the lawfulness of moderate interest.[259] - -After having repeatedly attacked by word and pen usury and the charging -of any interest[260]—led thereto, as he says, by the grievous abuses in -the commercial and financial system, he published in 1539 his “An die -Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” whence most of what follows has -been taken. As it was written towards the end of his life, we may assume -it to represent the result of his experience and the final statement of -his convictions. - -In this writing, after a sad outburst on the increase of usury in -Germany, he begins his “warnings” by urging that “the people should be -told firmly and plainly concerning lending and borrowing, and that when -money is lent and a charge made or more taken back than was originally -made over, this is usury, and as such is condemned by every law. Hence -those are usurers who charge 5, or 6, or more on the hundred on the -money they lend, and should be called idolatrous ministers of avarice or -Mammon, nor can they be saved unless they do penance.… To lend is to give -a man my money, property or belongings so that he may use them.… Just -as one neighbour lends another a dish, a can, a bed, or clothes, and in -the same way money, or money’s worth, in return for which I may not take -anything.”[261] - -The writer of these words, like so many others who, in his day and -later, still adhered to the old canonical standpoint, failed to see, -that, as things then were, to lend money was to surrender to the -borrower a commodity which was already bringing in some return, and -that, in consequence of this, the lender had a right to demand some -indemnification. As this had not generally speaking been the case in the -Middle Ages, the prohibition of charging interest was then a just one. -Nevertheless, within certain limits, it was slowly becoming obsolete and, -as the economic situation changed for that of modern times and money -became more liquid, the more general did lending at interest become. - -Luther was well aware that to lend at interest was already “usual” -and even “common in all classes.”[262] It was also, as a Protestant -contemporary complained in 1538, twice as prevalent in the Lutheran -communities than among the Catholics.[263] Still Luther insists -obstinately that, “it was a very idle objection, and one that any village -sexton could dispose of when people pleaded the custom of the world -contrary to the Word of God, or against what was right.… It is nothing -new or strange that the world should be hopeless, accursed, damned; this -it had always been and would ever remain. If you obey its behests, you -also will go with it into the abyss of hell.”[264] - - Though in his instructions to the pastors he condemns - indiscriminately, as a “thief, robber and murderer,” everyone who - charges interest, still he wants his teaching to be applied above - all to the “great ogres in the world, who can never charge enough - per cent.” “The sacrament and absolution” were to be denied them, - and “when about to die they were to be left like the heathen and not - granted Christian burial” unless they had first done penance. To the - “small usurer it is true my sentence may sound terrible, I mean to - such as take but five or six on the hundred.”[265] - - All, however, whether the percentage they charge be small or great, he - advises to bring their objections to him, or to some other minister, - “or to a good lawyer,”[266] so as to learn the further reasons - and particulars concerning the prohibition of receiving interest. - Every pastor was to preach strongly and fearlessly on its general - unlawfulness in order that he may not “go to the devil” with those of - his flock who charge interest. - - Not that Luther was very hopeful about the results of such preaching. - “The whole world is full of usurers,” he said in 1542 in the - Table-Talk, and to a friend who had asked him: “Why do not the princes - punish such grievous usury and extortion?” Luther answers: “Surely, - the princes and kings have other things to do; they have to feast, - drink and hunt, and cannot attend to this.” “Things must soon come to - a head and a great and unforeseen change take place! I hope, however, - that the Last Day will soon make an end of it all.”[267] - - As to his grounds for condemning interest, he declares in the same - conversation: “Money is an unfruitful commodity which I cannot sell - in such a way as to entitle me to a profit.” He is but re-echoing - the axiom “_Pecunia est sterilis_,” etc., maintained all too long in - learned Catholic circles. Hence, as he says in 1540, “Lending neither - can nor ought to be a true trade or means of livelihood; nor do I - believe the Emperor thinks so either.” Besides, “it is not enough in - the sight of heaven to obey the laws of the Emperor.”[268] According - to him God had positively forbidden in the Old Testament the charging - of any interest, as contrary to the natural law and as oppressive and - unlawful usury (Ex. xxii. 25; Lev. xxv. 36; Deut. xxiii. 19, etc.). - In the New Testament Christ, so Luther thinks, solemnly confirmed the - prohibition when He said in St. Matthew’s gospel: “Give to him that - asketh thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away” (v. - 42), and in St. Luke (vi. 35) still more emphatically: “Lend, hoping - for nothing.”[269] - - In the Old Law, however, the charging of interest was by no means - absolutely forbidden to the Jews (Deut. xxiii. 19 f.), so that it - could not be regarded as a thing repugnant to the natural law, though - the Mosaic Code interdicted it among the Jews themselves. As for the - New-Testament passages Luther had no right to infer any prohibition - from them. Our Saviour, after speaking of offering the other cheek - to the smiter, of giving also our cloak to him who would take away - our coat, and of other instances of the exercise of extraordinary - virtue, goes on to advise our lending without hope of return. But many - understood this as a counsel, not as a command. Luther indeed says - that thereby they were making nought of Christ’s doctrine. He insists - that all these counsels were real commands, viz. commands to be ever - ready to suffer injustice and to do good; the secular authorities - were there to see that human society thereby suffered no harm. The - Papists, however, and the scholastics looked upon these things in a - different light. “The sophists had no reason for altering our Lord’s - commands and for making out that they were ‘_consilia_’ as they term - them.”[270] “They teach that Christ did not enjoin these things on - all Christians, but only on the perfect, each one being free to keep - them if he desires.” In this way the Papists do away with the doctrine - of Christ; they thereby condemn, destroy and get rid of good works, - whilst all the time accusing us of forbidding them; “hence it is that - the world has got so full of monks, tonsures and Masses.”[271]—Yet, - even if we take the words of Christ, as quoted, let us say, by St. - Luke, and see in them a positive command, yet they would refer only - to the social and economic conditions prevailing among the Jews at - the time the words were spoken. According to certain commentators, - moreover, the words have no reference to the question of interest, - because, so they opine, “it was a question of relinquishing all claim - not merely on the interest but on the capital itself.”[272] - -The Jesuit theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries as a rule were -careful to instance a number of cases in which the canonical prohibition -of charging even a moderate rate of interest does not apply. They thus -paved the way for the abrogation of the prohibition. Of this we have -an instance in Iago Lainez, who in principle was strongly averse to -the charging of interest. This theologian, who later became General -of the Jesuits, when a preacher at the busy commercial city of Genoa, -wrote (1553-1554) an essay on usury embodying the substance of his -addresses to the merchants.[273] Lainez there points out that any damage -accruing to the lender from the loan, and also the temporary absence of -profit on it, constitutes a sufficient ground for demanding a moderate -interest.[274] He also strongly insists that the lender, in compensation -for his willingness to lend, may accept from the borrower a “voluntary” -premium;[275] the lender, moreover, has a perfect right to safeguard -himself by stipulating for a fine (_pœna conventionalis_) from the -borrower should repayment be delayed. All this comes under the instances -of “apparent usury,” which he enumerates: “_Casus qui videntur usurarii -et non sunt_” (cap. 10). - -Luther devotes no such prudent consideration to those exceptional cases. -He was more inclined by nature harshly to vindicate the principles he -had embraced than to seek how best to limit them in practice. “He did -not take into account loans asked for, not from necessity, but for the -purpose of making profit on the borrowed money”;[276] yet, after all, -this was the very point on which the question turned in the early days of -economic development. He discusses the lawfulness of a voluntary premium -and comes to the conclusion that it is wrong. He scoffs at the lender, as -a mere hypocrite, who argues: “The borrower is very thankful for such a -loan and freely and without compulsion offers me 5, 6 or even 10 florins -on the hundred.” “But even an adulteress and an adulterer,” says Luther -in his usual vein, “are thankful and pleased with each other; a robber, -too, does an assassin a great service when he helps him to commit highway -robbery.” The borrower does the lender a similar criminal service and -spiritual injury, for which no premium can make compensation.[277] As -regards the case where the loan is not repaid at the specified time, -Luther is, of course, of opinion that any real loss to the owner must be -made good by the borrower. But now, he says, “they accept reimbursement -for losses which they never suffered at all,” they simply calculate the -interest on a loss which they may possibly suffer from not having back -the money when the time comes for buying or paying. “In its efforts to -make a certainty of what is uncertain, will not usury soon be the ruin of -the world!”[278] - -In the Table-Talk a friend, in 1542, raised an objection: If a man trades -with the money lent him and makes 15 florins yearly, he must surely pay -the lender something for this. Of this Luther, however, will not hear. -“No, this is merely an accidental profit, and on accidentals no rule can -be based.”[279] That the profit was “accidental” was, however, simply his -theory. - - In spite of all this Luther did make exceptions, though, in view of - his rigid theory and reading of the Bible, it is difficult to see how - he could justify them. - - Thus, he is willing to allow usury in those cases where the charging - of interest is “in reality a sort of work of mercy to the needy, who - would otherwise have nothing, and where no great injury is done to - another.” Thus, when “old people, poor widows or orphans, or other - necessitous folk, who have learned no other way of making a living,” - were only able to support themselves by lending out their money, in - such cases the “lawyers might well seek to mitigate somewhat the - severity of the law.” “Should an appeal be made to the ruler,” then - the proverb “Necessity knows no law” might be quoted. “It might - here serve to call to mind that the Emperor Justinian had permitted - such mitigated usury [he had sanctioned the taking of 4, 6 or 8 per - cent], and in such a case I am ready to agree and to answer for it - before God, particularly in the case of needy persons and where usury - is practised out of necessity or from charity. If, however, it was - wanton, avaricious, unnecessary usury, merely for the purpose of trade - and profit, then I would not agree”; even the Emperor himself could - not make this legitimate; for it is not the laws of the Emperor which - lead us to heaven, but the observance of the laws of God.[280] - - It follows from this that even the so-called “_titulus legis_” found - no favour in his sight in the case of actual money loans, for it is of - this, not of “purchasable interest,” that he speaks in the writing to - the pastors. A real, honest purchase, so he there says quite truly, is - no usury.[281] - - A remarkable deflection from his strict principles is to be found - not only in the words just quoted but also in his letter to the town - council of Erfurt sent in 1525 at the time of the rising in that - town and the neighbourhood. The mutineers refused among other things - to continue paying interest on the sums borrowed. For this refusal - Luther censures them as rebels, and also refuses to hear of their - “deducting the interest from the sum total” (i.e. the capital). He - here vindicates the lenders as follows: “Did I wish yearly to spend - some of the total amount I should naturally keep it by me. Why should - I hand it over to another as though I were a child, and allow another - to trade with it? Who can dispose of his money even at Erfurt in such - a way that it shall be paid out to him yearly and bit by bit? This - would really be asking too much.”[282] - - Luther also relaxed his principles in favour of candidates for the - office of preacher. When, in 1532, the widow of Wolfgang Jörger, an - Austrian Governor, offered him 500 florins for stipends for “poor - youths prosecuting their studies in Holy Scripture” at Wittenberg, at - the same time asking him how to place it, he unhesitatingly replied - that it should be lent out at interest; “I, together with Master - Philip and other good friends and Masters, have thought this best - because it is to be expended on such a good, useful and necessary - work.” He suggested that the money “should be handed in at the - Rathaus” at Nuremberg to Lazarus Spengler, syndic of that town; if - this could not be, then he would have it “invested elsewhere.” Such - “good works in Christ” are, he says, unfortunately not common amongst - us “but rather the contrary, so that they leave the poor ministers to - starve; the nobles as well as the peasants and the burghers are all - of them more inclined to plunder than to help.”[283] Thus it was his - desire to help the preachers that determined his action here. - - A writer, who, as a rule, is disposed to depict Luther’s social ethics - in a very favourable light, remarks: “When his attention was riveted - on the abuses arising from the lending of money [and the charging of - interest] he could see nothing but evil in the whole thing; on the - other hand, if some good purpose was to be served by the money, he - regarded this as morally quite justifiable.”[284] That Luther “was not - always true to his theories,” and that he is far from displaying any - “striking originality” in his economic views, cannot, according to - this author, be called into question.[285] - - -_Luther on Unearned Incomes and Annuities_ - -A great change took place in Luther’s views concerning the buying of the -right to receive a yearly interest, nor was the change an unfortunate -one. He was induced to abandon his earlier standpoint that such purchase -was wrong and to recognise, that, within certain limits, it could be -perfectly lawful. - -The nature of this sort of purchase, then very common, he himself -explains in his clear and popular style: “If I have a hundred florins -with which I might gain five, six or more florins a year by means of -my labour, I can give them to another for investment _in some fertile -land_ in order that, not I, but he, may do business with them; hence I -receive from him the five florins I might have made, and thus he sells -me the interest, five florins per hundred, and I am the buyer and he -the seller.”[286] It was an essential point in the arrangement that the -money should be employed in an undertaking in some way really fruitful -or profitable to the receiver of the capital, i.e. in real estate, -which he could farm, or in some other industry; the debtor gave up the -usufruct to the creditor together with the interest agreed upon, but was -able to regain possession of it by repayment of the debt. The creditor, -according to the original arrangement, was also to take his share in the -fluctuations in profit, and not arbitrarily to demand back his capital. - -At first Luther included such transactions among the “fig-leaves” behind -which usury was wont to shelter itself; they were merely, so he declared -in 1519 in his Larger Sermon on Usury, “a pretty sham and pretence by -which a man can oppress others without sin and become rich without labour -or trouble.”[287] In the writing “An den Adel” he even exclaimed: “The -greatest misfortune of the German nation is undoubtedly the traffic in -interest.… The devil invented it and the Pope, by sanctioning it, has -wrought havoc throughout the world.”[288] It is quite true that the -arrangement, being in no wise unjust, had received the conditional -sanction of the Church and was widely prevalent in Christendom. Many -abuses and acts of oppression had, indeed, crept into it, particularly -with the general spread of the practice of charging interest on money -loans, but they were not a necessary result of the transaction. Luther, -in those earlier days, demanded that such “transactions should be utterly -condemned and prevented for the future, regardless of the opposition of -the Pope and all his infamous laws [to the condemnation], and though -he might have erected his pious foundations on them.… In truth, the -traffic in interest is a sign and a token that the world is sold into the -devil’s slavery by grievous sins.”[289] Yet Luther himself allows the -practice under certain conditions in the Larger Sermon on Usury published -shortly before, from which it is evident that here he is merely voicing -his detestation of the abuses, and probably, too, of the “Pope and his -infamous laws.” - -In fact his first pronouncements against the investing of money are -all largely dictated by his hostility to the existing ecclesiastical -government; “that churches, monasteries, altars, this and that,” should -be founded and kept going by means of interest, is what chiefly arouses -his ire. In 1519 he busies himself with the demolition of the objection -brought forward by Catholics, who argued: “The churches and the clergy -do this and have the right to do it because such money is devoted to the -service of God.” - -In his Larger Sermon on Usury he gives an instance where he is ready to -allow transactions at interest, viz. “where both parties require their -money and therefore cannot afford to lend it for nothing but are obliged -to help themselves by means of bills of exchange. Provided the ghostly -law be not infringed, then a percentage of four, five or six florins may -be taken.”[290] Thus he here not only falls back on the “ghostly law,” -but also deviates from the line he had formerly laid down. In fact we -have throughout to deal more with stormy effusions than with a ripe, -systematic discussion of the subject. - -Later on, his general condemnations of the buying of interest-rights -become less frequent. - -He even wrote in 1524 to Duke Johann Frederick of Saxony: Since the -Jewish tithes cannot be re-introduced, “it would be well to regulate -everywhere the purchase of interest-rights, but to do away with them -altogether would not be right since they might be legalised.”[291] As -a condition for justifying the transaction he requires above all that -no interest should be charged without “a definitely named and stated -pledge,” for to charge on a mere money pledge would be usury. “What is -sterile cannot pay interest.”[292] Further the right of cancelling the -contract was to remain in the hands of the receiver of the capital. The -interest once agreed upon was to be paid willingly. He himself relied -on the practice and once asked: “If the interest applied to churches -and schools were cut off, how would the ministers and schools be -maintained?”[293] - -With regard to the rate of interest allowable in his opinion, he says in -his sermons on Matt. xviii. (about 1537): “We would readily agree to the -paying of six or even of seven or eight on the hundred.”[294] As a reason -he assigns the fact that “the properties have now risen so greatly in -value,” a remark to which he again comes back in 1542 in his Table-Talk -in order to justify his not finding even seven per cent excessive.[295] -He thus arrives eventually at the conclusion of the canonists who, for -certain good and just reasons, allowed a return of from seven to eight -per cent. - - In his “An die Pfarherrn” he took no account of such purchases but - merely declared that he would find some other occasion “of saying - something about this kind of usury”; at the same time a “fair, honest - purchase is no usury.”[296] - - All the more strongly in this writing, the tone of which is only - surpassed by the attacks on the usury of the Jews contained in his - last polemics, does he storm against the evils of that usury which - was stifling Germany. The pastors and preachers were to “stick to the - text,” where the Gospel forbids the taking of anything in return for - loans.[297] That this will bring him into conflict with the existing - custom he takes for granted. In his then mood of pessimistic defiance - he was anxious that the preachers should boldly hurl at all the - powers that be the words of that Bible which cannot lie: where evil - is so rampant “God must intervene and make an end, as He did with - Sodom, with the world at the Deluge, with Babylon, with Rome and such - like cities, that were utterly destroyed. This is what we Germans are - asking for, nor shall we cease to rage until people shall say: Germany - _was_, just as we now say of Rome and of Babylon.”[298] - - He nevertheless gives the preachers a valuable hint as to how they - were to proceed in order to retain their peace of mind and get over - difficulties. Here “it seems to me better … for the sake of your own - peace and tranquillity, that you should send them to the lawyers - whose duty and office it is to teach and to decide on such wretched, - temporal, transitory, worldly matters, particularly when they [your - questioners] are disposed to haggle about the Gospel text.”[299] “For - this reason, according to our preaching, usury with all its sins - should be left to the lawyers, for, unless they whose duty it is to - guard the dam help in defending it, the petty obstacles we can set up - will not keep back the flood.” But, after all, “the world cannot go on - without usury, without avarice, without pride … otherwise the world - would cease to be the world nor would the devil be the devil.”[300] - -The difficulties which beset Luther’s attitude on the question of -interest were in part of his own creation. - - “In the question of commerce and the charging of interest,” says - Julius Köstlin in his “Theologie Luthers,” “he displays, for all - his acumen, an unmistakable lack of insight into the true value for - social life of trade—particularly of that trade on a large scale with - which we are here specially concerned—in spite of all the sins and - vexations which it brings with it, or into the importance of loans - at interest—something very different from loans to the poor—for the - furthering of work and the development of the land.”[301] - - With reference to what Köstlin here says it must, however, be again - pointed out that Luther’s lack of insight may be explained to some - extent “by the great change which was just then coming over the - economic life of Germany.” It must also be added, that, in Luther’s - case, the struggle against usury was in itself a courageous and - deserving work, and, that, hand in hand with it, went those warm - exhortations to charity which he knew so well how to combine with - Christ’s Evangelical Counsels. - - In his attack on the abuses connected with usury his indignation at - the mischief, and his ardent longing to help the oppressed, frequently - called forth impressive and heart-stirring words. Though, in what - Luther said about usury and on the economic conditions of his day, we - meet much that is vague, incorrect and passionate, yet, on the other - hand, we also find some excellent hints and suggestions.[302] - -It is notorious that the controversy regarding the lawfulness of -interest, even of 5 per cent, on money loans, went on for a long time -among theologians both Catholic and Protestant. The subject was also -keenly debated among the 16th-century Jesuits. No theologian, however, -succeeded in proving the sinfulness of the charging of a five per cent -interest under the circumstances which then obtained in Germany. Attempts -to have this generally prohibited under severe penalties were rejected -by eminent Catholic theologians, for instance, in a memorandum of the -Law and Divinity Faculties at Ingolstadt, dated August 2, 1580, which -bore the signatures of all the professors.[303] On the Protestant side -the contest led to disagreeable proceedings at Ratisbon, where, in 1588, -five preachers, true to Luther’s injunctions, insisted firmly on the -prohibition on theological grounds. They were expelled from the town by -the magistrates, though this did not end the controversy.[304] - -There was naturally no question at any time of enforcing the severe -measures which Luther had advocated against those who charged interest; -on the contrary the social disorders of the day promoted not merely -the lending at moderate interest, but even actual usury of the worst -character. When even Martin Bucer showed himself disposed to admit the -lawfulness of taking twelve per cent interest George Lauterbecken, the -Mansfeld councillor, wrote of him in his “Regentenbuch”: “What has become -of the book Dr. Luther of blessed memory addressed to the ministers on -the subject of usury, exhorting them most earnestly,” etc., etc.? Nobody -now dreamt, so he complains, of putting in force the penalties decreed -by Luther. “Where do we see in any of our countries which claim to be -Evangelical anyone refused the Sacrament of the altar or Holy Baptism on -account of usury? Where, agreeably to the Canons, are they forbidden to -make a will? Where do we see one of them buried on the dungheap?”[305] - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVI - -THE DARKER SIDE OF LUTHER’S INNER LIFE. HIS AILMENTS - - -The struggles of conscience which we already had occasion to consider -(vol. v., p. 319 ff.) were not the only gloomy elements in Luther’s -interior life. Other things, too, must be taken into our purview if we -wish to appreciate justly the more sombre side of his existence, viz. -his bodily ailments and the mental sufferings to which they gave rise -(e.g. paroxysms of terror and apprehension), his temptations, likewise -his delusions concerning his intercourse with the other world (ghosts, -diabolical apparitions, etc.), and, lastly, the revelations of which he -fancied himself the recipient. - - -1. Early Sufferings, Bodily and Mental - -It is no easy task to understand the nature of the morbid phenomena which -we notice in Luther. His own statements on the subject are not only very -scanty but also prove that he was himself unable to determine exactly -their cause. Nevertheless, it is our duty to endeavour, with the help of -what he says, to glean some notion of what was going on within him. His -gloomy mental experiences are so inextricably bound up with his state of -health, that, even more than his “agonies of conscience” already dealt -with, they deserve to take their place on the darker background of his -psychic life. Here again, duly to appreciate the state of the case, we -shall have to review anew the whole of Luther’s personal history. - - -_Fits of Fear; Palpitations; Swoons_ - -What first claims our attention, even in the early days of Luther’s -life as a monk, are the attacks of what he himself calls fears and -trepidations (“_terrores_, _pavores_”). It seems fairly clear that these -were largely neurotic,—physical breakdowns due to nervous worry. - -According to Melanchthon, the friend in whom he chiefly confided, Luther -gave these sufferings a place in the forefront of his soul’s history. -The reader may remember the significant passage where Melanchthon says, -that, when oppressed with gloomy thoughts of the Divine Judgments, -Luther “was often suddenly overwhelmed by such fits of terror (‘_subito -tanti terrores_’)” as made him an object of pity. These terrors he had -experienced for the first time when he decided to enter the monastic -life, led to this resolution by the sudden death of a dearly loved -friend.[306] - - We hear from Luther himself of the strange paroxysms of fear from - which he suffered as a monk. On two occasions when he speaks of them - his words do not seem to come under suspicion of forming part of - the legend which he afterwards wove about his earlier history (see - below, xxxvii.). These statements, already alluded to once, may be - given more in detail here. In March, 1537, he told his friends: “When - I was saying Mass [his first Mass] and had reached the Canon, such - terror seized on me (_ita horrui_) that I should have fled had not the - Prior held me back; for when I came to the words, ‘Thee, therefore, - most merciful Father, we suppliantly pray and entreat,’ etc., I - felt that I was speaking to God without any mediator. I longed to - flee from the earth. For who can endure the Majesty of God without - Christ the Mediator? In short, as a monk I experienced those terrors - (_horrores_); I was made to experience them before I began to assail - them.”[307] Incidentally it may be noted that “Christ the Mediator,” - whom Luther declares he could not find in the Catholic ritual, is, as - a matter of fact, invoked in the very words which follow those quoted - by Luther: “Thee, therefore, most merciful Father, we suppliantly pray - and entreat through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord to accept and bless - these gifts,” etc. Evidently when Luther recorded his impressions he - had forgotten these words and only remembered the groundless fear and - inward commotion with which he had said his first Mass. - - Something similar occurred during a procession at Erfurt, when he had - to walk by the side of Staupitz, his superior, who was carrying the - Blessed Sacrament. Fear and terror so mastered Luther that he was - hardly able to remain. Telling Staupitz of this later in Confession, - the latter encouraged him with the words: “Christ does not affright, - He comforts.” The incident must have taken place after 1515, the - Eisleben priory having been founded only in that year.[308] - - If we go back to the very beginning of his life in the monastery we - shall find that the religious scruples which assailed him at least - for a while, possibly also deserve to be reckoned as morbid. We shall - return below to the voice “from heaven” which drove him into the - cloister. - - Unspeakable fear issuing in bodily prostration was also at work in - him on the occasion of the already related incident in the choir of - the Erfurt convent, when he fell to the ground crying out that he was - not the man possessed. Not only does Dungersheim relate it, on the - strength of what he had heard from inmates of the monastery,[309] but - Cochlæus also speaks of the incident, in his “Acta,” and, again, in - coarse and unseemly language in the book he wrote in 1533, entitled - “Von der Apostasey,” doubtless also drawing his information from the - Augustinian monks: “It is notorious how Luther came to be a monk; - how he collapsed in choir, bellowing like a bull when the Gospel - of the man possessed was being read; how he behaved himself in the - monastery,” etc.[310] We may recall, how, according to Cochlæus, his - brother monks suspected Luther, owing to this attack and on account of - a “certain singularity of manner,” of being either under diabolical - influence or an epileptic.[311] The convulsions which accompanied the - fit may have given rise to the suspicion of epilepsy, but, in reality, - they cannot be regarded as sufficient proof. Epilepsy is well-nigh - incurable, yet, in Luther’s case, we hear of no similar fits in later - life. In later years he manifested no fear of epileptic fits, though - he lived in dread of an apoplectic seizure, such as, in due course, - was responsible for his death. A medical diagnosis would not fail to - consider this seeming instance of epileptic convulsions in conjunction - with Luther’s state of fear. For the purpose of the present work it - will be sufficient to bring together for the benefit of the expert the - necessary data for forming an opinion on the whole question, so far as - this is possible. - - From the beginning Luther seems to have regarded these “states of - terror” as partaking to some extent of a mystic character. - - To what a height they could sometimes attain appears from the - description he embodied in his “_Resolutiones_” in 1518, and of which - Köstlin opines that, in it Luther portrayed the culminating point to - which his own fears had occasionally risen. It is indeed very probable - that Luther is referring to no other than himself when he says in the - opening words of this remarkable passage: “I know a man who assures me - that he has frequently felt these pains.”[312] G. Kawerau also agrees - with Köstlin in assuming that Luther is here speaking of himself,[313] - a view which is, in fact, forced upon us by other similar passages. - Walter Köhler declares: “Whether Luther intended these words to refer - to himself or not, in any case they certainly depict his normal - state.”[314] - - Luther, after saying that, “many, even to the present day,” suffer - the pangs of hell so often described in the Psalms of David, and [so - Luther thinks], by Tauler, goes on to describe these pangs in words - which we shall now quote in full, as hitherto only extracts have been - given.[315] - - “He often had to endure such pains, though in every instance they were - but momentary; they were, however, so great and so hellish that no - tongue can tell, no pen describe, no one who has not felt them believe - what they were. When at their worst, or when they lasted for half - an hour, nay, for the tenth part of an hour, he was utterly undone, - and all his bones turned to ashes. At such times God and the whole - of creation appears to him dreadfully wroth. There is, however, no - escape, no consolation either within or without, and man is ringed - by a circle of accusers. He then tearfully exclaims in the words of - Holy Scripture: ‘I am cast away, O Lord, from before Thy eyes’ [Ps. - xxx. 23], and does not even dare to say: ‘Lord, chastise me not in - Thy wrath’ [Ps. vi. 1]. At such a time the soul, strange to tell, is - unable to believe that it ever will be saved; it only feels that the - punishment is not yet at an end. And yet the punishment is everlasting - and may not be regarded as temporal; there remains only a naked - longing for help and a dreadful groaning; where to look for help the - soul does not know. It is as it were stretched out [on the cross] with - Christ, so that ‘all its bones are numbered.’ There is not a nook in - it that is not filled with the bitterest anguish, with terror, dread - and sadness, and above all with the feeling that it is to last for - ever and ever. To make use of a weaker comparison: when a ball travels - along a straight line, every point of the line bears the whole weight - of the ball, though it does not contain it. In the same way, when the - floods of eternity pass over the soul, it feels nothing else, drinks - in nothing else but everlasting pain; this, however, does not last - but passes. It is the very pain of hell, is this unbearable terror, - that excludes all consolation!… As to what it means, those who have - experienced it must be believed.”[316] - -A physical accompaniment of these fears was, in Luther’s case, the -fainting fits referred to now and again subsequent to the beginning of -his struggle against the Church. - -On the occasion of the attack of which we are told by Ratzeberger the -physician, when he was found by friends lying unconscious on the floor, -he had been “overpowered by melancholy and sadness.” It is also very -remarkable that when his friends had brought him to, partly by the help -of music, he begged them to return frequently, that they might play to -him “because he found that as soon as he heard the sound of music his -‘_tentationes_’ and melancholy left him.”[317] According to Kawerau -the circumstances point to this incident having taken place in 1523 or -1524.[318] - -On the occasion of a serious attack of illness in 1527 his swoons again -caused great anxiety to those about him. This illness was preceded by a -fit in Jan., 1527. Luther informs a friend that he had “suddenly been -affrighted and almost killed by a rush or thickening of the blood in the -region of the heart,” but had as quickly recovered. His cure was, he -thinks, due to a decoction of milk-thistle,[319] then considered a very -efficacious remedy. The rush of blood to the heart, of which he here -had to complain, occurred at a time when Luther had nothing to say of -“temptations,” but only of the many troubles and anxieties due to his -labours. - -The more severe bout of illness began on July 6, 1527, at the very -time of, or just after, some unusually severe “temptation.”[320] Jonas -prefaces his account of it by saying that Luther, “after having that -morning, as he admitted, suffered from a burdensome spiritual temptation, -came back partially to himself (‘_utcunque ad se rediit_’).” The words -seem to presuppose that he had either fainted or been on the verge of -fainting.[321] Having, as the same friend relates, recovered somewhat, -Luther made his confession and spoke of his readiness for death. In the -afternoon, however, he complained of an unendurable buzzing in his left -ear which soon grew into a frightful din in his head. Bugenhagen, in his -narrative, is of opinion that the cause of the mischief here emerges -plainly, viz. that it was the work of the devil. A fainting fit ensued -which overtook Luther at the door of his bedchamber. When laid on his bed -he complained of being utterly exhausted. His body was rubbed with cloths -wrung out of cold water and then warmth was applied. The patient now felt -a little better, but his strength came and went. Amongst other remarks -he then passed was one, that Christ is stronger than Satan. When saying -this he burst into tears and sobs. Finally, after application of the -remedies common at that time, he broke out into a sweat and the danger -was considered to be over. - -There followed, however, the days and months of dreadful spiritual -“temptations” already described (vol. v., p. 333 ff.). At first the -bodily weakness also persisted. Bugenhagen was obliged to take up his -abode in Luther’s house for a while because the latter was in such dread -of the temptations and wished to have help and comfort at hand. For a -whole week Luther was unable either to read or to write. - -At the end of August and again in September the fainting fits recurred. - -His friends, however, were more concerned about Luther’s mental anguish -than about his bodily sufferings. The latter gradually passed away, -whereas the struggles of conscience continued to be very severe. On Oct. -17, Jonas wrote to Johann Lang: “He is battling amidst the waves of -temptation and is hardly able to find any passage of Scripture wherewith -to console himself.”[322] - -In 1530 again we hear of Luther’s life being endangered by a fainting -fit, though it seems to have been distinct from the above attack of -illness. This also occurred after an alarming incident during which he -believed he had actually seen the devil. It was followed the next day by -a loud buzzing in the head. Renewed trouble in the region of the heart, -accompanied by paroxysms of fear, is reported to have been experienced -in 1536.[323] After this we hear no more of any such symptoms till just -before Luther’s death. In the sudden attack of illness which brought his -life to a close he complained chiefly of feeling a great oppression on -the chest, though his heart was sound.[324] - - -_Nervousness and other Ailments_ - -Quite a number of Luther’s minor ills seem to have been the result of -overwrought nerves due partly to his work and the excitement of his life. -Here again it is difficult to judge of the symptoms; unquestionably some -sort of connection exists between his nervous state and his depression -and bodily fears;[325] the fainting fits are even reckoned by some as -simply due to neurasthenia. - -There can be no doubt that his nervousness was, to some extent inherited, -to some extent due to his upbringing. His lively temper which enabled him -to be so easily carried away by his fancy, to take pleasure in the most -glaring of exaggerations, and bitterly to resent the faintest opposition, -proves that, for all the vigour of his constitution, nerves played an -important part. - -Already in his monastic days his state was aggravated by mental -overstrain and the haste and turmoil of his work which led him to neglect -the needs of the body. His uninterrupted literary labours, his anxiety -for his cause, his carelessness about his health and his irregular mode -of life reduced him in those days to a mere skeleton. At Worms the -wretchedness of his appearance aroused pity in many. It is true that when -he returned from the Wartburg he was looking much stronger, but the years -1522-25, during which he led a lonely bachelor’s life in the Wittenberg -monastery, without anyone to wait on him, and sleeping night after night -on an unmade bed, brought his nervous state to such a pitch that he was -never afterwards able completely to master it. On the contrary, his -nervousness grew ever more pronounced, tormenting him in various ways. - -So little, however, did he understand it that it was to the devil that he -attributed the effects, now dubiously, now with entire conviction. - -Among these effects must be included the buzzing in the head and singing -in the ears, to which Luther’s letters allude for many a year. When, at -the end of Jan., 1529, the violent “agonies and temptations” recurred, -the buzzing in the ears again made itself felt. He writes: “For more -than a week I have been ailing from dizziness and humming in the head -(‘_vertigo et bombus_’), whether this be due to fatigue or to the malice -of the devil I do not know. Pray for me that I may be strong in the -faith.”[326] He also complains of this trouble in the head in the next -letter, dating from early in Feb.[327] He was then unable to preach or to -give lectures for nearly three weeks.[328] - -He goes on to say of himself: “In addition to the buffets of the angel -of Satan [the temptations] I have also suffered from giddiness and -headache.”[329] It was, however, as he himself points out, no real -illness: “Almost constantly is it my fate to feel ill though my body is -well.”[330] - -In the new kind of life he had to lead in the Castle of Coburg in 1530, -when, to want of exercise, was added overwork and anxiety of mind, these -neurasthenic phenomena again reappeared. He compares the noises in his -head to thunder, or to a whirlwind. There was also present a tendency -to fainting. At times he was unable even to look at any writing, or to -bear the light owing to the weakness of his head.[331] Simultaneously -the struggle with his thoughts gave him endless trouble; thus he writes: -“It is the angel of Satan who buffets me so, but since I have endured -death so often for Christ, I am quite ready for His sake to suffer this -illness, or this Sabbath-peace of the head.”[332] “You declare,” he -says laughingly in a letter to Melanchthon, “that I am pig-headed, but -my pig-headedness is nothing compared with that of my head (‘_caput -eigensinnigissimum_’); so powerfully does Satan compel me to make holiday -and to waste my time.”[333] Towards the middle of August his head -improved, but the tiresome buzzing frequently recurred. Luther complained -later that, during this summer, he had been forced to waste half his -time.[334] - -When, from this time onwards, “we hear him ever saying that he feels -worn-out (‘_decrepitus_’), weary of life and desirous of death … all -this is undoubtedly closely bound up with these nerve troubles.”[335] -The morning hours became for him the worst, because during them he often -suffered from dizziness. After his “_prandium_,” between nine and ten -o’clock, he was wont to feel better. As a rule he slept well. - -The attacks which occurred early in 1532 must also be noted. - -In Jan., so his anxious pupil Veit Dietrich writes, Luther had a -foreboding of some illness impending and fancied it would come in March; -in reality it came on on Jan. 22. “Very early, about four o’clock, he -felt a violent buzzing in his ears followed by great weakness of the -heart.” His friends were summoned at his request as he did not wish to -be alone. “When, however, he had recovered and had his wits about him -(‘_confirmato animo_’), he proceeded to storm against the Papists, who -were not yet to make gay over his death.” “Were Satan able,” he says, “he -would gladly kill me; at every hour he is at my heels.” “The physician -declared,” so the account goes on, “after having examined the urine, that -Luther stood in danger of an attack of apoplexy, which indeed he would -hardly escape.” The prediction was, however, not immediately verified -and the patient was once more able to leave his bed. On Feb. 9, however -(if the date given in the Notes be correct),[336] after assisting at a -funeral in the church of Torgau, he was again seized with such a fit -of giddiness as hardly to be able to return to his lodgings. When he -recovered he said: “Do not be grieved even should I die, but continue to -further the Word of God after my death.… It may be we are still sinners -and do not perform our duty sufficiently; if so we shall cloak it over -with the forgiveness of sins.” This time again he was not able to work -for a whole month. - -What he at times endured from the trouble in his head we learn from a -statement in the Notes of the Table-Talk made by Cordatus: “When I awake -and am unable to sleep again on account of the noise in my ears, I often -fancy I can hear the bells of Halle, Leipzig, Erfurt and Wittenberg, and -then I think: Surely you are going to have a fit. But God frequently -intervenes and gives me a short sleep afterwards.”[337] - -No notable improvement took place until the middle of 1533. - -The noises in the head began again in 1541. He fancied then that he could -hear “the rustling of all the trees and the breaking of the waves of -every sea” in his head.[338] When he wrote this he was also suffering -from a discharge from the ear, which, for the time, deprived him of his -hearing; so great was the pain as to force tears from him. Alluding to -this he says that his friends did not often see him in tears, but that -now he would gladly weep even more copiously; to God he had said: “Let -there be an end either of these pains or of me myself,” but, now that -the discharge had ceased, he was beginning to read and write again quite -confidently.[339] - -From the commencement of his struggle, however, until the end of his -life his extreme nervous irritability found expression in the violence -of what he said and wrote. There can be no question that, had he not -been in a morbidly nervous state, he would never have given way to such -outbursts of anger and brutal invective. “There was a demoniacal trait,” -says a Protestant Luther biographer, “that awakened in him as soon as -he met an adversary, at which even his fellow-monks had shuddered, -and which carried him much further than he had at first intended.” -He became the “rudest writer of his age.” In his controversy with -the Swiss Sacramentarians he “was domineering and high-handed.” “His -disputatiousness and tendency to pick a quarrel grew ever stronger in -him after his many triumphs.”[340]—But, even among his friends and in -his home, he was careless about controlling his irritation. We find him -exclaiming: “I am bursting with anger and annoyance”; as we know, he -excited himself almost “to death” about a nephew and threatened to have a -servant-maid “drowned in the Elbe.”[341] (Cp. the passages from A. Cramer -quoted below, towards the end of section 5.) - -Other maladies and indispositions, of which the effects were sometimes -lasting, also deserve to be alluded to. Of these the principal and worst -was calculus of which we first hear in 1526 and then again in 1535, 1536 -and 1545. In Feb., 1537, Luther was overtaken by so severe an attack -at Schmalkalden that his end seemed near.—In 1525 he had to complain -of painful hæmorrhoids, and at the beginning of 1528 similar troubles -recurred. The “_malum Franciæ_,” on the other hand, cursorily mentioned -in 1523,[342] is not heard of any more. The severe constipation from -which he suffered in the Wartburg also passed away. Luther was also -much subject to catarrh, which, when it lasted, caused acute mental -depression. The “discharge in his left leg” which continued for a -considerable while[343] during 1533 had no important after-effects. - -The maladies just mentioned, to which must be added an attack of the -“English Sweat,” in 1529, do not afford sufficient grounds for any -diagnosis of his physical and mental state in general.[344] On the -other hand, the oppression in the præcordial region and his nervous -excitability are of great importance to whoever would investigate his -general state of health. - - -_The so-called Temptations no Mere Morbid Phenomena_ - -Anyone who passes in review the startling admissions Luther makes -concerning his struggles of conscience (above, vol. v., pp. 319-75), -or considers the dreadful self-reproaches to which his apostasy and -destruction of the olden ecclesiastical system gave rise, reproaches -which lead to “death and hell,” and which he succeeded in mastering only -by dint of huge effort, cannot fail to see that these mental struggles -were something very different from any physical malady. Since, however, -some Protestants have represented mere morbid “fearfulness” as the -root-cause of the “temptations,” we must—in order not to be accused of -evading any difficulties—look into the actual connection between natural -timidity and the never-ending struggles of soul which Luther had to wage -with himself on account of his apostasy. - -Luther’s temptations, according to his own accurate and circumstantial -statements, consisted chiefly of remorse of conscience and doubts about -his undertaking; they made their appearance only at the commencement -of his apostasy, whereas the morbid sense of fear was present in him -long before. Of such a character were the “_terrores_” which led him to -embrace monasticism, the unrest he experienced during his first zealous -years of religious life, and the dread of which he was the victim while -saying his first Mass and accompanying Staupitz in the procession; -this morbid fear is also apparent in the monk’s awful thoughts on -predestination and in his subsequent temptations to despair. Moreover, -such crises, characterised by temptations and disquieting palpitations -ending in fainting fits, were in every case preceded by “spiritual -temptations,” and only afterwards did the physical symptoms follow. -Likewise the bodily ailments occasionally disappeared, leaving behind -them the temptations, though Luther seemed outwardly quite sound and able -to carry on his work.[345] - -Hence the “spiritual temptations” or struggles of conscience were of a -character in many respects independent of this morbid state of fear. - -They occur, however, on the one hand, in connection with other physical -disorders, as in the case of the attack of the “English Sweat” or -influenza which Luther had in 1529, and which was accompanied by severe -mental struggles; on the other hand, they appear at times to excite the -bodily emotion of fear and in very extreme cases undoubtedly tended -to produce entire loss of sleep and appetite, cardiac disturbance and -fainting fits. Luther himself once said, in 1533, that his “gloomy -thoughts and temptations” were the cause of the trouble in his head and -stomach;[346] in his ordinary language the temptations were, however, -“buffets given him by Satan.”[347] He is fond of clothing the temptations -in this Pauline figure and of depicting them as his worst trials, and -only quite exceptionally does he call his purely physical sufferings -“_colaphi Satanæ_,” they, too, coming from Satan. Now we cannot of -course entirely trust Luther’s own diagnosis—otherwise we should have to -reduce all his maladies to a work of evil spirits—yet his feeling that -the “temptations” were on the one hand a malady in themselves and on the -other a source of many other ills, should carry some weight with us. - -It is also clear that, in the case of an undertaking like Luther’s, and -given his antecedents, remorse of conscience was perfectly natural even -had there been no ailment present. It was impossible that a once zealous -monk should become faithless to his most solemn vows and, on his own -authority and on alleged discoveries in the Bible, dare to overthrow -the whole ecclesiastical structure of the past without in so doing -experiencing grave misgivings. Add to this his violence, his “wild-beast -fury” (J. von Walther), his practical contradictions and the theological -mistakes which he was unable to hide. Hence we need have no scruple about -admitting what is otherwise fairly evident, viz. that his ghostly combats -stand apart and cannot be attributed directly to any bodily ailment. - -It remains, however, true that such struggles and temptations throve -exceedingly on the morbid fear which lay hidden in the depths of his -soul. It must also be granted that neurasthenia sometimes gives rise to -symptoms of fear similar to those experienced by Luther, as we shall hear -later on from an expert in nervous diseases, whom we shall have occasion -to quote (see section 5 below). Consideration for such facts oblige the -layman to leave the question open as to how much of Luther’s fear is to -be attributed to nervousness or to other physical drawbacks. - -We do not think it desirable here to enter further into the views of -the older Catholic polemics, already referred to, who looked upon -Luther as possessed (as labouring under an “_obsessio_” or at least a -“_circumsessio_”). The fits of terror he endured both before and after -his apostasy seemed to them to prove that he was really a demoniac. As -already pointed out above (vol. iv., p. 359), this field is too obscure -and too beset with the danger of error to allow of our venturing upon -it.[348] Quite another matter is it, however, with regard to temptations, -with which, according to Holy Scripture and the constant teaching of -the Church, the devil is allowed to assail men, and to discuss which in -Luther’s case we will now proceed, using his own testimonies. - - -2. Psychic Problems of Luther’s Religious Development - -From the beginning of his apostasy and public struggle we find in Luther -no peace of soul and clearness of outlook; rather, he is the plaything of -violent emotions. He himself complains of having to wrestle with gloomy -temptations of the spirit. It is these that we now propose to investigate -more narrowly. In so doing we must also examine how his nervous state -reacted on these temptations, whereby we shall, maybe, discern more -clearly than before the connection of Luther’s doctrine with his distress -of soul. - - -_Temptations to Despair_ - -As to the temptations admitted by Luther to be such, we must first of -all recall the involuntary thoughts of despair which occurred to him in -the convent and the inclination he felt, against his will, to abandon -all hope of his salvation and even to blaspheme God. Everybody in the -least acquainted with the spiritual life knows that such darkening of the -soul may be caused by the Spirit of Evil and often accompanies certain -morbid conditions of the body. When the two, as is often the case, are -united, the effects are all the more far-reaching. Now, on his own -showing, this was precisely the case with the unhappy inmate of the -Erfurt monastery. Luther felt himself compelled, as he says, to lay bare -his temptations (the “_horrendæ et terrificæ cogitationes_”) to Staupitz -in confession.[349] The latter comforted him by pointing out the value of -such temptations as a mental discipline. Staupitz, and others too, had, -however, also told him that his case was to some extent new to them and -beyond their comprehension.[350] Hence, understood by none, he passed his -days sunk in sadness. All to whom he applied for consolation had answered -him: “I do not know.”[351] His fancy must, indeed, have strayed into -strange bypaths for both Pollich, the Wittenberg professor, and Cardinal -Cajetan expressed amazement at the oddness of his thoughts. - -His theological system finally became the pivot around which his -thoughts revolved; to it he looked for help. He had created it under -the influence of other factors to which it is not here needful to refer -again; particularly it had grown out of his own relaxation in the virtues -of his Order and religious life.[352] His system, however, had for its -aim to combat despair, overmastering concupiscence and the consciousness -of sin by means of a self-imposed tranquillity. He was determined to -arrive by main force at peace and certainty. Only little by little, so -he wrote in 1525, had he discovered, “God leads down to hell those whom -He predestines to heaven, and makes alive by slaying”; whoever had read -his writings “would understand this now very well”; a man must learn to -despair utterly of himself, and allow himself to be helplessly saved by -the action of God, i.e. by virtue of the forgiveness won by fiducial -faith.[353] How he himself was led by God down to hell he sets forth in -his “_Resolutiones_,” in the account of his mental sufferings given above -(p. 101 f.), a passage which transports the reader into the midst of the -pains which Luther endured in his anxiety. - - The man most deeply initiated into the darker side of Luther’s - temptations and struggles was the friend of his youth, the - Augustinian, Johann Lang. He, too, apparently suffered severely - beneath the burden of temptations regarding predestination and the - forgiveness of sins. It was in a letter to him, that, not long after - the nailing up of the Wittenberg Theses, Luther penned those curious - words: They would pray earnestly for one another, “that our Lord Jesus - may help us to bear our temptations which no one save us two has ever - been through.”[354] Shortly before this Luther had commended to the - care of his friend, then prior at Erfurt, a young man, Ulrich Pinder - of Nuremberg, who had opened his heart to him at Wittenberg; on this - occasion he wrote that Pinder was “troubled with secret temptations - of soul which hardly anyone in the monastery with the exception - of yourself understands.”[355] He also alludes to the temptations - peculiar to himself in that letter to Lang, in 1516, in which he - describes his overwhelming labours, which “seldom leave him due time - for reciting the hours or saying Mass.” On the top of his labours, he - says, there were “his own temptations from the world, the flesh and - the devil.”[356] To this same recipient of his confidences Luther was - wont regularly to give an account of the success attending his attacks - on the ancient Church and doctrine; he kindled in him a burning - hatred of those Augustinians at Erfurt who were well disposed towards - scholasticism and Aristotle, and forwarded him the controversial - Theses for the Disputations at the Wittenberg University embodying - his new doctrine of the necessity of despairing of ourselves and of - mystically dying, viz. the new “Theology of the Cross.” - - Some mysterious words addressed to Staupitz, in which Luther hints - at his inward sufferings, find their explanation when taken in - conjunction with the above. He assured Staupitz (Sep. 1, 1518) in a - letter addressed to him at Salzburg, that the summons to Rome and - the other threats made not the slightest impression on him: “I am - enduring incomparably worse things, as you know, which make me look - upon such fleeting, shortlived thunders as very insignificant.”[357] - His temptations against God and His Mercy were of a vastly different - character. By the words just quoted he undoubtedly meant, says - Köstlin, “those personal, inward sufferings and temptations, probably - bound up with physical emotions, to which Staupitz already knew him - to be subject and which frequently came upon him later with renewed - violence. They were temptations in which, as at an earlier date, he - was plunged into anxiety concerning his personal salvation as soon as - he started pondering on the hidden depths of the Divine Will.”[358] - - -_The Shadow of Pseudo-Mysticism_ - -In this connection it will be necessary to return to Luther’s earlier -predilection for a certain kind of mysticism.[359] - - As we know, at an early date he felt drawn to the writings of the - mystics, for one reason, because he seemed to himself to find there - his pet ideas about spiritual death and wholesome despair. Their - description of the desolation of the soul and of its apparent - abandonment by God appeared to him a startling echo of his own - experiences. He did not, however, understand or appreciate aright the - great mystics, particularly Tauler, when he read into them his own - peculiar doctrine of passivity. - - To a certain extent throughout his whole life he stood under the - shadow of this dim, sad mysticism. - - He will have it that he, like the mystics, had frequently been plunged - in the abyss of the spirit, had been acquainted with death and with - states weird and unearthly. He refuses to relate all he has been - through and actually gives as his ground for silence the very words - used by St. Paul when speaking of his own revelations: “But I forbear, - lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or - anything he heareth from me” (2 Cor. xii. 6). When speaking thus of - the mystic death he fails to distinguish between such thoughts and - feelings as may have been the result solely of a morbid state of fear, - or of remorse of conscience, and the severe trials through which the - souls of certain great and holy men had really to pass. - - It is indeed curious to note how he was led astray by a combination of - fear, mysticism and temptation. - - He was deluded into seeing in his own states just what he desired, - viz. the proof of the truth of his own doctrine and exalted mission - to proclaim it; he will not hear of this being a mere figment of - his own brain. On the contrary, he is convinced that he, like the - inspired Psalmist, has passed through every kind of the terrors which - the latter so movingly describes. Like the Psalmist, he too must - pray, “O Lord, chastise me not in thy wrath,” and like him, again, he - is justified in complaining that his bones are broken and his soul - troubled exceedingly (Ps. vi.). He even opines that those who have - endured such things rank far above the martyrs; David, according to - him, would much rather have perished by the sword than have “endured - this murmuring of his soul against God which called forth God’s - indignation.”[360] - - There is no doubt that Johann Lang might have been able to tell us - much about these gloomy aberrations of Luther’s, for he had a large - share in Luther’s development. - - It is worthy of note that it was to this bosom friend that Luther - sent his edition of “Eyn Deutsch Theologia.”[361] “_Taulerus tuus_” - (“Your Tauler”[362]) so he calls the German mystic when writing to - his friend, and in a similar way, in a letter to Lang, he speaks of - the new theology built entirely on grace and passive reliance as “our - theology.” “Our theology and St. Augustine,” he says, “are progressing - bravely at our University and gaining the upper hand, thanks to the - working of God, whereas Aristotle is now taking a back seat.”[363] We - must not be of those who, “like Erasmus, fail to give the first place - to Christ and grace,” so he writes to Lang, knowing that here he would - meet with a favourable response. The man who “knows and acknowledges - nothing but grace alone” judges very differently from one “who - attributes something to man’s free-will.”[364] - -It was not long before Luther’s pseudo-mysticism translated itself -into deeds. He persuades himself that he is guided in all his actions -and resolutions by a sort of Divine inspiration. A singular sort of -super-naturalism and self-sufficiency gleams in the words he once wrote -to Lang. After reminding him of the unquestioned truth, that “man must -act under God’s power and counsel and not by his own,” he goes on to -explain defiantly, that, for this reason, he scorns once and for all any -objections the Erfurt Augustinians might urge against the “paradoxical -theses” he had sent them a little earlier, also their charge that he -had shown himself hasty and precipitate: God was enough for him; of -their counsel and instruction he stood in no need.[365] As though -real wisdom and true mysticism did not teach us to welcome humbly the -opinion of well-meaning critics, and not to trust too implicitly our own -ideas, particularly in fields where one is so liable to trip. But the -“Theology of the Cross,” sealed by his fears, now seemed to him above all -controversy. During his temptations he had come to see its truth, and -it also fell in marvellously with his changed views on the duties of a -religious and with his renunciation of humility and self-denial. - - At a time when mysticism and the study of Tauler still exercised a - powerful influence over him he was wont in his fits of terror to - revert to Tauler’s misapprehended considerations on the inward trials - of the soul. - - In pursuance of this idea and hinting at his own mental state he - declares in his “_Operationes in psalmos_” (1519-21), that, according - to St. Paul (Rom. v. 3 f.), tribulations work in us patience - and trial and hope, and thus the love of God and justification; - tribulation, however, consisted chiefly of inward anxiety, and trial - called for patience and calm endurance of this anxiety; the greater - the tribulation, the higher would hope rise in the soul. “Thus it is - plain that the Apostle is speaking of the assurance of the heart in - hope,[366] because, after anxiety cometh hope, and then a man feels - that he hopes, believes and loves.” “Hence Tauler, the man of God, - and also others who have experienced it, say that God is never more - pleasing, more lovable, sweeter and more intimate with His sons than - after they have been tried by temptation.”[367] It is quite true that - Tauler said this; he also teaches that the greater the desolation - by which God tries the souls of the elect, the higher the degree of - mystical union to which He wishes to call them; for death is the road - to life. It is quite another thing, however, whether Tauler would have - approved of Luther’s application of what he wrote. - - Luther also refers both to Tauler and to himself elsewhere in the - “Operationes,” where he speaks of the fears of conscience regarding - the judgment of God which no one can understand who had not himself - experienced them; Job, David, King Ezechias and a few others had - endured them; “and finally that German theologian, Johannes Tauler, - often alludes to such a state of soul in his sermons.”[368] Tauler, - however, when speaking of such afflictions, is thinking of those souls - who seek God and are indeed united to Him in love, but who are tried - and purified by the withdrawal of sensible grace, and by being made to - feel a sense of separation from Him and the burden of their nature. - - In his church-postils he again summons Tauler to his aid in order to - depict the fears with which he was so familiar, seeking consolation, - as it were, both for himself and for others. In his sermon for the - 2nd Sunday in Advent (1522) he speaks of “those exalted temptations - concerning death and hell, of which Tauler wrote.” Evidently speaking - from experience he says: “This temptation destroys flesh and blood, - nay, penetrates into the marrow of the bones and is death itself, so - that no one can endure it unless marvellously borne up. Some of the - patriarchs tasted this, for instance, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and - Moses, but, towards the end of the world, it will become more common.” - Finally, he assures his hearers, that, there were such as were “still - daily tried” in this way, “of which but few people are aware; these - are men who are in the agony of death, and who grapple with death”; - still Christ holds out the hope that they are not destined to death - and to hell; on the other hand, it is certain that the “world, which - fears nothing, will have to endure, first death, and, after that, - hell.”[369] - - -_Other Ordeals_ - -Other temptations that assailed Luther must be taken into account. -Unfortunately he does not say what “new” form of temptation it was -of which he wrote to Johann Lang in 1519. He says: A temptation had -now befallen him which showed him “what man was, though he had fondly -believed that he was already well enough aware of this before”; he -felt it even more severely than the trials he had to endure before the -Leipzig Disputation; he would discuss it with him only by word of mouth -when Lang came to see him.[370] Is he here referring to temptations of -the flesh of an unusual degree of intensity? We have already heard him -bewail his temptations to ambition and hate. Moreover, in this very year -he speaks of temptations against chastity in his Sermon on Marriage: -It is a “shameful temptation,” he says; “I have known it well, and I -imagine you too are acquainted with it; ah, I know well how it is when -the devil comes and excites and inflames the flesh.… When one is on -fire and the temptation comes I know well what it is; then the eye is -already blind.”[371] Already before this he had had to fight against -“very many temptations” of the sort, which are “wont to attend the age -of youth.”[372] Later on they startled him by their waxing strength. Of -the temptations of the senses (“_titillatio_”) to which he was exposed -he had complained, for instance, in the same year (1519) in a letter to -his superior Staupitz,[373] and the worldly intercourse into which he -was drawn, “the social gatherings, excessive indulgence in the pleasures -of the table, and general lukewarmness,” of which he speaks on the same -occasion, make such temptations all the more likely in the case of a -young man of a temper so lively and impressionable, especially as his -lukewarmness took the shape of neglect of prayer and the means of grace, -and of the help he might have derived from the exercises of the Order. - -Such fleshly temptations he bewailed even more loudly when at the -Wartburg. There, as we may recall, he became the plaything of evil lust -(“_libido_”) and the “fire of his untamed flesh.” “Instead of glowing in -spirit, I glow in the flesh.”[374] Admitting that he himself “prayed and -groaned too little for the Church of God,” he exclaims: “Pray for me, -for in this solitude I am falling into the abyss of sin!”[375] Though in -bodily health and well cared for, he is “being well pounded by sins and -temptations,” so he wrote to his old friend Johann Lang. - -To all this was still added great trouble of conscience concerning his -undertaking as a whole. When he was passionately declaring that his -misgivings were from the devil and resolving never to flinch in his -antagonism to the hated vow of chastity he was himself falling into the -state which he himself describes: “You see how I burn within (‘_quantis -urgear æstibus_’).” This to Melanchthon, after having explained to him -the struggle waging within between his feelings and his knowledge of -the Bible in the matter of the vow of chastity. He is being carried -away to take action, and yet is unable, as he here admits, to prove -his object by means of the text of Scripture.[376] He feels himself -to be “the sport of a thousand devils” in the Wartburg on account of -this and other temptations; he falls frequently, yet the right hand of -God upholds him.[377] The castle is full of devils, so he wrote from -within its walls, and very cunning devils to boot, who never leave him -at peace but behave in such a way that he “is never alone” even when he -seems to be so.[378] Hence he was writing “partly under the stress of -temptation, partly in indignation.” What he was writing was his “_De -votis monasticis_,” by means of which, as he here says, he is about “to -free the young folk from the hell of celibacy.”[379] - -Ten years later he still recalls the “despair and the temptation -concerning God’s wrath” which had then been raging within him.[380] - -His temptations at that time must have been rendered even worse by the -morbid conditions then awakening in him, by the dismal, racking sense -of fear that peopled his imagination with thousands of devils, and the -mental confusion resulting from his state of nervous overstrain. - -It would carry us too far to pursue the diabolical temptations to despair -(or what he held to be such) throughout the rest of his life, and to -examine their connection with his maladies. We shall only remark, that, -even at a later date, when we find him the butt of severe temptations -of this sort, an under-current of other trouble is frequently to be -detected. The “terrors” he endured in his youthful years indeed moderated -but never altogether disappear. The “spiritual sickness” of 1537 of which -he speaks, when for a whole fortnight he could scarcely eat, drink or -sleep, shows the degree to which these thoughts of despair and struggles -of conscience could reach. - - -_Summary_ - -To sum up what we have said of Luther’s temptations, a distinction must -be made between the temptations of the Evil One, which Luther himself -regarded as such, and certain other things the real nature of which he -failed to grasp. Moreover, there are those “temptations” which bore on -his work and doctrines and which he wrongly regarded as temptations of -the devil, whereas they were no more than the prick of conscience. All -three are at times reacted on by a morbid state which he likewise failed -rightly to understand, but which was made up of that predisposition -to anxiety to which his nature was so prone and a kind of nervous -irritability due to his struggles and over-great labours. Only those of -the first and second class have any title to be regarded as temptations. - -To the first class, i.e. to the temptations he felt and described as -such, belongs first of all that despair which often disquieted him even -in his later years; then again the temptations of the flesh of which we -have also heard him speak. Though he ascribes both to the machinations -of the Evil One, yet his method of fighting them was fatally mistaken. -The temptations to despair he withstood by his erroneous doctrine of -grace and faith alone, and, the more such thoughts torment him, the more -defiantly does he stand by this doctrine. In the case of the temptations -against chastity he failed to make sufficient use of the remedies of -Christian penance and piety; on the contrary, under the stress of their -allurements, he finally saw fit to demolish even the barrier raised by -solemn vows made unto God. - -The second class of temptations, which to him, however, did not seem to -be such, includes all the mental aberrations we have had occasion to -note during the course of his life story, particularly at the beginning -of his apostasy. Here we shall only indicate the more important. It -may be allowed that many of them masqueraded under specious pretexts -and the appearance of good (“_sub specie boni_”). Thus, e.g. there was -something fine and inspiring in his plans of exalting the grace of -Christ at the expense of the mere works of the faithful; of giving the -religious freedom of the Christian full play, regardless of unwarranted -human ordinances; of improving the cut-and-dry theology of the day by -a deeper and more positive study of the Bible; and of stopping the -widespread decline in ecclesiastical learning and ecclesiastical life by -stronghanded reforms. He allowed himself, however, to be altogether led -astray in both the conception and the carrying out of these plans. - -There was grave peril to himself in that sort of spiritualism, thanks -to which he so frequently attributes all his doings to the direct -inspiration and guidance of Almighty God; real and enlightened dependence -on God is something very different; again, there was danger in his -perverted interpretation of the teaching of the mystics of the past, -in his exaggeration of the strength of man’s sinful concupiscence and -neglect of the remedies prescribed in ages past, particularly of the -practices of his own Order, also in his passionate struggles against the -so-called holiness-by-works prevalent among the Augustinians, in his -characteristic violence and tendency to pick a quarrel, and, above all, -in the working of his inordinate self-esteem and unbounded appreciation -of his own achievements as the leader of the new movement, which led him -to exalt himself above all divinely appointed ecclesiastical authority. - -In the above we were obliged to hark back to Luther’s earlier days, and -this we shall again have to do in the following pages. The truth is, -that many of the secrets of his earlier years can be explained only in -the light of his later life, whilst, conversely, his youth and years of -ripening manhood assist us in solving some of the riddles of later years. -Hence we cannot be justly charged with repeating needlessly incidents -that have already been related. - - * * * * * - -Just as the Wartburg witnessed the strongest temptations that Luther -had ever to bear, so, too, it formed the stage of certain of those -manifestations from the other world of which he fancied himself the -recipient. Such manifestations, which lead one to wonder whether Luther -suffered from hallucinations, are of frequent occurrence in his story. We -shall now proceed to review them in their entirety. - - -3. Ghosts, Delusions, Apparitions of the Devil - -In investigating the many ghostly apparitions with which Luther believed -he had been favoured, our attention is perforce drawn to the Wartburg. -We must, however, be careful to distinguish the authentic traditions -from what has been unjustifiably added thereto. As to the explaining -and interpreting of such testimonies as have a right to be regarded as -historical, that will form the matter of a special study. In order that -the reader may build up an opinion of his own we shall meanwhile only -set on record what the sources say, the views of those concerned being -given literally and unabridged. This method, essential though it be for -the purposes of an unbiassed examination, has too often been set aside, -recourse being had instead to mere assertions, denials and pathological -explanations. - - -_The Statements Concerning Luther’s Intercourse with the Beyond_ - -On April 5, 1538, Luther, in the presence of his friends, spoke of the -personal “annoyance” to which the devil had subjected him while at the -Wartburg by means of visible manifestations. The pastor of Sublitz, -then staying at Wittenberg, had complained of being pestered at his -home by noisy spooks; they flung pots and pans at his head and created -other disturbances. Referring to such outward manifestations of the -spirit-world, Luther remarked: “I too was tormented in my time of -captivity in Patmos, in the castle perched high up in the kingdom of the -birds. But I withstood Satan and answered him in the words of the Bible: -God is mine, Who created man and ‘set all things under his feet’ (Ps. -viii. 7). If thou hast any power over them, try what thou canst do.”[381] - -On another occasion he related before his friend Myconius and in the -presence of Jonas and Bugenhagen, “how the devil had twice appeared at -the Wartburg in the shape of a great dog and had tried to kill him.” -It is Myconius who relates this, mentioning that it had been told him -by Luther at Gotha in 1538,[382] “in the house of Johann Löben, the -Schosser.” - -Of one of these two apparitions, the physician Ratzeberger, Luther’s -friend, had definite information. He, however, quotes it only as an -instance of the many ghostly things which Luther had experienced there: -“Because the neighbourhood was lonely many ghosts appeared to him -and he was much troubled by disturbances due to noisy spooks. Among -other incidents, one night, when he was going to bed, he found a huge -black bull-dog lying on his bed that refused to let him get in. Luther -thereupon commended himself to our Lord God, recited Ps. viii. [the same -as that mentioned above], and when he came to the verse ‘Thou hast set -all things under his feet’ the dog at once disappeared and Luther passed -a peaceful night. Many other ghosts of a like nature visited him, all of -whom he drove off by prayer, but of which he refused to speak, for he -said he would never tell anyone how many spectres had tormented him.”[383] - -According to the account of his pupil Mathesius, Luther often “called to -mind how the devil had tormented him in mind and caused him a burning -pain which sucked the very marrow out of his bones.”[384] Of visible -apparitions Mathesius has, however, very little to say: “The Evil -Spirit,” so we read in his account of Luther’s sayings, “most likely -wished to affright me palpably, for on many nights I heard him making a -noise in my Patmos, and saw him at the Coburg under the form of a star, -and in my garden in the shape of a black pig. But my Christ strengthened -me by His Spirit and Word so that I paid no heed to the devil’s -spectre.”[385] Mathesius, in his enthusiasm, actually goes so far as to -compare such things to Satan’s tempting of Christ in the wilderness. - -The encounter with the great black dog in the Wartburg is related in an -old edition of Luther’s Table-Talk with a curious addition, which tells -how Luther, on one occasion, calmly lifted from the bed the dog, which -had frequently tormented him, carried him to the window, and threw him -out without the animal even barking. Luther had not been able to learn -anything about it afterwards from others, but no such dog was kept in the -Castle.[386] - - Of the strange din by which the devil annoyed him within those walls - Luther speaks more in detail in the German Table-Talk. “When I was - living in Patmos … I had a sack of hazel nuts shut up in a box. On - going to bed at night I undressed in my study, put out the light, went - to my bedchamber and got into bed. Then the nuts began to rattle over - my head, to rap very hard against the rafters of the ceiling and bump - against me in bed; but I paid no attention to them. After I had got to - sleep there began such a din on the stairs as though a pile of barrels - was being flung down them, though I knew the stairs were protected - with chains and iron bars so that no one could come up; nevertheless, - the barrels kept rolling down. I got up and went to the top of the - stairs to see what it was, but found the stairs closed. Then I said: - ‘If it is you, so be it,’ and commended myself to our Lord Christ of - Whom it is written: ‘Thou shalt set all things under his feet,’ as - Ps. viii. says, and got into bed again.” All this, so the account - proceeds, had been related by Luther himself at Eisenach in 1546.[387] - Cordatus, however, must have heard the story of the nuts from his own - lips even before this. He tells it in 1537 as one of the numerous - instances of the persecution Luther had had to endure from the spooks - of the Wartburg: “Then he [the devil] took the walnuts from the table - and flung them up at the ceiling the whole night long.”[388] - - It also happened (this supplements an incident touched upon above in - vol. ii., p. 95), so Luther related on the above occasion, in 1546, - that the wife of Hans Berlips, who “would much have liked to see - [Luther], which was, however, not allowed,” came to the Castle. His - quarters were changed and the lady was put into his room. “That night - there was such an ado in the room that she fancied a thousand devils - were in it.”[389] This story is not quite so well authenticated as the - incidents which Luther relates as having happened to himself, for - it is clear that he had it directly, or indirectly, only from this - lady’s account. Her anxiety to see Luther would seem to stamp her as - a somewhat eccentric person, and it may also be that she went into - a room, already reputed to be haunted, quite full of the thought of - ghosts and that her imagination was responsible for the rest. - - Luther goes on to allude to another ghostly visitation, possibly a - new one. He says: “On such occasions we must always say to the devil - contemptuously: “If you are Christ’s Master, so be it!” For this is - what I said at Eisenach.”[390] Nothing further is known, however, of - any such occurrence having taken place at Eisenach. He may quite well - have taken Eisenach as synonymous with the Wartburg. - - * * * * * - - To pass in review the other ghostly apparitions which occurred during - his lifetime, we must begin with his early years. - - When still a young monk at Wittenberg Luther already fancied he heard - the devil making a din. “When I began to lecture on the Psalter, and, - after we had sung Matins, was seated in the refectory studying and - writing up my lecture, the devil came and rattled in the chimney three - times, just as though someone were heaving a sack of coal down the - chimney. At last, as it did not cease, I gathered up my books and went - to bed.”[391] “Once, too, I heard him over my head in the monastery, - but, when I noticed who it was, I paid no attention, turned over and - went to sleep again.”[392] - - Luther can tell some far more exciting stories of ghosts and - “Poltergeists,” of which others, with whom he had come in contact in - youth or manhood, had been the victims. Since, however, he seems to - have had them merely on hearsay, they may be passed over. Of himself, - however, he says: “I have learnt by experience that ghosts go about - affrightening people, preventing them from sleeping and so making them - ill.”[393] - - We find also the following statement: “The devil has often had me by - the hair of my head, yet was ever forced to let me go”;[394] from the - context this, however, may refer to mental temptations. - - He says, however, quite definitely of certain experiences he himself - had gone through in the monastery: “Oh, I saw gruesome ghosts and - visions.” This was probably at the time when “no one was able - to comfort” him.[395] He was referring to incidents to which no - definite date can be assigned, when, anxious to refute their claim to - illumination by the spirits, he told the fanatics: “Ah, bah, spirits … - I too have seen spirits!” - - The Table-Talk relates how on one occasion Luther himself, in a - strange house, was witness of a remarkable spectral visitation. He - is said to have related the incident and to “have seen it with his - own eyes as did also many others.”[396] A maiden, a friend of the - old proctor [at the University], was lying in bed ill at Wittenberg. - She had a vision; Christ appearing to her under a glorious form, - whereupon she joyfully adored her visitor. A messenger was at once - sent “from the college to the monastery” to fetch Luther. He came - and exhorted the young woman “not to allow herself to be deceived by - the devil.” She thereupon spat in the face of the apparition. “The - devil then disappeared and the vision turned into a great snake which - made a dash at the maiden in her bed and bit her on the ear so that - the drops of blood trickled down, after which the snake was seen - no more.” This story was introduced into the German Table-Talk by - Aurifaber (1566).[397] The young woman was probably hysterical and was - the only beholder of the vision. In all likelihood what the others - saw was merely the blood, which might quite well have come from a - scratch otherwise caused. The story has been quoted as a proof of the - dispassionate way in which Luther regarded visions. - - As a further proof of the “sobriety which he coupled with a faith - so ardent and enthusiastic” Köstlin quotes the following:[398] “He - himself related this tale,” the Table-Talk says [the date is uncertain - but it was after he had already begun to preach the “Word”]; “he was - once praying busily in his cell, and thinking of how Christ had hung - on the cross, suffered and died for our sins, when suddenly a bright - light shone on the wall, and, in the midst, a glorious vision of the - Lord with His five wounds appeared and gazed at him, the Doctor, as - though it had been Christ Himself. When the Doctor saw it he fancied - at first it was something good, but soon he bethought him it must be - a devilish spectre, because Christ appears to us only in His Word and - in a lowly and humble form, just as He hung in shame upon the cross. - Hence the Doctor adjured the vision: ‘Begone thou shameless devil! I - know of no other Christ than He Who was crucified, and Who is revealed - and preached in His Word,’ and soon the apparition, which was no - less than the devil in person, disappeared.”[399]—This story told by - his pupils must refer to some statement made by Luther, though the - dramatic liveliness of its imagery may well lead us to suspect that - it has been touched up. Some natural effect of light and shade might - well account for the appearance which the young monk so “busy” at his - prayers thought he saw. - -ed., 58, p. 129. - - It is hardly possible to suppress similar doubts concerning other - accounts we have from his lips; his statements also refer to events - which occurred long previous. At any rate, in a select circle of his - pupils, the opinion certainly prevailed that Luther was tried by - extraordinary other-world apparitions, and this conviction was the - result of remarks dropped by him. - -Greater stress must be laid on those statements of his which bear on -inward experiences, where the most momentous truths were concerned and -which occurred at certain crises of his life. - -In Nov., 1525, he assured Gregory Casel, the Strasburg theologian, in so -many words, that “he had frequently had inward experience that the body -of Christ is indeed in the Sacrament; he had seen dreadful visions; also -angels (‘_vidisse se visiones horribiles, sæpe se angelos vidisse_’), so -that he had been obliged to stop saying Mass.”[400] - -He spoke in this way in the course of the official negotiations with -Casel, the delegate of the Protestant theologians of Strasburg. The words -occur in Casel’s report of the interview published by Kolde. It is true -that Luther also speaks here of the outward “Word” as the support of his -doctrine, particularly on the Sacrament. “We shall,” he says, “abide -quite simply by the words of Scripture—until the Spirit and the unction -teach us something different.” He avers that the Strasburgers who denied -the Sacrament come with their “Spirit” and wish to explain away the words -of the Bible concerning the body of Christ in the Bread. This, however, -is not the “light of the Spirit,” but the “light of reason”; he himself -had long since learnt to reject reason in the things of God. They were -not convinced of their cause as he was, otherwise they would defend their -teaching publicly as he did, for he would rather the whole world were -undone than be silent on God’s doctrine, because it was God’s business to -watch over it. - - His opponents declared they had their own inward experience. “How many - inward experiences have I not had,” he replies, “at those times when - my mind was idle (‘_cum eram otiosus_’)! All sorts of things came - before my mind and everything seemed as reasonable as could be. But, - by God’s grace, I addressed myself to greater and more earnest matters - and began to distrust reason. I too, like them, was ‘in dangers’ [2 - Cor. xi. 26], and in even greater ones. And if it is a question of - piety of life, I hope that there, too, we are blameless.” Coming back - once more to the spirit which the Strasburgers had set up against the - Word of God, he describes in his own defence the “terrors of death - he himself had been through (‘_mortis horrorem expertus_’)” and then - speaks of the angelic visions referred to above which had disturbed - him even at the Mass.[401] - - He also will have it that at other times he had been consoled by - angels, though he does not tell us that he had seen them. In 1532 he - said to Schlaginhaufen: “God strengthened me ten years ago by His - angels, in my struggles and writings.”[402] - - Luther, repeatedly and in so many words, appeals to his realisation of - the divine truths, and it may be assumed he imagined he felt something - of the sort within him, or that he thus interpreted certain emotions. - “I am resolved to acknowledge Christ as Lord. And this I have not only - from Holy Scripture but also from experience. The name of Christ has - often helped me when no one was able to help. Thus I have on my side - the deed and the Word, experience and Scripture. God has given both - abundantly. But my temptations made things sour for me.”[403] - -The Table-Talk assures us that, “Dr. Martin proved it from his own -experience that Jesus Christ is truly God; this he also confessed openly; -for if Christ were not God then there was certainly no God at all.”[404] -It was no difficult task for him to include himself in the ranks of those -“who had received the first fruits of the spirit.”[405] - -In addition to this, however, as will be shown below,[406] he thinks his -doctrine has been borne in upon him by God through direct revelation. -More than once, without any scruple, he uses the word “_revelatum_”; he -is also fond of setting this revelation in an awesome background: it had -been “strictly enjoined on him (‘_interminatum_’) under pain of eternal -malediction” to believe in it.[407] - -In fact a certain terror is the predominating factor in this gloomy -region where he comes in touch with the other world. He has not merely -had experience that there are roving spirits who affright men,[408] -but, in a letter from the Wartburg, he insists quite generally, that, -“the visions of the Saints are terrifying.” Of course, as we well know, -delusions and hallucinations very often do assume a terrifying character. - -Luther also asserts that “divine communications” are always accompanied -by inward tortures like unto death, words which give us a glimpse into -his own morbid state.[409] And yet he fully admits elsewhere the very -opposite, for he is aware that God is, above all things, the consoler. -“It is not Christ Who affrights us”;[410] and “it is Satan alone who -wounds and terrifies.”[411] But, in practice, according to him, things -work differently; there the fear from which he and others suffer comes -to the fore. “We are oftentimes affrighted even when God turns to us the -friendliest of glances.”[412] - -This change of standpoint reminds us of another instance of the same -sort. Luther’s teaching on the terrifying character of the divine -action is much the same as his theological teaching that fear is the -incentive to good deeds. While, as a rule, he goes much too far in -seeking to rid the believer of any fear of God as the Judge, preaching an -unbounded confidence and even altogether excluding fear from the work of -conversion, yet, elsewhere, he emphasises most strongly this same fear, -as called for and quite indispensable; this he did in his controversies -with the Antinomians and, even earlier, as on the occasion of the -Visitations, on account of its religious influence on the people. - -No change or alteration is, however, apparent in the accounts he gives -above of the cases in which he came in touch with the other world; he -sticks firmly by his statement that he had experienced such things both -mentally and palpably. Hence the difficulty of coming to any decision -about them. - - * * * * * - -But there are further alleged experiences, also detailed at length, which -have a place here, viz. the apparitions of the devil himself. - - In 1530 Luther was thrown into commotion by a glimpse of the devil, - under the shape of a fiery serpent, outside the walls of the Coburg. - One evening in June, about nine o’clock, as his then companion Veit - Dietrich relates, Luther was looking out of the window, down on the - little wood surrounding the castle. “He saw,” says this witness, “a - fiery, flaming serpent, which, after twisting and writhing about, - dropped from the roof of the nearest tower down into the wood. He - at once called me and wanted to show me the ghost (‘_spectrum_’) as - I stood by his shoulder. But suddenly he saw it disappear. Shortly - after, we both saw the apparition again. It had, however, altered - its shape and now looked more like a great flaming star lying in the - field, so that we were able to distinguish it plainly even though - the weather was rainy.” Here the pupil undoubtedly did his best to - see something. On his master, however, the firm conviction of having - seen the devil made a deep impression. He had just enjoyed a short - respite after a bout of ill-health. The night after the apparition he - again collapsed and almost lost consciousness. On the following day he - felt, so Dietrich says, “a very troublesome buzzing in the head”; the - apparition leads the narrator to infer that Luther’s bodily trouble, - which now recommenced in an aggravated form, had been entirely “the - work of the devil.”[413] So certain was Luther of having seen the - devil that he mentioned the occurrence in 1531 at one of the meetings - held for the revision of his translation of the Psalms. The words of - the Psalmist concerning “_sagittæ_” and “_fulgura_,” etc. (Ps. xviii. - (xvii.) 15), he applies directly to his own personal experiences and - to the incident in question, “Just as I saw my devil flying over - the wood at the Coburg.”[414] He means by this the fading away and - disappearance of the above-mentioned fiery shape; this psalm speaks of - a “_materia ignita_,” which no doubt suggested his remarks.—Later, as - Mathesius relates, he said he had seen the “evil spirit at the Coburg, - in the form of a star.”[415] Kawerau terms the apparition an “optical - hallucination.”[416] - -By the word hallucination is understood an apparent perception of an -external object not actually present. That the “apparition” at the Coburg -and other similar ones already mentioned or yet to be referred to were -hallucinations is quite possible though not certain. It is true that -the excessive play Luther gave to his imagination, particularly at the -Wartburg and, later, at the Coburg, was such that it is quite within the -bounds of possibility that he fancied he saw or heard things which had -no real existence. On the other hand, moreover, we know what a large -share his superstition had in distorting actual facts. Hence, generally -speaking, most of the ghosts or visions he is said to have seen can be -explained by a mistaken interpretation of the reality, without there -being any need to postulate an hallucination properly so-called. Much -of what has been related might come under the heading of illusions, -though, probably, not everything. To analyse them in detail is, however, -impossible as the circumstances are not accurately known. Certainly no -one, however much inclined to the supernatural, who is familiar with -Luther and his times, will be content, as was once the case, to believe -that the devil sought to interfere visibly and palpably with his person -and his teaching. - - As to the apparition of the devil at the Coburg in the shape of a - flame, a serpent and a star, we may point out that the whole may well - have been caused simply by a lantern or torch carried by somebody in - that lonely neighbourhood. We might also be tempted to think of St. - Elmo’s fire, except that the form of the apparition presents some - difficulty.—So, too, the black dog in the Wartburg was most likely - some harmless intruder. The noise of the nuts flying up against the - ceiling may have been produced by the creaking of a weather-cock, or - of a door or shutter in the wind [or by the rats]. Other tales again - may be rhetorical inventions, simple fictions of Luther’s brain, not - involving the least suggestion of any illusion or hallucination, for - instance, when he speaks of the angels who appeared to him at Mass. - Such an apparition was a convenient weapon to use against opponents - who alleged they were under the influence of the “Spirit.” Moreover, - some of these tales were told so long after the event as to leave a - wide scope to the imagination. - -To proceed with the accounts of the apparitions of the devil: About the -reality of two of such, Luther is quite positive. - - One of these took place close to his dwelling. The devil he then - espied in the shape of a wild-boar in his garden under his window. - “Once Martin Luther was looking out of the window,” so an account - dating from 1548 tells us, “when a great black hog appeared in the - garden.” He recognised it as a diabolical apparition and jeered at - Satan who appeared in this guise, though he had once been a “beautiful - angel.” “Thereupon the hog melted into nothing.”[417] He himself - refers to this apparition in the words already recorded, in which he - classes it with the work of the noisy spirits in the Wartburg and the - “appearance of the star” at the Coburg.[418] - - Indeed the hog and the flaming vision at the Coburg even found their - way into his printed sermons. We read in the home-postils: “The devil - is always about us in disguise, as I myself witnessed, taking, e.g. - the form of a hog, of a burning wisp of straw, and such like”[419] - (cp. above, vol. v., p. 287 ff.). - - The other apparition, the one which possibly suggests most strongly - an hallucination, was that which he experienced at Eisleben at the - time he was trying to adjust the quarrels between the Counts of - Mansfeld, i.e. just before his death. We have accounts of this from - two different quarters, based on statements made by Luther; first - that of Michael Cœlius, a friend who was present at his death, in the - funeral oration he delivered immediately after at Eisleben on Feb. 20, - and, secondly, that of Luther’s confidant, the physician Ratzeberger. - The former in his address recounts for the edification of the people - how Luther “during his lifetime” had suffered trials and persecutions - at the hands of the devil before going to his eternal rest; hence in - this world he had been “disturbed and troubled in his peace of mind” - by Satan. It was true that latterly he had “enjoyed some happiness” - at Eisleben, but “that had not lasted long; one evening indeed,” so - Cœlius continues, “Luther had lamented with tears, that, while raising - his heart to God with gladness and praying at his open window, he had - seen the devil, who hindered him in all his labours, squatting on the - fountain and making faces at him. But God would prove stronger than - Satan, that he knew well.”[420]—Ratzeberger’s account quite agrees - with this as to the circumstances; he had learnt that Luther “related - the incident to Dr. Jonas and Mr. Michael Cœlius.” His information - is not derived from the funeral oration just mentioned, but clearly - from elsewhere. He is right in implying that it was Luther’s habit to - say his night prayers at the window; he has, however, some further - particulars concerning the behaviour of the devil: “It is said that - when Dr. Martin Luther was saying his night prayers to God at the open - window, as his custom was before going to bed, he saw Satan perched - on the fountain that stood outside his dwelling, showing him his - posterior and jeering at him, insinuating that all his efforts would - come to nought.”[421] The first place, however, belongs to the account - of Cœlius, who, by his mention of the tears Luther shed, sets vividly - before the reader the commotion into which the apparition, which had - occurred shortly before, had thrown him. - - Excitement and trouble of mind were then pressing heavily on the aging - man. His frame of mind was caused not merely by the quarrel between - the “wrangling Counts” of Mansfeld with whom “no remonstrances or - prayers brought any help,”[422] not merely by his usual “temptations,” - but also, as Ratzeberger tells us, by the healing up of the incision - in the left leg, he (Ratzeberger) had made, and which now led to - bodily disorders. The disorders now made common cause with his - “annoyance melancholy and grief.” The “violent mental excitement,” - together with the bad effects of the healing up of the artificial - wound, were, according to this physician, what “brought about his - death.” Ratzeberger was not, however, then at Eisleben and we are in - possession of more accurate accounts of the circumstances attending - Luther’s death. - - In explanation of Luther’s singular delusion regarding the jeering - devil we may remark that he is fond of attributing the obstacles - in the way of peace to the devil’s wrath and envy. “It seems to me - that the devil is mocking us,” he writes of the difficulties on Feb. - 6, “may God mock at him in return!”[423] The Eisleben councillor, - Andreas Friedrich, writes to Agricola on Feb. 17 (18) of these same - concerns, that Luther, when he found there was still no prospect of - a settlement, had complained: “As I see, Satan turns his back on me - and jeers as well.”[424] Here, curiously enough, we have exactly what - occurred at the fountain. If the apparition, as is highly probable, - belongs somewhat later, then we may assume that the vivid picture - of the devil under this particular shape with which Luther was so - familiar led finally to some sort of hallucination. His extravagant - ideas of Satan generally might, in fact, have been sufficient. - Everything that went against him was “Satanic,” and his only hope is - that “God will make a mockery of Satan.”[425] - - The account Luther gives in his Table-Talk of the two devils who, in - his old age, accompanied him whenever he went to the “sleep-house” may - be dealt with briefly. In this passage he is alluding in his joking - way to his bodily infirmities.[426] Hence the “one or two” devils who - dogged his footsteps are here described as quite familiar and ordinary - companions, which is not in keeping with the idea of true apparitions; - they were the nicer sort, i.e. pretty, well-mannered devils; they - “attacked his head” and thus caused the malady to which he was most - subject, hence in his usual style he threatens to “bid them begone - into his a⸺,” in short he is here merely jesting. This forbids our - taking the statement as meant in earnest though it is twice quoted in - the German Table-Talk quite seriously. In the early days, immediately - after Luther’s death, the statements concerning the “two devils” were, - strange to say, reverently repeated by his pupils as an historic fact; - in reality they were all too eager to unearth miraculous incidents in - his life. - - At a later period, when rationalism had made some headway, Protestant - biographers of Luther as a rule preferred to say nothing about the - apparitions Luther had met with, or to treat them as pious, harmless - jests misinterpreted by his pupils. This, however, is not at all in - accordance with historic criticism. Luther admirers of an earlier - date, on the other hand, went too far in the contrary direction and - showed themselves only too ready to follow their master into the other - world, or to represent him as holding intercourse with it. Cyriacus - Spangenberg (1528-1604), a Luther zealot, is an instance in point. In - his “Theander Lutherus,” speaking of Luther “the real holy martyr,” - he says: He deserved to be termed a martyr on account of the visible - hostility of the devil; one or two devils had been in the habit of - accompanying him in his walks in the dormitory in order to attack him, - and his illnesses were caused simply by the devil. Needless to say, he - does not allow the incidents mentioned above to escape him: Satan had - tormented him at the Coburg in the shape of a fiery star and in the - garden under that of a hog; he had tried to deceive him in his cell - under the dazzling image of Christ, had affrighted him in the Wartburg - by making a devilish noise with the nuts, and, finally, even in his - monkish days had driven the student at a late hour from his studies by - the din he made.[427] - -It is a fact worthy of note that the older Protestant writers, when -speaking of the apparitions Luther had, never mention any such or any -revelations of a consoling character, but merely terrifying stories of -devils and diabolical persecutions. This agrees with the observation -already made above (p. 128 f.). It is evident that as good as nothing -was known of any consoling apparitions; nor would the mild and friendly -angels have been in place in the warlike picture which his friends -transmitted of Luther. That he did not think himself a complete stranger -to such heavenly communications has, however, been proved above, and it -may be that his imagination would have had more to relate concerning this -friendlier world above had he not had particular reasons for being chary -about speaking of such visions. - - -_The Disputation with the Devil on the Mass_ - -In Spangenberg even Luther’s famous disputation with the devil on private -Masses is also made to do duty among the other apparitions. He, like many -others, takes it as an actual occurrence and represents it as further -proof of the “real martyrdom” of his hero.[428] As, conversely, this -disputation also plays a part in the works of Luther’s adversaries, it -may be worth while to examine it somewhat more narrowly. It is urged -that Luther admits he had been instructed by the devil regarding the -falsity of the Catholic doctrine of the Mass, and, that, by thus tracing -it back to the devil, he stamps with untruth an important portion of his -teaching, seeing, that, from the father of lies, nothing but lies can be -expected. - -What then are we to believe concerning this disputation, judging from -Luther’s own words which constitute our sole source? The only possible -answer is, that Luther is merely making use of a rhetorical device. - - It is true, that, in his “Von der Winckelmesse” (1533), Luther speaks - in so elusive a way of his dispute with the devil, and of the truth - he had learnt from the latter, that the incident was taken literally, - not merely by Spangenberg and other of Luther’s oldest friends, but - actually by Cochlæus too, and was, at a later date, made the subject - of many disquisitions. Yet, if we look into the matter carefully, we - shall find he speaks from the very outset not of any actual apparition - of the devil, but merely of his inward promptings: “On one occasion,” - so he introduces the story, “I woke up at midnight and the devil began - a disputation with me _in my heart_,” such as he has with me “many a - night.”[429] He then goes on, however, to describe the disputation as - graphically as had it been a real incident. - - Luther’s object with the writing in question is to fling at the - Papists his arguments against private Masses under a new and striking - form. He pretends that the Papists would be at a loss to answer - Satan, but would be forced to despair “were he to bring forward - these and other arguments against them at the hour of death.” Hence - he introduces himself and shows how the devil had driven him into - a corner on account of his former celebration of Mass. As for the - arguments they are his usual ones. Here, put in the mouth of the - devil, they are to overwhelm him with despair for his former evil - wont of saying Masses. The only reason he can espy why he should not - despair is that he has now repented and no longer says the Mass. - - He himself alludes to the artifice; writing to a friend, he says, that - by the introduction of the devil he intends to attack the Papists - “with a pamphlet of a new kind”; even those friendly to the Evangel - would be astonished at his new way of writing; they were, however, to - be told that this was merely a challenge thrown to the Papists; that - it only represented himself as driven into a corner by the devil on - account of the Masses he had formerly said, in order to induce the - Papists to examine their consciences and see how they could vindicate - themselves with regard to the Mass.[430]—Thus, for once, the devil - might well figure as an upholder of Luther’s doctrine. - - In the course of the drama the devil never grows weary of proving, - that, owing to the Masses Luther had said, and the idolatry he had - thus practised, he had been brought to the verge of everlasting - destruction. The devil’s arguments are given at great length and - Luther concedes everything save that he refuses to despair. The - statement that he should, so he urges, is worthy of the devil, who, - in his temptations, constantly confuses the false with the true.[431] - Luther, here, even introduces the devil in a quasi-comic light: “Do - you hear, you great, learned man?” etc. “Yes, my dear chap, that is - not the same,” etc. In a similar tone Luther then turns on the Papists - who say to him: “Are you a great Doctor and yet have no answer ready - for the devil?” - -Certain Protestant writers, even down to our own times, have, however, -insisted that, at any rate inwardly, the devil had sought to reduce -Luther to despair on account of his celebration of Mass as a Catholic; -that the spirit of darkness had attached so much importance to the -suppression of the Gospel, that he attempted to disquiet Luther with -such self-reproaches.[432] It is true Luther once says that the devil -reproached him with his “misdeeds, for instance, with the sacrifice of -the Mass,” and other Catholic practices of which he had formerly been -guilty.[433] On other occasions, however, he quite absolves the devil -of any change concerning the Mass. He says, e.g.: “The devil is such a -miscreant that he does not reproach me with my great and awful crimes -such as the celebration of Mass,”[434] etc. Thus he had persuaded himself -quite independently of the devil that the Mass was a grievous crime. We -have, in fact, in Luther’s statements concerning his inward experiences -a crying instance of his changeableness. We shall return below to his -self-reproach on account of his celebration of Mass (see section 4). - - -_Possession and Exorcism_ - -We may conclude our examination of diabolical apparitions by some -statements concerning the exorcisms Luther undertook and his treatment of -cases of possession. - -His first followers believed he had been successful in 1545 in driving -out Satan in the case of a person possessed. The testimony of two -witnesses of the incident must here come under consideration, both young -men who were present on the occasion, viz. Sebastian Fröschel, Deacon at -Wittenberg, and Frederick Staphylus, a man of learning who afterwards -abandoned Lutheranism and became Superintendent of the University of -Ingolstadt.[435] The latter knows nothing of any success having attended -Luther’s efforts, whereas the former boasts that such was the case, -though he somewhat invalidates his testimony by saying nothing of the -embarrassing situation in which Luther found himself at the close of -the scene. According to both accounts the incident was more or less as -follows: - - A girl of eighteen from Ossitz in the neighbourhood of Meissen who was - said to be possessed was brought one Tuesday to Luther, and, while at - his bidding reciting the Creed, was “torn” by the devil as soon as she - reached the words “and in Jesus Christ.” Luther hesitated at first to - set about the work of liberation and expressed his contempt for the - devil whom he “well knew.” The next day, after his sermon, he caused - the “possessed” girl to be brought to him in the sacristy of the - parish church of Wittenberg by the above-mentioned Fröschel. - - We hear nothing of any regular examination as to whether it was a - case of possession, or not rather hysteria, as seems more likely. - At any rate, the unhappy girl when passing from the church through - the entrance to the sacristy, was seen to “fall down and hit about - her.” The door of the sacristy, where several doctors, ecclesiastics - and students were gathered, was locked. Luther delivered an address - on his method of driving out the devil: He did not intend to do this - in the way usual in Apostolic time, in the early Church and later, - viz. by a command and authoritative exorcism, but rather by “prayer - and contempt”; the Popish exorcism was too ostentatious and of it the - devil was not worthy; at the time when exorcism had been introduced - miracles were necessary for the confirmation of the faith, but this - was now no longer the case; God Himself knew well when the devil had - to depart and they ought not to tempt Him by such commands, but, on - the contrary, pray until their prayers were answered. Thus Luther, not - unwisely, refused to perform any actual “driving out of the devil.” - - The Church’s ritual for exorcism was, however, not so ostentatious as - Luther pretends, and combined commands issued in a tone of authority - in the name of Christ (Matt. x. 8; Mark xvi. 17) with an expression - of contempt for the devil and reprobation of his evil deeds. Fröschel - noted down the address in question together with everything that - occurred and said later in a sermon, that Luther’s action ought to - serve as a model in future cases. - - In the sacristy the Creed and Our Father were recited, two passages on - prayer (from John xvi. and xiv.) were also read aloud by Luther. Then - he, together with the other ecclesiastics present, laid hands on the - head of the girl and continued reciting prayers. When no sign appeared - of the devil’s departure, Luther wished to go, but first took care to - spurn the girl with his foot, the better to mark anew his disdain for - the devil. The poor creature whom he had thus insulted followed him - with threatening looks and gestures. This was all the more awkward - since Luther was unable to escape, the key of the sacristy door having - been mislaid; hence he was obliged, he the devil’s greatest and - best-hated foe on earth, to remain cheek by jowl with the Evil One. - - The satirical description Staphylus gives of the situation cannot be - repeated here, especially as the writer seems to have added to its - colour.[436] Luther was unable to jump out of the window, so he says, - because it was protected with iron bars; “hence he had to remain shut - up with us until the sacristan could pass in a strong hatchet to us - through the bars; this was handed to me, as I was young, for me to - burst open the door, which I then did.” In place of all this, Fröschel - merely says of the girl, who was taken home the following day, that - afterwards “on several occasions” reports came to Wittenberg to the - effect that the evil spirit no longer “tormented and tore her as - formerly.” - - In the pulpit the Deacon immortalised the incident for his Wittenberg - hearers and made it known to the whole world in his printed sermon - “Vom Teuffel.”[437] - -Luther himself says nothing of it, though disposed in later life to lay -great stress on stories of the devil.[438] Earlier than this, in 1540, -he had hastened to tell his Katey of the supposed deliverance of a girl -at Arnstadt from the devil’s power through the ministrations of the -Evangelical pastor there; the latter had “driven a devil out of the girl -in a truly Christian manner.”[439] He does not, however, mention this -incident in his published works. - -On the other hand we have in the Table-Talk a full account of his -treatment of a woman “possessed,” or, rather, clearly ailing from a -nervous disorder. Her symptoms were regarded, as was customary at a time -when so little was known of this class of maladies, as “purely the work -of the devil, as something unnatural, due to fright and devil-spectres, -seeing that the devil had overlaid her in the shape of a calf.” Luther, -on visiting the woman thus “bodily persecuted by the devil,” again laid -great stress on the need of praying that she might be rid of her guest, -though this time he did not scorn the use of the formula of exorcism. -“The night after, she was left in peace, but, later, the weakness -returned. Finally, however, she was completely delivered from it;”[440] -in other words, the malady simply took its natural course. - -Another much-discussed case which occurred after the middle of the -’thirties was that of a girl at Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, a report of which -came to Luther from Andreas Ebert, the Lutheran pastor there (see above, -vol. iii., p. 148). In his reply to the circumstantial account of how the -“possessed” girl was able to produce coins by magic Luther shows himself -in so far cautious that he is anxious to have it made clear whether the -story is quite true and whether the coins are real. Nevertheless, he -does not hesitate to declare, that, should the incident be proved, it -would be a great omen (“_ostentum_”), as Satan, with God’s permission, -was thus setting before them a picture of the greed of money prevailing -among certain of the princes. He was loath to see exorcism resorted -to, “because the devil in his pride laughs at it”; all the more were -they to pray for the girl and against the devil, and this, with the help -of Christ, would finally spell her liberation; meanwhile, however, he -expresses his readiness to make public all the facts of the case that -could be proved. In his sermons he spoke of the occurrence to his hearers -as a “warning.”[441] - -Theodore Kirchhoff, who, in the “Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie,” -mentions “Luther’s exorcisms of hysterical women folk,” not without -bewailing his error, points out that it was in part his own fancied -experience with the devil which led him to regard “similar phenomena -in others as diabolical”; “his many nervous ailments,” he says, -“strengthened his personal belief in the devil.” “Indeed, so far did he -go in his efforts to drive out the devil that once he actually proposed -that an idiot should be done to death.”[442] “Such a doctrine [on the -devil’s action], backed by the authority of so great a man, took deep -root.” It would be incorrect, writes Kirchhoff, to say, that Luther -inaugurated a healthier view of “possession”; on the contrary his -opinion is, “that, owing to Luther’s hard and fast theories, the right -understanding and treatment of the insane was rendered more difficult -than ever; for, if we consider the immense spread of his writings and -what their influence became, it is but natural to infer that this also -led to his peculiar view becoming popular.”[443] Needless to say, other -circumstances also conspired to render difficult the treatment of the -mentally disordered; long before Luther’s day they had been regarded by -many as possessed, and as the physicians would not undertake to cure -possessions, this condition was neglected by the healing art. In many -instances, too, the relatives were against any cure being attempted by -physicians. - - -4. Revelation and Illusion. Morbid Trains of Thought - -One ground for considering the question of Luther’s revelations -in connection with the darker side of his life lies in the gloomy -and unearthly circumstances, which, according to his own account, -accompanied the higher communications he received (“_sub æternæ iræ -maledictione_”),[444] or else preceded them, inducing within his soul -a profound disturbance (“_ita furebam._”…), “I was terrified each -time.”[445] - -A further reason is the unfortunate after-effect that the supposed -revelations from above had upon his mind. Outwardly, indeed, he seemed an -incarnation of confidence, but, inwardly, the case was very different. -Chapter xxxii. (vol. v.) of the present work will have shown how it was -his new doctrines, and his overturning of the Church which accounted for -his “agonies of soul,” his “pangs of hell” and “nightly combats” with the -devil, or rather with his own conscience. “Why do you raise the standard -of revolt against the house of the Lord?… Such thoughts upset one very -much.”[446] His irritation, melancholy and pessimism were largely due -to his disappointment with the results of his revelations. “They know -it is God Whose Word we preach and yet they say: We shan’t listen.” -“We are poor and indifferent trumpeters, but to the assembly of the -heavenly spirits ours is a mighty call.” “My only remaining consolation -is that the end of all cannot be far off.” “It must soon come to a head. -Amen.”[447] And yet, for all that, he insisted on his divine mission so -emphatically (above, vol. iii., p. 109 ff.). - -The revelations which confirmed him in the idea of his mission deserve -more careful examination than has hitherto been possible to us in the -course of our narrative. - -That Luther ever laid claim to having received his doctrine by a personal -revelation from God has been several times denied in recent times by his -defenders. They urge that he merely claimed to have received his doctrine -from above, “in the same way that God reveals it to all true Christians”; -in this and in no other sense, does he speak of his revelations, nor -does he ascribe to himself any “peculiar mission.” - -It is true Luther taught that the content of the faith to which every -true Christian adheres had come into the world by a revelation bestowed -on mankind; he also taught that the Holy Ghost lends His assistance -to every man to enable him to grasp and hold fast to this revelation: -“This is a wisdom such as reason has never framed, nor has the heart -of man conceived it, no, not even the great ones of this world, but -it is revealed from heaven by the Holy Ghost to those who believe the -Gospel.”[448]—This, however, is not the question, but rather, whether -he never gave out that he had reached his own fresh knowledge, and -that reading of the Bible which he sets up against all the rest of -Christendom, thanks to a private and particular illumination, and whether -he did not base on such a revelation his claim to infallible certainty? - - -_Luther’s Insistence on Private Revelation_ - -Luther certainly never dreamt of making so bold and hazardous an -assertion so long as a spark of hope remained in him that the Church of -Rome would fall in with his doctrines. It was only gradually that the -phantom of a personal revelation grew upon him, and, even later, its sway -was never absolute, as we can see from our occasional glimpses into his -inward struggles of conscience. - -We may begin with one of his latest utterances, following it up with -one of his earliest. Towards the end of his life he insisted on the -suddenness with which the light streamed in upon him when he had at -last penetrated into the meaning of Rom. i. 17 (in the Tower), thus -setting the coping-stone on his doctrines by that of the certainty of -salvation.[449] Again, at the outset of his public career, we meet with -those words of which Adolf Harnack says: “Such self-reliance almost fills -us with anxiety.”[450] - -The words Harnack refers to are those in which Luther solemnly assures -his Elector that he had “received the Evangel, not from man, but from -heaven alone, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This he wrote in 1522 when -on the point of quitting the Wartburg.[451] - -In the same year in his “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt,” -full of the spirit he had inhaled at the Wartburg, he declared that he -could no longer remain without “name or title” in order that he might -rightly honour and extol the “Word, office and work he had from God.” -For the Father of all Mercies, out of the boundless riches of His Grace, -had brought him, for all his sinfulness, “to the knowledge of His Son -Jesus Christ and set him to teach others until they too saw the truth”; -for this reason he had a better right to term himself an “Evangelist by -the Grace of God” than the bishops had to call themselves bishops. “I am -quite sure that Christ Himself, Who is the Master of my doctrine, calls -and regards me as such.” Hence he will not permit even “an angel from -heaven to judge or take him to task concerning his doctrine”; “since -I am certain of it I am determined to be judge, not only of you, but, -as St. Paul says (Gal. i. 8), even of the angels, so that whoever does -not accept my doctrine cannot be saved; for it is God’s and not mine, -therefore my judgment also is not mine but God’s own.”[452] - -Such Wartburg enthusiasm, where all that is wanting is the actual word -revelation, agrees well with his statement about the sort of ultimatum -(“_Interminatio_”) sent him by God: “Under pain of eternal wrath it had -been enjoined on him from above,” that he must preach what had been given -him; he describes this species of vision as one of the greatest favours -God had bestowed on his soul.[453] Nor did he scruple to make use of the -word “revelation.” - - The dispute he had with Cochlæus in the presence of others at Worms - in 1521 shows not only that he had sufficient courage to do this but - also, that, previously, from whatever cause, he had hesitated to do - so. We have Cochlæus’s already quoted account of the incident in - the detailed report of his encounter with Luther.[454] It is true - he only published it in 1540, but it is evidently based on notes - made by the narrator at the time. In reply to the admonition, not - to interpret Holy Scripture “arbitrarily, and against the authority - and interpretation of the Church,” Luther urged that there might be - circumstances where it was permissible to oppose the decrees of the - Councils, for Paul said in 1 Corinthians: “If anything be revealed - to another sitting, let the first hold his peace,”[455] though, so - Luther proceeded, he had no wish to lay claim to a revelation. In the - event, however, as he was always harking back to this instance of - revelation mentioned by the Apostle it occurred to Cochlæus to pin him - down to this expression. Hence, without any beating about the bush, - he asked him: “Have _you_ then received a revelation?” Luther looked - at him, hesitated a moment and then said: “Yes, it has been revealed - to me, ‘_Est mihi revelatum._’” His opponent at once reminded him - that, before this, he had protested against being the recipient of - any revelation. Luther, however, said: “I did not deny it.” Cochlæus - rejoined: “But who will believe that you have had a revelation? What - miracle have you worked in proof of it? By what sign will you confirm - it? Would it not be possible for anyone to defend his errors in this - way?” The text in question speaks of a direct revelation. It was in - this sense that Luther had appealed to it before, and that Cochlæus - framed his question. It is impossible to understand Luther’s answer - as referring to a revelation common to all true Christians. Either - Luther made no answer to Cochlæus’s last words or it was lost in - the interruption of his friend Hieronymus Schurf.[456] In any case - his position was a difficult one and it was simpler for him when he - repeated the same assertion later in his printed writings quietly to - treat all objections with contempt. At any rate he never accused the - above account given by Cochlæus of being false. - - Again, in 1522, Luther declares in his sermons at Wittenberg,[457] - that “it was God Who had set him to work on this scheme” (the reform - of the faith), and had given him the “first place” in it. “I cannot - escape from God but must remain so long as it pleases God my Lord; - moreover, it was to me that God first revealed that the Word must be - preached and proclaimed to you.” Hence his revelation was similar to - that of the prophets, for he is alluding to the prophet Jonas when he - says that he could “not escape from God.”[458] The Wittenbergers, he - says, ought therefore to have consulted him before rashly undertaking - their own innovations under Carlstadt’s influence: “We see here that - you have not the Spirit though you may have an exalted knowledge of - Scripture.”[459] Hence, on the top of his knowledge of Scripture, he - himself possesses the “Spirit.” - - From the twelvemonth that followed Luther’s spiritual baptism at the - Wartburg also date the asseverations he makes, that his doctrine was, - not his, but Christ’s own,[460] and that it was “certain he had his - doctrines from heaven.”[461] - - “By Divine revelation,” as we learn from him not long after, “he had - been summoned as an anti-pope to undo, root out and sweep away the - kingdom of malediction” (the Papacy).[462] In 1527 he assures us: - This doctrine “God has revealed to me by His Grace.”[463] And, at a - later period, though rather more cautiously, he does not shrink from - occasionally making use of the word revelation. From the pulpit in - 1532 he urged opponents in his own camp to lay aside their peculiar - doctrines, because, “God has enjoined and commanded _one man_ to teach - the Evangel,” i.e. himself.[464] - - So familiar is this idea to him that it intrudes itself into his - conversations at home. It was the “Holy Ghost” who had “given” to him - his doctrine, so he told his friends and pupils in his old age.[465] - At Wittenberg, according to his own words which Mathesius noted down, - they possessed, thanks to him, the divine revelation. “Whoever, after - my death, despises the authority of the Wittenberg school, provided - it remains the same as now, is a heretic and a pervert, for in this - school God has revealed His Word.” He also complains in the same - passage that the sectarians within the new fold who turned against him - had fallen away from the faith.[466] - - At that time, i.e. during the ’forties, the idea of an inspiration - grew stronger in him. He boasts that his understanding of Romans i. - 17 was due to the “illumination of the Holy Ghost,” and tells how he - suddenly felt himself “completely born anew,” as if he had passed - “through the open portals into Paradise itself,” and how, “at once, - the whole of Scripture bore another aspect.”[467] - - Thus his idea of the revelation with which he had been favoured - gradually assumed in his mind a more concrete shape. - - According to the funeral oration delivered by his friend Jonas on - Feb. 19, 1546, at Eisleben, Luther often spoke to his friends of his - revelations, hinting in a vague and mysterious way at the sufferings - they had entailed. Jonas tells the people in so many words, “that - Martin himself had often said: ‘What I endure and have endured for - the doctrine of the beloved Evangel which God has again revealed to - the world, no one shall learn from me here in this world, but on That - Day it will be laid open.’ Only at the Last Day will he tell us what - during his life he ever kept sealed up in his heart, viz. the great - victories which the Son of God won through him against sin, devil, - Papists and false brethren, etc. All this he will tell us and also - what sublime revelations he had when he began to preach the Evangel, - so that verily we shall be amazed and praise God for them.”[468] - - Hence Luther had persuaded his friends that he had been favoured with - particular revelations. - -From all the above it becomes clear that the revelation which Luther -claimed was regarded by him throughout as a true and personal -communication from above, and not merely as a knowledge acquired by -reflection and prayer under the Divine assistance common to all. It was -in fact only by considering the matter in this light that he was able -effectually to refute the objections of outsiders and to allay to some -extent the storms within him. The very character of his revolt against -the Church, against the tradition of a thousand years, against the -episcopate, universities, Catholic princes and Catholic instincts of the -nation demanded something more than could have been afforded by a mere -appeal to the revelation common to all. Of what service would it have -been to him in his struggles of conscience, and when contending with the -malice and jealousy of the sects, to have laid claim to a vague, general -revelation? - -Nevertheless, the appeals Luther makes to the revelation he had received -are at times somewhat vague, as some of the passages quoted serve to -prove. We shall not be far wrong if we say that he himself was often not -quite clear as to what he should lay claim. His ideas, or at any rate his -statements, concerning the exalted communications he had received, vary -with the circumstances, being, now more definite, now somewhat misty. - -Here, as in the parallel case of his belief in his mission, his -assertions are at certain periods more energetic and defiant than at -others (see above, vol. iii., p. 120 ff.). - -However this may be, the idea of a revelation in the strict sense was -no mere passing whim; it emerges at its strongest under the influence -of the Wartburg spirit, and, once more, summons up all its forces -towards the end of his days, when Luther seeks for comfort amid his sad -experiences and for some relief in his weariness. Yet, in him, the idea -of a revelation always seems a matter of the will, something which he can -summon to his assistance and to which he deliberately holds fast, and -which, as occasion requires, is decked out with the necessary adjuncts -of angels descending from heaven, visions, spirits, inward experiences, -inward menaces, or triumphs over the temptations of the devil. - - -_Some Apparent Withdrawals_ - -Various apparently contradictory statements, such as the reader must -expect to meet with in Luther, are not, however, wanting, even concerning -his revelations. - -Discordant statements of the sort do not, indeed, occur in the passages, -where, as in the quotations given above, he is defending his theological -innovations against the authority of the Church. Often they are a mere -rhetorical trick to impress his hearers with his modesty. In his sermons -at Wittenberg in 1522, for instance, he declared that he was perfectly -willing to submit his “feeling and understanding” to anyone to whom “more -has been revealed”; by this, however, he does not mean his doctrine but -merely the practical details of the introduction of the new ritual of -public worship, then being discussed at Wittenberg. This is clear from -the very emphasis he here lays on his teaching, thanks to which the -Wittenbergers now have the “Word of God true and undefiled,” and from his -description of the devil’s rage who now sees that “the sun of the true -Evangel has risen.”[469] - -Again, when, in his later revision of the same course of sermons, we hear -him say: “You must be disciples, not of Luther, but of Christ,”[470] -and: “You must not say I am Luther’s, or I am the Pope’s, for neither -has died for you nor is your master, but only Christ,”[471] he has not -the least intention of denying the authority of the doctrine revealed -to him, on the contrary, on the same page, he has it that, “Luther’s -doctrine is not his but Christ’s own”;[472] he had already said, “Even -were Luther himself or an angel from heaven to teach otherwise, let -it be anathema.”[473] He is simply following St. Paul’s lead[474] and -pointing out to his hearers the supreme source of truth; he still remains -its instrument, the “Prophet,” “Evangelist” and “Ecclesiastes by the -grace of God,” favoured, like the inspired Apostle of the Gentiles, with -revelations. - -Nevertheless, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that, subsequent to -1525, Luther tended at times to be less insistent on his revelations. -From strategic considerations he was careful to keep more in the -background his revelations from the Spirit now that the fanatics were -also claiming their own special enlightenment by the “Spirit.” His eyes -were now opened to the danger inherent in such arbitrary claims to -revelation, and, accordingly, he now begins to insist more on the outward -“Word.”[475] - -It is true, that, in Nov., 1525, in refutation of the Zwinglian -theologians of Strasburg, he still appealed not merely to his visions of -angels (see above, p. 127) but also to the certain light of his doctrine -inspired by the Holy Ghost, and to his sense of the “Spirit.” “I see -very well,” he says, “that they have no certainty, but the Spirit is -certain of His cause.”[476] Even then, however, a change had begun and -he preferred to appeal to Holy Scripture, which, so he argued, spoke -plainly in his favour, rather than to inspirations and revelations. Hence -his asseveration that this outward Word of God has much more claim to -consideration than the inward Word, which can so easily be twisted to -suit one’s frame of mind. He now comes unduly to depreciate the inward -Word and the Spirit which formerly he had so highly vaunted, though, on -the other hand, he continues to teach that the Spirit and the inward -enlightening of the Word are necessary for the interpretation of Holy -Scripture. - -His Commentary on Isaias contains a delightful attack on the “all-too -spiritual folk, who, to-day, cry Spirit, Spirit!” “Let us not look -for any private revelations. It is Christ who tells us to ‘search -the Scriptures’ [John v. 39]. Revelations puff us up and make us -presumptuous. I have not been instructed,” so he goes on, “either by -signs or by special revelations, nor have I ever begged signs of God; -on the contrary I have asked Him never to let me become proud, or be -led astray from the outward Word through the devil’s tricks.” He then -launches out against those who pretend they have “particular revelations -on the faith,” being “misled by the devil.” These words occur in the -revised and enlarged Scholia on Isaias published in 1534. It may, -however, be that they did not figure in Luther’s lectures on Isaias -(1527-30) but were appended somewhat later.[477] - -After thus apparently disowning any title to private revelation and -a higher light Luther’s inevitable appeal to the certainty of his -doctrine only becomes the more confident. Thanks to his temptations and -death-throes, he had become so certain, that he can declare: Possessed of -the “Word” as I am, I have not the least wish “that an angel should come -to me, for, now, I should not believe him.” - -“Nevertheless, the time might well come,” so he continues in this passage -of the Table-Talk, “when I might be pleased to see one [an angel] on -certain matters.” “I do not, however, admit dreams and signs, nor do I -worry about them. We have in Scripture all that we require. Sad dreams -come from the devil, for everything that ministers to death and dread, -lies and murder is the devil’s handiwork.”[478] - -It is true Luther was often plagued by terrifying dreams, and as he -numbered them among his “anxieties and death-throes” what he says about -them may fittingly be utilised to complete the picture of his inward -state. To such an extent was the devil able to affright him, so he says, -that he “broke out into a sweat in the midst of his sleep”; thus “Satan -was present even when men slept; but angels too were also there.”[479] He -assures us, that, in his sleep, he had witnessed even the horrors of the -Last Judgment. - - -_The “Temptations” as one of Luther’s Bulwarks_ - -The states of terror and the temptations he underwent were to Luther -so many confirmations of his doctrine. Some of his utterances on this -subject ring very oddly. - - To be “in deaths often” was, according to him, a sort of “apostolic - gift,” shared by Peter and Paul. In order to be a doctor above - suspicion, a man must have experienced the pains of death and the - “melting of the bones.” In the Psalms he hears, as it were, an echo - of his own state of soul. “To despair where hope itself despairs,” - and “to live in unspeakable groanings,” “this no one can understand - who has not tasted it.” This he said in 1520 in a Commentary on the - Psalms.[480] And, later, in 1530, when engaged at the Coburg in - expounding the first twenty-five psalms: “‘My heart is become like - wax melting in the midst of my bowels’ [Ps. xxi. 15]. What that was - no one grasps who has not felt it.”[481] “In such trouble there must - needs be despair, but, if I say: ‘This I do simply and solely at God’s - command,’ there comes the assurance: Hence God will take your part and - comfort you. It was thus we consoled ourselves at Augsburg.”[482] - - Many others who followed him were also overtaken by similar distress - of mind. Struggles of conscience and gloomy depression were the fate - of many who flocked to his standard (cp. above, vol. iv., pp. 218-27). - Johann Mathesius, Luther’s favourite pupil, so frequently referred to - above, towards the end of his life, when pastor at Joachimsthal, once - declared, when brooding sadly, that the devil with his temptations was - sifting him as it were in a sieve and that he was enduring the pangs - of hell described by David. The very mention of a knife led him to - think of suicide. He was eager to hold fast to Christ alone, but this - he could not do. After the struggle had lasted two or three months his - condition finally improved.[483] - - Such were Luther’s temptations, of which, afterwards, he did not - scruple to boast. “Often did they bring us to death’s door,” he says - of the mental struggles in which his new doctrine and practice of - sheltering himself behind the merits of Christ involved him. But, - nevertheless, “I will hold fast to that Man alone, even though it - should bring me to the grave!”[484] - - Again, in 1532, we hear him making his own the words: “Out of the - depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord” (Ps. cxxix. 1). The prophet - is not complaining of any mere “worldly temptations,” but of “that - anguish of conscience, of those blows and terrors of death such as the - heart feels when on the brink of despair and when it fancies itself - abandoned by God; when it both sees its sin and how all its good works - are condemned by God the angry Judge.… When a man is sunk in such - anxiety and trouble he cannot recover unless help is bestowed on him - from above.… Nearly all the great saints suffered in this way and were - dragged almost to the gates of death by sin and the Law; hence David’s - exclamation: ‘Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord!’”—The - whole trend of what he says, likewise the counsels he gives on the - remedies that may bring consolation, show plainly his attachment to - this dark night of the soul and his conviction that he is but treading - in the footsteps of the “great Saints” and “Prophets.”[485] - -At any rate there is no room for doubt that this opened out a rich -field for delusion; what he says depicts a frame of mind in which -hallucinations might well thrive; we shall, however, leave it to others -to determine how far pathological elements intervene. - -In the certainty that his cause was inspired he calmly awaits the -approach of the fanatics; they can serve only to strengthen in him his -sense of confidence. Of them and their “presumptuous certainty” he makes -short work in a conversation noted down by Cordatus:[486] Marcus Thomae -(Stübner) he requests to perform a miracle in proof of his views, warning -him, however, that “My God will assuredly forbid your God to let you work -a sign”; he also hurls against him the formula of exorcism: “God rebuke -thee, Satan” (Zach. iii. 2).[487] Nicholas Storch and Thomas Münzer, -so he assures us, openly show their presumption. A pupil of Stübner was -anxious to set himself up as a teacher, but the fellow had only been able -to talk fantastic rubbish to him. Of people such as these he had come -across quite sixty. Campanus, again, is simply to be numbered among the -biggest blasphemers. Carlstadt, who wanted to be esteemed learned, was -only distinguished by his arrogant mouthing. Nowhere was there profundity -or truth. “Not one of you has endured such anxieties and temptations -as I.”[488] “And yet Carlstadt wanted us to bow to his teaching.… Like -Christ, however, I say: ‘My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me’ -(John vii. 16). I cannot betray it as the world would have me do. The -malice of all these ministers of Satan only serves my cause and exercises -me in indomitable firmness.”[489] Hence he derives equal benefit from the -malice of his opponents within the fold and from the inward apprehensions -of which Satan was the cause. - -The manifold errors which had sprung from the seed of his own principles, -in any other man would have elicited doubts and scruples; Luther, -however, finds in them fresh support for his dominating conviction: -My glorious sufferings at the devil’s hands are being multiplied and, -thereby, too, the witness on behalf of my doctrine is being strengthened. - -The mystical halo of the “man of suffering” certainly made a great -impression on some of his young followers and admirers such as -Spangenberg, Mathesius, Cordatus and Veit Dietrich. On others of his -circle the effect was not so lasting. - -Melanchthon, for instance, was well acquainted with Luther’s fits of -mystic terror, yet how severe is the criticism he passes on Luther’s -ground-dogmas, particularly after the latter’s death. - -The doctrine of man’s entire unfreedom in doing what is good may serve as -an instance. - -This palladium of the new theology had been discovered by Luther when -overwhelmed with despair; by it he sought to commit himself entirely -into God’s hands and blindly and passively to await salvation from Him; -this he regarded as the only way out of inward trials; no man could -face the devil with his free will; he himself, so he wrote, “would not -wish to have” free-will, even were it offered him (“_nollem mihi dari -liberum arbitrium_”), in order that he might at least be safe from the -devil; nay, even were there no devil, free-will would still be to him an -abomination, because, with it, his “conscience would never be safe and -at rest.” The words occur in the work he declared to be his very best -and a lasting heirloom for posterity.[490] This particular doctrine, -Melanchthon was, however, so far from regarding as a “revelation,” that -he wrote in 1559: “Both during Luther’s lifetime and also later, I -withstood that Stoical and Manichæan delusion which led Luther and others -to write, that all works whether good or evil, in all men whether good -or bad, take place of necessity. Now it is evident that this doctrine -is contrary to God’s Word, subversive of all discipline and a blasphemy -against God.”[491] Melanchthon did not even scruple to call upon the -State to intervene and prohibit such things being said. In his Postils, -dealing with the question whether heretics should be put to death, he -declares: “By divine command the public authorities must proceed against -idolaters and also interdict blasphemous language, as, for instance, -when a man teaches that good or evil takes place of necessity and under -compulsion.”[492] - -He could not well have said anything more deadly against the foundation -on which Luther’s whole edifice was reared. - -In spite of all, Luther always stood by his pseudo-mystic idea of his -having received revelations. Without it he could never have ventured to -threaten as he did the secular and ecclesiastical authorities who opposed -his dogmas, with “extermination” and “great revolts,” or to proclaim so -confidently that they would fall, blown over by the breath of Christ’s -mouth, or to prophesy that, even beyond the grave, he would be to the -impenitent Papists, what, according to the prophet Osee, God threatened -to be to Israel, viz. “a bear in the road and a lion in the path.”[493] - -His whole process of thought was, as it were, held captive in the heavy -chains of this idea. - - -_Three Perverted Theories Dominating Luther’s Outlook_ - -In order to enter even more deeply into Luther’s mentality three -categories of ideas by which he determined his life well deserve -consideration here. Only at the point we have now reached can some of his -statements be judged of aright. - -Among his strange ideas must be reckoned his threefold conviction, first, -that he was called to be the opponent of Antichrist, secondly, that -Popery was a thing of boundless and utter depravity, thirdly, that in -his own personal experiences and gifts he was blessed beyond all other -men. Here again we shall have to refer to many passages already quoted -and also to some fresh ones of Luther’s which afford a glimpse into his -perverted mode of thought and incredible prejudice. - -His obstinate belief in his mission against Antichrist keeps the thought -of a mortal combat ever before his mind; a decisive battle at the -approaching end of all, between heaven and hell, between Christ and the -dragon. This struggle, such as he viewed it, needless to say existed only -in his imagination. If, according to him, the devil fights so furiously -that at times Christ Himself seems on the point of succumbing, this is -only because Luther’s cause does not thrive, or because Luther himself -is again the butt of gloomy fears. As early as 1518, as we know, he -fancied he had detected the Papal Antichrist, and could read the thoughts -of Satan, who was at work behind his opponents.[494] In this idea he -subsequently confirmed himself by his reading of the Old-Testament -prophecies, on which, till almost the very end of his life, he was wont -laboriously to base new calculations. From the dawn of his career it has -been borne in on him with ever-growing clearness how Christ, using Luther -as His tool, will overthrow, as though in sport, this “man of sin” of -which Popery is the embodiment; at the very close of his days, when the -sight of the evils rampant in Germany was causing him the utmost anxiety, -he seems to hear the trump that heralds the Coming of the Judge. - -Using images that suggest a positive obsession, he depicts the world as -full of the traces of Antichrist and the devil his forerunner. Yet all -the machinations of the old serpent avail only to strengthen the defiance -with which he opposes Satan and all his myrmidons. The signs in the -heavens above and on the earth below all point to him, the great, albeit -unworthy, champion of God’s cause. Though Antichrist and the powers -that are his backers in this world may for the time have the better of -the struggle this is but the last flicker of the dying flame which, by -prophecy and vision, he had been predestined to extinguish (above, vol. -iii., p. 165 ff., etc.). - -Hence his confidence in unveiling the action of Antichrist as portrayed -in the birth of the Monk-Calf; like some seer he hastens to pen a special -work for the instruction of the people in the meaning of the Calf’s -anatomy.[495] His growing uncanny imagination goes on to describe, in -colours more and more glaring, the abominations of that Antichrist from -whom he has torn the veil. The fury of the Turk is but child’s play to -the horror of the Papal Antichrist. That portion of the Table-Talk which -deals with Antichrist, comprising no less than 165 sections brimful of -the maddest fancies, begins with the description of Antichrist’s head. -“The head is at the same time the Pope and the Turk. A living animal must -have both soul and body. The spirit or soul of Antichrist is the Pope, -his flesh or body the Turk”;[496] the concluding words on the subject -are in the same vein: “The blood of Abel cries for vengeance on them,” -viz. on the followers of the Pope-Antichrist.[497] These chapters of the -Table-Talk dealing with Antichrist scarcely do credit to the human mind. -We can, however, understand them, for to Luther nothing is plainer than -that the “nature of his foes is utterly devilish”; all he sees is the -claws, paws, horns and poison-fangs of Antichrist.[498] - -Luther revealed the anti-Christian nature of the Pope, in accordance with -the prophet Daniel whom he read on the principle: “_Sic volo, sic iubeo, -sit pro ratione voluntas_”; “Nevertheless we attach but little importance -to our deliverance and are very ungrateful. This, however, is our -consolation, viz. that the Last Day cannot now be long delayed. Daniel’s -prophecy is fulfilled to the letter and paints the Papacy as plainly as -though it had been written _post factum_.”[499] - -In spite of Antichrist and “all that is mighty” the Article concerning -Holy Scripture and the Cross still holds the field. And, so Luther -proceeds in the Table-Talk, “I, a poor monk, had to come,” with “an -unfortunate nun” [Catherine Bora who doubtless was present], and “seize -upon it and hold it. Thus ‘_verbum_’ and ‘_crux_’ are the conquerors; -they make us confident.”[500] - -The reason why Luther longed with such ardour for the coming of the -Last Day has already been shown to have been his growing pessimism and -the depression resulting from the sad experiences with which he had met -(above, vol. v., p. 245 ff.). In his elastic way he, however, manages, -when preaching to the people, to give a rather different reason for -his prediction of the fall of Antichrist and the coming of the end. In -Popery, he declares, we were not allowed to speak of the Last Judgment; -“how we dreaded it”; “we pictured Christ to ourselves as a Judge to Whom -we had to give account. To that we came, thanks to our works.” But now -it is quite otherwise. “Now on the contrary I should be glad if the Last -Day were to come, because there is no greater consolation.”[501] Here -he speaks as though inspired solely by the purest of intentions when he -looked forward to the coming of the vanquisher of Antichrist. - - * * * * * - -The wickedness of his opponents and the weapons to be used against them -constitute a second group of ideas. Here, once again, the psychological -or pathological appreciation of Luther’s strange and morbid train of -thought makes imperative a further investigation of certain points -already discussed in other connections. - -Often Luther seems unable to stem the torrent of charges and insults -that streams from him as soon as adversaries appear in his field of -vision. Frequently it almost looks as though some superhuman agency -outside himself had opened the sluice-gates of his terrible eloquence. -He is determined to rage against them “even to the very grave”; his -wrath against them “refreshes his blood.” It is actually when expressing -his hatred in the most incredible language that he is most sensible of -the “nearness of God.” Do not his Popish foes deserve even worse than -he, a mere man, is able to heap on them? Those scoundrels who “only -seek a pretext for telling lies against us and misleading simple folk, -though quite well aware that they are in the wrong.”[502] Their palpable -obstinacy, in spite of their better judgment, was so great, so he argued, -that it was only because Luther advocated it that they refused to hear of -any moral reform, for instance, of the clergy marrying, etc., otherwise -they would have held it “quite all right.” He does not shrink from -demanding that such roguery should “be hunted down with hounds,” no less -than the wickedness of these “most depraved of brothel-keepers, open -adulterers, stealers of women and seducers of maidens.”[503] - -The most curious thing, however, one, too, that must weigh heavily in the -balance when judging of his mental state, is that, as shown elsewhere, by -dint of repeating this he actually came to believe that his caricature -of Catholicism was perfectly true to fact. The calumnies become part of -his mental framework, the very frequency and heat of his charges blinding -him to all sense of their enormity, and clouding his outlook. What is -even worse is, that, even when he occasionally glimpses the truth he -yet believes it lawful to deviate from it where this suits his purpose. -Thus he came to formulate the dangerous theory of the lie of necessity -and the useful lie which we have already described in his own words. He -goes so far as to say, that the nature of his foes was utterly devilish -(above, p. 155, n. 4), and, when assailing the wickedness of Popery, he -considers “everything lawful for the salvation of souls” (“_omnia nobis -licere arbitramur_”).[504] Our “tricks, lies and stumblings” may “easily -be atoned for, for God’s Mercy watches over us.”[505] - -On other occasions his opponents become “a pack of fools”; they deserve -nothing but scorn and no heed should be paid to their objections. Even -should the world write against him he will only pity them. All earlier -ages and “a thousand Fathers and Councils of the Church” cannot rob him -of the golden grains of truth which he alone possesses. - -No sooner does he speak of the Papists and their religion, than, -irresistibly, there rises up before his mind the picture of the -“tonsures, cowls, frocks and bawling in the choir,” in short the -so-called holiness-by-works, on which he seizes to load ridicule on all -that is Popish. - - This Luther is apt to do even when treating of subjects quite alien to - this sort of polemics. - - In his “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539) he has a lengthy - dissertation on the marks of the Church; the subject being a wide - one he is anxious to get on with it, yet, even so, his pen again - and again wanders off into vituperation. He apostrophises himself - incidentally as follows: “But how is it that I come again to speak of - the infamous, filthy menials of the Pope? Let them begone, and, for - ever,” etc. With these words he breaks off a wild outburst in which he - had declared that the Pope and his men were persecuting the Word of - God, i.e. Luther’s doctrine, “though well aware of its truth; very bad - Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets must they be, like the devil and - his angels.”[506] - - Yet, on the very next page, the same subject crops up again. A lay - figure serves to introduce it. To him Luther says: “There you come - again dragging in your Pope with you, though I wanted to have no more - to do with you. Well, as you insist on annoying me with your unwelcome - presence I shall give you a thoroughly Lutheran reception.” He then - proceeds to enlarge in “Lutheran” fashion on the fact, that the Pope - “condemns the wedded life of the bishops and priests.” “If a man - has seduced a hundred maidens, violated a hundred honourable widows - and has besides a hundred prostitutes behind him, he is allowed to - be not merely a preacher or parson but even a bishop or Pope, and - though he keeps on in his evil ways he would still be tolerated in - such an office.” “Are you not mad and foolish? Out on you, you rude - fools and donkeys!… Truly Popes and bishops are fine fellows to be - the bridegrooms of the Churches. Better suited were they to be the - bridegrooms of female keepers of bawdy houses, or of the devil’s own - daughter in hell! True bishops are the servants of this bride and she - is their wife and mistress.” According to you “matrimony is unclean, - and a merdiferous sacrament which cannot please God”; at the same - time it is supposed to be right and a sacrament. “See how the devil - cheats and befools you when he teaches you such twaddle!” Further on - he begins anew: “To violate virgins, widows and married women, to - keep many prostitutes and to commit all sorts of hidden sins, this he - is free to do, and thereby becomes worthy of the priestly calling; - but this is the sum total of it all: The Pope, the devil and his - Church are enemies to the married state as Dan. (xi. 37) says, and - are determined to abuse it in this way so that the priestly office - may not thrive. This amounts to saying that the state of matrimony is - adulterous, sinful, impure and abominated of God.” - - Bidding farewell to Popery, Luther gives it a truly “Lutheran” send - off: “So for the present let us be done with the Ass-Pope and the - Pope-Ass, and all his asinine lawyers. We will now get back to our own - affairs.” - - This, however, he only partially succeeds in doing. After discussing - the 6th and 7th mark of the Church the “spirit” once more seizes - him. The caricature of Popery with which he is wont to pacify his - conscience here again figures with the whole of the inevitable - paraphernalia: “[Holy] water, salt, herbs, tapers, bells, images, - Agnus Dei, pallia, altar, chasubles, tonsures, fingers, hands. Who can - enumerate them all? Finally the monks’ cowls,” etc. A page further we - again read: “Holy water, Agnus Dei, bulls, briefs, Masses and monks’ - cowls.… The devil has decked himself out in them all.” - - Weary as he is at the end of the lengthy work, he is still anxious to - “tread under foot the Pope, as Psalm xci. [xc., verse 13] says: ‘Thou - shalt walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and shalt trample under foot - the lion and the dragon’; this we will do with the help and strength - of the Seed of the woman that has crushed and still crushes the - serpent’s head, albeit we know that he will turn and bite our heel. To - the same blessed Seed of the woman be all praise and glory together - with the Father and the Holy Ghost, One True God and Lord for ever and - ever. Amen.” - - Here, in the few pages we have selected for quotation, the whole - psychological Luther-problem unrolls itself. - -In the pictures his imagination conjures up, the sacrifice of the -Mass—the most sacred mystery of Catholic worship—occupies a special -place. It is the idolatrous abomination foretold by the prophet, or -rather the idol Moasim itself (above, vol. iv., p. 524). One wonders -whether he really succeeded in persuading himself that his greatest sin, -a sin that cried to heaven for vengeance and deserved eternal damnation -(above, p. 136; cp. vol. iv., p. 509), was his having—as a monk and at -a time when he knew no better—celebrated the sacrifice of the Mass? It -is true that, in the solemn profession he makes of his belief in the -Sacrament (1528), when resolved to confess his faith “before God and the -whole world,” he says: “These were my greatest sins, that I was such a -holy monk and for over fifteen years angered, plagued and martyred my -dear Master so gruesomely by my many Masses.” The words occur at the -close of his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” with the asseveration, -that he would stand firm in this faith to the very end; “and were I, -which God forbid, under stress of temptation or in the hour of death to -say otherwise, then [what I might say] must be accounted as nought and I -hereby openly proclaim it to be false and to come from the devil. So help -me My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Who is blessed for ever and ever. -Amen.”[507] - -According to what he once remarked in 1531 (above, p. 136 f.) it was, -however, not the devil who was prompting him to despair by calling up his -crying sin of having said Mass. If Luther is indeed telling the truth, -and if his doings as a zealous monk really seemed to him to be his worse -sins, then we can only marvel at his confusion of mind having gone so -far. From other admissions we should rather gather that what disquieted -his conscience was more the subversion of the olden worship, the ruin of -the religious life and, in fact, the whole working of the innovations. -And yet, here, we have a solemn assurance that the very contrary was the -case. - -It is in itself a problem how he contrives to make such frightful sins -of his monastic life—into which, on his own showing, he had entered -in ignorance—and of the Masses which he had said all unaware of their -wickedness. - -But, in his polemics, such is the force with which he is swept along, -that he does not pause to consider his blatant self-contradictions, or -how much he is putting himself at the mercy of his opponents, or how -inadequately his rhetoric and all his playing to the gallery hides the -lack of valid proofs and the deficiencies of his reading of Scripture. - -As for his foes, in his mind’s eye he sees them wavering and falling, -blown over, as it were, by the strength of his reasoning, even when they -are not overtaken and slain by the righteous judgment of God. When need -arises he has ready a list of deaths, particularly of sudden ones, by -which opponents had been snatched away.[508] The “blessed upheaval,” -however, which is one day to carry them all off together, is, so at least -his morbid fancy tells him, still delayed by his prayers. - - * * * * * - -As for himself personally, he stood under the spell of a train of thought -displaying pathological symptoms, which, taken in the lump, must raise -serious questions as to the nature of his changing mental state. - -Being chosen by God for such great things, being not merely the “prophet -of the Germans” but also destined to bring back the Gospel to the whole -Christian world, Providence, in his opinion, has equipped him with -qualities such as have hitherto rarely graced a man. This he does not -tire of repeating, albeit he ever refers his gifts to God. He is fond -of comparing himself not merely with the Popish doctors of his day but -also with the most famous of bygone time. In the same way he is fond of -measuring foes within the fold by the standard of his own greatness. He -is thus betrayed into utterances such as one usually hears only from -those affected with megalomania; this sort of thing pleases him so well, -that, intent on his own higher mission, he fails to see the bad taste of -certain of his exaggerations and how repulsive their tone is.[509] - -God at all times has saved His Church “by means of individuals and for -the sake of a few”; this Luther pointed out to his friends in 1540, -instancing Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elias, Isaias, Augustine, Ambrose and -others. “God also did something by means of Bernard and now again through -me, the new Jeremias. And so the end draws nigh!”[510] The end, however, -for which he has made everything ready, may now come quite peacefully and -speedily, for he has not merely done “something,” but “everything that -pertains to the knowledge of God has been restored”; “the Gospel has been -revealed and the Last Day is at the door.”[511] - -Fancying himself the passive tool of Divine Providence, it becomes lawful -for him deliberately to scatter over the world his literary bomb-shells, -exclaiming: God wills it, for, did He not, He could prevent it! He -flings broadcast atrocious charges of a character to arouse men’s worst -passions, and, at the same time, writes to his friends: If it is too -much, God at our prayer must provide a remedy.[512] Hence it is God Who -must bear the blame for everything, seeing that He works through Luther. -God made him a Doctor of Holy Scripture, let Him therefore see to it. - - He “throws down the keys at the door” of God when the work goes ill. - Why did He will it? “I cannot stop the course of events,” he says - somewhat more truly in 1525, “for matters have gone too far”; he adds, - however: “I will shut my eyes and leave God to act; He will do as He - pleases.”[513] - - This way of thinking was nothing new in Luther, but may be traced in - his earliest literary efforts, which only shows how deeply it was - rooted in his mind. “In all I do I wish to be led, not by the rede and - deed of man, but by the rede and deed of God!” so he said in 1517, - when declining the advice of those who only wished to serve his best - interests; yet, in the same letter in which these words occur, he - confesses his “precipitancy, presumption and prejudice,” qualities “on - account of which he was blamed by all.”[514] - - Later, too, as we know, he saw in things both great and small the hand - of God at work in him; all his efforts and even his very mistakes were - God’s, not his. It was by God that, while yet a monk, he had been - “forcibly torn from the Hours,”[515] i.e. freed from the duty of - reciting the Divine Office; God had led him like a blinkered charger - into the midst of the battle; it was God, again, Who had “flung him - into matrimony” and Who had laid upon him, the “wonderful monk,” the - burden of preaching to the great ones and the tenor of his message. - “Hence you ought to believe my word absolutely … but, even to this - day, people do not believe that my preaching is the Word of God.… But, - on it I will stake my soul, that I preach the true and pure Word of - God, and for it I am also ready to die.… If you believe it you will be - saved, if you don’t you will be damned.”[516] - - Seeing the tumults and disorders that had arisen through him, he - cries: “It is the Lord Who does this”; “we see God’s plan in these - things”; “It was God Who began it”; “in our doings we are guided by - the Divine Counsel alone.”[517] - - It is when in such a frame of mind that he detects those signs and - wonders that witness against his foes; given the magnitude of the war - he was waging whilst waiting for the coming of the Judge, these signs - were no more to be wondered at than the obstinacy of his foes: “Now - that the end of the world is coming the people [the Papists] storm and - rage against God most gruesomely, blaspheming and condemning the Word - of God, though knowing it to be indeed the Word and the Truth. And, - on the top of this, are the many dreadful signs and wonders in the - skies and among almost all creatures, which are a terrible menace to - them.”[518] - -Though quite full of the idea that his own doctrine was alone right, -yet, as already shown, he went in early days so far as to grant to every -man freedom of belief and the right to read Scripture according to his -lights; for to him every Christian is a judge of Holy Scripture, a doctor -and a tool of the Holy Ghost. The assumption underlying this, viz. that, -in spite of all, the necessary unity of doctrine would be preserved, is -not easy to explain. When, however, experience stepped in and disproved -the assumption, Luther’s behaviour became even more inexplicable. -He was by nature so disposed to ignore the claims of logic that the -contradiction between his demand that all should bow to his doctrine, -and such theories as that the Bible is, for all, the true and only fount -of knowledge, and that no other outward ecclesiastical authority exists, -never seems to have troubled him. Though he claimed to be the “liberator -of minds and consciences,” he, nevertheless, called on the authorities to -put down all other doctrines.[519] - -The dignity of his chair at Wittenberg is exalted by him to giddy -heights. “This university and town,” he said of Wittenberg, may vie with -any others. “All the highest authorities of the day are at one with -us, like Amsdorf, Brenz and Rhegius. Such men are our correspondents.” -In comparison, the sects are simply ludicrous in their insignificance. -Woe to those within the fold who dare to run counter to Luther, “like -‘Jeckel’ and ‘Grickel’; they imagine that they alone are clever and -that they, like ‘Zwingel’ also, never learnt anything from us! Yet who -knew anything 25 years ago? Who stood by me 21 years since, when God, -against both my will and my knowledge, led me into the fray? Alas, what -a misfortune is ambition!” This he said in 1540,[520] but already eight -years before he had complained bitterly: “Each one wants to make himself -out to be alone in knowing everything.… Everywhere we find the same -Master Wiseacre, who is so clever that he can lead a horse by its tail.” -Though one alone has received from God the mission of preaching the -Gospel, yet “there are others, even among his pupils, who think they know -ten times more about it than he.… Then, hey presto, another doctrine is -set up.”[521] “Deadly harm” to Christianity is the result; nevertheless, -according to Christ’s prophecy, “factions and sects” there must be; but -their source is and remains the devil[522]—who, according to Luther, is -the true God of this world in which indeed his finger can everywhere be -seen. (See above, vol. v., p. 275 ff.) - -Strange indeed is the frame of mind here presented to the observer. So -much is Luther the plaything of his fancy and the feeling of the moment, -that, at times he seems the victim of a sort of self-suggestion and to be -following blindly the idea which happens to hold the field. - -His judgment being seen to be so confused, it becomes easier to estimate -at their right value certain of his ideas, particularly his conviction -that he and his cause owed their preservation to a series of palpable -miracles. He contrived to spread among his pupils the belief that “holy -Luther” was the greatest prophet since the time of the Apostles.[523] Yet -anyone who reflects how Luther could devote a special tract to proving -that so everyday an occurrence as the “escape” of a nun from her convent -was worthy of being deemed a great miracle for all time, can only marvel -at the facility with which Luther could delude himself.[524] - - -_Other Abnormal Lines of Thought and Behaviour_ - -Luther’s action presents many other problems to the psychologist, for -instance, in its waverings and contradictions. Strong in his belief in -his Divine mission, he roundly abuses kings and princes in the vilest -terms, and yet, at the same time, he teaches respect and obedience -towards them and even sets himself up as a model in this respect, all -according to his mood and as they happen to be favourable to him or -the reverse. On the one hand, he presumes to incite the people to acts -of violence, and, on the other, he preaches no less cogently the need -of calmness and submission. He boasts of the courage with which he had -dashed into the very jaws of Behemoth, and of his utter contempt for his -foes; yet this same Luther is obsessed by the idea that his own life is -threatened by poison and sorcery, just as his party is menaced by the -hired assassins of the monks and Papists. While he extols the University -of Wittenberg as the bulwark of theological unity, he is at the same time -so distrustful of the doctrine of his friends that his intercourse with -them suffers, and, to at least one of his intimates, Wittenberg becomes a -“cave of the Cyclops.” - -Such contradictions and many of the like combined to induce in him an -abnormal state of mind. Harmony and consistency of thought and feeling -was something he never knew. Hence the charge brought against him, not -merely by opponents, but even by many of his own followers, viz. of being -muddled, illogical and not sure of his ground. - -While he is perfectly able at times to speak and write with such -candour and truth that one cannot but admire the wholesome sense, and -sober, witty, cheery style of his literary productions, yet their tone -and character change entirely as soon as it becomes a question of his -polemics or of his Evangel. Then his mind becomes overcast, his thoughts -pursue one another like storm-clouds, assuming meanwhile the strangest -shapes and the reader is over whelmed by a torrent of mingled abuse -and paradox. His very proofs are caught up in the whirl and become so -distorted that it is often impossible even to tell whether they are meant -in earnest or are merely in the nature of a challenge. - - According to Luther, to mention only a few of the strangest of his - sayings, his doctrine of justification and the forgiveness of sins is - present “in all creatures” and is confirmed by analogy.[525] The very - doctrine of creation rests on the doctrine of justification as on “its - foundation.”[526] “If the article of our souls’ salvation is embraced - and adhered to with a firm faith, then the other articles follow - naturally, for instance, that of the Trinity.”[527] - - Marriage he finds stamped on the whole of nature, “even on the hardest - stones.” New-born infants he assumes capable of eliciting an act of - faith in baptism; simply because he could not otherwise defend against - the Anabaptists the traditional infant baptism and at the same time - maintain that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on faith. His - doctrine of the spiritual omnipresence of the body of Christ is an - absurdity involving the presence of Christ in all food; but even this - is not too much for him if it enables him to defend his theory of the - Supper. His imputation-theory led him to that considered utterance - which has shocked so many: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe - more boldly still.”[528] “_Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione - voluntas_,” was elsewhere his answer to another objection.[529] - - He made no odds about declaring rhetorically, of all classes of men - and all branches of religious knowledge: that, “in a word, before - me no one knew anything.”[530] Of the daring eloquence he can use - when expressing such ideas we have a sample in the statement: “Were - the Papists, particularly those who are now bawling at me in their - writings, all stamped together in the wine-press and then boiled down - and distilled seven times over, not a quarter would be left capable - of using their tongues to teach even one article [of the Catechism], - nor from the whole of their doctrine could so much be drawn as would - serve to teach a manservant how to behave in God’s sight towards his - master or a maid towards her mistress.”[531] He alone, Luther, it was, - who had brought to all ranks and classes throughout the world “a good - conscience and order.”[532] - -Finally we have the paradox apparent in his practical instructions and -the curious behaviour into which his belief in his mission occasionally -led him. We may recall the means to be employed for overcoming -temptations, one of the mildest of which was a good drink,[533] and the -measures to be taken to induce peace of soul. “Break out into abuse,” -such is his advice, and that will bring inward peace.[534] If this does -not work, then coarse humour will often succeed, one of those jests, for -instance, where the sacred and sublime is vulgarised simply to raise -a laugh. “Against the devil Luther makes use of ‘stronger buffoonery’ -and dismisses him curtly, nay, often rudely.”[535] Pointless jests -often spoil the force of his words. For instance, he found himself in -a difficulty about the second wife whom one of Carlstadt’s followers, -acting on Luther’s own principles, wished to take in addition to his -ailing spouse; whilst stipulating that the man must first “feel his -conscience assured and convinced by the Word of God,” and doing his -best to dissuade him from taking such a step, Luther adds in a jesting -tone, that it were perhaps better to let the matter take its course, as -at Orlamünde (under the rule of Carlstadt and his Old-Testament ideas) -they would soon be introducing circumcision and the Mosaic Law in its -entirety.[536] - -His instability of mind and ever-changing feeling ended by impressing a -peculiar stamp on his whole mentality. - -At one time he is delighted to see all things subject to the new Evangel, -and extols the gigantic success of his efforts; at another he complains -bitterly that the world is turning its back on the Word and deserting -the little flock of true Evangelicals. Thus the world could promptly -assume in his mind quite contradictory aspects. Of his alternating moods -of confidence and despair he told his friends: “My moods vary quite a -hundred times a day—nevertheless I stand up to the devil.”[537] Hence he -was aware of his vacillations, though on the same occasion he declares -that he knows right well how Holy Scripture strengthens him against -them. He also feels and acknowledges his inconsistency, in being, for -all his changeableness, so rigid and obstinate in his dealings with his -friends. They knew his character, he said, and called it “obstinate.”[538] - -Profound depression can alone account for the step he took in 1530, when, -for a while, he discontinued his sermons at Wittenberg because he was -sick of the indifference of his hearers to the Word of God and disgusted -with their conduct. The editor of the sermons of this year, which have -only recently been published, remarks justly, that “the only possible -explanation of this step is a pathological one.”[539] Luther even went -so far as to declare from the pulpit that he was “not going to be a -swine-herd.”[540] Yet, a little after, during the journey to the Coburg, -a sudden change occurred, and we find Luther making jokes and writing in -a quite optimistic vein, and, no sooner had he reached his new abode, -than he plunged into new literary labours. Nevertheless, whilst at the -Castle, he was again a victim of intense depression, was visited by -Satan’s “embassy” and even vouchsafed a glimpse of the enemy of God. On -his departure from the Coburg good humour again got the better of him, -as we see from his jovial letter to Baumgärtner of Oct. 4, 1530, and on -reaching Wittenberg, he was soon up to his ears in work, so that he could -write: “I am not only Luther, but Pomeranus, Vicar-General, Moses, Jethro -and I know not who else besides.”[541] The facility with which his moods -altered is again apparent when, in his last days, he left Wittenberg -in disgust only to return again forthwith in the best of spirits. (See -below, xxxix., 1.) - -Yet in his attitude to the olden Church this same man, who otherwise -shows himself so instable, knows how to display such defiant obstinacy -that Protestants who look too exclusively at this side of his character -have even been able to speak of his inflexible firmness. What steels him -here is his ardent belief in his calling. - -The idea of his vocation ever serves to help him over his difficulties. -An instance of that marvellous elasticity of mind with which he seizes -on his calling to pacify both himself and his friends, is to be found in -an intimate conversation held after the “greatest of his temptations” -in 1527, and recorded by Bugenhagen. After Luther had declared that he -saw nothing to regret in his severity towards his foes he went on to -speak, with tears in his eyes, of the sects that would spring up and -which his friends would not be able to withstand. He proceeded to admit -that “he was sorry if he had given scandal by his buffoonery and by -his vituperation,[542] but that the cause could not be displeasing to -the pious, for he loved mankind [this is Bugenhagen’s remark] too much -and was an enemy to all hypocrisy.” “God had not ordained” that he, so -Luther here declares, “should appear as a stern and austere figure. The -world finds no sins (‘_crimina_’) wherewith to reproach me, but, because -it follows its own judgment, it takes great offence at me, as I see. -Possibly,” so he goes on, “God wishes to delude the blind and ungrateful -world (‘_mundum stultum facere_’) so that it may perish in its contempt -and never see what excellent gifts God has bestowed on me alone out of -so many thousands, wherewith I am to minister unto those who are His -friends. Thus the world, which refuses to acclaim the word of salvation -which God sends through me, will find in me, according to the divine -counsel, what offends it and is to it a stumbling-block. For this God -is answerable; for I shall pray that I may never be to any a cause of -scandal by my sins.” - -“This I learnt with wondrous joy from his own lips,” adds -Bugenhagen.[543] Others will, however, find Luther’s enigmatical train of -thought more difficult to understand. - - * * * * * - -The above are but a few instances of an abnormal turn of mind; of the -like the present work contains others in abundance. Anyone desirous of -penetrating further into the folds and windings of a mind so involved -should study Luther’s letters, particularly those dating from 1517 to -1522 and from 1540 to 1546. He will there find much of the same sort, -which can hardly be termed either sane or reasonable; but even the -passages we have quoted suffice to reveal in him an uncanny power of -self-deception such as few historic characters display. Many a great -genius has betrayed psychological peculiarities, indeed it seems at -times to be the fate of those endowed with eminent gifts to overstep -the boundaries and to venture further than the reason and reflection -of thinking men can follow.[544] That Luther carried certain mental -peculiarities to their utmost limit is plain from what we have seen, nor -can it be right to close one’s eyes to the fact. - -Luther showed the defects of a “genius” not least in his vituperation -and in the other far from commendable methods he used in his polemics. -It was precisely these defects which led Erasmus to question whether he -was quite in his right mind. “Had a man said this in the delirium of -fever, could he have uttered anything more insane?” Thus Erasmus in his -“Hyperaspistes.”[545] He often speaks of his opponent’s feverish fancies. -He denies that his spirit is a “sober” one, and maliciously supposes -that he was drunk. In spite of his usual moderation and reticence, the -scholar, when dealing with Luther’s assertions, constantly uses such -words as “_delirus_,” “_insanus_,” “_lymphatus_,” “_sine mente_,” “_mera -insania_.” On one occasion he says of the “devils, spectres, ‘_lamiæ_,’ -‘_megæræ_’ and other more than tragic words” which Luther was addicted to -flinging at his foes, that such a habit was a “sign of coming madness” -(“_venturæ insaniæ præsagia_”); elsewhere he views with misgiving the -sort of compulsion (“_non agere sed agi_”) which urges Luther to abuse -all who differ from him.[546] - -In other circles, too, the opinion prevailed that Luther was suffering -from some sort of mental disease. We may recall the remarks of Boniface -Amerbach, who was not unkindly disposed to Luther, in sending the -latter’s tract of 1534 against Erasmus, to his brother Basil (above, vol. -iv., p. 183). - -In Luther’s immediate surroundings we also find traces of a fear that the -Master stood in some danger of losing his mind. - -A thoroughgoing investigation of the matter by some unbiassed expert in -mental diseases would, however, be of immeasurably greater value than the -mere opinions of contemporary admirers and opponents. But the difficulty -is to find an impartial expert. Protestant theologians will not easily be -found ready to agree with Catholic writers regarding the process which -made of a quondam monk the founder of the Protestant faith, or to see -Luther’s scruples in quite the same light. Entire agreement would seem -for ever excluded, owing to differences of outlook so deep-seated. If, -to some, Luther appears as a “new Paul,” and as one who removed every -obstacle to free religious research, then the view they take of his -inward change and later spiritual life must perforce be coloured to some -extent by this idea. - -Nor must the fact be lost to sight that many of the apparently suspicious -symptoms were, in Luther’s case, quite wilful. Thus his outbreaks of -fury against Popery, the psychological origin of which we have already -described (vol. iv., p. 306 ff.), are largely an outcome of the feelings -of hatred he deliberately encouraged, and a reaction against his earlier -and better convictions. Again, self-deception and lack of self-control, -i.e. moral elements, played a great part in him. Since, however, even at -the outset of his career he already displayed these moral defects, they -must be carefully distinguished from his morbid states and no less from -his doubts and remorse of conscience. - -At the very least, however, we should give to the purely historical facts -such unbiassed, broadminded recognition as that editor of the great -Weimar Edition of Luther’s works (see above, p. 168), who, as we heard, -spoke of the “pathological” explanation of certain acts and statements -of Luther’s as the only one possible. The word “pathological,” and other -similar ones, had, however, been used even earlier, and, that, even by -non-Catholics, as descriptive of certain of Luther’s states, nor was -the remark entirely new, that in many a great genius we find something -pathological.[547] - - -5. Luther’s Psychology according to Physicians and Historians - -It is not our intention in the following to criticise the opinions -quoted; they have been collected chiefly with the object in view of -providing those qualified to judge with matter on which to exercise their -wits. Nevertheless, we have no intention of depriving ourselves of the -right of making occasional observations. Thus Hausrath’s opinion, to be -given immediately, calls for some revision, as will be clear even to the -lay mind. No disturbance of Luther’s intellectual functions or mental -malady amounting to actual “psychosis” can be assumed at any period of -his life. This, however, is a quite different thing from admitting that -his case was not entirely normal. - -“The psychology of men, who, like him, are engaged in such a struggle,” -rightly remarks a Protestant theologian, “is exceedingly complicated. -Discrepancies are to be met with side by side, and, according to the -circumstances, now one element now another comes to the fore.”[548] In -Luther’s case the co-existence of bouts of illness with the unfettered -use of his powers, of fundamental delusions with true though misapplied -ideas, of frivolity, sensuality and temptations to despair, and, on the -top of all this, the contradictory statements he himself makes about -himself, i.e.—he, the only man who could have told us how the facts -really stood—all these circumstances render any sure conclusion extremely -difficult. - -No Protestant hitherto has used terms so strong to describe Luther’s -overwrought nerves as his most recent biographer, Hausrath, the -Heidelberg theologian, in his first edition of his “Life of Luther.” -His assertions do undoubtedly err on the side of exaggeration.[549] For -instance, when he says, that, owing to his illness in the monastery -Luther had more than once been in danger of sinking into “the abyss of -religious melancholia.”[550] Erroneously regarding the “temptations”—in -reality mere remorse of conscience—from which Luther suffered, as the -outcome of his morbid bodily and mental state, he even ventures to hint -expressly at the nature of the malady: “The regularity with which the -attacks return during all the years spent in the monastery and after he -had commenced his public career, leads us to infer a recurrent psychosis, -the attacks of which became less frequent after his marriage, but never -altogether ceased.”[551] - -In recent times, apart from Hausrath, two other writers, both of them -non-Catholics, have looked more closely into Luther’s pathology. Dr. -Berkhan in an article in the “Archiv für Psychiatrie” entitled “Die -nervösen Beschwerden Luthers,” and Gustav Kawerau in the study “Etwas -vom kranken Luther,” printed in the “Deutsch-evangelische Blätter.” The -two Protestants, Küchenmeister and Ebstein, who also dealt with Luther’s -maladies,[552] failed to discuss the psychological phenomena here under -consideration; what interested them was more Luther’s ordinary illnesses -though, it is true, they bring forward various data which may prove of -interest here; these, nevertheless, must be cautiously used, as the -authors are somewhat deficient in historical criticism. Older writers -who treated of Luther’s illnesses, e.g. the Protestant pastor Friedrich -Siegmund Keil, Garmann, the Chemnitz physician and an anonymous writer in -the “Neues Hannöversche Magazin” are even less satisfactory. - -Of the two first mentioned, Kawerau supplies a careful review of those -statements of Luther’s which concern his nervous maladies, not, however, -carrying them back to his earliest years. He gives us the picture “of -a man occupying a most responsible position, ever in friction with his -surroundings” and “in a state of nervous overstrain due to too much -work of body and mind.”[553] With these words he seeks to pave the way -for a psychological appreciation of all that, as he says, “so often -appears repulsive or regrettable in Luther, for instance, his waxing -irritability, his unbridled anger, the excesses he commits by word and -pen, and his sudden changes of mood.” He even opines that “the spiritual -temptations may be accounted for by his all-too-great labours and -anxieties, and their effect upon his constitution”;[554] his conclusion -is that a fuller knowledge of Luther’s ailments “helps us to understand -him aright and better to appreciate his greatness.”[555] - -The other writer, Dr. Berkhan, a Brunswick physician, had, previous -to Kawerau, attempted to lift the veil which shrouds the “anomalies” -presented by Luther; he did not, however, properly sift his materials, -nor did he consider the various symptoms in their complexus.[556] He -comes to the conclusion that some of Luther’s troubles, for instance, -his “hallucinations,” “must be ascribed to an affection of the nerve -centres.” These “hallucinations” he attributes to “fluxions” due to -overwork. Such hallucinations, according to him, were, in Luther’s case, -of two kinds; some optical and some auditory. They were induced, so he -thinks, not only by the permanent excitement of Luther’s life, but also -by “his doubts and controversies.” What Luther terms temptations Berkhan -also regards as, in the main, mere psychic depression bound up with nerve -disturbance. In view of certain other symptoms he diagnoses a case of -præcordial trouble.[557] - -After Kawerau and Berkhan we must refer to P. J. Möbius, the Leipzig -expert in mental ailments. He is known in connection with his highly -original studies on Rousseau, Goethe, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche; on -Luther he has not expressed his views at any great length, but, such as -they are, they are drastic enough.[558] - - Möbius points out[559] that “in Luther’s case the pathological element - is of the utmost significance.” “Even Luther’s recent biographer, - Professor Hausrath,” he writes, “spoke of ‘recurrent psychosis.’[560] - According to what Kraepelin now says, it would be better to term it a - mild form of maniacal depression.[561] The main point is that Luther, - from his youth upwards, suffered at times from the dumps without any - apparent cause, was oppressed with gloomy forebodings, sadness, fear - and despair. The melancholic phases may easily be traced throughout - Luther’s life; probably, too, the periods when he felt his power and - gave vent to his boundless wrath should be regarded as morbid and - maniacal. We may take it that, in Luther’s case, the morbid mood - made the illness, and that his fantastic interpretation of certain - incidents—combats with the devil, intercourse with spirits and Divine - inspirations—are to be explained, not as delusions, but as the - explanations he sought in the ideas then current.” - - “The present writer,” continues Möbius, “does not in the least believe - that Luther suffered from hallucinations. It seems always to have been - a case of placing a superstitious interpretation on real phenomena. - The black pig in the garden and the black dog on his bed, were, most - likely, of flesh and blood. In many instances (the wrestling with - the demon, and so forth) the language is simply figurative. With - Luther the pathological element made history. His morbid fear led - him to brood over justification; the sense of his own utter weakness - convinced him that man can do nothing of his own strength and by - his own works, and that the only possible course is to stretch out - yearning hands and seize on Grace. In his melancholic state he fell - in with the doctrine of justification by faith alone of St. Paul (who - himself suffered from the same ailment [!]), and, around this centre, - his theological ideas grouped themselves, and, with ‘_sola fides_’ as - his war-cry, he proceeded to do battle with the ancient Church. Thus, - from the monk’s melancholia, sprang the Reformation.” - - Proceeding on similar lines, Professor Willy Hellpach, of Carlsruhe, - observed in the Berlin “Tag” (“Psychologische Rundschau,” Jan. 18, - 1912): “Several years ago the Jesuit scholar, Pater Grisar, published - in the ‘Kölnische Volkszeitung’ an article entitled ‘Ein Grundproblem - aus Luthers Seelenleben.’ Of this work Möbius said, and quite rightly, - that it was the best account so far given of the pathology of Luther’s - mind. That Luther’s mind was at times morbidly depressed without any - reasonable cause has never been doubted by any who knew him, even when - they happened to be Evangelicals. Hausrath, in his biography, had - spoken of ‘recurrent psychosis’ a statement, which, it is true, he - modified later on account of the storm of indignation which broke out - among those queer folk who seem to look upon a gifted man’s malady as - a worse blot than the greatest crime.” Hellpach points out that laymen - are wrong when they imagine that “psychosis” involves “an absolute - derangement of the power of thought.” - -Wilhelm Ebstein, a Professor of Medicine,[562] recently, and not without -reason, registered a protest against the view of those who maintain that -Luther was actually out of his mind. Himself interested in the treatment -of cases of gout and calculus, he comes to the conclusion that Luther’s -chief sufferings were caused by uric acid and faulty digestion, the two -together constituting the principal trouble, and being accompanied, as -is so often the case with gout, by “neurasthenic symptoms which at times -recall psychosis”;[563] his “hypochondriacal depression which passed -all bounds” was entirely due to these ailments. Not only these “nervous -symptoms,” but also the other ailments of which Luther had to complain, -his palpitations, headaches, dizziness, sore-throat, defective hearing, -impaired digestion, fainting fits, and particularly his oppression in the -region of the heart and the feelings of fear which accompanied it, all -these were, according to Ebstein, due more or less to gout and the other -troubles resulting from the presence of uric acid.[564] - - There can be no doubt that this learned physician gives us many useful - observations, but he has not himself selected his historical matter - and carefully tested its source. Much of it comes from Küchenmeister, - whereas, at the present stage of research, a medical opinion, to carry - real weight, must necessarily enter at greater length into the facts - more recently brought to light. Some of Küchenmeister’s opinions have, - however, been revised by Ebstein, and not without good reason. - - Among those of Ebstein’s statements that must be characterised - as historically untenable are the following, viz. that Luther’s - hallucinations and visions occurred “almost without exception at a - time when he was yet under the influence of the asceticism of the - monastery, with its night-vigils, spiritual exercises and strenuous - mental labours,” i.e. in his Catholic days; likewise, that, in the - monastery, he had striven “most diligently to outdo the other monks in - the matter of fasting, watching,” etc.; that, in later days, he had - “_always_ been able to master his morbid states, and to bid defiance - to his moods of depression,” and that these latter had “in no way - detracted” from his mental labours; that his method of controversy had - never been a morbid one, as Küchenmeister had asserted on insufficient - grounds, and that, when even Luther referred to mental sufferings and - temptations, his “bodily ailments” _always_ occupied the first place - and constituted the leading factor.[565] - - His theory that Luther suffered from gout is also eminently doubtful. - - Of any symptoms of gout, for instance, of gouty swellings, we hear - nothing from Luther[566] though he was wont to expatiate on his - complaints, and though, according to Ebstein, he possessed a “rare - knowledge of medical matters.”[567] Nor did Luther permanently suffer - from sluggishness and constipation of the bowels; we hear of it only - at Worms and at the Wartburg in 1521, and then again in 1525. To put - down “his moodiness, melancholia and depression” as Ebstein terms the - remorse of conscience experienced in 1528 at the time of his greatest - “temptations” to an attack of piles, described by Luther in a letter - to his friend Jonas on Jan. 6, 1528, is to misapprehend the facts of - the case; for, actually, it was three years before this that Luther - had for a while been troubled with hæmorrhoids, as is evident both - from the text of the inquiry made by Jonas (“_ante triennium_”), and - from Luther’s answer: “My illness _was_ as follows,” etc.[568] - - Moreover, Luther was not suffering from stone in 1521, and it is only - in 1526 that we hear him speaking of it for the first time; after this - the malady was for a long time in abeyance,[569] until, between 1537 - and 1539, it once more attacked him severely; it is again referred to - in 1543. - - Hence we must still await a more accurate medical diagnosis to - determine—if indeed this be possible—how far the history of Luther’s - outward and inward troubles was dependent on uric acid.[570] Maybe, - eventually, greater stress than hitherto will be laid on Luther’s - heart troubles; if so, then it will become necessary to find out what - the so-called “cardiogmus” was, from which, according to Melanchthon, - Luther suffered severely early in 1545; for, in his friend’s opinion, - it was to this that Luther’s death later on was due.[571] Ebstein - himself says of the oppression in the region of the heart and the - resultant anxiety[572] from which Luther suffered, until his death - was ultimately brought about by “heart failure,” that it “leads us - to diagnose some heart affection”; this, according to his theory, - was due, in part directly to gout, in part also to the obstinate - constipation which accompanied it. According to him the periodic - attacks of heart-oppression suggest heart asthma or angina pectoris, - which, notoriously, often co-exists with gout. - -As regards Luther’s mental sufferings, Ebstein will not hear of Berkhan’s -hypothesis of “fluxions”; he himself, however,—and herein lies his -principal fault,—does not make sufficient account of his patient’s -frequent nervous states. He thinks that Luther’s black outlook, which, -according to him, resulted from gout, was not bound up directly with -any sufferings.[573] As regards the “hallucinations of sight and -hearing,”[574] which Luther regarded as the work of the devil, he -declares, that Luther, from time to time, fell into a condition of -“weakness and irritability which make the temporary disturbance of his -brain-powers quite intelligible”; as to the cause of the lapses, Ebstein -finds it in “the strenuous mental labour” leading to a “condition of -inanition.”[575] He also allows, that, even as a monk, and in early -life, Luther was a victim of moodiness.[576] He is, however, quite right -when he says: “Insanity cannot be thought of, nor even epilepsy.”[577] -In his admiration for Luther, he also credits him with having in his -lifetime endured “more days of suffering than of well-being.” To make -this statement entirely true it would, however, be necessary to include -amongst the days of suffering, those when he was so paralysed by remorse -of conscience as to be incapable of work. At any rate we quite admit with -Ebstein that, in Luther, we have “a man, during a great part of his life, -sorely tried by bodily ailments,”[578] a fact which can only make one -wonder the more at the extent of his labours. - - * * * * * - -To pass now to some older Catholic writers. In 1874 Bruno Schön, of -Vienna, published an essay in which he depicted Luther as mentally -deranged.[579] - - The author, who was chaplain to a lunatic asylum, was not merely no - historian and still less an expert in mental disease, but lacked even - a proper acquaintance with Luther’s life and writings. His historical - groundwork he took from second-rate works, and his opinion was biassed - by his conviction that Luther could not but be insane. He makes no - real attempt to prove such a thing; all he does is to give us an - account, clothed in psychiatric terminology, of the different forms - of madness from which Luther suffered; in the first place he was - afflicted with megalomania and the mania of persecution, two forms of - insanity frequently found together.—But nervous irritability, anxiety, - moodiness, excitability, a too high opinion of himself, perversion - of judgment and even hallucinations—could such be proved in Luther’s - case—all these would not entitle us to say that he was ever really - insane. Nervous derangement, says Kirchhoff, is not psychosis, and - people subject to hallucinations are not always insane.[580] - -Long before this other Catholic writers had instanced certain -peculiarities in Luther’s mental state, though they, like almost all -recent writers, with the exception of Hausrath, were ignorant of one -of the most remarkable elements to be taken into consideration, viz. -the fits of terror to which Luther had been subject from early youth. -The treatment of this matter was made all the harder by the fact that -Luther’s extravagant after-accounts of his life in the monastery, and -the growth of his ideas, were received with too much credulity, and that -his letters, his Table-Talk and many details of his life were but little -known. - -Maximilian Prechtl, Abbot of Michaelfeld (†1832), though he refuses -to regard Luther as insane, nevertheless calls attention to the many -“phantoms of a sick brain” which he had seen; “Luther believed,” -so he says, “that he often saw the devil, and that under different -shapes.”[581] The learned Abbot brought out a new annotated edition of -Luther’s “Against the Papacy founded by the Devil,” which he published -at the time of the Reformation-Festival in 1817, in order to show the -mad fury, hate and mental confusion to which its author had fallen a -victim. Luther’s writing betrays, so he opines, “no common fury but the -insane passion of the man, then almost at death’s door.”[582] Too great -stress must not be laid on some of the opinions he here advances, which -overstep the limits he himself had traced and appear to credit Luther -with insanity. Prechtl spoke out more strongly in his “Rejoinder” to the -attacks made on his remarks. He emphasises “the incontrovertible proofs” -to be found in Luther “of a troubled fancy,” and asserts that “he was not -always in his right mind.” - -Somewhat earlier, in 1810, the Catholic layman Friedrich von Kerz, who -continued Stolberg’s “Geschichte der Religion Christi,” published a book -“Über den Geist und die Folgen der Reformation” in which he comes to a -far too unfavourable opinion of Luther’s mental state, which he seeks to -bolster up by statements incapable of historical proof. In a nutshell, -what he tentatively advances is, that, “owing to the shock following the -death of a friend struck down at his side, Luther had lost his reason”; -“the symptoms of a twisted mind soon became apparent.” “Luther not seldom -appears in the light of an inexplicable moral enigma, so that we are -led, not indeed willingly, to wonder whether a certain recurrent mental -aberration and periodic madness was not in reality the first and perhaps -the only source of his vocation as a Reformer, of all his public acts -and of the greater part of his reforms.”[583] - -As against Kerz, Schön and even Prechtl, we must urge that we have no -proof that Luther was actually the slave of his morbid fancies, or -mentally diseased; no such proof to support the hypothesis of insanity -is adduced by any of the writers named. Of the temporary clouding of the -mind they make no mention. - -As for the kind of megalomania met with in Luther, when he insists on -his being the mouthpiece of revelation, this is not the sort usual in -the case of the mentally deranged, when the patient appears to be held -captive under the spell of his delusion. Luther often wavered in his -statements regarding his special revelation, indeed sometimes went so -far as to deny it; in other words he was open to doubt. Moreover, at the -very times when he clung (or professed to cling) to it with the greatest -self-complacency, he was suffering from severe attacks of depression, -whereas it is not usual for megalomania and depression to exist side -by side. As for the periodic fits of insanity suggested by Hausrath -his moods alternated too rapidly. His morbid ideas do not constitute a -paranoic system of madness, and still less is it possible to attribute -everything to mere hypochondriacal lunacy. - -The theory of Luther’s not being a free agent is excluded not only by his -doubts and remorse of conscience, but also by the bitter determination -with which at the very beginning he persuades himself of his ideas, -insists upon them later when doubts arise, and finally surrenders himself -to their spell by systematic self-deception. Such behaviour does not -accord with that of a man who is not free. It must also be noted that -the morbid symptoms of which Schön speaks, in whatever light they be -regarded, do not occur simultaneously; some disappear while others become -more marked as time goes on. This, however, also makes it difficult and -wellnigh impossible to discover what were the components which originally -went to make up Luther’s mentality before it had been seared by the -errors and inward commotion of his later passionate life. Above all a -fact repeatedly pointed out already must not be overlooked, viz. that, -throughout, wilful giving way to passion, lack of self-control and too -high an opinion of himself, united with self-deception played a great -part with him, particularly in those outbreaks of fury against Pope and -Papists in which one might be tempted to see the work of a maniac. In -view of Luther’s aptitude to pass rapidly from craven fear to humorous -self-confidence it would be necessary in order to prove his insanity, -to show clearly as far as possible—a demonstration which has not yet -been attempted—that periods of depression or fear really alternated with -periods of exaltation, and what the duration of these periods was. - -We cannot too much impress on those who may be inclined to assume that, -at least at times, Luther was not in his right mind the huge and truly -astounding powers of work displayed by the man. Only comparatively -seldom do we hear of his being disinclined to labour or incapable of -work, and almost always the reason is clear. Even were the advocates -of intermittent insanity ready to allow the existence of lengthy lucid -intervals still so extraordinary a power for work would prevent our -agreeing with them any more than with Schön, Möbius, Hausrath and the -older authors referred to above. - -As to the question of the possibility of such a disability having been -inherited either from his father or his mother—a matter into which modern -psychiaters are always anxious to inquire: Here, again, we find nothing -to support the theory of mental derangement. Hans Luther, his father, -was a stern, rude man of violent temper, and his wife, Margaret, would -also appear to have been a harsh woman, without any joy in life and -displaying small traces of the more winning traits of affection. Neither -of the pair did much to sweeten the lad’s hard boyhood and youth. This -certainly explains to some extent the thread of depression and pessimism -which runs side by side with the lively and more cheerful one in the -monk and university professor. Of greater importance to the question -in hand is the irritability and violence of temper which showed itself -in his father. If the latter really committed manslaughter in a fit of -anger, as seems probable, and as has also been admitted by Protestant -scholars,[584] then the son’s irritability, and his startling tendency -to break out into foaming rage against his opponents, may doubtless be -traced back in part to the effects of heredity. In 1906 the fact came -to light that another Hans Luther, besides Martin’s father, resided at -Mansfeld, and the latter, according to the records of the law-courts, -would appear to have borne a bad character and to have been frequently -punished for brawling and for being too ready with his knife. If the -latter, as the name would imply, was a relative of Martin’s we have -here one more argument to prove that the family was exceptionally -irritable.[585] - -Luther’s nervous irritability ought, indeed, to be made more account of -than it has hitherto been. - - -_Addendum. Some Medical Opinions on Nervous Degeneration, and Abnormal -Ideas._ - -What was said above about Luther’s “nervousness” (p. 105 ff) may here -be supplemented by some quotations from August Cramer, the expert -psychiater, now of Berlin. It is true that what we shall quote is not -intended to refer to Luther, yet what he says may serve to explain -certain of Luther’s symptoms, and, possibly, to show that some which were -put down to mental derangement may have been due rather to a form of -neurasthenia.[586] - - “Even perfectly normal children are sometimes inclined in their - growing period to display great variations of temper, and to be - violent and changeable in their affections about the age of puberty. - This, however, is far more noticeable in the case of people of a - strongly developed nervous temperament. Groundless outbreaks of - anger, marked pathological absence of mind and entire inability to - concentrate their thoughts are often the result. Fits of oppression - and anxiety are not unknown; headaches are fairly frequent and the - patients seem at times not to be masters of themselves. They also - tend to swing from an exaggerated idea of their own importance to a - despondent lack of self-confidence. In their bents and friendships - they are very fickle.” Hence we have here already in a very marked - degree that instability which von Magnan has pointed out as - characteristic of degenerates. - - In later life, too, such highly strung temperaments are often, at - least in the worse cases, predisposed to sudden changes of views, - and to fly to extremes, their varying moods tend at times to become - periodic, they are over-sensitive, are frequently unable to bear - alcohol, their sexual inclinations are abnormal and they are often - addicted from an early age to masturbation.… Thus the predominant - characteristic of the degenerate is lack of constancy (p. 175). - - Of “nervosity” where it is combined with fear the same author says: - “The change of mood is often entirely without cause and is by no - means of a regular type, though instances of a periodic character - are occasionally to be met with.… We meet, for example, persons whom - we cannot possibly describe as ill, who at times are exceptionally - capable, lively and good-tempered, and yet at other times give the - impression of being downhearted, self-centred and scarcely able to get - through their daily tasks.” - - “Apart from those who are habitually depressed, there are others who - suffer from time to time, without any outward cause, from slight fits - of depression, mostly accompanied by more or less severe fits of - anxiety. Looking more carefully into these various types, we shall - find that they belong almost exclusively to strongly marked nervous - temperaments.… In bad cases the periodic changes of mood may become - stronger and stronger, and lead eventually between the fortieth and - sixtieth year to actual ‘_folie circulaire_.’ Anxiety is, of course, - common to all nervous people, but in many cases it plays the prominent - part.… Often the patients complain of all kinds of accompanying - symptoms, not seldom of palpitations, weakness in the legs, headaches, - attacks of dizziness, and, particularly, of the paralysing effects - of their vague dreads. When this anxiety overtakes them they become - unable to work as usual, and their spirit of enterprise is checked” - (p. 207 ff.). - -As to how far what Cramer says is applicable to Luther’s mental -states may here be left open. The same holds good of what we shall -quote below from C. Wernicke and H. Friedmann. What the former says -of “autochthonous” ideas may conceivably be applicable to Luther’s -conviction of the private revelations he had received and of which he -speaks so strongly above (p. 142 ff.) as even to suggest actual auditory -hallucination; that there was no real hallucination seems more likely -for the reason that Luther elsewhere is disposed to regard the incidents -as of an inward character and is not quite so wholly under their sway as -would have been the case had they been strictly speaking hallucinatory. - -As to “exalted ideas,” of which both speak, they put us in mind of some -of Luther’s ideas concerning his own person, position, achievements and -persecutions (cp. our summary in vol. iv., pp. 329-41). - -It must, however, be noted that “exalted ideas” can be present in a mind -otherwise perfectly sound, and that, consequently, even if Luther had -such ideas it would not prove him to have been mentally deranged; the -same holds good of “autochthonous” ideas, which, occurring singly, are no -warrant of insanity. - -Again, even should Luther’s idea of his revelations turn out to be -originally “autochthonous,” yet the reception he accorded it, the -interpretation he placed on it and the use he made of it seem, as we have -already set forth, to have been both deliberate and responsible. This -is confirmed by the circumstance that, in time, his keen sense of such -impressions waned under the objections brought against them, and that his -insistence on the “revelations” and his interpretation of them no longer -found quite the same vigorous expression as before. Nevertheless, we -repeat it once more: It is for experts to pass a definite judgment, but, -in order to do so fairly, they must not submit to the microscope merely -one class of Luther’s mental manifestations, but consider him as a whole, -as monk no less than as Reformer, and examine his mentality on all its -sides. - - Writing of certain kinds of abnormal ideas, viz. those which he - calls “autochthonous,” Carl Wernicke says:[587] “The patient becomes - aware of ideas springing up in his mind that are alien to him and - not his own, i.e. which have not arisen along the normal ideas and - on the ordinary lines of association.” Speaking of those actually - suffering from mental derangement, Wernicke again alludes to this - class: “Objective observers, who are quite conscious of the alien - character of the autochthonous ideas and attach no fundamental - importance to them, are only to be found as the exception among those - who are really mentally unsound. Almost always the ideas are conceived - as ‘ready-made,’ as ‘forced upon the mind,’ as ‘inspired,’ or as - ‘derived,’ but, from whom, depends entirely on the individuality of - the patient and on the nature of the autochthonous idea (which is - not uninfluenced by the former). Pious thoughts are inspired by God, - evil thoughts by the devil; more enlightened people have recourse to - material remedies and put their case in the hands of a doctor.” - - Of the so-called “exalted ideas” Wernicke says: “These are sharply - defined from autochthonous ideas by the fact that they are in no - way regarded by the patient himself as alien intruders into his - consciousness: on the contrary, he sees in them the stamp of his - innermost self, and fancies that, in vindicating them, he is in - reality asserting his own personality.” - - “One has to determine in each individual case whether the idea - is truly morbid and ‘exalted,’ or does not come within normal - bounds.”[588] On the next page he declares: “That almost any incident - may give rise to an ‘exalted idea,’ that the nature of the emotion - may be of the most varied character, and that ideas exist, which, - though in themselves normal, are nevertheless able so to determine the - individual’s action as to impress on it a morbid stamp.” - - H. Friedmann[589] says of the same class of ideas: “According to its - origin the ‘exalted’ idea … may find a place in the mental process - without any apparent cause. A strong emotion may, so to speak, fling - itself on a single idea, and, without any actual derangement of the - mind, allow it, and it alone, to assume a morbid supremacy.” A few - pages further we read:[590] “Hence, as a matter of fact, in the case - of the ‘exalted’ idea, we have not an isolated monomaniacal affection - but a general disturbance of the emotions and judgment. The result, - likewise, is not an _idée fixe_ as in the case of mania, but merely a - strong belief.” - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVII - -LUTHER’S LATER EMBELLISHMENT OF HIS EARLY LIFE - - -In later life, looking back on his past, Luther was in the habit -of depicting certain of its principal phases in a way which is at -variance with the facts, and which even Protestants in recent times -have characterised, as “a picture in which he becomes a myth unto -himself.”[591] - -It will be no matter for surprise to the dispassionate observer that the -memory of the vows Luther had broken and the thought of his early days -in the monastery—which presented so striking a contrast with his later -life—were subject-matters of warped and distorted images. Particularly is -this true of his monastic years which he insists on depicting as one long -night of sadness and despair. - -Not merely in the fictions in which he came to shroud the more fervent -days of his life as a monk, but also in his explanations of the -various stages of his apostasy, Luther affords us fresh data for the -psychological study of his personality, and thus the present chapter -may serve to supplement the previous one. Only after having studied the -legend he wove around himself and compared it with the truth as otherwise -known, will it be possible to arrive at a considered judgment concerning -Luther’s mental states. - - -1. Luther’s later Picture of his Convent Life and Apostasy - -What Luther says of his life as a monk is what will chiefly interest us, -but, before proceeding to consider his words and the strange problems -they present, we must first refer to the legendary traits comprised in -his statements on the first period of his struggle; how false they are -to the facts will be clearly perceived by whoever has read the detailed -accounts already given. - - -_The Legend about his First Public Appearance_ - -“Not only have the dates been altered,” says Hausrath, of Luther’s later -statements concerning his first public appearance, “but even the facts. -No sooner does the elderly man begin to tell his tale than the past -becomes as soft wax in his hands. The same words are placed on the lips, -now of this, now of that, friend or foe. The opponents of his riper years -are depicted as his persecutors even in his youth. Albert of Mayence -had never acted otherwise towards him than as a liar and deceiver. Even -previous to the Worms visit he had sought to annul his safe-conduct.… Of -Tetzel he now asserts, that, unless Duke Frederick had pleaded for him to -the Emperor Max, he would have been put in a sack and drowned in the Inn -on account of his dissolute life.… The same holds good of the [equally -untrue] statement that Tetzel had sold indulgences for sins yet to be -committed.… It is also an exaggeration of his old age when Luther asserts -that, in his youth, the Bible had been a closed book to all.… To the old -Reformer almost everything in the monastery appears in the blackest of -hues.”[592] - - “The reason of my journey to Rome,” he declares, “was to make a - confession from the days of my boyhood and to become pious.”[593] - “But at Rome I came across the most unlearned of men.”[594]—God - “led me, all unwittingly, into the game [his struggle].”[595] - “I behaved with moderation, yet I brought the greatest ruin on - them all.”[596] “I thought I was doing the Pope a service yet I - was condemned.”[597]—“One, and that not the least of my joys and - consolations, is, that I never put myself out of the Papacy. For I - held fast to the Scarlet Woman and served the murderess in all things - most humbly. But she would have none of me, banished me and drove - me from her.”[598] “I only inveighed against abuses and against the - godless collectors of alms and [indulgence] commissioners from whom - even Canon Law itself protects the Pope. The Pope wanted to defend - them contrary to his own laws; this annoyed me. Had he thrown them - over I should in all likelihood have held my tongue, but the hour - had rung for his downfall; hence there was nothing to be done for - him, for when God intends to bring about a man’s fall He blinds and - hardens him.”[599] “I was utterly dead to the world until God thought - the time had come; then Junker Tetzel stung me with his indulgences, - and Dr. Staupitz spurred me on against the Pope.”[600] “Silvester - [Prierias] thereupon entered the lists and sought to overwhelm me with - the thunders of the following syllogism: Whoever raises doubts against - any word or deed of the Roman Church is a heretic; Martin Luther - doubts, etc. With that the ball began.”[601] - -Generally speaking, however, Luther prefers to trace the whole of his -quarrel with the Church back to Tetzel and to his righteous censure -of the abuse of indulgences. He seems to have completely forgotten -the deep theological chasm that separated him from the Church even -before his quarrel with Tetzel. His theological attitude at that time, -the starting-point of his whole undertaking, has disappeared from his -purview; he has forgotten his burning desire to win the day for his -own doctrines against free-will, against the value of works, against -justification as taught by Catholic tradition, and for his denial -of God’s Will that all men should be saved. His early antagonism to -the theological schools and to Canon Law as a whole has lapsed into -oblivion.[602] - - In the preface to the 1545 edition of his Latin works Luther asserts, - as a fact, that he had been estranged from the Church only through the - indulgence controversy. - - He had, so we there read, taken his vocation as a monk quite in - earnest; he “feared and dreaded the Day of Judgment and yet had longed - with all his heart to be saved.… It was not my fault that I became - involved in this warfare, as I call God Himself to witness.” - - In order to make the “beginning of the business” plain to all he goes - on to relate to the whole world, how, as a young Doctor in 1517, - relying on the Pope’s approval, he had raised his voice in protest - against the “shamelessness” of the indulgence-preachers; how, when his - small outcry passed unheeded, he had published the indulgence-theses - and, then, in the “Resolutions,” “for the Pope’s own sake,” had - advocated works of neighbourly charity as preferable to indulgences. - Here was the cause of all the world’s hostility! His teaching was - alleged “to have disturbed the course of the heavenly spheres and to - be setting the world in flames. I was delated to the Pope and then - summoned to Rome; the whole might of Popery was up in arms against - poor me.” - - He records his trial at Augsburg, the intervention of Miltitz and the - Leipzig Disputation, but records it in a way all his own. At that date - he already knew almost the entire Bible by heart and “had already - reached the beginning of the knowledge and faith of Christ, to wit, - that we are saved and justified, not by works, but by faith in Christ, - and that the Pope is not the head of the Church by right Divine; but - I failed to see the inevitable consequence of all this, viz. that the - Pope must needs be of the devil.” Like the “blameless monk” that he - was, his only trouble in life was his keen anxiety as to whether God - was gracious to him and whether he could “rest assured that he had - conciliated Him by the satisfaction he had made.” The words of the - Bible on the justice of God had angered him because he had erroneously - taken this to mean His punitive justice instead of the justice - whereby God makes us just. Then, when he was setting about his second - Commentary on the Psalms (1518-19), amidst the greatest excitement - of conscience (“_furebam ita sæva et perturbata conscientia_”) the - light from above had dawned on him which brought him to a complete - understanding of the Divine justice whereby we are justified. Paul’s - words concerning the just man who lives by faith (Rom. i. 17) had - then, and only then, become clear to him (through his discovery of the - assurance of salvation). - - After referring to the Diet of Worms he again reverts to his pet - subject, viz. the indulgence-controversy: “The affair of the - controversy regarding indulgences dragged on till 1520-21; then - followed the question of the Sacrament and that of the Anabaptists.” - -This is how Luther wrote—confusing the events and suppressing the -principal point—when, towards the end of his life, he penned for -posterity a record of what had occurred. Otto Scheel, in a compilation of -the texts bearing on Luther’s development prior to 1519, rightly places -this later account, together with the other statements made by him in -old age, under the heading: “second and third rate authorities.”[603] -What, however, are we to think when the considered narrative, written -by a man of such eminence, of events in which he was the chief actor, -has to be relegated to the category of second-rate and even third-rate -authorities?[604] - -To enumerate some other misrepresentations not connected with his monkish -days: Luther assures us that sundry opponents of his “had blasphemed -themselves to death”; men who had the most peaceful of deathbeds he -alleges to have died tortured by remorse of conscience and railing at -God. He boasts aloud that it was the Papists who made a “good theologian” -of him, since, “at the devil’s instigation,” they had so battered, -distressed and frightened him out of his wits, that he necessarily came -to obtain a more profound knowledge.[605] Boldly and exultingly he points -to the many “miracles” whereby the Evangel had been proved.[606] He says -of the Diets, that the Papists always succeeded in wriggling out of a -hole by dint of lies, so that they looked quite white and “without ever a -stain.”[607] Of his own writings he says, that he “would gladly have seen -all his books unwritten and consigned to the fire.”[608] This in 1533, -and again in 1539.[609] Before this, however, he had declared he would -not forswear any of his writings, “not for all the riches of the world,” -and that, at least as a good work wrought by God, they must have some -worth.[610] - -In such wise does the picture he gives of his life vary according to his -moods. He does not hesitate to sacrifice the sacred rights of truth when -this seems to the advantage of his polemics (see above, vol. iv., p. 80 -ff.), and, owing to the peculiar constitution of his mind, the fiction -he so often repeats becomes eventually stamped as a reality to which he -himself accords credence. - - -_The Legend about his Years of Monkish Piety_ - -We may now turn to Luther’s fictions regarding his monkish days, -prefacing our remarks with the words of Luther’s Protestant biographer, -Adolf Hausrath. “The picture of his youth is forced to tally more and -more with the convictions of his older years. What he now looks upon as -pernicious, he declares he had found in those days to be so by his own -experience.… The oftener he holds up to his listening guests the warning -picture of the monk sunk in the abyss of Popery, the more gloomy and -starless does the night appear to him in which he once had lived.”[611] - -That the use hitherto made of Luther’s statements concerning his convent -life calls for correction has already been admitted by several Protestant -students of reformation history. As early as 1874 Maurenbrecher protested -strongly against the too great reliance placed on Luther’s own later -statements, which, however, at that time, constituted almost the only -authority for his early history. “How wrong it is to accept on faith and -repeat anew Luther’s tradition is quite obvious. Whoever wishes to relate -Luther’s early history must first of all be quite clear in his mind as to -this characteristic of the material on which he has to work.… The history -of Luther’s youth is still virgin soil awaiting the labours of the -critic.”[612] The objections recently brought forward by Catholics have -drawn from W. Friedensburg the admission that we have unreliable, and, -“in part, misleading statements of Luther’s concerning himself.”[613] -G. Kawerau also at least goes so far as to admit that the historian of -Luther at the present day “is inevitably confronted by a number of new -questions.”[614] The publication of Luther’s Commentary on Romans of -1515-16 finally proved how necessary it is to regard the theology of his -early years as the chief authority for the history of his development. -Hence, in the account of his youth given above in vol. i., we took this -Commentary as our basis. - -A preliminary sketch of the picture he handed down in his later sayings -is given us by Luther himself in the following: - - God had caused him to become a monk, he says, “not without good - reasons, viz. that, taught by experience, he might be able to - write against the Papacy,” after having himself most rigidly - (“_rigidissime_”) abided by its rules.[615]—“This goes on until - one grows quite weary”; “now my other preaching has come: ‘Christ - says: Take this from me: You are not pious, I have done it all for - you, your sins are forgiven you.’”[616] According to the “Popish - teaching,” however, one cannot be sure “whether he is in a state - of grace”; hence, when in the cloister, though I was such a “pious - monk,” I always said sorrowfully to myself: “I know not whether God - is well pleased or not. Thus I and all of us were swallowed up in - unbelief.”[617] - - Hence churches and convents are nothing but “dens of murderers” - because they “pervert and destroy doctrine and prayer.” “Indeed no - monk or priestling can do otherwise, as I know, and have myself - experienced”; “I never knew in the least how I stood with God”; - “I was never able to pray aright.”[618] This holiness-by-works of - Popery, in which I was steeped, was nothing but “idolatry and godless - worship.”[619] - - “Learn,” he says, thus unwittingly laying bare the aim of his fiction, - “learn from my example.” “The more I scourged myself, the more was I - troubled by remorse of conscience.”[620] “We did not then know what - original sin was; unbelief we did not regard as sin.”[621] Their - “unbelief,” however, consisted in that we Papists fancied “that we had - to add our own works” (to the merits of Christ).[622] “Hence, for all - my fervour, I lost the twenty years I spent in the cloister.”[623] - But I did not want to “stick fast and die in sin and in this false - doctrine”;[624] for such a pupil of the law must in the end say to - himself “that it is impossible for him to keep the Law”; indeed he - cannot but come to say: “would there were no God.”[625] - -Roughly, this is the tone of the testimony he gives of himself. It is -not our intention here simply to spurn it, but to examine whether there -is any call to accept it unconditionally—simply because it comes from -Luther’s lips—and whether it comprises a certain quota of truth.[626] - -First, it must be noted that he represents himself as a sort of fanatical -martyr of penance. He assures us: Even the heroic works of mortification -I undertook brought me no peace in Popery: “_Ergo_,” etc. He here opens -an entirely new page in his past. He tells his friends, for instance: “I -nearly killed myself by fasting, for often, for three days on end, I did -not take a bite or a sip. I was in the most bitter earnest and, indeed, -I crucified our Lord Christ in very truth; I was not one of those who -merely looked on, but I actually lent a hand in dragging Him along and -nailing Him. May God forgive me! … for this is true: The more pious the -monk the worse rogue he is.”[627] - - “I myself,” he says in his Commentary on Genesis, “was such an one [a - pious monk]. I nearly brought about my death by fasting, abstinence - and penance in work and clothing; my body became dreadfully emaciated - and was quite worn out.”[628] - - The menace of death is also alluded to in a sermon of 1537: “For more - than twenty years I was a pious monk,” “I said Mass daily and so - weakened my body by prayer and fasting that I could not have lived - long had I continued in this way.”[629] Elsewhere he says that he had - allowed himself only two more years of life, and that, not he alone, - but all his brethren were ripe for death: “In Popery in times bygone - we howled for everlasting life; for the sake of the kingdom of heaven - we treated ourselves very harshly, nay, put our bodies to death, not - indeed with sword or weapon, but, by fasting and maceration of the - body we begged and besought day and night. I myself—had I not been set - free by the consolation of Christ in the Evangel—could not have lived - two years more, so greatly did I torment myself and flee God’s wrath. - There was no lack of sighs, tears and lamentations, but it all availed - us nothing.”[630] - - “Why did I endure such hardships in the cloister? Why did I torment my - body by fasting, vigils and cold? I strove to arrive at the certainty - that thereby my sins were forgiven.”[631] The martyrdom he endured - from the cold alone was agonising enough: “For twenty years I myself - was a monk and tormented myself with praying, fasting, watching - and shivering, the cold by itself making me heartily desirous of - death.”[632] - -Besides his penances another main feature of his later picture is his -extraordinary, albeit misguided, piety and virtue. - - It is not enough for Luther to say that he had been a pious monk, - “an earnest monk,” who “would not have taken a farthing without the - Prior’s permission,” and who “prayed diligently day and night”;[633] - he will have, that “if ever a monk got to heaven by monkery then I - should have got there; of this all my brother monks will bear me - witness.”[634] - - He had been more diligent in his monastic exercises of piety than any - of the Papists who took the field against him.[635] - - Nay, “he had been one of the very best.”[636] He “confessed daily” [Is - this a reference to the Confession made in the Mass?] and “tried hard” - to find peace, but did not succeed.[637] Daily, he tells us, he “said - Mass and imposed on himself the severest hardships,” in order, “by - his own works, to attain to righteousness.”[638] It was because the - devil had remarked his righteousness, that he tempted him when engaged - in prayer in his cell by appearing to him in the shape of Christ, as - already narrated.[639] God, however, tried him by temptations just - as He tries those of the elect through whom He intends to do great - things for the salvation of mankind.[640] He, like the other cloistral - Saints, had been so penetrated with his sanctity, that, after Mass, - he “did not thank God for the Sacrament but rather God had to thank - him.”[641] He fancied himself in “the angel-choirs,” but had all the - while been “among the devils.”[642] Cloistral life was indeed “a - latrine and the devil’s own sweet Empire.”[643] - -Other characteristic lines of the picture are, first, the dreadful way -in which his mind was torn by doubts concerning his own salvation, -doubts arising simply from his works of piety, and, secondly, his speedy -deliverance from such sufferings and attainment of peace and tranquillity -as soon as he had discovered the Evangel of faith. He cannot find colours -sombre enough in which to paint his former state of misery, which is also -the inevitable experience of all pious Papists. - - “In the convent I had no thought of goods, wealth or wife, but my soul - shuddered and quaked at the thought of how to make God gracious to me, - for I had fallen away from the faith and my one idea was that I had - angered God and had to soothe Him once more by my good works.”[644] - “As a young Master at Erfurt I always went about oppressed with - sadness.”[645] But, after his discovery he had felt himself “born - anew,” as though “through an open door he had passed into Paradise.” - The words Justice of God suddenly became “very sweet” to him and the - Bible doctrine in question a “very gate of heaven.” “Holy Scripture - now appeared to me in quite a new light.”[646] - - He had, indeed, studied the Bible diligently in his early monkish - years, but he had, nevertheless, been greatly tempted and plagued by - the “real difficulties”; his confessors had not understood him. “I - said to myself: No one but you suffers from this temptation.” And he - had become “like a corpse,” so that his comrades asked him why he was - “so mournful and downhearted.”[647] - - Particularly the doctrine of penance had, he says, so borne him down - that “it was hardly possible for him, at the price of great toil and - thanks to God’s grace, to come to that hearing that gives joy [Ps. 1. - 10].” For “if you have to wait until you have the requisite contrition - then you will never come to that hearing of joy, as, in the cloister, - I often found to my cost; for I clung to this doctrine of contrition, - but the more I strove after rue, the more I smarted and the more - did the bite of conscience eat into me. The absolution and other - consolations given me by my confessors I was unable to take because - I thought: Who knows if such consolations are to be trusted.”[648] - On one occasion, however, the master of novices strengthened and - encouraged him amidst his tears by asking him: Have you forgotten that - the Lord Himself commanded us to hope?[649] - - Nevertheless, according to the strange description given by Luther - in a sermon in 1531, his keen anxiety about his confessions lasted - until after his ordination. “I, Martin Luther,” so he told the people, - “when I went up to the altar after confession and contrition felt - myself so weighed down by fear that I had to beckon to me another - priest. After the Mass, again, I was no more reassured than before.” - His trouble—which was possibly caused, or at any rate heightened, - by the spirit of obstinacy and scepticism he describes—was, however - (and it is on this that he lays stress), common to all Papists whose - consciences could never be at rest. “They became its victims chiefly - at the hour of death. How much did we dread the Last Judgment!… That - was our reward for our works.”[650] The truth is, that, on his own - showing, he scarcely knew what inward contrition was, and that he - remained too much a stranger to the motive of holy fear.[651] - - To the period subsequent to his ordination must be assigned assurances - such as the following, the tone of which becomes more and more crude - the older he grows. “From that time [of his first Mass] I said Mass - with great horror, and thank God that He has delivered me from - it.”[652] “When I looked on [a figure of] Christ I fancied I was - looking at the devil. That is why we say: O, Mary, pray for us to thy - beloved Son and appease His wrath.” If I follow the principles of the - monks and Papists, then “I lose Christ my Healer and Consoler and make - Him into the taskmaster and hangman of my poor soul.”[653] - - “As long as I remained a Papist I should have blushed with shame to - speak of Christ; Jesus is a womanish name; we preferred to speak of - Aristotle or Bonaventure.”[654] He also says: “Often have I trembled - at the name of Jesus; when I saw Him on the cross it was like a - thunderbolt and when His Name was mentioned I would rather have heard - the devil invoked, for I raved that I had to go on doing good works - until I had thereby made Christ friendly and gracious to me.”[655] - - They used to say: “Scourge yourself until you have yourself blotted - out your sin. Such is the Pope’s doctrine and belief.”[656] Thus, in - the monastery, I had “long since lost Christ and His baptism. I was of - all men the most wretched, day and night there was nothing but howling - and despair which no one was able to calm. Thus I was bathed and - baptised in my monkery and went through the real sweating sickness. - Praise be to God that I did not sweat myself to death.”[657] - -Those Protestants who take Luther’s statements too readily, without -probing them to the bottom and eliminating the rhetorical and fabulous -element, are apt to urge that Luther’s descriptions of the monastic state -show that nothing but mental derangement could result from such a life. - -Dr. Kirchhoff, a medical man, basing his remarks on Luther’s accounts, is -inclined to assume the existence of some severe temperamental malady. He -even goes so far as to say that, at any rate, countless numbers of monks -lost their reason. “In the course of time,” he adds, Luther “acquired a -greater power of resisting the temptations, and, possibly, in his quieter -after-life the physical causes may have diminished; it would appear that -the accompanying conditions disquieted him greatly.”[658] - -The fact is that Protestant authors as a rule fight shy of undertaking -any criticism of Luther’s account of himself. They accord it far too -ready credence and usually see in it a capital pretext for attacking the -olden Church. - -If Luther is to be taken literally and is right in his generalisations, -then we should have to go even further than such writers and argue that, -one and all, those who sought to be pious in the religious life were mad, -or at least on the verge of insanity; the Church, by her doctrine of -works, of satisfaction and of man’s co-operation with Grace, infects all -who address themselves zealously to the performance of good works with -the poison of a subtle insanity. - -We need waste no further words here on the falsehood of Luther’s -objections against the Catholic doctrine of works.[659] - -We may pass over the countless clear and authentic proofs furnished by -Luther’s elders and contemporaries, and even by Luther himself previous -to his apostasy, which place the Catholic doctrine on works in a very -different light. The Church, in point of fact, always refused to hear -of works done solely by man’s strength being efficacious for salvation, -and regarded only those works performed by the aid of God’s supernatural -Grace as of any value—and that through the merits of Christ—whether for -the purpose of preparing for justification or for winning an everlasting -reward; she always recognised faith, hope and charity as conditions for -forgiveness and justification, and as the threefold spring whereby good -works are rendered fruitful. - -There can be no question that Luther’s picture of his holiness-by-works -in Popery is meant to include all his earnest brother monks and their -mistaken way of life, and the doctrine and religious practices of Popery -as such. The fiction serves a twofold purpose. On the one hand, as its -author gives us to understand quite openly, it was his excuse for having -shaken off the yoke of the religious life, on the other, it was to be -used as a weapon against the olden doctrine of the importance of works -for personal salvation. To be true to history, one must judge of his -account of his Catholic life from these two standpoints. How extremely -unreliable it is will then be more apparent. The following observations -on the contrast his account presents with historical truth, particularly -with the well-authenticated incidents of his development, and even with -the elements of truth which he introduces into the legend, will place the -grave shortcomings of the latter in an even clearer light. - - Since Luther would have us believe that God caused him to become a - monk, in order that, taught by his own experience, he might write - against the Papacy,[660] no sooner does he begin to speak of himself - than he includes in the same condemnation his brother monks and all - those Christians who were zealous in the practice of works. - - Under the Pope’s yoke he and all other Papists had been made to feel - to their “great and heavy detriment” what it spelt when one tried - to become pious by means of works. We grew more and more despondent - concerning sin and death.… For the more they do the worse their state - becomes.[661] “Thus I, and all those in the convent, were bondsmen - and captives of Satan.”[662]—“We hoped to find salvation through - our frock.”[663]—With us all it was “rank idolatry,” for I did not - believe in Christ, etc.[664]—Because we endured so many “sufferings - of heart and conscience and performed so many works,” no one must now - come and seek to excuse Popery.[665]—“We fled from Christ as from the - very devil, for we were taught that each one would be placed before - the judgment seat of Christ with his works”[666]—a teaching which is, - indeed, almost word for word that of St. Paul (2 Cor. v. 10). - - Remembering the other utterances in which he makes all Papists share - in his alleged experiences, for instance, in his “unbelief,” we soon - perceive how unreliable are all such statements of his concerning the - history of his personal development. The whole is seen to be primarily - but a new form of controversy and self-vindication; only by dint - of cautious criticism can we extract from it certain traits which - possibly serve to illustrate the course of his mental growth in the - monastery. - -Again, several details of the picture—quite apart from the obvious -effort to burden the olden Church with a monstrous system of -holiness-by-works—warn us to be sceptical. First of all there is the -customary rhetoric and playing to the gallery. The palpable exaggeration -it contains, its references to the howling by day and by night, to the -scourgings, to the tortures of hunger and cold, to the endless prayers -and watchings, and to the ravings of the woebegone searchers after peace, -do not prepossess us in favour of the truth of the account. Luther, in so -much of what he says on the point, has shown us how little he is to be -taken seriously, that one cannot but wonder how his statements, even when -exaggerated to the verge of the ludicrous, can ever have been regarded in -the light of real authorities. - - He is not telling the truth when he assures us that, as Doctor of - Divinity, he had never rightly understood the Ten Commandments, and - that many other famous doctors had not known “whether there were - nine, or ten, or eleven of them; much less did we know anything - of the Gospel or of Christ.”[667] After outward works, indeed, we - ran, but “what God has commanded, that we omitted … for the Papists - trouble themselves about neither the Commandments nor the promises - of God.”[668] In choir the community daily chanted Psalm li. (l.), - in which joy in the Lord is extolled, but “there was not one who - understood what joy to the pious is a firm trust in God’s Mercy.”[669] - - We have, for instance, his remarkable saying, that he had looked upon - it as a deadly sin for a monk ever to come out of his cell without - his scapular, even though otherwise fully dressed. Yet no reasonable - man acquainted with the religious life, however observant he might - be, would have been capable of such fears. Luther declares that he - had seen a sin in every infringement of the rule of his Order; yet - the Rule was never intended to bind under pain of sin, as indeed was - expressly stated. He asserts that he had believed, that, had he made - but a slight mistake or omission in the Mass, he “would be lost”; yet - no educated priest ever believed such a thing, or thought that small - faults amounted to mortal sins. - - As an instance of the Papal tyranny over consciences he was wont to - tell in his old age how he had tortured himself on the Saturday by - reciting the whole of the Breviary that he had omitted to say during - the week owing to his other occupations. “This is how we poor folk - were plagued by the Pope’s decretals; of this our young people know - nothing.” His account[670] of these repetitions varies considerably in - the telling. He expects us to believe he was not aware of the fact, - familiar to every beginner in theology, that the recitation of the - Hours and the Breviary is imposed as an obligation for the day, which - expires as soon as the day is over, so that its omission cannot be - afterwards made good by repetition. From his account it would on the - contrary appear that the “Pope’s decrees” had imposed such subsequent - making good. Even should he really, in his earlier days when he first - began to neglect the Breviary, have occasionally repeated the task - subsequently, yet it is too bad of him to make it part of the monkish - legend and an instance of how “we poor fellows were tormented.”[671] - -“It is an astonishing and dreadful thing,” he proceeds, “that men -should have been so mad!” Those who live in the religious life and -according to man-made ordinances “do not deserve to be called men nor -even swine”;[672] a “hateful and accursed life” was it, with “all their -filth!”[673] - -The young monk too—could we trust Luther’s account—must have been -seriously wanting in discretion where mortification was concerned, and -a like indiscretion was evinced by all others who took the religious -vocation in earnest. But the extravagant asceticism such as Luther would -have us believe he practised, and the theological assumption underlying -it, viz. that salvation depends on bodily mortification, are quite -against the older teaching in vogue in his time. We may quote a few -instances of the teaching to the contrary. - - Thomas Aquinas declares: “Abstinence from food and drink in itself - does not promote salvation,” according to Rom. xiv. 17, where we read: - “The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink.” He recognises only the - medicinal value of fasting and abstinence, and points out that by - such practices “concupiscence is kept in check”; hence he deduces the - necessity of discretion (“_ad modicum_”) and warns people against the - “vain glory” and other faults which may result from these practices. - Not by such works, nor by any works whatsoever, is a man saved and - justified, but “man’s salvation and justice,” so he teaches, “consist - mainly in inward acts of faith, of hope and of charity, and not in - outward ones.… Man may scorn all measure where faith, hope and charity - are concerned, but, in outward acts, he must make use of the measure - of discretion.”[674] - - But perhaps the best ascetical writer to refer to in this connection - is John Gerson of Paris, who was so much read in the monasteries and - with whom Luther was well acquainted. He assigns to outward works, - particularly to severe acts of penance, the place they had, even from - the earliest times, held in the Church. He bids Religious care above - all for inward virtue, which they are to regard as the main thing, for - self-denial and for obedience out of love of God. He appeals to the - Fathers and warns his readers that “indiscreet abstinence may more - easily lead to a bad end than even over-feeding.” Discretion could not - be better practised than in humility and obedience, by forsaking one’s - own notions and submitting to the advice of the expert; such obedience - was never more in place than in a Religious.[675] - -These are but two notable witnesses taken from the endless tale of those -whose testimony is at variance with the charges implied in Luther’s -legend, that the monks were regardless of discretion where penance was -concerned. - -That Luther is guilty of self-contradiction in attributing to the -Catholic teachers and monks of his day such mistaken views and practices -and the doctrine of holiness-by-works generally is fairly obvious. - - If the young monk really “kept the Rule,” then his extravagant - penances for the purpose of gaining a gracious God can have had no - existence outside his brain; the Rule prohibited all exaggeration in - fasting and maceration, wilful loss of sleep and senseless exposure - to cold. The Augustinian Rule, devised expressly as it was, to be - not too severe in view of the exacting labours involved by preaching - and the care of souls, had been further mitigated on the side of its - penitential exercises by Staupitz’s new constitutions in 1504.[676] - It was true the prior might sanction something beyond what the Rule - enjoined, but it is scarcely credible that a beginner like Luther - should have been allowed to exceed to such an extent the limit of - what was adapted to all. His bodily powers were already sufficiently - taxed by his studies, the more so since he threw himself into them - with such impetuous ardour. It is all the less likely that any such - special permission was given him, seeing that, as we know, Staupitz - had, in consideration of his studies, dispensed the young monk from - the performance of the humbler duties of the monastery. - - If what has been said holds good of the years spent at Erfurt, much - less can there be any question of his having indulged in excessive - rigour during his Wittenberg period. Here Luther began at an early - date to inveigh against what he thought was excessive strictness on - the part of his brother monks, against their observance and against - all so-called holiness-by-works. In his sermons and writings of that - time we have an echo of his vexation at the too great stress laid - on works;[677] but such a frame of mind, which was by no means of - entirely new growth, surely betrays laxity rather than over-great - zeal. The doctrine of the all-sufficiency of faith alone and of - Christ’s Grace was already coming to the front. - - Yet he continued—even after he had set up his new doctrine and - completely broken with the Church—to recommend works of penance - and mortification, declaring that they were necessary to withstand - sinful concupiscence; nor does he even forget, agreeably with the - Catholic view, to insist on the need of “discretion.” He also knows - quite well what is the true purpose of works of penance in spite of - all he was to say later in his subsequent caricature of the Catholic - doctrine and practice. We hear him, for instance, saying in a sermon - of 1519, when speaking of the fight to be waged against concupiscence: - “For this purpose are watching, fasting, maceration of the body and - similar works; everything is directed towards this end, nay, the - whole of Scripture but teaches us how this grievous malady may be - alleviated and healed.”[678] And, in his Sermon on Good Works (1520), - he says: Works of penance “were instituted to damp and deaden our - fleshly lusts and wantonness”; yet it is not lawful for one to “be - one’s own murderer.”[679] All this militates against his own tale, - that, in the convent, discretion had never been preached, and that, - thanks to the trashy holiness-by-works, he had been on the highroad - to self-destruction. The Sermon in question was preached some five - years before the end of those “twenty years” during which, to use his - later words, he had been his own “murderer” through his excessive and - misguided penances. - - It may, however, be, that, for a short while, e.g. in the time of his - first fervour as a novice, he may have failed now and then by excess - of zeal in being moderate in his exercise of penance. This would also - have been the time, when, tormented by scruples, he was ever in need - of a confessor. To a man in such a state of unrest, penance, however, - even when practised with discretion, may easily become a source of - fresh confusion and error, and, when undertaken on blind impulse and - used to excess, such a one tends to find excuses for himself for - disregarding the prohibition both of the Rule and of his spiritual - director. - -It is interesting to note the varying period during which Luther, -according to his later sayings, was addicted to these excessive penances -and to holiness-by-works. We already know that it was only gradually that -he broke away from his calling, and that he had in reality long been -estranged from it when he laid aside the Augustinian habit. - - According to one dictum of his, he had been a strict and right pious - monk for fifteen years, i.e. from 1505-20, during which time he had - never been able “to do enough” to make God gracious to him.[680] - Again, elsewhere, he assures us that the period of misery during which - he sought justification through his works had lasted “almost fifteen - years.”[681] On another occasion, however, he makes it twenty years - (i.e. up to 1525): “The twenty years I spent in the convent are lost - and gone; I entered the cloister for the good and salvation of my soul - and for the health of my body, and I fondly believed … that it was - God’s Will that I should abide by the Rule.”[682] What a contrast this - alleged lengthy period of fifteen or even twenty years during which - he kept the Rule presents to the reality must be sufficiently clear - to anyone who remembers the dates of the events in his early history. - To make matters worse, in one passage[683] he actually goes so far as - apparently to make the period even longer during which he had “been - a pious monk,” and had almost brought about his death by fasting, - thus bringing us down to 1526 or 1527 if the reading in the text be - correct. It certainly makes a very curious impression on one who bears - in mind the dates to see Luther, the excommunicate, after his furious - attack on religious vows and the laws of the Church, and after his - marriage, still depicted as an over-zealous and pious monk, whose - fasting is even bringing his life into jeopardy. But if Luther was so - careless about his dates does not this carelessness lead one to wonder - whether the rest of the statements he makes in conjunction with them - are one whit more trustworthy? - - “For over thirty years,” he says in a sermon of 1537, “I knew nothing - but this confusion [between Law and Gospel] and was unable to believe - that Christ was gracious to me, but rather sought to attain to - justification before God by means of the merits of the Saints.”[684] - This statement is again as strange as his previous ones, always - assuming that the account of the sermon in question, which Aurifaber - bases on three separate reports, is reliable. In this passage he is - speaking not of the years he spent in the convent but of the whole - time during which he was a member of the Popish Church. If this be - calculated from his birth it brings us down to about 1515, i.e. to - about the date of his Commentary on Romans where the new doctrine of - how to find a Gracious God is first mooted. But what then of the other - account he gives of himself, according to which, for more than ten - years subsequent to 1515, his soul remained immersed in the bitter - struggle after holiness-by-works? If, on the other hand, we reckon the - thirty years from the first awakening of the religious instinct in his - boyhood and youth, i.e. from about 1490 or 1495, we should come down - to 1520 or 1525 and find ourselves face to face with the still more - perplexing question as to how the darkness concerning the Law could - have subsisted together with the light of his new discovery. - -Luther’s versatile pen is fond of depicting the quiet, retiring monk of -those days. As early as 1519 he wrote to Erasmus that it had always been -his ardent wish “to live hidden away in some corner, ignored alike by the -heavens and the sun, so conscious was he of his ignorance and inability -to converse with learned men.”[685] These words in their stricter sense -cannot, however, be taken as applicable to the period when they were -written but rather to the first years of his life as a monk. - -The historical features of his earlier life in the monastery deserve, -however, to be examined more carefully in order better to understand the -legend. - - -2. The Reality. Luther’s Falsification of History - -The legend of Luther’s abiding misery during his life as a monk previous -to his change of belief contradicts the monk’s own utterances during that -period. - - -_Monastic Days of Peace and Happiness. The Vows and their Breach_ - -The fact is, that, for all his sufferings and frequent temptations, -Luther for a long while felt himself perfectly at ease in monasticism. -In the fulness of his Catholic convictions he extolled the goodness of -God, who, in His loving-kindness, had bestowed such spiritual blessings -on him. In 1507 he wrote that he could never be thankful enough “for -the goodness of God towards him, Who of His boundless mercy had raised -him, an unworthy sinner, to the dignity of the priesthood.”[686] The -elderly friend to whom he thus opened his heart was the same Johannes -Braun, Vicar of the Marienstift at Eisenach, to whom he again gave an -account of his welfare in 1509. To him he then wrote: “God is God; man -is often, in fact nearly always, wrong in his judgments. God is our -God, and will guide us sweetly through everlasting ages.”[687]—The -inward joy which he found in the monastery gave him strength to bear -his father’s displeasure. He not only pointed out to him that it was “a -peaceful and heavenly life,”[688] but he even tried so to paint the happy -life he led in his cell as to induce his friend and teacher Usingen to -become an Augustinian too.[689] We may also recall his praise of his -“preceptor” (i.e. novice master), whom he speaks of as a “dear old man” -and “a true Christian under the damned frock.” He repeats some of his -beautiful, witty sayings and was always grateful to him for his having -lent him a copy, made by his own hand, of a work by St. Athanasius.[690] -The exhortations addressed to him by Staupitz when he was worried by -doubts and fears, for instance his excellent allusion to the wounds of -Christ,[691] found an echo in Luther’s soul, and, in spite of his trouble -of mind, brought him back to the true ideal of asceticism. We also know -how he praised Usingen, his friend at Erfurt, as the “best paraclete -and comforter,” and wrote to a despondent monk, that his words were -helpful to troubled souls, provided always that they laid aside all -self-will.[692] - -Hence, for a considerable part of his life in the monastery, Luther was -not entirely deprived of consolations; apart from the darker side of -his life, on which his legend dwells too exclusively, there was also a -brighter side, and this is true particularly of his earlier years. - - The effort to attain to perfection by the observance of poverty, - chastity and obedience was at first so attractive to Luther, that, - for a while, as we have already pointed out, he really allowed it to - cost him something. Some years later, when he had already begun to - paint in stronger hues his virtues as a monk, he said, perhaps not - exaggerating: “It was no joke or child’s play with me in Popery.” His - zealous observance was, however, confined to his first stay at Erfurt. - A brother monk of his whom Flacius Illyricus chanced to meet in that - town in 1543 also bore witness to Luther’s piety there as a monk. The - “old Papist,” then still a faithful Augustinian, had told him, writes - Flacius, how he had spent forty years in the Erfurt monastery where - Luther had lived eight years, and that he could not but confess that - Luther had led a holy life, had been most punctilious about the Rule - and had studied diligently. To Flacius this was a new proof of the - “mark of holiness” in the new Church.[693] - - Nor are statements on the part of the young monk wanting which - prove, in contradiction with the legend he invented later, that his - theoretical grasp of the religious life was still correct even at a - time when he had already ceased to pay any great attention to the - Rule.[694] - - Even as late as 1519, i.e. but two years before he wrote his book - against monastic vows, he still saw in these vows a salutary - institution. In a sermon he advised whoever desired “by much practice” - to keep the grace of baptism and make ready for a happy death “to - bind himself to chastity or join some religious Order,”[695] the - Evangelical Counsels still appeared to him, according to statements - he made in that same year, “a means for the easier keeping of the - commandments.”[696] - - It was only after this that he began to think of tampering with the - celibacy of the priesthood, and that only in the hope of winning many - helpers in his work of apostasy. A little later he attacked with equal - success the sacred obligations freely assumed by the monks. Yet we - find nothing about the legend in his writings and letters of this - time, though it would have been of great service to him. Everything, - in fact, followed a much simpler and more normal course than the - legend would have us imagine: The spirit of the world and inordinate - self-love, no less than his newly unearthed doctrine, were what led to - the breaking of his vows. - - Many of his brother monks had already begun to give an example of - marrying when, in the Wartburg (in Sep., 1521), while busy on his work - against monastic vows he put to Melanchthon this curious question: - “How is it with me? Am I already free and no more a monk? Do you - imagine that you can foist a wife on me as I did on you? Is this to - be your revenge on me? Do you want to play the Demea [the allusion is - to Terence] and give me, Mitio, Sostrata to wife? I shall, however, - keep my eyes open and you will not succeed.”[697] Melanchthon was, - of course, neither a priest nor a monk. Luther, who was both, was - even then undoubtedly breaking away at heart from his vows. This he - did on the pretext—untenable though it must have appeared even to - him—that his profession had been vitiated by being contrary to the - Gospel, because his intention had been to “save his soul and find - justification through his vows instead of through faith.” “Such a - vow,” he says, “could not possibly be taken in the spirit of the - Gospel, or, if it was, it was sheer delusion.” Still, for the time - being, he only sanctioned the marriage of other monks who were to be - his future helpers; as for himself he was loath to give the Papists - “who were jawing” him the pleasure of his marriage. He also denied in - a public sermon that it was his intention to marry, though he felt - how hard it was not to “end in the flesh.” All these are well-known - statements into which we have already gone in detail, which militate - against Luther’s later legend of the holy monk, who tormented himself - so grievously solely for the highest aims. - - When, nevertheless, yielding to the force of circumstances, he took - as his wife a nun who had herself been eighteen years in the convent, - his action and the double sacrilege it involved plunged him into new - inward commotion. His statements at that time throw a strange light on - the step he had taken. By dint of every effort he seeks to justify the - humiliating step both to himself and to others. - - In his excitement he depicts himself as in the very jaws of death - and Satan. Fear of the rebellious peasants now so wroth with him, - and self-reproach on account of the marriage blamed by so many even - among his friends, inflamed his mind to such a degree that his - statements, now pessimistic, now defiant, now humorous, now reeking - with pseudo-mysticism, furnish a picture of chaos. The six grounds - he alleges for his marriage only prove that none of them was really - esteemed by him sufficient; for, that it was necessary for him to - take pity on the forsaken nun, that the Will of God and of his own - father was so plain, and that he was obliged to launch defiance at the - devils, the priestlings and the peasants by his marriage, all this had - in reality as little weight with him as his other pleas, such as, that - the Catholics looked on married life as unevangelical, and that it - was his duty to confirm the Evangel by his marriage even in the eyes - of his Evangelical critics.[698] To many of his friends his marriage - seemed at least to have the advantage of shutting the mouths of those - who calumniated him. He himself, however, preferred to say, that he - had had recourse to matrimony “to honour God and shame the devil.”[699] - - When once Luther had entered upon his new state of life all remaining - scruples regarding his vows had necessarily to be driven away. - - As was his wont he tried to reassure himself by going to extremes. - “The most successful combats with the devil,” so he tells us, are - waged “at night at Katey’s side”; her “embraces” help him to quell - the foe within.[700] He declares even more strongly than before, - that marriage is in fact a matter of downright necessity for man; he - fails to think of the thousands who cannot marry but whose honour is - nevertheless untarnished; he asserts that “whoever will not marry must - needs be a fornicator or adulterer,” and that only by a “great miracle - of God” is it possible for a man here and there to remain chaste - outside the wedded state; more and more he insists, as he had already - done even before, that “nothing rings more hatefully in his ear than - the words monk and nun.”[701] He seizes greedily on every tale that - redounds to the discredit of the monasteries, even on the silly story - of the devils dressed as spectral monks who had crossed the Rhine at - Spires in order to thwart him at the Diet. - -In all this we can but discern a morbid reaction against the disquieting -memory of his former state of life, not, as the legend asserts, peace -of mind and assurance of having won a “Gracious God,” thanks to his -change of religion. The reaction was throughout attended by remorse of -conscience. - -These struggles of soul in order to find a Gracious God, which lasted, as -he himself says (above, vol. v., pp. 334 f.; 350 f.), even down to his -later years, constitute a striking refutation from his own lips, of the -legend of the wonderful change which came over him in the monastery. - -On the other hand, the story of his long-drawn devotion to the monastic -practice of good works is no less at variance with the facts. On the -contrary, no sooner did Luther begin his official career as a monk at -Wittenberg, than he showed signs of his aversion to works; the trend of -his teaching was never in favour of strictness and penance, which, as he -declared, could only fill the heart with pride. (Above, vol. i., pp. 67 -ff., 117 ff.) At a later date, however, he sought to base this teaching -on his own “inner experiences” and with these the legend supplied him -(above, vol. iv., p. 404, n. 2). - - -_Some Doubtful Virtues_ - -It is worth while to examine here rather more narrowly than was -possible when giving the history of his youth, the zeal for virtue and -the self-sacrificing industry for which, according to the legend, the -youthful monk was so conspicuous. What in our first volume was omitted -for the sake of brevity may here find a place in order to throw a clearer -light on his development. Two traits are of especial importance: first -humility as the crown of all virtue, on account of the piety Luther -ascribes to himself, and, secondly, the exact character of his restless, -feverish industry. - -Luther’s humility presents some rather remarkable features. In -the documents we still possess of his we indeed find terms of -self-depreciation of the most extravagant kind. But his humility and -forced self-annihilation contrast strangely with his intense belief in -his own spiritual powers and the way in which he exalts himself above all -authorities, even the highest. - - This comes out most strongly at the time when, as a young professor - at Wittenberg, Luther first dipped into the writings of the mystics. - The latter, so one would have thought, ought rather to have led him to - a deeper appreciation and realisation of the life of perfection and - humility. - - He extols the books of certain mystics as a remedy for all the - maladies of the soul and as the well-spring of all knowledge. To the - Provost of Leitzkau, who had asked for his prayers, he expressed his - humility in the language of the mystics: “I confess to you that daily - my life draws nigh to hell (Ps. lxxxvii. 4) because daily I become - more wicked and wretched.”[702] At the same time he exhorts another - friend in words already quoted, taken from the obscure and suspicious - “Theologia Deutsch,” “to taste and see how bitter is everything that - is ourselves” in comparison with the possession of Christ.[703] “I am - not worthy that anyone should remember me,” so he writes to the same, - “and I am most thankful to those who think worst of me.”[704] - - Yet mystical effusions are intermingled with charges against the - opponents of his new philosophy and theology which are by no means - remarkable for humility. “For nothing do my fingers itch so much,” - he wrote about this time,[705] “as to tear off the mask from that - clown Aristotle.” The words here uttered by the monk, as yet scarcely - more than a pupil himself, refer to a scholar to whom even the - greatest have ever looked up, and, who, up till then, had worthily - represented at the Universities the wisdom of the ancients. The young - man declares, that “he would willingly call him a devil, did he not - know that he had had a body.” Luther also has a low opinion of all the - Universities of his day: “They condemn and burn the good books,” he - exclaims, “while fabricating and framing bad ones.”[706] - - Self-confidence had been kindled in the monk’s breast by a conviction - of future greatness. He speaks several times of this inkling he had - whilst yet a secular student at the Erfurt University; when ailing - from some illness of which we have no detailed account, the father of - one of his friends cheered him with certain words which sank deeply - into his memory: “My dear Bachelor, don’t lose heart, you will live to - be a great man yet.” In 1532 Luther related to his pupil Veit Dietrich - this utterance which he still treasured in his memory.[707] How - strong an impression such lightly spoken words could make on his too - susceptible mind is evident from a letter of 1530 where he speaks of - his vivid recollection of another man, who, when Luther was consoling - him on the death of his son, had said to him: “Martin, you may be sure - that some day you will be a great man.” Since, on the same occasion, - he goes on to refer to the remark made by Staupitz, viz. that he was - called to do great things, and declares that this prediction had been - verified, it becomes even clearer that this idea had taken root and - thriven in his mind even from early years.[708] But how does all this - harmonise with the humility of the true religious, and with the pious - self-forgetfulness of the mystic? There can be no doubt that it is - more in accordance with the quarrelsomeness and exclusiveness, the hot - temper and lack of consideration for others to which the testimonies - already recorded have repeatedly borne witness. (Above, vol. i., - _passim_.) - -There is a document in existence, on which so far but little attention -has been bestowed, which is characteristic of his language at one time. -Its tone of exaggeration makes it worthy to rank side by side with the -mystical passage quoted above, in which Luther professes to have himself -experienced the pangs of hell which were the earthly lot of chosen -souls.[709] Owing to its psychological value this witness to his humility -must not be passed over. - - Luther had received from Christopher Scheurl of Nuremberg, a learned - lawyer and humanist, a letter dated Jan. 2, 1517, in which this warm - partisan and admirer of the Augustinians, who was also a personal - friend of Staupitz after a few words in praise of his virtue and - learning, of which Staupitz had told him, expressed the wish to enter - into friendly correspondence with him.[710] The greater part of - Scheurl’s letter is devoted to praising Staupitz, rather than Luther. - Yet the young man was utterly dumbfounded even by the meagre praise - the letter contained. His answer to it was in an extravagant vein, - the writer seemingly striving to express his overwhelming sense of - humility in the face of such all-too-great praise.[711] - - The letter of one so learned and yet so condescending, so Luther - begins, while greatly rejoicing him had distressed him not a - little. He rejoiced at his eulogies of Staupitz, in whom he simply - extolled Christ. “But how could you sadden me more than by seeking - my friendship and decking me out in such empty titles of honour? I - cannot allow you to become my friend, for my friendship would bring - you, not honour but rather harm, if so be that the proverb is true: - ‘Friends hold all in common.’ If what is mine becomes yours then you - will receive only sin, unwisdom and shame, for these alone can I call - mine; but such things surely do not merit the titles you give them.” - Scheurl, indeed, would say, so he goes on in the same pathetic style, - that it was only Christ he admired in him; but Christ cannot dwell - together with sin and folly; hence he must be mindful of his own - honour and not fall so low (‘_degeneres_’) as to become the friend - of Luther. Even the Father-Vicar Staupitz praises him (Luther) too - much. He made him afraid and put him in peril by persisting in saying: - “I bless Christ in you and cannot but believe Him present with you - now.” Such a belief was, however, hard, and the more eulogies and - friends, the greater the danger in which the soul stood (then follow - three superfluous quotations from Scripture). The greater the favour - bestowed by men the less does God bestow His. “For God wills to be - either the only friend or else no friend at all. To make matters - worse, if a man humbles himself and seeks to fly praise and favour, - then praise and favour always come, to our peril and confusion. Oh, - far more wholesome,” he cries, “are hatred and disgrace than all - praise and love.” The danger of praise he elucidates by a comparison - with the cunning of the harlot mentioned in Proverbs vii. He is - writing all this to Scheurl, not by any means to express contempt for - his good-will but out of real anxiety for his own soul. Scheurl was - only doing what every pious Christian must do who does not despise - others but only himself; and this, too, he himself would also do. - - And, as though he had not yet said enough of his love of humility, - the writer makes a fresh start in order to explain and prove what he - has said. Not on account of learning, ability and piety does a true - Christian honour his fellow-men; such a thing had better be left to - the heathen and to the poets of to-day; the true Christian loved the - helpless, the poor, the foolish, the sinful and the wretched. This he - proves first from Ps. xli., then from the teaching of Christ and from - His words: “For that which is high to men is an abomination before - God” (Luke xvi. 15). “Do not make of me such an abomination,” so he - goes on, “do not plunge me into such misery if you would be my friend. - But, from so doing you will be furthest if you forbear from praising - me either before me or before others. If, however, you are of opinion - that Christ is to be extolled in me, then use His Name and not mine. - Why should the cause of Christ be besmirched by my name and robbed of - its own name? To everything should be given its right name; are we - then to praise what is Christ’s without using His Name? Behold,” so - he breaks off at last very aptly, “here you have your ‘friend’ and - his flood of words; have patience friendly reader”—words which may - apply to the modern reader of this effusion no less than to its first - addressee. It cannot well be gainsaid that something strange lay in - this kind of humility. It would be difficult to find an exact parallel - to such language in the epistles of the humanists of that day, and - still less in the correspondence of truly pious souls. What may, - however, help us to form our opinion is the fact that, in the letters - written immediately after the above, we again find the young professor - condemning wholesale everything that did not quite agree with his own - way of thinking. - -The passion, precipitancy and exaggeration which inspired him during -his monkish days is the other characteristic which here calls for -consideration. His fiery and unbridled zeal was of such a character as to -constitute a very questionable virtue in a monk. - - We may recall what has already been said of the youthful Luther’s - passionate and unmeasured abuse, even in public, of the “Little - Saints” and “detractors” in his Order, for instance at the Chapter of - the Order held at Gotha in 1515. Bitter exaggerations are met with - even in his first lectures. In the controversy with the Observantines - he goes so far as to make the bold assertion, that it was just the - good works of his zealous brother monks that were sinful, though they - in their blindness refused to believe it.[712] In his Commentary on - the Psalms in 1513-15 he even goes so far as to denounce as “rebellion - and disobedience” their vindication of strict observance in the - Order.[713] His imagination makes him fancy that they are guided by - a light kindled specially for them by “the devil.”[714] Such is his - ardour when thundering against the abuses in the Order that he forgets - to make the needful distinctions, and actually, in the presence of the - young Augustinians who were his pupils, attacks the very foundations - of their Mendicant Order. Yet elsewhere, in the narrowest spirit of - party prejudice, he inveighs against worthy scholars who happened to - belong to other Orders, for instance, against Wimpfeling, on whom he - heaps angry invective.[715] The slightest provocation was enough to - rouse his ire. - - Soon his passion began to vent itself on the Church outside. In his - lectures on the Psalms he laments that Christianity was hardly to - be found anywhere, such were the abuses; he can but weep over the - evil; all pious men were, according to him, full of sorrow that - the Incarnation and Passion of Christ had come to be so completely - forgotten. We know how the young religious, from the abyss of his - inexperience, declared in the most general terms, as though he had - been familiar with all classes and all lands, that the desecration - of what was most sacred in the Church had gone so far that they - had sunk below even the Turk; “owing to the unchastity, pomp and - pride of her priests, the Church was suffering in her property, in - the administration of her sacraments and of the Word of God, in - her judicial authority and finally in her government,” etc., “the - Sanctuary was, so to speak, being hewn down with axes,” churchmen - doing spiritually what the Turk was doing both spiritually and - materially; in vain was the Word of God preached “seeing that every - entrance was closed to it.” - - Holy men, of real zeal, had always been able to discern the good side - by side with the bad. But the youthful Luther sees on every side, and - everywhere nothing but false teaching (“_scatet totus orbis_,” etc.), - nay, a very “deluge of filthy doctrines.”[716] To be made a bishop is - to him tantamount to branding oneself a “Sodomite”; so full of vice - is the episcopate that those wearers of the mitre were the best who - had no sin on their conscience beyond avarice.[717] As for the men of - learning, they rank far below Tauler, and, thanks to their narrowness, - had made the age “one of iron, nay, of clay.”[718] When setting faith - and grace against the alleged heathenism of the scholars he goes - so far as to say, that his man is he “who outside of grace knows - nothing.”[719] As early as 1515 he thinks himself qualified to attack - the authorities and the highest circles because “his teaching-office - lent him apostolic power to say and to reveal what was being done - amiss.”[720] - - Why, we may, however, ask, did not the reformer of the Church begin - with himself, seeing that, in the lectures on the Psalms just - mentioned, he already laments the coldness of his own religious - life?[721] Even then he felt temptations pressing upon him; already - in consequence of his manifold and distracting labours he had lapsed - into a state in which prayer became distasteful to him, and of which - he writes to an intimate friend in 1523: “In body I am fairly well - but I am so much taken up with outward business that the spirit is - almost extinguished and rarely takes thought for itself.”[722] These - words and other earlier admissions (above, vol. i., p. 275 ff.) throw - a strange light on the legend according to which he had wrestled in - prayer by day and by night. - - Even in his devotion to his studies and in his manner of writing on - learned subjects his natural extravagance stands revealed. His love - for study was all passion; his mode of thought and expression was - simply grotesque. It was the young monk’s passion for learning which - led him on the occasion of his visit to Rome to petition the Pope to - be allowed for a term of several years to absent himself from home - and devote himself in the garb of a secular priest to his studies - at the Universities. At Wittenberg we find him in the refectory pen - in hand in the silent watches of the night when all the other monks - had gone to rest, and, in his excited state, he fancies he hears the - devil making an uproar. Though, according to his admission of Oct. 26, - 1516, he was so busy and overwhelmed with literary work, as “rarely to - have time to recite the Hours or to say Mass,”[723] yet he still had - time enough to inveigh against the “sophists of all the Universities” - as he had, even then, begun to term the professors of his day. He - professed his readiness, were it necessary, to find time to go to - Erfurt in order to defend in a public disputation there the Theses set - up at Wittenberg in his name by his pupil Franz Günther; the Erfurt - Augustinians were not to denounce these propositions as “paradoxical, - or actually cacodoxical,” “for they are merely orthodox.” “I wait - with eagerness and interest to see what they will put forward against - these our paradoxes.”[724] In April, 1517, when Carlstadt caused some - commotion by publishing his erroneous views on nature and grace in - 152 theses, Luther called them in one of his letters the paradoxes - of an Augustine, excelling the doctrine in vogue as much as Christ - excels Cicero; there were some who declared these propositions to be - paradoxical rather than orthodox, but this was “shameless insolence” - on the part of men who had studied and understood neither Augustine - nor Paul; “to those who understand, however, the theses ring both - pleasantly and beautifully, indeed to me they seem to have an - excellent sound.”[725] - - His restless style and love of emphasis is characteristic of his own - inner restlessness and excitement. He himself was quite aware of - the source of this disquiet, at least so far as it was the result - of a moral failing. In 1516 he lays his finger deliberately on his - besetting fault when he admits to a friend, that the “root of all - our unrest is nowhere else to be found than in our belief in our own - wisdom”; “I have been taught by my own experience! Oh, with how much - misery has this evil eye [belief in my own wisdom] plagued me even to - this very day!”[726] - - And yet he takes for one of his guiding principles the curious idea - that the opposition of so many confirmed the truth of what he said. - His work on the Penitential Psalms, so he wrote to his friend Lang - on March 1, 1517, would “then please him best if it displeased - all.”[727] And, two years later, he said to Erasmus, when speaking of - the system he followed in this respect: “I am wont to see in what is - displeasing to many, the gifts of a Gracious God as against those of - an Angry God”; hence, so he assures him, the hostility under which - Erasmus himself was suffering, was, for him, a proof of his real - excellence.[728] - - His burning enthusiasm at the time when he thought he had discovered - the sense of the passage: “The just man lives by faith,” has already - been described elsewhere.[729] This and other incidents just touched - upon recall those morbid sides of his character referred to in the - previous chapter. - -As we might expect, during the first years of his great public struggle -his restlessness was even more noticeable than before. The predominance -of the imagination has hardly ever been so fatally displayed by any other -man, though, of course, it is not every man whose life is thrown amid -times so stirring. “Because,” so he wrote in 1541, recalling his audacity -in publishing the Indulgence-Theses and the fame it brought him, “all the -Bishops and Doctors kept silence [concerning the abuse of indulgences] -and no one was willing to bell the cat.… Luther was vaunted as a doctor, -and as the only man who was ready to interfere. Which fame was not at all -to my taste.”[730] This latter assertion he is fond of making to others, -but his letters of that time show how greatly the charm of notoriety -contributed to unbridle his stormy energy. It was his opponents’ defiance -which first opened the flood-gates of his passionate eloquence. At the -very outset he warns people that contradiction will only make his spirit -more furious and lead him to have recourse to even stronger measures; -elsewhere he has it: “The more they rage, the further I shall go!”[731] - -We may recall his reference to the “gorgeous uproar,” and the passages -where he assures his friends: “I am carried away and know not by what -spirit,”[732] and “God carries me away, I am not master of myself.”[733] - -In the light of his pathological fervour the contradictions in which he -involves himself become more intelligible, for instance, what he wrote to -Pope Leo X in his letter of May, 1518,[734] which so glaringly contrasted -with his other words and deeds. His unrest and love of exaggeration -caused him to overlook this and the many other contradictions both with -himself and with what he had previously written. - - * * * * * - -The picture of the monk which we have been compelled to draw differs -widely from the legendary one of the pious young man shut up in the -cloister, who, according to Luther’s account at a later date, led a -fanatical life of penance and, because he saw Popish piety to be all too -inadequate, “sought to find a Gracious God.” - - -_Luther’s Alterations of the Facts_ - -It was not altogether arbitrarily that Luther painted the picture of the -monk forced by his trouble of mind to forsake Popery. Rather he followed, -possibly to some extent unconsciously, the lines of actual history, -though altering them to suit his purpose. - -He retained intact not a few memories of his youth, which, under the -stress of his bitterness and violence, and with the help of a lively -imagination unfettered by any regard for the laws of truth, it was no -difficult task to transform. Among these memories belong those of his -time of fervour during his Noviciate and early days as a priest. They it -was which evidently formed the groundwork of his later statements that -he had been throughout an eminently pious monk. Then again, among the -remarkable traits which made their appearance somewhat later, the two -elements just described have a place in his legend, viz. his extravagant -self-conscious humility and his fiery zeal. In his later controversies he -is disposed to represent this strange sort of humility as real humility -and as a sign of genuine piety. The pious, humble monk hidden in a corner -had all unwittingly grown into a great prophet of the truth. In the same -way the ardour of those years which he never afterwards forgot, was -transformed in his fancy into a fanatical hungering and thirsting after -Popish holiness-by-works, in discipline and fasting, watching, cold and -prayer. - -In addition to these there were memories of the transition period of -religious scruples, of temptations to doubts about predestination, of his -passing paroxysms of terror, gloom and inherited timidity. These elements -must be considered separately. - -Scrupulosity, with the doubts and nervousness it brings in its train, -probably only troubled him for a short time during the first period of -his life in the cloister. The admonitions of his novice-master, given -above (p. 206), may refer to some such passing condition through which -the young man went, and which indeed is by no means uncommon in the -spiritual life. The profound impression made by these first inward -experiences seems to have remained with him down to his old age; indeed -it is the rule that the struggles of one’s younger days leave the deepest -impression on both heart and memory. His quondam scruples and groundless -fear of sin, eked out by his ideas of the virtues of a religious, -probably served as the background for the picture of the young monk -“sunk” in Popish holiness-by-works and yet so profoundly troubled at -heart. - -But all this would not suffice to explain the legend of his mental -unrest, of his sense of being forsaken by God, of his howling, etc. - -What promoted this portion of the legend was the recollection of -those persistent temptations to despair which arose from his ideas on -predestination during the time of his mystical aberrations. - -The dreadful sense of being predestined by God to hell had for many years -stirred the poor monk’s soul to its lowest depths, even long before he -had thought out his new doctrine. It is no matter for surprise, if, -later, carried away by his polemics, he made the utmost use in his legend -of his former states of fear the better to depict the utter misery of -the monk bent on securing salvation by the practice of good works. The -doctrine of faith alone which he had discovered and the new Evangelical -freedom were, of course, supposed to have delivered him from all trouble -of mind, and thus it was immaterial to him later to what causes his fears -and sadness were assigned. - -Yet his supposed new theological discoveries became for him, according to -the testimony of the Commentary on Romans, in many respects a new source -of fear and terror. The doctrine of the Divine imputation or acceptation -did not sink into his mind without from its very nature causing -far-reaching and abiding fears. His then anxieties, which, as a matter of -fact, were in striking contrast with his later assertion of his sudden -discovery of a Gracious God, together with the mystical aberrations in -which he sought in vain for consolation, doubtless furnished another -element for the legend of the terrors he had endured throughout his life -as a monk. - - We need only refer to the passage in the Commentary where he declares: - Our so-called good works are not good, but God merely reckons - (“_reputat_”) them as good. “Whoever thinks thus is ever in fear - (‘_semper pavidus_’), and is ever awaiting God’s imputation; hence he - cannot be proud and contentious like the proud self-righteous, who - trust in their good works.”[735] - - What is curious, however, is that, here and elsewhere in the - Commentary, the so-called self-righteous, both in the cloister and - the world, appear to be quite “confident” and devoid of fear; they - at least fancy they may enjoy peace; hence, as depicted in the - Commentary, they are certainly not the howling and anxious spirits of - whom the later legend speaks. On the contrary it is Luther alone who - is sunk in sadness, and whose melancholy pessimism presents a strange - contrast to all the rest. His mysticism also veils a deep abyss. - - Almost on the same page the pessimistic mystic speaks of that - resignation to hell which has a place in his new system of theology. - “Because we have sin within us we must flee happiness and take on - what is repugnant, and that, not merely in words and hypocritically; - we must resign ourselves to it with full consent, must desire to be - lost and damned. What a man does to him whom he hates, that we must - do to ourselves. Whoever hates, wishes his foe to be undone, killed - and damned, not merely seemingly but in reality. When we thus, with - all our heart, destroy and persecute ourselves, when we give ourselves - over to hell for the sake of God and His Justice, then indeed we have - already satisfied His Justice and He will deliver us.”[736] It can - hardly be considered normal that a monk should wish to live—among - brethren, who rejoiced in the promises of Christ and in the Church’s - means of grace—the life of a lonely mystic sunk in the depths of an - abyss, where “a man does not strive after heaven but is perfectly - ready never to be saved, but rather to be damned, and where, after - having been reconciled by grace, a man fears, not God’s punishments, - but simply to offend Him.”[737] - -Luther’s recollections of the mental ailments he went through as a monk -also undoubtedly had their effect on the legend. We know that Luther -never rightly understood the nature of these ailments and that he -regarded his fits of terror, his nervousness and his gloom as anything -but what they really were. It would appear that, in his old age, he -simply lumped all his sad experiences together as typical of the sort of -poison which Popery and Monkery, owing to their false doctrines, offered -to their adepts. Nothing seemed to him to show better from what horrors -he had snatched mankind. Whether involuntary self-deception played a part -here, or whether, by dint of constant repetition, he came to believe in -the truth of his tale, who can now venture to say? In any case his spirit -of bitterness led him to make of his own sufferings a sort of spectre -of terror common to all, who, like himself, had raved that they were -zealously serving God whether in the monastery or in Popery at large. -Even “great Saints” had, according to him, lived amidst the “devil’s -factions and errors, under Rules and in monasteries and institutions,” -but had finally “cut themselves loose and been saved by faith in Jesus -Christ.”[738] - -He completely shuts his eyes to the fact that both his fears concerning -predestination and his morbid states of terror accompanied by fainting -fits recurred in his case even in later life, and, that, after his -apostasy he had in addition to suffer from remorse of conscience on -account of his doings against the Church. Nor does he seem to see that -he himself betrays the falsity of what he says of the general depression -to which all monks were subject when he relates above, that _he alone_ -had gone about in the monastery labouring under such oppression and that -no one had understood him or been able to console him (above, p. 113); -hence, according to this, his brother monks cannot have suffered from the -terrors he afterwards attributed to them. - - -_The Monkish Nightmare_ - -The strange “terrors” under which he was labouring when he first knocked -at the gate of the Augustinian convent at Erfurt were, according to -Melanchthon’s definite assurance already quoted, closely bound up with -his habitual states of fear. They were extraordinary states of mental -perturbation (“_terrores_”) and can only be explained when looked at -in the light of his other mental troubles.[739] Of the incidents that -impelled him to enter the convent[740] Luther himself says in a passage -which has also been quoted above, that (on the occasion of his first -Mass) he had tried to reassure his father Hans by pointing out that he -had been called “by terrors from heaven” (“_de coelo terrores_”); to -which his father had harshly replied: “Oh, that it may not have been a -delusion and a diabolical vision” (“_illusio et præstigium_”).[741] The -happenings immediately previous to his entering the monastery are of a -rather mysterious character. The inmates of the Erfurt convent declared -at that time in consequence of what they had gathered from Luther, that -he, like “another Paul, had been miraculously converted by Christ.”[742] -Oldecop, who began his studies at Wittenberg in 1514, speaks in his -Chronicle of “strange fears and spectres” on account of which Luther -had taken the habit.[743] Still more remarkable is the report based on -the account of Luther’s intimate friend Jonas, and dating from 1538. He -says: When Luther, as a student, was returning to Erfurt after having -been to Gotha to buy some books “there came a dreadful apparition from -heaven which he then interpreted as signifying that he was to become a -monk.”[744] If these statements were correct it would appear as though -we have here already an instance of hallucination worthy of being classed -with the “sights and visions” elsewhere mentioned. Even his earliest -monastic days would assume a suspiciously pathological character if, even -then, he was convinced of having been the recipient of heavenly messages. -It must, however, remain doubtful whether Jonas’s report means exactly -what it seems to mean and whether his sources are to be relied upon. - -The possibility of his having been the victim of hallucination at such an -early date also raises the question whether his later abnormal states can -be explained by heredity or his upbringing. - -By their “harsh treatment,” so Luther says on one occasion, his parents -had “driven him into the monastery”; here we have an entirely new version -of the motives of his choice of the religious life; he adds that, though -they meant well by him, yet he had known nothing but faintheartedness -and despondency.[745] Poverty still further darkened his early youth. -It is quite possible that the young monk may have suffered for some -considerable time from feelings of timidity and depression as a result of -his education and mode of life. The natural timidity which was apparent -during a part of his youth may also have contributed its quota to the -rise of the legend of the monk who was ever sad. But all this does not -explain as well as an hereditary malady would the terrors or seeming -hallucinations. Unfortunately the question of heredity is still quite -obscure, though the highly irritable temper of his father referred to -above (p. 182) may have some bearing on it. Luther, however, says very -little about his parents and even less of his manner of bidding good-bye -to the world. - - The statements he makes, whether in jest or in earnest, concerning his - vow to enter a religious Order, differ widely. - - He declares he made the vow to God in honour of St. Anne, but that God - had “taken it in the Hebrew meaning,” Anne signifying grace, and had - understood that Luther wished to become a monk “under grace and not - under the Law,” in fact not a monk at all.[746] Very likely it is no - jest, however, when he adds that, “he had soon regretted his vow, the - more so since many sought to dissuade him from entering the convent”; - he had, nevertheless, persisted, in spite of the objections of his - father and, after that, he had had no further thought of quitting the - convent, “until God deemed the time had come” (to thrust him out of - it).[747] - - On another occasion he assures us he had entered the convent only - “because he despaired of himself.”[748] And again: “God let me become - a monk,” “though I entered forcibly and contrary to my father’s - wishes”;[749] for I had “to learn to know the Pope’s trickery.”[750] - As a rule, however, he leaves God out of the matter. He had taken the - vow only “under compulsion,” so he says in self-defence; he had not - become a monk “gladly and willingly”; he did not then know that a - father had to be obeyed, or that vows rested only on “the commandments - of men, on hypocrisy and superstition,”[751] but, during his life in - the cloister, the suspicion of his father, who had now been reconciled - with him, about the possibility of its having all been a diabolical - delusion had sunk deeply into his mind; in his father’s words he had - perforce to recognise the Voice of God.[752] - -Again, the legend makes out the monk, in the time of his first fervour, -to have looked more like a corpse than a man; yet, so far as we can -judge, it was only after he had begun his public struggle, i.e. -subsequent to 1517, that he began to show signs of physical exhaustion -and emaciation, and this, too, was only owing to the way in which he went -to work. On the other hand, on March 17, 1509, i.e. nearly four years -after his entry into the religious life, when about to quit Erfurt, he -wrote, that, “as to himself, by God’s grace, all was going well.” The -expression he uses seems to imply that, not merely his spiritual, but -also his bodily, state was satisfactory.[753] - - * * * * * - -In his legend Luther speaks repeatedly of certain morbid states from -which he had suffered and which he duly uses to lash the Popish -conception of holiness. They are too closely bound up with other facts -in his mental life to be set aside as simple inventions, though it must -also be added that they contain an element of uncertainty. - -In the case of people who have been brought up as Christians but -who suffer from certain nervous disorders, particularly when their -temperament is of the melancholy variety, a notable aversion for sacred -objects may occasionally be observed. “Many such patients cannot bear -the sight of a cross, cannot listen to prayers, stop their ears at the -ringing of the Angelus, cannot mention the word ‘sacrament,’ but use some -circumlocution instead.” “Among perfectly normal people we do not meet -with this sort of thing, still it is nothing extraordinary.”[754] - -Now, oddly enough, we find Luther, in 1532, telling the people quite -seriously in his sermons on Matt. v.-vii., that, as a novice, he had not -been able to endure the sight of the crucifix. “When I saw a picture or -statue of Christ hanging on the Cross, etc., I was so affrighted that I -averted my eyes.”[755] And, again, in the same sermons: “When I looked at -Him on the Cross He seemed to me like a flash of lightning.” He also adds -that he “had often been affrighted at the name of Jesus.”[756] “The Last -Day,” he says in a sermon of 1534, he could not bear to hear spoken of, -and “my hair stood on end when I thought of it.”[757] These statements -are doubtless exaggerations, but Luther has others even stronger: He -would “rather have heard the devil spoken of than Christ”; he would -rather have seen “the devil than the Crucified”; “rather have heard of -the devils in hell than of the Last Day.” It may be queried whether the -above were simply inventions designed to vilify the monastic life and the -faith in which he had grown up. Nevertheless, whoever calls to mind the -“terrors” Luther experienced at his first Mass and in the procession with -Staupitz, whoever keeps before him the part played by Luther’s “fears” -even at a later date,[758] will certainly not think it beyond the bounds -of possibility that, at times, he should have shuddered at the sight of -the cross or at the mention of Christ or of the Last Judgment. - -To all this, his bodily condition may have contributed, yet, in his -legend, Luther makes of these doubtless morbid states of his the -inevitable result of the holiness-by-works practised in the convent and -taught by Catholic doctrine. It was because they had known Christ only -as the Judge, Who must be placated by works, that he had so dreaded the -Crucifix and the very mention of the Judgment. He says that he could not -but tremble at the sight of the Crucifix, because, like the rest of the -Papists, he had been taught to think that “I must go on performing good -works until I have thereby made Christ my friend and gracious toward -me.”[759] For this reason alone he had “so often shrunk back affrighted -at the name of Jesus” and at the “Cross” as at a “flash of lightning,” -because he, like all the rest, had lost his faith; “I had fallen away -from the faith and had no other thought than that I had angered God Whom -I must once more propitiate by my works.” “But praise and thanks be to -God that now we have His Word once more, which leads us to Christ and -depicts Him as our Righteousness”; our heart need no longer “tremble and -quake.”[760] - -After assuring us that he was often unable to gaze upon the Cross, he -also at once proceeds to make capital out of this against the olden -Church: “For,” so he continues, “my mind was poisoned by this Popish -doctrine,” a doctrine according to which “Christ, our Healer, had been -turned into a devil.”[761] - -Nor does he hesitate to make out that the sight of the Saviour was -likewise terrifying to all the zealous and earnest “saints-by-works” -in the religious life and Popery generally.[762] In another passage he -speaks of the dreadful emotion all felt at the mention of the coming -Judgment and the Last Day: “And so we were all sunk in the filth of our -own holiness and fancied that, by our life and works, we could pacify the -Divine Judgment”; formerly they used to start “if anyone spoke of death -or of the life to come”; but, since the light of the Evangel has risen, -it is otherwise. - -It is true that the way in which Luther here allows his prejudice to -exploit these terrifying experiences may raise doubts as to whether -they had ever actually existed even in his own case, or whether he did -not rather invent them with the object of afterwards ascribing them to -all. At the same time it is easier to believe in their existence than to -credit him with having deliberately evolved them out of his own fancy. - -The utmost caution must indeed be exercised in accepting his assertions -on this subject. We cannot sufficiently express our amazement at the -credulity with which Luther’s rhetorical statements about his life in the -convent have often been accepted, for instance even by Köstlin. The fact -is, that the ground on which Luther’s later account rests, the elements -that he introduces into his transformation of the facts, and above all -the bitter and aggressive spirit which directs and permeates everything, -have not been adequately recognised and thus the mythological nature of -his fiction has remained undetected. Otherwise it would surely have been -impossible to assert, that, just as Paul had been through the mill of -the Law, so Luther also had been through that of the religious life, in -order, by virtue of his experience, to discover the supreme truth. - - * * * * * - -Various traits in the picture he drew, which, owing to its difficulties, -has puzzled many people, may, as we have seen, be explained by his -misapprehension or misinterpretation of the phenomena of his own morbid, -melancholy mind. Other moral factors have, however, also to be taken into -account. - -As already pointed out, his depression of mind, due primarily to physical -causes, became so pronounced owing to his refusal to submit to proper -direction. - -His dissatisfaction was increased by his growing impatience with the -religious life, by remorse of conscience arising from his tepidity and -worldliness, and by his growing antipathy to his vocation. - - * * * * * - -It may be said, that, had the convent been wisely governed, Luther would -never have been admitted to profession but have been quietly dismissed -while yet a novice. Both for his superiors and for himself this would -have been the better course. A morbid temperament such as his, whatever -may have been its cause, was not suited for the religious life, even -apart from the obstacles in Luther’s character. The monotony and the -penances of the monastic life, the self-discipline and obedience; also -the annoyances with which he had to put up from his brother monks, whose -habits and upbringing were not his, must necessarily have aggravated his -case, particularly as he refused to submit to guidance. His superiors -should have foreseen that this brother would be a source of endless -difficulties. Instead of this, Staupitz, the vicar, clung to his -favourite. He even gave him to understand that he would make of him a -great scholar and an ornament of the Order. Had he remained in the world, -in a different and freer sphere of action, Luther might possibly have -succeeded in shaking off his ailments and the resultant depression. But, -in the convent, particularly as he went his own way, he became the victim -of ideas and imaginations which promoted the growth of his doctrine and -helped to pave the way for his apostasy. Nevertheless, his morbid states -could not annul the vows he had taken in the Order, hence his leaving and -his breach of the vows cannot be excused on the ground of his illness, -though the latter may help to explain his step. - -From all the above it is plain how unwarrantable is the assumption that -to set aside Luther’s legend is to shut one’s eyes to the severe inward -struggles through which he went previous to making his great decision. - -There can be no doubt that, previous to his unhappy change of religion, -the monk had to wage a hard fight with himself. He was striving against -his conscience, and, by overcoming it, he consciously and deliberately -incurred the guilt of his apostasy. “A frightful struggle of soul,”[763] -may, and indeed must, be assumed, though a very different one from that -usually pictured by Protestants and by Luther himself. It would indeed -be “stupid” (to use the words of a Protestant biographer of Luther) to -seek to “obliterate from history” the deep-down inward struggle which, -“maybe, lasted longer than we think.” It is, however, gratifying to -find that the same author admits that, as a monk in the Erfurt priory, -Luther “found some inward contentment,” in other words, that the legend -is false in this particular; he also grants that, at least “in this -or that statement,” Luther, in his later accounts, has been guilty of -“exaggeration”; that his “development” did not proceed quite on the lines -he fancied later, at least that the “change was not quite so sudden,” -and, finally, that “physical overstrain” had something to do with his -struggles.[764] - - -3. The Legend receives its last touch; how it was used - -It is only after 1530 that we find Luther’s legend of his monkish life -fully developed. Before this we see only the first hints of the tale. - -It cannot be argued that, till then, he had been silent on his inward -experiences as a monk, or that the MSS. of the Table-Talk only commence -subsequent to 1530. That, even before this, he had frequently spoken of -his earlier spiritual experiences is evident from the passages already -quoted, and might be proved by many others; moreover the absence of any -recorded Table-Talk is a detail, since the latter is far from being our -sole source in the present question. - -We are justified in assuming that the idea matured in 1530, during his -stay at the Castle of Coburg where he had to wage so severe a struggle -with himself. Amid the trials he endured during his days of retirement -at the Wartburg he had found time to pen his violent attack on monastic -vows; so also, it was in the quiet of the Coburg, amidst the ghostly -conflicts and delusions, that he wove the caricature of his own monkish -life into the web of his history. At the very time when Luther was at -the Coburg the burning question of German monasticism was being debated -at the Diet of Augsburg; the Catholic Estates hoped that recognition -might again be won for it from the Protestants, or that it might at least -secure toleration in the districts where allegiance was divided. It was -also at the Coburg that Luther penned many of the furious passages of his -“Warning to the Clergy forgathered at Augsburg.” - -He there says: “For the monks I know not how to plead. For I am well -aware you would rather they were all of them given over to the devil, -please God, whether they take wives or not.”[765] In these words he -erroneously takes for granted that all ecclesiastics shared his own -hatred for the monks. He boasts in this writing that he “had destroyed -the monks by his teaching”;[766] he trusts that “the Bishops will not -allow such bugs and lice to be stuck again on their fur cappas.”[767] -The reason why his doctrine had destroyed the monks was, because it -had revealed how they were merely “intent upon works.” “For what else -could come of it? If a conscience is intent on its works and builds on -them, then it is stablished on loose sand which is ever slipping and -sliding away; it must ever be seeking for works, for one and then for -another and ever more and more, until at last even the dead are clothed -in monks’ cowls the better to reach heaven.”[768] The last words are -a caricature, a misrepresentation of a pious custom by which no one -ever dreamt infallibly to win heaven. The “loose sand” is, however, a -favourite expression with him when speaking of his teaching on works. It -is the same teaching that he wants to bring before the eyes of all by -means of his fiction. How, at that time, his thoughts were harking back -to his former life in the convent is plain from a letter of consolation -he then wrote to his “tempted” pupil Weller. He tells him that he -himself had also had his sadnesses and temptations, but that what he had -suffered as a monk had in the end proved a schooling for his present high -calling.[769] - -Had he really been the butt of such “temptations” as the legend depicts -and contrived so successfully to vanquish them by his doctrine on -justification, then we might expect to find some trace of this in -his first writings subsequent to his change of outlook. Now, in the -Commentary on Romans we have a vivid document bearing on his change of -opinions, yet, full as it is of information about the author, we may seek -in vain for the legend. On the contrary it breathes a high esteem for -the religious state.[770] In the “Resolutions” to the Indulgence-Theses -likewise, Luther speaks of the phases through which he had passed and of -the mystical sufferings he had endured.[771] Yet here again the features -of the legend are wanting. Is it not somewhat remarkable that an author -usually so candid and talkative as Luther should have kept silence about -those experiences of which, just at that time, i.e. at the beginning of -his public struggle, he must have been so full? - -Nor is the legend to be found in Luther’s writings dating from between -1520 and 1530. All the passages quoted above date from a later period. - -Had the tale it tells been based on history he would surely have made -capital out of it during this long spell of controversy with the monks -and Papists. Thus, in his violent “_De votis monasticis_” of 1521, he as -yet has nothing to say of his supposed so pious life, of his excessive -penance, misguided holiness-by-works, and the despair he endured in the -convent, though, in the Preface, he alludes to his own life as a monk. -Nor, again, in his “_De servo arbitrio_” of 1525, does he as yet put -forward the actual legend. It is true that here, when explaining his -doctrine of Predestination, he refers to the fears from which as a monk -he had suffered regarding his election, fear which arose from his doubts -as to the fate decreed for him by God from all eternity. As it is also -here that he for the first time airs his theory that his doctrine of -absolute predestination and his dogma of justification were alone able -to give peace,[772] this would seem to have been the place to give an -account of his own life in the monastery and its attendant circumstances. -But the legend was not as yet ready. We have merely a hint of what is -to come: The Catholic doctrine that heaven may be won by works spells -the end of all peace; “this is proved by the experience of all the -holy-by-works, and this, to my cost, I also learnt by the experience -of many years.”[773] About his heroic works of penance, his vigils, -fastings, extraordinary piety, and the sudden and gratifying change, he -has not a word to say. - -Heralds of the legend are certain statements met with in a sermon of -1528 where he describes himself as having been a “very pious monk,” who -was, however, wanting in constancy and like a “shaking reed,” not being -firmly rooted in Christ;[774] again at the end of his “Vom Abendmal -Bekentnis” he declares his “greatest sins” were his having “been such -a holy monk and having plagued God for more than fifteen years with so -many masses.”[775] In the latter writing he at least admits that “many -great saints had lived in the monasteries”;[776] he even thinks that “it -would indeed be a fine thing if the monasteries and foundations were -retained, to the end that young folk might there be taught God’s Word, -the Scriptures and how to live a Christian life,” in short as educational -establishments for both boys and girls. “But, to seek in them the road to -salvation, that is the devil’s own doctrine and belief.”[777] - -Finally, in the sermons on John vi.-viii. which he began in 1530 after -his return from the Coburg to Wittenberg and continued till 1532 we -have the legend more or less complete: He had been a monk and had kept -the nightly watches (i.e. had chanted the usual matins), had “fasted -and prayed, scourged his body and tormented it”; he had been one of -the pious and earnest monks who took their life seriously, “who, like -me, were at some pains and examined and plagued themselves, and wanted -to attain to what Christ is in order to be saved. But what did they -gain thereby?”[778] At the same time he begins to enlarge in the most -incredible way on the beliefs and habits of the Papists with regard to -their own merits and the merits of Christ. All had held their tongues -concerning the Saviour, so he says, and he emphasises his statement by -adding: “I myself, I should have blushed to say that Christ was the -Saviour.” Thus in a sermon of Dec., 1530.[779] - - In the period that follows, what he says of his piety, and especially - of his works of penance, grows more and more emphatic. The argument - at the back of his mind is this: “If even so mortified, penitent, - and holy a monk as he could find no peace in Popery but only black - despair, must not then all admit that he was in the right in - protesting against both the Church and her vows?” - - So strictly had he kept his Rule, that, if ever monk got to heaven, it - should have been he; he had plagued himself to death with watching, - prayer, study and other labour.[780] This was the time when he “sought - to be a holy monk and to be reckoned among the most pious.”[781] “If - ever a monk was earnest then it was I.… I was at the utmost pains to - keep the ordinances” (of the Fathers). - - He “had been one of the best”[782] and was “wholly given over” to - “fasting, watching and prayer”;[783] “I nearly killed myself with - fasting, watching and cold … so mad and foolish was I.”[784] By - fasting, sleeplessness, hard work and coarse clothing “my body was - dreadfully broken and worn out.”[785] - - In short, he had “sunk deeper into the quagmire [of mortification, - obedience to the Church and monastic piety] than many an other”; so - much so that “it had been hard and bitter” to him to cut himself - adrift from the ordinances of the Pope; “God knows how hard I found - it!”[786] - -As he himself gradually came to believe in his extraordinary -“holiness-by-works” it may be that his thoughts dwelt too exclusively -to his earlier days as a monk, i.e. on those passed at Erfurt, during -which he certainly was more zealous than in later years, though never -such a fanatic as he afterwards makes out. He may also have compared his -life as a monk with the small efforts after virtue he made subsequent to -his public apostasy, and the contrast may have led him to make too much -of his piety in the convent. The contrast, indeed, often troubled him, -and we find him seeking for grounds to excuse his later lukewarmness in -prayer, so different from his earlier fervour.[787] This also helps us to -explain the line of thought followed in the legend. - - The true character of the legend becomes clearer when Luther begins - to exploit it in his polemics. He depicts himself as a sort of - “caricature of the monastic saint,”[788] and then complains: This - damnable life could not but keep me ever in a state of fear, and yet - the Popish Church recommends and sanctions it; the more zealous I grew - the further I withdrew from Christ—nay, brought even my baptism into - danger! He had never been able to “find comfort in it,” nay, he had - been compelled to “lose” it, to “lend a hand in denying it.” “This is - the upshot and reward of their doctrine of works.”[789] He even goes - so far as to say that the Papists “truly and indeed made nought of - the baptism” of Christ, for which reason “their doctrine is as baneful - as that of the Anabaptists”; they “make of us Jews or Turks, as though - we had never been baptised.” - - Luther’s persistent and obtrusive exploitation of his legend in his - controversies must not be lost to sight. - - In his new-found zeal he not only as a rule passes too confidently - from the _I_ (_I_ did so and so) to the _we_, or _they_, the better - to clap the blame attaching to himself on the monks in general, the - Pope and all the Papists, and then to conclude with the praise of the - new Evangel, but—and this reveals even more plainly the origin of the - invention,—he also follows the reverse order, speaking first of the - New Evangel, then of the senseless martyrdom endured by all the monks - with their works, and, lastly, of his own personal experiences, as - though they had been necessarily implied in his earlier premisses. - - _I_ cruelly disciplined my body, he says, and goes on: “_They_ plagued - and tormented themselves”; for all that, “did they find Christ? Christ - says: ‘You shall die in your sins.’ To this they came.” “The Pope, - too, labours and seeks,” to find what Christ is; “but never will he - find it.” All this leads to the conclusion: “But now God has given His - Grace, so that every town and thorp has the Gospel.”[790] - - Above we heard him speak of the “quagmire” in which he was sunk; - in the same connection he remarks: “_We_ wore out the body with - fasting,” etc., “and some even went crazy through it.” Then follows - the inference: “And, at last, _we_ lost our very souls.” For, to our - “great and notable injury,” _we_ were made to feel “in our anxious and - troubled conscience” what it means “to try to become pious by works - and so to redeem ourselves from sin.” “_We_ would gladly have had a - cheerful conscience,” but “it was all of no use, and _we_ naturally - became more and more downhearted about sin and death, so that no folk - more unhappy are to be found on earth than the priestlings, monks and - nuns who are wrapped up in their works.” “The more _they_ do, the - worse things fare with them.” But, since my doctrine has come into - the world, people have unlearnt their faintheartedness: “_We_ run to - the Man Who is called Christ and say: Yes indeed, we must take it - from the Man without any merit whatsoever [on our part].… He gives me - freely that for which formerly I had to pay a high price. He gives me, - without any works or merit, that for which formerly I had to stake - body, strength and health.”[791] - -His supposed experiences as a monk are even made to do service in his -interpretation of Holy Scripture. In order to understand the Scriptures, -so he argues, deep inward experience is called for. This he maintained -when withstanding the fanatics and their system of illuminism. Here he -actually carries back the beginning of his own experience to his convent -days. - -Already in the convent, so he declares, he had been compelled to bow to -the idol of scepticism, because he, and all the rest, knew nothing of any -real faith in the Gospel. Far less had he learned to pray Evangelically. - - “That Christ was a mystery, as St. Paul says, I looked upon formerly, - when I had to submit to being called a Doctor of Holy Scripture, as a - lying statement which I very well understood. But now that, praise be - to God, I have once more become a poor student of Holy Writ, and that, - the longer I live, the less I know of it, I begin to see the marvel of - such sayings, and find by experience that they must necessarily remain - mysteries.… Our experience must bear witness to this, how amply, fully - and clearly we now possess this same Word of Christ.”[792] But, by the - Pope, it was “gruesomely murdered.”[793] - - Of the Saints of their Order the monks made their God, and of their - miracles they made their Gospel. “For know you this, that I, Dr. - Martin Luther, who am now living and write this, was also one of - the crowd who were forced to believe and worship such things [lying - fables]. And had anyone been so bold as to doubt one whit of it, or - to raise a finger against it, he would have gone to the stake or to - some other evil end.”[794] That the latter was an exaggeration and the - merest invention Luther was perfectly well aware. - - He also speaks untruthfully of the manner of prayer in the convent. - That he himself, when once he had fallen away from his vocation, no - longer prayed in a right spirit is very likely. He, however, says: - “I and all the others had not the right conception” (of prayer); - it was no true “raising of the heart to God because we fled from - God (‘_fugiebamus Deum_’).… We only prayed ‘conditionally’ and - ‘hypothetically,’ not ‘categorically.’” This he said in 1537, - admitting, however, with regard to his own then family prayers, - that they “were not so fervent, because he was always forced to - protest,” i.e. to pour out his anger against the Papists; but, “in the - congregation as a whole, it comes from the heart and also serves its - purpose.”[795] - - His wilful misrepresentation of the truth becomes more pronounced, - when, in the exploitation of the legend, he seeks to moderate the - monks’ practices of penance and mortification—with the help of Terence - and Aristotle. - - In his Commentary on Genesis he complains: “The religious life of the - monk is so crooked that no exception (‘_epikia_’) is allowed, nor any - moderation. Hence it is all wickedness and unrighteousness. No heed is - paid to the object of the Law, or to charity.… And yet what Terence - says is still true: ‘_summum ius esse summam iniuriam_.’ God does not - wish the body to be put to death, but that it be preserved for each - one’s calling and for the service of our neighbour.”[796] “Learn, - therefore, that peace and charity must govern and direct all virtues - and laws, as Aristotle points out in the 5th book of his Ethics.”[797] - - Now, as a matter of fact, the Rule of the Hermits of St. Augustine, - with which he was thoroughly conversant, enjoined consideration for - the health of the individual.[798] Brother Jordan of Saxony, whose - book was regarded as a standard work in the Order, insists on care - being taken of the body and only permits penitential exercises “in - moderation, with the superiors’ approval and without scandal to the - brethren.”[799] - -His falsehoods are coupled with the outbursts of fury against Catholicism -into which he was so prone to fall when attempting to describe the -religious life he had forsaken. - - Because we endured so much “pain and such martyrdom of heart and - conscience” no one must now seek to excuse the Papacy; on the contrary - “we cannot blame and scold the Pope enough”; “that he should have so - wasted the beautiful years of my youth, and martyred and plagued my - conscience is really too bad.” Popery is the “scarlet whore of Rome, - the arch-whore, the French whore, chock-full of blasphemies”; “we must - thank our Lord God that He has revealed and discovered to us the Pope - as the dragon with his head, belly and tail.”[800]—The monks are a - “devilish crew,” and monkery a “hellish cauldron”; by day and by night - Christ is to all monks a “hangman and devil”; even the best and most - learned, and St. Thomas of Aquin himself, were all driven to despair - and died of the ghostly poison.[801] The last words occur in the work - he wrote in self-defence against Duke George of Saxony (1533), who had - twitted him with having committed perjury in breaking his religious - vows. - - The thought of his own infidelity and his abuse of the graces of the - religious life was at times quite enough in itself to fill him with - fury. At any rate his whole picture of his earlier years is steeped in - polemics and the spirit of hate. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVIII - -END OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE CHURCH-UNSEEN AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH-BY-LAW - - -1. From Religious Licence to Religious Constraint - - -_Freedom as the Watchword_ - -In the early days of his public protest against the olden Church, when -Luther proclaimed the “universal priesthood of all Christians,” there -could as yet be no question of any compulsion in matters of doctrine, -seeing that he expressly conceded to the Christian congregations the -right and power to weigh all doctrines and “to set up or send adrift -their teachers and soul-herds.” Every Christian, so he wrote, who saw -that a true teacher was lacking, was taught and consecrated by God as a -priest and was also bound, “under pain of the loss of his soul and of -incurring the Divine displeasure, to teach the Word of God.”[802] It -is not necessary after all we have already said[803] to point out how -impossible it is to square such far-reaching concessions to freedom with -any idea of a positive body of doctrine. The concessions may, however, -have appealed to him particularly because he himself was disposed to -claim the utmost freedom in respect of the dogmas of Catholicism. In -those days he was delighted to hear himself extolled as the champion -of freedom and the right of private judgment. The interests of his -party made such extravagant toleration commendable, for any attempt at -compulsion in doctrinal matters, particularly at the beginning, would -have lost him many friends. He was also anxious that it should be said of -the new Church that it had spread of its own accord and only owing to the -power of the Word. - - In the sermon he preached at Erfurt in 1522 in support of the change - of religion in that town he had declared, that every Christian, thanks - to his kingly priesthood, was an “image of Christ” and a “cleric,” and - “able to judge of all things”; to his decision, based on the Word of - Christ, “the Pope and all his followers were subject”; “he judges all - things and is judged of none.”[804] - - Even two years later, in words proclaiming universal freedom of - belief, he had dissuaded the Saxon Princes from taking violent - measures against the fanatics: “Let the spirits fall upon each other - and clash!” What cannot stand must in any case succumb in the fight, - and only those who fight rightly are assured of the crown. “Just let - them preach as they please!”[805] - - In 1525 he told Carlstadt and the Sacramentarians that each one was - free to follow his own conscience and to question the Sacrament or - refuse to receive it.[806] This agrees with his statement of 1521: “No - one must be forced into the faith, but the Gospel must be set before - everyone and all be admonished to believe, yet left free to obey or - not. All the Sacraments must be free to everyone.”[807] - -Luther registered a formal protest against the ancient right of -proceeding against heretics by means of temporal penalties, particularly -that of death. “To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Ghost,” -so he declared in 1518 and again in 1520.[808] In 1520 he said: “Heretics -must be overcome by argument, not by fire.”[809] - -Most of what he was to say subsequently on the question of public -toleration refers to the bearing of the authorities, especially towards -the Anabaptists and Zwinglians. That he himself, however, and every -follower of his Evangel, were bound to regard all opinions which diverged -from his own as godless heresies and brand them as such, that he had -never doubted from the moment he had discovered his new Evangel. In -accordance with this he proceeds to demand more and more strongly of the -“heretics” within the pale unconditional acceptance of all the articles -of faith.[810] - -What were the authorities to do faced by teachings so divergent? In 1523, -in a writing indeed intended mainly for the Catholic rulers and opponents -of his doctrine, Luther is decidedly quite against any interference on -the part of the authorities: “To resist heretics, that is the bishops’ -duty to whom this office is committed, not the princes’; for heresy can -never be overborne by a strong hand.… Here God’s Word must fight.”[811] -In April, 1525, in the midst of the Peasant War, in his “Ermanunge,” he -enunciates, not without some thought of his personal ends, this general -principle—“Yes, the authorities must not oppose what each one chooses to -believe and teach, whether it be Gospel or lie; it is enough that they -hinder the preaching of feud and lawlessness.”[812] - -Boehmer justly points out, that Luther’s standpoint and doctrine as a -whole, essentially spelt not only “unfettered freedom of teaching, but -also entire freedom of worship.” - -Meanwhile, however, Luther had already repeatedly urged those in power, -especially his own sovereign, to do their supposed duty, and back up the -new Evangel by their authority and by forbidding Catholic worship, the -Mass and Catholic sermons. - -In what follows we shall deal with Luther’s behaviour towards the -Catholics, as distinguished from his attitude towards sectarians within -his own camp. - - -_Intolerance Towards Catholics in Theory and Practice_ - -We should be making a serious mistake were we to judge of Luther’s -tolerance towards the olden religion from his statements above on behalf -of freedom. In Protestant literature, even to the present day, such a -one-sided view has found a place, though it has long since been rejected -by clear-sighted historians of that faith. In the course of the above -narrative instances have been met with repeatedly of Luther’s intolerance -in theory and practice with regard to those who thought differently. Here -we shall refer concisely to various details already set on record and -then draw some new facts and utterances from the abundant store bearing -on the matter in hand. - - It was “his duty to oppose false teachers,” Luther had written to his - Elector on May 8, 1522, of the Canons of Altenburg.[813] In the same - way, with much storming, he had insisted that the secular power should - make an end of Catholic worship in the collegiate church of Wittenberg. - - From the standpoint of his principles it is rather remarkable that, - when the persecuted Canons of Wittenberg appealed to the Elector’s - authority, Luther retorted: “What has the Elector to do with us in - such things?”[814] and that, later, in one of his sermons, he boldly - replied to their objections in law: “What care we about the Elector? - He commands only in worldly matters.”[815] In making a stand against - the celebration of Mass at Wittenberg he had frankly declared: “It - is the duty of the authorities to resist and to punish such public - blasphemy,” just as they are bound to punish the blasphemies uttered - in the streets by godless men. The Elector and his Councillors were - quite aware of the contradictions involved in Luther’s teaching. - Hence, at the Prince’s instance, the Court pointed out to him on Nov. - 24, 1524, that “he himself preached that the Word should be left to - fight its own way, and that this it would do in its own good time, so - God willed”; he ought himself to be the first “to practise what he - taught and preached.”[816] In spite of this Luther, soon after, was - successful in violently making a clean sweep of the Catholic Mass at - Wittenberg.[817] - - The theory that the Evangelical ruler must use force to root out - Catholic worship was proclaimed by the Court chaplain Spalatin, a - man “standing altogether under Luther’s influence, and who, as a - rule, merely voiced his views”;[818] this he did in a letter of May - 1, 1525, where he cites the prescriptions of the Mosaic law (Deut. - vii.). According to this the secular authorities are bound “by the Law - of God to abrogate idolatrous and blasphemous worship”; any further - toleration on the part of the Elector of “idolatry” in his lands would - be a great sin; on the other hand it would be a “great, consoling and - Christian work” were he “to put the Christian bit in the mouth of - all the clergy.” “Ah, that would indeed be a noble work!”[819] To the - successor of the then Elector who died shortly after this, Spalatin - wrote on Oct. 1, 1525: “Dr. Martin also says, that Your Electoral - Highness ought in no way to suffer anyone to proceed any longer with - the unchristian ceremonies, or to set them up again”;[820] on Jan. - 10, 1526, he, together with two Altenburg preachers, backed up the - petition to the Elector for the extirpation of “idolatry” by pointing - to the example of the pious kings of the Jews.[821] At Altenburg and - elsewhere such exhortations were crowned all too speedily with success. - -“A secular ruler,” Luther himself wrote to the Elector Johann on Feb. 9, -1526, “must not permit his underlings to be led into strife and discord -by contumacious preachers, for this may issue in uproar and sedition, but -in each locality there must be but one kind of preaching.”[822] - -On such grounds, however, Protestantism itself might just as well have -been denied a hearing, seeing that it had come to disturb the peace, the -“one kind of preaching” and the one faith. The princes, however, spurred -on by their theologians, seized only too eagerly on this principle, using -it in favour of the innovations. The Elector Johann declared as early as -Feb. 31, 1526, that he had “graciously taken note of the Memorandum” and -would, “for the future, conduct himself in such matters as beseemed a -Christian”;[823] and he kept his word. - -The intolerance shown to Catholics and their systematic oppression in -Saxony stands in blatant contrast with the claim made, that Luther by -his preaching had won religious freedom for the German lands. Banishment -was the punishment incurred by those who chose to remain steadfast in -their attachment to the Catholic faith. Thus, in 1527, it was expressly -laid down in the regulations for the Saxon Visitation, that: “Whoever is -suspected in the matter of the Sacraments, or of any other error in the -faith” is to “be summoned and questioned, and, if necessary, witnesses -against him are also to be called.” “Such an ‘inquisition’ is also to -be instituted by the Visitors in the case of the laity.”[824] If they -refuse to abjure their “errors” they are to be given a certain time to -sell their possessions and to quit the land, with a “warning of the -severe penalties” with which any ecclesiastic or layman will be visited -who is again found in the country.[825] Bearing in mind the difficulty -emigration presented at that time, particularly in the case of the people -on the land, one can appreciate the injustice of the measure. - - Luther and his followers frequently enough appealed to theological - grounds in support of such measures, above all to the Old Testament - enactments against blasphemers and contemners of religion. One-sidedly - they simply applied to their own day and to their own controversial - purposes, the exceptional regulations of the Mosaic dispensation which - sought to preserve the religion of the chosen people in the midst of a - heathen world. In this connection Luther appeals to Moses without the - slightest hesitation though, as a rule, armed with the New Testament, - he is ready enough to assail the Mosaic Law; he also set up the pious - “Kings of Juda and Israel” as patterns. Wenceslaus Link did much the - same when he summoned the Altenburg Town-Council to make a stand - against Catholicism and abrogate the “lies and fond inventions of the - idolaters”;[826] nor did Spalatin hesitate to point out to the Saxon - Elector the commendation the pious rulers of the Jews had earned from - God for their bloody repression of idolatry.[827] - - Another ground for compulsion, to which Spalatin gives expression in - a letter to the Elector, was, that: They must not forget how “many a - poor man would more readily come to the Evangel, were that wretched - system [of Popery and its idolatry] no longer in existence.” In other - words, were Catholic worship rooted out, Catholics would more easily - be won over to the Evangel.[828] It was on such a standpoint as this - that the Augsburg declaration of 1530 made by the theologians of - the Saxon Electorate was based. The Emperor had demanded from the - Protesting Princes toleration of the Catholic worship for those of - their subjects who chose to remain Catholic. The theologians thereupon - expressed themselves against such an arrangement, and urged that, in - this case, Lutheran proselytism would be hampered: “Were it to be - said that the rulers were not to hinder it, though the preachers were - to preach against it, it is clear of what [small] good would be all - the teaching and preaching of the ministers.”[829] - -In the Duchy of Saxony, as everybody knows, the introduction of -Lutheranism was opposed by Duke George. His severity he justified by -appealing to the thousand-year-old law of the one great world-wide -Church, the Church of the Apostles, of the Fathers and martyrs and -Œcumenical Councils and great missioners of all ages, a law, moreover, -sanctioned by the Empire. When, in 1533, a number of Lutherans were -banished from the Duchy[830] Luther seized upon this as a pretext for -controversy. Roundly scolding the “Ducal tyrant,” he declared this -sentence of banishment to be “a devilish and criminal thing.” The -authority of the sovereign, so he now wrote, again contradicting himself, -“only extends over life and property in secular matters.”[831] But, after -George’s death in 1539 and the accession of his brother Henry, Luther’s -tone changed, for Henry held Lutheran views. In a letter he sent about -that time to the Elector Johann Frederick, he is angry because more than -500 of the Saxon clergy, all of them “venomous Papists,” had not yet been -driven out. “For the sake of the poor souls, many thousands of whom live -neglected under such parsons,” he urges the Elector to do his best “to -help and promote a Visitation.”[832] He demands that Duke Henry, as the -sovereign and protector of the bishopric of Meissen, should “put a damper -on the blasphemous idolatry” as best he could, for “the Princes who are -able to do so should at once abolish Baal and all idolatry.”[833] He also -wished that the bishop of Meissen, though a Prince of the Empire, should -“at once bow his head to the Evangel”; in this matter there is no need -for “much disputing.” - -It was but natural that such intolerance often led to scenes of -brutality; such was the case in the cathedral of Meissen, where the -splendid tomb of Benno, the saintly bishop of Meissen, was hewn in -pieces, and the statue of the patron, which was an object of veneration -to all the people, was set up headless at the church door as a -laughing-stock for the Lutherans.[834] - -Hand in hand with such legal coercion, which he both approved and -furthered, went Luther’s declaration—which, though seeming to promote -freedom, really constituted a new encroachment on the rights of -conscience—viz. that: No one was to be forced to believe in his heart, -but that “the people were to be driven to the sermons for the sake of the -Ten Commandments, so that they might at least learn the outward works -of obedience.”[835] “It would be grand,” so he told Margrave George of -Brandenburg, “if your Serene Highness on the strength of your secular -authority enjoined on both parsons and parishioners under pain of -penalties the teaching and learning of the Catechism, in order, that, as -they are Christians and wish to be called such, they may, please God, be -compelled to learn and to know what a Christian ought to know, whether -he believes it or not.”[836] At his instance attendance at the sermons -was imposed on all people in the Saxon Electorate under pain of penalty, -whatever they might think of the preaching.[837] - - God Himself has abrogated “all authority and power where it is - opposed to the Evangel,”[838] so, as early as 1522, ran one of the - principles he used for the violent suppression of Catholic worship. Of - the Catholic foundations he says in the same year: “If the preacher - does not make men pious (i.e. does not preach according to Luther’s - doctrine), the goods are no longer his.”[839] Violent interference - with the Mass was, according to him, no revolt when it came from the - established authorities.[840] “It is the duty of the sovereign, as - ruler and brother Christian, to drive away the wolves,”[841] and those - who do not preach the Evangel are “wolves”; it is “an urgent duty - to drive away the wolf from the sheepfold.”[842] The Pope himself, - however, deserves the worst fate, for he is the “werwolf who devours - everything. Just as all seek to kill the werwolf, and very rightly, - so is it a duty to suppress the Pope by force.”[843] - - “Not only the spiritual but also the secular power must yield to the - Evangel, whether cheerfully or otherwise.”[844] - - Hence it follows that the salvation of his soul requires of a - Christian prince the prohibition of the Popish worship.[845] If it is - his duty to resist the Turk far more must he oppose the Pope: “What - harm does the Turk do?” It is clear that, “as regards both body and - soul the government of the Pope is ten times worse than that of the - Turk.”[846] - - “Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the - borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else he must pack and go.” - The authorities are not to “allow themselves and their people to be - forced into idolatry and falsehood.”[847] Hence “let the authorities - step in and try the case and whichever party does not agree with - Scripture, let him be ordered to hold his tongue.”[848] The Prince - must behave like David, and hold that, as regards “God and the service - of His Sovereignty everything must be equal and made to intermingle, - whether it be termed spiritual or secular,” being “kneaded together - into one cake.”[849] How many false teachers had David, his model, not - been forced “to expel or in other ways stop their mouths.”[850] - - It is not, however, enough to impose silence on them. They must—so - Luther began to teach about 1530—be treated as public blasphemers and - punished accordingly:[851] They “must not be suffered but must be - banished as open blasphemers.” Thus must we act with those who “teach - that Christ did not die for our sins but that each one must atone - for them on his own; for this also is a public blasphemy against the - Gospel.”[852] Hundreds of times does he charge the Catholics with - thus robbing the saving death of Christ of all significance by their - doctrine of good works. - -These intolerant principles, which could not but lead to persecution, -were made even worse by the abuse and invective which Luther publicly -showered on the representatives of Catholicism. He taught the mob to -call them “blasphemous ministers of the Babylonian whore,” knaves, -bloodhounds, hypocrites and murderers. In the Articles of Schmalkalden -which found a place among the Symbolic Books, he introduces the Pope as -the “dragon” who leads astray the whole world, as the “real Antichrist” -and as the “devil himself” whom it was impossible to “worship as Master -or as God,” for which reason he would not suffer the Pope as “Head or -Lord”; they must say to him: “May God rebuke thee, Satan!” (Zach. iii. -2).[853] Among his monstrous caricatures of the Pope he also included -one depicting the “well-deserved reward of the Most Satanic Pope and his -Cardinals,” as the inscription runs below. Here the Pope is seen on the -gallows with three Cardinals; their tongues which have been torn out by -the root are nailed to the gibbet and devils are scurrying off with their -souls. The picture is embellished with the following doggerel: - - “Did Pope and Card’nal here below - Their due reward receive, - Then would their tongues to gibbets cleave, - As our draughtsman’s lines do show.”[854] - - -_Threats of Bloody Reprisals against Papists, Priestlings and Monks_ - -At the right moment let us fall upon the Turks “and the priests and smite -them dead!” Only then shall we be successful against the Turks! So runs -one of Luther’s sayings in the Table-Talk.[855] - -“Oh, that our Right Reverend Cardinals, Popes and Roman Legates had more -kings of England to put them to death!”[856] This he wrote in 1535, after -the execution of Thomas More and John Fisher by Henry VIII. - -As early as 1520 he had exclaimed against Prierias: If thieves are -punished by the rope, murderers by the sword and heretics by fire, -why not proceed against “these noxious teachers of destruction—these -Cardinals, Popes and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who are ever -ceaselessly destroying the Church of God—with every kind of weapon, and -wash our hands in their blood?”[857] - - Towards the end of his life, in 1545, he showed that he was still - faithful to such views in spite of all the changes which had come - over some of his other leading ideas. Let “the Pope, the Cardinals - and the whole scoundrelly train of his idolatrous, Popish Holiness - be seized,” so he declares in “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” and - put to the death they deserve, either on the gallows to which their - tongues may be nailed, or by drowning the “blasphemous knaves” in the - Sea at Ostia.[858] - - “It pleases me,” he wrote on Dec. 2, 1536, to King Christian of - Denmark, “that Your Majesty has extirpated the bishops who never cease - to persecute God’s Word and to worry the secular power; I shall do my - best to explain and vindicate your action.”[859] At Wittenberg, as we - see from a letter of a Wittenberg theologian, the report was current - that the Danish king had “struck off the heads of six bishops.”[860] - This false account “seems to have been credited by Luther.”[861] If - this be so, then it seems that he was perfectly ready to justify so - cruel a deed. The truth is, that, King Christian, after having had the - bishops arrested (Aug. 20, 1536), released them as soon as they had - promised to resign their bishoprics. - - In the summer of 1540 Luther had it that the Pope and the monks were - to blame for the many fires in Northern and Central Germany. “If this - turns out true, then there will be nothing left for us but to take up - arms in common against all the monks and shavelings; I too shall join - in, for it is right to slay the miscreants like mad dogs.”[862] The - worst of the lot, according to him, were the Franciscans. “If I had - all the Franciscan friars in one house,” he said a few days later, “I - would set fire to it, for, in the monks the good seed is gone, and - only the chaff is left. To the fire with them!”[863] - -No one, in the least familiar with Luther’s writings, will be so foolish -as to believe that it was really his intention to kill the Catholic -clergy and monks. His bloodthirsty demands were but the violent outbursts -of his own deep inward intolerance. They were called forth occasionally -by other alleged misdeeds of Popery, of its advocates and friends, for -instance, by the burdensome taxes imposed by the Church, by her use -of excommunication, and by the action taken against the Lutherans, -particularly by the resolutions of the Diets for the suppression of -Protestantism. Nor must we forget that the religious dissensions grew -into a sort of permanent warfare and that war tends to produce effusions -such as would be unthinkable in times of peace; nor was the warlike -feeling a monopoly of the Lutheran side. - -But who was it who was responsible for having provoked the war? - -Occasional counsels to patience and endurance, to self-restraint and -consideration were indeed given by Luther from time to time[864] (they -have been diligently collected by his modern supporters), but, generally -speaking, they are drowned in the din of his controversial invective. - -What was to be expected when the people, who were already profoundly -excited by the social conditions, were told: “Better were it that all -bishops were put to death, and all foundations and convents rooted -out than that one soul should be seduced” by Popish error.[865] “What -better do they deserve than to be stamped out by a great revolt?”[866] -If his reforms were rejected then it was to be wished that monasteries -and foundations “were all reduced to one great heap of ashes.”[867] -“A grand destruction of all the monasteries, etc., would be the best -reformation!”[868] What wonder “were the Princes, the nobles and the -laity to hit Pope, bishop, priest and monk on the head and drive them out -of the land?”[869] The “Rhine would hardly suffice to drown” the many -“bull-mongers,” Cardinals and “knaves.”[870] - - -_The Death-Penalty Sectarians within the New Fold_ - -In the above we have dealt with Luther’s intolerance in theory and -practice towards the Catholic Church. It remains for us to look at his -attitude towards the sects within his own camp. - -The question, how far they were to be tolerated, or whether it would be -better forcibly to suppress them was first brought home to Luther by -the Anabaptist movement under Thomas Münzer. Sure of the upper hand, -Luther decided, as we know, at the end of July, 1524, to advise the Saxon -Princes to leave the Anabaptists in peace so far as their doctrines were -concerned. “Let them preach as they please,” was his advice, for “there -‘must needs be heresies’” (1 Cor. xi. 19).[871] He explained to Lazarus -Spengler of Nuremberg on Feb. 4, 1525, that the Anabaptists were not -to be punished, particularly with “bodily penalties,” because, in his -opinion, they were no real blasphemers, but merely “like the Turks or -straying Christians.”[872] In May of the same year he showed himself -disposed to universal toleration. “The authorities are not to hinder -anyone from teaching and believing what he pleases”;[873] a principle -which, as we have shown above (p. 239), he himself had contravened in -practice as early as 1522, and was finally to set aside altogether. - -As for the Anabaptists, in 1527 Luther was not yet in favour of the -“putting to death” and bloody “rooting out” of these sectarians. In 1528 -he even taught in his exposition of the Parable of the Good Seed and -the Tares that “we are not to fight the fanatics with the sword.”[874] -What made him hesitate to advise the putting to death of these heretics -was, as he told his friend Wenceslaus Link of Nuremberg in 1528, the -apprehension that this might lead to abuses; he feared lest, in the time -to come, we might turn the sword against the best “among us.”[875] But -without a doubt he approved of the Edict of the Elector Johann (Jan. 17, -1528) which proscribed the writings of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians -and fanatics throughout the land—if indeed the Edict itself may not be -traced directly to Luther, as Zwingli suspected.[876] In 1528 it also -seemed to him right to decree the penalty of banishment in the case of -the Anabaptists.[877] - -When, however, the danger had become more evident, which the Anabaptist -heresy spelt both to the land-frith and the foundations of Christianity, -not to speak of the Lutheran teaching, Luther adopted a sterner line of -action. - -His views altered in 1530. After a Mandate had been issued in the Saxon -Electorate against the “secret preachers and conventicles, Anabaptists -and other baneful novel teaching,” six Anabaptists were executed early in -the year at Reinhardsbrunn in the duchy of Saxe-Gotha. The discussion -which took place on this event gave Melanchthon occasion to declare in -Feb., 1530, that, “even though the Anabaptists do not advocate anything -seditious or openly blasphemous” it was, “in his opinion, the duty of -the authorities to put them to death.”[878] In the spring of 1530, with -the Anabaptists in his mind, Luther, in his commentary on Ps. lxxxii. -dealt with the question whether the authorities “ought to forbid strange -teachings or heresies and punish them, seeing that no one should or can -force men into the Faith.”[879] - - His detailed reply to the question which it was then impossible any - longer to blink, centres round the distinction he makes of two kinds - of heretics, viz. those who were seditious, and those who merely - “teach the opposite of some clear article of faith.” Of the latter, - i.e. the non-revolutionary, he says expressly: “These also must not - be allowed but must be punished like public blasphemers.” Of those, - who, though holding no office, force themselves in as preachers, and - thus imperil the faith and lead to risings, he writes, that their oath - of allegiance obliged the burghers not to listen to them but rather - to report them either to their parson or to the authorities. If such - a one will not desist “then let the authorities hand over knaves - of that ilk to their proper master, to wit Master Hans” (i.e. the - hangman).[880] As for those Anabaptists who preached open revolt, they - had, in his opinion, by that very fact incurred the penalties of the - law. At any rate it was not merely on account of their sedition that - Luther wished to see the Anabaptists punished. - - Another statement of his has come down to us from an outside source. - Luther’s friend, Lazarus Spengler of Nuremberg, had a little before - this, on March 17, 1530, sought to secure from Luther, through Veit - Dietrich, some directions on how to deal with heretics. Dietrich - verbally obtained from his master the desired instructions and - promptly sent them to Spengler by letter.[881] They were to the effect - that not merely the heretics who offend against public order were - to be punished, but also those who merely do harm to religion, such - as the Sacramentarians (Zwinglians) and Papists; as they are to be - looked upon as blasphemers, they cannot be suffered. It is noteworthy, - that, in Luther’s correspondence in 1530, in a letter from the Coburg - to Justus Jonas, we find him congratulating himself on the report - (a false one) of the execution of a certain heretic. On receiving - the announcement that Johannes Campanus, the anti-Trinitarian, had - suffered death as a heretic at Liége, Luther wrote: “I learnt this - with joy” (“_lætus audivi_”).[882] - - Early in October, 1531, agreeably with the Saxon Elector’s Mandate, - a number of persons suspected of holding Anabaptist views were taken - to Eisenach for punishment and were there put to the torture; it was - now judged advisable to obtain a fresh memorandum from the Wittenberg - theologians. - -Accordingly, at the end of 1530, Melanchthon at the instance of the -Electoral Court once more took the matter in hand. He drafted a -memorandum on the duty of the secular authorities in the matter of -religious differences, with particular reference to the Anabaptists. -In it he set forth at length the grounds for a regular system of -coercion by the sword. Luther, too, set his name to the document with -the words: “It pleases me, Martin Luther.” In it the sectarians were -reprobated as blasphemers because they reject “the public preaching -office [the ministry] and teach that men can become holy without any -preaching and ecclesiastical worship.” They ought to be visited with -death by the public authorities whose duty it is to “befriend and uphold -ecclesiastical order”; and in like manner should their adherents and -those whom they have led astray be dealt with, who insist, “that our -baptism and preaching is not Christian and therefore that ours is not the -Church of Christ.”[883] Nevertheless, we can see from the words Luther -adds after his signature that the decision, or at least its severity, -aroused some misgivings in him. He says: “Though it may appear cruel to -punish them by the sword, yet it is even more cruel of them to condemn -the preaching office and not to teach any certain doctrine, to persecute -the true doctrine, and, over and above all this, to seek to destroy the -kingdoms of this world.” - -It is quite true that Luther and Melanchthon had an eye on the seditious -character of these sects, yet present-day Protestant theologians are -not justified when they try to explain and excuse their severity on -this ground. On the contrary, as we have already pointed out, the texts -plainly show that they were chiefly concerned with the punishment of -the sectarians’ offences against the faith. This was made the principal -point, as we see in Melanchthon’s memorandum just referred to. He says, -for instance: “Though many Anabaptists do not openly teach any seditious -doctrines,” yet “it was both sedition and blasphemy for them to condemn -the public ministry.” It was therefore the duty of the authorities, above -all “on account of the second commandment of the Decalogue, to uphold the -public ministry” and to take steps against them. If, to boot, they also -taught seditious doctrines then it was “all the easier to judge them,” -as we read in another memorandum of the Wittenberg theologians (1536) of -which Melanchthon was also the draughtsman.[884] - -To N. Paulus belongs the credit of having thrown light on the true state -of affairs, for, even previous to the publication of his “Protestantismus -und Toleranz im 16 Jahrhundert” (1911) he had discussed Luther’s attitude -both in his shorter writing, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit” (1905) -and in various articles in reviews. After him, the Protestant historian -P. Wappler took up the same views, particularly in his “Die Stellung -Kursachsens … zur Täuferbewegung” (1910). In the “Neues Archiv für -sächsische Geschichte” (1911) O. A. Hecker also quite agrees in rejecting -the opinion of certain recent Protestant theologians, who, as he says, -“all try to exonerate Luther from any hand in the executions for heresy, -though they can only do so by dint of forced interpretations, as Paulus -pointed out.”[885] - - Between 1530 and 1532 Luther’s intolerance comes yet more to the fore; - it was indeed his way, when once he had made any view his own, to - urge it in the strongest terms. Thus, at the end of 1531, he again - alludes to Master Hans: “Those who force themselves in without any - office or commission are not worthy of being called false prophets but - are vagrants and knaves, who ought to be handed over to the tender - mercies of Master Hans.”[886] “It is not allowed that each one should - proceed according to his own ideas and set up his own doctrine and - fancy himself a sage, and dictate to, and find fault with, others.” - “This I call judging of doctrine, which is one of the greatest and - most scatheful vices on earth, whence indeed all the fanatics have - sprung.” The two last sentences occur in his sermons on St. Matthew’s - Gospel.[887] - - Still more striking is the demand he makes of Duke Albert of Prussia - concerning the Zwinglians; here his zeal against these heretics - seems to blind him, for his arguments recoil against himself, - though apparently he does not notice it. Every Prince, he says in a - psychologically remarkable passage, who does not wish “most gruesomely - to burden his conscience” must cast out the Zwinglians from his land, - because, by their denial of the presence of Christ in the Supper, they - set up a doctrine “contrary to the traditional belief held everywhere - and to the unanimous testimony of all.” - - But how many doctrines had not Luther himself set up contrary to the - ancient faith and to the unanimous testimony of all? It was, so he - goes on, “both dangerous and terrible” to “believe anything contrary - to the unanimous testimony, belief and teaching of the whole of the - Holy Christian Church, which, from the beginning and for more than - 1500 years, had been universally received throughout the world.” This - was tantamount to “not believing in the Christian Church at all, and - not merely to condemn the whole of the Holy Christian Church as a - damned heretic, but also Christ Himself together with all the Apostles - and Prophets, who had formulated the Article which we now recite, ‘I - believe one Holy Christian Church,’ and borne such powerful witness to - it.”[888] - -“The worldly authorities bear the sword,” so Luther said in his -Home-Postils, “with orders to prevent all scandal, so that it may not -intrude and do harm. But the most dangerous and horrible scandal is -where false doctrine and worship finds its way in.… For this reason the -Christian authorities must be on the look-out for such scandal.… They -must resist it stoutly and realise that nothing else will do save they -make use of the sword and of the full extent of their power in order to -preserve the doctrine pure and the worship clean and undefiled.” - -“Then everything will go well.”[889] - -We have also his exposition of Ps. ci. (1534), where there occurs the -eulogy of David, the “scourge of heretics.”[890] - -How he was in the habit of dealing with the Sacramentarians at a later -date the following instance may serve to show, which at the same time -reveals his coarseness and his reliance on the secular authorities. To -Luther’s doctrine that Christ was bodily present, not only in the Host, -but throughout the world, the Sacramentarians had rejoined: Good, then we -shall partake of Him everywhere, in “spoon, plate and beer-can!”[891] To -this Luther’s reply ran: See “what graceless swine we abandoned Germans -for the most part are, lacking both manners and reason, who, when we -hear of God, esteem it a fairy tale.… All seek to do their business into -it and to wipe their back parts on it. The temporal authorities ought -to punish such blasphemers.… God knows I write of such high things most -unwillingly because they must needs be set before such dogs and swine.… -Hearken you, you pig, dog, or fanatic, or whatever brainless donkey you -may be: Though Christ’s body is everywhere, yet you will not be able to -lay hold of it so easily.… Begone to your pigsty and wallow in your own -muck! … there is a distinction between His Presence and your laying hold -of Him; He is free and nowhere bound,” etc.—Luther himself was, however, -very far from making clear what the distinction was. After much else not -to the point he concludes: “Oh, how few there are, even among the highly -learned, who have ever meditated so profoundly on this article concerning -Christ!”[892] - - * * * * * - -The treatment of the sectarians in the Saxon Electorate was in keeping -with the theories and counsels of Luther and his theologians. - -Relentless measures were taken against them on account of their deviation -from the faith even when no charge of sedition was forthcoming. On Jan. -15, 1532, the Elector Johann admitted the following as his guiding -principle for interfering: “It is the duty of the authorities to punish -such teachers and seducers, with God and with a good conscience.… For -were heretics and contemners of the Word of God not punished we should -be acting against the prescribed laws which we are in every way bound to -observe.”[893] - - As early as 1527 twelve men and one woman, who had received baptism at - each other’s hands, were beheaded.[894] Similar executions took place - in 1530, 1532 and 1538.[895] - - In 1539 the members of the Wittenberg High Court wrote concerning - three Anabaptists then in prison at Eisenach: “If they do not recant - or allow themselves to be reduced to obedience, it will be right and - proper that they be put to death by the sword, on account of such - blasphemy and because they have allowed themselves to be baptised - elsewhere.” Of any seditious teaching there was no question in these - proceedings.[896] - - One Anabaptist, Fritz Erbe, who had only gone astray in matters - of faith, was kept in jail from 1530 to 1541, when death set him - free.[897] Hans Sturm and Peter Pestel, both of Zwickau, were harmless - sectarians without any seditious leanings; the first was put in prison - in 1529 and died there; the latter was beheaded on June 16, 1536.[898] - Hans Steinsdorf and Hans Hamster, were condemned to death in 1538 as - “stubborn blasphemers.”[899] In the ’forties Duke Henry of Saxony - caused an Anabaptist to be burnt as a heretic at Dresden.[900] - -The Saxon lawyer, Matthias Coler (†1587), taught in his “_Decisiones -Germaniæ_,” that, according to the laws of Saxony those were to be -punished by death at the stake (“_de iure saxonico cremandi veniunt_”) -who openly denied either the Divinity of Christ, or other important -truths of faith; before being burnt they were, however, to be questioned -under torture concerning their confederates in order that the land might -be purged of such wicked men.[901] - -In thus interfering the sovereigns were well aware that they had the -warm official approval of Luther and his fellows. To this, for instance, -the Elector Johann Frederick appealed in 1533 when milder measures were -suggested. He referred to the memorandum which his father had obtained -from the Wittenberg theologians and lawyers concerning the execution of -the Anabaptists; their decision had been, “that His Highness might with -a good conscience cause those charged with Anabaptism to be punished by -death,” and, soon after, several of them were executed.[902] The person -who had thought otherwise, and to whom this vindication was accordingly -addressed, was no less a man than Landgrave Philip of Hesse. - -Luther himself, too, had been obliged on various occasions to justify the -severity of his opinions. - - -_Luther’s Self-justification and Excuses_ - -Philip of Hesse, though he treated Catholics with the utmost intolerance, -refused to hear of punishing the Anabaptists with death unless indeed -they were the cause of public disturbances. “We cannot find it in our -conscience to put anyone to death by the sword on account of religion -unless we have sufficient proof of other crimes as well.” Such was the -declaration he made in 1532 to Elector Johann of Saxony, and which -he emphasised in 1545 to the latter’s successor: “Were all those to -be executed who are not of our faith what then should we do to the -Papists, to say nothing of the Jews, who err even more greatly than the -Anabaptists?”[903] - -Luther was apparently far surer of his case. He is as confident, -subsequent to 1530, in drawing from Scripture the principles for the -treatment of the heretics as he is in defending them against the obvious -objections so often brought against them. - -Luther had it that the line of action for which he stood was not coercion -to any definite religious practices. “Our Princes,” so he sought to -reassure himself as early as 1525, “do not force people to the faith and -to the Evangel but merely set a term to outward abominations.”[904] - -The Elector, as was to be expected, expressed himself likewise: “Though -it is not our intention to prescribe to anyone what he must hold or -believe, yet, in order to guard against harmful uprisings and other -disorders, we refuse to recognise or permit any sects or schisms within -our Princedom.”[905] - - Many a one amongst the new Doctors had begun, as a Protestant - historian of Saxony points out,[906] “to claim for his conscience the - same right” (as Luther), while “following other paths than Luther - had trodden” (in his search after God). May not, indeed, must not, - such a one, so ran the objection, follow his conscience, seeing that - Luther himself tells us to consult our conscience? Yes, he may, is - Luther’s reply, but, if he be truthful, then he will admit my plain - interpretation of the Bible as the right one, for “I have floored and - overcome all my foes on the sure groundwork of Holy Scripture.”[907] - - Moreover, might not the Princes holding Popish views seize on the - coercion taught by the Lutherans as a pretext for similar measures - against the Lutherans in their territories? - - No, replies Luther, they must not do so for they would be committing - the same sin as the Kings of Israel when they “slew the true - prophets”; but on account of the injustice of such slaughter, we - are not to make nought of the law or refrain from stoning the false - prophets. “Pious authorities will not punish anyone unless they see, - hear, learn or know for certain that they are blasphemers.”[908]—Even - should Kaiser Charles come and tell us, that he is convinced that - “the doctrine of the Papists is true, and that he must therefore, in - accordance with God’s command, use all his power to extirpate our - heretical doctrines in his Empire,” we must answer, that: “We know he - is not certain of this, and, in fact, cannot be certain.”[909] - - But does this not come to much the same as imposing faith by some sort - of compulsion? - - No, is his answer. “The faith is not thereby forced on anyone, for he - is free to believe what he pleases. He is only forbidden to indulge - in that teaching and blaspheming whereby he seeks to rob God and - Christians of their doctrine and Word, whilst all the while enjoying - their protection and all temporal advantages. Let him go where there - are no Christians and have things his way there.”[910] - -The severity of his demands is hardly mitigated or excused by the right -he gives people to leave the country. At any rate those who do not see -eye to eye with him must get themselves gone, for, as he frequently -remarks, whoever wishes to dwell among the burghers must not disregard -the laws of the borough.[911] - -“By all this, however,” so he says on another occasion, “no one is forced -into the faith but the common man is merely set free from troublesome and -obstinate spirits, and the knavery of the hole-and-corner preachers is -checked.”[912] Thus, if the man who thinks otherwise wishes to lock up -his convictions in his own breast, he is quite free to do so. Within, he -may enjoy the most far-reaching freedom, since no earthly power extends -to his thoughts. The reply of those concerned was, however, obvious; -what right, they asked, had the new religious tribunal to prevent a man -from revealing his convictions and openly living up to them, and was not -the order to keep silence tantamount to a stifling of conscience and to -forcing people to become hypocrites? - -Hence, in the ensuing discussions, we find that Luther and his friends -were ever making fresh efforts to meet the objections; in itself this -was a sign of the weakness of the exclusivism adopted by the Lutherans, -in spite of all they had formerly said, as soon as they had succeeded in -winning the favour of the State. - -“Some argue,” we read in the memorandum of the Wittenbergers published in -1536, “that the secular authorities have no concern whatever with ghostly -matters. This is going much too far.… The rulers must not only protect -the life and belongings of their underlings, but their highest duty is -to promote the honour of God and to prevent blasphemy and idolatry,” -etc.[913] - -The memorandum was intended for Philip of Hesse. As Luther was aware that -the Landgrave was loath to proceed to extremities with the Anabaptists, -he added to the memorandum a note of his own. “Seeing that His Serene -Highness the Landgrave reports that certain leaders and teachers of the -Anabaptists … have not kept their promise (viz. to quit the land) Your -Serene Highness may with a good conscience cause them to be punished with -the sword, for this reason also, to wit, that they have not kept their -oath or promise. Such is the rule. Yet Your Serene Highness, needless to -say, may at all times allow justice to be tempered with mercy, according -to the circumstances.”[914] - -If meant in earnest the latter recommendation to mercy does the speaker -credit and is the more noteworthy because, in his later years, we do not -often hear him pleading for the heretics. As a rule he is all too intent -on emphasising the wickedness of what he terms “blasphemy and idolatry,” -i.e. of whatever was at variance with his own teaching. - - But what—and this is the main objection—entitles Luther’s doctrine - to be regarded as the standard of belief? This point Luther usually - evaded. He says: Those heretics are to be punished “whose teaching - is at variance with the public articles of the faith which are - plainly grounded on Scripture and believed throughout the world by - the whole of Christendom.”[915] “Such articles, common to the whole - of Christendom, have already been sufficiently tested, examined, - proved and determined by Scripture and by the confession of the whole - of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles, sealed by the blood of - the holy Martyrs, witnessed to and defended by the books of all - the Doctors and are not now to become the prey of faultfinders or - cavillers.”[916] A sharp answer, one very much to the point, was given - by Bullinger of Zürich, who spoke of it as “truly laughable” that his - opponent should suddenly appeal to the fact “of the Church having so - long held this.” “If Luther’s argument, based on longstanding usage, - be admitted, then is Popery quite in the right when it harps on the - Church and her age. But then the whole of Luther’s own doctrine - tumbles over, for his teaching is not that which the Roman Church - has held for so long.”[917]—Nor is it easy to tell which points of - doctrine Luther, in his elastic fashion, included among the articles - “clearly founded on Scripture” and held unquestioningly by the whole - of Christendom. His words occasionally presuppose that all divergent - doctrines, not only those of the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists, but - even those of the Papists, were to be punished by the authorities. - If everyone is to be punished who teaches “that Christ has not died - for our sins but that each one must himself make satisfaction for - them,”[918] (a doctrine unjustly foisted on the Papists by Luther), - or who “condemns the public ministry and draws the people away from - it,” or who “insists that our baptism and preaching are not Christian - and therefore that our Church is not the Church of Christ,”[919] - etc.,—then many Catholics could not but fall victims to the sword of - the authorities. How often did not Luther designate every specifically - Catholic doctrine as rank “blasphemy,” and stigmatise every Catholic - practice as idolatry? Blasphemy and idolatry were, however, according - to him, to be rooted out by violence. Truly his words gave promise of - an abundant harvest of persecution. - -As a reason of his animus against heretics within his own fold Luther -finally brings forward those personal considerations which are familiar -to all who have followed his controversies. - - His natural foes are those who in their “peculiar wisdom” “seek to - teach something besides Christ and beyond our preaching.”[920] Hence - he was fond of insisting that Christ was slaying the Papacy through - him, and of rejecting all who “make a great pother” and “claim to know - something new.” They come, and, like Carlstadt, want to “seize upon - the prize and poach upon my preserves.” Had not Carlstadt come along - “with the fanatics, Münzer and the Anabaptists, all would have gone - well with my undertaking.”[921] These men want to “darken the sun of - the Evangel” so that the world “may forget all that has hitherto been - taught by us.”[922] - - “They want to have nothing to do with me,” he complains of the - fanatics, “and I want to have nothing to do with them. They boast that - they have nothing from me, for which I heartily thank God; I have - borrowed even less from them, for which, too, God be praised.”[923] - The rupture with the Swiss came about because they “wished to be - first.”[924] - - In all these dissensions he finds many a one saying to the Christians: - “I am your Pope, what care I for Dr. Martin.” And yet he alone had the - right to call himself the “great Doctor” “to whom God first revealed - His Word to preach.”[925] - -But did not his very self-reliance finally broaden the ideas of the -preacher of coercion? Did not Luther in a sermon preached at Eisleben on -Feb. 7, 1546, as good as repudiate his former exclusivism? - - It is true that this has been confidently asserted by Protestants, - but the text of this sermon, known only through Aurifaber’s Notes, - does not justify such an inference.[926] In it the preacher is not - treating of the attitude of the Christian authorities towards heresy, - but is only showing how the faithful and the preachers must behave, - surrounded as they are by wicked folk, by Anabaptists and sectarians. - The occasion for speaking of this was supplied by the Sunday Gospel of - the Tares, Matt. xiii. 24-30, which grow up together with the wheat in - God’s field, and which the Lord wishes to be left undisturbed until - the Day of Judgment. Hence he explains how this must be understood, - the local conditions probably supplying him with a particular reason - for doing so, seeing that, in the County of Mansfeld, there must - still have been some Catholics and that the Jews stood in favour. The - greater part of the Sermon on the Tares is devoted to describing the - passions and lusts which Christians must fight against in their own - hearts with patience and perseverance. It is only towards the end - that he speaks of the wickedness rampant in the world. He refutes - the opinion of those, who “would have a Church in which there is no - evil but where all are prudent and pious, and pure and holy”; thus - “the Anabaptists, Münzer and such like, wish to root out and put to - death everything that is not holy.” Hence “how are we to suffer the - heretics and yet not to suffer them? How am I to act? If I tear up - or root out the tares in one place then I spoil the wheat [according - to the Parable], and the weeds will still grow up again elsewhere. - Thus if I root out one heretic, yet the same devil-sown seed springs - up again in ten other places.” Hence we must look to it that we do - not make matters worse by violence and suppression. “Papists and - Jews will ever be with us.” “You will not succeed in this world in - entirely separating the heretics and false Christians from the just.” - “Look to it that you remain master in your own household; see to it, - you preachers, parsons and hearers [it is only to these that he is - addressing himself, not to the State authorities], that heretics and - seditious men, such as Münzer was, do not rule or dominate; grumble - in a corner, that indeed they may do, but that they should mount the - rostrum, get into the pulpit or go up to the altar, that, so far as - in you lies, you must not allow.” Care must be taken that the “pulpit - and the Sacrament are kept undefiled.” “By human might and power we - cannot root them out, or make them different. For, in this point, they - are often far superior to us, can get themselves a following, draw the - masses to them, and, on the top of it all, they have on their side the - prince of this world, viz. the devil.” - - The main thing therefore is that the heretics “should not rule in our - Churches.” - - But what are we to do against the tares, against the Papists and - Sophists, against Cologne, Louvain and the devil’s other thistles? Of - boils it holds good: “Let them swell until they burst. So too it is in - secular and domestic government: Where [whether in the Town Council or - among the servants] we cannot get rid of the wicked without harm or - detriment, there we must put up with them until the time is ripe.” - - In this much-discussed Sermon on the Tares Luther is very far from - wishing to give the authorities directions as to how to treat the - sectarians. On the contrary he makes it plain that some other line - of action than that described by him must be followed even by the - faithful and the preachers, and much more so by the Christian - authorities, whenever the heretics come out of their “corner” and try - to climb into the pulpit or mount the altar. What was to be done that - the pulpit and the Sacrament might remain undefiled, he had already - sufficiently explained elsewhere. Naturally, a sermon on the Gospel - which tells us to leave the Tares until the harvest was scarcely the - place for Luther to expound his severer theories on the treatment to - be meted out to unbelievers and misbelievers, so that his silence here - cannot be taken as a repudiation of the measures for which he so long - had stood. At the close of the next sermon, the last he was ever to - preach, addressing himself to the nobility, he speaks very harshly - of the Jews. “If they refuse to be converted, then, as blasphemers, - they deserve that we should not suffer or endure them among us.” “You - Lords ought not to tolerate but rather expel them.” This duty he bases - on his usual principle: “Were I to tolerate the man who dishonours, - blasphemes and curses Christ my Master, I should be making myself a - partaker in the sins of others.” - - His system of coercing and punishing heretics he certainly never - repudiated. - - -_Compulsory Attendance at Church_ - -“Facts have shown,” Luther wrote to Spalatin in 1527 of the conditions -in his new churches, “that men despise the Evangel and insist on being -compelled by the law and the sword.”[927] He was very anxious to make -attendance at the Lutheran preaching a matter of obligation. - -According to his earlier statements, attendance at the preaching had -been voluntary, for the matter of the sermons was to be judged by the -hearers, in order that they might avoid what was harmful; his subsequent -practice of driving all to the preaching made an end of this freedom, -or rather duty. Through the authorities, so far as his influence went, -he insisted on this principle: “Even though they do not believe they -must nevertheless, for the sake of the Ten Commandments, be driven -to the preaching, so that they may at least learn the outward work -of obedience.” He wrote this at a time when he had already justified -such coercion at Wittenberg, viz. on Aug. 26, 1529, in a letter to the -“strict and steadfast” Joseph Levin Metzsch of Mila, who was shortly -after appointed by the Elector to take part in the Visitation.[928] -Instructions sent by Luther on the same day to Thomas Löscher, pastor of -the same locality, are to the same effect (“_cogendi sunt ad conciones … -audiant etiam inviti_”).[929] The orders of the authorities concerning -public worship were represented in the Visitation Rules for the pastors -(1528) as universally binding: “All secular authority is to be obeyed -because the secular powers are not ordering a new worship but enforcing -peace and charity.”[930] The Preface of the Smaller Catechism (1531) was -on the same lines. “Although we neither can nor should force anyone into -the faith, yet the masses must be held and driven to it in order that -they may know what is right or wrong in those among whom they live.”[931] - -In the same year Luther advised Margrave George of Brandenburg to -compel the people to attend the Catechism “at the behest of the secular -authority,” for, since they “are Christians and wish to be so called,” it -was only fitting “they should be obliged to learn what a Christian ought -to know.” The Ansbach preachers embodied this requirement in the same -year in the alterations they proposed in the church-regulations.[932] - -Wittenberg served as the pattern. It was to Wittenberg that Leonard Beyer -addressed himself when he succeeded Luther’s friend, Nicholas Hausmann, -as pastor of Zwickau. Luther answered his letter by describing the system -of coercion practised in Wittenberg and the neighbourhood when people -persistently neglected to attend the sermons: “With the authority and in -the name of our Most Noble Prince it is our custom to affright those who -disregard all piety and fail to attend the preaching, and to threaten -them with banishment and the law. This is the first step. Then, if they -do not amend, the pastors are enjoined by us to ply them for a month or -more with instructions and representations, and, finally, in the event -of their still proving contumacious, to excommunicate them, and to break -off all intercourse with them as though they were heathen.” He concludes: -“The words of the Bible [Matt. xviii. 17; 2 Thes. iii. 6] concerning the -avoidance of heretics are quite clear.”[933]—He, however, forgets to add -that neither he nor the pastors had ever been quite successful in their -attempts at excommunication. - -The above regulations of the authorities were to remain in force. In -1533 the Prince once more insisted that: No one is to be permitted -to absent himself from the “common church-going,” everyone must be -“earnestly reminded of this.”[934] In the General Articles of 1557 it -was determined by the Elector August, that, whoever absented himself -without permission from the sermon on Sundays and festivals, whether in -the morning or afternoon, “more particularly in the villages” was to be -fined, or, if he was poor, “to be punished with the pillory, either at -the church or at some prison.”[935] The parsons, however, were to notify -the authorities of any who contemned the preaching and the sacraments, -or who obstinately persisted in their false opinion. Even the practice -of auricular confession was, at a later date, made a strict law; whoever -evaded confession and the Supper was liable to banishment.[936] The -Saxon lawyer, Benedict Carpzov (1595-1666) in his “_Iurisprudentia -ecclesiastica_” defended as self-evident the legal principle based -on the practice of Luther’s own country: “Those, who, after repeated -admonitions, maliciously absent themselves from the Supper, are to be -expelled from the land; they are to be compelled to sell their goods and -emigrate.”[937] The same scholarly lawyer elsewhere alludes to the Saxon -custom of condemning seditious and blasphemous heretics to die at the -stake.[938] - - * * * * * - -At Wittenberg strong ramparts were set up for the protection of the -Lutheran doctrine and to prevent divergent opinions finding their way in. - - The Statutes of the Theological Faculty, probably drawn up in 1533 by - Melanchthon with Luther’s approval,[939] made it strictly incumbent - on the teachers to preach the pure doctrine in accordance with the - Confession of Augsburg; in the event of any difference of opinion a - commission of judges was to decide; “after that the false opinion - shall no longer be defended; if anyone obstinately persists in so - doing, he is to be punished with such severity as to prevent him any - more spreading abroad his wicked views.”[940] “The same Luther,” says - Paulsen of this, “who, twelve years before, had declared that his - conscience would not allow of his conceding to Christendom assembled - in Council the right to determine the formula of faith, now claimed - for the Wittenberg faculty—for this is what it amounts to—the - unquestionable right to decide on faith. From 1535 to the day of his - death Luther was without a break Dean of this Faculty.”[941] - - Again, subsequent to 1535, the preachers and pastors sent out or - officially recommended by Wittenberg had to take the so-called - “Ordination Oath” which had been suggested by the Elector in order - to exclude false preachers. The ministers to be appointed within - the Electorate, and likewise those destined to take up appointments - elsewhere, had to submit at Wittenberg to a searching examination on - doctrine; only after passing it and taking an oath as to the future - could they receive their commission. The examination is referred - to in the Certificate of Ordination. Thus, in the Certificate of - Heinrich Bock (who was sent to Reval in Livonia) which is dated May - 17, 1540, and signed by Luther, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Melanchthon, - it is set forth that he had undertaken to “preach to the people - steadfastly and faithfully the pure doctrine of the Gospel which - our Church confesses.” It is also stated that he adheres to the - “consensus” of the “Catholic Church of Christ,” and, for this reason, - is recommended to the Church of Reval.[942] A similar Certificate for - the schoolmaster Johann Fischer, who had received a call to Rudolstadt - “to the ministry of the Gospel,” is dated a month earlier. His - doctrine, so it declares, had been found on examination to be pure and - in accordance with the Catholic doctrine of the Gospel as professed - by the Wittenbergers; a promise had also been received from him to - teach the same faithfully to the people; for this reason “his call has - been confirmed by public ordination.”[943] Fischer had received the - “diaconate.” - - As early as 1535 we read of the solemn ordination of a certain Johann - (Golhart?), “examined by us and publicly ordained in the presence of - our Church with prayers and hymns.” He was “ordained and confirmed by - order of our sovereign,” having been called and chosen as “assistant - minister” at Gotha by the local congregation headed by their pastor - Myconius.[944] - -The doctrine of the punishment of heretics was afterwards incorporated by -Melanchthon in 1552, in the Wittenberg instructions composed by him and -entitled: “The Examination of Ordinands.”[945] - - -_Opinions of Protestant Historians_ - -The above account of Luther’s intolerance is very much at variance with -the Protestant view still current to some extent in erudite circles, but -more particularly in popular literature. Luther, for all the harshness -of his disposition, is yet regarded as having in principle advocated -leniency, as having been a champion of personal religious freedom, and -having only sanctioned severity towards the Anabaptists because of the -danger of revolt. Below we shall, however, quote a series of statements -from Protestant writers who have risen superior to such party prejudice. - -Walther Köhler, in his “Reformation und Ketzerprozess” (1901), wrote: - - “In Luther’s case it is impossible to speak of liberty of conscience - or religious freedom.” “The death-penalty for heresy rested on the - highest Lutheran authority.”[946] According to Köhler there can - be no doubt that prosecution for heresy among the Protestants was - practically Luther’s doing. “The views of the other reformers on - the persecution and bringing to justice of heretics were merely the - outgrowth of Luther’s plan, they contributed nothing fresh.”[947] The - same writer is of opinion that the question, whether Luther would have - approved of the execution of Servetus “must undoubtedly be answered - in the affirmative.”[948] “It is certain that Luther would have - agreed to the execution of Servetus; heresy as heresy is according - to him deserving of death.”[949] One observation made by Köhler - is significant enough, viz. “that, when the preaching of the Word - proved ineffectual against the heretics,” Luther had recourse to the - intervention of the secular authorities.[950] - -The matter has been examined with equal frankness by P. Wappler -in various studies in which he utilises new data taken from the -archives.[951] - - “That Luther in principle regarded the death penalty in the case of - heretics as just, even where there was no harm done to the ‘_regna - mundi_,’” says Wappler, “is plain from the advice given by him on - Oct. 20, 1534, to Prince Johann of Anhalt in reply to his inquiry - concerning the attitude to be adopted towards the Anabaptists at - Zerbst.” “The fact is, that from the commencement of 1530 the - reformers cease to make any real distinction between the two classes - of heretics [the seditious ones and those who merely taught false - doctrines]. Heretics who merely ‘blasphemed’ were always regarded by - them, at least where they remained obdurate, as practically guilty - of sedition, and, consequently, as deserving the death penalty.” - “The principal part in this was played by Luther, Melanchthon being - merely the draughtsman of the memoranda in which Luther’s ideas on - the question of heretics were reduced to a certain system.”[952] - “The many executions, even of Anabaptists who are known to have - not been revolutionaries and who were put to death on the strength - of the declarations of the Wittenberg theologians, refute only too - plainly all attempts to deny the clear fact, viz. that Luther himself - approved of the death penalty even in the case of such as were merely - heretics.”[953] - - Wappler, after showing how Luther’s wish was, that everyone who - preached without orders should be handed over to “Master Hans,” - adds: “And what he said, was undoubtedly meant in earnest; shortly - before this, on Jan. 18, 1530, as Luther had doubtless learned from - Melanchthon, at Reinhardsbrunn near Gotha, six such persons had - been handed over to Master Hans, i.e. to the executioner, and duly - executed.” Wappler regards it as futile to urge that: “Luther could - not prevent executions taking place in the Saxon Electorate”; it is - wrong to put the blame on Melanchthon rather than on Luther for the - putting to death of heretics.[954] - - Speaking of the execution of Peter Pestel at Zwickau, the same - author[955] declares that it was “a sad sign of the unfortunate - direction so early [1536] taken by the Lutheran reformation that its - representatives should allow this man, who had neither disseminated - his doctrine in his native land nor rebaptised … to die a felon’s - death.” “Even contempt of the outward Word,” he says, “carelessness - about going to church and contempt of Scripture—in this instance - contempt for the Bible as interpreted by Luther—was now regarded as - ‘rank blasphemy,’ which it was the duty of the authorities to punish - as such. To such lengths had the vaunted freedom of the Gospel now - gone.”[956] The introduction of the Saxon Inquisition (See above, vol. - v., 593) leads him to remark: “The principle of evangelical freedom of - belief and liberty of conscience, which Luther had championed barely - two years earlier, was here most shamefully repudiated, particularly - by this lay inquisition, and yet Luther said never a word in - protest.”[957] - - In 1874 W. Maurenbrecher expressed it as his opinion that “Luther’s - tolerance in theory as well as in practice amounted to this: The - Church and her ministers were to denounce such as went astray in the - faith, whereupon it became the duty of the secular authorities to - chastise them as open heretics.”[958] In 1885 L. Keller declared: - “It merely displays ignorance of the actual happenings of that - epoch, when many people, even to-day, take it for granted that such - executions and the wholesale persecution of the Anabaptists were only - on account of sedition, and that the reformers had no hand in these - things.”[959] “Luther indeed demands toleration,” says K. Rieker, “but - only for the Evangelicals; he demands freedom, but merely for the - preaching of the Evangel.”[960] According to Adolf Harnack “one of the - Reformer’s most noticeable limitations was his inability either fully - to absorb the cultural elements of his time, or to recognise the right - and duty of unfettered research.”[961] - - In Saxony, so H. Barge, Carlstadt’s biographer, complains, “the - police-force was mobilised for the defence of pure doctrine”; - “and Luther played the part of prompter” to the intolerant Saxon - government.[962] “Luther’s harsh, violent and impatient ways” and - their “unfortunate” outcome are admitted unreservedly by P. Kalkhoff, - another Luther researcher.[963] G. Lœsche calls Paulus’s studies on - Strasburg a “Warning against the edifying sentimentality of Protestant - make-believe.”[964] Luther “demanded freedom for himself alone and - for his doctrine,” remarks E. Friedberg, “not for those doctrines, - which he regarded as erroneous.”[965] Neander, the Protestant - Church-historian, speaking of Luther’s views in general as given by - Dietrich, says they “would justify all sorts of oppression on the - part of the State, and all kinds of intellectual tyranny, and were in - fact the same as those on which the Roman Emperors acted when they - persecuted Christianity.”[966] - - Two quotations from Catholic authors may be added. The above passage - from Köhler reads curiously like the following statement of C. - Ulenburg, an olden Catholic polemic; writing in 1589 he said: “When - Luther saw that his disciples were gradually falling away from him - and, acting on the principle of freedom of conscience, were treating - him as he had previously treated the olden Church, he came to think of - having recourse to coercion against such folk.”[967] - - “Historically nothing is more incorrect,” wrote Döllinger in his - Catholic days, “than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement - in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contrary is the truth. - For themselves it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty - of conscience as all men have done in every age, but to grant it to - others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. - The complete suppression and extirpation of the Catholic Church, and - in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the - reformers as something entirely natural.”[968]—Luther’s principles, - aided by the arbitrary interference of the secular power in matters - of faith, especially where Catholics were concerned, led both in his - age and in the following, “to a despotism” “the like of which,” as - Döllinger expresses it, “had not hitherto been known; the new system - as worked out by the theologians and lawyers was even worse than the - Byzantine practice.”[969] - - -_Luther’s Spirit in his Fellows_ - -The question concerning Melanchthon raised by Protestant historians, -viz. whether it was he who converted Luther to his intolerance, or, -whether, on the other hand, he himself was influenced by Luther, cannot, -on the strength of the documents, be answered either affirmatively or -negatively. In some respects Melanchthon struck out his own paths, in -others he merely followed in Luther’s wake.[970] He was by no means loath -to making use of coercion in the case of doctrines differing from his -own. His able pen had the doubtful merit of expressing in fluent language -what Luther thought and said in private, as we see from the Memoranda -still extant. His ill-will with the Papacy and the hostile sects within -the new fold, was, it is true, as a rule not so blatant as Luther’s; he -was fond of displaying in his style that moderation dear to the humanist; -yet we have spontaneous outbursts of his which sound a very harsh note -and which doubtless were due to his old and intimate spiritual kinship -with Luther. - - For instance, we have the wish he expressed, that God would send - King Henry VIII a “valiant murderer to make an end of him,”[971] - and, again, his warm approval of Calvin’s execution of the heretic - Michael Servetus in 1554 (a “pious and memorable example for all - posterity”)[972]. He himself wrote about that time a special treatise - in defence of the use of the sword against those who spread erroneous - doctrines.[973] - - With regard to Melanchthon A. Hänel says: To Protestantism “religious - freedom was denied at every point.” When Melanchthon wrote to Calvin - in praise of the execution of Servetus, his letter, according to - Hänel, “was not, as has been imagined, dictated by the mere passion of - the moment, but was the harsh consequence of a harsh doctrine.”[974] - It must be admitted, remarks the Protestant theologian A. Hunzinger, - “that Melanchthon was wont to lose no time in having recourse to - fire and sword. This forms a dark blot on his life. Many a man fell - a victim to his memorandum, who certainly had no wish to destroy the - ‘_regna mundi_.’”[975] - - In consequence of the precipitate and often brutal intervention of - the authorities against real or alleged heretics Melanchthon had - afterwards abundant reason to regret his appeal to the secular power. - He himself, as early as Aug. 31, 1530, had foretold, “that, later, - a far more insufferable tyranny would arise than had ever before - been known,” viz. the tyranny due to the interference of the Princes - in whose hands the power of persecution had been laid. Hence his - exclamation: “If only I could revive the jurisdiction of the bishops! - For I see what sort of Church we shall have if the ecclesiastical - constitution is destroyed.”[976] As we know, he was anxious gradually - to graft the old ecclesiastical constitution on Luther’s congregations. - -Coming from Luther and fostered by Melanchthon, these intolerant ideas -profoundly influenced all their friends. - -Not as though there was ever any lack of opponents of the theory of -coercion among the Protestants, or even in Luther’s own flock. On the -contrary there were some who had the sense of justice and the courage -to resist the current of intolerance coming from Wittenberg. Indeed it -was the protests which Luther encountered at Nuremberg which led him to -emphasise his harsh demands. - - Already in 1530 Luther’s follower Lazarus Spengler wrote from - Nuremberg to Veit Dietrich begging him to seek advice of Luther and to - request his literary help; in the town there were some who opposed any - measures of coercion against the divergent doctrines, “some of ours, - who are not fanatics but are regarded as good Christians,” desire that - neither the “Sacramentarians nor the Anabaptists” should be prosecuted - so long as they do not “stir up revolt,” nor yet the errors prohibited - of “the preachers of the godless Mass and other idolatries”; “they - appeal on behalf of this to Dr. Luther’s booklet, which he some while - ago addressed to Duke Frederick the Elector of Saxony against the - fanatic Thomas Münzer, in which he approves this view and admits it to - be quite sound.”[977] - - At Augsburg (1533) the Lutheran lawyer, Conrad Hel, siding with his - Catholic-minded confrères Conrad Peutinger and Johann Rehlinger[978] - openly and courageously denied the Town-Councils any rights in the - matter. In 1534 Christoph Ehem, a patrician of Augsburg, who also held - Lutheran views, wrote a little work in which he demanded universal - and unconditional toleration and invited the Council to place some - “bridle and restraint” on the new preachers.[979] At that time (1536) - the Lutheran preacher Johann Forster protested very strongly against - Bucer, and refused to hear of the forcible suppression of Catholic - worship in Cathedral churches outside the jurisdiction of the civic - authorities; he appealed in this matter to Luther. Bucer just then - was bent on suppressing the Catholic worship with the help of the - magistrates. Forster was finally silenced by dint of “ranting, raging - and shouting” and was indignantly asked: “Whether he wished to - tolerate Popery and submit to such idolatry?”[980] - - At Strasburg in 1528 the Protestant Town-Clerk, Peter Butz, set a - brave example by openly and severely condemning in the Council the - system of coercion planned by some of the preachers. Against the - intolerance towards sectarians advocated by Bucer, preachers and - scholars like Anton Engelbrecht, Wolfgang Schultheiss, Johann Sapidus - and Jacob Ziegler were not slow to protest,[981] though they had - nothing to say against the violent abolition of Catholic worship. - - At Coire the preacher Johann Gantner came into conflict with Bullinger - on account of the coercive measures favoured by the latter; he - reproached the inhabitants of Zürich and Berne with having fallen - away from the freedom of the Evangel into the Mosaic bondage. Gantner - and others, in support of their protest, usually appealed against the - prevailing tendency to Sebastian Franck’s “Chronica,” published at - Strasburg in 1531.[982] - -Sebastian Franck, the witty and learned opponent of Luther, “after Luther -himself, the best and most popular German prose writer of the day,” took -the line of pushing to its bitter end Luther’s subjectivism. He declared -that the new preachers had made of Holy Scripture a paper idol for the -benefit of their private views, and that the Lutheran Church was the -invisible kingdom of Christ and as such numbered among its members men -of every sect; hence he argued that what was termed false doctrine and -false worship should not be interfered with.[983] As Kawerau points -out, Franck found in the 16th century “not a few readers wherever -dissatisfaction prevailed with the Papacy of the theologians”;[984] -nevertheless, in 1531, he was expelled from Strasburg on account of -his liberal views; later on, when he had taken up his residence at -Ulm, Melanchthon wrote thither, in 1535, that he should be “dealt with -severely” (“_severe coercendum_”) no less than Schwenckfeld.[985] Driven -from Ulm he went to Basle in 1539, but even there the echo of the verdict -of the Wittenbergers reached him; in March, 1540, the theologians -assembled at Schmalkalden, condemned him and charged him with “inducing -people to seek the spirit while neglecting the ‘Word’”; they themselves, -they added, had broken with the Churches of the Pope because of their -idolatry, but there was “no reason whatever for throwing over the -ministry in our own Churches.”[986] - -As we have already shown, Landgrave Philip of Hesse was likewise -disposed to be less intolerant than Luther, at least with regard to -the Anabaptists. Relentlessly as he refused any public toleration to -the Catholic faith and banished those Catholics who persisted in their -religious practices, yet, in a letter of 1532, addressed to Elector -Johann of Saxony, he declared himself against the execution of the -Anabaptists; the actual words have been quoted above (p. 256). In another -letter, in 1545, to the Elector Johann Frederick, he also points out, -that: “If this sect be punished so severely by us, then we, by our -example, give our foes, the Papists, reason to treat us in the same way, -for they regard us as no better than the Anabaptists.”[987] - - * * * * * - -These and similar remonstrances were unavailing to change the views which -had taken root at Wittenberg. - -George Major, Professor of theology at Wittenberg University, was a -learned and zealous disciple of Luther’s. He, like Melanchthon, on -hearing of the execution of Servetus at Geneva, declared that Calvin -was to be commended for having put to death the heretic, and, at a -Disputation held in 1555, expressly defended the thesis, that it was -the duty of the authorities to punish contumacious heretics with death. -They must “get rid of blasphemers, perjurers and wizards. Amongst the -blasphemers must, however, be reckoned those who persistently defend -idolatrous worship, or heresies which clearly disagree with the articles -of the faith.”[988] - -Luther’s code of penalties for any deviation from the Wittenberg teaching -fitted in well with Bugenhagen’s natural harshness, who showed himself -only too ready to make his own the words of Moses concerning the slaying -of unbelievers. We may recall how, in conversation, when Luther mentioned -the difficulties he had with Carlstadt, Agricola and Schenk, Bugenhagen -broke in with the remark: “Sir Doctor, we ought to do what is commanded -in Deuteronomy where Moses says they should be put to death.”[989] -Bugenhagen, in the many places into which he brought the new faith, was -relentlessly severe in enforcing against the Catholics the principles -he had carried with him from Wittenberg. Very characteristic is the -tone in which he reported to Luther that the Mass had been forbidden -in Denmark and the monks driven out of the land as “seditionmongers” -and “blasphemers.”[990] Not only had the bishops been imprisoned, but, -according to the account of Peter Palladius the superintendent, some of -the monks “had been hanged.”[991] - -Justus Jonas began his labours at Halle in 1542 by a written invitation -to the Town-Council “completely to purge the town of false doctrine -and every kind of idolatrous worship”; Luther and Melanchthon had -sufficiently proved in their works that this “was incumbent on Christian -magistrates.” He declared that the monks still living in the town were -“obstinate and impenitent idolaters,” “adders and snakes” whom he “must -reduce to silence with the use of the gag”; already, throughout the -whole neighbourhood, “merely at the exhortations of the preachers, the -monasteries, with their Masses and idolatrous worship, had crumbled -into ruins.”[992] Later, in a memorandum addressed to the Town-Council -in 1546, Jonas again inveighed against the remaining handful of -well-disposed and zealous monks, and called to mind how “our beloved -father, Dr. Martin, in the very last sermon he preached at Halle -shortly before his decease, had exhorted the Town-Council and the whole -Church with all his burning, stormy earnestness to rid themselves of -the crawling things.”[993] Jonas appealed to his own “conscience” and -threatened to report matters to the Elector of Saxony and “his Electoral -Highness’s scholars at Wittenberg.”[994] With the outbreak of the -Schmalkalden war, when the Electoral troops laid waste the monasteries -his hopes at last found their fulfilment. He announced on March 3, 1547, -that, at Halle, the “Papistic idolatry” had now been swept away;[995] -when he wrote this he did not expect the change in the position of the -Catholics in the town, for which the defeat of the Elector’s troops in -the following month was responsible. - -We are reminded how greatly Spalatin was imbued with Luther’s exclusivism -and spirit of intolerance by his words concerning the “Christian bit” -which he wished placed in the mouths of all the clergy.[996] He was -at great pains to press upon the sovereign that he was not to permit -“unchristian ceremonies” and “idolatry.”[997] - -The Elector Johann was merely giving expression to the views with which -Spalatin and Luther had inspired him when he declared that, “heretics -and contemners of the Word” must in every instance be punished by the -authorities.[998] His successor, Johann Frederick, likewise followed -obediently the “Wittenberg theologians and lawyers,” as he terms his -authorities.[999] He instructed Melanchthon in 1536 to write and have -printed a popular “Answer to sundry unchristian articles” against the -Anabaptists, which was to be read aloud from the pulpit every third -Sunday, and which insisted that the secular authorities were bound to -punish “all contempt of Scripture and the outward Word” as “blatant -blasphemy.”[1000] - - At the Religious Conference at Worms in 1557 quite a number of - respected Lutheran theologians (J. Brenz, J. Marbach, M. Diller, - J. Pistorius, J. Andreæ, G. Karg, P. Eber and G. Rungius) signed - a lengthy statement by Melanchthon aimed at the Anabaptists. As - one of the errors of the sect is instanced their teaching that God - communicates Himself without the intermediary of the ministry, of - preaching or the Sacrament. Those “heads and ringleaders” of the - sect who persisted in their doctrines were “to be condemned as - guilty of sedition and blasphemy and put to death by the sword”; the - death penalty prescribed in Leviticus for blasphemers was asserted - to be a “natural law, binding, by virtue of their office, on all in - authority,” hence “the judges had done the right thing” when they - condemned to death the heretic Servetus at Geneva.[1001] - - Johann Brenz, who helped to promote Lutheranism in Würtemberg, had, - in 1528, written and published a pamphlet in which he deprecated the - Anabaptists’ being put to death “merely on account of heresy” when - not guilty of sedition.[1002] He was for this reason regarded by - Melanchthon as “too mild.”[1003] His later writings, however, show - that the intolerant spirit of Wittenberg finally seized on him too. - In his treatment of Catholics—both previous to 1528, and, even more - so when the olden worship had been suppressed at Schwäbisch-Halle and - he had been called to Stuttgart—he was in the forefront in advising - violent measures against Catholic practices. When he reorganised the - Church in Würtemberg, in 1536, after the victory of Duke Ulrich, - attendance at the Protestant sermons was made obligatory on the - Catholics of Stuttgart under pain of a fine, or of imprisonment in - the tower on bread and water.[1004] Brenz, though widely extolled - as tolerant and broadminded, in his quality of spiritual adviser to - Duke Christopher, stooped to the meanest and most petty regulations - in order to induce the nuns who still remained faithful to their - religion—many of whom were of high birth and advanced in years—to - accept the new faith; they were compelled to attend the sermons and - religious colloquies, deprived of their books of devotion, their - correspondence was supervised, they had to entertain Protestant guests - at table and to be served by Lutheran maids, etc.[1005] - - * * * * * - - The unenviable distinction of having most thoroughly assimilated - Luther’s intolerant views was enjoyed by two men in close mental - kinship with him, viz. Justus Menius and Johann Spangenberg. - - Johann Spangenberg, an enthusiastic pupil of Luther’s, and, later, - Superintendent at Eisleben, when preacher at Nordhausen declared in - a tract that “fear of God’s wrath and His extreme displeasure” had - rightly led the Town-Council to forbid Catholics to attend Catholic - sermons, because, there, souls were “horribly murdered”; even - Nabuchodonosor and Darius had set the authorities an example of how - “blasphemy against religion” was to be treated.[1006] - - Justus Menius, Luther’s friend, who worked as superintendent at - Eisenach and Gotha, followed Luther in qualifying the Anabaptists as - the emissaries of the devil, as “rebels and murderers,” who had fallen - under the ban of the authorities because they did not “profess the - true faith according to the Word of God” and live a “godly life.” Of - the authorities who were negligent in punishing them he exclaims: “The - devil rides such rulers so that they sin and do what is unrighteous.” - Luther himself wrote laudatory prefaces to his works on the subject. - In 1552 Menius demanded from Duke Albert of Prussia a severe - prohibition against the new believers’ teaching or writing anything - that was at variance with the Confession of Augsburg. When, however, - his opponents secured the ear of the Court he had himself to suffer; - the ruler pointed out to him that, in accordance with his own theories - of the supremacy of the sovereign, it was the duty of the authorities, - by virtue of their princely office, to withstand false doctrine and, - consequently, he himself must either submit or go to prison; upon this - Menius made his escape to Leipzig (†1558).[1007] - - Urban Rhegius, appointed General Superintendent by Duke Ernest of - Brunswick-Lüneburg after the Diet of Augsburg, not only defended - in his writings a relentless system of compulsion whereby Catholic - parents were no longer permitted even in their homes to instruct - their children in the Catholic faith, but also allowed “Zwinglians - and Papists to be beaten with rods and banished from the town.” The - authorities he invited to appropriate the property of the clergy. The - inglorious war he waged against the nuns of Lüneburg, who, in spite of - every kind of persecution, stood true to their religion, has recently - been brought to light, and that, thanks to Protestant research; - it forms one of the blackest pages in the history of Lutheran - intolerance.[1008] - - A memorial of the Strasburg preachers dating from 1535 (printed in - 1537) which might be termed the fullest and most complete exposition - of the Royal Supremacy in church affairs drafted in that period, - is the work of Wolfgang Capito, a preacher often extolled for his - moderation and prudence.[1009] In it we have the picture of a - Government-Church with a “Caliph” (Döllinger’s expression) at its - head, who combines in himself the highest secular and spiritual - authority. - -Martin Bucer though differing from Luther in much else was yet at one -with him in asserting that it was the duty of the secular authority to -abolish “false doctrine and perverted ceremonials,” and that, as the -sole authority, it was to be obeyed by “all the bishops and clergy.” -Though anxious to be regarded as considerate and peaceable, he defended -the prohibition against Catholic sermons issued at Augsburg by the -City-Council in 1534, and even incited it to still more stringent -measures against the Catholics. He advocated quite openly “the power of -the authorities over consciences.”[1010] “Among us Christians,” he asks, -“is injury and slaughter of souls by false worship of less importance -than the ravishing of wives and daughters?”[1011] He never rested until, -in 1537, with the help of such hot-heads as Wolfgang Musculus, he brought -about the entire suppression of the Mass at Augsburg. At his instigation -“many fine paintings, monuments and ancient works of art in the churches -were wantonly torn, broken and smashed.”[1012] Whoever refused to submit -and attend public worship was obliged within eight days to quit the -city-boundaries. Catholic citizens were forbidden under severe penalties -to attend Catholic worship elsewhere, and special guards were stationed -at the gates to prevent any such attempt.[1013] - -In other of the Imperial cities Bucer acted with no less violence and -intolerance, for instance, at Ulm, where he supported Œcolampadius and -Ambrose Blaurer in 1531, and at Strasburg where he acted in concert with -Capito, Caspar Hedio, Matthæus Zell and others. Here, in 1529, after -the Town-Council had prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were -requested by the preachers to help to fill the empty churches by issuing -regulations prescribing attendance at the sermons. Bucer adhered till -his death (1551), as his work “_De Regno Christi_” (1550) proves, to -the principle of the rights and duties of authorities towards the new -religion.[1014] - -In the above survey of those who preached religious intolerance only -Luther’s own pupils and followers have been considered; the result would -be even less cheering were the leaders of the other Protestant sects -added to the list. - -At Zürich, Zwingli’s State-Church grew up much as Luther’s did in -Germany; Œcolampadius at Basle and Zwingli’s successor, Bullinger, were -strong compulsionists. Calvin’s name is even more closely bound up -with the idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down -to posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken -by Beza in his notorious work “_De hæreticis a civili magistratu -puniendis_.” The annals of the Established Church of England were -likewise at the outset written in blood. - -The sufferings endured by the Catholics in Germany owing to the wave of -intolerance which spread from Wittenberg are reflected in the countless -complaints we hear at that time. Many writings still tell to-day of -the injustice under which they groaned. In a “Manual of Complaint and -Consolation for all oppressed Christians” we read as follows: “Oh, what -a mockery it is that these tyrants and abusers of power should exclaim -everywhere that their gospel is Christian freedom, that they have no wish -to tyrannise over consciences when there could never have been worse -tyrants than those men who do not scruple to go on unceasingly tormenting -the consciences of the people, robbing them of the consolation of the -holy sacraments of the religious ministrations of consecrated priests, -of all their prayer-books and devotional works, and, even on their -death-beds, in spite of their piteous entreaties refusing them the Holy -Viaticum!”[1015] This touching complaint is made more particularly in the -name of those most defenceless members of society, who were devoid of -legal protection and whose very poverty made emigration impossible. “All -the iniquities committed in German lands and cities are attested at the -Judgment-Seat of God by the souls of thousands of consecrated nuns, who -never did wrong to anyone and who asked for nothing more than permission -to live and die in their ancient faith, even though their worldly -goods should be taken away from them and they shut up within closed -walls.”[1016] - - -2. Luther as Judge - -It must not be overlooked that Luther’s severity towards heretics within -his fold is to be set down largely to his nervous irritability arising -partly out of his natural temperament, partly out of his unceasing -labours, so that, if we are to be just to him, his conviction that his -doctrine was the only authorised one must not be held to be entirely -responsible for his behaviour. At the same time it is plain how deeply he -was affected by belief in his higher mission. Thus he practically made -himself a religious dictator, when, in 1542, he demanded that the Meissen -nobles who had come over to him should not only ratify their new belief -by doing penance, but also should “signify their approval of everything -which has hitherto been done by us and shall be done in the future.”[1017] - -Another point on which we must also do him justice is the service -performed by him in his controversies with rivals, in the field both -of theology and Scripture-exegesis, by repressing with such energy and -general success the dangerous tendencies apparent in the Anabaptist -heresy and the Antinomianism of Johann Agricola. In the attacks of -the Antinomians on all law, even on the Decalogue, there undoubtedly -lay a great danger for morality and religion. Certain of Luther’s -own principles were carried to rash, nay, foolhardy, lengths by the -Antinomians. Hence it was not unfortunate that Agricola found pitted -against him so redoubtable an opponent as Luther who, as was his wont, -interfered and nipped the evil in the bud. - - -_The Conceit and the Obstinacy of the “Heretics”_ - -Luther bitterly accuses of boundless presumption all the heretics within -the New Faith, but particularly Agricola. The latter might even be -classed with those doctors who might most fittingly be compared with -Arius and treated in the same way. - - “This man,” he says of Agricola, “is presumption itself. Neither with - the flute nor with tears is he to be won.… I see it is my goodness - that puffs him up. He says he is a guiltless Abel. He is, forsooth, - being made a martyr at my hands.…” But, so Luther continues, he will - be such a martyr as was Arius and Satan.[1018] - - In 1542, when the conversation at table turned on the teachers of the - New Faith whose opinions differed from Luther’s, a good many names - were mentioned, “Those at Zürich” (Zwingli’s pupils), Carlstadt, Bucer - and Capito, “Grickel and Jeckel”—some of them living and some of them - already dead—all of whom were insufferably presumptuous. It was then - that Bugenhagen, who was present, could not refrain from quoting the - passage in the Old Testament where Moses had commanded in God’s name - “That prophet shall be slain because he spoke to draw you away from - the Lord your God.… If thy brother would persuade thee (to serve other - gods), thou shalt presently put him to death. Let thy hand be the - first upon him and afterwards the hands of all the people. With stones - shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee - from the Lord thy God. If in one of the cities thou hear that some - have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, inquire carefully and - diligently the truth of the thing by looking well into it, and if thou - find that which is said to be certain and that this abomination hath - been committed, thou shalt forthwith kill the inhabitants of that city - with the edge of the sword, and shalt destroy it and all things that - are in it, even to the cattle.”[1019] - - Hence it was perhaps rather lucky that the Wittenberg tribunal - was presided over by the sovereign of the land, and that the - sentences pronounced at Luther’s table or in the learned circles - of the Theological Faculty required subsequent ratification by the - authorities. - - Luther’s complaints elsewhere about the pride of the heretics throw - still further light on the jealousy which was at work in him (above, - p. 260). - - “How is it that all the insurgents say ‘I am the man?’ They want all - the glory for themselves and hate and are grim with all others, just - like the Pope who also wants to stand alone.”[1020] Zwingli appears to - be one of the foremost among those desirous of robbing him of his due - glory. “He was ambitious through and through.”[1021] On hearing that - Zwingli had said that, in three years, he would have France, Spain and - England “on his side and for his share,” Luther became very bitter - and several times complained of Zwingli’s intention to seize upon his - harvest; such words seemed to him the “boasting of a braggart.”[1022] - “Œcolampadius, too, fancied himself the doctor of doctors and far - above me, even before he had ever heard me.” And in the same way - Carlstadt said: “As for you, Sir Doctor, I don’t care a snap! Münzer, - too, preached against two Popes, the old one and the new,[1023] - said I must be a Saul, and that though I had made a good beginning, - the Spirit of God had left me.… Hence let all the theologians and - preachers look to it and diligently beware lest they seek their glory - in Holy Scripture and in God’s Word; otherwise they will have a - fall.”[1024]—“Mr. Eisleben [Johann Agricola] labours under great pride - and presumption; he wants to be the only one, and, with his pride and - his puffed-up spirit, to surpass all others.”[1025] “They are scamps,” - so he abuses them in another passage, “fain would they get at us and - surpass us, as though forsooth we were blind and could not see through - their tricks.”[1026] - - Elsewhere in the Table-Talk we read: “My best friends,” said Dr. - Martin, with a deep sigh, “seek to stamp me under foot and to trouble - and besmirch the Evangel; hence I am going to hold a disputation.” - “Alas, that, in my own lifetime, I should see them strutting about and - seeking to rule.” It was with him as with St. Paul to whom God wished - to show how much he must suffer for His Name’s sake (Acts ix. 16). - Some indeed were trying to persuade him that these foes in his own - household were not really against Luther, but only against Cruciger, - Rörer, etc. But this was false. “For the Catechism, the Exposition - of the Ten Commandments and the Confession of Augsburg are mine, not - Cruciger’s or Rörer’s.”[1027] - - Of those near him “Mr. Eisleben” (Agricola) seemed to him his chief - rival; those abroad troubled him less; for a while Luther was obsessed - by the idea that Agricola, “with his cool head, was set on securing - the reins and was seeking to become a great lord.”[1028] - - Of Carlstadt Luther once said, referring to the rivalry between - the pair: “He persuaded himself that there was no more learned man - on earth than he; what I write that he imitates and seeks to copy - me.” After a profession of personal humility, Luther concludes: “And - yet, by God’s Grace, I am more learned than all the Sophists and - theologians of the Schools.”[1029] - -Though Luther never grows weary of insisting against the heretics at -home on the “public, common doctrine,” and of instancing the fell -consequences of pride and obstinacy, even going so far as to predict that -they will in all likelihood never be converted because founders of sects -rarely retrace their steps and recant,[1030] yet he never seems to have -perceived that the point of all this might equally well have been turned -against himself. - -The blindness of such heretics he describes in a tract of 1526 dedicated -to Queen Mary of Hungary: - - “Here we may all of us well be afraid, and particularly all heretics - and false teachers.… Such a temper [obstinacy in sticking to one’s - own opinion] penetrates like water into the inmost recesses and like - oil into the very bone, and becomes our daily clothing. Then it comes - about that one party curses the other, and the doctrine of one is rank - poison and malediction to the other, and his own doctrine nothing - but blessing and salvation; this we now see among our fanatics and - Papists. Then everything is lost. The masses are not converted; a few, - whom God has chosen, come right again, but the others remain under - the curse and even regard it as a precious thing.… Nor have I ever - read of heresiarchs being converted; they remain obdurate in their - own conceit, the oil has gone into the bone … and has become part of - their nature. They allow none to find fault with them and brook no - opposition. This is the sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is - no forgiveness.”[1031] - - In the same writing he describes the heretics’ way of speaking: “The - heretics give themselves up to idle talk so that one hears of nothing - but their dreams.… They overflow with words; all evildoers tend to - become garrulous. As a boiling pot foams and bubbles over, so they too - overflow with the talk of which their heart is full.… They stand stiff - upon their doctrine about which there is no lack of ranting.”[1032] - - The description (which seats so well on Luther himself) proceeds: - “Those are heretics and apostates who follow their own ideas rather - than the common tradition of Christendom, who transgress the teaching - of their fathers and separate themselves from the common ways and - usages of the whole of Christendom, who, out of pure wantonness, - invent new ways and methods without cause, and contrary to Holy - Writ.”[1033]—“They misread the Word of God according to their whim and - make it mean what they please. In short they undertake something out - of the common and invent a belief of their own, regardless of God’s - Word.… God must put up with their doctrine and life as being alone - holy and Godly.”[1034] - - Again and again he brands pride as the cause of all heresy: “This - is the reason; they think much of themselves, which, indeed, is the - cause and well-spring of all heresies, for, as Augustine also says, - ‘Ambition is the mother of all heresies.’ Thus Zwingli and Bucer - now put forward a new doctrine.… So dangerous a thing is pride in - the clergy.”[1035]—“We cannot sufficiently be on our guard against - this deadly vice. Vices of the body are gross, and we feel them to - be such, but this vice can always deck itself out with the glory of - God, as though it had God’s Word on its side. But beneath the outward - veil there is nothing but vain glory.”[1036]—“Lo, here you have in - brief the cause and ground of all idolatry, heresy, hypocrisy and - error, what the prophets inveigh against, and what was the cause of - their being put to death, and against which the whole of Scripture - witnesses. It all comes from obstinacy and conceit and the ideas of - natural reason which puffs itself up … and fancies it knows enough, - and can find its way for itself, etc.”[1037] - -Such statements of Luther’s are of supreme importance for judging of his -Divine Mission. In his frame of mind it became at last an impossibility -for him to realise that his hostility and intolerance towards “heretics” -within his fold could redound on himself, or that he was contradicting -himself in continuing to proclaim freedom, or at least in continuing -to make the fullest use of it himself. In reality he was living in a -world of his own, and his mental state cannot be judged of by the usual -standards. - - -_“Heretics” who cannot be sure of their Cause_ - -Apart from the “pride of the heretics,” another idea of Luther’s deserves -attention, viz. that those teachers who differed from him, in their heart -of hearts, knew him to be in the right, or at least neither were nor -could be quite certain of their own doctrines. Of any call in their case -there could be no question; his call, however, was above doubt, seeing -his certainty. Hence, in his dealings with the “sectarians” we once -again find the same strange attitude, as he had exhibited towards the -“Papists,” who, according to him, likewise were withstanding their own -conscience and lacked any real call. - -To a man so full of such fiery enthusiasm for his cause and so dominated -by his imagination as Luther, it seems to have been an easy task to -persuade himself ever more and more firmly, that all his opponents’ -doings were against their own conscience. - - The “teachers of faith,” he says, speaking of the sectarians, ought - first of all “to be certain about their mission. Otherwise all is - up with them. It was this [argument] that killed Œcolampadius. He - could not endure the self-accusation: How if you have taught what is - false?”[1038] Concerning Œcolampadius Luther professed to know that, - even in his prayers, he had been doubtful of his own doctrine. But, - so he argues, if a man goes so far as to pray for the spread of his - doctrine he must surely first be “quite certain and not doubt thus - of the Word and of his doctrine, for doubts and uncertainty have - no place in theology, but a man must be certain of his case in the - face of God.” Before the world, indeed, he continues, with a strange - limitation of his previous assertion, “it behoves one to be humble, - to proceed gently and to say: If anyone knows better, let him say so; - to God’s Word I will gladly yield when I am better instructed.”[1039] - Yet, in the same works, where seemingly he professes such willingness - to listen to others, he himself proclaims most emphatically his great - mission and its exclusive character.[1040] - - All heretics, he once remarked, were disarmed by this one question: - “My friend, is it the command of our Lord God [that you should teach - thus]? At this, one and all are struck dumb.”[1041] Only by dint - of lying are they able to boast of their inward assurance of their - cause. Here we have Campanus for instance: “He boasts that he is - as sure as sure can be of his cause and that it is impossible for - him to be mistaken.” “But he is an accursed lump of filth whom we - ought to despise and not bother our heads about writing against, for - this only makes him more bold, proud and brave.… Whereupon Master - Philip [Melanchthon] said: his suggestion would be that he should be - strung up on the gallows, and this he had written to his lord [the - Elector].”[1042] - - With his own “certainty” Luther triumphantly confronts his opponents - who at heart were uncertain: “Every man who speaks the Word of Christ - is free to boast that his mouth is the mouth of Christ”; such a one, - confiding in his certainty, may help to “tear Antichrist out of men’s - hearts, so that his cause may no longer avail.”[1043]—“But, now, - the articles of pure doctrine are proved [by me] from Scripture in - the clearest way, and yet it carries no weight with them; never has - an article of the faith been preached which has not more than once - been attacked and contradicted by heretics, who, nevertheless, read - the same Scriptures as we.”[1044]—“In short, ‘heretics must needs - arise’ (1 Cor. xi. 19), and that cannot be stopped, for it was so - even in the Apostles’ time. We are no better off than our fathers; - Christ Himself was persecuted.”[1045] “No heretic allows himself to - be convinced. They neither see nor hear anything, like Master Stiffel - [Michael Stiefel]; he saw me not nor heard me.… It is forbidden to - curse, swear, etc., far more to cause heresy.”[1046]—Then one becomes - hardened against God the Holy Ghost; these fanatics “do not even - doubt”—which is astonishing—“they stand firm.” He had warned the - Anabaptist Marcus (Stübner), so he relates, “to beware lest he err,” - to which he answered that “God Himself shall not dissuade me from - this.”[1047] - - In short, since Luther’s own cause is so clear and certain, those who - disagree, particularly the sectarians, must simply have discarded the - faith. For instance, “of Master Jeckel [Jacob Schenk] I hold that he - believes nothing.”[1048] He, Luther, has “at all times taught God’s - Word in all simplicity; to this I adhere, and will surrender myself - a prisoner to it or else—become a Pope who believes neither in the - again-rising of the dead nor in life everlasting.”[1049] Thus he sees - no middle course between the most frivolous unbelief and the Word of - God as he believes and interprets it. Hence, with heretics, whether - among the Pope’s men or in his own flock, “he will have nothing to do - outside of Scripture—unless indeed they start working miracles.” - - -_Where are your Miracles?_ - -The stress Luther lays on miracles as a proof of doctrine is another -trait to add to the picture of his psychology. Again and again he -repeated anew what he had already, in 1524, said of Münzer and some of -the preachers: They must be told to corroborate their mission by signs -and wonders, or else be forbidden to preach; for whenever God wills -to change the order of things He always works miracles.[1050] There -is something almost tragic in the courage with which he appealed to -miracles in this connection, when we bear in mind his own difficulties, -in accounting for their absence in his own case.[1051] Here it is -enough to recall Hier. Weller’s words: “I still remember right well,” -Weller writes, “how he once said that he had never thought of asking -God for the gift of raising the dead, or of performing other miracles, -though he did not doubt he might have obtained such of God had he -wished; he had, however, preferred to be content with the rich gift of -Scripture-interpretation; he further said that he had raised two persons -from the dead, one of them being Philip Melanchthon and the other a -God-fearing man.”[1052] - -As against the sects and fanatics, Luther urges that he himself laid -no claim to any extraordinary mission; as they, however, did make such -a claim, they must vindicate it by miracles. “I have never preached or -sought to preach unless I was asked and called for by men, for I cannot -boast as they do that God has sent me from heaven without means; they -run of their own accord, though no one sends them, as Jeremias writes -[xxiii. 21]; for this reason they work no good.”[1053] Neither here nor -elsewhere does he explicitly state by whom it is necessary to be “asked” -or “called.” His account of the source whence he derives his mission also -varies, being now the Wittenberg magistrates, now his Doctor’s degree, -now the sovereign, now the enthusiastic hearers and readers of his -word.[1054] - -Such was his confidence that Luther forgot that it was by no means -difficult for the “false brethren” within his camp to pick out the -weak spots in his doctrine. He refused to recognise that much of -their criticism was valid; on the negative side it even took the -place of miracles. It was not every Catholic polemic who succeeded in -demonstrating so clearly and convincingly the anomalies in Luther’s -views, for instance, on the Law and Gospel, as the Antinomian, Johann -Agricola. - -On the other hand, Luther could well note with satisfaction the inability -of the heretics to bring forward anything positive of importance. -They were dwarfs compared with him. With his knowledge of the Bible -it was child’s play to him to overthrow the fanatics’ often ludicrous -applications of Scripture. Of Zwingli, too, it was easy for him to get -the better by dint of sticking to the literal sense of Christ’s words -of institution: “This is My Body.” Luther was not slow in pointing out -the blemishes of the “fanatics,” their vanity and blind obedience to -ambition and self-will, and the impracticability of their fantastic, and -often revolutionary, theories. The very truth of his strictures, for all -his lack of miracles, raised him in his own eyes, far above these clumsy -teachers; this perhaps enables us to understand better the utter contempt -he expresses for them. - - -_His Anger with Lemnius and Others_ - -One had but to praise those whom he condemned to call forth Luther’s -implacable anger. - -This was the experience in 1538 of the humanist, Simon Lemnius (Lemchen) -of Wittenberg, a man otherwise kindly disposed to the new teaching. A -humanist above all, he had won Melanchthon’s favour on account of his -talent. - - Lemnius had thoughtlessly dared to publish two books of epigrams in - which he not only attacked with biting sarcasm certain Wittenberg - personages, but actually ventured to praise Archbishop Albert of - Mayence, Luther’s powerful opponent. The poet, no doubt, was anxious - to curry favour with the Archbishop so as to find in him a Mæcenas; - he even went so far as to extol him as the man who “had kept alive - the olden faith.” The censorship for which Melanchthon as Rector of - the University was then responsible, was caught napping. Lemnius - was indeed arrested by the University, but he escaped and fled from - Wittenberg. On Trinity Sunday, June 16th, Luther read out from the - pulpit a Mandate in which he abused Archbishop Albert in disgraceful - terms, and scourged as a criminal act the praise bestowed in the - “shameful, shocking book of lies” on Bishop Albert, “a devil out of - whom it made a saint.” In it he also declared that, “by every code of - law, and no matter whither the fugitive knave had fled, his head was - forfeit.”[1055] Thus Lemnius was as good as outlawed—though no Court - of Justice had yet sentenced him. On July 4th Melanchthon formally - expelled him from the University on account of “faithlessness, perjury - and slander.”[1056] The “perjury” consisted in his having fled, in - defiance of the obedience he owed to the University, so as to evade - the harsh penalties he had reason to apprehend. The whole edition of - the Epigrams was destroyed. - - “It is the devil who hatches out such knaves,” remarked Luther, - “particularly among the Papists, through whom he attacks and thwarts - us.… Because we preach Christ alone he persecutes us in every way he - can.” The bishops deserve to be called “lost and godless knaves and - foes of God,” hence “those must not be tolerated here who praise them - in verse and prose.”[1057] - - When Lemnius had a second edition of the Epigrams printed at - Wittenberg this also was suppressed. He had added a third book, - devoted to abuse of Luther and containing the famous “Merd-Song” on - Luther, who was then ailing from diarrhœa. Luther retorted with a - “Merd-Song” of his own on Lemnius. His verses he read aloud to his - friends and they became public property through being incorporated in - Lauterbach’s notes of the Table-Talk.[1058] - - Lemnius, whose career had been wrecked by Luther’s anger and revenge, - then wrote an “Apologia against the unjust and lying decree” which the - Wittenberg University had published against him at the instigation - (“_imperio et tyrannide_”) of Martin Luther and Justus Jonas. He still - retained his loose humanistic style after his return in 1538 to his - native Switzerland, where he obtained a position as schoolmaster at - Coire. - - The above Apologia was printed at Cologne, it would seem in 1539, - but very few copies survive owing to the energy shown in their - suppression. It is only of recent years that the complete text has - become generally known;[1059] till then Protestants like Schelhorn - and Hausen had only ventured to give fragments of the work. In it - the writer complains bitterly that Luther “has published a pamphlet - against him [the mandate read aloud in the church] in which, playing - both the judge and the sovereign, Luther had condemned and abused - him.” “Such authority in civil matters” does this soul-herd arrogate - to himself. He robs the bishops of their secular power, but he himself - is a tyrant. The charges against Luther’s private life made in this - work are glaring, and they come, moreover, from a man who knew his - Wittenberg, but it must not be forgotten that he was now a bitter foe - of Luther.[1060] He goes so far as to declare that Luther’s shameless - attacks on the sovereigns, for instance on the Elector of Mayence, - gave grounds for apprehending contempt of all authority and the - outbreak of a war that would spell the ruin of Germany. - - Meanwhile “Luther sits like a dictator at Wittenberg and rules; - what he says must be taken as law.”[1061] He calls his opponent the - “Wittenberg Pope” (“_Papa Albiacus_”), who had been faithless to his - Vows. - -In order rightly to appreciate, from their psychological side, Luther’s -angry outbursts against the heretics in his party we must above all -remember his fears of a coming collapse of theology among his following; -that he foresaw something of the sort has already been shown above.[1062] - -He was also keenly alive to the harm these dissensions were doing to -his reputation. Nor must we forget the threatening and highly insulting -behaviour of many of these heretics. Taking all things together, it is -easy to understand how a temper such as his was lashed to fury when -denouncing the “presumption and foolhardiness” of his foes.[1063] - - “A muddled and obstinate head” sits on the neck of the fanatics’ - ringleader; “his horns must be blunted.”[1064]—“Carlstadt and Zwingli - behave with insolence and defiance”; “We must needs decry the fanatics - as damned”; “they actually dare to pick holes in our doctrine; ah, - the scoundrelly rabble do a great injury to our Evangel even in the - outland and enable our foes to scoff at us.”[1065]—“Their pride and - audacity will bring about their downfall.”[1066] - - In truth, he says, “Carlstadt blasphemed himself to - death.”[1067]—Œcolampadius saw the “curse” of God fulfilled in - himself, “and withered away with fear the night after Zwingli had been - struck down” (at Cappel).[1068] Zwingli himself, like the rest, was - urged on merely by “his boundless ambition.”[1069]—Egranus (Johann - Wildenauer) was a “proud donkey.”[1070]—Bucer is a “gossip,”[1071] - “a miscreant through and through, in every case, inflection and rule - of grammar; I trust him not at all, for Paul says [Titus iii. 10] - ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, - avoid.’”[1072]—Sebastian Franck is a “wicked, venomous knave and it - is a wonder to me that those at Ulm care to keep him.”[1073] “He only - loved to do harm, is inconstant and boasts of the spirit; but his - wife has plenty of spirit and it is she who inspirits him with her - spirit.”[1074]—Schwenckfeld deserves as little as Franck to be written - against. “Agricola is only puffed up with hatred and ambition.”[1075] - - He “is and should be called a godless man who denies God, which - is what the Sacramentarians do.”[1076]—“Of false brethren we must - above all things beware.”[1077]—With such a one “there is no hope of - repentance; he is bold, impudent.”[1078]—“He remains obdurate,” he - says of one of these heretics, “a cunning, evil-minded scoffer”; he - betrays us as “Judas betrayed Christ.”[1079] - -The depth of the yawning abyss between the heretics and Luther and also -the hatred they bore him on account of his treatment of them is plain -from the words of Münzer and Ickelsamer already quoted.[1080] - - -3. The Church-Unseen, its Origin and Early History - -His doctrine of the Church may in many respects be regarded as the -key-stone and centre of the rest of Luther’s theology. - -It is practically important in that it affords a clue to anyone desirous -of ascertaining to which of the competing religious bodies he should -belong. It was usually to this article on the Church that those who -afterwards returned to Catholicism appealed in vindication of their step. -It was also the practice of Catholic writers, in their controversies -with Luther, to appeal to the doctrine of the one Church which has never -erred in dogma in order to convict him more speedily of the guilt of his -separation. All of them started from the old definition, according to -which the Church is the visible commonwealth of the faithful, founded by -Christ on Peter, the Rock, which confesses the same Christian belief and -unites in the same Sacraments under the guidance of its lawful pastors, -in particular of the successors of St. Peter. - -Luther himself was fully aware of the supreme importance of this -doctrine; he frequently enough brings his opponents on the scene “crying -Church, Church!”[1081] Among the Papists, he says, they do nothing -but shriek Church, Church, Church, and this is the chief obstacle to -reunion.[1082] “Hence there is indeed need that we should see what the -Holy Christian Church is. If it is the clergy and their mob, then the -devil has won and we two, God and His Word, are the losers.”[1083] “The -Pope quotes this text [John xiv. 17: ‘The spirit of truth shall remain -with you’] strongly and impressively.… They have become so certain of -their cause that they take their stand on it as on a wall of iron.… This -we ourselves must believe and say, viz. that the Holy Ghost is with -the Church which is certainly on earth and will remain.”[1084] But was -Luther’s Church a visible or an invisible one? - - -_Invisibility of Luther’s Church_ - -Bearing in mind the religious compulsion practised by Luther, the -question would seem already answered. His practice involved the existence -of an outward ecclesiastical authority with outward rules, a congregation -to which it was impossible to belong without submitting to the doctrine -of a visible head or corporation. Of the visible nature of this Church -there can be no question. It is with this tangible authority that he -confronts the Anabaptists, for instance when he says: “The presumption -of these fanatics is unbearable, for they altogether repudiate the -authority of the Church and will have it all their own way.”[1085] -The best-grounded maxims of the best teachers are despised by them, -so he complains, and they only esteem the opinions they themselves -have rummaged for in Scripture! “Yet great heed should be paid to the -Church.”[1086] - -Nevertheless, according to Luther’s own views which had not changed much -since 1519, the Church is in reality invisible. - -The Church is not an outward, tangible institution, with a divinely -appointed spiritual government and direction, such as it had been to -Catholics through all the ages; rather it is the ghostly congregation of -true believers known to Christ alone, Who alone is their head, guide and -teacher. Men holding “office” in the Church there must indeed be, but -only in order to preach and to dispense the sacraments; any spiritual -authority with full powers for legislating and guiding the faithful is -non-existent.[1087] It is the “true” faith and the possession of the -“right” sacraments that constitute the Church. It is accordingly clear to -him that the Holy Church in which we are to believe, must be a “ghostly, -not a bodily one,” “for what we believe,” so he proceeds, “is not bodily -but ghostly. The outward Roman Church we can all of us see, hence she -cannot be the true Church in which we believe which is a congregation -or assembly of the saints in faith; but no one can see who is a saint -or who has the faith.” This he said in his “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome” -(1520).[1088] - - “The Church is altogether in the spirit,” so he again says in the - following year, “she is altogether a spiritual thing.”[1089] “Christ,” - so he says later, “works in the spirit so that it is hardly possible - to smell His Church and bishops from afar, and the Holy Ghost behaves - as though He were not there”; but that Church which is so close at - hand “that it is possible to lay hold on her,” as is the case with - the Popish Church, is only the Church of the devil.[1090] “Who will - show us the Church,” he asks, “seeing that she is hidden in the spirit - and is only believed in, just as we say: ‘I believe in one Holy - Church.’”[1091] “The Church is _believed_ in but she is not seen, - and for the most part she is oppressed and hidden, under weakness, - crosses and scandals.”[1092] In short, as a Lutheran theologian puts - it, “he is speaking merely of a Holy Church or congregation whose real - complement of Saints is not apparent, and which is therefore termed - invisible.”[1093] Nor could he speak otherwise, for the absence of - a divinely appointed hierarchy, and likewise his principle of the - free examination of Scripture, could not but lead him to assume an - invisible Church which lives only in the hearts of those who share the - faith and the possession of the Holy Ghost. - -Although, as the theologian in question points out, in Luther’s idea -of the Church visible elements are not lacking, e.g. preaching and -the sacraments, yet the actual congregation of Saints is visible to -God alone; indeed the Church would still be there even should her -only members consist of “babes in the cradle.”[1094] For instance, -according to him, the Church before his day comprised very few people, -and those unknown, who kept the Gospel undefiled and thus preserved the -Church; some “elect souls must needs have come back, at least on their -death-beds, to the true path.”[1095]—“Such persons [inspired by the Holy -Ghost] there must always be on earth, even though there should only be -two or three, or just the children. Of the old there are, alas, but few. -Such as do not belong to this class have no right to look upon themselves -as Christians; nor are they to be consoled as though they were Christians -by much talk of the forgiveness of sins and the Grace of Christ.”[1096] - -Thus, in so far as the visible elements were recognised by Luther, -Protestants are justified in teaching that Luther’s Church-Unseen was -“not a mere idea or empty phantom”; if, however, they go on to say that, -according to Luther, the Church is “the living sum total of all who are -united in the Spirit,” one sees at a glance that, though, mentally, we -can make a class of all who come under the category of “believers,” this -implies no actual relation between such, and consequently no “Church” or -real though invisible _society_.[1097] - - -_The Marks of the Church. Gradual Disappearance of the Old Conception of -the Church_ - -It is a matter of common knowledge that the marks or “_notæ_” of the -Church had been the subject of many disquisitions before Luther’s day. -We may now inquire whether Luther himself also admitted the existence of -these “marks,” by which the true Church of Christ might be known. - -Though the admission of such marks seems incompatible with his theory of -the Church-Unseen, Luther repeatedly seeks to prove the truth of his own -Church and the falsehood of Catholicism by this means. Especially is this -the case in his “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539). - - Thus he asks: How can “a poor, blundering man know where to find this - holy Christian folkdom [the Church]? For we are told that it is [to - be found] in this life and on this earth … where it will also remain - till the end of time.”[1098] This leads him to speak of the marks of - the true Church. - - “First of all the holy Christian people can be told by its having - the Holy Word of God.” Luther forgets to say how the latter is to be - recognised, though on this all depends; for he was far from being the - only one who laid claim to possessing the pure Word of God. Hence - many were not slow in pointing out how useless it was on his part to - say: “Where you hear or see this Word preached, believed, confessed - and acted upon, have no doubt that there, assuredly, must be the true - ‘_ecclesia sancta catholica_,’ and the Holy Christian people, even - though in number they be but few.”[1099] Nor did his theological - opponents think any more highly of the other marks of the true Church - which he sets up in the same work. They urged that the distinguishing - marks should surely be clearer than what was to be distinguished, and - patent and evident even to the unlearned. Concerning the marks set - up by Luther, however, there was doubt even among those who had cut - themselves adrift from Catholicism. - - For instance, the second mark was “the Sacrament of Baptism where it - is rightly taught and believed, and administered according to Christ’s - ordinance.”[1100] But, among the Zwinglians and Anabaptists, baptism, - so at least they claimed, was also rightly administered according to - the ordinance of Christ; and, as for the Popish Church, Luther himself - admits that she had always preserved baptism in its purity. Hence, - here again, we have no clear, distinctive mark. - - The other marks, according to Luther’s “Von den Conciliis,” were, - thirdly, “the Sacrament of the Altar where it is rightly given, - believed and received according to the institution of Christ”; - and, fourthly, “the keys [forgiveness through faith] of which they - make public use.” “Fifthly, the Church is known outwardly by her - consecrating or calling of ministers of the Church, to the offices - which it is her duty to fill.” Sixthly, “by her public prayer, praise, - and thanks to God.” “Seventhly, the Christian people is recognised - outwardly by the sacred emblem of the holy Cross since it has to - suffer misfortune and persecution, all kinds of temptation and - trouble—as we learn from the Our Father—from the devil, the world - and the flesh; must be inwardly in pain, foolish and affrighted, and - outwardly poor, despised, weak and sick.”[1101] - - Bellarmine, the sharp-witted controversialist, and other polemics - even earlier, dealt with these marks and showed their inadequacy. - As regards the last mark Bellarmine, not unnaturally, expressed his - wonder that Luther should have spoken of it, seeing that inward - suffering, sadness and apprehension are of their very nature hidden - things. Luther, however, hit upon this mark because he was accustomed - to regard his “temptations” as a witness to the truth of his doctrine, - and was convinced that the devil was causing them solely out of hatred - for the truth.[1102] He thus carried his fancied experiences[1103] - into his teaching on the Church, a fresh proof that his theology was - the outcome rather of his inner life than of revealed doctrine. The - idea that the Church was ever to be sick, weak, foolish and despised - appealed to him all the more because his Evangel had not brought forth - the good moral fruits he desiderated, and because he had vainly to - struggle against the dissensions within his congregations and their - abuse of the freedom of the Gospel. - - It was this experience of his which led him to the fantastic plan - already described of forming an “assembly of earnest Christians,” - i.e. a Church-apart enrolled from the true believers who would then - realise the idea of a Church even to the extent of having the power of - excommunicating. - - The seven marks of the Church were reduced to two in the Augsburg - Confession of 1530, viz. pure doctrine, and true sacraments, and it is - thus that they appear in the “Symbolic Books” of Lutheranism. On the - other hand, Luther makes no appeal to the marks of the Church as given - in the olden so-called Nicene Creed, “though all the olden Councils - had insisted that it was these marks, particularly the attribute of - ‘Apostolicity,’ which distinguished the Church from the sects.”[1104] - - As a matter of fact the marks on which Catholic theologians laid - stress, viz. the Church’s “oneness, holiness, Catholicity” and - apostolicity furnished a striking answer to the question: Where is - the Church? She is Apostolic because her connection with the Apostles - has never been broken; Catholic because of her universal existence - throughout the world; holy in her aims and means and in the practice - of Christian virtue by the generality of her followers, and also on - account of the special gifts of grace which have ever brightened her - path through the ages; lastly, she is one, outwardly in being alone, - and also inwardly, in the unity of her faith and belief, liturgy and - sacraments, and in her character as a society in which a divinely - appointed spiritual authority rules which the rest obey. In the - latter respect the Church, to the Catholic mind, is even a “_societas - perfecta_,” visible, moreover, to the whole world like the “city set - on a hill” (Matt. v. 12) in which the Fathers of the Church indeed - always saw an image of the Church;[1105] she is as a building built - upon a rock, as a flock gathered round the shepherd, both of them - comparisons which we owe to the Church’s Divine Founder. - - It was not without reason that Luther was averse to any appeal to the - four marks of the Church just referred to. What unity had he wherewith - to confront that of Catholicism under its Pope? Apostolicity, as an - historical union with Christ’s Apostles was so evidently wanting in - his case that he declared that the doctrine he had come to preach had - died out shortly after Apostolic times. Any claim to Catholicity in - the usual sense of the word was not to be thought of for a moment. - The only olden marks which he does not throw over is that of holiness. - He here relies on the existence of holiness in the case of a few as - being sufficient for his purpose. - - Nevertheless, due justice must be done to the stress he is ever - disposed to lay on the holiness of the Church. He practically makes - all the other marks to centre in this, for he speaks of the seven - marks mentioned above as the sevenfold “sanctuary whereby the Holy - Ghost sanctifies Christ’s holy nation.”[1106] - - “Even though it was impossible for him,” remarks Johann Adam Möhler, - “to teach that the Church was to be regarded as a living institution - in which men become holy, yet he sticks fast to the idea that she - ought by rights to be composed of saints.… The inner Church [called - by theologians the “soul” to distinguish it from the outward “body” - of the Church] is everywhere in evidence, and the fact that no one is - a true citizen of the heavenly kingdom if he belongs only outwardly - to the Church and has not entered into the spirit of Christ and felt - within himself its vivifying power, is pointed out [by Luther] in a - way which merits all praise.”[1107] - -Such true believers, according to Luther’s teaching, are so much the sole -representatives of the visible Church that the wicked, the unbelieving, -the hypocritical Christians who only expose her to the scorn and derision -of her foes, do not really belong to the Church at all.[1108] They are -members of the Church merely in name, but, in reality, are not Christians -at all.[1109] - -It was not, however, easy for him to shake off the true feeling he had -inherited from youthful days, viz. that whoever wished to be pious -and pleasing to God, must become so through the true Church. “Let us -therefore pray in the Church,” so we hear him say, “let us pray with the -Church and for her.”[1110] According to him the Church was the ghostly -Eve taken from the side of Christ, a pure virgin and one body with -Christ, great and splendid in God’s sight, the chief of His works, dear -to Him, precious and highly esteemed in His sight, etc.[1111] Hence we -find him re-echoing the beautiful words in which Catholic mystics had -been wont to extol the Church and her “soul.” - -Yet there is no doubt, that, in spite of all this, Luther had explained -away the Church’s very essence. - -It was indeed his tendency to spiritualise, and his favourite idea -that true believers must be enlightened by God directly concerning His -outward “Word” that helped him thus to explain away the Church. As for -any outward doctrinal establishment or institutional Church having an -authority of her own, no such thing existed. Thus the Church which Luther -extols as so holy turns out to be something quite intangible—water that -for want of a holder runs away and is lost. Even Köstlin admits this, -though in guarded words: “Certain main problems which the Reformed view -of the Church must necessarily face” “were only very insufficiently -grasped and discussed” by Luther and his friends. Among such questions -Köstlin includes some that touch the Church’s very essence: How far -is purity of doctrine necessary in order to belong to the Church; how -far are the old Creeds still professed by Protestantism obligatory or -binding upon preachers; where, finally, does the freedom preached by -Luther precisely end?[1112] But, in spite of all the _lacunæ_ in his -doctrine of the Church, Luther bitterly insists, that, outside the -Church there can be no salvation.[1113] Nor did he even admit the usual -Catholic limitation, viz. that those, who through no fault of their own -are ignorant of the Church, may possibly be saved if their life has been -otherwise good. Luther indeed, as already shown (p. 292), is of opinion -that some olden Catholics may have been saved, if, in the end, they laid -hold on Christ as Luther taught;[1114] he also opines that salvation had -been brought to all “worthy men of every nation” who had died before the -coming of Christ, through His preaching during His visit to Limbo;[1115] -yet he does not believe that it was the Will of God that _all_ men, -whether within or outside the Church, should be saved.[1116] - -After having in the above examined Luther’s conception of the Church, -irrespective of its mode of growth, we may now turn our attention to the -genesis and historical development of this conception. - - -_Origin and Early Outbuilding of the New Idea of the Church_ - -A curious psychological process accompanies the growth of Luther’s idea -of the Church. We know that, even long after he had fallen a victim to -his theory of justification by faith alone, he had still no thought -of breaking away from the Church’s communion or of questioning the -conception then in vogue of the Church. It was only when the olden Church -refused to come over to his new doctrine and prepared to condemn it, that -he decided, after great struggles within, to cut himself adrift, and it -was in order to justify this step to himself and to vindicate it to the -world that he gradually formed his new views on the Church. (Cp. above, -vol. i., p. 321 ff.) - - Characteristically enough we find a first trace of what was to come, - in his sermon on the power of the Papal Ban, which he published in - Latin in 1518 and in German in the following year. Here, of course, - he had to deal with the question of the effects of the threatened - excommunication; in so doing he reached the false proposition, - censured amongst his 41 errors in the Bull Exsurge Domine of May 16, - 1520: “Excommunications are merely outward penalties and do not rob a - man of the Church’s common spiritual prayers.”[1117] Not long after, - according to his wont, he went a step further. Among the condemned - Theses we find the paradoxical one: “Christians must be taught to love - excommunication rather than to fear it.”[1118] - - At Dresden on July 25, 1518, when he was found fault with on account - of his Wittenberg Sermon on Excommunication (which was then probably - not yet known in its entirety), he seems to have shown scant respect - for the supreme authority in the Church. Emser, his then opponent, - writes expressly that Luther had declared he cared nothing for the - Pope’s Ban.[1119] - - Some weeks later, on Sep. 1, Luther himself wrote to Staupitz, his - superior, that his conscience told him he was in the right and with - the truth on his side; “Christ liveth and reigneth yesterday, to-day - and for ever”; he also tells him, that, in his “Resolutions,” and in - his replies to Prierias he had spoken freely, and in a language that - would wound the Romanists, and that he was ready, nay anxious, to - give the brassy Romans an even ruder German answer in the service of - Christ, the Shepherd of the people. “Have no fear; I shall continue - untrammelled my study of the Word of God without any fear of the - citation [to Augsburg].”[1120] - - During the negotiations in the presence of Cajetan at Augsburg we can - see even more clearly how Luther stood under the spell of his idea, - that the only Church was a spiritual one, and that, even should he - break away from ecclesiastical authority by rising against the Ban, he - would still remain in this Church. - - It was after his return from Augsburg, during the stormy days when - he appealed “from the Pope to a General Christian Council,” i.e. in - the winter of 1518, that he discovered the true “Antichrist” who - reigned at Rome.[1121] This discovery deprived him of the last vestige - of respect for the authority of the Church and for her head.[1122] - His own inward state when he made this discovery was one of curious - turmoil. In his letter to Link, of Dec. 11, 1518, we hear him speaking - of his commotion of mind, of new projects just on the point of birth - which would show that, so far, he had hardly made a serious beginning - with the struggle; he had a “premonition” then that Antichrist - described by St. Paul (2 Thes. ii. 3 ff.) was seated in Rome where he - behaved even worse than the Turk.[1123] At the beginning of 1519 with - bated breath he announced to his friends the impending war on all the - Papal ordinances.[1124] - - Thus, even previous to the Leipzig Disputation, he must have busied - himself with his new idea of the Church. - - It was, however, only during the Disputation that, pressed hard by - Eck, he was induced to deny openly the Primacy and to proclaim his - belief in an invisible Church controlled by no authority.[1125] In the - Disputation on July 4 and the following days, he attacked the divine - institution of the Pope’s authority, asserted that even Œcumenical - Councils could err, and, on July 6, declared that the Council of - Constance had actually done so in rejecting the doctrine of Hus that - there is “a Holy Catholic Church which is the whole body of the elect.” - -In thus cutting the idea of the Church to his own measure, Luther had -reached the Husite theory of the predestined as the sole members of the -Church. “Luther found in this his own view of the Church, for, according -to him, on the one hand there was no need of submission to Rome, and, on -the other, only the real Christians and the elect were actual members -of the Church.”[1126] In the “Resolutions,” which he published at the -end of August immediately after the Disputation, he adheres to the -statement that even Œcumenical Councils had erred and that, even on the -most important questions of the faith. Still, strange to say, he does not -think there is any reason for fearing that the Church had been forsaken -by the Spirit of Christ, for by the Church was to be understood neither -the Pope nor a Council.[1127] Here we have the basis of his new idea -of the Church.… It is combined with another idea towards which he had -long been drifting, viz. of seeing in Holy Scripture the sole source of -faith.[1128] In the “Resolutions” he says: “Faith does not spring from -any external authority but is aroused in the heart by the Holy Ghost, -though man is moved thereto by the Word and by example.”[1129] Wherever -Luther’s doctrine is believed, there is the Church.[1130] - -The Papal Bull of 1520 condemned among the other selected theses of -Luther’s, his attack on the Primacy and the Councils, though saying -nothing of his doctrine of the Church, then still in process of growth. -“The Roman Pope, the successor of Peter,” so the 25th of these condemned -Theses runs, “is not the Vicar of Christ set over all the Churches -throughout the whole world and appointed by Christ Himself in the person -of St. Peter.” And the 29th declares: “It is open to us to set aside the -Councils, freely to question their actions and judge their decrees and to -profess with all confidence whatever appears to be the truth whether it -has been approved or reproved of any Council.”[1131] - -The originator of principles so subversive to all ecclesiastical -order had perforce to reassure himself by claiming freedom in the -interpretation of Scripture. - -Hence, for himself and all who chose to follow him, he set up in the -clearest and most decided terms the personal reading of the written Word -of God, above all tradition and all the pronouncements of the teaching -office of the Church; in this he went much further than he had done -hitherto in the questions he had raised concerning justification, grace, -indulgences, etc. It is easy to understand why it was so necessary for -him to claim for himself a direct enlightenment by the Spirit of God -in his reading of the Bible;[1132] in no other way could he vindicate -his daring in thus setting himself in opposition to a Church with a -history of 1500 years. At the same time he saw that this same gift of -illumination would have to be allowed to others, hence he declared that -all faithful and devout readers of the Bible enjoyed a certain kind of -inspiration, all according to him being directly guided by the Spirit -into the truth without any outward interference of Church doctrine, -though the first fruits of revelation belonged to him alone.[1133] - -By thus exalting the personal element into a principle, he dealt a -mortal blow at the idea of a Church to whom was committed the true -interpretation of doctrine. - -Before pointing out, how, in spite of the boundless liberty proclaimed by -Luther, he nevertheless was anxious to retain some sort of Church in the -stead of the ancient one, we may here put on record certain statements -of his on the illumination of the individual by God that have not as -yet been quoted; albeit difficult to understand this is of the very -essence of Lutheranism and quite indispensable to the new doctrine of an -invisible Church.[1134] - - According to the “Resolutions” he published after the Leipzig - Disputation, every man is born into the faith through the Evangel - owing to the bestowal of certainty from on high without the - intervention of the Church’s authority or of any doctrine outwardly - binding upon him. Satan and all the heretics, so he declares, could - not have forged a more dangerous opinion than that in vogue among - Catholics concerning the relations between the Church’s authority - and the Bible Word; needless to say Luther makes out that, in their - opinion, the Pope was put above the Written Word and even above God - Himself.[1135] The genuine Catholic doctrine, viz. that the Church is - the guardian of the true sense of Holy Scripture and at the same time - a witness to the faithful of the authenticity and inspiration of the - Holy Books, is indeed poles asunder from the teaching foisted on her. - Moreover, it is in these very Resolutions to the Leipzig Disputation - that Luther disparages the Epistle of James, arguing that its style - falls far short of the apostolic dignity and could in no way compare - with that of Paul. Here the “freedom” which he exalts into a principle - already begins to undermine his new foundation, viz. the Bible itself. - - Not long after this, in 1520, he lays claim in his “Von dem Bapstum” - and “_De captivitate Babylonica_,” to having been instructed solely - by the Holy Ghost and out of the Bible regarding the sense of Holy - Scripture. - - In the “_De captivitate Babylonica_” he teaches: the faithful who - surrender themselves to the Spirit of God and allow Him to work upon - them through the “Word” (he calls them the Church), received from the - same Spirit an infallible sense and an inspiration by which to judge - of doctrine, a sense which is indeed not susceptible of proof yet - which creates absolute certainty. The same thing held good here as - in the case of the truth, of which Augustine had said, that the soul - was so laid hold of and carried away by it as to be enabled by its - means to judge of all things, though unable to prove the truth itself - which nevertheless it was forced to acknowledge with an infallible - certainty.[1136] Luther also appeals as a comparison to the evidence - of certain fundamental truths of mathematics or philosophy. This would - at first sight make it appear as though he excluded arbitrary freedom - in the interpretation of the Bible, since the mind must necessarily - bow to such logical and unquestionable truths as he instances; this - is, however, not the case, and we may recall what a wide field he - opened up for delusion in this matter of inspiration.[1137] - - When he teaches that the perception of the truth of religion - penetrates into every Christian soul as the direct result of a - certainty operated by God Himself we must, in order to understand him, - keep in view the other points of his teaching, above all his opinion - of man’s utter incapacity to do what is good, the depravity of man’s - mental powers, his lack of free-will and absolute passivity under the - hand of God. Above all he needed some such theory in order to justify - his attack on the olden conception of the Church and to defend his own - alleged certainty. - - The universal priesthood also serves him as a prop for his idea of the - Church. This priesthood, with the right to judge of doctrine, such - as he pictures in his “To the German Nobility” and “On the Freedom - of a Christian Man,” was a logical outcome of the above doctrine - of inspiration and of his own inclination to break away from the - olden Church. It gave to all complete independence in spiritual and - ecclesiastical matters.[1138] - - The above writings were followed in 1521 by his “_Ad librum Ambrosii - Catharini Responsio_.” Here he treats in detail of the Church, and of - Christ the spiritual and invisible rock on which alone she is built - (without Peter and his successors); the Church’s nature is therefore - spiritual and invisible; he emphasises anew the right of all the - faithful individually to disregard all teaching authority and to give - ear to the voice of the Holy Ghost Who speaks inwardly through the - Evangel, and thus brings forth, nourishes, educates, strengthens and - preserves the true Church. In this work Luther is, however, already at - greater pains to bring down the Church to the region of the visible; - he points out that at least she possesses visible elements, Baptism, - the Supper and the Gospel. Nevertheless, direct inspiration of the - Holy Ghost still looms large in the “_Responsio_” as we may gather - from the elucubrations embellished with Bible texts in which he - declares that the Papal Antichrist had been foretold in the Word of - God and his appearance and workings even described in detail.[1139] - - In “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden” (1522), which is still saturated - with the spirit of the Wartburg he had just left, he insists that: - “Each one must simply believe that it is God’s Word because he feels - in his heart that it is the truth, even should an angel from heaven - or all the world preach the contrary.”—His writing of 1523, “Das eyn - Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne Recht und Macht habe alle Lere - zu urteylen,” etc., was intended to promote unfettered freedom of - spirit, but, of course, only in the interests of the removal of the - Popish-minded clergy, for, naturally, there could be no question of - such freedom being used against Luther, or of anyone setting himself - up as judge of Luther’s new doctrine. Here, and even more strongly - in the “_De instituendis ministris Ecclesiæ_,” which he published in - the same year, he starts again from the standpoint of the universal - priesthood; this was inconsistent with the clerical order of the - Popish Church; by it every man was qualified to decide independently - on doctrine in accordance with Scripture; but whoever preached - openly in the Church of God only did so as representing the others - and at their request; hence no preacher was to be at the head of any - congregation unless the latter wanted him, and, taught by the unction - of the Holy Spirit, found his doctrine right. A Christian might - also, so he continues, whether amongst other Christians or amongst - those who had formerly been unbelievers, instruct his fellow-men - in the Gospel merely by virtue of his Christian calling; anyone, if - he detected the ordinary teacher in error, might stand up and teach - without any call, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. xiv. 30) “if anything be - revealed to another, let the first hold his peace.”[1140] - - But how is a man to be so certain in his heart as to be able to come - forward in this way? “You can then be certain of the matter if you - are able to decide freely and surely and to say this is the pure - and simple truth, for it I will live or die, and whoever teaches - otherwise, whatsoever be his title and standing, is accursed.”[1141] - -It would be a waste of words to point out that this was to deal a -death-blow at the olden conception of the Church. - -Startling, nay, utterly stupefying, is the sharp contrast all this -presents to Luther’s later attitude already described above (pp. 241, -251, 262). There we have a rigid, coercive Church held fast in the ban -of the Wittenberg doctrine, whereas here, in the days of the early -development of Lutheranism, we find an exuberant wealth of individual -freedom which scoffs even at the possibility of any ecclesiastical order. - -Only a dreamer and hot-head like Luther could have seen in such an -individualism, where each one is teacher and priest, anything else than -chaos. - - Luther’s expectations in those early days were strange indeed and - quite incapable of realisation; not only were all delusions to be - excluded but everything, as he says of the enduring of opposition, - was to be done “decently and piously”! If he is really speaking in - earnest, then he shows himself a hermit utterly ignorant of human - nature. And yet even in the seclusion of the convent walls, the - greatest enthusiast should have seen that this was not the way to form - a congregation on earth of believers, or anything resembling a Church. - - We can, nevertheless, easily understand, to cite Möhler in - confirmation of what has been said, “how the doctrine in question - could, nay, had to, arise in Luther’s mind: Since the authority of the - existing Church was against him he had perforce to seek for support - in the authority of God working directly in him.… He saw no other way - than to appeal to an intangible, inward authorisation.”[1142]—This he - then proceeded to work out into a system for the other believers. - “In the fashion of the true demagogue he flatters every Christian - and invests him with such perfection as any unprejudiced mind must - repudiate on the most cursory glance into his own heart.”[1143] - - The truth is, the doctrine put forward by Luther against the Church, - i.e. that Holy Scripture is the sole judge, has no meaning except on - the assumption of a certainty through direct divine illumination. - - Luther was quite right in declaring Holy Scripture to be the source of - the doctrine of salvation; but it was a very different thing to assert - that Holy Writ is the judge which determines what is the doctrine of - salvation contained therein. He only reached the latter assertion by - taking for granted the direct action of God in man for imparting a - knowledge of the true sense of Scripture. Hence in his statements on - Holy Scripture we frequently find one thing strangely confused with - the other, the outward Book with the inward knowledge of the same, - so that, as Möhler puts it, “the direct transmission of its contents - to the reader is assumed in a quite childish fashion.”[1144] Even - Köstlin has to admit this confusion, though he does so with reserve: - “In Luther,” he says, “we see in many passages an intermingling of the - pure Word and pure doctrine.”[1145] - - -_Luther’s Later Attitude Towards the Idea of the Church. Objections_ - - Henceforward there remained deeply rooted in Luther’s mind the - conviction that the individual was taught by God and that this Divine - enlightenment was always leading to the adoption of his own chief - articles of faith and to the promotion of the Lutheran Church.[1146] - - There is no call to follow up this idea through all his various - writings. We may, however, call to mind a remarkable and warlike - statement with which, towards the end of his life, he sought to - justify his attacks on the Pope and the ancient Church, and that, - too, at a time when he must long since have been disappointed at the - results of the freedom of judging which he had once allowed but had - now already in many ways curtailed. - - In his “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” he quotes the words - of Christ which refer to prayer in common: “Where two or three are - gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” - This leads him to conclude, strange to say, “that even two or three - gathered together in Christ’s name hold all the power of St. Peter - and all the Apostles.” And, at once, he proceeds in his old vein - to declare that two or three, nay, even a single one, who has been - enlightened by Christ, is as good a teacher as the whole Church, - and, indeed, in certain cases, even takes precedence of her. “Hence - it comes,” he says, “that, often, a man who believes in Christ has - withstood a whole crowd … as the prophets withstood the Kings of - Israel, the priests and the whole nation [to say nothing of Luther - himself who had withstood the whole Church]. In short, God will - not be bound as to numbers, greatness, height, power, or anything - personal to man, but will only be with those who love and keep His - Word even though they be no more than stable boys. What does He care - for high, great and mighty lords? He alone is the greatest, highest - and mightiest.”[1147] Thus he practically claims a Divine dignity - for an undertaking such as his, and paints his career afresh as that - of a prophet who had a right to exalt himself even over the topmost - hierarchy; only that he invests all the faithful, and even the “stable - boy,” with the like high calling. - -But, in such a system, what place was there left for anything more than a -phantom Church? Obviously the Church had to withdraw into the region of -the invisible. For her again to become visible and assume the shape to be -considered below, seems almost a paradox. - -In view of the elasticity and vagueness of Luther’s teaching on the -Church it is not surprising that his followers, to this very day, are -divided as to whether, in point of fact, Luther wanted a “Church” or not. - - A well-known Lutheran theologian admits in plain language that Luther - left the problem of the Church unsolved; only after the Reformer’s - time did certain “important problems” arise in respect of Luther’s - tentative definition of the Church.[1148] Another theologian, writing - in a Protestant periodical, says that Luther left behind him no - “Evangelical Church.” “The Reformation,” he says, “spelt Christendom’s - deliverance from the Church.… His great anticlerical bias was never - repudiated by Luther.… He committed the care of the pure Evangel to - the hands of the civil authorities. It ought no longer to be disputed - that Luther and the Reformers were not the founders of the Evangelical - Church—and that their ideal Protestantism was one minus a Church. - It is only necessary to take the idea of the Church in its strict - sense—not as the congregation, or the people of God, nor yet as a body - of men holding the same opinions, nor as the kingdom of Christ—but as - an independent complexus of regulations ordering the religious life, - as a special institution to provide for the particular needs of the - religious commonwealth within traditional limits.” Hence “the fact - that, in our homeland, three hundred years after Luther’s time, we - find the Evangelical preacherdom firmly consolidated in a body not - unlike the State, and professing to be the official representative - of Protestantism is one of the most astounding paradoxes in all the - history of the Church.”[1149] - - There is no need to go so far, nor is it really necessary to put - the words evangelical “Church” or “Churches” in inverted commas, as - Protestants sometimes do in order to mark the quite unusual meaning of - the word Church according to Luther’s view. It is obvious that logic - had no place in Luther’s ideas and aims in respect of the Church, and - his subjectivism imposed on him in this matter the utmost vagueness. - -Frequently we find in Catholic works on dogma extracts from Luther’s -writings dating from 1519 and 1520, which, it is alleged, show his -positive conviction at that time that a Church—i.e. one in the olden -Catholic sense—was to be recognised. But this is a mistake. The documents -containing such utterances were of a diplomatic character, and we have no -right to build upon them. They do not in any way invalidate what has been -said above. - - One of these is Luther’s “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell,” dating - from the end of Feb., 1519, i.e. from a time when he had already - discovered the Roman Antichrist;[1150] the other, his “_Oblatio sive - Protestatio_,” dating from the summer of 1520, is a tract unmistakably - intended to forestall the publication of the Roman Bull.[1151] In the - first work, composed at the instance of Miltitz, it is true he says in - praise of the Roman Church that, in her, “St. Peter and St. Paul, 46 - Popes and many hundred thousand martyrs had shed their blood,” that - she was honoured by God above all others, and that, for the sake of - Christian charity and unity, it was not lawful to separate from her - for all her present blemishes; he will not, however, express himself - regarding the “authority and supremacy of the Roman Church,” “seeing - that this does not concern the salvation of souls”; Christ, on the - contrary, had founded His Church on charity, meekness and oneness, - and, for the sake of this oneness, the Papal commands ought to be - obeyed. By this he fancies that he has proved that he “does not wish - to detract from the Roman Church.”[1152] - - What he says in the other writing referred to above is even less - acceptable, though here too he wishes to appear “as a submissive and - obedient son of the Holy Christian Churches.”[1153] The circumstance - that many shortsighted persons doubtless took him at his word at this - critical time of his excommunication must have served powerfully to - promote the apostasy. - - As to the changes to which Luther’s mode of thought was liable, we - may perhaps be permitted to make a general observation before passing - from the consideration of the invisible Church to that of the Church - visible. - - The charge brought against him of having formerly taught differently - on many points from what he did at a later date, Luther lightly swept - aside with the assurance that he had gone on gradually advancing - in the knowledge of the truth. His defenders seek to escape the - difficulty in a like way. His changeableness and inconstancy must - undoubtedly weigh heavily in the balance. We must not, however, - be unfair to him or argue that the fact of his having at first - defended elements of Catholic doctrine which he afterwards abandoned - constituted a grave self-contradiction. - - Luther openly admits that it was only gradually that he came to attack - the Church so bitterly. - - When King Henry VIII reproached him with the contradictions apparent - between his earlier and later teaching on the Papacy and the Church, - Luther boldly appealed in 1522 in his “_Contra Henricum regem Angliæ_” - to his having only gradually learnt the whole truth: “I did not - yet know that the Papacy was contrary to Scripture.… God had then - given me a cheerful spirit that suffered itself to be despised [by - his opponents].… By dint of so doing they forced me on, so that the - further I went the more lies I discovered … until it became plain - from Scripture, thanks to God’s Grace, that the Papacy, episcopacy, - foundations, cloisters, universities, together with all the monkery, - nunnery, Masses, services were nothing but damnable sects of the - devil.… Hence it came about that I had to write other books in - condemnation and retractation of my earlier ones.”[1154] He will also, - so he adds ironically, retract what he had previously said in his - “_De captivitate Babylonica_,” viz. that the Papacy was the prey of a - strong Nimrod, as this had scandalised the lying King of England, who - was himself the robber of his country. This, in his own style, he now - proposes to amend as follows: “I should have said: The Papacy is the - arch-devil’s most poisonous abomination hitherto seen on earth.”[1155] - -If it was a difficult matter to give an account of Luther’s invisible -Church, owing to the changes which took place in his own views, even more -difficult is the task of tracing the further growth of his teaching. His -invisible Church becomes more and more clearly a visible Church; yet all -the while it protests, that, in its nature, it is invisible. - - -4. The Church becomes visible. Its organisation - -What was Luther’s view of the Church’s character when the time came to -set up new congregations within the circle of the “Evangel”? - -Theologically the question is answered in the authentic publicly accepted -explanations he gave of his doctrine on the Church. Of these the oldest -is comprised in the Schwabach Articles of 1529,[1156] where we read in -Article XII: - -There is “no doubt that there is and ever will be on earth a holy -Christian Church until the end of the world, as Christ says in Matt, -xxviii. 20.… This Church is nothing else than the believers in Christ, -who hold, believe and teach the above-mentioned articles and provisions -[of the Schwabach Confession], and who, on this account, are persecuted -and tormented in the world. For where the Gospel is preached and the -sacraments rightly used, there is the holy Christian Church, bound by no -laws and outward pomp to place or time, persons or ceremonies.”—“Thus -did the Evangelical idea of the Church,” so we read in Köstlin-Kawerau, -“find expression once and for all in the fundamental confessions of -Protestantism, faith in Christ being identified with faith in the said -‘articles and provisions.’”[1157] - - In the “Augsburg Confession” of 1530—“which Confession,” according - to Luther, “was to last till the end of the world and the Last - Judgment”[1158]—we read: “The Church is the mateship of the saints - (‘_congregatio sanctorum_’) in which the Evangel is rightly taught - and the sacraments rightly dispensed.”[1159] The “Apologia” to this - Confession contains the following: “The Church is not merely a - commonwealth of outward things and rites like other institutions, - but it is rather a society of hearts in faith and the Holy Ghost. - She has, however, outward signs by which she may be known, viz. - the pure doctrine of the Gospel and a dispensing of the sacraments - in accordance with Christ’s Gospel.”[1160] Of “Church government” - the Confession of Augsburg states: “Concerning the government of - the Church we hold that no one may teach publicly or dispense the - sacraments without being duly called”; this is further explained - in the “Apologia”: “The Church has the command of God to appoint - preachers.”[1161] - - Regarding the same matter the Schmalkalden Articles of 1537-1538, - which also form a part of the “Symbolic Books,” have the following: - “The Churches must have power to call, choose and ordain the ministers - of the Church, and such power is in fact bestowed on the Church by God - … just as, in case of necessity, even a layman can absolve another and - become his pastor.… The words of Peter: ‘You are a kingly priesthood’ - refer only to the true Church, which, since she alone has the - priesthood, must also have the power to choose and ordain ministers. - To this the general usage of the Churches also bears witness.”[1162] - -When the above was penned, indeed, even when Melanchthon wrote the -“_Confessio Augustana_,” the new Church, though theoretically invisible, -had long since received an established outward form. Yet its invisibility -is emphasised in the Schwabach Articles which reject such outward laws as -are inconsistent with the Church’s character; the Confession and Apologia -also refer to the (ghostly) union of hearts in the faith, and to the -assembly of the (unknown) saints. - -Nevertheless the visibility, so strongly insisted on in the Schmalkalden -Articles, was practically indispensable, and was also a logical result of -the whole work undertaken by Luther. - -First of all it was called for by the very nature of this “ministry” -of those who were to preach and to dispense the sacraments in the name -of the congregation; according to Luther’s teaching, the dispensing of -the sacraments went hand in hand with preaching, the sacraments being -efficacious only through the faith of the recipient, and the dispenser’s -duty being confined to making the recipient more worthy of the inpouring -of grace through the word of faith which accompanies the visible sign of -the sacrament. The ministerial “office” was not conferred by a sacrament -as was the case in the priestly ordination of the olden Church, but, -as Luther teaches, “ordination, if understood aright, is no more than -being called or ‘ordered’ to the office of parson or preacher.” Among -the Papists “Baptism and Christ had been weakened and darkened” by the -ordinations. “We are born priests and as such we want to be known.” “By -Holy Baptism we have become the true priests of Christendom as St. Peter -says: ‘You are a royal priesthood.’”[1163] Ministers (i.e. servants) of -the Word was the proper title for those who performed all their functions -in the name of the common priesthood of the whole people. - -As soon, however, as it became a question of appointing preachers a -visible Church at once appeared on the scene, though one without either -Pope or hierarchy. - -It may be recalled that Luther’s plan was originally to leave it to -each congregation to appoint a preacher either from its own body or an -outsider, who was then to act in their name and with their authority. -There seemed no better way of securing control over the preacher’s -doctrine. As for the ecclesiastical penalties, Luther, even in his -“Deudsche Messe,” left their use to the congregation as a whole.[1164] -At a later date he still clung to the idea of the ecclesiastical -jurisdiction of the congregation. Even to absolve from sin belonged, -in his opinion,—and to this he adhered to the end,—to all believers, -and such absolution was as valid as had it been pronounced by God -Himself (always assuming that faith had already been awakened in the -penitent).[1165] On the authority of the congregation was to rest, not -only the lower ministry, but also the quasi-episcopate. The scheme he -sketched in 1523 in the Latin work he addressed to the Bohemians, “_De -instituendis ministris ecclesiæ_,” has already been described.[1166] - -The many abuses which arose, and indeed were bound to arise, from the -independence of the congregations soon compelled him to cast about for a -more reliable framework. The phantom of a community of believers united -in spirit, of a “brotherhood” minus any social or constitutional cohesion -and devoid of any vigorous direction, proved incapable of realisation. - -Help was to be looked for only from the State. - -By clinging to its solid structure the religious innovations would -have a chance of avoiding the conventicle system and the danger of -its congregations falling asunder. The tendency to drift towards the -State was also promoted by the opposition of the fanatical Anabaptists, -for this sect was a menace to order in the congregations owing to its -excesses and also to the pertinacity with which, following out Luther’s -own teaching, it insisted on individualism and repudiated the “office” -of the ministry. Not only did Luther, after the rise of the Anabaptists, -emphasise the outward rather than the inward Word, but, for the same -reason, he also laid much greater stress than formerly on the “office” -and on the external representation of the Church’s members—invisibly -united by the faith—by duly called officials. - -Thus, the Church, whose invisibility and spirituality Luther had been so -fond of emphasising, became, in course of time, more and more a visible -and concrete body, though remaining closely bound up with the State. Yet, -even in Luther’s earlier views on the Church, certain indications pointed -to the visible Church yet to come; indeed the ideas he retained from -Catholic days were to prove stronger than he then anticipated. - -Of a statement contained in “_De servo arbitrio_” (1525), a book written -after the rise of the Anabaptist subjectivism, Möhler justly remarks: -“This passage views the clergy as the representatives of the Church which -is thus quite visible; professing the faith of the invisible Church and -expressing its mind, this Church has a definite doctrinal standpoint -which she advocates through her clergy, and, which, as the dictum of the -Saints, she regards as true and infallible. Hence the visible Church -appears as the expression and facsimile of the invisible Church.”[1167] - -Already in his books against Alveld and Catharinus Luther was at pains -to insist that the Church which he taught was a real community living -on earth in the flesh, though not tied down to any definite place or -persons.[1168] Wavering and confusion, here as elsewhere, characterise -Luther’s teaching. - -We can understand how his Catholic opponents, for instance Staphylus, -make much of the change from the visible to the invisible Church. -Staphylus dubs those who persisted in advocating her invisibility, the -“_Invisibiles_,” such being the followers of Flacius, Schwenckfeld and -Osiander, and also the Anabaptists.[1169] - -It is a fact that Melanchthon, particularly in his later years, insists -on the Church as an institution and on her visible nature more than -Luther does. The centuriators defined the Church as “_cœtus visibilis_” -and, after Chemnitz’s day (†1586), the Church of the Lutheran theologians -is something quite visible, and is spoken of as an institution for the -preservation and promotion of pure doctrine and of the means of grace -which work by faith.[1170] - -Nor can the Wittenberg view of the Church be taken otherwise when we -see how the theologians of that town in Luther’s own time proceeded in -appointing ministers and controlling and supervising their office. The -preachers and pastors, after their doctrine had been found consonant with -that of Wittenberg,[1171] were “entrusted with the ministry” though it -is not apparent whether the authorisation came from the congregations -who applied for them, or from the theological examiners, or from the -sovereign and his mixed consistory. The formulas used are by no means -clear, save on one point, viz. that they expressly claim for the -Wittenbergers the character of a true “Catholic Church,” or at least -their harmony with such a Church. - - In the ordination-certificate of Heinrich Bock (above, p. 265), who - received a call as pastor and Superintendent to Reval, the quondam - city of the Teutonic Order in Esthland, and who had been “ordained” - on April 25, 1540, by Bugenhagen, the pastor of Wittenberg, we find - it stated: “His doctrine tallies with the consensus of the Catholic - Church which our Church also holds, and he is free from every kind - of fanaticism condemned by the Catholic Church of Christ.”[1172] - Hence they claimed to be one with the universal Church throughout the - world and not to form an isolated community apart; this, as we know, - was Melanchthon’s favourite view. The olden hierarchy was, however, - replaced by that of Wittenberg, as we read in the same certificate: - “We”—the signatories, Luther, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Melanchthon—“have - entrusted him with the ministry of the Church, that he may teach the - Gospel and dispense the sacraments instituted by Christ,” “_iuxta - vocationem_,” i.e. in accordance with the call of the authorities - at Reval who had summoned the ordinand to govern their Church (“_ad - gubernationem ecclesiæ suæ_”). The testimonial was the work of - Melanchthon. - - Other testimonials of this kind are similarly worded. - - The certificate of Johann Fischer who went from Wittenberg to - Rudolstadt in 1540 (above, p. 265) sets forth that “he had been called - to the ministry of the Gospel by the people there, who had also borne - witness to his good moral character”; they had asked that “his call - might be reinforced by public ordination”; this had been conferred on - him when it had been shown that he held “the pure, Catholic doctrine - of the Gospel which our Church also teaches and professes,” and that - he rejected all the fanatical opinions which the Catholic Church of - Christ rejects.[1173] The statement embodied in the testimonial, - giving the grounds on which the signatories, the pastor of Wittenberg - and other “ministers of the Gospel,” undertook such an ordination is - noteworthy: “We may not refuse to do our duty to the neighbouring - Churches for the Nicene Council made the godly rule that ordination - should be requested of the neighbouring Churches.” Of the objections - that theology and Canon Law might have raised those who drafted the - document seem to have no inkling. - - In this case the Wittenbergers claim to be no more than a - “neighbouring Church”; elsewhere they are more ambitious. - -The fact is, Wittenberg was anxious to stand at the head of the visible -Church. - -It was at Wittenberg that Luther, as the leader of the young Church, -had first preached the truth of the Gospel urged thereto “by Divine -command”; on the strength of such a command he was compelled to defend -himself against the Elector’s lawyers who wanted to play havoc with “his -Church.”[1174] - -“By divine authority we have begun to ameliorate the world.”[1175] - -Foes at home twitted him with setting up an “office of the Word” by -which an end was made of all freedom; they urged, that, at Wittenberg, -people were trying to “breathe new life into despotism, to seat -themselves in the chair and to exercise compulsion just as the Pope -had done heretofore.”[1176] Luther proclaims loudly: “We, who preach -the Evangel, have full powers to ordain; the Pope and the bishops can -ordain no one.”[1177]—“You are a bishop,” said Luther once jokingly to -a Superintendent, “just as I am Pope.”[1178] Beneath the jest there lay -bitter earnest, for the authority of the “Wittenberg school” in Luther’s -estimation stood high indeed; whoever “despises it, so long as the Church -and school remain as they are, is a heretic and a bad man,” seeing that, -in this school, God has “revealed His Word.”[1179]—Nevertheless, the -Wittenberg theologians complained that this authority was not recognised, -that the Church was a “spectacle of woe,” without “oneness either in -doctrine or in worship”; “our princes and cities” ought to bring about -unity. Moreover things are bound to grow worse, seeing that “each one -wants to be his own Rabbi.”[1180] Outside Wittenberg, and even within -the city walls, and that even in Luther’s time, the prediction of Duke -George about the 72 sects of the Protestant Babel seemed about to be -fulfilled.[1181] - -Yet Luther, in setting up the Wittenberg Primacy, retained his -former principles which were altogether at variance with unity and -subordination. “Who holds the public office of preacher,” so he declared -in 1531, is not “forbidden to judge of doctrine” (before this, as the -reader may remember, every “miller’s maid” had been free to do this); but -whoever has no such office may not do so, because he would be acting “of -his own doctrine and spirit.”[1182] - -Where is your office? Such was his question in 1525 to his opponent -Carlstadt. The latter appealed to the call he had received from the -congregation of Orlamünde. But of this Luther even then refuses to -hear. He required from Carlstadt, in addition, the ratification of the -sovereign, viz. of the Saxon Elector. - -Even in those days he was most anxious to see Church discipline -established and excommunication resorted to, even though this involved -making the Church something visible; the disruption and confusion -everywhere rampant cried aloud for regulations, laws and penalties.[1183] -“Such punishment and discipline through the Ban,” so he says, “is -utterly odious to the world and causes the faithful ministers much work -and danger; for vice has already grown into a habit; it is no longer -a sin; the ungodly have power, riches and position on their side. The -greater the rascal the better his luck.”[1184] Yet, according to him it -was impossible for the Church to make laws, otherwise we would again be -putting up “snares for consciences” as in Popery.[1185] Laws must be -made only by the sovereigns—whatever discipline was enforced against the -unruly was enforced by the secular authorities. “The most the parsons -did for discipline was in following out the Electoral instructions to -the Visitors and denouncing offenders to the secular officials and -judges.”[1186] Of the “blasphemers,” viz. those who were obstinate or -opposed the New Evangel, Luther wrote in 1529 to Thomas Löscher, parson -of Milau: “They must be forced to attend the preaching,” needless to say -by temporal penalties; in this way they will be taught the obedience they -owe as citizens and also their duty to the State, “whether they believe -in the Evangel or not.… If they wish to live among the people, then they -must learn the laws of the people, even though unwillingly.”[1187] Hence -here and in other instructions it is no longer a question of the Church -but only of the sovereigns; these, so he urged, were to be backed by the -preachers. He praised the Bohemian Brethren and the Swiss for having -better discipline in their Churches, he also admitted that the action of -the authorities would not of itself alone be sufficient to correct grave -moral disorders.[1188] - -“Unless the Court gives its support to our regulations,” Melanchthon once -said, the result will be mere “platonic laws.”[1189] - -References such as these to the State, which was now seen to be necessary -for the support of the Church when once it had become a visible -body,[1190] are to be met with repeatedly by anyone who follows the -history of Lutheranism in its beginnings, more particularly in the years -1525-1528. It was during this period that the union of the new Church -with the State, which has been described above, was accomplished. The -sovereign arrogated to himself those powers which gradually made him the -supreme head of the Church and permanent “emergency-bishop.”[1191] The -visibility of the Church, or rather Churches—as all claim to catholicity -was abandoned save in the credal formularies—rested on the enactments of -the rulers, who, not without Luther’s connivance, soon introduced the -compulsory element into religion. To make use of the invisible power of -the Gospel and to give advice to consciences as to moral conduct, was -indeed left to the ministers of the Word. But it was the State that had -to establish “the right form of worship and the right ecclesiastical -organisation.”[1192] - -All heretical communities from the commencement of the Church had looked -to the State for help. But no heresiarch ever put himself so completely -in the hands of the State in all outward matters as Luther and his -fellows did where princes of their own party were concerned. “The common -Christian Church” was, according to him, to retain for herself only the -true faith and the sacraments which worked by faith. - -When, in the State Church thus called into being, the authorities -proceeded too vigorously against the preachers and treated Luther -without due consideration, the latter had himself a taste of the state -of servitude into which he had brought the Church. Döllinger says truly -that this restriction must have been “doubly irksome to a man who had -known the old episcopal, ecclesiastical rule and who now had to admit to -himself that it was he who had brought about the destruction of a system -which, in spite of all its defects, had dealt with Church matters in an -ecclesiastical spirit, and that it was he who had paved the way for the -new and quite unecclesiastical order of things.”[1193] - -Not seldom do we hear Luther reproaching himself bitterly for the changes. - -Among the thoughts that chiefly disturbed his conscience was, as he -himself repeatedly admits, that of having rent asunder the great -Church. How can you justify your revolt against the one great Church -of antiquity, the heir to the promises, so the inner voices said to -him as he himself relates: “The words ‘_sancta ecclesia_’ affright a -man. They rise up and say: ‘Preach and act as you like and can, the -‘_ecclesia christiana_’ is still here. Here is the bark of Peter, it -may be tossed about on the waves, but perish it will not!…’ What was I -to do? And how was I to comfort myself?… And yet I had to do it [i.e. -preach against this Church] as here [John viii. 28] the Lord Christ also -does and preaches against those who in name are God’s Kingdom and God’s -priesthood.”[1194] - -Elsewhere he admits: “What am I doing in preaching against such -[representatives of the olden Church], like a pupil against his masters? -Thoughts such as these storm in upon me: Now I see that I am in the -wrong; oh, that I had never begun, never preached a single word! For -who is allowed to set himself up against the Church?… It is hard to -persist and to preach against such a Ban.”[1195]—And yet, in his defiant -spirit, he does persist: “This hits one smartly in the face, as has -often happened to me … yet the One Man, my Beloved Lord and Healer Jesus -Christ, is more to me than all the holiest people on earth.” Since he -thinks it is His Evangel he is defending, he is able, though only at -great costs, “to rise above the cry of ‘Church, Church,’” though he has -to admit that, “this troubles me greatly,” and “it is truly a hard thing -… to leave the Church herself and not to believe or trust her doctrine -any more.”[1196] - -It was no real parallel when Luther, in order to justify the State -Church, appealed to the conditions in the Middle Ages where the rulers -had a share in Church matters,[1197] for if then the princes had -intervened in Church matters their action, at least in principle, was -always subordinate to the ecclesiastical authority which kept the power -in its own hands, and concerned moreover only those outward things in -which the Church was thankful for their assistance: The two co-ordinate -powers, the secular and the spiritual, helped one another mutually—such -at least was the ideal of world-government in those days,—acting in -Christian agreement in the service of God and for the general welfare of -mankind. Now, however, that the olden spiritual authority had been either -completely paralysed or reduced to the shadow of its former self, Luther -undertook to replace it by the State, and thus the Church ceased to be -any longer a co-ordinate power. - -Though the Wittenberg theologians insisted that to them belonged the -care of souls and this alone, still the limits between this domain and -that of the State became everywhere confused when once the new system -had begun to work. Owing to the friction this caused, Luther, in the -course of time, came to emphasise merely the duty of the authorities to -arrange by law for the establishment of “schools and pulpits,” and to -“allow us divergency in preaching or morals.”[1198] Otherwise he left -those in power, the high-handed nobles and officials, to do as they -pleased, or, else, he lashed them ineffectually with violent and abusive -language. In 1586 he declared, speaking of the marriage questions: -“The peasants and the rude people who seek nothing but the freedom of -the flesh, and likewise the lawyers who are always bent on thwarting -our decisions, have wearied me so greatly that I have thrown aside the -marriage cases and written to some that they may do as they please in -the name of all the devils; let the dead bury their dead.”[1199] It -was chiefly in the matter of these matrimonial cases that he came into -conflict with the Court lawyers, e.g. as to the validity of the secret -marriage contracts. It was in this connection that he declared that, “in -his Church,” which was God’s own institution, he would retain in his -own hands the decision on such matters by virtue of his ecclesiastical -office. In other strong remonstrances wrung from him by the arbitrary -interference of the State officials and the nobles in Church matters, -he sometimes spoke so strongly of the inalienable rights of the Church -that one might well think that he regarded the Church as essentially an -independent institution with an organisation and spiritual authority of -its own.[1200] More usually, however, he simply sighs. When the Court -of Dresden interfered with his plans for the improvement of Church -discipline he wrote resignedly: “Satan is still Satan. Under the Pope he -pushed the Church into the world’s sphere and now, in our day, he seeks -to bring the State system into the Church.”[1201] - - * * * * * - -Without reverting to the subject of the State and Established Church -already dealt with (vol. v., 568 ff.) we may refer to the close -connection between Luther’s theology on the Church and the development -which was its outcome. His theology, from the outset, had aimed at -undermining the authority of the Church, while at the same time enlarging -the sphere of the secular power. - - As early as 1520 in his work addressed to the German nobility he had - praised the secular lords as “priests like us, equal in all things”; - “they were to give free scope to the office and work which they have - from God, wherever it is needed or useful.” Of the clergy, without - considering their authority in ecclesiastical matters, he writes: - “The priests, bishops or popes must deal with the Word of God and the - sacraments, this is their work and office.”[1202] - - “The direction of the outward business of the Church, i.e. what we - now term Church government,” so Sehling, the Protestant Professor - of Canon Law, says, “Luther in his writing to the German nobility, - and ever after, attributes directly to the worldly authorities.… Nor, - above all, does he claim for the Church any power of legislating. The - Reformed Canon Law, so far as it was reorganised legislatively, was - based entirely on the code of the State.”[1203] - - Luther, in fact, recognised no other authority throughout the whole of - the social order than that of the State; nowhere excepting amongst the - secular authorities was there, according to him, any real power; there - is on earth only one power, viz. the secular. “Worldly superiors, by - virtue of their calling, maintain order and rule according to law and - equity; as for the Church she has, by God’s ordinance, her common - ministry of Word and Sacrament.”[1204] “The power of the Churches,” - says the Schwabach Visitation Convention of 1528, “only extends to the - choosing of ministers and the enforcing of the Christian Ban”; besides - this they may also provide for the care of the poor; “all other power - belongs either to Christ in heaven or to the secular authorities on - earth.”[1205] - - Nor could he well recognise any apostolic teaching authority in the - “higher orders of the Church,” seeing that a “little maid of seven - years” on the side of the New Faith “knows more than the Apostles, - Evangelists and Prophets” on the other side; the latter are but the - “devil’s apostles, evangelists and prophets.”[1206] - - How he casts aside all the authority of the Church is perhaps shown - most plainly in the short Theses of 1530 in his writing “Ettlich - Artickelstück, so M. L. erhalten wil wider die gantze Satans Schüle - uñ alle Pforten der Hellen”: “The Christian Church has no power to - issue the least order concerning good works, never has done so and - never will.” “The parson or bishop [i.e. the Evangelical ministers] - has not the right to assert his authority everywhere for he is not - the Christian Church. Such parson or bishop may exhort his Church - to sanction certain fasts, prayers, holidays, etc., on account of - the present needs, to be observed for a time and then be allowed to - drop.”[1207]—But what the Evangelical ministers cannot do, that the - secular authorities may do, for, in another passage, Luther points out - expressly the binding character of the rules which the authorities - might draw up, for instance regarding fasts; should the sovereign - order fast-days, everyone must obey. In the same way if the German - Prince-Bishops gave such an order it was to be obeyed, but only - because they were Princes, not because they were bishops.[1208] During - the Diet of Augsburg he refused to admit that, in future, there - should be bishops having at the same time princely powers. On the - other hand, however, he himself made the princes to all intents and - purposes bishops. - - The contradiction in which he here involves himself has been brought - out very strongly by a recent historian and theologian who as a rule - is on Luther’s side: “To our mind there is a glaring contradiction - between Luther’s theses on the spirituality of faith and the rights of - the Christian authorities. Luther never noticed this contradiction, - and, all his life, stood for both simultaneously. … From the religious - standpoint he advocates the principle of unlimited freedom as inherent - in the nature of faith; in the secular sphere, i.e. in the domain of - the State, he is unwilling to overthrow the principle shared by all - [?] in his day, viz. that the authorities have a right to assist in - deciding on public worship and doctrine; in the rightful domain of - the worldly authorities his controversies have no right to intervene. - Hence the contradiction.”[1209] “Luther, who, where the peasants are - concerned, plays the part of Evangelist, refuses to tamper anywhere - with the existing [?] laws of the State where it is a question of - their lords.”[1210] - - Here Luther’s fundamental idea of the separation between Church and - world also comes into play. - - The Church of his theology must necessarily be absorbed by the State, - because, being a stranger to the world, it was not conversant with the - conditions and, even with the best will in the world, was unable to - hold its own against the visible powers. The spiritual rule, according - to him, was to be as widely sundered from the secular “as the heavens - are from the earth.”[1211] Thus the Church fled into a spirit realm - and left the world to the tender mercies of the secular power. She - thus became herself the cause of her “alienation and isolation from - real life.”[1212] It naturally, indeed necessarily, followed that - the sovereign set up government departments, which called themselves - spiritual, but which in reality were secular and derived all their - jurisdiction from him alone. Such were the consistories. - -The relations between State and Church in Lutheranism may be regarded -as an indirect justification of the Catholic doctrine of the Church’s -nature. According to the Catholic view Christ founded the sublime -structure of the Church as a free spiritual society. He willed that the -saving grace he had won by His Death should be applied to the souls of -men by means of a visible and independent institution, which, inspired by -Him with His own ideal and holy aims and equipped with her own peculiar -rights, should work for the salvation of mankind until the end of the -world. Hence, the advocates of the olden Church not only set the idea of -the Church in the foreground of the struggle, but they also explored, -enlarged on and illumined this idea with the help of Holy Scripture and -the teaching of the Fathers. Such was the work of men like Eck, Cochlæus, -Johann Fabri, Bishop of Vienna, and Catharinus, and, in the same century, -of Melchior Canus, Peter Canisius, Bellarmine and Stapleton. They indeed -allowed the inward side of the Church—its soul as it has been called—to -come into its rights, but, at the same time, they maintained with equal -firmness its thoroughly visible character, above all they insisted on the -hierarchy with the successor of St. Peter at its head as the holder of -the threefold spiritual power—which Luther denied—of shepherd, teacher -and priest. On this point there could be no yielding. - -To those adherents of Luther’s who fancied they could reach union without -the Church’s help and without an entire acceptance of the Catholic -doctrine, Eck addressed the following: “There is no middle course and -words are of no avail; whoever wishes to make himself one in faith with -the Catholic Church must submit to the Pope and the Councils and believe -what the Roman Church teaches; all else is wind and vapour, though one -should go on disputing for a hundred years.”[1213] - -What the above Catholic polemics said may be summed up as follows:— - - Because the Church, according to Christ’s plan, was to be an - independent and living institution, His future “kingdom” and “heavenly - vineyard,” it replaced the Jewish synagogue by an even better - institution. This Church was to be indestructible and the gates of - hell were not to prevail against her (Matt. xvi. 18). - - As a real institution the Church was marked out by the gifts bestowed - on it at the outset by the Divine Founder; out of the plenitude of - the power He possessed “in heaven and on earth” He created in her a - real, and no mere phantom office, comprising ghostly superiors, viz. - the “_ministerium ecclesiasticum_”; hence a twofold society arose - consisting of those whose duty it is to guide and those who are - guided. The latter receive from the former, i.e. from the hierarchy - of priests, bishops and Pope, viz. the successor of Peter, the - doctrine handed down by Christ, and preserved intact and infallible, - together with Holy Scripture and its true reading. Those who have the - oversight over the rest admit the faithful into the sacred company by - means of visible rites, and, thanks to the obedience they receive as - God’s representatives, there results “a body” of faithful united with - Christ, the One True Head. - - It was to this hierarchy that, according to the Catholic theologians, - the solemn words of Christ were spoken: “He that heareth you heareth - Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me” (Luke x. 16). “Go ye and - teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the - Son and of the Holy Ghost … and lo I am with you all days even to the - consummation of the world” (Matt. xxviii. 19 f.). The “Keys of the - Kingdom of Heaven” are entrusted to them and they are told: “Amen I - say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also - in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed - also in heaven” (Matt. xviii. 18). They may “command” as Paul did, who - journeyed from place to place and “commanded them to keep the precepts - of the apostles and the ancients” (Acts xv. 41). Peter, moreover, and - his successors, received the right and duty to feed “the sheep” as - well as the “lambs” (John xxi. 16), besides the especial custody of - the keys (Matt. xvi. 19); on him and on his God-given constancy the - Church of Christ was built (Matt. xvi. 18). - - The Holy Ghost “placed” the bishops “to rule the Church of God” (Acts - xx. 28). Whoever “will not hear the Church” is shut out from salvation - and is to be regarded “as the heathen and publican” (Matt. xviii. 17). - - Nowhere in these passages, so it was pointed out, is there ever a word - about the secular power having any hand in the growth of the great - society of God upon earth. Nor could Christ, in view of the object to - which He had founded His Church, without proving untrue to Himself, - have left behind Him a helpless and unfinished work, dependent for its - very life on the discretion of the secular authorities and taking its - laws from the State. The Church’s four marks (above, p. 295) point to - something higher. - - Even did Luther wish to disregard the words of institution, he should - at least, so it was urged, not shut his eyes to history; now, from - the earliest historical times, the Church had always existed under - the form of a society, i.e. divided into the two categories of the - teachers and the taught. Even according to Protestant writers this - form may be traced back at least as far as the 2nd century, and, to - an unprejudiced eye, its traces will be discernible even earlier in - the authentic sources, i.e. the Bible and history. None, however, - was better fitted to bear witness to the earliest organisation of - the Church than the Church herself, for she could do so out of the - unbroken and untarnished consciousness of her existence; her testimony - confirms her Divine appointment to be an independent society and a - hierarchically governed institution. - -Lutheranism, however, took scant notice of these Biblical and historical -proofs.[1214] Its founder, at the end of his life, left it as his -legacy a church, or rather churches, of a different structure. In the -evening of his days, in spite of the hopeless and imperilled state of -his congregations, he refused to admit any gleam of light that might -have brought him back to the unwavering authority of the ancient Church -which once, in the days of his crisis, he had extolled. By heavenly -signs and wonders, so he had pointed out in his Commentary on Romans -(1516), this Church was introduced into the world; she is the mother of -those who teach; to her decision every doctrine must bow if it is not -to become a heresy, “robbed of the witness of God and of that divinely -authenticated authority” which “down to the present day supports the -Roman Church.”[1215] - -Since he had descended into the arena of controversy his attitude -towards the dogma of the Church had become not so much a matter of -doctrine (for the essential question was, as Köstlin aptly remarks, “very -insufficiently grasped and explained by him”[1216]) as one of policy. - - -5. Luther’s Tactics in Questions concerning the Church - -Both for Luther’s views on doctrine and for his psychology his tactics -in his controversy about the nature of the Church offer matter for -consideration. - -Controversy, as we know, tended to accentuate his peculiarities. His -talents, his gift of swift perception, his skill for vivid description, -his art of exploiting every advantage to the delight of the masses -were all of value to him. What he wrote when not under the stress of -controversy lacked these advantages, advantages, moreover, which, for the -most part, were merely superficial, and sometimes, when he was in the -wrong, display a very unpleasing side. - - -_The Erfurt Preachers in a Tight Place_ - -In 1536 Luther took a hand in a controversy which had arisen at Erfurt -as to whether the “true Church was there,” and whether his preachers, -who represented the Church and were being persecuted by some of the Town -Council, should leave the town.[1217] - - As early as 1527 he had had occasion to complain of the Erfurt - Councillors; they had not the courage “to go to the root of the - matter”; they tolerated the “dissensions” in the town arising from - the divergent preaching of the “Evangelicals” and the “Papists,” - instead of “making all the preachers dispute together and silencing - those who could not make good their cause.”[1218] Since the Convention - of Hamelburg in 1530[1219] both forms of worship had been tolerated - in the town. To the great vexation of Johann Lang and the other - preachers the quick-witted Franciscan, Conrad Kling, an Erfurt Doctor - of Theology (above, vol. v., p. 341), delivered in the Spitalkirche - sermons which were so well attended that the audience overflowed - even into the churchyard. Catholic citizens of standing in the town - and possessed of influence over the Council, spread the report that - the Lutheran preachers were intruders who had no legitimate mission - or call, and had not even been validly appointed by the Council. In - consequence of this, Luther, with Melanchthon and Jonas, addressed - a circular letter in 1533 to his old friend Lang and the latter’s - colleagues, in which he encourages them to stand firm and not to quit - the town; he points out that their call, in spite of all that was - alleged, had been “with the knowledge of the magistracy,” and not the - result of “intrigue.”[1220] It is plain from this letter that the - tables had to some extent been turned on Lang and his followers who - had once behaved in so high-handed a manner at Erfurt,[1221] and that - they were now tasting “want and misery” as well as contempt. In vain - did the preachers attempt to shake off the authority of the Council by - claiming to hold their commission from God. - - Some while after, owing to the further efforts of Kling and his - friends, the situation of the Lutherans became even worse; it was then - that Frederick Myconius, Superintendent at Gotha, took their side and - persuaded Luther to write the above memorandum of Aug. 22(?), 1536, on - the True Church of Christ at Erfurt. This was signed by Melanchthon, - Bugenhagen, Jonas and Myconius, and may have been the latter’s - work. The document is highly characteristic of Luther’s tactics in - the shifty character of the proofs adduced to prove the call of - the Erfurt pastors. It did not succeed in inducing the Council to - grant the preachers independence or to abrogate the restrictions of - which they complained, although, as Enders remarks, “it exalted the - spiritual power as supreme over the secular.”[1222] - - There can be no doubt, so Luther argues, that, among his followers in - the town of Erfurt, there was indeed the true “Holy Catholic Church, - the Bride of Christ,” for they possessed the true Word and the true - Sacraments. God had indeed “sent down on the people of Erfurt the Holy - Ghost, Who worked in some of them a knowledge of tongues, discernment - of spirits,” etc. (1 Cor. xii. 10), in the same way He had given them - Evangelists, teachers, interpreters and everything necessary for the - upbringing of His Body (Eph. iv. 11 f.). He urges that the ministers - of the Word were rightly appointed, though here he does not appeal - as much as usual, to the supposed validity of the call by the Town - Council, as the whole trouble had its source in the town magistracy. - The appointment of the preachers, so he now says, was the duty of the - Church rather than of the magistrates; the Town Council had given them - the call only in its capacity as a “member of the Church,” for which - reason their dismissal or persecution was quite unjustifiable. He - also brings forward other personal, mystic grounds for the validity - of their call: they were “very learned men and full of all grace”; - the appointment, which they had received not only from the “people - and the Church, but also from the supreme authority,” had taken place - under the breath of the Spirit (“_impetu quodam spiritus_”) Who had - sent them as reapers into the harvest; they are recognised by all - the Churches abroad, even the most important, and no less do their - sheep hear their voice. Hence, if some of the magistrates now refuse - to recognise them, they must simply appeal to their calling “by the - Holy Ghost and the Church”; the efficient cause here is, and remains, - Christ, Who gives the Church her authority. Hence at all costs they - must stick to their post. - - The whole of the extremely involved explanation points to the reaction - now taking place in his mind owing to his bitter experiences with the - authorities in the question of Church government. - - In this frame of mind he often makes the call depend solely on the - Church, nay, on Christ Himself. If the Courts are to rule as they - please, so he wrote in the midst of one of these conflicts with the - authorities, the last state of things will be worse than the first. - They ought to leave the Churches to the care of those to whom they - have been committed and who will have to render an account to God. - Hence Luther urges that the two callings be kept separate.[1223] - - What is also noteworthy in the memorandum for the people of Erfurt - is that, in order to defend the legal standing of the preachers, - he insists on the fact of their having been recognised by their - congregation, who are willing to listen to them as their shepherds. - Here we have the revival of an old idea of his, viz. that the - soul-herd was really appointed by the people and in their name. - In his later years he tended to revert to this view, though, in - reality, the people never had a say in the matter. After having, in - 1542, consecrated Amsdorf as “Bishop” of Naumburg, in the ensuing - controversies he referred to the will of the “Church,” i.e. of the - Naumburg Lutherans. “All depends,” so he wrote, “whether the Church - and the Bishop are at one, and whether the Church will listen to the - Bishop and the Bishop will teach the Church. This is exemplified - here.”[1224] - - -_Controversies with the Catholics on the Question of the Church_ - -In what Luther wrote against the Catholics we occasionally meet some fine -sayings on the unfettered authority of the Church in its relations to the -secular rulers,[1225] so greatly was his versatile mind governed by the -spirit of opportunism. - - It was from motives of expediency that, in 1529, in his “Vom - Kriege widder die Türcken” he makes out Emperors and kings to be - no protectors of the Church; these worldly powers are “as a rule - the worst foes of Christendom and the faith.” “The Emperor’s sword - has nothing to do with the faith, but only with bodily and worldly - affairs.”[1226] It must be remembered that he wrote this just before - the dreaded Diet of Augsburg.—Again, in 1545, in the Theses against - the “Theologists of Louvain” who had requested the State to protect - the Catholic faith as heretofore, Luther says: “It is not the duty of - Kings and Princes to confirm right doctrine; they have themselves to - bow to it and obey it as the Word of God and God Himself.”[1227]—If - the “Emperor’s sword” and the “Kings and Princes” had been on his - side, then his language would have been quite different. As it was, - however, whenever he thought it might prove useful, he was not - unwilling to come back even later to the standpoint of his writing - “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”[1228] - - When the Catholics, for instance at the Diet of Augsburg, reproached - his party with having completely secularised the Church and with - prohibiting Catholic worship with the help of the Princes who favoured - him, his replies were eminently characteristic both of his temper and - his mode of controversy. - - He knew very well, so he wrote in 1530, “that the Prince’s office - and the preacher’s are not one and the same, and that the Prince as - such ought not to do this [i.e. prohibit the Mass].” But in this the - Prince was acting, not as a Prince, but as a Christian. It is also - “a different thing whether a Prince ought to preach or whether he - ought to consent to the preaching. It is not the Prince, but rather - Scripture, that prohibits ‘winkle-masses’”; if a Prince chose to take - the side of Scripture that was his own business.[1229] - - Another answer of Luther’s was to the effect that the abominations of - Catholic worship which were being abolished by the secular authorities - were, after all, outward things, and that the power of the sovereign - without a doubt stretched over “_res externæ_.”[1230] - - Of these attempts at justification and of his doctrine of the Church - in general, Köstlin’s observations hold good: “We cannot escape the - fact that, here, there is much vacillation and that Luther stands - in danger of contradicting himself.” “We must admit that he had not - studied deeply enough the questions arising out of the relations of - the authorities to matters ecclesiastical.”[1231] “The decision [of - the sovereigns] as to what constituted right doctrine was final as - regards the substance of the preaching in their lands.” “A nobleman - who had received orders from his sovereign, the Duke of Saxony, to - expel the Evangelical preachers, was told by Luther—though what - he said was undeniably at variance with other utterances—that the - sovereign had no right to do this because God’s command obliged him to - rule only in secular and not in spiritual concerns.” “In fact the only - answer he could give to the Popish persecutors when they alleged they - were forced by _their_ office and conscience to act as they did was: - ‘What is that to me?’ for it was clear enough that they were using - their authority wantonly.”[1232] - - But how are we to explain his apparent readiness at the time of the - Diet of Augsburg in 1530 to recognise the olden Church, and the power - of the bishops, and even himself to submit to them if only they - would allow him and his followers freedom to preach the Evangel? The - statements to this effect in his “Vermanug” of this year have been - widely misunderstood through being taken apart from their setting. He - does not for a moment imagine, as he has been falsely credited with - doing, that it was not “his vocation to found a new Church separate - from Catholicism”; neither has he any desire to remain united with his - foes “in one communion under the Catholic bishops.” - - Luther, as he here says, is only willing, “for the sake of peace, to - allow the bishops to be princes and lords,” and this only on condition - that “they help to administer the Evangel”—i.e. take his part; in - that case they “would be free to appoint clerics to the parishes - and pulpits.” His offer is, “that we and the preachers should teach - the Evangel in your stead,” and “that you should back us by means - of your episcopal powers; only your personal mode of life and your - princely state would we leave to your conscience and to the judgment - of God.”[1233] In the meantime, on account of the Catholic faith - to which they clung, he calls them “foes of God,” speaks of their - “anti-Christian bishopry,” and, because of the infringements of the - law of celibacy, scourges them as the “greatest whoremongers and - panders upon earth.”[1234] - -In his controversies with the Catholics he often enough found himself -faced by the objection, that the true Church could not be with him, -because on his side all the fruits of holiness were wanting; the Church -being essentially holy should needs be able to point to her good -influence on morals. - - Thus, for instance, a Dominican adversary had written: According to - Luther the Gospel had been under the bench for the last four hundred - years; but, now, surely enough, “it is under the bench even more than - heretofore, for the Gospel and the whole of Scripture have never been - so despised as at present owing to Luther’s teaching, who excludes all - love of God and man, all concord between lords and serfs, priests and - laity, men and women, rejects all good works and discipline, obscures - the truth and replaces it by nothing but lies and introduces hatred - and envy, unchastity, blasphemy and disobedience.”[1235] - - In his replies to such arguments against the truth of his Church - Luther was loath to attempt the difficult task of proving the - existence of holiness in the domain of the Evangel. On the contrary, - with surprising candour, he usually meets his opponents half-way as - regards the facts. Thus, in his “Wider Hans Worst,” in 1541, he admits - that things are just as bad as they had been in Jerusalem in the days - of the prophets, “with us too there is flesh and blood, nay, the - devil among the sons of Job. The peasants are savage, the burghers - avaricious and the nobles grasping. We shout and storm our best, - helped by the Word of God, and resist as far as we can.… Willingly we - confess and frankly that we are not as holy as we should be.”[1236] - - Such admissions are followed by astonishing attempts to evade the - force of the objection and by coarse attacks on the immorality of the - Papacy which he exaggerates beyond all measure. - - The few, he declares, who are good and virtuous suffice to prove the - Church’s holiness. “Some do more than their part; that they are few - in number does not matter. God can help a whole nation for the sake - of one man as he did by Naaman, the Syrian (4 Kings v.). In short, - one’s life cannot be made a subject of debate.”—On another occasion - he replies shrewdly that the mark of holiness was not nearly so - safe as other marks, for distinguishing the true Church; for pious - works were also practised at times by the heathen.… As regards its - importance as a mark, holiness must be subordinated to the true - preaching of the Word and to pure doctrine, which in the end will - always bring amendment of life; whereas corrupt doctrine poisoned the - whole mass, a scandalous life was damaging chiefly to the man who - lived it; but corruption of doctrine had penetrated Popery through and - through.[1237] “We do not laugh when wickedness is committed amongst - us as they [the Papists] do in their Churches; as Solomon says (Prov. - ii. 14): ‘Who are glad when they have done evil and rejoice in most - wicked things,’ and also seek to defend them by fire and sword.”[1238] - - We have here an instance of the tactics by which he turns on his - adversaries and abuses them. In his anxiety to turn the reproach of - his foes against themselves he selects by preference the celibacy - of the clergy and the religious vows; nor does he attack merely the - blemishes which the Church herself bewailed and countered, but the - very institution itself. - - In his “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” he exclaims: “The Pope condemns - the married life of the bishops and priests, this is plain enough - now”; “if a man has been married twice he is declared by the Papists - incapable of being promoted to the higher Orders.[1239] But if he has - soiled himself by abominable behaviour he is nevertheless tolerated in - these offices.”[1240] “Why,” he asks, most unjustly misrepresenting - the Catholic view of the sacrament of marriage, “why do they look upon - it as the lowest of the sacraments, nay, as an impure thing and a sin - in which it is impossible to serve God?”[1241] - - To what monstrous and repulsive images he can have recourse when - painting the “whore Church” of the Papacy, the following from “Wider - Hans Worst” will serve to show: You are, so he there writes in 1541 of - the Catholics, “the runaway, apostate, strumpet-Church as the prophets - term it”; “you whoremongers preach in your own brothels and devil’s - Churches”; it is with you as though the bride of a loving bridegroom - “were to allow every man to abuse her at his will. This whore—once a - pure virgin and beloved bride—is now an apostate, vagrant whore, a - house-whore,” etc. “You become the diligent pupils and whorelings of - the Lenæ, the arch-whores, as the comedies say, till you old whores - bear in your turn young whores, and so increase and multiply the - Pope’s Church, which is the devil’s own, and make many of Christ’s - chaste virgins who were born by baptism, arch-whores like yourselves. - This, I take it, is to talk plain German, understandable to you and - everybody else.”[1242] - - Without following him through all he says we shall merely draw the - reader’s attention to a proverb and a picture Luther here uses. The - proverb runs: “The sow has been washed in the pond and now wallows - again in the filth. Such are you, and such was I once.”[1243] In - the picture “the Pope’s Church,” i.e. hell, is represented as a - “great dragon’s head” with gaping jaws, as it is depicted in the old - paintings of the Last Judgment; “there, in the midst of the flames, - are the Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, emperors, kings, - princes and men and women of all sorts (but no children). Verily I - know not how one could better paint and describe the Church of the - Pope,”[1244] etc. - - After such rude abuse he comes back in the same writing to his usual - apology. There was, he says, no object in alluding to the moral evils - in the Lutheran Churches because of the Church being of its very - nature invisible.[1245] Everything depends on the doctrine “which - must be pure and undefiled, i.e. the one, dear, saving, holy Word of - God without anything thrown in. But the life that ought to be ruled, - cleansed and hallowed daily by such teaching is not yet altogether - pure and holy because our carrion of flesh and blood still lives.” - Yet “for the sake of the Word whereby he is healed and cleansed all - this is overlooked, pardoned and forgiven him, and he must be termed - clean.”[1246] - - The Papists have a beam in their own eye, i.e. their false doctrine, - but they see the mote in the eye of others “as regards the - life.”[1247] If it is a question with whom the true Church is to be - found he assures us: “We who teach God’s Word with such certainty are - indeed weak, and, by reason of our great humility, so foolish that we - do not like to boast of being God’s Churches, witnesses, ministers - and preachers or that God speaks through us, though this we certainly - are because without a doubt we have His Word and teach it”; it is - only the Papists “who venture boldly to proclaim out of their great - holiness: Here is God and we are God’s Church.”[1248] - -It was not, however, bold presumption and lack of humility that led -Luther’s literary opponents among the Catholics to appeal to the promises -Christ had made to His Church; rather it was their conviction that these -solemn assurances excluded the possibility of the Church’s having ever -erred in the way Luther maintained that she had done. - - -_The Indefectibility of the Church and Her Thousand-Year-Long Error_ - -When the question arose, how the Church, in spite of Christ’s protection, -could nevertheless have fallen into such monstrous errors,[1249] Luther -was disposed to admit in his polemics that the true Church, i.e. the -community of real believers, could not go astray. “The Church cannot -teach lies and errors, not even in details.… How could it then be -otherwise when God’s mouth is the mouth of the Church. As God cannot lie -neither therefore can the Church.”[1250] - -Such an immutable and reliable guide to erring men for their perfect -peace of mind and sure salvation, the Catholics retorted, did Christ -intend to leave in His visible Church, ruled by the successors of St. -Peter. - - An able Catholic work of 1528, already referred to above, emphasises - the Church’s immutability in her dogma: “That preacher who does - not preach in accordance with the Holy Catholic Church and the - holy Fathers sins against the truth.… With due reverence we firmly - believe all that is written in the approved Books of the Old and - New Testament. We must not, however, so confine ourselves to this - as to look upon what the Holy Church teaches apart from Scripture - as human dross, seeing that Scripture itself commands us to keep - the doctrine of the Church and the Fathers.” The author goes on to - show his opponent Luther what services are rendered by the Church’s - authority, how she preserves intact and vouches for the Canon of - Scripture. It is only from the lips of the Church that we learn which - books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “For - where is it written that we must believe the Gospels of Matthew, John - and the rest? But, if it is nowhere written, how is it you believe - in these Gospels? How much at variance is your practice with your - teaching?”[1251] - - As to the infallibility of the Church Luther retorted: The invisible - Church cannot err, but “that Church which we usually mean when we use - the word, can and does err; the congregation of true believers cannot - be assembled in one particular spot and is often to be found where - least expected. Moreover, even this Church, i.e. the true believers - and the saints, can sometimes go astray by allowing themselves to be - drawn away from the Word.… Hence we must always regard the Church and - the saints from two points of view, first according to the Spirit, - and, then, according to the flesh, lest their piety and their Word - savours of the flesh.”[1252] The Church teaches according to the - Spirit when her “belief tallies with the Word of God and the belief - of Christ Himself in heaven. To speak in this manner and meaning is - right.”[1253] But “we must not build on her opinion or belief where - she holds or believes anything outside of and beyond the Word of - God.”[1254] It was according to the flesh that all those abominations - of errors were taught which were termed “opinions of the Churches, - though they were nothing of the kind but merely human conceits, - invented outside of scripture and parading under the Church’s - name.”[1255] - - With this Luther’s reader is flung back once more into the most - subjective of systems, for who is to decide whether this or that - doctrine “savours of the flesh.” Each one for himself, solely - according to the standard of Holy Scripture or, rather, each one as - Luther dictates. But Luther’s decisions touched only the doctrines - known to him; who is to decide on the questions yet to arise after his - death? - - He condemns the errors of the Middle Ages. Yet he is occasionally - ready to praise the Mediæval Church. As we know he acknowledged - that she had preserved Baptism. When the Church says that “Baptism - washes away sin,” this, to Luther, does not savour of the flesh. - “She also holds and believes that in [?] the bread and wine the Body - and Blood of Christ are given.… Summa, in these beliefs the Church - cannot err.”[1256] These, however, merely happened to be Luther’s - own opinions. Infant-Baptism Luther defended against the Anabaptists - without seeking help in the Bible; as for the presence of Christ in - the Sacrament against the Zwinglians he indeed had the words of the - Bible, yet here, too, he was only too glad to reinforce what he said - by the traditions and infallible teaching office of the Church, - though in so doing he was contradicting his own theory.[1257] - - Luther, with characteristic disregard of logic, calls the earlier - Church a “Holy place of abominations.” She was a “holy place,” for - “there, even under the Pope, God maintained with might and by wonders - first Holy Baptism; secondly, in the pulpits, the text of the Holy - Gospel in the language of each country; thirdly, the Forgiveness of - Sins and Absolution both in Confession and publicly; fourthly, the - Blessed Sacrament of the Altar; … fifthly, the calling or ordination - to the preaching office.… Many retained the custom of holding up - the crucifix before the eyes of the dying and reminding them of the - sufferings of Christ on which they must rely; finally, prayer, the - Psalter, the Our Father, the Creed and the Ten Commandments, item - many good hymns and canticles both in Latin and in German. Where - such things survived there must undoubtedly have been a Church, and - also Saints. Hence Christ was assuredly there with His Holy Spirit, - upholding in them the Christian faith though everything was in a bad - way, even as in the time of Elias, when the 7000 left were so weak - that Elias fancied himself the only Christian still living.”[1258] - - Nevertheless, this was the selfsame Church, which not only connived - at the teaching of heretical abominations but actually herself taught - all the depravities which Luther describes in the same writing, such - as her peculiar doctrine of priestly ordination, of the validity - of the secret Canon of the Mass, of the spiritual authority of the - bishops, of justification, good works and satisfaction, of purgatory, - saint-worship, etc. - - That here he does not condemn the olden Church off-hand and fling - her to the jaws of the dragon as he was wont to do is a casual - inconsistency; his moderation here is to be explained by the necessity - he was under then (after the Diet of Augsburg), of showing that he - could claim a certain continuity with the Church of the past, and also - by his desire to influence those Catholics who were still sitting on - the fence and whom he would gladly have drawn over to his own side by - seeming concessions, in accordance with his tactics at Augsburg. - -Yet, in spite of the above concessions, the Mediæval Church remains -in his eyes a “place of abominations”; her members, though validly -baptised, are not members of the Church; they might indeed sit in the -Church, but only as Antichrist sits in the Temple of God (2 Thess. ii. -4); her children would be saved if they died before coming to a full -knowledge of the Popish Church, but if they grew up and followed her -lying preaching then they would become devil’s whores;[1259] even as I -myself “was stuck fast in the behind of the devil’s whore, i.e. of the -Pope’s new Churches, so that it is a grief to us to have spent so much -time and pains in that shameful hole. But praise and thanks be to God Who -has delivered us from the Scarlet Woman!”[1260] - -So low is his esteem for the authority of the tradition of the “Holy -Place of abominations,” that he includes among the doubtful and fallible -statements of that Doctor of the Church the famous saying of St. -Augustine, that he would not believe the Gospel were it not for the -Church.[1261] He urges that Augustine himself had declared, that his -doctrines were to be examined, and only those to be accepted which were -found correct. He prefers to harp on another passage where St. Augustine -says: “The Church is begotten, fed, brought up and strengthened by the -Word of God,”[1262] as though St. Augustine in speaking thus of the -soul of the Church was denying her external organisation, her spiritual -supremacy, and her teaching office. Luther, however, treated tradition -just as he pleased; theologians had always distinguished between those -traditions of the olden Doctors that had been guaranteed by the Church -and those views which were merely personal to them; the latter no -theologian regarded as binding, whereas the former were accepted by -them with the respect befitting the witnesses. Here, once more, we see -Luther’s subjective principle at work, which excludes all authoritative -doctrine that comes to man from without, leaves him exposed to doubt -and negation, and quite overlooks the fact that all revelation in last -resort comes to the individual from without with an irresistible and -authoritative claim to respect. Just as the Divine revelation vindicates -its claim to acceptance by the faithful by means of proofs, so too, the -teaching authority of the Church—as Luther’s Catholic opponents were -not slow to point out—could show proofs that what was presented to the -faithful as an article of belief might reasonably be accepted without -any need of previously testing it to see whether it agreed with Holy -Scripture—an examination, which, as a matter of fact, most people were -not capable of undertaking. - -As the polemic we quoted above argues, Protestants held Holy Scripture to -be so clear that everyone could understand it without outside help. “But, -if the heretics think Scripture to be so plain and clear, why do they -write so many books in order to explain it? If Scripture is so clear, -plain and easy to understand how is it that they are so much at variance -concerning that one text: ‘This is My Body?’”[1263] - - * * * * * - -Luther now fell back on the Holy Spirit. “Without the Holy Ghost,” he -says, “it is impossible to discern the abominations from the Holy Place.” -But, so he was justly asked, who is to vouch for it that a man has truly -the Holy Spirit? And, if, as Luther opines, the Holy Ghost points to -the fruits as the means whereby He may be recognised, everything again -depends on the fruits being judged according to Luther’s own moral -standard. In short, in these controversies, Luther revolves in a vicious -circle. - - In his Table-Talk Luther’s habit of shielding himself from objections - behind the strangest misrepresentations is again apparent. Such - misrepresentations, occurring in his most intimate conversations, - show that he was very far from merely using them in public or from - motives of policy; rather they influence his whole mode of thought and - feeling and were a second nature with him. We have only to turn to his - conversations on the subject of the “Church,” collected in 1538 by his - friend and companion Anton Lauterbach.[1264] - - Here we meet with the revolting assertion that, in the Papistical - Church, the Pope claimed to be the only one who had a right to - interpret Scripture, and that he did this “out of his own brain”; this - Church, so Luther goes on, had set up a mass of human regulations and - vain observances which stifled all freedom and true religion; “the - name Church was a pretext for the most abominable errors.” Further, - “the true Church [i.e. mine] teaches the free forgiveness of sins, - secondly, she teaches us to believe firmly, and, thirdly, to bear - the cross with patience. But the false Church [the Pope’s] ascribes - the forgiveness of sins to our own merits, teaches men to waver, - and, finally does not carry the cross but rather persecutes others.” - Besides, how can the Papists have the true Church, seeing that they - are “some of them Epicureans, some of them idolaters?”—Fancy talking - about the authority of the Church! Is it with this that the fanatical - Anabaptists are to be vanquished? “Moreover, we know that: The true - Church never at any time bore the name or title that the godless so - boldly claim; she was ever nameless and is therefore believed rather - than seen; for the most part she lies downtrodden and neglected; - weakness, crosses and scandals are her portion. Only look at the - Church under the tyranny of the Pope; the Papal Decretals are the _ne - plus ultra_ of ungodliness.” - - “I am astonished,” so he ends, speaking of the Roman Primacy, “at the - great blindness with which men worshipped the Pope’s lies and his - boundless and utterly shameless audacity, as though Holy Scripture - depended on the authority of the Roman Church whose head he claimed to - be, basing his claim on the words of Christ (Matt. xvi. 18) ‘Thou art - Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.’” - - -_Luther’s Tactics in the Interpretation of the Bible_ - -The text just quoted leads us to glance at his Biblical arguments; to -conclude this chapter we shall therefore give as a sample of his exegesis -on the Church a more detailed account of his exposition of the chief -argument for the papal primacy, viz. Christ’s promise to Peter, using for -this purpose his last book against Popery.[1265] - - He would fain, so he says, “point out the Christian sense of this - text” as against that read into it by the hierarchical Church; - nevertheless, at his first effort he cannot rise above a coarse - witticism. “For very fear,” on approaching this text “Thou art Peter,” - etc., something “might easily have happened had I not had my breeches - on; and I might have done something that people do not like to smell, - so anxious and affrighted was I.” Why did not the Pope appeal rather - to the text: “In the beginning Cod created the heavens—that is the - Pope—and the earth, that is the Christian Church,” etc. This is the - first answer. - - The second is a perversion of the Catholic view; he accuses the Pope - of deducing from the text under discussion, that he has “all power - in heaven as well as on earth” and authority “over all the Churches - and the Emperor to boot.” This parody of the truth Luther proceeds - triumphantly to demolish as “blasphemous idolatry.”—There follows - thirdly an appeal to the “Emperor, Kings, Princes and nobles” to seize - upon the Papal States which the Pope has stolen by dint of “lying and - trickery” and to slay as blasphemers him and his Cardinals. - - He goes on to explain the Bible passage in question by proving, - fourthly, against the “wicked, shameless, stiff-necked” Papists from - Eph. iv. 15, and from Augustine and Cyprian, “that the whole of - Christendom throughout the world has no other head set over it save - only Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” The true sense of Eph. iv. 15 and - the real teaching of both the Fathers in question are too well known - for us to need to waste words on them here.—Fifthly, he brings forward - John vi. 63: “My words are Spirit and life” and argues: “According - to this the words Matt. xvi. 18 [concerning Peter and the rock] must - also be Spirit and life.… The upbuilding must here mean a spiritual - and living upbuilding; the rock must be a living and spiritual rock; - the Church a living and spiritual assembly, nay, something that lives - for all eternity.”—These facts, however, had always been admitted by - Catholic commentators without causing them any apprehension as to - the primacy or the visible Church.—Sixthly, he seeks to demonstrate - that the Church can only be built on the rock indicated by Christ “by - faith”; this, however, excludes the primacy of Peter, for “whoever - believes is built upon this rock.”—Seventhly: “It is thus that St. - Peter himself interprets it, 1 Peter ii. 3 ff.,”—though this is a fact - only credible to one who is already of Luther’s opinion.—Eighthly, he - will have it that, in the famous passage, Christ meant to say no more - than: “Thou art Peter, that is a rock, for thou hast perceived and - named the Right Man, viz. Christ, Who is the true Rock, as Scripture - terms Him. On this rock, i.e. on Me, Christ, I will build the whole of - My Christendom.” - - This reading would certainly cut away the ground from under the - argument of the Catholics.[1266] Nevertheless Protestant scholars - have repeatedly shown themselves willing to apply Christ’s promise - to the person of Peter, as ecclesiastical tradition has ever done, - and to defend this as the true sense of the words. Thus the Berlin - exegetist, Bernhard Weiss, writes: “By using ταύτῃ for the name - (Peter), signifying a rock, any application of the words either to - Jesus or to the faith or confession of Peter is shut out.… It can only - be understood of his person,” etc.[1267] By Holtzmann, the Strasburg - exegetist, the opposite interpretation was uncharitably described as a - fruit of the “school of Protestant _ex parte_ exegesis.”[1268] - - We must, however, allow that, both here and in his treatment of the - promise of the keys (Matt. xvi. 19), Luther shows himself an adept - in the use of language. “To speak plain German we may say this,” - so he begins one of his commentaries, and indeed he knows how to - speak well and in a manner calculated to impress his hearers. Of the - matter, however, we may judge from the following: “To thee I will give - the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” this means that, should anyone - refuse to believe the apostles, on him they should pass sentence and - condemn him; their “office” still remains in the Church, there always - being “retaining of sins for the impenitent and unbelieving, and - forgiveness for the penitent and the believing”; but, quite apart from - this “office,” believers have absolute power “where two or three are - gathered together in the name of Christ (Matt. xviii. 20).”[1269] Here - again we have Christ’s promise misconstrued, which does not refer to - spiritual authority but solely to the effect of the prayer in common - of two or more of the faithful.[1270] - - “Hence, let the Pope and his Peter be gone,” so he concludes … even - though there were a hundred thousand St. Peters, even though all the - world were nothing but Popes, and even though an angel from heaven - stood beside him; for we have here [Matt. xviii. 18, where the power - of binding and loosing is bestowed on _all_ the apostles] the Lord - Himself, above all angels and creatures, Who says they are _all_ - to have equal power, keys and office, even where only two simple - Christians are gathered together in His name. This Lord we shall - not allow the Pope and all the devils to make into a fool, liar or - drunkard; but we will tread the Pope under foot and tell him that he - is a desperate blasphemer and idolatrous devil, who, in St. Peter’s - name, has snatched the keys for himself alone which Christ gave to - them all in common. “It is the Lord Himself Who says this [John xx. 21 - ff.]; therefore we care nothing for the ravings of the Pope-Ass in his - filthy decretals.”[1271] - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIX - -END OF LUTHER’S LIFE - - -1. The Flight from Wittenberg - -“Old age is here,” so wrote Luther in a fit of depression to his Elector -on March 30, 1544, in his sixty-first year; “old age which in itself is -cold and ungainly, weak and sickly. The pitcher goes to the well until -one fine day it breaks; I have lived long enough, may God grant me a -happy deathbed.… Methinks, too, I have already seen the best I am like -to see on earth, for it looks as though evil days were coming. May God -help His own! Amen.” He recommends his sovereign to seek comfort in the -“Dear Word of God” and in prayer, assuring him: “These two unspeakable -treasures shall never be the portion of the devil, the Turk, or of the -Pope and his followers.”[1272] - -About this time he had to complain of palpitations, dizziness and -calculus. His will he had already drawn up on Jan. 6, 1542.[1273] In it -he refused to make use of the usual legal forms, being determined to have -nothing to do with the lawyers, with whom he was always at variance. -He was quite aware that lawyers still insisted on the objections to -the validity of the marriages of clerics and monks and the rights of -inheritance of their children, as they indeed were bound to do not only -by Canon Law but also by the law of the Empire. - -How cheerfully he was inclined to look forward to death even the year -before is apparent from a letter to Myconius, “the bishop of the Churches -of Gotha and Thuringia,” who was then lying seriously ill; here he says: -“I pray our Lord Jesus not to call to everlasting rest you and our -followers and leave me here among the devils to be still longer tormented -by them. Truly I have been long enough plagued by them and really I -deserve that my turn should come before yours. Hence my prayer is: May -the Lord lay your illness upon me and rid me of my earthly habitation -which is so useless, worn-out and exhausted. I see right well that I am -no longer good for anything.”[1274] - -After his above farewell-letter to the Elector Luther’s thoughts reverted -to death more frequently than before. He cast up the books he had still -to write and took stock of his powers to see whether he would have time -to finish them. For his energy and spirit of enterprise were by no means -yet dead, though at times they seem to be paralysed. Often enough he -pulls himself together in his letters sufficiently to make jokes with his -friends, the better both to banish his own gloomy thoughts and to inspire -the addressees with greater courage and confidence. Nevertheless, through -it all, we can detect his disquiet and suffering. - - “You often importune me,” so he wrote to his pupil Anton Lauterbach - about the end of 1544, “for a work on ecclesiastical discipline, - but you do not tell me where I am to find the leisure and health, - seeing that I am a worn-out and idle old man. I am ceaselessly snowed - under with letters. I have promised the young princes a sermon on - drunkenness, others and myself I have promised a book on secret - marriages, others again, one against the Sacramentarians; some now - want me to set all else aside and write a ‘Summa’ and running gloss - on the whole Bible. Thus one thing stands in the way of the other and - I get through nothing. And yet I had imagined that, as one who had - already done his work, I had earned the right to some leisure, and - to live quietly and in peace and so pass away. But I am compelled to - pursue my restless way of life. Well, I shall do what I can, and, what - I can’t, I shall leave undone.… Pray for us as we do for you.”[1275] - - In Jan., 1545, when he had almost completed his long and arduous - work on Genesis, he sighed: “May God put an end to this moribund and - sinful life as soon as this book is finished, or even before should - it please Him; do you ask God this for me.… Yes, truly, pray for my - happy dissolution and that I may die a good death.”[1276] “Pray for - me,” he wrote to Amsdorf in May of the same year, “that I may be set - free as soon as may be from my fetters and be united to Christ, but - that, if my life, or rather my sickness, is to last still longer, God - may bestow on me strength of body and force of soul.” He praises God - that he himself and his friends, “though unworthy sinners, had been - chosen for this blessed and glorious office, viz. to hear the voice of - God’s Majesty in the Word of the Evangel; on this the angels and all - creation wish us luck, but the Pope is dismayed and all the gates of - hell shake.”[1277] - -Luther’s extant letters covering the period from May to December, 1545, -afford us an insight into the emotions through which he passed. - -From the month of May onwards he sank deeper and deeper into a dreary -state of annoyance and sadness, and, at last, at the end of July, he -shook the dust of Wittenberg from his feet. In the latter half of August, -after he had allowed himself to be persuaded to return, his spirits -rapidly revived, and such was the reaction that his new mystical ardour -knew no bounds while his exertions seem almost incredible. - - To take the period in question in its chronological order: The - month of May commenced with a bitter attack on Agricola, and, on - the latter’s arrival at Wittenberg, he refused even to see him. “Of - this monster,” he wrote on May 2, “I will hear nothing but words of - condemnation; of him and his friends may I be rid for all eternity.… - Satan may rage and boast as he pleases!”[1278] His annoyance, as is - usual with him, is speedily transferred to Satan. That same day, - plagued with a tiresome matrimonial dispute, he asked: “Is then the - devil master of the world?”[1279] Shortly after he declared the Pope - to be the “monster of Satan, the end of whose days was at hand.”[1280] - His joy at the approaching end (“_gaudeamus omnes in Domino_”) is, - however, not unmixed. The thought depresses him that the devil should - still be active even at Halle which had recently been won over to the - Evangel, and that he had there “just blessed, or rather cursed, two - nuns, thereby proving how much more he fain would do.”[1281] - - Annoyance at the bad treatment of his preachers also lets loose a - flood of complaints. “In many places,” so he laments, “they are - treated very ill so that they are minded to depart and are even - compelled to take flight.”[1282] The hostility of the politicians at - Court and the lawyers, was also a cause of profound grief to him.[1283] - - With greater apprehension than usual he saw at the beginning of June - terrifying natural portents and prayed with passionate longing for the - “overthrow of all things” which he was confidently awaiting.[1284] - - Already in spirit he saw the sparks of the coming conflagration which - was to consume Germany for her chastisement, “before the outbreak of - which may God deliver us and ours from this misery!”[1285] - - In July anger at the “contempt of the Word on our side and the - blasphemy of our foes,”[1286] the sad sight of the want of unity and - growing number of sects in his own camp, where “each one insists - on following his own ideas,”[1287] the “decline of learning” - amongst his followers, where “many bellies are set only on feeding - themselves,”[1288] all this combined with other experiences tended to - make his depression unendurable. To be obliged to set in order the - public worship spelt a positive torture to him.[1289] Even in his - own household he had cause for bitter disappointment in his niece - Magdalene who had insisted on making love to a man (whom she was - ultimately to marry) of whom Luther did not approve, thus giving Satan - an opportunity for “maliciously attacking” Luther’s good name.[1290] - - Yes indeed, “Satan rules,” he said to Amsdorf, in a letter of July 9, - “and all have lost their wits.”[1291] Here the cause of his vexation - was the Emperor, who, so he had been told, was insisting that the - Protestants should attend the Council of Trent and submit to it. It is - true Luther does not give up all hope of God again making a mockery - of Satan,[1292] but, in the meantime, he execrates and curses the - Council.[1293] He also vents his wrath on the Emperor, Ferdinand the - German King, the King of France and the Pope. And why? Because he was - only too ready to give credence to a report which had reached him that - they had despatched ambassadors to the Grand Turk with gifts and an - offer of peace, and that, clothed in long Turkish garments, they were - humbling themselves before the infidel.[1294] “Are these Christians? - They are hellish idols of the devil. Yet I hope they are at the same - time a glad token of the coming of the end of all things. Let them - worship the Turk, but let us call upon the true God, Who will humble - both them and the Turk in the Day of His Coming.”[1295] - - He is still suffering from the after-effects of the excitement in - which he had, as he says, penned his “book brimful of bitter wrath, - against the Papal monster,” viz. his “Against the Popedom founded by - the Devil.” He has not the strength left to write a sequel to it, but - he tells his friend Ratzeberger: “I have not yet done justice either - to myself or to the greatness of my anger; I know too that I can never - do full justice to it, so great and boundless is the enormity of the - Papistic monster.” In such a frame of mind he feels keenly that he is - the “trump heralding the Last Judgment.”[1296] - - He is conscious, however, that his trump cannot peal loud enough in - the world (“_parum sonamus_”) owing to his state, borne down as he is - by pains of body and soul. He was unable to summon up the force to - write either the continuation of his work against the Pope, or even - the short reply to the Swiss which he had promised Amsdorf.[1297] - - The above false report of the Christian embassy to Turkey current at - Wittenberg he was at once ready to accept because it was in keeping - with his pessimistic outlook. The evil spirits of suspicion, distrust - and the mania of persecution made his unhappy mind willing to credit - everything that was unfavourable, and even embittered the life of - those about him. Melanchthon in particular suffered under this mood - owing to his disposition to find a _modus vivendi_ with the Swiss, - whilst all the while concealing his leanings under a prudent and timid - silence.[1298] - - “The wild and immoral life at Wittenberg, a town so greatly favoured - by God,”[1299] and the danger this spelt to the good name of the whole - of Luther’s work stung him now more keenly than ever before. Of his - own remorse of conscience we hear nothing at this time; his letters - even to his intimates, usually so communicative, are silent as to any - temptations or inward conflicts with the devil. There is no doubt that - public affairs were then weighing more heavily on him, for instance - the troubles arising from the Hessian bigamy. He was now again - suffering from calculus. “I would dearly like to die,” he writes, “a - plague on these excruciating pains! If, however, it is the Will of God - that I succumb to them, He will give me grace to endure them and to - die, if not sweetly, at least bravely!”[1300] - -When his physical sufferings diminished there came to his mind the -recollection of how, more than a year before, early in 1544, he had -determined to leave Wittenberg, of which he had sickened, in order to -seek a more peaceful life elsewhere. It was only the extraordinary -exertions of his friends that had then succeeded in keeping him back. -Bugenhagen and the other preachers, the University and the magistrates, -had besought him with tears and entreaties. On that occasion he -was “incensed,” so Cruciger, his friend and pupil, says, “at some -trivial matter, or rather he was full of suspicion about us all, as I -believe.”[1301] Already in 1530, and again in 1539, he had declared that, -owing to the annoyance given him, he would never again mount the pulpit -at Wittenberg.[1302] Now, however, his chagrin was even deeper and he -resolved to carry out his plan prudently and quit the town for ever. - -Without acquainting even Catherine Bora of the length of his absence from -the town he left Wittenberg at the end of July accompanied by his son -Hans, his guest Ferdinand von Maupis, travelling with Cruciger, who was -to decide a quarrel between Medler and Mohr, the two Naumburg preachers -at Zeitz, on July 27. Luther also repaired to Zeitz and took part in the -negotiations, but instead of returning with Cruciger to Wittenberg, he -wrote a letter to Katey from Zeitz on the 28th,[1303] stating that he -had no intention of returning to Wittenberg. “My heart has grown cold so -that I no longer like being there; I advise you to sell the garden and -courtyard, the house and stabling; then I would make over the big house -[the old monastery in which Luther used to live] to my gracious Lord, -and it would be best for you to settle down at Zulsdorf [i.e. on her own -little property] while I am yet alive.”[1304] He hoped, he goes on, that -the Elector would continue to pay him his stipend as professor, “at least -during the last year of his life.” - -From the letter it is plain that it was annoyance at the decline of -morals in the town rather than any strained relations with his friends at -Wittenberg that drove him to this sudden decision. “Let us begone out of -this Sodom!” he writes and hints that, in addition to the disorders with -which he was already acquainted fresh scandals had reached his ears on -this journey; the “government,” i.e. the authorities, aroused his deepest -indignation. “There is no one to punish or restrain, and besides this the -Word of God is derided”; maybe the town “will catch the Beelzebub-dance, -now that they have begun to uncover the women and girls [an allusion to -the low-cut dresses] in front and behind.” “So I will wander about and -rather eat the bread of charity than allow my last days to be tortured -and upset by the disorderly life at Wittenberg and see all my hard work -brought to nought. You may tell Dr. Pommer and Master Philip of this if -you please,” he concludes, “and see whether Dr. Pommer will bid farewell -to Wittenberg for me, for I can no longer contain my anger and annoyance.” - -The Wittenberg notabilities were filled with consternation on hearing of -what Luther had done; they could not regard it as a mere passing whim, -for they knew Luther’s determination. The University made representations -in writing to the Elector, begging him to intervene to prevent such a -misfortune; the foes of the Evangel would rejoice at the departure of -the great teacher, other professors would leave, and the result would -be new dissensions.[1305] As we know, Melanchthon, by his own account, -was ready “to slink away.” Luther, so the University stated, like a new -Elias, was the chariot and horseman of Israel and quite indispensable; if -he wished any changes made and order established this would be done even -should he find “fault with the teaching of some.” The University also -sent Bugenhagen and Melanchthon to talk the matter over with Luther; the -town despatched its burgomaster and the Elector sent him his own medical -attendant, Ratzeberger, with a friendly letter.[1306] - -In the meantime Luther had left Zeitz and gone on to Merseburg, whither -he had been invited by George of Anhalt, formerly canon of the chapter -there. The latter had gone over to Protestantism, and, when the bishopric -was sequestrated in 1541 by a secular prince—August, the brother of Duke -Maurice of Saxony—was appointed “spiritual administrator” of the see. He -now wanted to be formally “consecrated” by Luther as bishop of Merseburg. -To this the latter readily agreed. On Aug. 2, with the assistance of -Jonas, Pfeffinger and others he reiterated the ceremonial which he had -once before performed on Amsdorf at Naumburg (above, vol. v., p. 194). - -The festivities at Merseburg, the kindness and hospitality of which he -was the recipient at Lobnitz and Leipzig, and, lastly, the change of air -and surroundings brought Luther to a much better frame of mind. - -The messengers from Wittenberg found him at Merseburg. After they had -seen him and listened to his stern admonitions, they were delighted to -receive his assurance that, after all, he would return to Wittenberg. His -resolve had, in fact, been merely the result of strong excitement. Now, -moreover, not only had the depression ceased of which he had so long been -the victim but a notable change of mood had supervened and his confidence -and courage had been restored. Such sudden changes are not without their -parallel in Luther’s earlier life, as has been sufficiently shown above. - -He now returned in a better temper to Leipzig, where he preached a -vigorous sermon on Aug. 12, and was there entertained by Camerarius, -Melanchthon’s confidant; he also “associated with his circle of friends -in the best of humours.”[1307] - -After his return to Wittenberg on the 16th we hear no more of his -vexation, though he did not put much faith in the disciplinary measures -that had been drawn up for the town, notwithstanding that they were -backed by the Elector; the Court itself, so he wrote, read nothing and -only scoffed at everything.[1308] - - * * * * * - -He now threw himself once more into the struggle with his theological -foes. A glance at these labours and at his lectures shows him working -at high pressure, while, as his letters show, he retained his sense of -humour. - - He set to work immediately on the 32 articles which the Louvain - Faculty of Theology had published with the object of enlightening - Catholics on the nature of the Protestant doctrines. - - Already in Aug. he had set up his 76 theses “Against the Articles of - the Theologists of Louvain.”[1309] Here he does not take his opponents - seriously, but, for the most part, simply pours forth his annoyance on - them and their theses, sneering at them and scourging them with coarse - invective. He calls them arch-idolaters, a school of blockheads, lazy - bellies and rude asses, the accursed, hellish brew of Louvain; speaks - of their mad, raving conceit; they are bloodthirsty incendiaries - and fratricides, a stinking cesspool, a school of obscenity and - muck, are these great, gross epicurean swine of Louvain. “They come - straight from hell and teach what they have seen in the Mirror of - Marcolfus,[1310] i.e. the ordure of man-made laws.” “For, instead - of giving the people Holy Scripture, they do nothing else but cack, - spew, belch forth and fling human filth amongst them.… And thus Holy - Church is to be looked upon as no better than a latrine for the scamps - of Louvain wherein they, playing the lord, may void their belly when - over-full, and where, moreover, they slay and lay waste. This indeed - may be termed foolery and raving!”[1311] The strange elation in which - Luther penned so odd-sounding a “reply” is, again, not to be explained - by any ordinary psychology. - - In Sep. Luther commenced a work on a larger scale against the - Louvain theologians and their Paris colleagues, which, however, he - was not able to finish. The fragment “Against the Donkeys in Paris - and Louvain,” which exists in two drafts, shows plainly enough what - sort of book it would have been had death not interrupted his work. - He urges that, whoever wishes to teach theology whilst refusing to - acknowledge the truths taught by him concerning the Law, sin and - Grace, is as well fitted to do so as an ass is to play upon the harp, - as the Papacy is to govern the Church, or as the Louvain scholars - to promote the cause of learning.[1312] In this work he fancied he - had recovered his olden stormy vigour. To his friend Jacob Probst he - candidly admitted: “I am more angry with these Louvain quadrupeds than - beseems me, an old man and so great a theologian; but I want it to be - said of me that I took the field against these monsters of Satan, even - though it should cost me my last breath.”[1313] - - He was busy at the same time on a revised edition of his Latin - “Chronology of the World,” of which the aim was to show the near - advent of Christ.[1314] On Oct. 16 he finished his Latin Commentary - on the Prophet Osee, and sent a copy as a gift to Mohr, the dismissed - pastor of Zeitz, with a kindly letter of religious consolation and - encouragement.[1315] He also despatched a lengthy circular to the - printers on the capture of Duke Henry of Brunswick, the enemy of the - Evangel; this letter is a monument to his aggressiveness so nearly - verging on the fanatical;[1316] in this he had been strengthened by - the supposed intervention of heaven on his behalf against Henry and - against the Pope and the Mass.[1317] - - His intimate correspondence was also steeped in the new enthusiasm - which had laid hold on him. “What a joyful victory has God, Who - hearkens to our prayer, given us,” so he wrote on Oct. 26 to Jonas. - “Let us believe and let us pray! He is faithful to His promises!… O - God, do Thou maintain our joy, or, rather, Thine Own Glory!”[1318] - - The jokes we had missed for a while now once more made their - appearance in his letters. In the first epistle written after - his return he hastens to tell Amsdorf of Mutian’s reading of the - inscription “_Soli Deo gloria_” (viz. “To the Sun-God be glory”) on - a tower belonging to the Archbishop of Mayence; after all the “Satan - of Mayence” was perhaps right, so he says, in having the inscription - taken down.[1319] In another letter he cheerfully relates the old - tale of the peasant who, with hands devoutly folded, said to Satan: - “Thou art my Gracious Master the Devil.”[1320] He is also delighted - to be able to tell the story of a Popish preacher, who, before the - war, exhorting the people to pray for the Duke of Brunswick, had said: - “If he is worsted then 14 parsons will be had for the price of a - penny.”[1321] - - His last lecture was delivered just before Christmas, 1545, when he - ended his exposition of Genesis. At its close he said: “Here you - have our dear Genesis; God grant that, after me, someone may do it - better; I am weak and can go on no longer; pray that God may grant - me a happy deathbed.”[1322] But his “weakness” was merely temporary. - A little after he wrote: “Whoever must fall let him fall if he - refuses to listen to the Son of God. We pray and look for the day - of our deliverance and destruction of the world with its pomps and - wickedness. Would that it come speedily. Amen. I have taken the field - against the donkeys of Louvain and Paris, but, nevertheless, feel - pretty well, considering my advanced years.”[1323] - -Impelled by the ardent desire to do something for the furtherance of -peace within his camp, in spite of his bodily weakness and his distaste -for worldly business, he undertook at the request of Count Albert of -Mansfeld to act as arbiter in the dispute between the latter and his -brother and nephew concerning the royalties from the mines and certain -other legal claims. - -“My time is entirely taken up,” so he says, “with affairs which do not -in the least interest me; I must serve the belly and the table.”[1324] -Already at the beginning of October these matters had induced him, with -Melanchthon and Jonas, to proceed to Mansfeld. As soon as his course of -lectures was finished, viz. at Christmas, he again repaired thither, in -spite of the severity of the weather, again accompanied by Melanchthon, -who was inclined to grumble at being called upon to listen to the -squabbles of quarrelsome people. Luther, however, as he wrote to Count -Albert, wished to see the “beloved lords of his native land reconciled -and on good terms” before “laying himself to rest in his coffin.”[1325] -He returned to Wittenberg shortly after Christmas, owing to Melanchthon’s -falling ill. - -These two journeys to Mansfeld, afterwards to be followed by a third and -last, have, by controversialists, wrongly been made out to have been due -to Luther’s desire to escape from Wittenberg on account of his bitter -experiences there. - - -2. Last Troubles and Cares - - -_Theological Disruption_ - -“The sad controversies of the last few years had made Luther recognise -that a race of theological fighting-cocks, gamesters and idle rioters -had arisen, and that dissensions of the worst sort might be anticipated -in the future. The nation in which each one obstinately followed his -own way was beyond help.… The Swiss refused to have anything to do with -the German Reformation; the Bucerites held themselves aloof from both -Lutherans and Swiss, the Brandenburgers wanted to belong neither to -the Church of Rome nor to that of Wittenberg; at Wittenberg itself the -Martinians and the Philippists (so-called after Luther and Melanchthon) -were hostile to each other, and finally the Princes and magistrates all -went their own way. ‘Things will fare badly when I am dead,’ such was -Luther’s repeated prediction. Whether he looked at this Prince of the -Church, at that Landgrave, or that other Duke Maurice, there was not one -in whom he could entirely trust. More than one Mene Tekel was written on -the wall, yet none perceived it save the old man at Wittenberg at whom -they all shrugged their shoulders.”[1326] - -Such is the description by Luther’s latest Protestant biographer of the -“sad decline of the Evangelical party.” - -The Zwinglians had received a severe blow from Luther in his “Kurtz -Bekentnis” of Sep., 1544;[1327] but the Swiss, who were hardy and -independent fellows, soon prepared a furious counter-reply.[1328] -The “old man at Wittenberg” was not deceived as to the profound and -irremediable breach, yet he succeeded, at least outwardly, in driving -away his annoyance and cares by the use of ridicule. Early in 1546, to -one of his confidants who had bewailed the new step taken by the Swiss, -he wrote the following, which forms his last utterance against the -Zwinglians: “If they condemn me, it is a joy to me. For by my writing -I wished to do nothing else than force them to declare themselves my -open foes. I have succeeded in this, hence so much the better. To adapt -the words of the Psalmist: ‘Blessed is the man who hath not sat in the -council of the Sacramentarians, nor stood in the way of the Zwinglians, -nor sat in the chair of the men of Zürich.’”[1329] To another intimate, -Amsdorf, the “Bishop” of Naumburg, who was allowed a deeper insight -into his soul than others, Luther confided that one of the principal -reasons of his hatred of his competitors in Switzerland and South-West -Germany was that “they are proud, fanatical men, and also idlers. At the -beginning of our enterprise, when I was fighting all alone in fear and -dread against the fury of the Pope, they were bravely silent and waited -to see how things would go. Later on they suddenly posed as victors, and -as though, forsooth, they alone had done it all. So it ever is: one does -the work and another seeks to enjoy his labour. Now they even go so far -as to attack me, who won their freedom for them.… But they will find -their judge. If I answer them at all it will be nothing more than a brief -recapitulation of the sentence of condemnation irrevocably passed upon -them.”[1330]—No such answer was, however, to be forthcoming. - -Against Melanchthon Luther’s ardent followers, the Martinians, were, -as we know, highly incensed for attempting to modify the doctrines of -the Master. Melanchthon’s sufferings on this account have already been -described (vol. v., p. 252 ff.). With a grudging silence Luther bore -with his friend’s Zwinglian leanings on the doctrine of the Supper, and -with their other differences. - -Both, moreover, were surrounded by an atmosphere of theological -bickerings, “where individuals, who, had it not been for these squabbles, -would never have achieved notoriety, gave themselves great airs.”[1331] - -We may recall how Melanchthon had even thought of leaving Saxony, where, -as he wrote to Camerarius, he was bound down by undignified fetters; such -was his weakness, however, that he could not bring himself to do even -this. Luther’s coarseness, lack of consideration and dictatorial bearing -it was that led Melanchthon to say that he who ruled at Wittenberg was -not a Pericles, but a new Cleon and an unsufferable tyrant.[1332] - -On the question of the veneration of the Sacrament differences at last -sprung up even between Bugenhagen and Luther; the former, usually his -pliant instrument, took upon himself during Luther’s absence to abolish -at Wittenberg the elevation of the elements during the celebration. -Apparently this was in the second half of Jan., 1542. Luther expressed -his disapproval of this action and declared he would revive the -rite.[1333] In 1544, when the three Princes of Anhalt were at Wittenberg -and asked him whether it would be right to abolish the Elevation, he -replied: “On no account; such abrogation detracts from the dignity of -the Sacrament.” There is no doubt that it was his antagonism to the -Zwinglians that was here the determining factor; moreover, as he admitted -Christ to be present in the Sacrament during reception in the wider -sense, i.e. during the liturgical action, he had no theological grounds -for doing away with the elevation and adoration of the elements. In his -own justification he went so far as to say: “Christ is in the bread, -why then should He not be treated with the greatest respect and also be -adored?”[1334] - -The Lutheran preacher Wolferinus of Eisleben was in the habit of pouring -back into the barrel what remained of the consecrated Wine after -communion. Luther called him sharply to account, as he found that his -conduct was tainted with Zwinglianism; in order to evade the difficulty -he ordered that, in future, preachers and communicants should see that -nothing was left over after communion.[1335] - -Luther, towards the end of his life, had to taste a good deal of that -“theological ire” of which Melanchthon frequently speaks, and not only -from the Swiss. We need only call to mind Johann Agricola, and his -“antinomian sow-theology,” as Melanchthon termed it. His inferences from -Luther’s doctrine of the inability of man to fulfil the Law he never -really withdrew even when he had betaken himself to Brandenburg. In -the Table-Talk dating from the latest period and published by Kroker, -Luther’s frequent bitter references to Agricola show the speaker was well -aware that his Berlin opponent still hated and distrusted him as much as -ever. After Luther’s death it became evident that Agricola “was capable -of everything,” and that Luther was not so far wrong, when, on another -occasion, he declared that he was not a man to be taken seriously.[1336] -Agricola finally died, loaded with worldly honours, in 1566. - -A more serious critic of Luther, at any rate on the question of the -Sacrament, was Martin Bucer. The latter’s friendship with the Swiss -and the too independent spirit in which he planned the reformation of -Cologne, caused Luther great anxiety towards the end of his life. In his -plan Luther, so he says, was unable to find any clear confession of faith -in the Sacrament, but merely “much idle talk of its profit, fruit and -dignity,” all carefully “wrapped up that no one might know what he really -thought of it, just as is the way with the fanatics.” In all this talk he -could “readily discern the chatterbox Bucer.”[1337] Bucer, on his side, -was dissatisfied with the progress of Luther’s work in Germany. Owing to -the Interim he was no longer able to remain at Strasburg and accordingly -accepted a post at the English University of Cambridge and died in -England in 1551. - - -_The Controversy on Clandestine Marriages_ - -It was, however, annoyances and disagreements of a different sort that -kept Luther to the end of his days in a state of extreme indignation -against the lawyers and politicians of the Court. - - A letter of Luther’s to the Elector Johann Frederick dated Jan. - 18, 1545, on the controversy with the Saxon lawyers about Luther’s - denunciation of clandestine marriages (those entered upon without the - knowledge of the parents) as illegal, carries us into the thick of - these disagreements.[1338] His sovereign, he says, had ordered him to - confer with the lawyers and come to an arrangement with them; Luther, - however, after summoning them before him, had declared categorically - that, “I had no intention of holding a disputation with them; I had a - divine command to preach the 4th commandment[1339] in these matters.” - Thus, in the questions under discussion, he is determined not to - submit either to the secular or the canon law but only to the Divine. - “Otherwise I should have to give up the Gospel and creep back into the - cowl [become a monk again] in the devil’s name, by the strength and - virtue of both the spiritual and the imperial law. And, besides this, - your Electoral Highness would have to cut off my head, doing likewise - with all those who have wedded nuns, as the Emperor Jovian commanded - more than a thousand years back.” As a result of his arguments, “the - lawyers of the Consistory and Courts agreed to give up and reject - altogether the clandestine espousals [i.e. marriages ‘_sponsalia de - præsenti_’].” In these words he announces his final apparent victory - in this long-drawn controversy. - - In the same letter he touches on the deeper side of the quarrel. - - The lawyers at the High Court have always stuck to many points of - “the Pope’s laws” which “we of the clergy” don’t want. “Some, too, - made out [in accordance with Canon Law then still in force] that, - on our death, our wives and children could not inherit our goods - and wished to adjudicate them to our friends, etc.” They had paid - no attention to the writings of the new theologians; and yet the - latter, “few in number and insignificant maybe, have done more good - in the Churches than all the Popes and jurists in a lump.” Hence the - preachers had simply disregarded the lawyers, viz. in respect of the - clandestine marriages; this had brought about peace. When, however, - the “Consistory had been set up” (1539), the whole business had begun - anew. “The jurists fancied they had found a loophole through which - to raise a disturbance in my Churches with their damnable procedure, - which, to-day and to all eternity, I want to have condemned and - execrated in my Churches.” “Spoon-fed jurists” thrust themselves - forward; but these “merry customers” are not going to make “of my - Churches, for which I have to answer before God,” “such dens of - murderers.” - -In order to understand the victory over the lawyers of which he speaks it -will be necessary to cast a glance back on the whole struggle. - -As we have already pointed out in the words of a Protestant biographer -of Luther the legal status of Lutheranism threatened to give rise to -dire complications, while any downright abrogation of Canon Law, such -as Luther wished for, was out of the question.[1340] The sober view of -the situation taken by the lawyers did not deserve Luther’s offensive -treatment. Moreover, under the leadership of Schurf, the lay professors -of jurisprudence at the Wittenberg University had many objections -to raise against Luther’s demands. They not only upheld clandestine -marriages as valid, but, at the same time, defended the indissolubility -of marriage, even in the case of adultery, in accordance with the laws -of the olden Church; they also held that second marriages were not -lawful to the clergy. Schurf likewise wanted the “Evangelical bishops” -to be consecrated by papal bishops. A further cause of constant friction -lay in the fact that the professors of law were obliged to base their -lectures on the books of Canon Law in the absence of any others; whence -it came that Luther had to listen to many disagreeable references to the -questions of Church property, of the right of inheriting of the children -of former monks, of the marriage of nuns, of the legal status of the -monasteries, etc. Schurf was otherwise a good Lutheran and had assisted -Luther with advice at the Diet of Worms. Melchior Kling, his pupil and -colleague at Wittenberg, agreed with him in following the Canon Law -on the question of clandestine marriages, according to which (before -the Council of Trent had required for the validity of marriage, that -it should be performed publicly in the presence of the parish-priest), -they were regarded as valid, albeit wrong and forbidden, so that no new -marriage could be entered into so long as the parties lived. - -Luther hoped, by opposing such marriages, to bring about some improvement -in the sad state of morals which the Visitations of 1528 and 1529 had -disclosed in the Saxon Electorate. The facility with which such marriages -were contracted by the Wittenberg students, and the bad effect they -had on the peace of the burghers seemed to him a real blot on the New -Evangel. He insisted very strongly that the consent of the parents was -required as a condition for marriage; without the parents’ consent -the marriages were in his eyes neither public nor valid; it was only -where the parents refused their consent on insufficient grounds that he -would admit that the bride had any right to enter into a real marriage -contract. The decision as to whether the parents’ objections held good -was, however, one on which opinions were bound to differ. - -Shortly after the Visitations referred to above, in 1529, he wrote his -“Von Ehesachen,” published early in 1530; in it he declared: “A secret -betrothal simply constitutes no marriage whatsoever,” whilst, as a secret -betrothal (i.e. invalid marriage) he regards “any betrothal which takes -place without the knowledge and consent of those in authority, and who -have the right and power to settle the marriage, viz. the father, mother -or whoever stands in their stead.”[1341] - -In 1532 he also proclaimed his views against the lawyers from the pulpit -without, however, being able to alter thereby either their practice or -their teaching. He lamented in 1538 the blindness of Schurf, who paid -more attention to man-made laws than to God’s Word and authority.[1342] - -After some new disputes he delivered a sermon on Feb. 23, 1539, in -which he threatened to put on his horns. In it he called his opponents -blockheads; they ought “to reverence our doctrine as the Word of God, -coming from the mouth of the Holy Ghost.”[1343] He was not going to -worship the Pope’s ordure for the sake of the jurists; “let them let -our Church be”; but “now the lawyers are seeking to corrupt our young -students of theology with their Papal filth.”[1344] - -Schurf seems to have yielded so far as no longer to attempt to make his -opinions public or official. - -The greatest tussle, however, ensued on the establishment of the -Consistories in 1539, as the lawyers who were entrusted with the -matrimonial cases, treated the clandestine marriages as valid, and, in -other ways, also took Schurf’s side. - -Luther asserted that by countenancing the “espousals,” which were “an -institution of the devil and the Pope,” the good name and the morals of -Wittenberg were being undermined. “Many of the parents say that, when -they send their boys to us to study, we hang wives round their necks -and rob them of their children.” Not only the burghers and students but -even the girls themselves “who have waxed bold” use their freedom most -wantonly.[1345] In Jan., 1544, in the pulpit, he poured out his wrath -in most unmeasured language, particularly on the second Sunday after -the Epiphany; in his tragic delivery he said, for instance: “I, Martin -Luther, preacher in this Church of Christ, take thee, secret promise and -the paternal consent that follows, together with the Pope and the devil -who instituted thee, I bind you all together and fling you into the abyss -of hell, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.”[1346] - -His anger and annoyance had been aroused by certain concrete cases. - -One of Melanchthon’s sons had contracted such a marriage as he was -denouncing. In his own family circle the same thing happened, probably in -the case of his nephew, Fabian Kaufmann. A student, Caspar Beier, who was -on intimate terms with Luther’s household, wished to marry at Wittenberg, -but was prevented by the lawyers of the Consistory on account of a -previous clandestine marriage which, however, he denied; he appealed -from the Consistory to the sovereign, and was supported by a letter from -Luther. This quarrel kindled a conflagration at Luther’s home. Cruciger, -a friend of the house, was against Beier and described his cause as “none -of the best”; Catherine Bora, on the other hand, the “_fax domestica_” as -Cruciger called her,[1347] seems to have fanned the flames of Luther’s -wrath, in the interests of Beier who was a relative of hers. - -To a friend Luther admitted in Jan. that he “was so indignant with the -lawyers as he had never before been in all his life during all the -struggle on behalf of the Evangel.”[1348] - -When the controversy was at its height, viz. in Jan., 1544, the Elector -arranged for an interview between Luther and the Consistory. Later, in -Dec., those negotiations were followed by others, in which the members -of the Wittenberg High Court took part; at last Luther’s obstinacy and -violence won the day: All marriages without the knowledge or approval -of the parents were to be invalid until the latter consented, or the -Consistory had pronounced their opposition groundless. To the Elector, -who from the first had agreed with Luther’s view, the latter then -addressed the letter referred to above (p. 355) where, appealing to his -“Divine mission” to preach the 4th commandment, he announces his final -triumph over the lawyers and their edicts. - -His triumph he owed to his strong will and, also, possibly, to the fact -that the Elector was on his side. The victory also affected the case of -Beier, whom Luther hastened to acquaint of his freedom;[1349] it further -decided to some extent, the yet more important question whether or not -the lawyers were to yield to Luther in ecclesiastical matters. They -accepted their humiliation with the best grace possible, but we shall not -be far wrong in assuming that they were not over-pleased with Luther’s -irregular and illogical handling of questions of law. - - -_Difficulties with the State Church_ - -The far-reaching encroachments of the secular authorities in his Church -became for Luther in his later years a source of keen vexation. - - Much of his Table-Talk, which turns on the lawyers, voices nothing - more than his indignation at the unwarranted interference of the State - in his new Church which he was powerless to prevent. Thus, according - to notes made at this time by Hieronymus Besold of Nuremberg who was a - guest at Luther’s table in 1545, the Master on one occasion gave free - rein to his anger with the lawyers in the matter of the sequestration - of Church lands: “The lawyers shriek, ‘They are Church lands.’ Give - them back ‘their monasteries that they may become monks and nuns and - celebrate Mass, and then they too will allow you to preach.’ [In - other words their proposal was that the new faith should make its way - peacefully. To this Luther’s answer is]: ‘Yes, but then where are we - to get our bread and butter?’ ‘We leave that to you,’ they say. Yes, - and take the devil’s thanks! We theologians have no worse enemies than - the lawyers. If they are asked, ‘What is the Church?’ they reply, - ‘The assembly of the Bishops, Abbots, etc. And these lands are the - lands of the Church, hence they belong to the bishops.’ That is their - dialectics. But we have another dialectics at the right hand of the - Father and it tells us, ‘They are tyrants, wolves and robbers’ [and - must accordingly be deprived of the lands]. Therefore we here condemn - all lawyers, even the pious ones, for they know not what the Church - is. If they search through all their books they will not discover what - the Church is. Hence we are not going to take any reforms from them. - Every lawyer is either a miscreant or an ignoramus (”_Omnis iurista - est nequista aut ignorista_“).… They shall not teach us what ‘Church’ - is. There is an old proverb, ‘A good lawyer makes a bad Christian,’ - and it is a true one.”[1350] - - It is somewhat astonishing to hear Luther in his “Table-Talk on the - lawyers”[1351] declaring that it was he who had whitewashed these - “bad Christians” and made them to be respected, and that consequently - he also could bring them again into disrepute, in other words, that - his tongue was powerful enough to do and to undo. “Do not tempt me. - If you are too well off I can soon make things warm for you. If you - don’t like being whitewashed, well and good, I can soon paint you - black again. May the devil make you blush!”[1352]—In one of his very - last letters (Feb., 1546), owing to new friction with the lawyers - about the Mansfeld revenues, he overwhelms them all with the following - general charges: “The lawyers have taught the whole world such a - mass of artifices, deceptions and calumnies that their very language - has become an utter Babel. At Babel no one _could_ understand his - neighbour, but here nobody _wants_ to understand what the other means. - Out upon you, you sycophants, sophists and plague-boils of the human - race! I write in anger, whether, were I calm, I should give a better - report I know not. But the wrath of God is upon our sins. The Lord - will judge His people; may He be gracious to His servants. Amen. If - this is all the wisdom that the jurists can show then there is really - no need for them to be so proud as they all are.”[1353] - -Luther’s attitude towards the lawyers is of special importance from -two points of view. It shows afresh the high opinion he entertained of -himself, and, at the same time, it reveals his jealousy of any outside -influence. - - “Before my time there was not a lawyer,” he says for instance in - an earlier outburst, “who knew what it meant to be righteous. They - learnt it from me. In the Gospel there is nothing about the duty of - worshipping jurists. Yes, before the world I will allow them to be in - the right, but, before God, they shall be beneath me. If I can judge - of Moses and bring him into subjection [i.e. criticise the Law in the - light of the Gospel] what then of the lawyers?… If of the two one must - perish, then let the law go and let Christ remain.”[1354] He was not - learned in the law, but, as the proclaimer of the Evangel, he was “the - supreme law in the field of conscience (‘_ego sum ius iurium in re - conscientiarum_’).”[1355] - - “When I give an opinion and have to break my head over it and a - lawyer comes along and tries to dispute it, I say: ‘Do you look after - the Government and leave us in peace. You men of the law seek to - oppress us, but it is written: Thou art a priest for ever’” (Ps. cx. - 4).[1356]—“The justice of the jurists is heathen justice,” he says; - but, after all, even the justice [righteousness] of his own school of - theology fell short of the mark. “Our justice is a relative justice; - but if I am not pious yet Christ is pious; we are at least able to - expound the commandments of God, and do so in the course of our - calling. But, even if you distil a jurist five times over, he still - cannot interpret even one of the Commandments.”[1357] - - The other trait that comes out in his dealings with the lawyers - is his distaste for any outside interference with his Church. He - looked askance at the attempts of secular authorities, statesmen and - Court-lawyers to have a say in Church matters, which, strictly, should - have been submitted to him alone and his preachers. Yet it was he - himself who had put the Church under State control; he had invited - the sovereigns and magistrates to decide on the most vital questions, - doing so partly owing to the needs of the time, partly as a logical - result of the new system. He himself had legalised the sequestration - of the Church’s lands and had helped to set up the State Consistories. - So long as the secular authorities were of his way of thinking he left - them a free hand, more or less. He was, however, forced to realise - more and more, particularly in the evening of his days, that their - arbitrary behaviour was ruining his influence and only making worse - the evils that his work had laid bare to the world. - - In his last utterances he is fond of calling “Centaurs” the officials - and Court personages who, according to him, were stifling the Church - in her growth by their wantonness, ambition and avarice. He bewails - his inability to vanquish them; they are a necessary evil. “Make a - Visitation of your Churches all the same,” he told his friend Amsdorf, - early in January in the last year of his life; “the Lord will be with - you, and even should one or other of the Centaurs forbid you, you are - excused. Let them answer for it.”[1358] - -We have also other utterances which testify to his deep distrust of the -secular authorities, on account of their real or imaginary encroachments. - - “The Princes seize upon all the lands of the Church and leave the - poor students to starve, and thus the parishes become desolate, as is - already the case.”[1359]—“The Princes and the towns do little for the - support of our holy religion, leave everything in the lurch and do not - punish wickedness. Highly dangerous times are to come.”[1360]—“The - magistrates misuse their power against the Evangel; for this they will - pay dearly.”[1361]—“The politicians show that they regard our words - as those of men”; in this case we had better quit “Babylon” and leave - them to themselves.[1362] - - “I see what is coming,” he wrote in 1541, “unless the tyranny of the - Turk assists us by frightening our [lower] nobles and humbling them, - they will illtreat us worse than do the Turks. Their only thought is - to put the sovereigns in leading-strings and to lay the burghers and - peasants in irons. The slavery of the Pope will be followed by a new - enslaving of the people under the nobles.”[1363]—In the same year he - says: “If the nobles go on in this way,” i.e. neglecting their duty - of “protecting the pious and punishing the wicked,” there will be “an - end of Germany and we shall soon be worse than even the Spaniards and - Turks; but they will catch it soon.”[1364]—In 1543 he indignantly - told a councillor who opposed him and his followers: “You are not - lords over the parishes and the preaching office; it was not you - who founded it but the Son of God, nor have you ever given anything - towards it, so that you have far less right to it than the devil has - to the kingdom of heaven; it is not for you to find fault with it, - or to teach, nor yet to forbid the administration of punishment.… - There is no shepherd-lad so humble that he will take a harsh word - from a strange master; it is the minister alone who must be the butt - of everyone, and put up with everything from all, while they will - suffer nothing from him, not even God’s own Word.”[1365]—In 1544 he - even said of his own Elector: “After all, the Court is of no use, its - rule is like that of the crab and snail. It either cannot get on or - else is always wanting to go back. Christ did well by His Church in - not confiding its government to the Courts. Otherwise the devil would - have nothing to do but to devour the souls of Christians.”[1366]—“The - rulers shut their eyes,” he had written shortly before, “they leave - great wantonness unpunished, and now have nothing better to do than - impose one tax after another on their poor underlings. Therefore will - the Lord destroy them in His wrath.”[1367] - - “What then is to become of the Church if the world does not shortly - come to an end? I have lived my allotted span,” so he sighed in 1542, - “the devil is sick of my life and I am sick of the devil’s hate.”[1368] - -He often gives vent to his wounded feelings in unseemly words. A strange -mixture of glowing fanaticism and coarse jocularity flows forth like a -stream of molten lava from the furnace within him. - - Thus we have the famous utterances recorded above (vol. iii., p. 233 - and vol. v., p. 229) called forth by the decline of his Church, the - carelessness of the rulers and the remissness of the preachers. - - “Our Lord God sees,” he declares, “how the dogs [the princes who were - against him] soil the pavements, wet every corner and smash the basins - and platters; but when He begins to visit them, His anger will be - terrible.”[1369] - - “To these swine,” so he wrote to Anton Lauterbach of the politicians - in the Duchy of Saxony, “we will leave their muck and hell-fire to - boot, if they wish. But they shall leave us our Lord, the Son of God, - and the kingdom of heaven as well!… With a good conscience we regard - them as reprobate servants of the devil; … be brave and cheerfully - despise the devil in these devil’s sons, and devil’s progeny until - they drive you away. ‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof’ - (Ps xxiii. 1).… By your joy you will crucify them and, with them, - Satan, who seeks to destroy us. To speak plain German, we shall s⸺ - into his mouth. Whether he likes it or not he must submit to having - his head trodden under foot, however much he may seek to snap at us - with his dreadful fangs. The seed of the woman is with us, whom also - we teach and confess and Whom we shall help to the mastery. Fare you - well in Him and pray for me.”[1370] - - The minor State-officials he also handled roughly enough. These - “Junkers” take it upon them “to sing the praises of the papal filth.” - “They stick to the Pope’s behind like clotted manure.” “I know better - what ‘_Ius canonicum_’ is than you all will ever know or understand. - It is donkey’s dung, and, if you want it, I will readily give you it - to eat!” “If donkey’s dung be so much to your taste, go and eat it - elsewhere and do not make a stench in our churches.”[1371] - - -_The Present and the To-come_ - -On his last birthday, which he kept on Martinmas-Eve, 1545, Luther -assembled about him Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, George Major and -other guests, and to them opened his mind. According to the account left -by his friend Ratzeberger he spoke of the coming dissensions: “As soon -as he was gone the best of our men would fall away. I do not fear the -Papists, he remarked; they are for the most part rude, ignorant asses and -Epicureans; but our own brethren will injure the Evangel because they -have gone forth from us but were not of us. This will do more harm to the -Evangel than the Papists can.” The sad political outlook of Germany led -him to add: “Our children will have to take up the spear, for things will -fare ill in Germany.” Of the Catholics he said: “The Council of Trent is -very angry and means mischief; hence be careful to pray diligently, for -there will be great need of prayer when I am gone.” All, he exhorted “to -stand fast by the Evangel.”[1372] - -“For it is the command of our stern Lord [the Elector],” he says -elsewhere, “that we should maintain undefiled the government of -the Church, dispense aright the Word, the Absolution and the -Sacraments according to the institution of Christ, and also comfort -consciences.”[1373] - - Towards his end, according to Ratzeberger, he frequently told the - faithful at Wittenberg that, in order to fight shy of false doctrines, - they must hate reason as their greatest foe. “As soon as he was - dead they would preach and teach at Wittenberg a very different - doctrine”; hence they must “pray diligently and learn to prove the - spirits aright”; they were to keep their eyes open to see whether - what was preached agreed with Holy Scripture (here again the right of - judging falling on the simple faithful). But if it was “outside of - and apart from God’s Word, sweet and agreeable to reason and easy of - comprehension, then they were to avoid such doctrine and say: No, thou - hateful reason, thou art a whore, thee I will not follow.”[1374] - - In a sermon on the 2nd Sunday after the Epiphany, 1546, published - three years later after Luther’s death by Stephen Tucher under the - title “The last Sermon of Dr. Martin Luther of blessed memory,”[1375] - Luther again speaks at length of the “heresiarchs” who had already - arisen and whom more would follow; what the devil had been unable to - do by means of the Kaiser and Pope, that he “would do through those - who are still at one with us in doctrine”; “there will be a dreadful - time. Ah, the lawyers and the wise men at Court will say: ‘You are - proud, a revolt will ensue, etc., hence let us give way.’” But, in - matters of faith, there must be no talk of giving way, “pride may well - please us if it be not against the faith.”[1376] - - The picture of reason as a mere prostitute was now once more vividly - before him. He hoped to dispose of the variant doctrines of others, - who, like himself, interpreted the Bible in their own fashion, simply - by urging contempt for reason. The faith in his own teaching, so he - declared, “in the doctrine which I have, not from them but from the - Grace of God,”[1377] must be preserved by means of a deadly warfare - against “reason, the devil’s bride and beautiful prostitute”; “for - she is the greatest seductress the devil has. The other gross sins - can be seen, but reason no one is able to judge; it goes its way and - leads to fanaticism.” The evil that is inherent in the flesh had not - yet been completely driven out; “I am speaking of concupiscence which - is a gross sin and of which everyone is sensible.” “But what I say - of concupiscence, which is a gross sin, is also to be understood of - reason, for the latter dishonours and insults God in His spiritual - gifts and indeed is far more whorish a sin than whoredom.”[1378] - When a Christian hears a Sacramentarian fanatic putting forward his - reasonable grounds he ought to say to that reason, which is speaking: - “Dear me, has the devil such a learned bride?—Away to the privy with - you and your bride; cease, accursed whore,” etc.[1379] Hence some - restriction was to be placed on private judgment; it was to be used - in moderation and only in so far as it tallied with faith (“_secundum - analogiam fidei_”).[1380] This “faith,” however, was in many instances - simply Luther’s own. - - As Luther’s personality could not replace the outward rule of faith, - viz. the authoritative voice of the teaching Church, his dreary - prognostications were only too soon to be fulfilled. Hence in the - appendix to another Wittenberg edition of Luther’s last sermon these - words, as early as 1558, are represented as “the late Dr. Martin - Luther’s excellent _prophecies_ about the impending corruption and - falling away of the chief teachers in our churches, particularly at - Wittenberg.”[1381] - - It is curious that, towards the close of his life, the Wittenberg - Professor should have come again to insist so strongly on those points - in his teaching for which he had fought at the outset, in spite of all - the difficulties and contradictions they had been shown to involve, - with the Bible, tradition and reason. He could at least claim that - he had not abandoned his olden theses of the blindness of reason, of - the unfreedom of the will, of the sinfulness of that concupiscence, - from which none can get away, of the saving power of faith alone and - the worthlessness of good works for the gaining of a heavenly reward, - of the Bible as the sole source of faith and each man’s right of - interpreting it, and, last, but not least, that of his own mission and - call received from God Himself. - -The decline of morals, now so obvious, was another phantom that haunted -the evening of his days. - - In the beginning of 1546 he confided to Amsdorf his anxiety regarding - Meissen, Leipzig and other places where licence prevailed, together - with contempt of the Gospel and its ministers. “This much is certain: - Satan and his whole kingdom is terribly wroth with our Elector. To - this kingdom your men of Meissen belong; they are the most dissolute - folk on earth. Leipzig is pride and avarice personified, worse than - any Sodom could be.… A new evil that Satan is hatching for us may be - seen in the spread of the spirit of the Münster Dippers. After laying - hold of the common people this spirit of revolt against all authority - has also infected the great, and many Counts and Princes. May God - prevent and overreach it!”[1382] - - He tells “Bishop” George of Merseburg, in Feb., 1546, that “steps must - be taken against the scandals into which the people are plunging head - over heels, as though all law were at an end.” It seems to him that a - new Deluge is coming. “Let us beware lest what Moses wrote of the days - before the flood repeats itself, how ‘they took to wife whomsoever - they pleased, even their own sisters and mothers and those they had - carried off from their husbands.’ Instances of the sort have reached - my ear privately. May God prevent such doings from becoming public as - in the case of Herod and the kings of Egypt!”[1383] “The world is full - of Satan and Satanic men,” so he groans even in an otherwise cheerful - letter.[1384] - -Up to the day of his death he was concerned for the welfare of the -students at Wittenberg University. Among the 2000 young men at the -University (for such was their number in Luther’s last years) there -were many who were in bitter want. Luther sought to alleviate this by -attacking, even in his sermons, those who were bent on fleecing the -young; he not only gave readily out of his own slender means but also -wrote to others asking them to be mindful of the students; of this we -have an instance in a note he wrote in his later years, in which he asks -certain “dear gentlemen” (possibly of the University or the magistracy) -for help for a “pious and learned fellow” who would have to leave -Wittenberg “for very hunger”; he declares that he himself was ready to -contribute a share, though he was no longer able to afford the gifts he -was daily called upon to bestow.[1385] - -We know how grieved he was at the downfall of the schools and how loud -his complaints were of the lawlessness of youth; how it distressed him -to see the schools looked down upon though their contribution to the -maintenance of the Churches was “entirely out of question.”[1386] - -For his University of Wittenberg he requests the prayers of others -against those who were undermining its reputation. He sees the -small effect of his earnest exhortations to the students against -immorality.[1387] The excellent statutes he had laid down for the town -and the University were nullified by the bad example of men in high -places. “Ah, how bitterly hostile the devil is to our Churches and -schools.… Tyranny and sects are everywhere gaining the upper hand by -dint of violence.… I believe there are many wicked knaves and spies here -on the watch for us, who rejoice when scandals and dissensions arise. -Hence we must watch and pray diligently. Unless God preserves us all is -up. And so it looks. Pray, therefore, pray! This school [of Wittenberg] -is as it were the foundation and stronghold of pure religion.”[1388] -He once declared sadly that, among all the students in the town there -were scarcely two from whom something might be hoped as future pastors -of souls. “If out of all the young men present here two or three -honest theologians grow up then we should have reason to thank God! -Good theologians are indeed rare birds on this earth. Among a thousand -you will seldom find two, or even one. And indeed the world no longer -deserves such good teachers, nor does it want them; things will go ill -when I, and you and some few others are gone.”[1389] - -“The world was like this before the flood, before the destruction of -Sodom, before the Babylonian captivity, before the destruction of -Jerusalem—and so again it is before the fall of Germany.… Should you, -however, ask what good has come of our teaching, answer me first, what -good came of Lot’s preaching in Sodom?”[1390] - -To divert his thoughts from these saddening cares he often turned to -Æsop. It is of interest to note how highly he always prized Æsop’s -Fables, not merely as a means of education for the young in the -elementary schools, but even as furnishing a stimulating topic for -conversation with his friends. - - He is very fond of adducing morals from these fables both in his - Table-Talk and in his writings. - - Æsop’s tale of the fight between the wounded snake and the crab he - dictated to his son Hans as a Latin exercise,[1391] and, in 1540, when - a Mandate of the Kaiser aroused his suspicions owing to its kindly - wording, the old man at once related to his guests the fable of the - wolf who seeks to lead the sheep to a good pasture, and declared that - he could easily see through this “Lycophilia.”[1392] - - For a long time he had a work on hand which he was destined never - to complete; he was anxious to provide a new and better edition - of Æsop for the schools, which, so he hoped, should replace the, - in some respects unseemly, fables of Steinhöwel’s edition then in - use which had been corrupted by additions from Poggio’s Facetiæ. A - series of amusing and at the same time instructive fables which he - translated with this object in view is still extant. That he found - time for such a work in the midst of all his other pressing labours - is sufficient evidence that he had it much at heart. The Preface to - his unfinished little work, which he read aloud to a friend in 1538, - pointed out, that writings of this kind were intended for “children - and the simple,” whose mental development he wished to keep in view, - carefully excluding anything that was offensive. The collection of - Fables then in circulation, “though written professedly for the - young,” unfortunately contained tales with narratives of “shameful and - unchaste knavery such as no chaste or pious man, let alone any youth, - could hear or read without injury to himself; it was as though the - book had been written in a common house of ill fame or among dissolute - scamps.”[1393] - -He was very determined in putting down scandals when they occurred in -his own home. A young relative, who was addicted to drunkenness, he -took severely to task, pointing out the good example, which in the -interests of the Evangel his household was strictly bound to give; when -the maidservant, Rosina, whom he had taken into his house, turned out a -person of bad life, he could not sufficiently express his indignation and -dismissed her from the family. A similar case also occurred at the time -of his flight from Wittenberg in July, 1545; he writes to Catherine in -the letter in which he tells her of his intention of not returning: “If -Leck’s ‘Bachscheisse,’ our second Rosina and deceiver, has not yet been -laid by the heels, do what you can that the miscreant may feel ashamed of -herself.”[1394] - -Catherine Bora was a good helper in matters of this sort. In fact she -performed with zeal and assiduity the duties that fell to her lot in -tending the aged and infirm man, and looking after the house and the -small property. Amidst his many and great difficulties he often confessed -that she was a comfort to him, and gratefully acknowledges her work. -In his letters to her during his later years he writes in so religious -a strain, and in such heartfelt language, that the reader might be -forgiven for thinking that Luther had entirely succeeded in forgetting -the irreligious nature of the union between a monk and a nun. “Grace -and peace in the Lord,” he writes in a letter from Eisleben of Feb. 7, -1546, to his “housewife.” “Read, you dear Katey, John and the Smaller -Catechism, of which you once said: All that is told in this book applies -to me. For you try to care for your God just as though He were not -Almighty and could not make ten Dr. Martins should the old one be drowned -in the Saale, etc. Leave me in peace with your cares, I have a better -guardian than even you and all the angels.”[1395] - - -3. Luther’s Death at Eisleben (1546) - -In March, 1545, there was sent to Luther by Philip of Hesse an Italian -broadside purporting to have been printed in Rome, and containing a -fearsome account of Luther’s supposed death. In it “the ambassador of -the King of France” announces that Luther had wished his body set up -on the altar for adoration; also that before he died he had received -the Body of Christ, but that the Host had hovered untouched over the -grave after the funeral; a diabolical din had been heard coming from the -grave, but, on opening it, it was found to be empty though it emitted a -murderous stench of brimstone. Luther at once published the narrative -with an half-ironical, half-indignant commentary. He sought to persuade -the people that the Pope had actually wished for his death and damnation. -In a poem which he prefixed to the pamphlet he tells the Pope in his -usual style that: his life was indeed the Pope’s plague, but that his -death would be the Pope’s death too; the Pope might choose which he liked -best, the plague or death.—About the real origin of this alleged Italian -production nothing is known.[1396] - -In his bodily sufferings and anxiety of mind concerning the present and -the future of his life’s work Luther frequently spoke of his desire for a -speedy release by death. His words on this subject throw a strong light -on his frame of mind. - - As things are “ever growing worse,” he says, “let our Lord God take - away His own. He will remove the pious and then make an end of - Germany.” “I am very weary of life,” he declared, “may Our Lord come - right speedily and take me away, and, above all, may He come with His - Judgment Day! I will reach out my neck to Him that He may strike me - down with His thunderbolt where I am. Amen.”[1397]—As early as June - 11, 1539 (?), when he was wished another forty years of life, he said - that, even were he offered a Paradise on earth for forty years, “I - would not accept it. I would rather hire an executioner to chop off - my head. So wicked is the world now! And the people are becoming real - devils, so that one could wish him nothing better than a good death - and then away!”[1398] - - Do you know, he said on one occasion, who it is that holds back God’s - arm? “I am the block that stops God’s way. When I die He will strike. - No doubt we are despised; but let them gather up the leavings when - they are most despised; that is my advice.”[1399] - - That, “even in our own lifetime, the world should thus repay us,” - seemed to him intolerable.[1400] “I hold that, for a thousand years, - the world has never been so unfriendly to anyone as to me. I am also - unfriendly to it, and know of nothing in life that I take pleasure - in.”[1401] - - Of the sudden death that confronted him he had, however, no idea. On - the contrary, in 1543, when he was suffering from severe trouble in - the head, he said to Catherine Bora, that he would summon his son - Hans from Torgau to Wittenberg to be present at his death, which now - seemed near at hand; but, he added: “I shall not die so suddenly, I - shall first take to my bed and be ill; but I shall not lie there long. - I have had enough of the world and it has had enough of me.… I give - thanks to Thee My God that Thou hast numbered me in Thy little flock - which endures persecution for the sake of Thy Word.”[1402] - - Incidentally he declared: “If I die in my bed it will be to defy the - Papists and put them to shame.” Why? Because they will not have been - able to do me the harm “they wished, and, in fact, were in duty bound - to have done me.”[1403] - - The thought of death often made his hatred of the Catholics to flame - up more luridly. “Only after my death will they feel what Luther - really was”; should he fall a prey to his adversaries before his - time, he would carry with him to the grave “a long train of bishops, - priestlings and monks, for my life shall be their hangman, my death - their devil.” He announces angrily, “They shall not be able to resist - me,” and that, “in God’s name, he will tread the lion and the dragon - under foot,” but of all this, according to him, they were to have only - a taste during his lifetime; only after his death would matters be - carried out in earnest.[1404] - - Brooding over his own death he says of the death of the believing - Christian, viz. of the man who puts his trust in the Evangel: “If a - man seriously meditates in his heart on God’s Word, believes it and - falls asleep and dies in it, he will pass away before he realises that - death has come, and is assuredly saved by the Word in which he has - thus believed and died.”[1405] These words he wrote on Feb. 7, 1546, - to an Eisleben gentleman in a copy of his Home-Postils. He prefaced - them with a passage from Scripture in which he himself doubtless had - often sought comfort: “He that keepeth my Word shall not taste of - death for ever” (John viii. 51). In one of his last lengthy notes - he also seeks to make his own this believing confidence: “Christ - commands us to believe in Him. Although we are not able to believe - as firmly as we should yet God has patience with us.” “I hide myself - under the shelter of the Son of God; Him I hold and honour as my Lord - to Whom I must fly when the devil, sin or any other ill assails me. - For He is my shield, extending beyond the heavens and the earth and - the foster-hen under whose wings I creep from the wrath of God.” Thus - he was so steeped in the delusion of faith alone that he could thus - wish to die in sole reliance on the “Word of God,” thanks to which he - is to escape “the devil, death, hell and sin.”[1406] We may remember - that, in one of his earliest controversial sermons, where a glimpse - of his new doctrine is already to be detected, he had used the simile - of the foster-hen. Now, in his old age, he returns to it, the richer - by the experience of a long lifetime, albeit he now sees that it is - difficult, nay impossible, “to believe as firmly as we should.” - -In Jan., 1546, Luther set out for the third time for Mansfeld, in order -to settle the business of Count Albert of Mansfeld; only as a corpse was -he to return home. - -The Elector did not look with approval on Luther’s arduous labours as -peacemaker, while Chancellor Brück even went so far as to characterise -the Counts’ interminable lawsuits about the mines and the rest as a -“pig-market.” Luther, nevertheless, set out again on Jan. 23, regardless -of his already impaired health, betaking himself this time to Eisleben. -He was accompanied by his three sons, their tutor and his famulus -Aurifaber, the editor of the German Table-Talk. At Halle they were -detained three days in the house of Jonas on account of the floating ice -and the flooded state of the Saale. “We did not wish to take to the water -and tempt God,” so he wrote to Catherine on Jan. 25, “for the devil bears -us a grudge and also dwells in the water; and, moreover, ‘discretion is -the best part of valour’; nor is there any need for us to give the Pope -and his myrmidons such cause for delight.”[1407] - -On the 26th Luther preached a sermon in which, with all the strength -at his command, he poured forth his anger against Popery, “which had -cheated and befooled the whole world.” “The Pope, the Cardinals and the -lousy, scurvy, mangy monks have hoaxed and deluded us.” He proceeded to -storm against the unfortunate monks who had dared to remain in a town -now almost entirely won over to the innovations: “I am above measure -astonished that you gentlemen of Halle can still tolerate amongst you -these knaves, the crawling, lousy monks.… These wanton, verminous -miscreants take pleasure only in folly.… You gentlemen ought to drive -the imbecile, sorry creatures out of the town.… What we teach and preach -we do not teach as our own words, discovered or invented by us, like -the visions of the monks which they preach; their lies are like bulging -hop-pockets or sacks of wool.”[1408] - -On the 28th, after having been joined by Jonas, Luther and his companions -crossed the swollen Saale. On this occasion he said to Jonas: “Dear Dr. -Jonas, wouldn’t it be a fine thing were I, Dr. Martin, my three sons and -you to be all drowned!” Not far from Eisleben they were overtaken by a -cold wind which brought the traveller in the carriage to such a state of -weakness and breathlessness that he nearly fainted. “The devil always -plays me this trick,” so he consoled himself, “when I have something -great on hand.”[1409] - -At Eisleben he took up his abode with the town-clerk, and soon got well -enough to take part in the negotiations; he visited the several families -of the Counts and amused himself in his hours of leisure by looking at -the young nobles and their ladies tobogganing.[1410] To Catherine he -wrote jestingly on Feb. 1, that his fit near Eisleben was the work of the -Jews, numbers of whom lived there (at Rissdorf); they had raised up a -bitter wind against him, which “penetrated the back of the carriage and -passed right through my cap into my head, and tried to turn my brain to -ice. This may have brought on the fainting; now, however, thank God, I -am quite well, were it not for the pretty women, etc.” (cp. above, vol. -iii., p. 281). He extols the Naumburg beer, which suits him well, says -that his three sons have gone on to Jena and alludes to the blow he was -planning against the Mansfeld Jews, on whom Count Albert frowned and whom -he was determined to abandon.[1411] - -When Catherine again expressed fears about his health he replied in a -joking vein on Feb. 10, giving her an account of all that her anxious -thoughts had brought upon him: The fire that broke out just in front of -his door had almost burnt him up, the plaster that fell from the ceiling -of his room had almost killed him, “having a mind to verify your pious -fears if the dear and holy angels had not been watching over me. I fear, -if you don’t put your fears to rest, the earth will finally open and -swallow us up.… We are, thank God, well and sound.“[1412] - -In the interval, while the negotiations were still proceeding, he had -dealt very rudely with the Jews in a sermon on Feb. 7, in spite of the -fact that the Countess of Mansfeld, Solms’s widow, was said to be in -their favour. He was displeased to see them left unmolested. “No one -lifts a finger against them.” In a manuscript “exhortation against the -Jews,” written at that time,[1413] he briefly sums up his wishes: “You -Lords ought not to tolerate them, but rather drive them out,” at least if -they refuse to become Christians. Not long before he had declared that, -with his own hands, he could put a Jew to death who dared to blaspheme -Christ; when writing to Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg he also praised -one of his partisans, a certain provost, simply and solely for his hatred -of the Jews: “The provost pleases me beyond measure because he is so -strong against the Jews.”[1414] - -Altogether, Luther preached four sermons at Eisleben. Twice he went -to the Supper, so we are told, after having previously received -“Absolution.” On the second occasion “he ordained” two priests,[1415] -his friend’s account narrates, “in the apostolic way.” Every evening -he assembled his friends about him, the chief being Justus Jonas and -the Eisleben preacher, Michael Cœlius. In their company he showed a -good temper, much as the long-drawn, tedious negotiations annoyed him. -He put it down to the devil that the scheme of settlement drawn up by -expert lawyers, encountered so much opposition on both sides; indeed he -fancied that all the devils had gathered together at Eisleben to mock at -his efforts in this dreary business. He would fain have himself played -the poltergeist among the combatants, to “grease the wheels of the -lazy coach” and “bring them back at last to some sense of the duty of -Christian charity.”[1416] The reader will remember the apparition that -Luther thought he saw in those days.[1417] At last, on Feb. 14, he was -able to write to his “dear, kind housewife”: “God has shown us great -mercy here, for, through their solicitors, the Lords have settled almost -everything save two or three points.”[1418] These outstanding matters -were satisfactorily adjusted shortly afterwards. - -In the same letter Luther said: “We hope, please God, to return home -this week.” Thus he scarcely expected to die yet, but still hoped to be -able to get back to Wittenberg before the end came. “Here we eat and -drink like lords,” so he assures his Catherine, “and are very well looked -after.”[1419] On Feb. 16, at table, when the talk turned on sickness -and death, Luther said: “When I get home to Wittenberg I shall at once -lay myself in my coffin and give the grubs a nice fat doctor to feed -on.”[1420] For all his weakness his cheerfulness had not left him. - -New cares were now troubling his mind. He had learnt how the Kaiser was -insisting on submission to the Council, how the religious conference at -Ratisbon had been a failure, and had merely given the Imperial forces -time to arm themselves for an attack on the Schmalkalden Leaguers. The -coming defeat of the League at Mühlberg was already casting its shadow. -“May God help His Highness our Master” (the Elector), remarked Luther; -“he is in for a bad time.”[1421] His annoyance with Kaiser Charles led -him to say: The “Emperor is dead against us, and now he is showing the -hand he so long had concealed.”[1422] - -Luther, however, was not to live to see the blow delivered which the -flouted Imperial power had so long been threatening. - -“During those three weeks” Luther frequently left the supper-table with -the admonition to “pray for our Lord God [i.e. for His cause][1423] that -it may go well with His Churches; the Council of Trent is highly wroth.” - -Holy Scripture, to which he had always devoted himself with so much -energy, even now engrossed him. He felt keenly its obscurity and depth. -The last short note he made was on the Book of Books and the difficulty -of reaching its innermost meaning. After instancing the difficulty of -rightly understanding even Virgil or Cicero, it proceeds: “Let no one -think he has sufficiently tasted Holy Scripture, unless, for a hundred -years, he has ruled the Churches with prophets such as Elias, Eliseus, -John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles.”[1424] By this significant -admission he had of course no intention of repudiating the principle, -whereby in the stead of the teaching authority of the Church he had put -the written Word of God as the clear and final rule for each individual. -At this time, just before his death, he was less inclined than ever to -retract one jot of his doctrine. Nevertheless the fact that he himself -was compelled to admit in such terms the depth and the difficulty of the -Bible seems scarcely to bear out his usual contention, viz. that Holy -Scripture is the one and all-sufficient guide and master for all. - -On Feb. 17, the first symptoms showed themselves of the attack which was -to carry him off before the next dawn.[1425] During the day he was very -restless; once he said: “Here at Eisleben I was baptised, how if I were -to remain here?” In the evening he felt the oppression on the chest of -which he had had to complain in previous illnesses; he therefore had -himself rubbed down with hot flannels and, as soon as he felt better, -went off to supper. During the meal he was, as usual, talkative and in -good humour; he told some humorous anecdotes and also spoke of more -serious things, and ate and drank heartily. He casually said that, -were he to die as a man of sixty-three, he would have attained a quite -respectable age, “for people do not now live to be very old. Well, we old -men must live so long in order to be able to look behind the devil [i.e. -learn his wickedness] and experience so much malice, faithlessness and -misery in the world that we may bear witness what a wicked spirit the -devil is.” With the pessimism peculiar to him he concludes: “The human -race is like the sheep being led to the slaughter.” - -According to Ratzeberger, the Elector’s medical adviser, who collected -the latest particulars concerning Luther, the latter, on the evening of -the 17th, “when about to lie down to sleep after supper,” wrote “with -a piece of chalk on the wall the verse: In life, O Pope, I was thy -plague, in dying I shall be thy death” (cp. above, vol. iii., p. 435). -If we may trust this account, then, on this occasion Luther again used -the words which had once before served him under similar circumstances -at Schmalkalden. Those actually present at Eisleben make, however, no -mention of this, and, in his funeral address, Jonas merely says, that -these verses were Luther’s fitting “epitaph” which he had once written -for himself. Cœlius also, in his panegyric on Luther, says that though -dead he still survives in his books; “he will also after his death, -please God, be the death of the Pope, thanks to his writings, just as he -was his plague during life.” As no mention of the writing on the wall is -made by either of these two, nor yet in the account of his death given -by his three friends, though there was no reason for their omitting it, -Ratzeberger’s account stands alone and must be taken for what it is -worth.[1426] - -The following is based principally on the narratives of Jonas, Cœlius and -Aurifaber, though the fact that it emanates from enthusiastic friends of -Luther’s has not been overlooked. Even though, as is highly probable, the -three writers in question made the most of the edifying traits they were -able to mention, yet this is no sufficient ground for rejecting their -account as a whole. Even the short prayers which they put on Luther’s -lips may not be pure inventions. - -After supper Luther betook himself rather early to his sitting-room -and, as his custom was, said his prayers at the open window. Another -severe attack of heart oppression then came on; his friends hurried to -his assistance and again tried to mend matters by rubbing him with hot -cloths; he was, however, only able to get an hour’s sleep on a sofa in -the room. He refused to have the doctors called in as he did not think -there was any danger. For the next two or three hours, viz. till 1 a.m. -he slept in his own bed in the adjoining bedroom, after telling his -anxious friends and his two sons, Martin and Paul, to go to rest. Jonas, -the principal witness at his death, had a couch in the same room as -Luther. - -About one o’clock Luther suddenly felt very unwell. “Oh, my God, how ill -I feel,” he said to Jonas, and, getting out of bed, he dragged himself -into the sitting-room, saying he would probably die at Eisleben after -all, and repeating the prayer: “Into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” -He complained of an intolerable burden on his chest. Two physicians, -one a doctor and the other a master of medicine, were now summoned in -haste. Before they arrived the patient seems to have suddenly collapsed; -they found him on the sofa, unconscious and with no perceptible pulse. -Recovering consciousness he said, all bathed in the cold sweat of death: -“My God, I feel so ill and anxious, I am going,” and then, according to -Jonas, he said a short prayer of thanks to God for having revealed to him -His Son Jesus Christ in Whom he believed and Whom he had preached and -confessed, whilst the hateful Pope and all the ungodly had blasphemed -this same Christ; thereupon, all trustfully, he commended his soul to the -Lord. No less than three times, according to this witness, did he repeat -in Latin the familiar Bible text: “God so loved the world that He gave -His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish -but have everlasting life.” This text (John iii. 16) he had, indeed, -always esteemed highly, and seen in it the seal of his doctrine. He is -also said to have repeated other Bible texts while medicines were being -given him. Count Albert and his relatives, who had come in, also offered -him various remedies. Soon after he seemed again to lose consciousness. -In spite of the confessions just mentioned Jonas and Cœlius shouted once -more in his ear the question, whether he remained steadfast in the faith -in Christ and His doctrine which he had preached; to which they caught -the reply “Yes.” That was his last word.—To all appearance his death was -due to an apoplectic seizure. - -All things considered, it is very odd that Luther apparently never gave -a thought to his life’s partner, whom he had left at Wittenberg, and -that, at least as it seems, his sons were not with him at his death. The -argument from the silence of his friends on this point is not devoid of -force, for it would have been so easy for them to supply what we here -miss. Their silence might even be adduced in support of the substantial -reliability of their narrative. The best explanation of Luther’s apparent -oblivion is probably to be sought in the result of the stroke which -stupefied him and blotted out the memory of those dear to him.[1427] - -Towards 3 a.m., after drawing a last deep breath. Luther yielded up his -soul into the hands of the Judge. This was on Feb. the 18th. - -At the demand of both the physicians the apothecary of Eisleben was sent -for, either immediately after death had taken place, or possibly just -before, to administer a stimulant by means of a clysteral injection. The -apothecary, Johann Landau by name, was a Catholic and a convert, a nephew -of the convert polemic Wicel. He drew up a report of his visit which has -become famous in the discussion of the question stupidly broached anew of -recent years as to whether Luther committed suicide.[1428] We here give -the principal passages of his very realistic narrative. He speaks of -himself in the third person. - -“The apothecary was awakened at the third hour after midnight.… When -he arrived he said to the doctors: ‘He is quite dead, of what use can -an injection be?’ Count Albert and some scholars were present. The -physicians, however, replied: ‘At any rate have a try with the instrument -that he may come again to himself if there be any life yet in him.’ When -the apothecary inserted the nozzle he noticed some flatulency given -off into the ball of the syringe.”[1429] The apothecary persevered in -his efforts until the physicians saw that all was useless. “The two -physicians disputed together as to the cause of death. The doctor said -it was a fit of apoplexy, for the mouth was drawn down and the whole of -the right side discoloured.”[1430] The master, on the other hand, thought -it incredible that so holy a man could have been thus stricken down by -the hand of God, and thought it was rather the result of a suffocating -catarrh and that death was due to choking. After this all the other -Counts arrived. Jonas, however, who was seated at the head of the bed, -wept aloud and wrung his hands. When asked whether Luther had complained -of any pain the evening before he replied: “Dear me, no, he was more -cheerful yesterday than he had been for many a day. Oh, God Almighty, -God Almighty, etc.”—by this Jonas did not mean to deny the fit of heart -oppression that had occurred the previous day, since he himself reports -it to the Elector; distracted by grief as he was he probably only thought -of the good spirits Luther had been in that evening, and of the contrast -with the dead body he now saw lying before him. Or it may be that he did -not regard the heart oppression as actual “pain.” - -Landau’s report continues: “In the meantime the Counts brought costly -scents to be applied to the body of the deceased, for on several -occasions before this he had been thought to be dead when he lay for a -long time motionless and giving no sign of life, as happened to him, for -instance, at Schmalkalden when he was tormented with the stone.… The -apothecary vigorously rubbed his nose, mouth, forehead and left side for -some time with the oils. Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt came and bent over the -corpse and asked the apothecary whether any sign of life remained. The -latter, however, replied that there was not the least life in him seeing -that the hands, nose, forehead, cheeks and ears were already stiff and -cold in death.… Jonas said: It will be best now for us to send a swift -rider to the Elector and for one of us to sit down and write and tell him -all that has happened.” - -Jonas himself wrote this first still extant account to his sovereign -“about four o’clock in the morning.” - -On Feb. 20 Luther’s body was taken to Halle, and early on the 22nd to -Wittenberg, where it was received at the Elster Gate—the scene of the -famous burning of the Bull—by the University, the Town Council and the -burghers. He was buried in the Schlosskirche. There his bones still rest -in the grave as was proved by an examination made on Feb. 14, 1892.[1431] - - -4. In the World of Legend - -Barely twenty years later a report that Luther had committed suicide went -the rounds among certain of his opponents, the report being subsequently -grounded on the alleged statement of a servant. - -The first writer who mentions the servant is the Italian Oratorian, -Thomas Bozius, in a book on the marks of the Church printed in Rome in -1591. “Luther after having supped heartily that evening and gone to bed -quite content,” so he writes, “died that same night by suffocation. I -hear that it has recently been discovered through the confession of a -witness who was then his servant and who came over to us in late years, -that Luther brought himself to a miserable end by hanging; but that -all the inmates of the house who knew of the incident were bound under -oath not to divulge the matter, for the honour of the Evangel as it was -said.”[1432] - -It was not till the beginning of the 17th century that the text of the -supposed letter of Luther’s servant began to be circulated, according -to which, when the latter went one morning to awaken Luther “as usual” -(i.e. about 7 a.m.) he found he had committed suicide; this, however, -is quite at variance with the definite accounts we have of the time of -death. The supposed servant claims to have been alone when he found “our -Master Martin hanging from the bedpost, miserably strangled,” whereas the -notes made at the time speak of the presence of witnesses both before and -after the death which, moreover, was quite a natural one. The apocryphal -letter bears no writer’s name nor do we know anything of its source; it -seems to have made its first public appearance at Antwerp in 1606 in the -work of the Franciscan Sedulius, who probably took it in good faith. It -is remarkable, that, down to 1650, as Paulus has proved, only one German -writer mentions this fictitious letter, though foreign polemics were busy -with it. Outside of Germany such inventions found more ready credence, -particularly among the zealous and more imaginative Catholics of the -Latin race, who were only too willing to seize on any tale which was to -the discredit of the lives of the German foes of Catholicism.[1433] - -The falsehood of the legend of Luther’s suicide was most convincingly -proved by N. Paulus in his special work on the subject (1898). This -scholar submitted the fable to the sharp knife of criticism with a -broadminded love of truth that honours his Catholicism as much as his -acumen does honour to him as a critic. - -It is barely credible to us to-day what inventions grew up in the 16th -century, both on the Catholic and the Protestant side, about the deaths -of well-known public men who happened to be the object of animosity to -one party or the other. Suicide, or murder at the hands of friend or -foe, or, more frequently, dreadful maladies or sudden death under the -most horrible shapes were the ordinary penalties assigned to opponents, -not only by the populace but even by the more credulous type of learned -writers. We must not forget that Luther himself had at hand a list of the -persecutors of the Evangel, who, in his own day, had been snatched away -by sudden death, and that it served him on occasion in his sermons and -writings.[1434] - -It is an undeniable fact that Luther did much to pave the way for such -stories. His printed Table-Talk could well be taken as a model. Among -the fearsome tales of death he himself related was e.g. that of Mutian -the humanist, who, refusing to become a Lutheran, fell from poverty into -despair and poisoned himself;[1435] of the Archbishop of Treves, Richard -of Greiffenklau, who was “bodily carried off to hell by the devil”;[1436] -of the Catholic preacher, Urban of Kunewalde, who, “having fallen away -from the Evangel,” was “struck by a thunderbolt” in the church, and then -again by a flash of lightning that passed through his body from head to -foot, because he had asked heaven for a sign to prove that he was in the -right,[1437] etc.[1438] “All these perished miserably,” he says, “like -senseless swine. And so too it will happen with the others.”[1439] - -In those days, partly owing to Luther’s influence, people were very ready -to admit the devil’s intervention in the horrible death that befell their -foes; the Catholic champions would all seem to have had a shocking end, -could we but trust the writers in the Protestant camp.[1440] - -Eck they depicted entirely possessed by the devil and “dying like a -brute beast, quite out of his mind.” Of Emser (when still living) Luther -himself says, that he had been killed suddenly by the “fiery darts and -arrows of the devil.”[1441] Cochlæus, according to other writers, was -removed from the world in an awful way. Johann Fabri it was said had -died in despair, saying to those who exhorted him to have confidence: -“Too late, too late.” Pighius was made out to have died by his own hand. -Latomus was represented as crying out on his death-bed that he was a -devil incarnate and had claws on his fingers and toes. Hofmeister, the -learned Augustinian, according to the Protestant version, repeatedly said -before dying: “I belong to the devil body and soul.” Of the Jesuits, -even their founder, Ignatius of Loyola, had a bad death. Canisius was -struck dumb in the pulpit at Worms and was carried off by the judgment -of God; some were not wanting, however, who declared that he had been -converted to Luther’s doctrine. Seven years before his death, it was -reported of Bellarmine, the great controversialist of that day, that “he -had died miserably and in despair,” carried off on the back of a fiery -he-goat from hell; and “even to this very day,” so it was told during -his lifetime, “Bellarmine may be heard gruesomely howling in the wind, -astride his flaming, winged steed.” - -Needless to say, many of the converts who turned their back on Luther and -took the part of the Catholic Church “perished miserably”! “Many of these -devil’s henchmen,” writes a “simple minister of the Word,” “who knowingly -and of malice aforethought, as they themselves admit, deny the known -truth of the Evangel, have been carried off alive by the devil, or have -howled before their death like wolves and tigers, as notoriously happened -in the case of that firebrand Staphylus.”[1442] - -If similar tales, representing in an unfavourable light Luther’s life -and death, were equally rife among the Catholics, this can be no matter -for surprise if we bear in mind how greatly they were vexed by the -exaggerated eulogies passed on him and his life’s work, and how much -they had been stung by his polemics and furious onslaught on the Church. -Whoever loved the olden Church held Luther’s very name in execration. - -One such tale early current at Halle was that, when the funeral -procession arrived at Wittenberg, the coffin was found empty, Luther’s -corpse having vanished on the road. A number of rooks having described -circles in the air about the corpse at Halle, a later tale made them out -to have been devils “streaming to the funeral of their prophet.”[1443] -Proof of this general foregathering of the devils was even found in -the comparative calmness of those possessed, who, it was argued, had -evidently been forsaken for a while by their diabolical tenants, the -latter’s presence at the burial explaining their temporary departure from -their usual habitats.[1444] The corpse, it was also said, gave out so -evil a smell that the bearers had to leave it on the road to Wittenberg. - -Other versions of these tales deserve to be mentioned. According to -Johann Oldecop, the Hildesheim Dominican (†1574), who, however, is not -reliable in what he had at second hand, Luther was simply found dead in -his bed. According to Simon Fontaine (1558), a French writer, who also -speaks of his sudden death, he had “his nun” with him that night; this -is also affirmed in the works of Jérôme Bolsec and James Laing, printed -in Paris, as well as in a work published at Ingolstadt. According to -William Reginald, Professor at the English College of Douay (1597), -Luther had been strangled in the night by Catherine Bora. The same tale -was afterwards told at Münster in Westphalia by Johann Münch (1617). - -Even more common were the reports, quite in accordance with the manners -which Luther had fostered, that the devil had murdered him. The Polish -scholar, Stanislaus Hosius, asserted this in 1558, and, later, it is -mentioned, though only tentatively, by the Dutch theologian, William -Lindanus and the Paris theologian Prateolus. In 1615, Robert Bellarmine, -speaking in general terms, says that Luther, after an illness lasting -only a few hours, “yielded up his soul to the devil”;[1445] but the -“_Compendium fidei_” 1607 of Franz Coster (already published in Dutch -in 1595) had been beforehand in particulars of Luther’s death at the -devil’s hands. He tells how, according to the statement of a noble -lady of Eichsfeld, Luther’s body had been found with the “neck red and -out of joint,” hence it was plain that “he had been strangled by the -devil.” Peter Pázmány a Magyar writer (1613) had heard that the devil had -appeared in the shape of a great sheep-dog to the guests at table on the -evening previous to Luther’s death, and that Luther had exclaimed: “What, -so soon?” Claude de Sainctes (1575) a French theologian, finds nothing -extraordinary in Luther’s horrible death, since most of the Church’s -foes had been brought to a violent end by the devil as the examples of -Zwingli, Carlstadt, Œcolampadius and others showed! - - - - -CHAPTER XL - -AT THE GRAVE - - -1. Luther’s fame among the friends he left behind - -The first panegyrics on Luther, the funeral orations and encomiums -which were immediately printed and scattered broadcast through Germany -constitute an historical phenomenon in themselves. They show orators and -writers alike fascinated as it were by Luther’s overpowering personality, -and they, in turn, fascinated many thousands who read them. Jonas was -the first to deliver at Eisleben an address in his honour, viz. in the -afternoon of Feb. 19; this was followed by another by Cœlius previous to -the departure of the funeral procession on Feb. 20; whilst Bugenhagen, -too, delivered one of his own on the 22nd, after the arrival of the body -at the Schlosskirche. The rhetorical effusions of Jonas and Cœlius, who -had been present with Luther at the end, likewise Bugenhagen’s address, -and the account of Luther’s death which they published in conjunction -with Aurifaber, are all crammed with incredible praises. Melanchthon, -too, forgetful of all the pain he had suffered at Luther’s hand and -shutting his eyes to all his weaknesses, paid his tribute of honour to -Luther’s memory, first in a notice affixed at the University, then in a -Latin funeral-oration which he delivered in the Schlosskirche as soon as -Bugenhagen had had his say, and, again, in a short writing on his friend -and master which he prefixed to the second volume of the Latin edition of -Luther’s works (1546). - - “Alas, gone is the chariot and horseman of Israel” (2 Kings ii. - 12), so Melanchthon said in the notice of Luther’s death, which he - addressed to the students,[1446] “who ruled the Church in this the old - age of the world. For it was not human sagacity that discovered the - doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and trust in the Son of God, but - God revealed it through this man whom He raised up before our eyes.” - In his funeral oration he extols the departed as one of the long line - of Divine tools starting in Old Testament times, a man taught by God - and exercised in severe spiritual combats, of a friendly nature, not - at all passionate or quarrelsome and only inclining to be violent - when such medicine was needed by the ailments of the age. “Whatsoever - things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, - lovely and of good fame” according to the Apostle (Philip. iv. 8) had - been exemplified in him. Now, however, he had gone to join the company - of the Prophets in heaven, etc. - - According to the similar address delivered by Jonas[1447] only at the - end of the world would people clearly see what “splendid revelations - he had had when first he began to preach the Evangel.” Luther had - the “Spirit of God in rich and exalted measure,” he was “a past - master in spiritual combats.” “In the hour of death he had cast all - his cares on Christ.” In the spirit of Luther, who was equal to Noe - in his words and preaching, Jonas prophesied, that what he had once - said would be fulfilled, viz. that, after his death, “all Papists and - monks would be scattered and brought low”; Luther’s death, like that - of all the prophets, would have in it “a special power and efficacy - to overcome the godless, stiff-necked and blinded Papists,” nay, - before two years were over, they would all be overtaken by a “gruesome - chastisement.”—To such an extent had Luther’s pseudo-mysticism and - fanatical expectations infected his pupils. Nevertheless Luther’s - admissions concerning the imperfection of his work were also taken - over by his pupils. “In spite of the great and bright light of the - Evangel,” so Jonas confesses in his funeral oration, “the world has - reached such a pass that now among many are found not only the common - sins and shortcomings but, to boot, blasphemy, disorders, defiance, - or deliberate persistence in the grossest vices; yet no one is ready - to acknowledge that he is a sinner.” The sermon in question was again - preached by Jonas at Halle later on. - - Cœlius, in his funeral oration, declared that no one before Luther had - known how to call upon God, how to look up to Him in trouble, or what - a man ought to do, or how he was to serve God. But “by him God has - unlocked Holy Writ which formerly was a book closed and sealed.” The - dear man had been a “real Elias and Jeremias; he was a new John the - Baptist, preaching the great day of the Lord, or else an Apostle.” - - According to Bugenhagen’s sermon,[1448] the deceased was “undoubtedly - the Angel of whom it is written in the Apocalypse (xiv.): ‘And I saw - an angel flying through the midst of heaven having the eternal Gospel - to preach.’” Through him, “the God-sent reformer of the Church,” God - the Father has “revealed” the great mystery of His Beloved Son Jesus - Christ. - -These eulogies, which owe their fulsomeness partly to the bad taste of -the humanistic period, were strong in their effects on men’s minds; the -preachers, moreover, who had been trained or appointed by Luther, were -anxious thereby to strengthen their own position and to show their scorn -for Popery. Even in the above addresses Luther and what he stood for is -contrasted with “the oppression and tyranny of the hateful Popedom” from -which the world had been delivered. (Bugenhagen.) - -In many of the churches Luther’s picture was hung up with the -inscription: “The Holy Dr. Martin Luther (‘_Divus et sanctus_,’ etc.).” -Writings were published bearing such titles as “Luther, the Prophet,” -“Luther, the Wonder-Worker.” All sorts of medals were struck in his -honour, one with the inscription: “_Propheta Germaniæ, Sanctus Domini_,” -others with Luther’s motto: “_Pestis eram vivus_,” etc.[1449] Even in -his lifetime pictures appeared in reprints of his works where he was -represented with a halo and with the Dove, as the symbol of the Holy -Ghost, descending on him from heaven.[1450] - -The most popular biography of Luther was that of Johann Mathesius, who -died as pastor of Joachimsthal in Bohemia. He met with a success such as -can be accounted for only by the passion in favour of Wittenberg then -prevalent in Protestant Germany. The appellations so common in later -years, Luther the “Wonder-Worker,” “Chosen Instrument,” “True German -Prophet,” “Man full of Grace and the Holy Spirit,” are to be met with -already in the “Historien” of Mathesius, delivered originally as sermons -and first published in 1566. In these “stories” he has interwoven in -Luther’s laurel wreath much that is untrue or doubtful, for instance, -the saying attributed to Erasmus and since frequently quoted on his -authority, is spurious, viz. “that, when Dr. Luther explains Scripture, -on one of his pages there is more reason and common sense than in all -the tomes and scrolls of Scotists, Thomists, Albertists, Nominalists -and Sophists.”[1451] Mathesius wishes people “not to be forgetful of -so worthy a man’s life and testimony,” yet even he gives us a glimpse -into the bitter controversies now already raging among the Lutherans; he -points out how “God loves the peacemakers and calls them His own dear -children while He sends adrift all who delight in war and strife.” He -himself had some experience of the antagonism between the progressive -party and the more old-fashioned Lutherans. Indeed one of the principal -reasons why he wrote the “Historien” was because “many an ungrateful -fellow actually forgets this great man and his faithful industry and -toil.” He already sees the “Wittenberg cisterns” defiled by “all kinds of -brackish, foul, baneful, muddy and uncleanly waters.”[1452] - - Though historically the tales of “the pious panegyrist,” as - Maurenbrecher a Protestant calls him,[1453] cannot be said to rank - very high, yet the energy with which he claims a thoroughly German - character for Luther and for his own biographical work was pleasing - to many. He uses the term “Prophet of the Germans” _ad nauseam_, - even in the Preface addressed to the Wittenberg authorities; God had - bestowed Luther “as a gift on us, the descendants of Japhet, and the - Holy German Empire in these last days”; he, Mathesius, had a living - “under the Bohemian Crown,” but as a German by birth he had “preached - officially in his mother tongue” and “of set purpose, had these - _German_ sermons, to the honour of Our God and the blessed _German_ - Theology, published in German in order that some at least in Germany - might be reminded what this blessed _German_ Church in the Kingdom of - Bohemia thought of the doctrines of this great _German_ Prophet.” - - By his exertions for the preservation of the Table-Talk Mathesius also - sought to glorify Luther’s memory. - - An influential group of panegyrists, who, like Mathesius, noted down, - collected, or published Luther’s utterances, comprises Cordatus, - Dietrich, Rörer, Schlaginhaufen, Lauterbach and, to pass over - others, Aurifaber, Stangwald and Selnecker. Cordatus, who went as - Superintendent to Stendal in 1540, compared Luther’s sayings to the - oracles of Apollo.[1454] Aurifaber, one of those present at Luther’s - death at Eisleben, became in 1551 Court Chaplain at Weimar and in 1566 - pastor at Erfurt. In the “Colloquia,” or Table-Talk, which he caused - to be printed at Eisleben in 1566, he says, in the Preface addressed - to the Imperial towns of Strasburg, Augsburg, Ulm, Nuremberg, etc., - that Luther was the “Venerable and highly enlightened Moses of the - Germans.” - - Like Aurifaber and Stangwald (1571), Selnecker (1577) took for the - motto of his edition of the Table-Talk the words of Christ, “Gather up - the fragments that remain,” etc. (John vi. 12); he further embellished - his collection with the words: - - “What, full of God’s spirit, Luther once taught - That doth his godly flock now hold fast.”[1455] - - Of the Lutheran die-hards who were never weary of fighting for the - true olden spirit of Luther in opposition to the Protestant critics - who very soon sprang up, the most eminent were Flacius Illyricus, - Justus Menius, Nicholas Amsdorf and Cyriacus Spangenberg. - - Concerning the father of the latter, Johann Spangenberg, Luther, in - the last days of his life, had advised and “faithfully exhorted, that - he should be called as Superintendent [to Eisleben].”[1456] Full of - boundless admiration for Luther his son Cyriacus wrote his “Theander - Lutherus,” where he says that the latter was the “greatest prophet - since the days of the Apostles” and a “real martyr,” particularly - because the devil had persecuted him so greatly. In consideration of - this he canonises him and speaks of him as “St. Luther.”[1457] In the - preface he assures us that it was only Luther’s holy and persistent - prayers that had hitherto spared Germany the perils of war which - would otherwise have overtaken her. The significant and lengthy title - of this remarkable work runs as follows: “Theander Lutherus; of the - worthy man of God, Dr. M. Luther’s spiritual Household and Knighthood, - of his office as Prophet, Apostle and Evangelist; How he was the third - Elias, a new Paul, the true John, the best Theologian, the Angel of - Apocalypse xiv., a faithful witness, wise pilgrim and true priest, - also a good labourer in our Lord God’s vineyard, all summed up in - one-and-twenty sermons.” - - Flacius Illyricus, the Wittenberg Professor famous for his connection - with the “Magdeburg Centuries,” made Luther’s exemplary life play its - part among the “Marks of the true Religion.” He proves in the book - bearing this title the advantages of Protestantism over Popery by the - mark of holiness, and by the pious life of some of the New Believers - so different from that of the Catholics, and, in so doing, he appeals - boldly to the founder of Protestantism. Whatever was alleged against - Luther was false; “the Papists have never ceased from spreading these - untruths, particularly in distant lands where the true state of the - case is not so well known.”[1458] - - Luther’s most ardent admirer after Flacius was perhaps Nicholas - Amsdorf. In the Jena edition of Luther’s works for which he was - responsible Amsdorf extols him in the Introduction as a man of God, - “the like of whom has not been seen on earth since St. Paul’s day,” - a man whom God “had raised up by His special Grace as a chosen - instrument and bestowed on the German nation”; “by the Spirit and - Word of God he had been led to attack the Pope, and his services - in revealing him as Antichrist must be esteemed as highly as his - vigorous advocacy of the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation - and Justification through Christ.” Nay “he had been specially raised - up” “in order to unmask the Roman Antichrist.” But, on account of - all his other doctrines too, “pious Christians ought to acknowledge - with grateful hearts this great miracle which God has shown to the - world and used against the Pope in these last sad times through the - precious man of God Martin Luther.” Amsdorf, however, as he hints in - the same Preface, found to his dismay that Protestant “cavillers” - were now even more numerous than in Luther’s lifetime, who “picked - from Luther’s writings only antologies and contradictions.” Some had - even dared to distort his writings. He complains that the Wittenberg - complete edition of Luther’s works was so unreliable that he was now - compelled to undertake the present new Jena edition: “Many things - in those tomes were deleted, expurgated and altered for the sake of - currying favour.”[1459] The real Luther, particularly as he is seen in - his denial of the need of good works, is numbered by Amsdorf among the - Saints; this is clear from the title of one of Amsdorf’s works, where - he places Luther on a par with the Apostle of the Gentiles.[1460] - -Particularly around Luther’s tomb did veneration centre. Thus the verses -of August Buchner invite his readers to visit Luther’s tomb, and proclaim -it a greater thing to have seen this little resting place than even the -proud Temple of Capitoline Jove.[1461] - -Immediately after his death a lengthy “poem” was published at Wittenberg -entitled “Epitaphium,” celebrating both the deceased and his grave: - - “In mine own sweet Fatherland - I did die a death so grand. - At Wittenberg in peace I lie; - To God be praise and thanks on high.” - -In it Luther tells how he had been sent by God that he might— - - “Before the trump of doom unmask that devil’s child - The Antichrist, with fiendish sin defiled.” - -For ever and for ever it would remain true that - - “Pope and Antichrist have sprung - From the wicked devil’s dung.”[1462] - -His grave was marked only by a stone let into the ground bearing on it -a metal plate with his name, the date and place of his death, and his -age.[1463] - -On a bronze memorial tablet in the wall was described in Latin verse -the dark night in which the world was plunged under the Papacy, until -at last Luther “once more made known the Grace of Christ, and, moved -by the Divine inspiration (‘_Dei adflatu monitus_’) and called by the -Word of God, had caused the new light of the Evangel to illuminate the -world.” Like Paul his tongue had sent forth lightnings, like John the -Baptist he had shown to the world in its darkness the Saving Lamb of -God, and also brought to light the Tables of Moses, the Prophet of God, -in their counter-distinction from the Gospel. The altars had been purged -of the Roman idols. In reward for all this he had been exalted by Christ -to the stars in order that he might share in His eternal joy.[1464] -Beside the monument there was placed in the following century a framed -painting representing Luther in the pulpit, pointing with his finger -to the Crucified, while a dragon with wide-open jaws was swallowing -the Pope and his helpers. On this painting the verses given above were -repeated.[1465] - -The Elector Johann Frederick had another memorial tablet cast, but, owing -to his defeat in the Schmalkalden War, this was taken by his sons to -Weimar and later, in 1571, to Jena, where it was put up in the church of -St. Michael. On it, above the life-size figure of the deceased, stands -the verse: “_Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua papa_.” Other Latin -verses at his feet state that, through him, the great fraud had been -exposed whereby godless Rome had ensnared Christ’s flock. Would that -Christ would help the orthodox school of Jena to vanquish the swarm of -false doctrines (of the New Believers) that was springing up now, when -the end of the world was so close.[1466] - - -2. Luther’s Memory among the Catholics. The Question of His Greatness - -A faithful Catholic visiting the Schlosskirche at Wittenberg must -necessarily have been assailed by thoughts much at variance with the -eulogistic language of the epitaph and other expressions of Lutheran -feeling. Let us suppose that one of those zealous and cultured Catholics -who had been drawn by the attack on the olden religion into yet closer -sympathy with it had crossed the threshold of the church—for instance a -preacher such as Dr. Conrad Kling of Halle, who in the midst of trials -and slanders was seeking to save the remnants of Catholicism,[1467] -or a man like the historian Wolfgang Mayer,[1468] or the learned -and sharp-witted Kilian Leib, Prior of Rebdorf,[1469] or one of the -highly gifted women of that day, for instance, Charity Pirkheimer, the -sister of the humanist and Superior of the struggling Poor Clares of -Nuremberg[1470]—what would have been the impressions called forth by the -building and the monument? - -The building itself recalled the oneness of the divine edifice of the -Church whose work it was to build up all the regenerate into one body, -without dissensions or divisions, that oneness to which the Church in -olden days, when barely out of the hands of the persecutor, had borne -witness at the baptismal font of St. Peter’s in Rome in the impressive -inscription: “One chair of Peter and one font of Baptism!”[1471] The -pulpit of the Schlosskirche called to mind the commission given by -the Divine Saviour to His Apostles and their successors to baptise -all nations and preach that doctrine which He Himself was to preserve -infallible by His Presence “all days even to the end of the world.” The -altar reminded the Catholic visitor of the eucharistic Sacrament and of -the unbloody sacrifice formerly offered there. The bare walls spoke of -the iconoclastic storm against both the images of the Saints and any -living union of the faithful on earth with the elect in heaven, while -the elaborate monuments to the dead seemed to proclaim in these times of -excitement the peace in which those departed men had passed away happy in -the possession of the one olden faith. - -This ecclesiastical unity—such would have been the thought of the -Catholic—has been shattered in our unhappy age by the man whose remains -are here honoured by his followers, and not in order to reform, or -improve, but rather to replace the thousand-year-old heirloom of the -Church by a new faith and worship. - -Even Luther’s very monument re-echoed the menaces pronounced by Luther -upon Catholicism when he desecrated what was most sacred for so many -thousands, and laid rough hands on the one consolation of their sorrowful -lives. - - The fierce announcement to Popery: “My death will be your plague” fell - from his lips not once but often. “Only after my death will they feel - the real Luther.” “My life shall be their hangman, my death shall be - their devil!”[1472] “When I die I shall become a spirit to plague - the bishops, the priestlings and the godless monks so greatly that a - dead Luther will spell to them more trouble than a thousand living - ones.”[1473] - - With the oft-repeated words: “_Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors - tua Papa_,”[1474] which are also engraved on his death mask in the - Luther-Halle at Wittenberg, he proclaimed that his death would do more - harm to the Papacy than his life; as long as he lived the Papists - would benefit to some extent from his labours, but, when he died, - they would be deprived even of this. The threat, though grotesque, - is quite in keeping with his belief in himself. He says that it is - he alone who is still holding back the storm that is threatening to - engulf all the Papists. He asks the Catholics of Germany: “How if - Luther’s life were of so much value in God’s sight that, did he not - live, not one of you would be sure of your life or existence here - below, so that his death would be a misfortune to you all?”[1475] He - even goes so far as to prophesy: “One day they will cry: Oh, that - Luther were still living!”[1476] He parades before the Catholics the - services he had rendered by resisting the fanatics and those who - denied the Sacrament; the Catholics, so he says, would never have - been able to do so much. “They are ungrateful, of this will I speak - to them when I am dead. I have inveighed against them enough in the - ‘Vermanũg,’ but it is all of no use.”[1477] “After my death the - Papists will see all the good I have done them, and in me the saying - will be fulfilled: ‘He died justified of his sin.’”[1478] - - Thus in his half jesting, half serious fashion he proclaimed himself - a sort of defender and pillar of the Papacy. The idea did not seem - too strange to his friend Jonas to prevent him introducing it into - his funeral oration on Luther: “The Papists,” he says, “Canons, - priestlings, monks and nuns would in years to come wish that Dr. - Luther still lived; they would gladly obey him, and, if they could, - call him from the grave; but their chance is now gone.”[1479] - -These great expectations and bold prophecies were as little realised as -that of the impending fall of the Papacy. - -On the contrary the Papacy gathered strength, renewed its youth from -one decade to another and, though the apostasy also grew, yet a gradual -revival of the ancient faith set in throughout the Catholic world. On -the minds of the faithful Catholics there remained, however, indelibly -stamped the gloomy recollection of the towering defiance with which the -Wittenberg professor and his secular allies had sought to introduce an -alien teaching and reform. - -The inflexible will on which Luther so prided himself is the sign -manual of his personality. Nothing is so characteristic of Luther as -his obstinate determination which yielded to nothing, and the appalling -pertinacity that ever drove him on and never allowed him to retreat. - -“No one, please God, shall awe me so long as I live!”[1480] To no other -principle was he more faithful throughout his life. Thus we hear him -declaring: - - “Good, then let us bid defiance in God’s name; whoever feels - compunction let him draw back; whoever is afraid let him flee!… I have - brought Holy Scripture and the Word of God to light as no other has - done for a thousand years. I have done my part. Your blood be upon - your own heads and not on mine.”[1481] - - “When we see and feel the world’s wantonness, anger and hate, let us - learn to defy it,” “to the disgust and annoyance of the world.” “This - is an exalted defiance and an excellent consolation.” “Defiantly - we boast: The Gospel that we preach is not ours but our Lord - Christ’s.”[1482] - - Luther defied not only “the world,” i.e. his ecclesiastical opponents - and Catholicism generally, but also what he calls the devil, i.e. the - inner voice that reproached him; he defied life and death, Emperor and - princes, and, to boot, his own followers. Yet it was to him not so - easy a task to defy the olden Church: “Rather than anger the Christian - Church, or say one word against her, I would prefer to lose ten heads - and to die ten times over. And yet do it I must.” “They tell us ‘the - Christian Church is where Popery is.’ But no, Christ says, ‘My word - shall prevail and you shall obey me and listen to me alone, even - should you go cracked, mad and crazy over it.’”[1483] - - He was highly elated at the thought that the powerful protectors - of the Church had “not been able to put him down.”[1484] All their - success he regards as mere “devil’s dung”;[1485] the princes, “the - tyrants and men of great learning” might be incensed at the blow he - had dealt them, but, so he declares, for the defence of his teaching - he would have to give them “thirty blows more to induce remorse - and repentance.”[1486] For “in this may God give me no patience or - meekness. Here I say No, No, No, so long as I can move a finger, let - it vex King, Kaiser, princes, devils and whom it may.” “In the matter - of doctrine no one is great in my sight, I look upon him as a mere - soap-bubble, and even less; this there is no gainsaying.” The same was - to hold good of his crass writing on the “Captive Will”: “I defy not - only the King [of England] and Erasmus, but also their God and all the - devils, fairly and rightly to dispose of that same booklet!”[1487] - - “His enemies’ anger and fury,” so he declares when in this mood, is - to him “real joy and fun.” He will force himself to be of “good and - cheerful heart” about their “baneful books.”[1488] - - With frightful earnestness he warns the Catholic princes: “It is the - truth that you will go headlong to destruction; I know that on the - word will follow the deed and that you will perish.… We have this - consolation that we are not affrighted, even should emperors, kings, - princes, Pope and bishops fall in a heap and kingdoms lie one on the - top of the other.”[1489] “What is a prince or emperor, nay the whole - world compared with the Word? They are but dung.” “Papacy, Empire and - Grand Turk” mean nothing to us. “Such is our defiance.”[1490] - - In his scorn for those who vex him and write against him he is - determined to “put out his horns”,[1491] He will be a “huntsman and be - after his quarry”; “I hunt the Pope, the cardinals, bishops, canons - and monks.”[1492] - - Of the defiance of the “hard Saxon”[1493] not only the Papists but - the Court-lawyers and the theologians in his own camp had to taste - when they annoyed him. Not only did he oppose the Papists, “cheerfully - and confidently” condemning them to hell and to “eat the devil’s - droppings,” and rejoicing with a “good conscience” at the impending - destruction of these “slaves of Satan”;[1494] but he had similar, nay - even stronger words of defiance ready for the “false teachers” amongst - the New Believers, to wit for the Swiss and for such as Agricola. - When the latter defended himself and said, “I too have a head,” - Luther retorted: “And, please God, have I not one too.” But with such - “stiff-necked” heretics “God was determined to torment him so as the - better to defy the Papists.”[1495] - -A defiance so utterly overwhelming as Luther’s the world had never before -seen. The Catholics were quite dumbfounded. Can we take it ill if they -failed to admire this form of Titanic greatness. A frightful greatness -(perhaps it were more accurate to say a great frightfulness) indeed -lurked behind Luther. Yet a Catholic would have had to throw over all -religious and moral standards before he could extol a man as great simply -on account of his strength of will, determination, power of resistance, -inflexibility and defiance. Men felt that, after all, what was important -was the aim and the means used in pursuing it. If all that mattered was -merely the inflexibility of the will, this would have spelt an “upsetting -of all values” and the strong man, he who towered above his fellows owing -to his physical strength and his power of bidding defiance to the world -would become the ideal of the human race. - -Nor would a thoughtful Catholic contemporary have been much impressed by -the modern eulogies of Luther’s defiance. - - “Because he feared neither hell nor the devil, he stands out for all - time as the embodiment of human greatness”; “in his brave spirit there - does not seem to have existed the faintest shadow of the pallid fear - of man.” “In word and writing he is the greatest demagogue of all the - ages”; “the sledgehammer blows of his berserker fury and wild humour - rained down on every side.” - - “Since his road led to the goal, it must have been the right road, - hence let critics hold their tongues.” - - “Such a master knew best what tone to adopt in order to sway the - nation.” - - “His is the wrath and fury of a hero.… Heroes and hero-fury are - inseparable.” - - Those who speak in this way admit that there were darker sides to - his picture; they, however, insist that, in Luther we see, with “the - mighty will of the hero,” “traits of the dæmonic greatness of a leader - of history” “casting both light and shadows.” Luther “shook the world - to its foundations.” He was a man “of mighty powers and dimensions. In - the case of almost all the really great men of history, not only their - virtues, but also their defects bear an heroic stamp.” These defects - are simply the “reverse side of such a man’s greatness.” - -It is to cherish too low an idea of greatness, not merely according to -the Christian but also according to the merely natural standard, if -strength of will or eventual success are alone taken into account and -the aim and whole moral character of the work completely disregarded. -In one sense of the word Catholics have never been unwilling to grant -Luther a certain greatness, particularly as regards his astounding -mental gifts and his powers of work. Döllinger was quite ready in his -Catholic days to include “the son of the peasant of Möhra amongst the -great, nay, among the greatest of men,” though Döllinger qualifies the -admission by the words which immediately follow: “His disciples and -admirers were wont to console themselves with the ‘heroic spirit’ of -the man, who was so intolerant of any limitations or restrictions and -who, dispensed by a kind of inspiration from the observance of the moral -law, could do things, which, done by others, would have been immoral and -criminal.”[1496] - -There was no neutral vantage-ground from which to judge of Luther’s -labours and his influence. Every thinking man did so from the ethical -standpoint, and the Catholic likewise from the standpoint of his Church. -It is clear that Luther must not be tested by the standard of profane -greatness, but by a religious one. It would be to do him rank injustice, -and he would have been the first to protest were we to consider merely -the force of his character and the extent of his success, rather than his -objects and his influence from the moral and religious standpoint. - -He represented himself to his Catholic contemporaries as a divinely -commissioned preacher; in the name of the Lord he called on them to -forsake the Church of all the ages, because he had come to proclaim -afresh a forgotten Gospel. Hence they were bound to examine the actual -state of the case and to probe for the moral signs which the words of -Christ and the Apostles had taught them to look for, and, when they -found the necessary religious qualities and moral greatness wanting, who -can blame them for not having gone over to him? With them it was not -a question whether they might admire in him a strong man, a Hercules -or “superman,” but whether they were, at his bidding, to sever the tie -that had hitherto bound them to the Church, follow him blindly, and -commit their eternal salvation to his guidance. Luther had never tired -of urging: “No man shall quench or thwart my teaching, it must have its -way as it has hitherto for it is not mine” (but God’s).[1497] “I call -myself Ecclesiastes [the preacher] by the Grace of God.… I am certain -that Christ Himself calls and regards me as such, that He is my master, -and that He will bear me witness on the Last Day that it is not mine but -His own Gospel undefiled.”[1498] It was this rôle of Evangelist that the -better class of opponents felt disposed to examine. - -“Because you call yourself an evangelist and proclaimer of the Gospel,” -so Duke George of Saxony wrote in his reply to Luther, “it would have -better beseemed you to punish with mildness whatever abuses existed -therein, and to instruct the people kindly.”[1499] On the contrary, so -the Duke urges, his behaviour is anything but that of an “evangelist,” -what with his passionate abuse and vituperation, and his criminal breach -of the public peace and religious unity: “Where peace and unity are not, -there there is neither the true faith, which indeed is not to be found in -you.” - - * * * * * - -It is worth while to consider what response would have been awakened in -the minds of serious Catholic visitors to Luther’s grave by his startling -success. - -Those who to-day claim unqualified “greatness” for Luther are usually -thinking of the astonishing success of his undertaking, and of his -influence and that of his labours on posterity. They boast: “He tore his -age from its moorings,” “he reduced to ruins what for a thousand years -had been held in honour”; “he gave a new trend to civilisation.” - -A man of insight could, however, explain otherwise many of these effects. - -The result of Luther’s preaching was undoubtedly very great. But, in the -first place, this result was not solely due to the efforts of one man but -was rather the outcome of the circumstances in which that man lived, the -product of divers factors in the history of the times. - -His contemporaries saw full well that Luther, with his fiery temperament, -had merely assumed the direction of a spirit that had long began to -pervade the clergy, regular and the secular, leading them to cast aside -the duties of their calling and to seek merely honours and emoluments. -They were also aware of the oppressive burden of abuses the Church had -to carry and of the far-reaching disorders in public life. Society was -now anxious to liberate itself from the Church’s tutelage which had grown -irksome. Everyone was conscious of the trend of the day towards freedom, -individuality and new outlooks. Both the Empire and the olden idea of the -Christian nations united as in one family were in process of dissolution -owing to political and social trends quite independent of Luther’s work. -His contemporaries saw with deep misgiving how Luther’s new doctrine and -his innovations generally were strengthening all these elements, and -setting free others of a similar nature which could not fail to help on -his work. Nevertheless the elements of unrest, without which he would -have been unable to achieve anything, were not of his making.[1500] - -We can still judge to-day, from the writings of those who lived at that -time, of the feelings, in some cases enthusiastic in others full of fear, -with which they listened to the Wittenberger as he proclaimed war on -all that was obsolete, or demanded in fiery language the reform of the -Church, for which all were anxious.[1501] The more alluring and seductive -the very word “reformation,” the more effective was the help proffered -for the overthrow of the Church under the cloak of this watchword. In -the field of learning there were the humanists who had fallen foul of -Catholic authority and the spirit of the past; in the lower strata of -society there were the peasants who aimed at bettering their position; -among the burghers and in official circles hopes were entertained of an -increase of authority at the expense of the bishops, now regarded with -ever-increasing jealousy; finally the nobles and knights were allured -by the prospect of the success of a revolt under the banner of the -Evangel which would redound to the advantage of their caste. What chiefly -brought Luther’s star into the ascendant was, however, the protection he -obtained from the princes. Without his Elector, without the Landgrave of -Hesse, without the allies of Schmalkalden, in a word, without political -authority on his side, all the force of his words would have availed -nothing, or at least would never have sufficed to enable him to found a -new Church. The Princes who helped to spread his teaching and reformation -saw the lands and privileges of the Church falling into their lap, and -what was even more, the extension of their sphere of influence to the -spiritual domain where, so far, the Pope and the bishops had reigned -supreme. - -Thus in his success those well versed in the conditions of the times -recognised for the most part only the working of natural causes. - -Luther, as all were aware, shortly after having been put under the Ban -was wont to say that the movement he had begun was something so great -and wonderful that it could not but owe its success to the manifest -intervention of God. “It cannot be,” he exclaimed in 1521, “that -a man should of himself be able to start such a work and carry it -through.”[1502] He was fond of saying he wished no earthly means to be -used for arriving at the goal. Yet, in this very statement of 1521, for -instance, he refers “to the sermons and writings” by which he had “begun” -to disclose the Papists’ “knavery and trickery.” His burning words indeed -acted as a spark flung on the inflammable material accumulating for so -long. Anyone aware of the condition of Germany and of the artifices by -which the author of the gigantic apostasy sought to consolidate his -position at Wittenberg by means of the Court, and at the same time to -excite the fanaticism of the masses, would feel but little impressed by -Luther’s appeal to the apparent simplicity of his writings and sermons, -as being out of all proportion to the unexampled success he attained. - -He was indeed heard to say that he attributed everything to the words -and the divine power of Christ: “Look what it has done in the few years -that we have taught and written such truths. How has the Papists’ cloak -shrunk and become so short!… What will it be when these words of Christ -have threshed with His Spirit for another two years?”[1503] These words -were, however, spoken the year after the publication of those fearfully -violent writings: “On the Popedom at Rome” (against Alveld), “To the -German Nobility,” “On the Babylonish Captivity,” “On the Freedom of a -Christian Man” and “Against the Bulls of End-Christ.” When uttered, his -seductive writing “On the Monastic Vows” was already there to unbar the -gates through which crowds of doubtful helpers would flock to join him. - -Catholic polemics of that day, in order to demolish the objection arising -from the marvellous spread of Lutheranism, set themselves to examine -the relation between the new dogmas and their dissemination. Luther’s -doctrine, as they frequently pointed out, was bound to secure him a large -following. - -In this particular it was easy enough to prove that it was not merely -the “greatness” of the man which drew such crowds to him. The persistent -vaunting of the universal priesthood, the right bestowed on all of -judging of Scripture, the abandoning of the outward and inward Word to -the feelings of the individual, the sweet preaching of a faith which “no -sin could harm,” the denial of the merit of good works, the assertion -that, not they, but only faith was required for salvation, and, not to -speak of many other points, his contemptuous and unjust strictures on the -Church and her doings, all this—human nature being what it is—could not -fail for a time to help the cause of the New Evangel of freedom, and, -under the conditions then prevailing, to assure it a real triumph. - -This Evangel came upon Germany at a time when the Church’s life was in a -state of decay, when the adequate religious instruction of the young was -neglected by the Church, and when the dioceses were for the most part -governed by younger sons of princely or noble houses, who were quite -unfitted for their spiritual work. It is noteworthy that the defenders of -the Church had very little good to say of the bishops.[1504] - -Of the new preachers and promoters of Luther’s Reformation a large -number was composed of apostate clergy and escaped monks and nuns whom -Luther had won over. It was plain enough that it was no such “great and -immortal” work as he claimed, to have attracted such people to his party -thanks to theories which, while seeming to calm the conscience, really -flattered the senses, for instance, by what he said on celibacy, vows -and priestly ordination. “Do not seek to deny that you are a man, with -flesh and blood; hence leave God to judge between the valiant angel-like -heroes [those religious who were faithful to the Church] and the sickly, -despised sinners [whom they upbraided as apostates].[1505]… Chastity is -beyond healthy nature, let alone sinful nature.… There is no enticement -so bad as these commands [of celibacy] and vows, forged by the devil -himself.” Youthful religious were to be dragged out of their monasteries -as quickly as possible, and priests were to learn that theirs was but a -“Carnival ordination.” “Holy Orders are all jugglery and in God’s sight -they have no value.”[1506] - -Hence contemporaries, considering events from the standpoint just -described, must needs have told themselves that Luther’s success, -unexpected and astounding as it was, could not after all be laid down to -the “greatness” of any one single man.[1507] - -What, moreover, must have been the thoughts of the observer regarding the -permanence of Luther’s work who lived to see the master’s own Lutheranism -falling to pieces, according to the statements of his most zealous -admirers,[1508] as soon as he was dead? Luther himself almost seemed -ready to ring down the curtain on the premature termination of the great -tragedy of which he could not but despair.[1509] - - * * * * * - -In the very year of Luther’s death Cochlæus passed in review the havoc -wrought in the Church, embodying his observations in the work he had just -finished and was to publish three years later, viz. his “_De Actis et -Scriptis Lutheri_.” - -These pages seem still to tremble with the excitement of the terrible -period they describe. It is impressive to hear this voice of the -Catholic spokesman coming as it were from Luther’s tomb and telling of -the devastation of the storm raised by the Wittenberg professor. As -Kawerau says, Cochlæus himself could point to a life “which, year after -year, ever since 1521 had been devoted feverishly to the ecclesiastical -debates of the day in which he was so keenly concerned and consumed -in ceaseless controversy [with Lutheranism].”[1510] The grey-headed -scholar, “illuminated and inspired as he was by the truest spirit of -Christianity,”[1511] had once in 1533 declared: “Whatever I write now or -at any time against Luther, I write for the glory of God, the service of -the truth and the good of my neighbour. For I believe firmly that Luther -is a malicious liar, heretic and rebel and I can find nothing but this in -his books and in my own conscience.… I am not, however, bitter or hostile -to Luther personally, but merely to his wickedness and vices. Were he to -desist I would gladly go and fetch back so learned a man from Rome or -Compostella and give him my love and my service.”[1512] - - Cochlæus calls to mind first of all the course of public events in - Germany. At Ratisbon, where he was staying, the Diet of 1546 was - opened with great pomp by Charles V at the very time Cochlæus was - penning the Preface to his work. He relates how the same Kaiser had - declared at the Diet of Worms in 1521 in the edict against Luther - that “his writings contain hardly anything but food for dissensions, - schism, war, murder, robbery, conflagrations, and a great apostasy - of the Christians.”[1513] “The times are grave and perilous,” so his - warning had run: “Oh, that they may not mean the disgrace of our - country!”[1514] Now, however, Cochlæus sees with grief that “Luther - has brought nearly all Germany into shame and confusion.” “Our - fatherland has lost all its former beauty,” he exclaims, “and its - Imperial power is shattered.” He trembles at the sight of the dangers - within and without.[1515] - - “The mischief caused by Luther’s revolt is so great that it is out - of comparison worse than the effects of even the most unhappy war. - Never indeed in the whole of history have the miseries of war caused - such injury to Christendom as the blows dealt us by this heresy.” In - its consequences it was worse than the triumphal progress of Arianism - in early Christian times. He instances the Peasant Rebellion and the - frightful destruction that followed in its wake; also the machinations - of political alliances, hostile alike to the Church and the State, the - loosening of the common bonds that unite the Christian peoples, and - the decline of the authority of the rulers, which was “attacked and - dragged in the mire by Luther and thus rendered contemptible in the - eyes of the masses.”[1516] - - Even more loudly does he bewail the ruin of so many immortal souls; - owing to Luther, countless numbers have been torn from the bosom of - the Mother Church, founded by Christ, and set on the road to eternal - damnation. No tears could suffice to bewail this the greatest of all - misfortunes. Piety has declined everywhere and the new preaching - of faith alone has lamed the practice of good works. “From every - class and calling the former zeal for good works has fled.” He also - ruthlessly describes the effect of Luther’s doctrines and example on - Catholics. “The clergy no longer do their duty in celebrating the - Sacrifice of the Mass and reciting the Church’s office and Hours; to - the monks and nuns their Rule is no longer as sacred as it used to - be. The charity of the rich, the rulers, and the great has dried up, - the people no longer flock to divine worship, their respect for the - priesthood, their benevolence and pity for the poor are coming to an - end. Discipline and decorum are tottering everywhere and have fared - worst of all in our family life. We see about us a dissolute younger - generation, which, owing to Luther’s suggestions and his constant - attacks on all authority ecclesiastical and secular, has cast off - all shame and restraint. On anyone admonishing them they retort with - a falsely interpreted Bible text, an invention of pure wantonness, - such as ‘increase and multiply,’ etc. So far have things already gone - that virginity and continence have become a matter of disgrace and - suspicion.” In even darker colours does he paint the sad picture of - the moral decline among the Protestants: Morals are trampled under - foot, reverence and fear of God have been extinguished, obedience - has become a byword, boldness in sinning gains the upper hand and - “freedom” of the worst kind reigns supreme.[1517] - - Full of grief he comes at last to speak of the man who was responsible - for all this misery. Bugenhagen had boasted of Luther’s prophecy - that, if in life he had been the Papacy’s plague, in death he would - be its death. But the Papacy still lives and will continue to live - because Christ’s promise stands. “Luther, however, was the plague of - our Germany during his lifetime … and, alive or dead, he was his own - plague and destruction.”[1518] - - “Woe,” so he concludes, “to his godless panegyrists who call evil - good and good evil, and confuse darkness with light, and light with - darkness!”[1519] - - -3. Luther’s Fate in the First Struggles for his Spiritual Heritage - -Luther’s reputation was to suffer a sudden and tragic blow owing to the -success of the Imperial arms in the War of Schmalkalden. - -Hardly had the grave closed over him than, in the following year, after -the battle of Mühlheim on April 24, 1547, won with the assistance of -Duke Maurice of Saxony, the Kaiser’s troops entered Wittenberg. A -notable change took place in the public position of Lutheranism when the -vanquished Elector, Johann Frederick, was forced to resign his electoral -dignity in favour of Maurice and to follow the Emperor as a captive. His -abdication and the surrender of his fortresses to the Emperor was signed -by him on May 19 in Luther’s own city of Wittenberg. The Landgrave of -Hesse too found himself forced at Halle to submit unconditionally to the -overlords of the Empire and to see Duke Henry of Brunswick released from -captivity and honoured by the Emperor in the same city. - -The dreaded Schmalkalden League, Luther’s shield and protection for so -many years, was, so to speak, annihilated over night. - -Luther’s theological friends were also made to feel the consequences. -Flacius, after the taking of Wittenberg, fled for a time to Brunswick. -George Major, Luther’s intimate friend and associate, also escaped, but -returned later. Amsdorf was obliged to give up the bishopric of Naumburg -of which he had assumed possession, hand it over to the lawful Bishop -Julius von Pflug, and hasten to Magdeburg, the new stronghold of the -Lutheran spirit. - -It is true that Luther’s cause soon recovered, at least politically -speaking, from the defeat it had suffered in the War of Schmalkalden; -the wounds inflicted on it in the theological quarrels among themselves -of its own representatives were, however, more deep and lasting. Here -Luther’s prediction was indeed fulfilled to the letter, viz. that his -pupils would be the ruin of his doctrines. - - -_The Osiandric, Majorite, Adiaphoristic and Synergistic Controversies_ - -The theological warfare which followed on Luther’s decease opened with -the Osiandric controversy which arose from the modifications of Luther’s -idea of justification introduced subsequent to 1549 by Andreas Osiander, -pastor and professor of theology at Königsberg. After Osiander’s death in -1552 the struggle was carried on by the Court preacher Johann Funk who -held like views. Johann Brenz also defended Osiander’s opinion, whereas -Melanchthon, Flacius Illyricus, Johann Æpinus, Joachim Westphal, Joachim -Mörlin and others were opposed to it. Duke Albert of Prussia was for -a long time a patron of Osiander’s doctrine, but was persuaded later -to alter his views, and his Court preacher Funk did likewise. The old -Lutherans, however, continued the struggle against Funk and, in 1566, -owing to the charges brought against him by the Estates of abusing his -position and of having violently championed “heretical doctrines,” he was -beheaded.[1520] Osiander, however, the author of this new “heresy,” had -himself been by no means wanting in Lutheran zeal where Catholics were -concerned. Already in 1549 he wrote a tract against the Interim entitled: -“On the new Idol and Antichrist at Babel,” in which he lashed those who -“were sneaking back to Antichrist under cover of the Interim.” - -The second, or Majorite controversy broke out at Wittenberg itself, and -like the ones which followed was called forth by the opposition of -the Lutheran zealots to any Melanchthonian modifications of Luther’s -doctrines. George Major, professor at Wittenberg, and subsequently -Superintendent at Eisleben, backed by Justus Menius, Superintendent -at Gotha, had the courage to declare that works were necessary for -salvation, and that, without works, no one could be saved. For this he -and Menius were branded as “heretics” by Flacius Illyricus, Nicholas -Amsdorf, Johann Wigand, Joachim Mörlin and Alexius Prætorius. It was in -the midst of this passionate wrangle, which deeply agitated the ranks -of the preachers and disturbed the congregations, that Amsdorf, with a -determination and defiance equal to Luther’s own went to the extremes -of publishing his tract entitled “That the proposition ‘good works are -harmful to salvation,’ is a sound and Christian one.”[1521] Flacius -brought a writing against Major to a close with the pious wish that -Christ would speedily crush the head of the serpent. Major, the confidant -of Luther whom he had once despatched to attend the religious Conference -at Ratisbon, was now obliged to give in; he made a shameful recantation. -Menius, however, was denounced to the preachers and people as a “Papist,” -and, in spite of his weak compliance, was unable to maintain his position -against the inquisition put into motion by the higher powers. Although -he resigned his office as Visitor and submitted patiently to a reprimand -from the Court, he was obliged to leave the land; he besought the -sovereign in vain for protection against his theological adversaries and -freedom to communicate with the “dear gentlemen” at Wittenberg. The Town -Council of Gotha was forbidden to give him a testimonial to the purity -of his doctrine, and he himself, in spite of his protest that he was as -much heir to Luther’s doctrine as Flacius, was summoned to take his trial -before a sort of religious Synod at Eisenach in 1556, which also ousted -him from his Superintendency. “He died on Aug. 11, 1558, from the effects -of what he had undergone.”[1522] - -In the third great controversy, the Adiaphoristic, Flacius Illyricus -behaved with great violence, indeed his extreme Lutheran views were the -cause of the quarrel which in itself well illustrates the pettiness -and acrimony of those concerned in it. The question under dispute was -whether certain “indifferent matters” (ἀδιάφορα) sanctioned in the -Augsburg Interim of 1547 might be allowed in Protestant circles even -though Luther during his lifetime had frowned on them. Under the Elector -Maurice the theologians and Estates of the Saxon Electorate had answered -in the affirmative. This answer embodied in the so-called “Leipzig -Interim,” was firmly contradicted by Flacius. It is true that what was in -question was not only ceremonies, images, hymns and such-like external -things but also the rites of Confirmation and Extreme Unction, and, in -a certain sense, the use of Penance, the celebration of a kind of Mass -and the veneration of Saints. Flacius was supported by Nicholas Gallus, -Johann Wigand, Nicholas Amsdorf, Joachim Westphal, Caspar Aquila, Johann -Aurifaber, Anton Otto and Matthæus Judex. These poured forth a stream -of angry tracts against the opposite party, the Wittenbergers, who, -however, defended themselves with a will, viz. against Melanchthon, -Bugenhagen, George Major, and Paul Eber, and their friends elsewhere, -such as the Provost of Magdeburg and Meissen, Prince George of Anhalt, -Bernard Ziegler and Johann Pfeffinger of Leipsig, Justus Menius of Gotha, -etc. Even the use of lights on the altar and of surplices were to these -zealots “Popish abominations” and a sign of the abandoning of all that -Luther had won; they even complained, though untruly, that the Wittenberg -theologians no longer declared the Pope to be Antichrist.[1523] -Bugenhagen, Luther’s right hand man at Wittenberg, had to hear himself -charged by Flacius, Amsdorf and Gallus with having denied and falsified -Luther’s doctrines and with teaching something not far short of Popery. -These Adiaphorists, wrote Amsdorf, “in the name and under the semblance -of the Word of God, seek to persuade us to worship the Antichrist at -Rome, the Whore of Babylon and the Beast on which she is seated (Apoc. -xvii.).” Such dangerous men he brands as “belly servers” “who seek to -make terms with the world.” He himself on the other hand was ready to -meet the contempt of the world for the falling off in the number of -Luther’s true followers, hence on the title-page of the new edition of -Luther’s works, which he commenced when the quarrel was at its height -(1555), he printed the consoling verses: “Fear not, little flock, for -it hath pleased the Father to give you a Kingdom” (Luke xii. 32), and -“In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have -overcome the world” (John xvi. 33).[1524] Towards the end of the Preface -he consoles those who shared his way of looking at things, and, as Luther -had done before, he alludes to the near end of the world, when everything -would be righted. - -At the time when the private judgment Luther had preached was thus -bearing fruit we hear Melanchthon groaning: “You see how many teachers -are fighting against us in our own Churches; every day new foes spring -up, as it were, from the blood of the Titans; gladly would I leave these -regions, nay, shake off my mortal coil, to escape the fury of such -men.”[1525] Melanchthon too was accused of indirectly promoting Popery. -An obstinate opponent of his was that very Johann Aurifaber who had been -present at Luther’s death and who subsequently published the Table-Talk. -Melanchthon included him in 1556 among the “unlearned fanatics, men -filled with furious hate, lickspittles at the Court who seek to curry -favour with the populace,” and with whom it was impossible to come to -any understanding.[1526] Aurifaber, like many others of his party, was -dismissed from his post as Court preacher at Weimar, and, subsequently, -when pastor at Erfurt, was excommunicated on account of his teaching, -particularly on original sin. His opponents he persisted in charging with -Popery. - -Against any relapse into Popery the Lutherans were well guarded since -1555, by the Religious Peace of Augsburg and its principle: “_Cuius -regio, illius et religio_.” This, however, produced no inward unity, -rather the opposite. The war among the theologians on account of the -“adiaphora” still went on in the Protestant camp. The hopes entertained -of the Protestant Convention at Coswig (1556) suffered shipwreck owing -to Melanchthon’s disinclination to come to terms. Nor did the Conference -at Altenburg (1568) settle things. It was not until 1577-1580 that the -formulas of Concord established a “_modus vivendi_” by leaving to each -individual Church the decision about the “adiaphora.” Flacius himself -was compelled to leave Wittenberg early in the controversy. He went to -Magdeburg, but fell into disgrace on account of his tendency to insist on -the Church’s independence and had to go into exile to Ratisbon, Antwerp, -Frankfurt, Strasburg, wandering about from place to place until, at -last, he, Luther’s most ardent champion, died in want and poverty at -Frankfurt-on-the-Main (1575). - -With the Synergistic controversy the name of Flacius is likewise very -closely linked. - -Here, however, the question on which minds were divided was a vital one. -Many refused to accept Luther’s rigid doctrine that, in Justification, -the Holy Ghost worked on man as on a senseless block. Johann Pfeffinger -of Leipsig agreed with Melanchthon in assuming some sort of co-operation -(“_synergia_”) of the human will. In this he had the Leipsig Interim on -his side; eventually Victorinus Strigel of Jena, George Major, Paul Eber, -Christian Lasius and others also embraced this view. Against them stood -the zealots like Flacius and Amsdorf, the latter of whom boldly attacked -Pfeffinger’s “_De libertate voluntatis_” and insisted on the unfreedom -of the will. Certain of the theologians of Jena also distinguished -themselves by their opposition to the Synergists. - - Flacius Illyricus went to great extremes in his antagonism to - Synergism. He asserted that man was powerless by means of free will - to effect anything in the matter of his salvation because “original - sin was a ‘substance’ for otherwise holiness too would not be a - ‘substance’”; the soul was by nature a mirror or image of Satan; it - was itself original sin, and original sin was no mere ‘accident.’ It - was impossible for Luther’s doctrine to be carried to its legitimate - conclusion more ruthlessly than in this theory of Flacius. “It was - utter demonism, was this doctrine of the substantial bedevilment of - human nature.”[1527] At this point, however, Luther’s true friends - drew back: Johann Wigand and Tilman Hesshus, professors at Jena, - withstood Flacius, arguing that he was a traitor to Lutheranism - and that his teaching was Manichæan. Like some others Cyriacus - Spangenberg, then Dean of Mansfeld, was accused of favouring Flacius - and of teaching that Satan had created man, that sin was baptised, and - that pregnant women bore within them young devils. As was usual in - such controversies, the people took an active share in the quarrel. - - When the Elector August of Saxony assumed the government of the - Duchy of Saxony, Hesshus and Wigand were deprived of their offices - and driven from the land. Nine Superintendents and 102 preachers - lost their posts at the same time. Hesshus had already tasted exile - as pastor of Magdeburg, when in 1562 the Town Council expelled him - from the town with his wife and child on account of his too emphatic - enforcement of the strictest Lutheranism. - - Spangenberg too had to flee when the administrator of Magdeburg called - in the troops against the Flacian preachers. Cruel measures were - used to force the burghers to accept the doctrine professed by the - governor; the bodies of relatives of the Count of Mansfeld were even - exhumed and reinterred in places untainted with “substantialist error.” - - Spangenberg’s fate was that of many faithful Lutherans. - - Having made his escape to Thuringia disguised as a midwife he there - accepted a position as pastor, but was again driven out in 1590 owing - to the rigid views on original sin he had imbibed from Luther. From - that time he lived by his pen until his death at Strasburg in 1604. He - declared that he was suffering on behalf of the articles on sin and - righteousness, but that he was determined to remain “a staunch old - disciple of Luther’s.” The behaviour of the Wittenberg theologians was - a source of great grief to Spangenberg: They have not only fallen away - from Luther’s doctrine in ten or twelve articles, but also speak of - him in the most unseemly manner: “They call Luther a ‘philauticus,’ - i.e. a man who thinks highly of no one but himself, and whom nothing - pleases but what he has himself said or done; item, a ‘philonisticus’ - and ‘eristicus,’ a quarrelsome fellow who always insisted he was in - the right, believing no good of anyone, yielding to no one, only - seeking his own honour and unable to endure that anyone else should be - highly thought of.” “His books [so they say] contain things that are - very Manichæan, and others that resemble the old heresies.”[1528] - -Nor was Spangenberg doing an injustice to the Wittenberg professors when -he charged them with having thrown Luther over. - - -_Cryptocalvinism_ - -At the time when Flacianism was being suppressed by force, a trend -of opinion known as Cryptocalvinism had the upper hand in the Saxon -Electorate where it was causing grave troubles. Such was the name given -to the gradual leavening of the pure Lutheran doctrine with elements -derived from Calvinism. In other Protestant districts on German soil -Calvinism took root openly, and either supplanted Luther’s teaching, or -prevented its springing up. This was the case in the Palatinate, where -the Elector Frederick III exerted his influence in favour of Calvinism -with the help of the Calvinistic professors of Heidelberg Caspar Olevian -and Zacharias Ursinus. The Elector himself told his son-in-law Johann -Frederick of Saxony, that though for more than forty years the “pure -doctrine” of the Evangel and the holy Word of God had been proclaimed, -“little amendment of life had followed,” and, in “excessive eating and -drinking, gambling, avarice, immorality, envy and hatred we almost outdo -the Papists.”[1529] He also said that it was not merely the lack of -morality in Lutheranism that prejudiced him against it, but that he had -decided to introduce Calvinism into his land because he had discovered in -Luther’s writings many errors and contradictions which he must remove, -particularly in his views on the “bodily presence of Christ” in the -Sacrament of the Altar.[1530] - - The spirit of criticism which Luther had let loose in the Saxon - Electorate grew among some of the Cryptocalvinists into scepticism, - though they boasted of being great admirers of Luther. This scepticism - was first directed against the mystery of mysteries. Luther’s own - uncertainty regarding the Sacrament of the Altar, his halt mid-way, - and his strange theory of the ubiquity of Christ, were in themselves a - challenge. Around Melanchthon there grouped themselves at Wittenberg - and Leipsig men, who, by a prudent introduction of the Calvinistic - view of the Supper according to which Christ is only received - spiritually, sought to question at the same time two of Luther’s pet - dogmas, viz. the indwelling of Christ in the Bread at the moment - of reception (Impanation) and the ubiquitous albeit spiritualised - bodily presence of Christ. Hardly six years had elapsed since Luther’s - death when the Hamburg preacher, Joachim Westphal, strove to set up - a barrier against the threatening inroad of Cryptocalvinism in his - “_Farrago Opinionum de Cœna Domini_”(1552). The Elector August, who - assumed the reigns of government in the Saxon Electorate (1553-1586), - for quite twenty years of his reign was entirely committed to - Cryptocalvinism. Among the theologians and Court officials who were - responsible for his attitude were, particularly, Melanchthon’s - son-in-law, Caspar Peucer, Court physician to the Elector, the Court - preacher Christian Schütz, Johann Stössel, Superintendent of Pirna - and Privy Councillor Georg Craco, the most influential person in the - government of the Saxon Electorate. A “_Corpus doctrinæ Philippicum_” - was drawn up in 1560 from Melanchthon’s writings by these so-called - “Philippists.” In 1571 a Catechism appeared, which, like the - “_Corpus_” had the Elector’s approval. The doctrine it contained was - endorsed by an assembly of theologians at Dresden in the same year, - and it was intended to enforce it as the true faith throughout the - land. - - As might have been expected, the opposition of the “Gnesiolutherans” - against these doings in the Saxon Electorate, the original home of - Lutheranism, was very strong. - - Protests were registered by Martin Chemnitz, the “aristarch of - Brunswick” as the opposite party called him, and by the Jena - theologians, as, for instance, Wigand, Hesshus, Johann Frederick - Cœlestinus and Timotheus Kirchner. At Jena the new system was branded - as a “fresh incursion of devilish spirit” and, in a “Warning” - against the Wittenbergers, it was stated: “They want to make an end - of Luther, that is to say, of his doctrine, and at the same time - to appear innocent of so doing.”[1531] Similarly in the following - year, 1572, a writing entitled “Von den Fallstricken” declared: - “They trample Luther’s doctrine under foot, laugh at it, ridicule - it and anathematise it in the most scandalous manner,” etc.[1532] - The Jena divines, so they asserted, were alone in having the true - unalloyed doctrine which they were anxious to keep free from all - the extravagances and errors of the Pope, the Turks, blasphemers of - the Sacrament, Schwenckfeldians, Servetians, Arians, Antinomians, - Interimists, Adiaphorists, Synergists, Majorites, Enthusiasts, - Anabaptists, Manichæans and other sects.[1533] - - The divergencies were so considerable and far-reaching, and the - falling away from Luther’s doctrine so great, that Aurifaber, who - boasted of having closed the eyes of his immortal master and of - being soaked in his spirit, prefaced as follows the collection of - the Table-Talk, which he gave to the world in 1566: “His doctrine is - now so despised, and, in the German lands men have become so tired, - weary and sick of it, that they no longer care to hear his name - mentioned, nor do they much esteem the testimony of his books. It has - come about that, if one wishes to find Dr. Martin Luther’s doctrine - pure and unfalsified anywhere in the German lands, one has to put on - strong spectacles and look very closely; this is a dreadful thing to - learn.” Aurifaber has this sole consolation, viz. that Luther, because - he had foreseen this state of things, had proved himself a “true - prophet.”[1534] - - Another writer speaks in the following terms of the decay of Luther’s - doctrines and the utter contempt for his person: The endless - benefits Luther brought to Germany—of these the author enumerates - eighteen—those who now profess the Evangel treat with the “most - shocking and gruesome unthank,” doing so not merely by their “evil - life” but by “scorning, decrying and condemning” both his benefits and - his faith. People refuse any longer to follow the great teacher in his - chief doctrines “about the Law and the true knowledge of sin,” “true - justice,” “the distinction between Law and Gospel,” and about the - holy sacraments. “This worthy sendsman of God” meets with “shameful - contempt,” nay, with something worse than contempt, seeing that, “to - boot, he is abused, reviled and defamed by most people,” which “is - all the more hard in that not only his person but also the wholesome - doctrine and divine truth revealed to us by Luther the man of God, - is too often contemptuously rejected by the greater number.” The - author, in his concern, also fears that as people were also bent on - introducing changes in the language “in a few years not much will be - left of Luther’s pure German speech.”[1535] - -At the Court at Dresden, however, the opposition to the Cryptocalvinism -described above gradually gathered strength. Finally the Elector August, -too, was won over, partly on political, partly on theological grounds. -As early as 1573 August declared: “It would not take much to make him -send all the rogues to the devil,”[1536] and, on another occasion that, -“for the sake of three persons he would not expose his lands to the harm -wrought by the Sacramentarians.”[1537] When at last an unmistakably -Calvinistic writing by Joachim Curæus on the Supper was published by a -Leipzig printer, known to be well disposed to the Wittenberger party, -the fury of the Elector broke loose and he declared at a meeting at -Torgau “The venomous plant must now be torn up by the roots.”[1538] In -his name the so-called Articles of Torgau denoting more or less a return -to Luther’s doctrines were drawn up by an ecclesiastical court. All the -theologians who refused to subscribe to them were to be “arrested.” On -this the Leipzig theologians all signed the Articles, that they agreed in -their hearts to all the things contained in Luther’s writings including -his controversial writings against the Heavenly Prophets and his “Kurtz -Bekentnis” on the Supper.[1539] Among the many Cryptocalvinists who -submitted without any protest was Nicholas Selnecker, the editor of -Luther’s Table-Talk. In matters of faith he followed the bidding of the -secular authorities, and on one occasion, wrote to the Elector that “he -would gladly crawl on hands and knees to Dresden only to escape the -suspicion which had been cast on him.”[1540] - -Among the Wittenbergers, on the other hand, four theologians refused -their assent: “Luther’s books,” they said, “were not positive; sometimes -he wrote one way, sometimes another; besides which there were dirty spots -and objectionable things in his controversial writings.”[1541] Such -was the opinion of Widebram, Pezel, Moller and, particularly, Caspar -Cruciger. The latter, a personal friend of Luther’s, called the Articles -of Torgau “a medley of all sorts of things which Luther himself, had -he been alive, would not have signed.” His fate like that of the three -others was removal from his office and banishment from the country. - -Of the four former favourites at Court Stössel the Superintendent though -he craved pardon was kept a prisoner until his death; the Court-preacher -Schütz, in spite of his promise to hold his tongue, was shut up in prison -for twelve years; the Privy Councillor Craco was flung into the filthiest -dungeon of the Pleissenburg at Leipzig, tortured on the rack for four -hours and died with mangled limbs on a miserable layer of straw (March -16, 1575).[1542] Finally Peucer, professor of medicine and history, who, -owing to his influence, had once controlled the University, because he -declared he would not “abjure the doctrine of the Sacrament that had been -rooted in his heart for thirty-three years and adopt Luther’s instead,” -was left pining in a damp, dirty dungeon in the Pleissenburg and was -constantly harried with injunctions “to desist from his devilish errors” -and “not to fancy himself wiser and more learned than His Highness the -Elector and his distinguished theologians, who had also searched into and -pondered over this Article [of the Sacrament].”[1543] He continued to -languish in prison, after the death of his wife, Magdalene, Melanchthon’s -daughter, sorrowing over his motherless children, until after wellnigh -twelve years of captivity he was released at the instance of a prince. -“The behaviour of the Elector and Electress and their advisers towards -him gives us a glimpse into an abyss of injustice, brutality and malice -made all the more revolting by the hypocritical religious cant and -pretended zeal for the Church under which they were disguised. In spite -of all the attempts made of old as well as later to excuse the course of -the so-called cryptocalvinistic controversies, it remains—especially the -case of Peucer—one of the darkest pages in the annals of the Lutheran -Church and of civilisation in the 16th Century.”[1544] - -But the intolerance displayed by orthodoxy in that struggle had been -taught it by Luther. As has been shown already, he had urged that, -whoever advocated blasphemous articles, even if not guilty of sedition, -should be put to death by the authorities; the sovereign must take care -that “there is but one religion in each place”; above all, such was the -opinion of his friends,—the sovereign should “put a Christian bit in the -mouth of all the clergy.”[1545] - - -_The so-called formula of concord (1580)_ - -Owing partly to the wish of the secular authorities for some clearer -rule, partly to the sight of the confusion in doctrine and the bad -effects of the quarrels on faith, there arose a widespread desire for -greater unity based on some new and thoroughly Lutheran formulary. - -The Confession of Augsburg and the Apologia were found insufficient; -they contained no decisions on the countless controversies which had -since sprung up. Thus it came about that “one German province and town -after another attempted to satisfy its desire for unity of doctrine by -means of a confession of faith of its own.… This in itself, in view of -the dismemberment of Germany and the attitude of the Emperor towards -the reformation, would necessarily have resulted in a splitting up of -the Lutheran Church into countless sects unless some means was found -of counteracting individualism and of uniting the Lutherans in one -body.”[1546] - -It was, however, the politicians, who, in their own interests, were the -chief promoters of union. - -Elector August of Saxony wishful of achieving the desired end “by means -of a princely dictum” led the way in 1576 with the so-called Book of -Torgau. - -This work was drawn up by the theologians Jakob Andreæ, Martin Chemnitz, -David Chytræus, Andreas Musculus and Wolfgang Körner. The Book of Torgau -was subsequently revised by Caspar Selnecker and reissued under the title -of the Book of Bergen (1577). It was hoped that it would become the -theological statute-book for all the Protestant Churches; the Protestant -Estates of the Empire were to accept it and it was proposed by the -theologians that all the Lutheran preachers and school-teachers should be -required to give their assent to it.[1547] - -Selnecker supported this attempt by referring to the Council of Trent -which had been successfully concluded in 1563. They ought, so he said, -at last to draw up a “common body of doctrine” as an “evangelical -counterblast to the damnable conciliabulum of Trent”; he adds frankly -that this was essential, “in order to check the corruption of morals -amongst the Evangelical people which was growing worse and worse”; at -the same time he wished to see “a united front against the idolatrous -Popedom and its devilish satellites the Jesuits, with all their verminous -following.”[1548] - -Hopes of preserving Luther’s work by means of the new Formula had risen -high since Frederick, the zealous Calvinistic Elector of the Palatinate, -had been called away by death in Oct., 1576; his successor, the Elector -Louis held Lutheran views and was determined to make a stand for -Lutheranism. - -In spite, however, of the latter’s patronage, and notwithstanding the -efforts of the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, the Formula, as Louis -of the Palatinate sorrowfully admitted, was not approved by even one-half -of the Protestant Princes and townships. One of the strongest objectors -was Landgrave William of Hesse. He did not hesitate to abuse Luther’s -memory in the rudest language, and asserted that the latter had written -“contradictory things.”[1549] - -The Unionists, not satisfied with their partial success, published on -June 25, 1580, the “_Formula Concordiæ_,” consisting of an “_Epitome_” -and a “_Solida declaratio_.” This document occupies an important place in -the history of Lutheranism. - -The doctrines of original sin, unfreedom, justification, the Supper, the -ubiquity of Christ and of the “_communicatio idiomatum_” were taken as -they had been by Luther, though they are often stated with deliberate -ambiguity. Thrusts at Melanchthon, not to speak of Calvin, are found more -particularly in the “_Declaratio_.” - -The permanent rift with Calvinism was as strongly emphasised, as that -with the Papacy. One of the propositions taken from the Articles of -Schmalkalden ran: “All Christians ought to shun the Pope and his members -and followers as the kingdom of Antichrist, and execrate it as Christ has -commanded.”[1550] - -The cement, however, which was to bind together the antagonistic Lutheran -views and schools was not very durable. The fact that “Melanchthon’s -memory had been completely blotted out,”[1551] or that the Pope had been -condemned afresh, did not suffice to bring people together, nor did much -good come of the smoothing over, toning down and evasions to which it -had been necessary to have recourse in the work in order to arrive at a -written basis of outward unity. Over and above all this it became known -that the Protestant Estates were at liberty to add printed prefaces of -their own to the Concord, in which they might, if they chose, set forth -their own theological position, and thus interpret as they liked the -text of the Concord, so long as they did not interfere with the text -itself.[1552] It was also known that the father of the whole scheme, -Jakob Andreæ, Inspector General of the churches of Saxony, had quite -openly made of the acceptance of the Formula a pure formality and had -told the Nurembergers who showed signs of antipathy that all that was -required was their signature, and that this would not prevent their being -and remaining of the same opinion as before.[1553] - -The authors of the Concord, however, displayed such mutual distrust, -nay hatred of each other, as greatly to obscure even the origin of the -Concord and to raise but scant hopes of its future success. Andreæ -bewailed Selnecker’s “diabolical tricks”; he was very well aware that -the latter would be delighted were he (Andreæ) strung up on the gallows. -Selnecker, on the other hand, complained loudly of Andreæ as a dishonest, -egotistical man; he accused Andreæ of calling him: “a damned rascal, a -good-for-nothing scoundrel, an arch-villain and a hellish thief.”[1554] -Andreæ was equally severe in his censure of the church-councillors and -theologians for the part they took in the matrimonial questions: “After -a theologian had dealt with marriage cases two years in the Consistory,” -he said, “he would by that time be well fitted to be appointed keeper of -a brothel.”[1555] We hear an echo of Luther in the coarse language his -followers were in the habit of using against each other. - -In spite of all this the Concord constitutes the greatest and most -important step ever taken by Lutheranism to define its position. The year -1580 gave to the Lutheran Churches a certain definite status, though, -among the theologians, the controversies continued to rage as before. - -The Concord itself, the supposed new palladium, became a theological bone -of contention. The following years were taken up with wild quarrels about -the Formula of Concord. At Strasburg alone in three years the different -parties hurled against each other approximately forty screeds, full of -vulgar abuse, and the literary feuds had their aftermath in the streets -in the shape of hand-to-hand scuffles between the students and the -burghers. Even at Wittenberg the quarrels went on. - -The Calvinistic Count Palatine, Johann Casimir, notorious for his -bloody deeds on behalf of the French Huguenots, instructed one of his -theologians, Zacharias Ursinus, to draw up the so-called “Neustadt -Admonition” in which the adherents of the Concord were accused of “making -an idol of Luther”; it was a mere farce when the Concord professed to -subordinate his books to Holy Scripture, because in reality they were -exalted into a rule of faith and treated as the standard of doctrine; -all subscribers to the Augsburg Confession were wont without exception -to appeal to these writings whatever their opinions were; as a matter -of fact, owing to the errors, exaggerations and contradictions they -contained it was possible to quote passages from Luther’s writings in -support of almost anything. His controversial works, above all, had no -claim to any authority, though it was to these that the followers of the -Concord preferred to appeal. “Here, as his own followers must admit,” so -the “Admonition” declares, “he had been carried away into excitement and -passion which exceeded all bounds and had been guilty of assertions which -contradicted his own earlier declarations, and which he himself had often -been under pressure obliged to withdraw or modify.”[1556] - -There was, however, a large party which did not make an “idol” of Luther, -but openly rejected his teaching. It was in this that Aurifaber saw a -fulfilment of Luther’s prophecy of the coming extinction of his doctrine -among his followers. As early as 1566 he said that the master had not -been wrong in his idea, that “the Word of God had seldom persisted for -more than forty years in one place.” “The holy man,” he goes on, “had -frequently told the theologians and his table companions that, though his -teaching had thus far grown and thriven, yet it would begin to dwindle -and collapse when its course was finished. And he had declared that his -doctrine had stood highest and been at its best at the Diet of Augsburg, -anno 1530. But that now it would go downhill.” That, as stated above, -the Word of God seldom persisted in one place for more than forty years -he had proved “by many examples” taken from the times of the Judges, -Kings and Prophets; even the teaching of Christ had not remained pure and -free from error for longer “in the land of the Jews, in Greece, Asia and -elsewhere.”[1557] - - -4. Mutual Influence of the Two Camps. Growing Strength of the Catholic -Church - -One cannot but recognise in the history of the 16th century the -religious influence indirectly exerted on one another by Lutheranism and -Catholicism, an influence which indeed proved advantageous to both. - - -_Luther’s Churches_ - -To begin with the phenomena grouped around the Formula of Concord we -may say, that the movement towards greater religious unity, among the -Lutherans was largely stimulated by the brilliant and to Luther’s -adherents quite unexpected example of Catholic unity resulting from the -religious struggle and particularly from the Council of Trent. Selnecker -had insisted that Protestants must endeavour to produce an “evangelical -counterblast” to Catholic theology and the Council.[1558] In the case of -many others too, it was the harmony and united front of the Catholics -at the Council of Trent that served as an incentive to create a similar -positive bond between their own Churches. Many once more mooted the -question of a Protestant General Council, but others, as for instance -Andreæ, pointed out how impossible this would be and what a danger it -would involve of even greater dissensions. It was also of advantage to -the Protestant writers on theology to have a clearly formulated statement -of the Catholic doctrine set before them in the definitions of a General -Council and explained in the “Roman Catechism.” Though Luther had -distorted beyond recognition the Catholic doctrines he attacked, it was -less possible than formerly to doubt—after so solemn a declaration—what -the teaching of the despised Church was, or, with a good conscience, to -deny how alien to her was the anti-Christian doctrine of which she had -been accused. Catholic polemics, too, who were growing both in numbers -and in strength, must necessarily have opened the eyes of many to the -interior continuity, the firm foundation and the logical sequence of -the Catholic propositions and, at least in the case of the learned and -unprejudiced, led them to regret keenly the absence of clearness and -logic on their own side. The latter holds good in particular of the -untenability of the conciliatory Lutheran theology which sought to gloss -over all the contradictions and which had given rise to the phantom of -the Concordia. - -“In the work of unifying Protestant theology,” Janssen justly writes, -“no slight service was rendered by the Catholic controversialists and -apologists and also and especially by the Tridentine Council and the -Roman Catechism. Those who opposed to the hurly-burly and confusion of -the new teaching the settled, uniform system of a theology, harmonious -and consistent in all its parts, thereby made manifest to the dissentient -theologians the defects and the glaring discords which Protestantism -presented both in its formal and material principles. The sharply defined -terminology and the wealth of speculative matter which they offered stood -here also in very good stead.”[1559] - -This thought also reminds us of the great store of spiritual treasure -that Luther’s Churches carried away with them when they severed their -connection with Mother Church. Who can question that Luther bequeathed -to his Churches much of the heritage of mysteries which Christianity -brought to mankind? Faith in the Holy Trinity; in the Father as Source of -all being; in the Eternal Son as the Redeemer and Mediator; in the Holy -Spirit as the organ of sanctity; again, in the Incarnation, in Christ and -His works, miracles and Resurrection; finally a firm belief in an eternal -reward, in the again-rising of every man and the everlasting life of the -just; in short all the consoling articles of the Apostles’ Creed must -be included amongst the treasures which Luther not only took over from -the olden Church but, in his own fashion, even defended with warmth and -energy against those who differed from him.[1560] - -On Catholic principles we may broadmindedly admit that countless -well-meaning men since Luther’s day have found in the doctrine he -preached the satisfaction of their religious cravings. Very many erred -and still err “in good faith” and “with no stubbornness.”[1561] But -wherever there is good faith and an honest conviction of having the best, -there a religious life is possible. “This the Catholic Church does not -deny when she claims to be the one ark of salvation. One would think -that this had been repeated often enough to make any misapprehension -impossible on the part of Protestants. As to how far this result is due -to the Protestant Churches and how far to the Grace of God which instils -into every willing heart peace and blessing, is no open question seeing -that the Grace of God alone is the foundation of a truly religious -life.”[1562] - -But if, on the one hand, Lutheranism owes much to the ancient Church, -on the other, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the revival in -the Catholic Church during the 16th century was indirectly furthered by -Luther and his work. - - -_Progress and Gains of Catholicism_ - -There were Catholic contemporaries who pointed out that the going over -to Luther of many who were members of the Church merely in name, and -whose lives did not correspond with her demands, had a wholesome effect -on the Church’s body. This held good of the monasteries in particular. -In many places relief was felt and a revival of discipline became -possible when those, who had entered the religious life from worldly -motives, took their departure in order, as Luther himself lamented, to -seek greater comfort in the bosom of the new Church. “God has purged -His floor and separated the chaff from the wheat,” wrote the Cistercian -Abbot, Wolfgang Mayer.[1563] Augustine Alveld, the Franciscan, portrayed -with indignant words the evil lives of many apostate monks and declared -with relief that: “Those who were of the same pack and lived among us -have now, thanks be to God, all of them run away from their convents and -institutions.”[1564] In lesser degree the same was true of the laity. - -“Indirectly, though very much against his will, Luther helped to promote -the regeneration of the Catholic Church by means of the Council of -Trent.”[1565] It was his apostasy which made possible that gathering -of the Bishops which hitherto external obstacles, shortsightedness, -indolence and worldly aims had prevented. - -Theological studies profited by the struggle with Protestantism. More -attention was bestowed on the question of man’s natural and supernatural -equipment; the dangers with which the excessive spread of Nominalism -had threatened the doctrine of Grace were effectually circumvented, and -the indispensable need of Grace for any work meritorious for heaven was -more strongly emphasised. Thus, on the whole, there was a gain which we -must not underrate, a new development of theological lore and a clearer -formulation of dogma on threatened points similar to that which had -resulted from the great controversies in Patristic times. - -Under the Divine guidance the Church also more than made up for the -numbers torn from her, by the rapid growth of her missions in distant -parts of the world, where the voyages of discovery and the conquest -of the Western Continent at the dawn of the new century gave rise to -unlooked-for new opportunities; this, too, at a time when Lutheranism -and the other Protestant sects were still inclined to discountenance any -universality and preferred to remain strictly local and national. - -Above all it is indisputable that the Catholic Church, in order to -emphasise her opposition to the so-called Evangelical freedom, devoted -herself ever more assiduously to promoting a true inward life of religion -among the people, the lower clergy and the bishops. - -Whereas—at the close of the Middle Ages and dawn of the new era—the -Papacy had been too eager in the pursuit of humanistic aims, had -cultivated too exclusively merely human ideals of art and learning, and -at the same time had become entangled in secular business and politics -and was altogether too worldly, after Luther’s terrible attack on the -formalism of the Church the Popes devoted themselves more and more to -the real problems of the Kingdom of God, summoned to their side better -advisers in the shape of Cardinals of strict morals, and introduced -disciplinary new regulations in the spirit of a St. Charles Borromeo. The -charge of shallowness brought against Catholic life was not—so far as it -was justified—made in vain. From the new seminaries, from the sublime and -saintly figures, who, in greater numbers than ever before, set an example -of heroic virtue, and from the newly founded religious Orders such as -the Theatines (1524), Capuchins (1528), Somaschans (1528), Barnabites -(1530) and last but not least the Jesuits (1534), a new spirit breathed -through the Church’s life and revived once more the practice of prayer, -self-denial and neighbourly charity. - -In this connection we need have no scruple in characterising the -“Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius Loyola as a phenomenon typical of -the increasing religiousness of the age. Many, particularly amongst the -influential representatives of the Church in Germany, under the guidance -of such men as Pierre Favre, Peter Canisius and Claude Jaius, found in -them a new wellspring of love for the Church and her aims.[1566] - -“To the Exercises, through which many of the great German nobles went,” -so Pierre Favre wrote from Ratisbon, “almost all the good was due that -was afterwards done in Germany.”[1567] - -The struggle with the apostasy called forth everywhere an increase of -intellectual activity on the part of the threatened Church. Not only -was theology deepened, but all the cognate branches of learning were -more sedulously cultivated. “I scarcely think,” wrote the Jesuit, Peter -Canisius, to the General of his Order, speaking of religious writings, -that “Our Order could undertake or carry out any work that would be more -useful and more conducive to the general welfare of the Church. Fresh -writings on religious questions make a great impression and are a source -of immeasurable comfort to the hard-pressed Catholics at a time when the -writings of the false teachers are disseminated far and wide and cannot -be exterminated.”[1568] Canisius was, however, of opinion that a simple -exposition of the Catholic faith was more in place than polemics; he did -not wish to see too much heat and human passion in the writings: “We do -not heal the sick by such medicine but only make their case worse”;[1569] -as he says in a memorandum: “In Germany there are countless numbers who -err in religion, but they do not err from stubbornness or bitterness; -they err after the manner of Germans who by nature are generally honest, -very ready to accept everything that they, born and bred in the Lutheran -heresies, have learnt, partly in schools, partly in churches, partly by -the writings of false teachers.”[1570] - - There is a true saying of Erasmus’s often quoted by Catholics: “Just - as it would be wrong to approve all that Luther writes, so, too, - it would be unjust, if, out of hatred for his person, we condemned - what is true or distorted what is right.”[1571] “What writer is - so bad,” he asks elsewhere, “that we do not find some good in his - writings?”[1572]—What there was of good in his own and Luther’s - writings was not without its effect on Catholicism. Some of their - censures of things Catholic were seen to be deserved, and, in the - course of time, were acted upon, at least in order to give opponents - less cause for fault-finding. - - The following remarks of Erasmus also found an echo amongst Catholic - contemporaries and bear witness to the good which came of the sad - religious struggles: “Often have I pondered in my own mind, whether, - perchance, it had not pleased God to send a strong physician to deal - with the profound corruption of morals in our day, who should heal by - cutting and searing what was incapable of remedy by means of medicines - and bandages.”[1573]—“May God, Who is wont to turn evil to good, so - dispose matters, that, from this strong and bitter medicine (‘_ex hoc - violento amaroque pharmaco_’) with which Luther has purged the world, - as a body sick unto death, there may come some good for the morals of - Christians.”[1574]—In 1524 he even went so far as to term Luther a - “necessary evil” which they must not even desire to see removed.[1575] - Yet Erasmus writes severely of him and ranks him with the greatest - foes of the people of God: God had chosen to use Luther as a tool just - as He had used the Pharaohs, the Philistines, Nabuchodonosor and the - Romans.[1576] - - That Luther wielded a wholesome rod was admitted even by the Papal - Legate Zacharias Ferreri in an admonition he addressed to him in 1520; - with such a scourge as this God from time to time tried Christians in - order to bring them to repentance. “If you are a scourge, praised be - the name of the Lord, if by this wicked instrument He is leading us to - a better mind, purifying and purging us!… Is it astonishing if, even - through you, we are purified and cleansed? Oh, that the Almighty would - pour on us ‘clean water,’ ‘sprinkle us with hyssop’ and wash us!”[1577] - - Thomas Murner, the Strasburg Franciscan, a man who was wont to scourge - the failings and abuses in the Church of his day in very outspoken - language, frankly admitted in a reply to Luther’s book “An den Adel” - that much of the Wittenberg monk’s censure might be useful to those - who wanted to put a stop to immorality, and to abuses and obsolete - ecclesiastical customs and statutes. He even goes so far as to say - to Luther: “Where you speak the truth, there undoubtedly the Holy - Spirit speaks through you, for all truth is of God.” He adds, however, - “Where you do not speak the truth, there assuredly the devil speaks - through you, he who is the father of lies.” Speaking of the pictures - of Luther with the symbol of the dove, which even then were common, - in his satirical fashion, he suggests an improvement: “They paint the - Holy Spirit over your head as though He were speaking through you. - Now I learn for the first time that the Holy Spirit can say silly - things.… I should suggest that they paint over your head, the Holy - Ghost on one side and the devil on the other, and, in the middle, - the city of Prague,” (to symbolise the heresy of Hus of which he - accused Luther).[1578] Anxious as Murner was to see an end of the real - abuses which Luther censured, yet, in the true Catholic spirit, he - left to the ecclesiastical authorities the right and duty of taking - the initiative, and it was to them that he addressed his urgent - exhortations. - - Cochlæus is likewise unable to refrain from remarking that, in - Luther’s writings, side by side with what is worthless there is much - that is good, in his exposition of Holy Scripture, in his exhortations - and also in his censures. For many men, and among them some of high - standing, believed [at first] that he was guided by the Spirit of God - and by zeal for virtue to remove the abuses of the hypocrites, to - amend morals to improve the education of the clergy, and to promote in - people’s hearts the love and worship of God.“[1579] Cochlæus points - out how Luther had taught his followers to steep themselves in the - Bible, so that they gained “so much skill and experience” that they - had “no scruples in disputing about the faith and the Gospel even with - magisters and doctors of Holy Scripture”; they had been much more - diligent than the Catholics in learning by heart the Bible in its - German dress; they were in the habit “of quoting Scripture more than - the priests and monks did, for which reason they accused Catholics - of being ignorant of it or not understanding it however learned they - might be as theologians”; their teachers “quoted the Greek and Hebrew - texts, and the variant readings, scoffed at our theologians when - they were ignorant of these things and all agreed in representing - Luther as the best theologian in the world.” Cochlæus also admits, - that, in the field of historical criticism Luther and his party were - ahead of many Catholic preachers, who, albeit in good faith, were - fond of adducing “fables and tales invented by men.” He describes - the zeal of the Protestant printers, which far exceeded that of the - Catholics, the “diligence, care and money” lavished on the writings - of their party, and “how carefully and accurately they printed their - books”; apostates and escaped monks travelled far and wide through - Germany, peddling Lutheran writings “like booksellers.”[1580]—It is - notorious, on the other hand, that the Catholic writers were hardly - able to find publishers. At Ingolstadt Cochlæus managed to preserve - a Catholic printing press, which was in danger of being shut down, - and established a second at Mayence whence a large number of good - works issued. “Stress must be laid on the self-sacrifice with which - Cochlæus, after having by dint of many privations amassed a sum of - money for the publication of his own writings, devoted it to the - printing of the works of one of his colleagues, being convinced that - they would prove of greater benefit to the common cause than his own - productions.”[1581] - -In all these particulars, in the study of Holy Scripture, in the -cultivation of historical and critical research among the clergy, in the -use of the vernacular and of the art of printing for the instruction of -the faithful, a real, though rather slow, change for the better took -place. Had it not been for the misgivings felt even in the highest -circles, and for a certain amount of prejudice against anything new, due -to the fear of heresy, the gains doubtless would have been even greater -and more quickly secured. In all this the Church owed much to Protestant -example, for it was the innovators who involuntarily pointed out better -methods of satisfying the spiritual needs of the new age, and a more -effectual way of exerting a religious influence over the people. - -Further examples of this are to be found in the sermons and in the -catechism. - -Clear-sighted Catholic contemporaries, like the worthy Dominican preacher -and writer Johann Mensing, comparing the Bible preaching used and -advocated by Luther with the empty, vapid sermons in vogue among many of -the Catholic preachers were keenly conscious of what was lacking. At the -close of a book written in 1532 Mensing exhorts the Catholic clergy to -study Holy Writ and to make more use of it in the pulpit: “There are some -now who say that Luther has driven the learned to Scripture. Would to God -it were true that our well-beloved masters and brothers, the theologians, -would turn their hearts wholly to Holy Scripture and leave out those -other questions which serve no useful purpose. Some of them preach the -laws and canons of heathen doctors and poets which are of small help -to salvation, or they air their own opinions, and, where Scripture and -Holy Church or the witness of the olden Doctors is not enough, reinforce -them by incredible miracles, whereas, with the aid of Holy Scripture, -they ought to endeavour to establish in men’s hearts the fear of God, -faith, hope and charity, mildness and pity and such like.” If they learn -something from the Lutherans in this then “we may hope that God has -permitted Luther’s heresy for our good, it being to our profit that such -heresy has arisen, and, as some declare, driven us to the Scriptures.” -Mensing wonders, however, whether the dispersal of the monks, the -plundering of the convents and lack of stipends for learned theologians -and preachers will not make study of any kind a difficult matter for a -long while to come.[1582] - -In the field of catechetical instruction it was clear that Luther and -his followers had given their attention very skilfully to the young, the -better to imbue the rising generation with their doctrines. At the time -of Luther’s first appearance, as recent research has established, in many -parts of Germany there was no regular, systematic religious instruction -of the young by the clergy or in the schools, but the children were left -to pick up what they could in the home or from the public sermons.[1583] -There were indeed regulations in force for the priests and the schools, -but they were not acted upon. About the very elementary home instruction, -Cochlæus had words of commendation in 1533. As they were taken to the -services and the sermons, the children had, he says, “sucked in” their -religion “as it were with their mothers’ milk, and this is still the case -to-day amongst Catholics.”[1584] In his sermons published in 1510 Gabriel -Biel asks for no more than that the parents should impart to their -children a knowledge of the things essential and prepare them for their -first communion.[1585] - -Luther, however, as our readers know, insisted that his preachers must -concern themselves directly with the children. - -He enjoined on them to preach from the pulpit at set times, even daily if -necessary, on the most elementary points of doctrine, and again at home -in the house to the children and servants in the mornings and evenings; -if they wished to make Christians of them these points would have to be -recited or read to them, “and this, not merely in such a way that they -learn to say the words by heart, but that they be questioned on them -one by one and made to say what each means and how they understand -it.”[1586] “Let no one think himself above giving such instruction to -the children or look down upon it,” he wrote; “Christ, when He wished to -train up men, had to become a man, hence, if we are to train up children, -we must become children with them.” At Wittenberg and elsewhere from 1528 -onwards four sermons a week for two weeks on end were preached on the -Catechism four times a year. When, seeing the importance of the matter, -Luther himself took the Catechism in hand he was so anxious to make it -popular and practical, that he first published his “Smaller Catechism” -(1529) in the form of sheets to hang upon the wall (this method had been -used even before his day), and thus to act on the memory through the eye. - -It would, however, be historically incorrect to describe Luther as the -originator of the Catechism. Catholic Catechisms, even illustrated -ones, had existed before Luther’s time, having been printed not only -in Germany but also elsewhere. But, after the success attained by -Luther’s Catechism, writers of Catholic Catechisms tried to profit by -his example. The best of these Catholic works was the famous Catechism -of Peter Canisius. It was first printed in Vienna in 1555 under the -title “_Summa doctrinæ christianæ_”; eighteen years later it had already -been translated into twelve different tongues.[1587] It is a work rich -in thought and positive matter where almost every word is based on Holy -Scripture or some utterance of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical -authority. Abbreviated editions, the “_Parvus Catechismus_” (Viennæ, -1559), the “_Institutiones_” (1561), and particularly the short -German one: “The Catechism or Sum of Christian Doctrine arranged in -question and answer for the simple,” rendered it of greater use for the -common people.[1588] “Canisius’s book,” writes a Protestant expert in -pedagogics, “is a masterpiece of brevity, precision and erudition; in it -one sees from beginning to end an endeavour to excel in style even the -great Protestant prototype” (viz. Luther’s Catechism).[1589] - -Among the secular no less than among the regular clergy work for the -souls of the children continued to win new friends. St. Ignatius of -Loyola esteemed the teaching of the Catechism so highly that he expressly -made it a duty incumbent on all members of his Order previous to their -making their profession. Lainez, his companion and successor, when -staying at Trent during the Council, instructed the people and the small -folk in the Catechism. The Council itself impressed on the bishops -in 1563 the duty of seeing that the children in each parish received -religious instruction from the priest on Sundays and holidays.[1590] - -The spread of the new religion had at first been followed by a lamentable -decline in the educational system by no means confined to those regions -torn away from the old faith.[1591] The Protestants were the first -to recover their balance, partly owing to Luther’s vigorous appeals -on behalf of the schools, partly thanks to the active co-operation -of Melanchthon, who had great experience in this sphere and on whom -his co-religionists in consequence bestowed the title of “_Præceptor -Germaniæ_.” The methods followed by the Lutherans were borrowed -principally, as indeed was only to be expected, from the treasure-house -of the humanists. Protestant effort was largely crowned with success, -especially since the old Catholic endowments of the Grammar Schools, -and some part of the income of the sequestrated Church properties, were -applied by the sovereigns and townships to the erection and maintenance -of these new educational institutions.[1592] - -The Catholics indeed were angry to see that these flourishing schools -were at the same time hotbeds of the New Faith. They also lamented -that, owing to the sad conditions of the times, they themselves had -fallen astern of the other party in the matter of education. Their best -leaders exhorted them to take a lesson from their opponents and thus -reconquer the position the Catholic schools had lost. “With the spread -and development of the Jesuit schools a change came over the face of -affairs.”[1593] Before this Archbishop Albert of Mayence had declared in -1541 that the Protestants were far ahead of Catholics in the matter of -education and were drawing all the youth of Germany into their schools. -In 1550 Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, wrote to Julius III: -“The Protestant schools public as well as private are in a flourishing -condition; ours are crumbling into ruin; the Protestants attract men by -large salaries, we do not do this.” Already in 1538 George Wicel had -expressed his regret to Julius Pflug that so little was done for the -schools among the Catholics as compared with the Protestants, and that -already the want of men of learning was being felt.[1594] - -To mention two other spheres in which Catholics received a stimulus from -Luther’s example and work, we may call to mind the German translation of -the Bible and the German hymns. - -What was good in Luther’s translation of the Bible was very soon turned -to account in Catholic circles. If Catholic writers made use of Luther’s -translation in their own editions, they probably excused themselves by -arguing that Luther himself was undoubtedly indebted to the Catholic -translations of the past. In the same way Luther had made use of some of -the old hymns of the Church, amended and popularised them and published -them as his own. Catholic hymns in the German language there were already -in plenty. But, after 1524, when the first Protestant hymn-books made -their appearance, Catholics copied these efforts to collect and improve -on the originals, and the first Catholic hymn-book brought out by Michael -Vehe, Provost at Leipzig as early as 1537, contained fifty-two hymns -with forty-seven tunes—though, strange to say, the old Catholic hymns -were given in the new Protestant version.[1595] A much bigger hymn-book -was that of Johann Leisentritt, a Dean (1567); it contained in the -first edition 250 hymns and 147 tunes. In the following century hymns -well known to be Protestant but of which the words were orthodox were -incorporated without demur in the Catholic collections. - -The Middle Ages had been too neglectful of positive studies, particularly -of history and languages, both of which are of such vast importance to -theology. Since the dawn of humanism, however, a good beginning had been -made, and the need of meeting the demands of the new age was recognised, -as, in the domain of Biblical languages, the example of Faber Stapulensis -and Jodocus Clichtoveus shows.[1596] The methods of the Protestants made -further progress in this field imperative. - -In criticism and church-history, where much good work had been done by -the Protestants, Peter Canisius was one of the first to suggest that it -would be advisable to devote more pains to the study and examination of -the history of the Papacy, since, as he wrote, our “people seem to be -still quite asleep” and unaware of all that had been done in the opposite -camp. He was anxious for books that should be in no way inferior to those -of the other side, and of which “the style must be in keeping with the -present method and trend of scholarship.”[1597] It is not as yet enough -known generally what great success crowned the labours of Onuphrius -Panvinius (1529-1568) the Augustinian Roman antiquarian and historian, -who was spurred on by the labours of the Protestants, though even more -by the humanist traditions of his native country. Better known is the -Oratorian, Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607), whose “Ecclesiastical Annals” -unquestionably laid the foundation of a new era in the writing of Church -history.[1598] - -Good and useful work was done by some of the Protestant scholars who -edited the writings of the Fathers. - -Thus Luther, for instance, encouraged Bugenhagen to edit certain works of -St. Athanasius on the Trinity and himself wrote (1532) a Preface to them -which is well worth reading.[1599] The Patristic labours subsequently -undertaken by Catholics, even the great work of Marguérin de la -Bigne,[1600] that forerunner of the French Maurists of the 17th century, -had their _raison d’être_ in the very ideas which Luther had set forth in -his above-mentioned Preface to Bugenhagen’s work. - -The worksomeness of the Catholic Church showed that people were beginning -to understand the new era and to mould themselves to its requirements. -“How can one deny,” asks Adolf Harnack, “that Catholicism, as soon as -it pulled itself together for the counter-reformation … was for over a -century in far closer touch with the new era than Luther’s Protestantism? -Hence the many converts from Protestantism to Catholicism, particularly -among learned Protestants, down to the days of Queen Christina of Sweden -and even after.”[1601] - - * * * * * - -As for the ideas, however, which constituted the essence of the religious -innovations the Catholic Church could not accept them short of being -untrue to herself and betraying what had been committed to her custody. -Whereas she gradually found a way to comply with all just demands for -betterment and progress, she was nevertheless obliged relentlessly to -close her ears to proposals for the subversion of her dogma and the -alteration of her constitution. - -She steadfastly refused to make her own the new and mistaken conception -of the Church, of Bible interpretation, of faith, justification and -good works. In spite of the heart-rending sight of the growing apostasy -around her, she kept her eyes fixed on the promises of her Founder and -remained true to her olden conception of the Church as a visible society -controlled by Chief Pastors who are the vicars of Christ. - -Ulrich Zasius of Freiburg in Baden, one of the greatest lawyers and -humanists of the 16th century, who had for a while dallied with some of -the demands of the innovators, afterwards repudiated as follows any idea -of going over to their side: - - “I shall remain true to the doctrines and decisions of the Church even - should all the host of heaven command me otherwise.” “Such an insult - I will on no account offer to the Lord of Truth as to believe He had - deceived us for so many hundreds of years”—by permitting the Church to - fall into error in spite of the promise that the Spirit of truth would - always remain with her. - - “For more than a thousand years the Church has taught us by the - voice of her Doctors who all take their stand on Holy Scripture. But - you twist the Gospel about as you please. Is Luther then to be set - above all the Doctors of the past? Our forefathers, who also were - authorities and all the wise men, would have called such a demand - sheer madness.” “You, however, argue that the Spirit leads and guides - you. But what sort of Spirit is it that teaches you to scold and - calumniate as you do? In the Epistle of James I have read on the - contrary that wisdom is peaceable and modest.” - - “Give me a man who renounces all earthly things, keeps all the - precepts of Christ, loves his enemies from his heart and does them - good, abuses none and is cheerful in adversity. Such a man I will - call worthy of the Evangel. But among the ranks of such men you can - scarcely reckon Luther.” - - “You are free to censure abuses, but is it right on their account to - throw the whole Church into confusion? You blame the whole for the - misdeeds of some of its parts; pleading the defects you attack what is - good and thus unsettle everything.” He too, so he tells his opponents, - was at pains to go to the sources of Faith, but he preferred the - interpretation of Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom to theirs; - and, again, unable to control his indignation, he exclaims: “What - incredible arrogance is this that one man should require his reading - to be accounted better than that of all the Fathers of the Church, - nay, of the Church herself and the whole of Christendom?”[1602] - -When passions were at their height voices such as these failed to secure -a hearing. The deep chasm torn open by the wanton act of one man could no -longer be bridged over; the bond of religion that had hitherto united the -German nation had been rudely severed. - - -5. Luther as described by the Olden “Orthodox” Lutherans - -It is a study that will well repay us to follow through the history -of Protestantism the changes that Luther’s description underwent. The -awakened historical sense of the present day has already led more -than one critic to undertake this task, with a crop of interesting -results.[1603] - -It would be a mistake to think that Luther’s memory survived anywhere -among the orthodox Protestants with that freshness and distinctness which -the statements of some of his old friends might lead us to expect. Of -the actual personality of the man no clear picture had been transmitted. -His words and deeds were commented on according to the outlook of the -different schools, needless to say, always with a certain affection and -admiration, but no one troubled to leave to posterity a living picture of -his unique character as a whole. - -Tracing the history of the Protestant representation of Luther down -to the present day three periods may be distinguished, the so-called -Orthodox one, the Pietistic and Freethinking one that followed, and -the last hundred years. Orthodoxy, with its rigid attachment to the -formularies of Faith, with the assistance of the State was for a long -while able to suppress all contrary tendencies; towards the middle of -the 18th century, however, the Pietists and, at the other extreme, a -free-thinking party also made their appearance on the field. - -Pietism was a reaction against the hard-and-fast doctrinal system of an -earlier age, which, clinging desperately to Luther’s doctrine of works, -tended to be neglectful of the Christian life and of the revival of -morals. If Pietism rather exaggerated the moral side of religion, the -so-called “Enlightenment” erred in another direction, setting out as it -did to vindicate the rights of reason and, in so doing, making scant -account of subordination to the truths of Divine revelation. - -On the whole, Orthodoxy retained a supernaturalist view of Luther, -though it was apt to assume different colours according to the leanings -of the several schools. - -Pietism, in its conception of his person, frankly throws over the real -Luther and seeks to “vindicate his spirit against the claims of his more -orthodox adherents.” - -The period of the enlightenment also presents a “sadly distorted” -picture of Luther; it had “not the least comprehension of his fiery -spirit” and, as was its wont, was “anxious to wipe out everything too -distinctive.”[1604] - -“Misunderstood and disfigured ‘beyond recognition,’ Luther steps over -the threshold of the new era. But here again misfortune awaits him: -‘Sectarians, Anabaptists, Pietists, Democrats, Rationalists, Orthodox’ -… all these set to work to improve upon the hero until they can stamp -him as their own.”[1605] Finally, “the latest phase of theological -development spells a revision of the whole idea and appreciation of -Luther.” In the consciousness of having far outrun Luther on the road -to a purely natural religion minus any faith, people are beginning to -“emphasise more strongly the fact, that he was held captive in the bonds -of mediæval feelings and ideas.”[1606] - -“Who really knows him?” asked Adolf Harnack in 1883, “and who can be -expected to know him? People are willing enough to worship him as -what they wish him to be, as the upholder of their own ideals; but in -their heart of hearts, they feel that, after all, he was really quite -different. His character impresses all, but his convictions are left -in the background, or else are worked up into new and more serviceable -coin.”[1607] - -Yet all these Protestant impressions of Luther, to be examined more in -detail below, however they may differ have at least this much in common, -that Luther must be acclaimed as the great opponent of the authority of -the olden Church. - -Maybe we shall come nearest to a correct picture of Luther if we combine -the modern view of his being a “mediævalist” with the olden orthodox -claim that he was a Prophet of God. Luther stood partly for the old -supernaturalist Christianity, partly for a new pseudo-supernaturalism; -so far those who speak of his “mediævalism” are in the right. He himself, -however, summed up his own character in that of the God-sent “Prophet of -Germany,” and divinely appointed conqueror of Antichrist and the devil—a -point which was rightly emphasised by his orthodox followers. - -To go back now to the various descriptions of Luther. The Orthodox -derived their idea of Luther from the oldest traditions. In these there -was a breath of the supernaturalism in which Luther’s own view of himself -was decked out, of the inbreathing of the Spirit, of his mysterious -struggles with a power unseen, and of his divinely assured victory over -the Roman Babylon. - -At the present day one marvels to see how cheerfully and naïvely members -of the old “orthodox” school were wont to magnify the founder of their -denomination on the lines sketched out by Luther himself. All that -interested them was the teacher, Luther the theologian; to them he -appeared a sort of “professor of divinity of heroic dimensions.” In the -century which followed his death it was the custom to exalt him “into -the region of the marvellous and more-than-human.” So fond were they of -“depicting his divine halo” that it became quite the usual thing to “set -Luther side by side with the olden Prophets and Apostles.” - - After Elias and John the Baptist, he is “the third Elias, who makes - ready the way against the return of Christ to Judgment.” He is the - second Noe, the second Abraham, the second Samson, the second Samuel, - the second Jeremias, above all, he is the second Moses who frees the - people from their bondage; the Egyptian bondage, so some one computed - had come to an end in B.C. 1517 just as the Papal bondage reached its - end in 1517 A.D.[1608] - - Holy Scripture, so the orthodox declared, points to Luther not only - where it speaks of the revelation and overthrow of Antichrist (2 - Thes. ii. 8), not merely where it proclaims that living waters shall - go out from Jerusalem (Zach. xiv. 8), but also in the Apocalypse of - John where we are told of the angel having the eternal Gospel—flying - through the midst of heaven to the mount on which is seated the - Lamb with 144,000 who bear His name—“in order to preach it to them - that sit upon the earth, to every nation and tribe, and tongue and - people” (Rev. xiv. 6). That this angel was Luther is also plain from - the fact that, if the letters of the verse quoted are reckoned by - their position in the alphabet and then added together the number - will be exactly the same as that of the words (in German): Martin - Luther, Doctor of Holy Scripture, born at Eisleben, baptised on - Martinmas-Day, viz. 819![1609] In a sermon in 1676 the flight of the - angel through the midst of heaven is taken to signify the marvellously - rapid spread of Luther’s Evangel, and the Gospel he preaches is termed - “eternal,” because Luther’s doctrine is found even in the Fathers of - the Church.[1610] - - The story of Hus, the “swan,” as prophetic of the coming of Luther, - was an integral part of the panegyrics even of Mathesius and - Bugenhagen; it served much the same purpose as the statue of a monk - with the inscription L.V.T.E.R.V.S., said to have been erected by - Kaiser Frederick Barbarossa.[1611] - - The recovery of Melanchthon and Myconius for whom Luther had prayed - so ardently became evident miracles. The preservation of his picture - in great fires was another miracle of frequent recurrence. Splinters - from a beam in his house, according to Gottfried Arnold, the Pietist, - in his Church-History, were deemed an efficacious cure for toothache - and other ills. Arnold calls this a subtle form of idolatry. Leonard - Hutter, who became professor at Wittenberg in 1596, learnedly set - forth the proofs of Luther’s “being endowed with a ‘_spiritus - vatidicus_’ enabling him to foresee many things of importance,” though - his prophetic insight is chiefly confined by Hutter and others to his - peculiar divine gift for the interpretation of Holy Writ, or to his - proclamation of the destruction of contemners of the Evangel.[1612] - Johannes Klai (or Claius), the German grammarian and a zealous - Lutheran, expressed it as his opinion in 1578 that the German used by - Luther was so pure and beautiful that he could have learnt it only by - the special help of the Holy Ghost.[1613] Johannes Albertus Fabricius - collected, chiefly in the interests of the orthodox party, the titles - of the works dealing with Luther; the bare lists of the books setting - forth the services he had rendered, the honourable epithets bestowed - on him, his eminent qualities, his miracles and his own prophecies - and those of others, occupy many pages.[1614] - - Even as late as 1872 Carl Frederick Kahnis, the Lutheran theologian - and professor at Leipzig, depicted Luther in his “Deutsche - Reformation” with all the olden traits. Luther’s doctrines he regarded - as the true norm, though it was necessary to understand and develop - them. According to Kahnis the young monk’s experience with the devil - in the refectory at night and again at the Wartburg, were real - assaults of the Evil One on the chosen prophet of God, visible and - audible marks of the hostility of Satan to the saviour of mankind, - for Luther “was no slave to fancy or excited feelings.” “Maybe,” so - he says rather incautiously, “no Father of the Church since the days - of the Apostles ever had to feel so keenly the power of Satan.” The - prophecy of the “bare-foot monk” and the auguries of the Eisenach - Franciscan become matters of history, for had not Luther himself - appealed to them? Even the tale of the Elector’s dream who saw the - monk’s pen stretching even to Rome and blotting out everything there, - rested, according to him, on “history.” As for the fallen Church of - pre-Lutheran days, against which his wonderful pen worked, it sinks - into the abyss of its own errors before the rising sun of Luther’s new - doctrine.[1615] - - -6. Luther as seen by the Pietists and Rationalists - -Luther, as pictured to themselves by the Pietists, differed widely from -the Luther of the orthodox. To Pietists like Spener, Luther’s actual -doctrine—regarded by them as contradictory and wavering—appealed far less -than certain personal mystic traits of his. To them the inward struggles -of soul to which Luther ascribes his transition from despair into the -peace of the Gospel, his remarks on piety and the interior life, his -realisation of the universal priesthood, and the breathing of the Spirit -were very dear. They were less enamoured of Luther’s views on faith, -the outward Word, or the State-Government of the Church. At any rate, -the Pietists wove from the material at their disposal a new Luther who -was practically a counterpart of themselves. They preferred to dwell on -his earlier years, when Luther, as Gottfried Arnold said in 1699 in his -“Kirchenhistorie,” yet lived “in the Spirit,” and before he had ended “in -the flesh” as he did later. They either said nothing of his worldlier -side or else openly censured it as the fruit of his backsliding and later -errors. - - Arnold complains bitterly that things had gone so far after Luther’s - death that he was called a “Saint” and a divine man, and that he - was made out to be the Angel foretold in the Apocalypse. Still he - recognises in him “in a usual way,” an “apostolic mission” in so far - as he had been the recipient of “a direct inspiration, stimulus or - divine gift.” “At the first” he had “indeed been mightily directed, - and utilised as a divine tool”; at any rate up to the time of his - breach with Carlstadt he could boast of enjoying “the strength and - illumination of the Spirit which gave him on particular points and in - difficult cases a rule and true certainty.” Only with such limitations - will the historian of Pietism accept Luther’s epitaph at Wittenberg - where mention is made of the inbreathing of God’s spirit.[1616] - - Whereas the orthodox Lutherans, owing to the abiding influence of - Melanchthon’s humanism, allowed the study of philosophy and of the - wisdom of the ancients, the Pietists at Leipzig, Giessen, Stargard - and elsewhere rejected all philosophy, appealing to Luther who had - spurned it as the offspring of that fool reason which ought to be done - away with; Melanchthon, they urged, had corrupted the faith by the - admixture of Plato and Aristotle, and, hence, had never been regarded - by Luther “as a true, staunch theologian, but rather as a cunning - Aristotelian dialectician.”[1617] - - When other Lutherans taunted them with their separatist tendencies so - much at variance with Luther’s view of the outward government of the - Church by the State, the Pietists retorted by appealing in defence - of their conventicle system and so-called “_collegia pietatis_,” - to Luther’s Church-Apart of the True Believers. They quoted those - passages of the “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts” (1526), - where Luther lays stress on the ideal kinship of those who earnestly - desire to be Christians, and characterises the services in the Church - as worthless for those who “are already Christians.”[1618] - -“Thus quite a struggle raged around Luther’s person.”[1619] - -Books appeared on the one side with such titles as “_Lutherus -Antipietista_” and on the other: “Luther the precursor of Spener who -faithfully followed in the footsteps of the former.” Count L. von -Zinzendorf, with his Pietistic leanings, claimed to be a perfect -counterpart of Luther; he wished, as he said in 1749, to be “what Luther -had been in part, and what, according to the logical sequence from given -premises, he should and ought to have been.” “The Luther who still lives -and teaches in Count von Zinzendorf,” was the title of a work by one of -the latter’s followers. Things went so far that, in the controversies, -it became necessary to ask: Which Luther do you mean, the earlier or the -later? Nor was even this sufficient, for Consistorialrat J. A. Bengel of -Württemberg (†1752) actually distinguished three Luthers: “the first and -the last,” he said, “were all right, but the middle one, owing to the -heat of controversy, was sometimes rather spoiled.”[1620] - -Among the Protestant writers of the so-called “Enlightenment” we again -find Luther under a different guise. - -They disagreed with the Pietists’ renunciation both of the conclusions -arrived at by reason and of worldly pleasures; in the latter respect -they found in Luther a welcome advocate of enjoyment of the good things -of the world. His advocacy of a cheerful addiction to earthly pleasures -was summed up by them in the saying attributed to him: Who loves not -women, wine and song, etc.[1621] On the other hand, by setting Luther on -a rationalist plane, they blotted out his essential characteristics; they -showed no comprehension for his faith though they were not disposed to -minimise his labours for the amendment of religion and for the bringing -of light out of darkness. - -Gottfried Herder extols him, now as a church founder, now as a writer, -and yet again as a great German. Luther’s doctrines seem to him of -comparatively small account, but he is willing enough to depict -him as a model of cheerful, “strong, free, wholesome and exalted -sensibility.”[1622] He is unsparing in his criticism of Luther’s attacks -on the Epistle of James and adds: “The sphere of the Spirit of God is -wider than Luther’s field of vision.”[1623] In these circles critics -were disposed to be bolder and more outspoken than among the orthodox -and the Pietists; they also found other things to censure in Luther. -Lessing condemns in the severest language his vanity and irascibility: -“O God, what a terrible lesson to our pride,” he exclaims, “and how much -do anger and revenge degrade even the best and holiest of men.”[1624] He -nevertheless opines that Luther’s faults had been of service to him in -his great task. - -Those few who really perused Luther’s writings marvelled at his -extravagant ideas about his divine mission and struggles with the devil, -about the end of the world and Antichrist. As a general rule, however, -they conveniently skipped all that Luther said against human reason and -had no eye for his energetic supernaturalism and his insistence on the -bare letter of Scripture.[1625] - -Among those infected with the rationalism of the age, antagonism to -Catholicism undoubtedly helped to shape their view of Luther. They felt -their whole outlook to be at variance with that of Catholicism. Under -these circumstances it was natural that Luther should be depicted first -and foremost as the liberator from the Papacy; in Luther they recognised, -not without some show of reason, “the opponent of all outward authority, -of everything Catholic in every domain of the life of the mind”[1626]—an -argument, moreover, which occasionally they turned against the Lutheran -“Church” itself. - -Thus was the dictator of Wittenberg, such as the Orthodox knew him, -transformed into a “champion of freedom”; the rationalists made his -pen the vehicle of their own ideas. Luther became the “herald of -the Enlightenment.” He began what others were to carry on later. “A -little longer,” so one wrote in 1797, “and the heavenly light which -Luther only saw dimly as in a dream will stream in upon us in all its -brightness.”[1627] - - The Berlin leader of this movement, A. F. Büsching, as early as - 1748, said of himself that he had seen “Luther in his true greatness - and as known only to the few; how, in matters of religion, he had - absolutely refused to depend on any man, but had relied simply on his - own insight and convictions and what had been borne in upon him by - diligent reading of the Bible.”[1628] The Halle editor of Luther’s - Works, J. G. Walch, vaunted among the other services rendered by - Luther that of having established freedom of conscience; in the eyes - of Julius Wegscheider he was the “_libertatis cogitandi assertor_”; it - was this which inclined even Frederick II of Prussia to respect him, - though otherwise he considered him a “furious monk” and a “barbarous - writer.”—Those who thus credited Luther with tolerance “had no inkling - of the antithesis between this idea and the true Luther.”[1629] His - wanton way of dealing with the Canon of Scripture was urged against - the Orthodox in defence of a more critical treatment of Holy Writ. - Lessing, referring to Luther’s whole system of Bible interpretation, - wrote to J. M. Goeze, the chief pastor of St. Catherine’s church at - Hamburg: “What greater authority had Luther than any other Doctor of - Divinity?”[1630] - - Less dangerous to Lutheranism, and in itself harmless enough, though - quite characteristic of the age, was the discovery then made, that - Luther was the very personification of a public benefactor and great - servant of the State. The Leipzig Professor, C. H. Wieland, described - him as a “scholar to whom all were indebted”; Luther, he says, - “unmasked obsolete prejudices and opened up to his contemporaries in - more than one direction fresh prospects of a coming enlargement of the - circle of human knowledge. And this great man _was a German_.”[1631] - From the good bourgeois point of view the fact that Luther had, as - it was thought, cultivated respect for the secular authorities was a - great feather in his cap. Such people readily shut their eyes to the - severity with which Luther had been wont to lash the rulers, even the - highest in the land, and to the fact that he had undermined the very - foundations of authority. The patriotic thought that “this great man - was a German” was made to cover all his failings. - - This sort of patriotism gradually produced a new pattern of Luther, - differing in many respects from the others. Particularly after the - outbreak of the great German wars of deliverance and the burning - enthusiasm for the Fatherland which they called forth many felt that - they could not sufficiently extol Luther as the great German, and a - typical child of his beloved country. - - Gœthe repeatedly called Luther a “great man.” But what, above all, - prepossessed him in his favour was, first, his “Struggle against - priestcraft and the hierarchy,” and, then, his translation of the - Bible. “By him we have been freed from the fetters of intellectual - narrowness … and have once more the courage to stand upright on God’s - earth and to realise our own divinely endowed nature.”[1632] The poet, - himself a true child of his age, had no eye for the truths defended by - Catholicism against Lutheranism. In a letter to Knebel dated August - 22, 1817, when the centenary of Luther’s promulgation of his Theses - was being celebrated far and wide, he said: “Between ourselves, the - only interesting thing in the whole business [the Reformation] is - Luther’s character; it is also the only thing that really impresses - the masses. All the rest is worthless trumpery of which we still feel - the burden to-day.” As for the usual view of Luther he characterises - it as mythological. - - -7. The Modern Picture of Luther - -In the so-called Romantic School the picture of Luther tends to become as -shifty as the character of the age. - -The Romanticists, like the poets they were, were anxious, as in other -fields so also in respect of Luther, to make a stand against the -shallowness of the “Enlightenment.” - - Zacharias Werner, while still a Protestant, wrote in Luther’s honour - his drama “Die Weihe der Kraft,” and, then, as a Catholic, the drama - entitled “Die Weihe der Unkraft.” - - Novalis, who was deeply read in Luther’s works, was of opinion that - he, like Protestantism itself, was something democratic; to him Luther - appeared a “hothead.” Disgusted with Lutheranism and vaguely conscious - of the beauty of the past he was anxious to see the scattered faithful - once more united in a new Christianity. “Luther,” so he wrote, - “treated Christianity as he liked, failed to recognise its spirit - and introduced another letter and another religion, viz. the sacred - principle of the Bible over all.” A “fire from heaven” had indeed - presided over the commencement of his career; later on, however, the - source of “holy inspiration had run dry” and worldliness gained the - upper hand in Luther.[1633] - -The religious spirit which had animated the Romanticists and had led them -to cast yearning eyes at the Middle Ages was soon extinguished by the new -criticism, historical and Biblical, and by the spread of infidelity. - - -_The latest efforts to portray Luther_ - -Luther had now to submit to being criticised by scholars who prided -themselves on being dispassionate and were not slow to pass judgment on -the characteristics, whether actual or imaginary, which they seemed to -discover in him. What the Göttingen Church-historian, Gottlieb Jakob -Planck, representing the so-called “Pragmatic” writers had begun—much to -the disgust of the then Luther devotees[1634]—was pushed forward by many -other Protestants. The lengths to which independent criticism has gone of -recent years is emphasised in the Göttingen theologian, Paul de Lagarde. -Typical of his remarks is the following: “That great scold Luther, who -could see no further than the tips of his toes, by his demagogy threw -Germany into barbarism and dissension.”[1635] It was particularly with -Luther’s “coarseness” and tendency to indulge in vulgar abuse that the -critics were disposed to find fault. Some indeed were inclined to excuse -him. Hardly any other writer, however, in seeking to exculpate Luther -has used language so startling as that of Adolf Hausrath the Heidelberg -scholar who, in his Life of Luther (1904), “thanks God for the barbarism -of these polemics,” and goes so far as to say that, “since Luther’s road -led to the goal it must have been the right one.”[1636] - -Of the three comprehensive and most widely known biographies of Luther, -that of Hausrath depicts Luther from the standpoint of a liberal -divine. Here Luther almost ceases to be a theologian, or at any rate -the theological problems amidst which Luther lived are scarcely even -mentioned. On the other hand, in the biography by Theodore Kolde of -Erlangen (2nd ed., 1893), the Wittenberg professor again figures as -a teacher; his scholarly two-volume work is positive in tendency and -regards Luther as a preacher of truth against the darkness of the Middle -Ages—which, however, the author has misunderstood and fails to treat -fairly. The third large modern work on Luther, also in two volumes, is by -the late Julius Köstlin of Halle and Breslau; a new edition was published -in 1903 with the collaboration of G. Kawerau; here the picture of Luther -is a product of the so-called theology of compromise.[1637] - - Wilhelm Maurenbrecher, professor of History at Bonn and Leipzig, - said truly in his “Studien” (1874), that the traditional Luther - “myth” the “stuff and rubbish” which the past had looked upon as true - history, deserved to be cleared away. He traces back to Sleidanus the - “current ‘_fable convenue_’” about Luther; this writer, in the work - he published in 1555, which became a classic, had begun the process - of “moderating and toning down the theological colours” of Luther’s - picture, in such a way as to make Luther the living expression - of the “already finished programme of the Protestant princes and - theologians.” He lifted the author of the religious upheaval “out of - his democratic, revolutionary setting” and stamped him as a “model” - for theologians. Maurenbrecher, as a layman, is very frank in his - opinion as to the central question of Bible-interpretation: “It is - undoubtedly the right of every man at the present day to appeal - to Luther’s own example, in favour of the unfettered freedom of - Bible-research.”[1638] - - By an objective portrayal of his characteristics, Protestant - non-theologians such as Maurenbrecher have done good service, - particularly as regards the more secular side of Luther’s picture. - The historian Onno Klopp was still a Protestant when, in 1857, in his - “Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” - albeit recognising Luther’s merits, he censured his “boundless - confidence in the infallibility of his own judgment”; the “unstable - character of the new Church, so dependent on the favour of princes”; - also the blind, idolatrous veneration of his followers for him, - especially the attitude of the “narrow-minded Elector and his advisers - who were ready to take all the morbid drivel of a quarrelsome old - man for the Word of God.” And these same authorities, so Onno Klopp - declares, set up a new “Protestant Cæsarean Popedom” which year by - year became more burdensome and oppressive.[1639] On the whole his - portrait of Luther is the reverse of flattering. - - Had the writings of Leopold von Ranke and Carl Adolf Menzel been as - independent as Maurenbrecher’s or as broad-minded as Klopp’s, their - picture of Luther would have been more true. Even to-day, in spite - of the abundance of works on the Reformation period, an independent - historian at home in all the profound and detailed studies which have - recently appeared, is still lacking in Protestant circles; hence a - living picture of Luther’s person has not yet been painted. - - As for the Protestant theologians they have, as a rule, not - contributed much to the portrait of Luther; what they have given us - has been rather a sort of kaleidoscope of Luther’s dogma; they busy - themselves more with crumbs from his history than with it as a whole. - Dealing with some particular doctrine, writing or action of his - they have sketched, so to speak, only one facet of his personality; - with the help of this they have, nevertheless, built up a picture - of the founder of Protestantism as he seemed to them. Hence even - the fundamental conception of Luther’s message, i.e. that whereby - it differs essentially from Catholicism has been very variously - estimated.[1640] - -Protestant theologians of more “positive” leanings have protested against -the Rationalist views of those other theologians who hold that Luther -banished dogma from his Christianity, and rediscovered Christianity “as -a religion.”[1641] They declare that, not only did he not abrogate dogma -but that he actually “revived and preserved” it. A religion without dogma -was unthinkable to him.[1642] - -It is true that these positive theologians who believe in the existence -of Lutheran “dogmas” are at variance when it comes to stating clearly -the actual dogmas which Luther “revived,” or in what his essential -message consisted. Some insist above all on the ethical side; thanks to -Luther there came a “deeper understanding for the idiosyncracies of the -individual” than was the rule in mediæval Christianity. - -Where such inveterate differences of opinion prevailed even the -theology of conciliation was bound to fail. Reinhold Seeberg, the -Berlin theologian, tried to promote some sort of settlement in his -“Grundwahrheiten der christlichen Religion,” a work “framed on the lines -of the olden Gospel and in the spirit of Paul and Luther which seeks -to make the Christian standpoint understood in wider circles.” But -his scheme met with a poor reception; the more orthodox looked at it -“askance, and, on the other hand, the progressive party were only the -more confirmed in their antagonism.”[1643] - -Several Protestant theologians of late years have compared Luther to St. -Paul. This, for instance, was also done by Walter Köhler of Zürich, a -liberal theologian, who does not hesitate to reprehend in Luther whatever -he finds amiss, and who also shows considerably more broad-mindedness -than many others in his appreciation of the works of Catholics. - - -_The Janus-Picture of the Mediæval and Modern Luther_ - -Thanks to Denifle’s work Luther’s relation to the Middle Ages is now more -clearly seen. The need for bestowing more attention than has hitherto -been done on that side of Luther’s picture which belongs to the Middle -Ages has been strongly insisted on by another liberal theologian, -viz. Ernst Troeltsch of Heidelberg. In Troeltsch’s writings Luther’s -features become to a great extent mediæval. His views on grace and -faith, his ethics, his Churches, the stress he lays on the Word—all -this, in reality, is an echo of Catholic times. All that forms the very -being of Luther is mediæval and the Protestant traits are merely the -wrapping.[1644] With the belief in revelation, which he still retained, -he had been unable to rise above the hedge of the mediæval way of thought. - - Troeltsch thus comes to the conclusion that the new era in which we - live did not commence with Luther but only some two centuries ago, - i.e. with the dawn of the Enlightenment. The older Protestantism, - no less than Luther himself, belongs to the Middle Ages. Luther - stuck fast in the Middle Ages chiefly because he clung to the - belief in the “supranatural,” whereas the modern world, thanks to a - mathematico-mechanical natural science, has done away with all that - stands above nature. - - Troeltsch also points out that Luther traces his conception of the - Evangel back to Paul, and not to Jesus as the New Theology does; also - that he, like the earlier Protestantism, had not completely shaken - himself free of the mediæval asceticism, and that he held fast to the - traditional doctrine of an original sin. - - A Catholic writer has expressed himself more correctly on Luther’s - false “supranaturalism,” according to which God does everything and - man nothing: “The innermost kernel of his doctrinal system was more - ultra-mediæval than the Middle Ages themselves.” “So far was he from - desiring to make religion less unworldly or less Christian, that, - according to what he was incessantly hammering into his hearers, man - was to live himself ever more and more into conscience and faith, into - Christ and the Gospel.”[1645] - - Nevertheless the objection brought forward repeatedly of recent years - against the theory of Luther’s mediævalism is also worthy of note; - it is urged that, particularly in the early years of his tempestuous - struggle, he threw off ideas which stamp him as thoroughly modern. - - F. Loofs, for instance, says: “His leading ideas include in them a - whole series of inferences which, however, he never followed up to - their logical conclusion.… I may mention Luther’s dislike for all - bare historical and dogmatic belief, the tendency he had caught from - Erasmus to criticise even the Canon, the distinction he adumbrated - between the message of salvation or ‘Word of God’ and the actual - written word of Scripture.… Semler, who has been styled the father of - Rationalism, in his ‘Abhandlung vom freien Gebrauch des Kanons’ has - not unjustly claimed Luther as a forerunner … moreover, the services - rendered by Luther to the [liberal Protestant] theology of the 19th - century in many of its varied schools of thought cannot easily be - overlooked.”[1646] - - In these remarks there is doubtless much truth, and there are facts - which go to bear out the theory that Luther indeed stands in close - relations to the modern spirit. There can be no doubt that, in Luther, - we find mediæval and modern features combined. What is wanting is an - organic connection between the two; as explained in the foregoing - volumes it was only at the expense of flagrant contradictions that - he took over certain elements from the past while rejecting others; - that he took one step forward towards modern infidelity and another - backwards. The ancient figure of Janus with one face looking forward - into the future and the other back upon the past was harmonious, at - least inasmuch as the two faces were depicted as separate. In Luther, - however, the two faces are one, a fact which scarcely improves his - physiognomy. - -From the recent studies on Luther we can now see more clearly than -before that a “revision of the whole conception and appreciation of -Luther” is imperative in his own household. But, in view of all the -work already done, “is it not high time for us to expect an estimate -of the Reformation as a whole which shall also be just to the whole -Luther?” Stephan, who asks this question, answers it as follows: “We are -still to-day in the midst of a new development that started more than a -century since from the contrast presented by the different schools of -thought.”[1647] - - -_The “Religious” Reformer and the Hero of “Kultur”_ - -Two other conceptions are in vogue at the present day, which are in part -a reaction against the rather over-bold assertions sometimes made about -Luther’s mediævalism. Some have insisted that Luther is to be taken as a -“religious” teacher, without examining his actual doctrines too narrowly. -To others he appears in the light of the founder of modern “Kultur,” i.e. -of civilisation in its widest sense. Neither of these ideas can boast of -being very clear, nor have they met with any great success. - - Those who regard Luther merely as a religious teacher practically - confine themselves to imputing to him the “religiousness” of modern - Protestantism as the inward force which moved him; albeit, maybe, in - his teaching, he did not quite come up to the modern standard. This - was to all intents and purposes the view of Albert Ritschl and his - school. Luther, they declared, taught first and foremost that both - “piety and theology should rest on the consciousness of having in - Christ a Gracious God, thanks to which consciousness we rise superior - to the world with all its goods and all its duties.” With him “it was - not a question of denominations but simply one of religion.” Ritschl, - as another Protestant not unjustly observed, “undoubtedly fell a - victim to the temptation” of “modernising” Luther.[1648] Moreover, - whereas, according to Ritschl, one of Luther’s main achievements was - his introduction of a new view of the Church as an institution devoid - of legal jurisdiction, according to other Protestant scholars, it was - “chiefly in his views regarding the Church that Luther remained under - the spell of mediæval thought.”[1649] On the other hand, some few - have sought to make out Luther’s religiousness to have been simply - ethical. Thus Wilhelm Wundt, the philosopher, declared that Luther had - taught mankind no new religion but only a new ethical system, which, - however, was merely an offshoot of the Renaissance. As against this we - may set the affirmation of Paul Wernle, viz. that neither Luther nor - Lutheranism had a system of ethics at all.[1650] - - Recently, it is true, Luther’s “religiousness” has been described - by a skilful pen as consisting in an interior union with God, as - something altogether “spiritual,” “personal,” as “a sentiment bringing - comfort to man’s conscience.”[1651] The truth is, however, that the - greatest minds, in mediæval and still more in patristic times, were - also in favour of greater inwardness and were against that sort of - righteousness which consists merely of words and works. This is a - result borne in upon one by all the research now being conducted with - so much vigour into the views prevalent in the Middle Ages and earlier. - - Hence those who look upon Luther as a new preacher of religion are - compelled to paint the pre-Lutheran world as absolutely heathen. - Luther, “with his peasant’s pick, relentlessly attacked the vulgar - polytheism of the people, the sublime polytheism of public worship - and dogma, and likewise the pantheism of mysticism.” But, even if - we suppose that all these dreadful things prevailed before Luther’s - coming, what did he set up in their place? He induced people, so it - is said, to “seek God and find Him in Jesus Christ the image of the - fatherly heart of God, to fear, love and hope in God above all things, - to fix our heart on God alone and there let it rest.”[1652]—But this - was precisely what the olden mediæval Church had sought to do, hence, - where is Luther’s peculiarity? - - The state of the question to-day would almost seem to justify - the words of the famous Ernst Moritz Arndt in his “Ansichten und - Aussichten der teutschen Geschichte.” He wrote in 1814: “What - Luther really taught and wished has hitherto been understood only - by the few; his contemporaries failed to understand him, nor did - he understand himself”; but “he foresaw that fiery, disembodied, - formless Christianity that was to consist of nothing more than fire - and spirit.” Arndt concludes with the solemn words: “But peace be - with thine ashes, thou great German man, and may the earth hide thy - shortcomings and Christian charity thy faults.”[1653] - -The aim of other modern thinkers is to breathe new life into Luther -by depicting him as the founder and the hero of modern “Kultur.” The -conception of the author of Protestantism as the fount and origin of all -present-day civilisation is certainly new and different from the earlier -portraitures we have thus far considered. In this picture the “cultural” -traits are put in so strong a light that his “religiousness” tends to -vanish. - - Modern civilisation is non-religious. It is perfectly true that Luther - materially contributed to the expulsion of religious influences from - the secular government and from public life in general; also that he - intervened with a powerful hand to promote the secularisation—that had - already begun—and to loosen the existing bond between the Church and - the world. On the other hand, it is quite wrong to shut one’s eyes - to the other powerful factors at work both before him and in his day - which were also tending towards the civilisation of to-day with its - estrangement from the Church and preponderance of material interests. - Such a factor was the later Humanism. The whole background of the time - in which he lived and the seething ferment that preceded the birth - of the new world has been misunderstood. His friends indeed point to - the after-effects of his undertaking as seen in the subsequent growth - of education and scholarship; also to his attitude towards public - morality; to the services he rendered to the German tongue; even to - the benefit which, indirectly, accrued to agriculture, to the arts, - to music, poetry, etc. But, even if we are disposed to allow that - an improvement has taken place, it would be utterly unjust to blink - the fact that many other spiritual and material influences were at - work in all these spheres and were far more potent than Lutheranism. - The Lutheran territories were still in a state of servitude and - general backwardness when there passed over Germany a great wave of - civilisation that was partly of German partly of foreign and even - of Catholic growth. For the good that undoubtedly exists in modern - civilisation we have to thank partly the natural sciences, which on - their revival found a fertile soil even in Italy and France, partly - commerce in which, however, the South of Europe was as active as any - other region of the world, partly the arts, the best work being, - however, cisalpine, partly the development of the State and the army, - which again is certainly no indigenous product of Protestantism; - hence what we now know is the result of a rivalry between varied - influences and many countries. Then again all those qualities which - to-day give Germany so high a place among the nations had existed in - his countrymen long before Luther’s day; such were their readiness - to appreciate the good in others, their openness to outside ideas, - their ability to exploit foreign progress, their industry, their - domesticity, their tenacity in overcoming all obstacles, and their - sober outlook. - - Those who make Luther the hero of “Kultur” are also apt to forget the - sad ethical, social and political consequences of the schism. To these - Adolf Harnack referred plainly enough in a lecture delivered in 1883: - “We are well aware of what the Reformation cost us Germans and still - costs us. For ages it delayed our political unity; it brought on us - the Thirty Years’ War; it made it difficult for us to be just to the - Church of the Middle Ages, nay, even to the Church of Antiquity—we - cannot break with history without obscuring it—it brought upon us a - religious schism which still hinders our growth.”[1654] - -If, however, we examine those elements of the new “Kultur” which from the -religious or moral standpoint are somewhat questionable (though, amongst -Protestant unbelievers, writers are not wanting who are ready to justify -them) we meet with many indications which lead us back to Luther. Yet, -here again, on the other hand, there were other great and far-reaching -causes at work which account for them, which have but little to do with -Lutheranism. Such were, for instance, the English Deism which reached -Germany by way of France and which helped to produce the infidelity of -the Enlightenment; also the revolutionary ideas of 1789 on liberty, the -Rights of Man and the lawfulness of rising in revolt, ideas to which -the masses are still addicted; then again the luxury that was imported -from abroad; above all the inclination of the human heart everywhere to -sensuality, to egotism and to promote one’s own standing and temporal -welfare even at the expense of one’s neighbour. These maladies to which -human nature is prone have, by various causes, been sadly aggravated in -modern times. How far Luther was responsible for some of these causes -should not be difficult to determine after all that has been said -above. At any rate his repudiation of authority in religious matters, -his new ideas on faith and good works, and, again his whole system of -subjectivism, were poor barriers against the inrush of those elements -hostile to faith in God, to Christianity and to ethics, which, in modern -civilisation, have a place side by side with much that is good. - -Nietzsche laid it down that Luther was the first to free the German -people from Christianity by teaching them to be un-Roman and to say: -Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.[1655] He was anxious to make Luther -the patron of his newest brand of “Kultur.” But this new, antichristian -and atheistic “Kultur” is largely repudiated in Protestant circles. -Many, like Walter Köhler, refuse to admit that Luther was in any sense -the father of modern freethought; how could he have been, asks Köhler, -since he would not sanction any freedom of conscience, and did not even -understand what such a thing was?[1656] - -Hence Luther makes a rather unsatisfactory “Hero of Kultur.” To depict -him in this light his relations with the more favourable side of “Kultur” -have to be so much exaggerated and distorted that one almost expects -him, the sworn opponent of “fool reason” and champion of the “enslaved -will,” to leap from his grave in protest; on the other hand, it is quite -impossible to claim Luther as an advocate of that side of modern “Kultur” -which is antagonistic to religion and morality. Protestant authorities -have also protested against any claim being made on his behalf that he -at least abolished that “Kultur which was directed by the Church”; on -the contrary, so they declare, the “Kultur” for which he stood was in -many respects “still tied up to the one and only Church” and was quite -“mediæval in its character.”[1657] Thus, here again, a sort of dual -picture, painted partly in the gay colours of the present day, partly in -the sombre tints of the past. - - -_A “Political” Luther?—Conclusion_ - -Over and above all the previous presentations of Luther another -strange portrait has recently appeared, which finds admirers among lay -historians and students of political history. Here Luther’s political -traits are emphasised. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, in his much-read -work “Grundlagen des 19 Jahrhunderts,” insists on this view of Luther, -starting from the assumption which is beyond question “that the -separation from Rome for which Luther fought with such passion all his -life was in itself the greatest political upheaval that could possibly -occur.… However pitiful the later history of the Reformation may have -been, still Luther’s deed was an undying one for this reason, that it -rested on a firm political groundwork.” Chamberlain quite rightly makes -much of Luther’s attempt to link his cause with that of the princes and -with the German national sentiment. - - “Without the princes,” says Chamberlain, “nothing could have been - done. Who seriously believes that the princes who patronised the - Reformation were inspired by or acted from religious enthusiasm? The - fingers of one hand would be more than enough on which to reckon - up those of whom such a thing holds good. Political interest and - political ambition backed by the awakening of national sentiment were - the determining factors.” “Even in the later wars of religion the - political question was paramount.” It was his desire to win over the - German statesmen that made Luther “speak so highly of the ‘German - nation’ and so disrespectfully of the Papists.” That was why he wrote, - for instance: “For my Germans was I born, them will I serve.” He - is “more a politician than a theologian.” “Luther is, above all, a - political hero.” - - This portrait of the “political hero” is not one whit less one-sided - than the others; above all, the author, who has no understanding - for Christianity and the Church, fails also to see the so-called - “religious” side in Luther. It is true that political motives often - loomed so large in Luther’s case and in that of the princes who - lent him their support as actually to obscure the religious side - of the struggle. Luther himself, however, was anything rather than - a great politician on the world’s stage. He had, in fact, to quote - a Protestant historian, woefully distorted and imperfect views of - the actual trend of human events, particularly of the determining - personalities and active factors in the politics of that day. Never - perhaps has a more childish diagnosis been given than that contained - in the advice of the Wittenberg theologian to his sovereigns about - their attitude towards Charles V.[1658] The circumstance that he was - deficient in political sense may explain to some extent his mistakes - and want of logic in this sphere, but cannot excuse the masterful tone - in which he so often expresses himself on the public questions of - the day. Then again there was his changeableness. Resistance to the - Kaiser, which at one time he had declared unlawful, was advised by - him later. After he had handed over the rights of the Church to the - lawyers he turns on them and denounces them as his worst foes, who - must be fought with every weapon for the sake of the independence - of the preachers. In the same way, in spite of the religious freedom - which he seemed at first to proclaim as a lasting principle for all - future government of Church and State, we find him making his own that - repellant intolerance, which, at last subsequent to 1530, led him to - advocate the death-penalty for those who held “sectarian” doctrines, - or any that differed from his own. - -Discouraged by the failure of all these attempts to portray Luther -others, at present, are inclined to deny him any mark of distinction and, -in particular, any creative power, and depict him simply as the sum, -or “product, of existing historical forces.” They emphasise strongly -the pre-existing factors and regard him less as a mover than as one -moved. This view, however, has also been stigmatised by Protestants as -“Mythological.” They object that even “the masses also have a certain -share in the achievements of genius,” and that genius itself is but “a -child of its time.”[1659] - -“The literary portraits of Luther,” says the Protestant author of “Luther -im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” “are all more or less unlike the -original. They are not in the strict sense of the word portraits at all -but rather represent a type.… Every age has to some degree altered the -traditional picture of the Reformer to make it fit its own ideals.” “The -naïve way of idealising which credits the hero of history with our own -ideals … is still at work even at the present day. If we cannot claim the -whole Luther for ourselves, we can at least claim a bit of Luther.” - -“In most of the popular Luther biographies of recent times,” the same -author says, “all that is harsh and rude, violent and demagogic, rough -and crude in the physiognomy of the Reformer has been obliterated.”[1660] - -Adolf Harnack, also, seeks to discourage the practice of “hero painting”; -he speaks unkindly of the common, “emotional pictures” of Luther as the -reformer of civilisation which are fabricated somehow or other with the -help of a select collection of artificial strokes. He adds: “The reformer -himself would not recognise such a picture as his.” “Such a thing would -be to him,” to quote an expression of Luther’s own, simply “a painted -Luther.”[1661] - -To get as close as possible to the real Luther and not to present a -painted or fictitious one has been our constant endeavour in the present -work. We venture to hope that the claims of objective history may be -recognised even in a field which trenches so closely on religious -convictions. There is so much that is purely historical and may be judged -quite apart from denominational considerations, so much neutral ground -where it is merely a question of facts. To construct an opinion of one’s -own based on the incontrovertible facts is open to everyone. We trust -that the new discussions that seem called for for a further sifting of -facts will be undertaken in all calm and in the dispassionate temper -befitting the historian. Should these volumes serve as a stimulus in this -direction, the author will feel that, by this alone, he has achieved -something great. - - - - -APPENDICES - - - - -XLI—APPENDIX I - -LUTHER’S WRITINGS AND THE EVENTS OF THE DAY ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL -ORDER - - -[The list in the original was compiled by Peter Sinthern, S.J. We have -retained it intact, save that here, as in the body of the work, we give -the title of each of Luther’s German writings in the quaint spelling -of the earliest “Urdruck” to which we had access. _Note of the English -Editor._] - - As the plan of the present work, as explained in the Introduction - (vol. i., pp. xxvii., xxxi.), did not allow of a strict chronological - order being followed, and as, moreover, many of Luther’s writings and - not a few events of the day had to be passed over in silence, the - following list may be found both interesting and useful. - - Reference is made in it to all Luther’s publications, even the smaller - ones, and the reader is told where they may be found, either in the - older Erlangen edition, or in the more recent Weimar edition, so - far as the latter goes. Such a catalogue forms the best skeleton - for Luther’s history. The list is based on that given by Köstlin - (“Luther,”⁵ 2, p. 718 ff.), slightly enlarged, for instance by - references to Luther’s correspondence (in Enders, De Wette and the - Erlangen ed.), to his Disputations (as in Drews), and to his sermons. - Works which do not figure in the actual list for each year but in the - paragraph inset at the end, are those which, though published during - the year in question, were written earlier. Some works apparently - omitted in the list will be found either in the Sermons or in the - Correspondence of Luther. - - The bringing into conjunction of Luther’s writings with the principal - events of the years in which they saw the light will be found of - advantage, in that the two often mutually complete and explain each - other. - -Till =1516=. Accession of Pope Leo X, 1513; of Kaiser Maximilian I, -1493; of Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 1486; of George, Duke of Saxony, -1500; of William IV, Duke of Bavaria, 1508; of Joachim I, Elector of -Brandenburg, 1499; of Albert Archbishop of Mayence, 1514; of Scultetus, -Bishop of Brandenburg, 1507.—In 1502 foundation of the University of -Wittenberg. In 1503 death of Andreas Proles. Johann Lang, professor -(since 1511) at Wittenberg goes (1515-16) back to Erfurt. In 1510 Eck -is appointed professor at Ingolstadt; Carlstadt wins his doctorate. -In 1511, Amsdorf becomes a licentiate in theology. In 1513, Spalatin -is appointed Court-chaplain and secretary to the Elector Frederick. In -1513-1514, the attitude of the peasants becomes threatening. In 1515, -publication of the “Epistolæ obscurorum virorum” of Crotus Rubeanus, -etc.—1483, Nov. 10, Birth of Martin Luther. In 1497, he is sent to -Magdeburg to the Brothers of the Common Life. In 1498, he goes to -Eisenach and, in 1501, to Erfurt. 1502, he becomes a Baccalaureus. In -1505, he is made a Master and enters the cloister (July 17). In 1506, he -makes his vows; his first Mass (May 2?). He begins to study theology. -In 1508, he goes to Wittenberg to study; his lectures on dialectics and -ethics. In 1509, he becomes a Baccalaureus biblicus (March 9); late in -the year he returns to Erfurt and becomes Sententiarius. At the end of -1510 he goes to Rome and early in 1511 returns to Germany; “deserts to -Staupitz” and removes again to Wittenberg. In 1512, the Cologne Chapter; -beginning of his friendship with Lang and Eberbach; his doctorate (Oct. -18); he succeeds Staupitz as professor of Holy Scripture. In 1514 he -takes Reuchlin’s side. In 1515 is made District-Vicar at the Chapter of -Gotha; his discourse “Against the Little Saints.” His opinions become -fixed whilst engaged on his Exposition of Romans (1515-1516); echoes of -the new doctrine in his sermons at Christmas. - - 1. 1510-1511. Marginal notes to the Sentences (Bks. i.-iii.) and - certain works of St. Augustine (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 2 ff., - 28 ff. - - 2. 1513-1515. First lectures on the Psalms: “Dictata super psalterium” - (publ. 1743 and 1876, complete 1885). Weim. ed., 3, pp. 1(11)-652 (ps. - i.-lxxxiv.); 4, pp. 1-462 (ps. lxxxv.-cl.); 9, pp. 116-121 (ps. xli.). - - 3. 1514-1517. Sermons on the Lessons (in Latin) preached at the - monastery (publ. 1720). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 18(20)-141; “Opp. lat. - var.,” 1, pp. 41-214. - - 4. 1514-1520. Sermons (ed. Roth, 1886). Weim. ed., 4, pp. - 587(590)-717; 9, pp. 203(204); cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 25-232. - - 5. 1515-1516. Lectures on Romans (ed. Joh. Ficker, 1908). - - 6. 1515? “Sermo præscriptus præposito in Litzka” (publ. 1708). Weim. - ed., 1, pp. 8(10)-17; “Opp. lat var.,” 1, pp. 29-41. - - Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 6. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 4-27. Erl. ed., 53, - p. 1. - -=1516.= Hermann von Wied becomes Archbishop of Cologne; Erasmus’s -“Colloquia”; his first edition of the Greek New Testament with a new -Latin translation; Lang as Prior of Erfurt.—Luther’s first mention of -Tauler, in his “Commentary on Romans”; his mystical letters to Spenlein -and Leiffer (April 8, 15); his quarrel with the Erfurt monks (June -16); his Catholic sermon on Indulgences (July 27); his sermons against -the “holy-by-works” (July-Aug.); Opposition to his new theology at -Wittenberg and Erfurt (Sept.); back to Augustine! (Oct. 19); Carlstadt’s -Theses; Luther busy on Galatians and Titus, 1516-1517. - - 7. 1516-1517. “Decem præcepta Wittembergensi prædicata populo” (publ. - 1518). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 394(398)-521; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, pp. 1-218. - - 8. (Sept.). “Quæstio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia” - (Theses for Barth. Bernhardi: “Initium negocii evangelici”). Weim. - ed., 1, pp. 142(145)-151; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 232(235)-255. - - 9. (Oct. 27, 1516-1517). “In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas” (Lectures, - publ. 1519). Weim. ed., 2, pp. 436(451)-618. Irmischer, 3, pp. 141-485. - - 10. 1st ed. of “Eyn geystlich edles Buchleynn” (the “Theologia - Deutsch”), with “Vor Rede.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 152(153); Erl. ed., 63, - p. 238. - - Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 7. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 28-78. - -=1517.= Creation of 31 new Cardinals (July 1); ridicule of the German -Humanists; Hutten settles in Germany; his edition of the “Donatio -Constantini”; “our” Erasmus (March 1) publishes his paraphrases on -the Epistles, and, later, on the Gospels; the old exegesis fares -badly; “De planctu ecclesiæ” reprinted at Lyons; Tetzel visits -Magdeburg, Halberstadt and (in Oct.) Berlin; Luther nails up his Latin -Indulgence-Theses (Oct. 31). - - 11. “Die sieben Puszpsalm mit deutscher Auszlegung nach dem - schrifftlichen Synne” (first personal work published by Luther). Weim. - ed., 1, pp. 154(158)-220; Erl. ed., 37, pp. 345-442. - - 12. “Auslegung deutsch des Vater Unnser fuer dye einfeltigen Leyen” - (publ. by Agricola, and by Luther himself in 1518, No. 31). - - 13. Lectures on Hebrews (still unpublished). - - 14. “Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam” (Theses for Franz - Günther). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 221(224)-228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. - 315-321. - - 15. “Die zehen Gepot Gottes … mit einer kurtzen Ausslegung” (publ. - 1518). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 247(250)-256; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 146-154. - - 16. The 95 Indulgence-Theses: “Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis - indulgentiarum.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 229(233)-238; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, - pp. 285-293. - - Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 7. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 79-137; Erl. ed., - 53, p. 1 f. - -=1518.= Philip II Landgrave of Hesse (March 31); Sickingen and his -men desert the French for the Kaiser (May 16); Melanchthon goes to -Wittenberg (Aug. 25).—Early in 1518 Archbishop Albert sends his report to -Rome; Tetzel’s counter-theses (Jan. 18); Leo X directs the Augustinian -superiors to take steps; the Heidelberg Chapter and the Disputation -in Luther’s favour; Lang displaces Luther as District-Vicar; charges -formulated at Rome against Luther as a spreader of heretical opinions -(middle of June); he is summoned to Rome (Aug. 7); the Augsburg trial -(Oct.); Papal Bull to defend the doctrine of Indulgences (Nov. 9); Luther -appeals to a General Council (Nov. 28); he discovers the secret of the -certainty of salvation. - - 17. “Eyn Sermon von dem Ablass und Gnade.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. - 239(243)-246; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 4-8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 326-331. - - 18. “Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute.” Weim. ed., - 1, pp. 522(525)-628; 9, pp. 171-175; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 126-293. - - 19. “Sermo de pœnitentia.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 317(319)-324; “Opp. lat. - var.,” 1, pp. 331-340. - - 20. Theses for the Heidelberg Disputation (Leonard Beyer’s). Weim. - ed., 1, pp. 350(353)-355; 9, pp. 160(161)-170; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, - pp. 387-390. - - 21. “Asterisci Lutheri adv. Obeliscos Eckii” (publ. 1545). Weim. ed., - 1, pp. 278(281)-314; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 410-456. - - 22. Preface to the complete ed. of “Eyn Deutsch Theologia.” Weim. ed., - 1, pp. 374(378)-379; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 238-240; cp. No. 10. - - 23. “Eyn Freiheyt dess Sermons Bepstlichen Ablass und Gnad belangend.” - Weim. ed., 1, pp. 380(383)-393; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 10-25. - - 24. “Ausslegung des 109 Psalmen.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 687(689)-710; 9, - pp. 176-202; Erl. ed., 40, pp. 3-38. - - 25. “Ad dialogum Silvestri Prieriatis de potestate Papæ responsio.” - Weim. ed., 1, pp. 644(647)-686; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 6-67. - - 26. “Sermo de virtute excommunicationis.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. - 634(638)-643; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, 2, pp. 306-313. - - 27. “Sermo in festo S. Michaelis in arce Wimariensi” (publ. 1556). - “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 226-232. - - 28. “Acta Augustana.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 1(6)-26; 9, p. 205; “Opp. lat. - var.,” 2, pp. 354-361, 367-392. - - 29. “Appellatio a Caietano ad Papam.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 27(28)-33; - “Opp. lat var.,” 2, pp. 398-404. - - 30. “Appellatio ad futurum concilium universale.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. - 34(36)-40; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 438-445. - - 31. “Auslegung deutsch des Vater Unnser fuer dye einfeltigen Leyen.” - (Cp. No. 12.) Weim. ed., 2, pp. 74(80)-130; 9, pp. 122(123)-159; Erl. - ed., 21, pp. 159-227; 45, pp. 204-207. - - 32. “Sermo de triplici iustitia.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 41(43)-47; “Opp. - lat. var.,” 2, pp. 322-329. - - “Decem præcepta,” cp. No. 7. Brief explanation of the Ten - Commandments, cp. No. 15. Sermons, Erl. ed., 16², pp. 3-33; cp. No. 4. - Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 138-337; 5, p. 1; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 3-5. - -=1519.= Death of Maximilian I, Charles V succeeds him (June 28); Ulrich -becomes Duke of Würtemberg; the “Onus ecclesiæ” of B. Pirstinger of -Chiemsee; death of Tetzel (Aug. 11); Capito becomes cathedral-preacher at -Mayence; Zwingli at Zürich (Jan. 1); Oldecop visits Rome; Miltitz calls -on Luther (Jan.); the Leipzig Disputations (June-July). - - 33. Preface to Prierias’s “Replica.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 48(50)-56; - “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 68-78. - - 34. “Kurtz Unterweysung wie man beichten sol.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. - 57(59)-65; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 245-253 (cp. No. 66). - - 35. “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 66(69)-73; - Erl. ed., 24, pp. 3-9; 24², pp. 5-11. - - 36. “Eyn Sermon von der Betrachtung des heyligen Leydens Christi.” - Weim. ed., 2, pp. 131(136)-142; Erl. ed., 11, pp. 144-152; 11², pp. - 154-163. - - 37. Commentary on Galatians, cp. No. 9. - - 38. 1519-1521. Second course of Lectures on the Psalms. “Operationes - in psalmos” (Ps. i.-xxii.). Weim. ed., 5, pp. 1(19)-673; “Opp. lat. - exeg.,” 14-16. - - 39. “Sermo de duplici iustitia.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 143(145)-152; “Opp. - lat. var.,” 2, pp. 329-339. - - 40. “Disputatio et excusatio adv. criminationes Eccii.” Weim. ed., 2, - pp. 153(158)-161; 9, pp. 206(207)-212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 12-17. - - 41. “Eyn Sermon von dem Elichen Standt.” Original text, Weim. ed., 9, - pp. 213-220; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 150-158; 16², pp. 50-57. Revised text, - Weim. ed., 2, pp. 162(166)-171; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 158-165; 16², pp. - 60-67. - - 42. “Eyn kurtze Form des Pater Noster zu versteen unnd zu betten.” - Weim. ed., 6, pp. 9(11)-19; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 21-32. - - 43. “Kurtze nützliche ausslegung des Vatter Unsers fürsich und - hindersich.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 20(21)-22; Erl. ed., 45, p. 208-211. - - 44. “Eyn Sermon von dem Gepeet unnd Procession yn der Creutz Wochen.” - Weim. ed., 2, pp. 172(175)-179; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 290-296; 16², pp. - 69-76. - - 45. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 1(3)-8; Erl. ed., - 20, pp. 122-127; 16², pp. 113-117. - - 46. “Resolutio super propositione sua (Lipsiensi) XIII de potestate - Papæ.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 180(183)-240; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. - 296-384. - - 47. “Scheda adv. Hochstraten,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 384(386)-387; “Opp. - lat var.,” 2, pp. 295-297. - - 48. “Resolutiones super propositionibus Lipsiæ disputatis.” Weim. ed., - 2, pp. 388(391)-435; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 228-292. - - 49. “Tessaradecas consolatoria pro laborantibus et oneratis.” (publ. - 1520). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 99(104)-134; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 88-135. - - 50. “Contra malignum Ioh. Eccii iudicium.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. - 621(625)-654; “Opp. lat. var.,” pp. 472-514. - - 51. “Ad ægocerotem Emserianum additio.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. - 655(658)-679; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 13-45. - - 52. “Sermon von dem Sacrament der Puss.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. - 709(713)-723; Erl. ed., 53, p. 30 f.; 20, pp. 179-193; 16², pp. 35-48. - - 53. “Eyn Sermon von der Bereytung zum Sterben.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. - 680(684)-697; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 258-274; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. - 453-473. - - 54. “Ad Eccium super expurgatione Ecciana.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. - 698(700)-708; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 47-58. - - 55. “Eyn Sermon von dem heyligen hochwirdigen Sacrament der Tauffe.” - Weim. ed., 2, pp. 724(727)-737; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 229-244; “Opp. lat. - var.,” 3, pp. 398-410. - - 56. “Eyn Sermon von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament des heyligen waren - Leychnams Christi.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 738(742)-758; Erl. ed., 27, pp. - 28-50. - - 57. “Scholia in librum Genesios” (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. - 329-415. - - 58. “Enarrationes epistolarum et evangeliorum quas postillas vocant” - (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 415-676. - - 59. Latin Advent-postils (publ. 1521). Weim. ed., 7, pp. 458(463)-637. - - Sermons, cp. No. 36, 41, 44, 52, 55-59. Letters, Enders, 1, p. 338—2, - p. 289; 5, pp. 4-8; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 5-34; 56, pp. i.-vii. - -=1520.= Suleiman II begins his career. The war in Hungary. Coronation -of Charles V at Aachen (Oct. 23). Hutten offers Luther his own and -Sickingen’s protection; his “Vadiscus” and “Inspicientes” (April). Münzer -at Zwickau (May 17); Urban Rhegius cathedral-preacher at Augsburg; Link -succeeds Staupitz as General Vicar (Aug. 28). Eck goes to Rome; the first -Consistory against Luther (Jan. 9). The Stolpen decree of the Bishop of -Meissen (Jan. 24). Luther’s letter to Charles V (Aug. 30); his third -and last epistle to Leo X (after Oct. 13). The Bull “Exsurge” and its -condemnation of 41 theses (June 15), published in Germany by Eck (in -Sept.) and burnt by Luther (Dec. 10). Luther’s open attack on the freedom -of the will. - - 60. “Eyn Sermon von dem Bann.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 61(63)-75; Erl. ed., - 27, pp. 51-70. - - 61. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 33(36)-60; Erl. - ed., 20, pp. 89-120; 16², pp. 79-110. - - 62. “Erklerung … etlicher Artickel yn seynem Sermon von dem heyligen - Sacrament.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 76(78)-83; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 71-77. - - 63. “Antwort auff die Tzedel sso unter des Officials tzu Stolpen - Sigel ist aussgangen”; “Ad Schedulam inhibitionis.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 135(136)-141, 142(144)-153; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 78-84; “Opp. lat. var.,” - 4, pp. 138-151. - - 64. “Sermon von den guten Wercken.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 196(202)-276; 9, - pp. 226(229)-301; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 193-290; 16², pp. 121-220. - - 65. “Responsio ad condemnationem doctrinalen per Lovanienses et - Colonienses.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 170(174)-195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. - 176-205. - - 66. “Confitendi ratio.” Weim. ed., 6, 154(157)-169; “Opp. lat. var.,” - 4, pp. 154-171 (cp. No. 34). - - 67. “Eyn kurcz Form der czehen Gepott. Eyn kurcz Form dess Glaubens. - Eyn kurcz Form dess Vatter Unssers.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 194(204)-229; - Erl. ed., 22, pp. 3-32. - - 68. “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome wider dem hochberumpten Romanisten tzu - Leiptzk” (i.e. Alveld). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 277(285)-324; Erl. ed., 27, - pp. 86-139. - - 69. “Epitoma responsionis Silv. Prieratis” with preface and postface. - Weim. ed., 6, pp. 325(328)-348; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 79-108. - - 70. “An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 381(404)-469; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 277-360. - - 71. “Eyn Sermon von dem newen Testament das ist von der heyligen - Messe.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 349(353)-378; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 141-173. - - 72. “De captivitate babylonica ecclesiæ præludium.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 484(497)-573; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 16-118. - - 73. “Erbieten” (“Oblatio sive Protestatio”). Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 478(480)-481, 482-483; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 9-11; 24², pp. 12-14; “Opp. - lat. var.,” 5, pp. 4-6; early draft of same, Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 476-478; 9, pp. 302-304; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 12-14; 24², pp. 14-16. - - 74. Preface to “Adv. constitutionem de cleri cœlibatu.” Cp. Weim. ed., - 7, p. 677. - - 75. “Von den newen Eckischenn Bullen und Lugen.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 576(579)-594; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 15-28; 24², pp. 18-31. - - 76. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. - 12(20)-38; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 175-199. - - 77. “Eyn Sendbrieff an den Bapst Leo. den czehenden.” Weim. ed., 7, - pp. 1(3)-11; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 41-52. - - 78. “Epistola Lutheriana ad Leonem decimum.” “Tractatus de libertate - christiana.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 39(42)-73; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. - 219-255. - - 79. “Adv. execrabilem Antichristi bullam.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 595(597)-612; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 134-153. - - 80. “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. - 613(614)-629; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 36-52; 24², pp. 39-55. - - 81. “Appellatio ad Concilium repetita.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 74(75)-82; - “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 121-131. - - 82. “Appellation odder Beruffung … repetirt.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. - 83(85)-90; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 30-35; 24², pp. 32-37. - - 83. “Das Magnificat verteuschet und ausgelegt” (publ. 1521). Weim. - ed., 7, pp. 538-604; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 212-290. - - 84. “Warumb des Bapsts und seyner Jungern Bucher … vorbrant seyn.” - Weim. ed., 7, pp. 152-186; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 152-164; 24², pp. - 154-166; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 257-270. - - 85. “Assertio omnium articulorum per bullam damnatorum.” (publ. 1521). - Weim. ed., 7, pp. 91-151; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 156-237. - - Tessaradecas (cp. No. 49). Sermons (cp. No. 58). Letters, Enders 2, p. - 290-3, p. 37; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 34-53. - -=1521.= First war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1526). -Henry VIII publishes his “Assertio.” Death of Leo X (Dec. 1). Fall of -Belgrad. Bugenhagen comes to Wittenberg and Eberlin of Günzburg goes to -Ulm. The Bull “Decet Rom. Pontif.” is issued (Jan. 3). The Diet of Worms; -the “Gravanima”; Aleander’s discourse (Feb. 13). Luther is summoned to -the Diet (March 6), his sermon at Erfurt (April 7), his condemnation by -the Sorbonne (April 15), his arrival at Worms (April 16); he refuses -to recant (April 18); his stay at the Wartburg (May 4, 1521-March 1, -1522); the sentence of outlawry, May 8 (May 26). Carlstadt assails -clerical celibacy; the turmoil at Erfurt (July); the Mass is abolished -among the Wittenberg Augustinians (Oct.). Luther busies himself with the -translation of the Bible (Dec. 1521-1534); Melanchthon’s Commonplace-Book -(Dec.). Luther’s secret visit to Wittenberg (Dec. 3-11). Carlstadt -introduces a new rite for the Supper (Dec. 25). The Zwickau “prophets” -come to Wittenberg. - - 86. “Grund vnd Vrsach aller Artickel … so … verdampt seindt.” Weim. - ed., 7, pp. 299(308)-457; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 53-150; 24², pp. 56-150. - - 87. “An den Bock zu Leyptzck.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 259(262)-265; Erl. - ed., 27, pp. 201-205. - - 88. “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. - 266(271)-283; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 205-220. - - 89. “Unterricht der Beychtkinder ubir die vorpotten Bucher.” Weim. - ed., 7, pp. 284(290)-298; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 203-209; 24², pp. 206-213. - - 90. “Auff das ubirchristlich, ubirgeystlich und ubirkunstlich Buch - Bocks Emssers.” Weim. ed. 7, pp. 614(621)-688; Erl. ed., 27, pp. - 221-308. - - 91. “Ad librum Ambrosii Catharini responsio,” Weim. ed. 7, pp. - 698(704)-778; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 289-394. - - 92. “Responsio extemporaria ad articulos ex Babylonica et - Assertionibus excerptos.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 605(608)-613; “Opp. lat. - var.,” 6, pp. 24-30. - - 93. “Eyn Sermon … am Gründornstag.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 689(692)-697; - Erl. ed., 17, pp. 65-72; 16², pp. 242-249. - - 94. “Deutsch Auszlegũg des sieben uñ seditzigstẽ Psalmẽ.” Weim. ed., - 8, pp. 1(14)-35; Erl. ed., 39, pp. 179-220. - - 95. “Von der Beicht ob der Bapst Macht habe zu gepieten.” Weim. ed., - 8, pp. 129(138)-204; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 319-379. - - 96. Church-postils, Advent to Epiphany (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 10, 1, - 1, pp. 1-728; Erl. ed., 7, 10; 7², 10². - - 97. “Eyn Kleyn Unterricht was man ynn den Euangeliis suchen und - gewartten soll.” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, pp. 8-18; Erl. ed., 7, pp. 5-12; - 7², pp. 6-13. - - 98. “Rationis Latomianæ confutatio.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 36(43)-128; - “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 395-521. - - 99. “Der sechs uñ dreyssigist Psalm.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 205 (210)-240; - Erl. ed., 38, pp. 373-396; 39, pp. 124-136. - - 100. “Eyn Urteyl der Theologen tzu Paris uber die Lere Dr. Luthers. - Eyn gegen Urteyl Dr. Luthers.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 255(267)-312; 9, pp. - 716(717)-761; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 380-410. - - 101. “Evangelium von den tzehen Aussetzigen.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. - 336(340)-397; Erl. ed., 17, pp. 146-176; 14², pp. 42-87; 16², pp. - 259-291. - - 102. “Themata de votis.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 313(323)-335; “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 344-360; 6, p. 235. - - 103. “Eyn Widderspruch seynis yrthũss erczwungen durch den … Herrn H. - Emser.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 241(247)-254; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 308-318. - - 104. “De votis monasticis” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. - 564(573)-669; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 238-376. - - 105. “De abroganda missa privata” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. - 398(411)-476; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 115-212. - - 106. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. - 477(482)-563; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 28-141. - - 107. “Eyn trew Vormanung … sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und - Emporung.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 670(676)-688; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 43-59; - 22², pp. 43-58. - - 108. Translation of the New Testament (publ. 1522). - - The Magnificat, cp. No. 83. Latin Postils, cp. No. 59. “Assertio - omnium articulorum,” cp. No. 85. Sermons, cp. Nos. 58, 96 and Weim. - ed., 7, pp. 792(795)-802; 9, pp. 501-516; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 221-301. - Letters, Enders, 3, pp. 38-268; 53, pp. 55-103. - -=1522.= Hadrian VI (Pope from Jan. 9, 1522, to Sept. 14, 1523). Charles V -goes to Spain, remaining there till 1529; the Diet of Nuremberg (Dec.); -the Turkish question, the “Centum gravamina,” the fall of Rhodes (Dec. -25). Iconoclastic riot at Wittenberg (Jan.); the Wittenberg Augustinians -abolish their rule about begging (Jan. 6); relics no longer to be exposed -at the Collegiate Church (April 16). Jonas (Feb. 22) and Bugenhagen -(Oct. 13) take wives. Luther returns from the Wartburg (March 1); his -sermons against Carlstadt (March 9-16). Hartmuth von Cronberg’s missive; -Luther returns to Erfurt (Oct.). The innovations forcibly introduced into -Altenburg, Schwarzburg, Eilenburg, etc. - - 109. “Bulla Cœnæ Domini.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 688(691)-720; Erl. ed., - 24, pp. 165-202; 24², pp. 168-204. - - 110. “Acht Sermon” (Against Carlstadt). Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 1-64; - Erl. ed., 28, pp. 203-285. - - 111. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes zu nehmen.” Weim. ed., 10, - 2, pp. 1(11)-41; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 286-318. - - 112. “Eyn Missive an den ereñvestenn Harttmutt vonn Cronberg.” Weim. - ed., 10, 2, pp. 42(53)-60; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 120-128. - - 113. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 61(72)-92; - Erl. ed., 28, pp. 330-343. - - 114. “Die erst Epistel Sanct Petri gepredigt und ausgelegt” (publ. - 1523). Weim. ed., 12, pp. 249(259)-399; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 325-494. - - 115. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt des Bapst und der - Bischoffen.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 93(105)-158; Erl. ed., 28, pp. - 142-202. - - 116. “Bulle des Ecclesiasten tzu Wittenbergk.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. - 140-144; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 380-387; 24², pp. 214-220. - - 117. “Epistel odder Unterricht von den Heyligen an die Kirch tzu - Erffurdt.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 159(164)-168; Erl. ed., 53, pp. - 139-144. - - 118. “Contra Henricum regem Angliæ.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. - 175(180)-222; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 385-448. - - 119. “Antwort deutsch … auff König Henrichs von Engelland Buch. Lügen - thun myr nicht, Warheyt schew ich nicht.” Weim, ed., 10, 2, pp. - 223(227)-262; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 344-387. - - 120. Latin letter to the Bohemian Estates. Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. - 169(172)-174; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 144-148. - - 121. 1522-1523. Translation of the Old Testament (Pentateuch, publ. - 1523). - - 122. Preface to “Wesselii epistolæ.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. - 310(316)-317; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 495-497. - - 123. Preface to “Gochii fragmenta.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 327(329)-330. - - 124. “Vom Eelichen Leben.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 267(275)-304; Erl. - ed., 20, pp. 57-87; 16², pp. 510-541. - - 125. “Ain Betbüchlin.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 331(375)-482. - - The German New Testament, cp. No. 108. Church-Postils, cp. No. 96. “De - votis monasticis,” cp. No. 104. “De abroganda missa privata,” cp. No. - 105. Sermons, Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 1-435; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 263-265; - 16², pp. 304-543. Letters, Enders, 3, p. 269—4, p. 52; Erl. ed., 53, - pp. 103-157. - -=1523.= Clement VII (Pope from Nov. 19, 1523, to Sept. 25, 1534). In -Sweden, Gustavus Vasa (†1560). In Denmark, Frederick I (†1533). Edict -of the Diet of Nuremberg (Feb. 8). The Lutherans begin to form parishes -apart. The innovations introduced into Prussia. Luther has the Mass done -away with at Wittenberg. Two Augustinians of Lutheran sympathies are -burnt at Antwerp. Flight of Bora and the other Nimbschen nuns; Lang’s -marriage. End of the German Augustinians. Luther’s illness. His interview -with Carlstadt at Jena (Aug. 22). Link goes to Altenburg. The attempt to -establish a new order of things at Leisnig. Luther drafts a constitution -for the Churches of Bohemia. - - 126. “Die ander Epistel S. Petri und eyne S. Judas gepredigt und - ausgelegt” (1523-1524). Weim. ed., 14, pp. 1(13)-91; Erl. ed., 52, pp. - 213-287. - - 127. “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts des heyligen Leychnams Christi.” Weim. - ed., 11, pp. 417(431)-456; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 389-421. - - 128. “Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren, Bapstesels czu Rom und - Munchkalbs zu Freyberg ynn Meysszen funden Philippus Melanchthon D. - Martinus Luther.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 357(368)-385; Erl. ed., 29, pp. - 2-16. - - 129. “Adversus armatum virum Cokleum.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. - 292(295)-306; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 44-60. - - 130. Various Sermons, etc. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 36-62. - - 131. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt wie weytt man yhr Gehorsam schuldig - sey.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 229(245)-281; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 60-105. - - 132. “Eyn Bepstlich Breve widder den Luther.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. - 337(342)-356; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 411-420; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. - 466-477. - - 133. “In Genesim Declamationes” (publ. 1527). Weim. ed., 24; 14, pp. - 94(97)-488; Erl. ed., 33, 34. - - 134. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. - 31(35)-37; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 153-156. - - 135. “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen - mugen.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 387(394)-400; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 34-42. - - 136. “Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne … Macht habe alle - Lere zu urteylen.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 401(408)-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. - 141-151. - - 137. “Das Jhesus Christus eyn geborner Jude sey.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. - 307(314)-336; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 46-74. - - 138. “Das Tauff Buchlin Verdeutscht.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 38(42)-48; - Erl. ed., 22, pp. 158-166. - - 139. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 1(11)-30; - Erl. ed., 22, pp. 106-130. - - 140. “Widder die Verkerer und Felscher Keyserlichs Mandats.” Weim. - ed., 12, pp. 58(62)-67; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 182-190. - - 141. “Das siebẽdt Capitel S. Pauli zu den Corinthern aussgelegt.” - Weim. ed., 12, pp. 88(92)-142; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 3-69. - - 142. 1523-1529. Latin translation of the Bible (publ. 1529). - - 143. Epistolary Recommendation of Johann Apel’s “Defensio pro suo - coniugio.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 68(71)-72; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 500 - ff. - - 144. Preface to the German translation of Lamprecht’s (Lambert of - Avignon) “In regulam Minoritarum … Commentarii.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. - 457(461); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 498 _sq._ - - 145. Introduction to Savonarola’s “Meditatio pia.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. - 245(248); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 497 _sq._ - - 146. “Eyn Brieff an die Christen ym Nidder Land.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. - 73(77)-80; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 180-182. - - 147. “Allen Christen zu Righe, Revell und Tarbthe [Dorpat].” Weim. - ed., 12, pp. 143(147)-150; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 190-194. - - 148 Hymns: “Nu freut euch liebe Christen gmein,” “Ein newes Lied wir - heben an.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 309 f., 340 ff. - - 149. “De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. - 160(169)-196; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 494-535. - - 150. “Eyn Sendtbrieff … an ein Christl. Gemain der Stat Essling.” - Weim. ed., 12, pp. 151(154)-159; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 213-217. - - 151. “Eyn trost Brieff an die Christen zu Augspurg.” Weim. ed., 12, - pp. 221(224)-227; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 223-227. - - 152. “An die Herrn Deutschs Ordens das sie falsche Keuscheyt meyden - und zur rechten ehlichen Keuscheyt greyffen.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. - 228(232)-244; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 17-33. - - 153. “Formula missæ et communionis.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 197(205)-220; - “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 1-20. - - German Old Testament (1st part), cp. No. 121. Sermons on the 1st - Epistle of Peter, cp. No. 114. Other sermons, Weim. ed., 11, 12; Erl. - ed., 17², pp. 1-72. Letters, Enders, 4, pp. 53-272; 5, p. 8; Erl. ed., - 53, pp. 158-230; 56, pp. 166 f., vii. f. - -=1524.= Diet of Nuremberg for the execution of the Edict of Worms. -Amsdorf introduces the Reformation into Magdeburg. Münzer sacks the -chapel at Malderbach near Eisleben. The Peasant War (beginning in June -and lasting till the following year). League of the South-German Catholic -Estates entered into at Ratisbon (July 6). Joh. Walther’s “Spiritual -Song-book.” Münzer’s “Well-grounded plea” in his own defence (Sept.). -Erasmus’s “Diatribe” (Sept.). Catholic worship is forbidden at Altenburg. -Luther throws off the Augustinian habit (Dec.). - - 154. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands das sie christl. - Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 9(27)-53; - Erl. ed., 22, pp. 170-199. - - 155. Translation of the Old Testament (2nd part, from Josue to Esther). - - 156. “Duæ episcopales bullæ super doctrina Lutherana et Romana.” Weim. - ed., 15, pp. 141(146)-154; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 63-73. - - 157. “Eyn Christlicher Trostbrieff an die Miltenberger.” Weim. ed., - 15, pp. 54(69)-78; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 117-128. - - 158. Preface to Bugenhagen’s “In librum psalmorum Interpretatio.” - Weim. ed., 15, p. 1(8); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502 _sq._ - - 159. “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawẽ ausgelffen - hat.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 79(86)-94; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 103-113. - - 160. 1524-1526. “Prælectiones in Prophetas minores” (publ. 1526-1545). - Weim. ed., 13, pp. 1-703; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 24-28. - - 161. “Deuteronomium Mosi cum annotationibus” (publ. 1525). Weim. ed., - 14, pp. 489(497)-744; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, pp. 5-351. - - 162. “Widder das blind und toll Verdamnis.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. - 95(110)-140; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 76-92. - - 163. “Dass Elltern die Kinder zur Ehe nicht zwingen noch hyndern.” - Weim. ed., 15, pp. 155(163)-169; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 236-244. - - 164. “Zwey keyserliche uneynige und wydderwertige Gepott.” Weim. ed., - 15, pp. 241(254)-278; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 210-237; 24², pp. 221-247. - - 165. “Der Psalter deutsch.” Erl. ed., 37, pp. 107-249. - - 166. “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 279(293)-322; - Erl. ed., 22, pp. 200-226. - - 167. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher” (2nd edition, cp. No. 61). - - 168. “Widder den newen Abgott und allten Teuffel der zu Meyssen sol - erhaben werden.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 170(183)-198; Erl. ed., 24, pp. - 239-257; 24², pp. 250-268. - - 169. “Zwue Sermon auff das xv. und xvi. Capitel ynn der Apostel - Geschichte” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 15, p. 571-622; Erl. ed., 17, pp. - 223-253. - - 170. “Eyn Brieff an die Fürsten zu Sachsen von dem auffrurischen - Geyst.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 199(210)-221; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 256-268. - - 171. “Sendbrieff an die … Burgermeyster, Rhatt und gantze Gemeyn der - Stadt Mülhausen.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 230(238)-240; Erl. ed., 53, pp. - 253-255. - - 172. “Ain Senndbrief an den Wolgeb. Herren, Herren Barth von - Staremberg.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 1(5)-7; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 202-204. - - 173. “Geistliches Gesangbüchlein” (with 24 hymns by Luther) Cp. Erl. - ed., 56, p. 306 ff. - - 174. Sermons on Exodus (publ. in 1526, 1528, 1564, and, in full, in - 1899). Weim. ed., 16, pp. 1-646; Erl. ed., 33, pp. 3-21 (“Opp. lat. - var.,” 7, pp. 75-112); 35, pp. 1-392; 36, pp. 1-144. - - 175. German Old Testament (3rd and final part, without the - “Apocrypha”). - - 176. “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet.” Weim. - ed., 18, pp. 8(22)-36; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 114-133. - - 177. “Der 127. Psalm ausgelegt an die Christen zu Rigen ynn Liffland.” - Weim. ed., 15, pp. 348(360)-379; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 130-150; 53, p. 281. - - 178. “Eyn Brieff an die Christen zu Straspurg widder den Schwermer - Geyst.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 380(391)-397; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 270-277. - - Sermons on the 2nd Epistle of Peter and on the Epistle of Jude, cp. - No. 126. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 15, pp. 398(409)-803; Erl. ed., - 17², pp. 73-115. Letters, Enders, 4, p. 273 to 5, p. 99; Erl. ed., 53, - pp. 230-281. - -=1525.= Charles V is victorious near Pavia (Feb. 24). Prussia becomes a -secular principality (April 10). Luther opposes the so-called fanatics, -Carlstadt and the rest. The massacre at Weinsberg (April 16). Death -of the Elector Frederick (May 5). Johann succeeds him on the Saxon -throne and reigns till 1532. Münzer is vanquished near Frankenhausen -(May 15). The Erfurt Articles. League of the North German Catholic -princes, meeting at Dessau (July 19). Link becomes preacher at Nuremberg -(Aug.). The Mayence assembly (Nov.). Eck’s “Enchiridion.” Carlstadt’s -humiliation. Luther’s marriage (June 13). He calls for the entire -suppression of “idolatry” at Altenburg (July 20). The Reformation is -violently carried through in the Saxon Electorate (Oct. 1). Interview -with Schwenckfeld (Dec. 1). Nuremberg openly comes over to Luther’s side. - - 179. “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. - 37(62)-214; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 136-297. - - 180. “Von Bruder Henrico ynn Diedmar verbrand sampt dem zehenden - Psalmen ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 215(224)-250; Erl. ed., 53, pp. - 347-354; 27², pp. 400-426. - - 181. “Vorrede an den Leser von der Jubil Jars Bullen.” Weim. ed., 18, - pp. 251(255)-269; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 298-318. - - 182. Sermons on 1 Timothy. Weim. ed., 17, 1, pp. 102-167; Erl. ed., - 51, pp. 276-324. - - 183. “Eyn christl. Schrift an Herrn Wolfgang Reissenbusch sich ynn den - Ehelichen Stand zubegeben.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 270(275)-278; Erl. ed., - 33, pp. 286-290. - - 184. “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die zwelff Artikel der Bawrschafft ynn - Schwaben.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 279(291)-334; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 259-286; - 24², pp. 271-299. - - 185. “Vertrag zwischen dem löblichen Bund zu Schwaben und den - zweyen Hauffen der Bawrn am Bodensee und Algew.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. - 335(336)-343; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 2-12. - - 186. “Wider die mordischen und reubischen Rotten der Bawren.” Weim. - ed., 18, pp. 344(357)-361; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 288-294; 24², pp. 303-309. - - 187. “Eyn schrecklich Geschicht unnd Gericht Gottes uber Thomas - Müntzer.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 362(367)-374; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 13-22. - - 188. “Eyn Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin widder die Bauren.” Weim. - ed., 18, pp. 375(384)-401; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 295-319; 24², pp. 310-334. - - 189. “Eyne Christliche Vormanung von eusserlichem Gottis Dienste unde - Eyntracht an die yn Lieffland.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 412(417)-421; Erl. - ed., 53, pp. 315-321. - - 190. Preface to Bodenstein’s “Entschuldigung D. Andres Carlstats des - falschen Namens der Auffrůr.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 431(436)-438; Erl. - ed., 64, pp. 404-408. - - 191. Preface to Carlstadt’s “Erklerung.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. - 446(453)-466; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 408-410. - - 192. “Die sieben Buss Psalmen” (revised). Weim. ed., 18, pp. - 467(479)-550; Erl. ed., 37, pp. 344-442. - - 193. Notes to the 28 Articles of the Erfurt Council. Weim. ed., 18, - pp. 531(534)-540; Erl. ed., 56, pp. xii.-xviii.; 65, pp. 239-247. - - 194. “Radtschlag wie in der Christlichen Gemaine ain … bestendigen - Ordnung solle fürgenommen und auffgericht werden” (publ. 1526). Weim. - ed., 19, pp. 436(440)-446; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 2-8. - - 195. “De servo arbitrio.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 551(600)-787; “Opp. lat. - var.,” 7, pp. 113(116)-368. - - 196. Church-Postils (2nd part), Epiphany to Easter. Erl. ed., 8-11; - 8²-11². - - 197. “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts” (publ. 1526). Weim. - ed., 19, pp. 44(70)-113; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 227-244. - - 198. Hymn, “Jesaia dem Propheten das geschach.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343. - - 199. “Epistel des Propheten Jesaia so man ynn der Christmesse lieset” - (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 19, pp. 126(131)-168; Erl. ed., 15, pp. - 65-110; 15², pp. 70-116. - - “Annotationes in Deuteronomiam,” cp. No. 161. Other sermons, Weim. - ed., 17, 1, pp. 1-507; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 116-253. Letters, Enders, 5, - pp. 100-297; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 281-357; 56, pp. 168-170, viii.-xviii. - -=1526.= The Diet of Augsburg demands (Jan. 9) an Œcumenical Council. -Luther lays it down (Feb. 9) that, in each locality there must be but -one doctrine. The new worship in the Saxon Electorate. The Electorate -and Hesse enter into a league (at Gotha, and, later, at Torgau, May 2). -Lambert of Avignon helps Philip of Hesse to introduce the innovations. -The Kaiser threatened by the League of Cognac (May 22). The Diet of -Spires (Aug. 27) tempers the Edict of Worms. The Battle of Mohacs (Aug. -29). Charles V politically estranged from the Pope. The “Hyperaspistes” -of Erasmus. - - 200. “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern gemalet und beschrieben.” Weim. - ed., 19, pp. 1(6)-43; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 360-378. - - 201. Sermons (publ. in full in 1898). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 204(212)-591; - Erl. ed., 17², pp. 254-267. - - 202. “Widder den … Radschlag der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.” - Weim. ed., 19, pp. 252(260)-282; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 23-46. - - 203. “Der Prophet Jona aussgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 169(185)-251; - Erl. ed., 41, pp. 325-414. - - 204. “Sermon von dem Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts Christi widder die - Schwarmgeister.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 474(482)-523; Erl. ed., 29, pp. - 329-359. - - 205. Two Prefaces to the Swabian “Syngramma.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. - 447(457)-461, 524(529)-530; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 108-185. - - 206. “Antwort auff ettliche Fragen Closter Gelübd belangend.” Weim. - ed., 19, pp. 283(287)-293; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 318-327. - - 207. “Der Prophet Habacuc ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 336(345)-435; - Erl. ed., 42, pp. 3-108. - - 208. “Das Tauffbuchlin verdeudscht auffs new zugericht.” Weim. ed., - 19, pp. 531(537)-541; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 291-294. - - 209. “Annotationes in Ecclesiasten” (publ. 1532). Weim. ed., 20, pp. - 1(7)-203; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 21, pp. 1-266. - - 210. “Der 112. Psalm Davids … gepredigt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. - 294(297)-336; Erl. ed., 40, pp. 241-280. - - 211. “Vier trostliche Psalmen.… An die Königyn zu Hungern ausgelegt.” - Weim. ed., 19, pp. 542(552)-615; Erl. ed., 38, pp. 370-453. - - 212. “Der Prophet Sacharja ausgelegt” (publ. 1528). Weim. ed., 23, pp. - 477(485)-664; Erl. ed., 42, pp. 109-362. - - 213. “Epistel aus dem Propheten Jeremia von Christus Reich” (publ. - 1527). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 549-561; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 187-219. - - 214. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden.” Weim. ed., - 19, pp. 618(623)-662; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 264-290. - - “Deudsche Messe,” cp. No. 197. Two sermons on Acts xv., xvi., cp. - No. 171. Sermon on Is. ix., cp. No. 199. Lecture on Osee, cp. No. - 160. Instruction on Moses, Weim. ed., 16, pp. 363-394; Erl. ed., - 33, pp. 3-21. Various memoranda, cp. No. 194. Summer part of the - Church-Postils (Erl. ed., 8, 9, 11-14; 9², 11²-14²). Sermons, cp. Nos. - 201, 204, 210, 213. Letters, Enders, 5, p. 298 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, pp. - 357-394. - -=1527.= Second war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1529). -Henry the Eighth’s plans for a divorce. Ferdinand I is crowned at Prague -as King of Bohemia (Feb. 24). Sack of Rome (May 6-14). Peace between -Charles V and Clement VII (Nov.). Gustavus Vasa takes Luther’s side. The -Visitation of the Saxon Electorate (lasting till 1529) and introduction -of the office of Superintendent. Emser’s translation of the New Testament -(Dec.). Melanchthon in his “Commonplace Book” modifies his teaching on -Predestination. Luther falls ill; beginning of his worst “struggles of -conscience.” Commencement of the controversy with Zwingli, etc., on the -Supper. Wittenberg is invaded by the Plague. - - 215. “Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce.) noch fest - stehen widder die Schwermgeister.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 38(64)-320; Erl. - ed., 30, pp. 16-150. - - 216. Translation of Isaias. - - 217. “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. - 17(26)-37; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 2-14. - - 218. Sermons on Leviticus and Numbers (publ. 1902). Weim. ed., 25, pp. - 403(411)-522. - - 219. Preface to “Commentarius in Apocalypsim ante centum annos - editus.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 121(123)-124; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. - 506-508. - - 220. Preface to “Die Weissagungẽ Johannis Lichtenberger.” Weim. ed., - 23, pp. 1(7)-12; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 250-258. - - 221. “In Esaiam scholia ex D.M.L. prælectionibus collecta” (publ. - 1532-1534). Weim. ed., 25, pp. 79(87)-401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, pp. - 1-296. - - 222. “Ob man fur dem Sterben fliehen muge.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. - 323(338)-386; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 318-341. - - 223. Lecture on the 1st Epistle of John (publ. 1708 and 1799). Weim. - ed., 20, pp. 592(599)-801. - - 224. “Trostunge un die Christen zu Halle uber Er Georgen yhres - Predigers Tod.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 390(401)-434; Erl. ed., 22, pp. - 295-316. - - 225. “Octonarius David” (Ps. xix.). Weim. ed., 23, pp. 435(437)-442; - Erl. ed., 41, pp. 93-115. - - 226. “Von Er Lenhard Keiser ynn Beyern umb des Evangelii Willen - verbrandt.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 443(445)-476. - - 227. “Ain feste Burg” (1528?). Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., see above, - vol. v., p. 549. - - 228. Lecture on Titus and Philemon (publ. 1902). Weim. ed., 25, pp. - 1(6)-78. - - Church-Postils, Summer part and conclusion, ed. Roth, cp. Erl. ed., - 15, 16; 15². Sermon on Jer. xxiii. 5-8, cp. No. 213. Sermons on - Genesis, cp. No. 133. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 23, pp. 665(682)-757; - Erl. ed., 17², pp. 268-322. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 1-172; Erl. ed., - 53, pp. 395-416; 56, pp. 170-176. - -=1528.= The Pack negotiations. Anabaptists are threatened with the -death-penalty. Death of Albert Dürer (April 6) and Emser (Nov. 8). -Cochlæus, Court-chaplain to Duke George. Cruciger and other friends come -to Wittenberg. Letters of Hasenberg and von der Heyden. Bugenhagen’s work -in Brunswick. Progress of the Visitation of the Saxon Electorate. The -“catechetical sermons” at Wittenberg. Philip of Hesse’s breach of the -peace and hostilities against Bamberg, Würzburg and Mayence. The Turks -threaten new inroads. - - 229. “Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pharhern ym Kurfurstenthum zu - Sachssen,” etc. Weim. ed., 26, pp. 175(195)-240; Erl. ed., 23, pp. - 3-70. - - 230. “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. - 241(261)-509; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 152-373. - - 231. “Ein Gesichte Bruder Clausen ynn Schweytz und seine Deutunge.” - Weim. ed., 26, pp. 125(130)-136; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 260-268. - - 232. Lecture on 1 Timothy (partly publ. 1797). Weim. ed., 26, pp. - 1(4)-120. - - 233. “Von der Widdertauffe an zween Pfarherrn.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. - 137(144)-174; Erl. ed., 26, pp. 255-294; 26², pp. 282-321. - - 234. “De digamia episcoporum propositiones.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. - 510(517)-527; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 360-373. - - 235. New edition of the German Psalter; cp. No. 165, 289. - - 236. Three series of sermons on the Catechism (publ. 1899). Weim. ed., - 30, 1, pp. 2-122. - - 237. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken” (publ. 1529). Weim. ed. 30, 2, - pp. 81(107)-148; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 32-80. - - 238. “New-Zeittung von Leyptzig.” “Ein newe Fabel Esopi newlich - verdeudscht gefunden.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 534(539)-554; Erl. ed., 64, - pp. 326-337. - - 239. “Von beider Gestalt des Sacraments.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. - 555(560)-618; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 374-426. - - 240. Week-day sermons on John xvi.-xx. (in part publ. 1530, 1557). - Weim. ed., 28, pp. 31(42)-502; Erl. ed., 50, pp. 1-441. - - 241. Week-day sermons on Mt. xi.-xv. Weim. ed., 28, pp. 1(4)-30. - - 242. “Nachwort zu der Durchleuchtigen hochgebornen F. Ursulen - Hertzogin zu Mönsterberg. Christliche Ursach des verlassen Klosters zu - Freyberg.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 623(628)-633; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 132-169. - - Exposition of the Ten Commandments, Weim. ed., 16, pp. 394-528; Erl. - ed., 36, pp. 1-144. Commentary on Zacharias, cp. No. 212. Other - Sermons, Weim. ed., 27, 28, pp. 503-763. Letters, Enders, 6, p. 173-7, - p. 38; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 416-452; 54, pp. 1-60; 56, pp. 176-180, xix. - -=1529.= Peace of Barcelona (June 29). Peace of the Ladies (Cambrai, -Aug. 5). Retreat of the Turks from Vienna (Oct. 14). Diet of Spires. -“Protest” of the Lutheran Estates (April 19). They promise each other -mutual support (April 22). Philip of Hesse and Melanchthon seek a union -with the Zwinglians; the Marburg Conference (Oct. 1-4). Luther submits -to the Upper German townships his so-called Schwabach Articles which are -rejected by Strasburg and Ulm at the Schwabach Conference (Oct. 16). The -same thing happens again at the Schmalkalden Conference (Nov. 29) and -spoils all prospect of an arrangement with the South-Germans. Nuremberg -alone stands true to the union. - - 243. “Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. - 1(25)-48; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 2-30. - - 244. “Deudsch Catechismus.” Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 123-238; Erl. ed., - 21, pp. 26-155. - - 245. “Der Kleine Catechismus für die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger.” - Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 239-425; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 5-25. - - 246. “Ein Trawbüchlin für die einfeltigen Pfarherr.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, - pp. 43(74)-80; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 208-213. - - 247. “Teütsche Letaney” and “Latina Litania correcta.” Weim. ed., 30, - 3, pp. 1(29)-42; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 360-366. - - 248. Preface to the “Œconomia christiana” of Justus Menius. Weim. ed., - 30, 2, pp. 49(60)-63; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 117-121; 63, pp. 277-282. - - 249. Translation of the Book of Wisdom. - - 250. Sermons on Deuteronomy (publ. 1564). Weim. ed., 28, pp. - 501(509)-763; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 164-411. - - 251. Preface to Melanchthon’s Exposition of Colossians. Weim. ed., 30, - 2, pp. 64(68)-69; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 492 _sq._ - - 252. Preface to Brentz’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Weim. ed., 26, - pp. 619(621)-622; Erl. ed., 54, p. 59 f. - - 253. Preface to Venatorius’ “Ein kurtz Underricht den sterbenden - Menschen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 70(79)-80; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 285-287. - - 254. The “Wittenberg Song-book” with new hymns and a preface. - - 255. “Von Ehesachen” (publ. 1530). Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 198(205)-248; - Erl. ed., 23, pp. 93-154. - - 256. Marburg Conference and Articles. Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. - 92(110)-171; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 88-91. - - 257. Articles of the Schwabach Convention. Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. - 81(86)-91. - - 258. “Eine Heer-Predigt widder den Türcken.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. - 149(160)-197; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 81-121. - - 259. Scholia to Ps. cxviii. (to Eobanus Hessus). - - Latin translation of the Bible, cp. No. 142. “Vom Kriege widder - die Türcken,” cp. No. 237. Sermons, cp. No. 240 and Weim. ed., 29. - Letters, Enders, 7, pp. 39-212; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 60-121; 56, pp. 181, - xix.-xxvii. - -=1530.= Charles V is crowned Emperor at Bologna (Feb. 24). Death of -Willibald Pirkheimer and of Luther’s father, Hans (Feb.). The “Confessio -tetrapolitana” of Strasburg, Constance, Lindau and Memmingen (drawn up -by Bucer and Capito). The Torgau Articles (March). Diet of Augsburg -(June 20-Nov. 19). Luther at the Coburg (April 23-Oct. 4). At Torgau -he begins to favour the use of armed resistance to the Emperor (Oct.). -The “Confessio Augustana” (June 25), the “Confutatio” and Melanchthon’s -“Apologia” (Sept.). Bucer at the Coburg (Sept. 25). The warlike league -planned by the Protesting Estates at the Schmalkalden Assembly (Dec. 22). -Spread of the innovations in Hungary. - - 260. Preface to Spengler’s “Kurczer Auszuge aus den Bebstlichen - Rechten.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 215(219); Erl. ed., 63, pp. 288-290. - - 261. Preface to “Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcarum.” Weim. ed., 30, - 2, pp. 198(205)-208; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 514-519; Erl. ed., 65, - pp. 248-254. - - 262. New ed. of the New Testament. - - 263. Translation of Daniel. - - 264. Preface to “Der Widdertauffer Lere” of Justus Menius. Weim. ed., - 30, 2, pp. 209(211)-214; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 290-296. - - 265. Lecture on the Song of Songs (publ. 1538). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 21, - pp. 273-368. - - 266. “Vermanũg an die geistlichen versamlet auff dem Reichstag zu - Augsburg.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 237(268)-356; Erl. ed., 24, pp. - 330-379; 24², pp. 358-407. - - 267. (1530-1532). Translation of Jeremias, Ezechiel and the Lesser - Prophets. - - 268. “Das xxxviii. und xxxix. Capitel Hesechiel vom Gog.” Weim. ed., - 30, 2, pp. 220(223)-236; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 220-231. - - 269. Twenty-one Sermons (publ. 1702). Weim. ed., 32, pp. 1-298; Erl. - ed., 17², pp. 323-472. - - 270. “Auff das Schreien etlicher Papisten uber die siebentzehen - Artickel.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 183(186)-197; Erl. ed., 24, pp. - 321-329; 24², pp. 337-344. - - 271. “Das schöne Confitemini” (Ps. cxviii.). Erl. ed., 41, pp. 2-19. - - 272. Short exposition of the first 25 Psalms (publ. 1548, and, in - full, 1559). Erl. ed., 38, pp. 1-275; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 17. - - 273. (1530?). German version of Æsop’s Fables. Erl. ed., 64, pp. - 350-361. - - 274. “Etliche tröstliche Vermanungen … Mit diesen Sprüchen hat sich - der heilige Man … getröstet.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 697(700)-710; Erl. - ed., 23, pp. 155-162. - - 275. Reflections of the Holy Fathers, on how a Christian must bear his - cross with patience. Erl. ed., 64, pp. 298-300. - - 276. Glosses on the Decalogue. Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 357(358). - - 277. “Widderruff vom Fegefeur.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 360(367)-390; - Erl. ed., 31, pp. 185-215. - - 278. “Ettlich Artickelstück so M.L. erhalten wil, wider die gantze - Satans Schüle uñ alle Pforten der Hellen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. - 413(420)-427; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 373-377; Erl. ed., 31, pp. - 122-125. - - 279. “Predigt das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.” Weim. ed., 30, - 2, pp. 508(517)-588; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 1-45; 17², pp. 376-422. - - 280. “Brieff an den Cardinal Ertzbisschoff zu Mentz.” Weim. ed., 30, - 2, pp. 391(397)-412; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 159-168. - - 281. “Der lxxxii. Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 39, pp. 225-264. - - 282. “Von den Schlüsseln.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 428(435)-507; 30, 3, - pp. 584-588; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 126-184. - - 283. “Der hundert und siebenzehende Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, - pp. 281-328. - - 284. “Vermanung zum Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts unsers Herrn.” Weim. - ed., 30, 2, pp. 589(595)-626; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 163-207. - - 285. “Sendbrieff D.M.L. von Dolmetzscheñ.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. - 627(632)-646; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 103-123. - - 286. “Der hundert und eilffte Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, pp. - 193-240. - - 287. Week-day sermons on Mt. v.-vii. (publ. 1532). Weim. ed., 32, pp. - 299-555; Erl. ed., 43, pp. 2-368. - - 288. Sermons on John vi. 26-viii. 38 (publ. 1564). Weim. ed., 33; Erl. - ed., 47, pp. 227-394; 48, pp. 1-410. - - “Von Ehesachen,” cp. No, 255. “Heer-Predigt widder den Türcken,” cp. - No. 258. Sermons on John xvii., cp. No. 240. Letters, Enders, 7, p. - 213—8, p. 334; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 122-209; 56, pp. 181-183, xxvii.-xxix. - -=1531.= Ferdinand becomes the German King (Jan. 5). League of -Schmalkalden (Feb. 27). Bavaria takes the field against Ferdinand (24 -Oct.). Archbishop Albert stays at Halle (till 1540). Melanchthon prepares -for the press his “Confessio Aug.” and its “Apologia.” Luther suggests to -Henry VIII that bigamy would be preferable to divorce (Sept. 3). England -(1531-1545) is carried into schism by Henry VIII. Zwinglian iconoclastic -riots in Swabia. Zwingli slain in Battle (Oct. 11) is succeeded by -Bullinger. Luther’s revision of his translation of the Psalms; his -memoranda on the means of stamping out the Anabaptist movement (end of -Oct.). - - 289. New edition of the Psalms, cp. Nos. 165, 235. - - 290. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict ausgangen jm 1531 Jare.” - Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 321(331)-388, 583; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 51-88; 25², - pp. 50-88. - - 291. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. - 252(276)-320, 392-399; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 2-50; 25², pp. 3-49; 65, p. - 259 f. - - 292. “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen gedrückt.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. - 413(446)-471; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 89-109; 25², pp. 109-128. - - 293. “Commentarius (maior) in Epistolam ad Galatas” (publ. 1535). - Weim. ed., 40, 1 (cap. i.-iv.); Irmischer, 1; 2; 3, pp. 1-120. - - 294. “Exemplum theologiæ et doctrinæ papisticæ.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. - 494(496)-509; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 21-43. - - 295. Psalm cxlvii. (publ. 1532). Erl. ed., pp. 152-181. - - 296. “Enarratio psalmi xlii.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 17, pp. 234-238. - - Sermons, Weim. ed., 34, 1, 2; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 1-135. Letters, - Enders, 8, pp. 335-9, p. 135; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 209-265; 56, p. 183. - -=1532.= The Turkish invasion of Hungary and Austria (June); Suleiman II -does not venture to attack Vienna. Elector Johann dies and is succeeded -by Johann Frederick (till 1547). Calvin stays for a while in Geneva. The -Nuremberg proposals for a religious truce (June 23) are rejected by the -Catholic Estates at Ratisbon (July 2). Melanchthon thinks of leaving -Wittenberg. - - 297. “Brieff von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern.” Weim. ed., 30, - 3, pp. 510(518)-527; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 214-226. - - 298. “An den Durchleuchtigen Hochgebornen Fürsten und Herrn Herrn - Albrechten Marggraffen zu Brandenburg.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. - 541(547)-553; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 281-289. - - 299. “Enarratio psalmorum ii. et xlv.” (publ. 1533 and 1546). “Opp. - lat. exeg.” 18, pp. 1-127, 129-264. - - 300. “Enarratio psalmi li.” (publ. 1538). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, pp. - 1-154. - - 301. Preface to Bugenhagen’s ed. of “Athanasii libri contra - idolatriam.” Weim ed., 30, 3, pp. 528(530)-532; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, - pp. 523-525. - - 302.“Summarien uber die Psalmen und Ursachen des Dolmetschens” (publ. - 1533). Erl. ed., 37, pp. 254-339. - - 303. Sermon on Charity (1 Jo. iv. 16-21; publ. 1533). Weim. ed., 36, - pp. 416-477; Erl. ed., 19, pp. 358-412; 18², pp. 304-311. - - 304. Translation of the Old-Testament “Apocrypha” (publ. 1533 f.). - - 305. Sermon on the sum total of the Christian life (1 Tim. 1, 5 ff. - publ. 1533). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 352-375; Erl. ed., 19, pp. 296-328; - 18², pp. 370-304. - - 306. (1532-1533). “Enarratio in psalmos graduales” (publ. 1540). “Opp. - lat. exeg.,” 19, pp. 157-289; 20, pp. 1-306. - - 307. “Brieff an die zu Franckfort am Meyn.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. - 554(558)-571; Erl. ed., 26, pp. 295-313; 26², pp. 372-389. - - 308. (1532-1534). Home-sermons (Home-postils, ed. Veit Dietrich, 1544; - ed. Rörer, 1559). Weim. ed., 36, 37; Erl. ed., 1-6; 1²-3² (after - Dietrich); 4²-6² (after Rörer). - - Exposition of Ps. cxlvii., cp. No. 295. Translation of the Prophets, - cp. No. 267. Sermons on Mt. v.-vii., cp. No. 287. “In Esaiam prophetam - scholia,” cp. No. 221. “Annotationes in Ecclesiasten,” cp. No. 209. - Sermon on Numbers, vi. 22-27, cp. No. 218. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., - 36; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 136-384. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 136-258; Erl. - ed., 54, pp. 266-348; 56, pp. 184 f.-187. - -=1533.= Clement VII takes steps for the assembling of an Œcumenical -Council (Jan.). The Schmalkaldeners refuse to hear of a Council (June). -Henry VIII weds Anne Boleyn (Jan). Progress of Protestantism in the Duchy -of Jülich-Cleves, in Anhalt-Köthen and Mecklenburg. - - 309. Sermons on 1 Cor. xv. (publ. 1534). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 649-697; - Erl. ed., 51, pp. 71-275. - - 310. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. - 228-269. - - 311. “Die kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.” Weim. ed., 31, - pp. 270-307. - - 312. “Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffen Weihe.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. - 308-377. - - 313. Preface to the “Rechẽschafft des Glaubens” (of the Bohemian - Brethren). Erl. ed., 63, pp. 320-323. - - 314. Preface to Balth. Rhaida’s reply to Wicel. Erl. ed., 63, pp. - 317-319. - - “Summarien,” cp. No. 302. “Brieff,” etc., cp. No. 307. Exposition of - Ps. xlv., cp. 299. Sermon on 1 John iv. 16-21, cp. No. 303. Sermon - on 1 Tim. i. 5 ff., cp. No. 305. Translation of Sirach, cp. No. 304. - Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 37, pp. 1-248; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 1-102. - Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 259-370; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 1-35; 56, pp. - 185-191, xxix.-xxxv. - -=1534.= Death of Clement VII (Sept. 25). Paul III (from Oct. 13, -1534-Nov. 10, 1549). Bull against Henry VIII (March 23). Act of Supremacy -is passed by the English Parliament (Nov. 3). Ulrich of Würtemberg is -reinstated by Philip of Hesse; his treaty with King Ferdinand signed at -Baden (June 29). Reformation of Anhalt (March) of Würtemberg (May) of -Augsburg (July) of Pomerania (Dec.). Carlstadt at Basle. Luther again -attacks Erasmus, the latter’s “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam -Lutheri.” Death of Cardinal Cajetan (Aug. 9). Strasburg the centre of the -Anabaptist movement. The Anabaptists’ orgies at Münster (Feb., 1534, to -June 25, 1535). First edition of Calvin’s “Institutio.” - - 315. “Ein Brieff D. Mart. Luth. von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen.” - Erl. ed., 31, pp. 378-391. - - 316. “Der lxv. Psalm durch D.M.L. zu Dessaw … gepredigt.” Weim. ed., - 37, pp. 425-451; Erl. ed., 39, pp. 137-177. - - 317. “Biblia das ist die gantze Heilige Schrift.” - - 318. “Convocatio concilii liberi christiani” (of doubtful - authenticity). Erl. ed., 31, pp. 411-416; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. - 370-372. - - 319. “Præfatio in Antonii Corvini librum de Erasmi concordia.” “Opp. - lat. var.,” 7, pp. 526-531. - - 320. Preface to Urban Rhegius, “Widderlegung der Münsterischen newen … - Bekentnus.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 332-336. - - 321. Preface to the “Newe Zeittung von Münster.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. - 336-341. - - 322. “Enarratio psalmi xc.” “Opp. lat exeg.,” 18, pp. 264-334. - - 323. Exposition of Psalm ci. Erl. ed., 39, pp. 266-364. - - 324. “Einfeltige Weise zu beten.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 215-238. - - 325. “Klagschrift der Vögel an D.M. Luther über seinem Diener Wolfgang - Sieberger.” Erl. ed., 64, p. 347 f. - - “Scholia in Esaiam,” cp. No. 221. Sermons on 1 Cor. xv., cp. No. 309. - Further Sermons, Weim. ed., 37, pp. 249-672. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. - 371—10, p. 117; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 36-81; 56, pp. 191-196. - -=1535.= Growth of the Schmalkalden League after the accession of -Würtemberg. Death of Joachim I of Brandenburg (July 11). Joachim II -his successor (†1571) a friend of Luther’s. Execution of Sir Thomas -More. Vergerio’s interview with Luther (Nov. 7). Amended edition of -Melanchthon’s Commonplace-Book. The ordination-oath introduced at -Wittenberg. The Schmalkalden League is prolonged for ten years (Dec.). -King Ferdinand to the Emperor on Germany’s downfall (Dec.). - - 326. Sermon on Infant-Baptism. Weim. ed., 37, pp. 258-293; Erl. ed., - 16, pp. 43-105; 19², pp. 103-167. - - 327. “Etliche Spruche Doc. Martini Luther wider das Concilium - Obstantiense (wolt sagen Constantiense).” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 391-411. - - 328. (1535-1545). “Enarrationes in Genesim” (publ. 1544). “Opp. lat. - exeg.,” 1-11. - - 329. Prefaces to Anton Corvinus’s “Kurtze Ausslegung der Euangelien … - der Episteln.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 348-353. - - 330. Letter to the preachers of Soest. Erl. ed., 65, pp. 95-102. - - 331. (1535-1536). Sermons. Weim. ed., 41; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 103-242. - - 332. Disputations, “de concilio Constantiensi” and for the promotion - of Hier. Weller, and Nic. Medler. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 402-410, - 377-389; Drews, pp. 1-3, 9-32. - - 333. Hymns: “Von Himel hoch”; “Sie ist mir lieb”; “All Ehr und Lob - soll Gottes seyn.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 348 f., 350 f. - - “Comment, in epist. ad Galatas,” cp. No. 293. Sermons, cp. No. 331. - Letters, Enders, 10, pp. 118-282; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 81-117; 56, pp. - 196-198, xxxv. f. - -=1536.= Third war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1538). -The Turkish peril. Denmark converted to Protestantism (Aug.). The -“Consilium de emendanda ecclesia” drafted by Cardinals Pole, Contarini, -Sadoleto and Caraffa. A General Council is summoned (June 2) to meet at -Mantua in 1537. Death of Erasmus (July 12). Luther makes advances to -Henry VIII and admits the lawfulness of his divorce. Articles are drafted -to the object of inducing the King of England to make common cause -with the German Reformers. The Articles are thrown over by Henry. The -Wittenberg Concord (May). Luther endeavours to win over Augsburg, Ulm and -the Swiss. Bucer labours for a union. Synods held by the Swiss at Basle -and Bern (Sept., Nov.). Memoranda of the Wittenberg theologians regarding -the Council (Aug.). Bull for the bettering of the City of Rome and the -Papal Court (Sept. 23). Calvin begins his work at Geneva. - - 334. Disputations: “De iustificatione,” “De muliere peccatrice” and - “Contra missam privatam” (Jan. 14, 21, 29). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. - 389-394, 398-402, 413; Drews, pp. 55-66, 66, 69-89. - - 335. Preface to Robert Barnes (Chaplain to Henry VIII), “De vitis - pontificum.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 533-536. - - 336. “Præfatio in tres epistolas Hussii.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 - _sq._ - - 337. “Der xxiii. Psalm Auff ein Abend uber Tisch nach dem Gratias - ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 39, pp. 62-122. - - 338. Preface and Postscript to “Joan. Nannii Viterbensis, De monarchia - Papæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 110-121. - - 339. Disputations for the promotion of Jakob Schenk and Philip Moth. - “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 417-419; Drews, pp. 100-109. - - 340. “Artickel so da hetten sollen auffs Concilion zu Mantua,” etc. - (publ. 1538). Erl. ed., 25, pp. 110-146; 25², pp. 169-205. - - 341. Disputation “De homine.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 413-416; Drews, - pp. 90-96. - - “Enarratio” on Joel, Amos, Obedias, cp. No. 160. Sermons. Weim. ed., - 41, pp. 493-763; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 243-259. Letters, Enders, 10, p. - 283—11, p. 151; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 117-167; 56, pp. 199-206, xxxvii. f. - -=1537.= Ferdinand’s defeat in Slavonia. Paul the Third’s Bull on the -Turkish question (July 14). Bugenhagen helps in the conversion of Denmark -to Protestantism. Luther’s so-called Schmalkalden Articles sent by him to -the Elector (Jan. 3). The Schmalkalden Meeting (Feb.). Luther is taken -ill and returns home. The Princes decide to have nothing to do with -the Council. They accept the Augsburg Confession and the “Apologia.” -The Schmalkaldeners call on the King of France for help (March 5). -Melanchthon’s “De potestate papæ.” Luther returns sound to Wittenberg -(March 14). Cordatus opposes Melanchthon. The cleavage between Luther and -Melanchthon is carefully veiled. On Oct. 8 the Council is summoned to -meet at Vicenza on May 1, 1538. Efforts of Bucer and others to promote a -Protestant Council. Luther’s spiritual indisposition. - - 342. Sermon on Mt. iv. 1 ff. Erl. ed., 17, pp. 7-34; 19², pp. 260-292. - - 343. “Die drey Symbola oder Bekentniss des Glaubens Christi jnn der - Kirchen einträchtiglich gebraucht.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 252-281. - - 344. (1537-1538). Exposition of John xiv.-xvi. (publ. 1538). Weim. - ed., 46, pp. 1-112; Erl. ed., 49, pp. 2-391; 50, pp. 1-154. - - 345. Disputations of Peter Palladius and Tilemann Schnabel. “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 394-397; Drews, pp. 115-160. - - 346. Discourse at the promotion of Peter Palladius. “Opp. lat. var.,” - 4, pp. 315-322. - - 347. “Disputatio de cœna magna (i.e. de veste nuptiali).” “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, p. 419; Drews, pp. 163-245. - - 348. (1537-1539). Exposition of John i.-iv. (publ. 1565 and 1847). - Weim. ed., 46, p. 538 ff.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 291-422; 46, pp. 1-378; - 47, pp. 1-226. - - 349. (1537-1539). Sermons on Mt. xviii. 24-xxiii. 23. Erl. ed., 44; - 45, pp. 1-203. - - 350. “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant - Donatio Constantini.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 176-201; 25², pp. 207-232. - - 351. “Bulla papæ Pauli” (publ. in “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, - p. 362 ff.). - - 352 Exposition of Ps. viii. (publ. 1572). Erl. ed., 39, pp. 2-60. - - 353. Preface to “Ein alt Christlich Concilium … zu Gangra.” Erl. ed., - 64, p. 57 f. - - 354. “Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo an die Heiligen Veter inn - dem vermeinten Concilio zu Mantua.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 202-218; 25², - pp. 232-249. - - 355. Postscript to “Tres epistolæ I. Hussii.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. - 536 _sq._ - - 356. “Præfatio in epistolas quasdam Hussii.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 59-83; - “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 538-540. - - 357. First disputation against the Antinomians (Dec. 18). “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 420-427; Drews, pp. 249-333. - - 358. Hymns “Erhalt uns Herr bey deinem Wort,” “Vater unser im - Himelreich.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 354, 351 f. - - 359. “Conciunculæ cuidam amico præscriptæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. - 374-433. - - Further Sermons, Erl. ed., 19², pp. 260-466. Letters, Enders, 11, pp. - 152-320; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 167-195; 56, pp. 206-208, xxxix. f. - -=1538.= The Truce of Nice between the Kaiser and François I (June 15). -Luther in conflict with the Antinomianism of Agricola (1537-1540). His -quarrels with Lemnius, Schenk and Joh. von Metzsch. His antagonism to -Albert of Mayence. The assembly of the Protestants at Brunswick (April -8). The Schmalkaldeners enter into a league with Christian III of Denmark -(April 9). They send missions to the Kings of France and England (Aug., -Oct.). The strength of the League in Germany increases the danger of a -religious war. The Kaiser (aided by his vice-chancellor Held) succeeds -in inducing the Catholic princes to form the so-called Holy Alliance at -Nuremberg (June 10). Calvin is banished from Geneva. - - 360. Revised edition of the “Unterricht,” cp. No. 229. - - 361. “Ratschlag eins ausschus etlicher Cardinel,” etc. Erl. ed., 25, - pp. 146-174; 25², pp. 251-278. - - 362. “Præfatio in librum S. Hieronymi ad Evagrium de potestate papæ.” - “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 541-544. - - 363. “Brieff … wider die Sabbather.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 417-449. - - 364. “Der cx. Psalm Dixit Dominus gepredigt und ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., - 40, pp. 39-192. - - 365. First answer to the “Epigrammata” of Simon Lemnius. Erl. ed., 64, - p. 323 f. - - 366. Second disputation against the Antinomians (Jan. 12). “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 427-430; Drews, pp. 336-418. - - 367. Third disputation against the Antinomians (Sept. 13). “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 436-441; Drews, pp. 423-484. - - 368. “Præfatio in Confessionem Bohemorum.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. - 548-551. - - 369. “Wider den Bischoff zu Magdeburg Albrecht Cardinal.” Erl. ed., - 32, pp. 15-59. - - 370. Preface to Rhau’s “Symphoniæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 551-554. - - 371. “Frau Musica,” to Joh. Walther’s “Lob und Preis der Himlischen - Kunst Musica.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 295 f. - - 372. Sermons. Weim. ed., 46, pp. 113-537; Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 1-171. - - The Schmalkalden Articles, cp. No. 340. Æsop’s Fables, cp. No. 273. - The Three Creeds, cp. No. 343. Exposition of Ps. li., cp. No. 300. - Lecture on the Song of Songs, cp. No. 265. Sermons on John xiv.-xvi., - cp. No. 344. Further Sermons, cp. Nos. 344, 348 f., 372. Letters, - Enders, 11, pp. 321—12, p. 61; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 195-216; 56, pp. - 208-220, xl.-xlv. - -=1539.= Death of Duke George (April 17). Apostasy of Joachim II. The -Duchy of Saxony, the Electorate of Brandenburg, and Livonia become -Protestant. Memorandum of Luther and Melanchthon to Elector Johann -Frederick, in favour of armed resistance. The Frankfurt meeting of the -Protestants (April 19); their decision not to appeal as yet to force -and to promote a simple conference rather than a Council; a new mission -dispatched to England (April 29). The Protestant Visitation of the Duchy -of Saxony. Luther and his friends again at work (1539-1541) revising the -German Bible. The Consistories established in the Saxon Electorate. The -Hessian “Order of Church-Discipline.” In England, dissolution of the -Monasteries. Luther’s disputation on the “Papal Werewolf” (May 9). He -sanctions the Bigamy of Philip II (Nov. 10). - - 373. “Wider die Antinomer.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 2-14. - - 374. “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 219-388; 25², - pp. 281-448. - - 375. Sermon at Leipzig on Jo. xiv. 23 ff. (publ. 1618). Erl. ed., 20², - 1, pp. 242-253. - - 376. Disputation on Mt. xix. 21 (Vade, vende, etc.). “Opp. lat. var.,” - 4, pp. 442-449; Drews, pp. 536-584. - - 377. Preface to Myconius’s “Wie man die einfeltigen … im Christenthumb - unterrichten sol.” Erl. ed., 63, p. 364 f. - - 378. Preface to a work of Moibanus, on Ps. xxix. Erl. ed., 63, pp. - 342-344. - - 379. Preface to German version of Galeatius Capella’s “De bello - Mediolanensi seu rebus in Italia gestis.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 354-357. - - 380. Disputation on “Verbum caro factum est” (Jo. i. 14). “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 458-461; Drews, pp. 487-531. - - 381. Revision of the German Bible. - - 382. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen.” Erl. ed., 23, - pp. 282-338. - - 383. Preface to the 1st part of his Collected German Works. Erl. ed., - 63, pp. 401-406. - - 384. Sermons. Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 172-264. - - “Wider den Bischoff,” cp. No. 369. Further Sermons, cp. Nos. 348 f., - 384. Letters, Enders, 12, pp. 62-334; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 217-269; 56, - pp. 221 ff., xlvi.-l. - -=1540.= Death of Duke William IV of Bavaria. The Jesuits approved by the -Pope (Sept. 27); Pierre Favre in Germany. Philip II of Hesse weds his -second wife in Melanchthon’s presence (March 4). Luther at the Conference -of Eisenach (July 10). Melanchthon’s “miraculous” cure at Weimar; the -“Confessio variata.” Meeting at Schmalkalden (March); Catholic worship -not to be tolerated. Persecution of Schwenckfeld by the Lutherans. -Religious conferences at Hagenau (June) and Worms (Nov. 25-Jan.). -Agricola goes to Berlin to the Elector of Brandenburg (Sept.). Morone -the Papal Legate complains of the apathy of the German Bishops. - - 385. Disputation “De divinitate et humanitate Christi” (Feb. 28). - “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 461-466; Drews, pp. 586-610. - - 386. Preface to Robert Barnes’s “Bekantnus des Glaubens … - verdeudscht.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 396-400. - - 387. New edition of the Winter part of the Church-Postils. - - 388. Disputation for the promotion of Joach. Mörlin. “Opp. lat. var.,” - 4, p. 411 _sq._; Drews, pp. 613-636. - - “An die Pfarherrn,” cp. No. 382. On the “psalmi graduales,” cp. No. - 306. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 265-512. Letters, Enders-Kawerau, - 12, pp. 335-400; 13, pp. 1-240; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 269-293; 56, pp. - 223-227. - -=1541.= The Turks secure their footing in Hungary. Naumburg given over -to the Protestants; the Bishop-Elect, Julius von Pflug shut out from -his See by the Saxon Elector (Jan.). The Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann -von Wied is won over to Protestantism. Accession of Maurice of Saxony -(†1553). Philip of Hesse comes to an understanding with Charles V. -Jonas goes to Halle to convert it to Protestantism; Schenk at Leipzig. -Death of Carlstadt (Dec. 24). Religious conferences of Worms (Jan.) and -Ratisbon (April 27-May 22); Diet of Ratisbon and Ratisbon Interim. The -Catholic spokesmen: Eck, Julius von Pflug and J. Gropper; the Protestant: -Melanchthon, Bucer and Frederick Pistorius. Calvin in supreme power at -Geneva (till 1564). - - 389. “Wider Hans Worst.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 2-75; 26², pp. 21-93. - - 390. Preface to Ezechiel, explanation of the figure of the Temple. - Erl. ed., 63, pp. 64-74. - - 391. Exposition of Dan. xii. Erl. ed., 41, pp. 294-324. - - 392. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 75-99. - - 393. Preface to Urban Rhegius’s “Wider die gottlosen blutdurstigen - Sauliten und Doegeten,” etc. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 366-368. - - 394. Hymns: “Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam,” “Was furchstu, Feind - Herodes, seer.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 353 ff. - - Revised edition of the German Bible, cp. No. 385. “Enarratio in Ps. - xc.,” cp. No. 322. Letters (Enders), Kawerau, 13, pp. 241-395; De - Wette, 5, pp. 326-420; 6, pp. 279-294; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 294-343; 56, - pp. 227-232. - -=1542.= Fourth War of Charles V with François I (lasting till 1544); Diet -of Spires meets on Feb. 9 to vote supplies for the war against the Turks. -The Elector and Duke of Saxony fall out over Wurzen (March); Luther’s -mediation; his last will (Jan. 6). Amsdorf is “consecrated” Bishop of -Naumburg (Jan. 20). A Bull dated May 22 summons the Council to assemble -on Nov. 1 at Trent. The Schmalkaldeners are successful in their attack -on the Duchy of Brunswick (July). Bucer goes to Bonn to the Elector -Hermann von Wied (Dec.). - - 395. Tract against Bigamy (publ. 1749). Erl. ed., 65, pp. 206-213. - - 396. Disputation for the promotion of Joh. Macchabæus Scotus (Theses - by Melanchthon). Drews, pp. 639-683. - - 397. “Exempel einen rechten Christlichen Bischoff zu weihen.” Erl. - ed., 26, pp. 77-107; 26², pp. 94-128. - - 398. Disputation for the promotion of H. Schmedenstede. “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 452-455; Drews, pp. 686-698. - - 399. “Von den Jüden und jren Lügen.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 100-274. - - 400. Preface to “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi Prediger Ordens - anno 1300.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 190-205. - - 401. Preface to “Barfuser Münche Eulenspiegel und Alcoran.” Erl. ed., - 63, pp. 373-376. - - 402. “Trost fur die Weibern welchen es ungerat gegangen ist mit Kinder - geberen.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 339-343. - - 403. Preface to the Hymn Book. Erl. ed., 56, pp. 299-306. - - Comment. on Micheas, cp. No. 160. No sermons. Letters, De Wette, 5, - pp. 421-525; 6, pp. 294-343; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 1-43, 232-238, li.-lvii. - -=1543.= Diet of Nuremberg (Feb.). The Protestants refuse to vote supplies -for the Turkish War. The Emperor is victorious in his campaign against -the Duke of Cleves though the latter is supported by the Elector of -Saxony and by France (Aug., Sept.). The Bishop of Münster and Osnabrück -connives at the introduction of Lutheranism into his diocese. Canisius -the first German Jesuit (May 8). Death of Eck (Feb. 10). Schenk in -Brandenburg; The Cologne Book of Reform drafted by Melanchthon and Bucer -is severely handled by Luther. - - 404. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 275-358. - - 405. “Von den Letzten Worten Dauids.” Erl. ed., 37, pp. 2-103. - - 406. Disputation for the promotion of Joh. Marbach (Feb. 16). Drews, - pp. 701-707. - - 407. Disputation for the promotion of Fr. Bachofen and Hier. Noppus. - “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 466-470; Drews, pp. 730-748. - - 408. Disputation for the promotion of Erasmus Alber. “Opp. lat. var.,” - 4, pp. 473-476; Drews, pp. 750-752. - - 409. Lecture on Is. ix. (publ. 1546). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, pp. - 303-438. - - 410. Hymns: “Von Himel kam der Engel Schar,” “Der du bist drey in - Einigkeit.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 357-558. - - New edition of the German Bible, cp. No. 381. Church-Postils, Summer - part. Sermon, Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 513-523. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. - 526-614, 6, pp. 343-559; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 43-72, 238-242, lvii.-lxi. - -=1544.= Peace of Crespy between the Kaiser and France (Sept. 18). Diet at -Spires (beginning in Feb.). Concessions to the Protestants. The Abschied -of June 10 postpones the religious controversy to a later Diet and “A -free Christian Council within the German Nation.” The Pope’s protest to -the Kaiser (Aug. 24). Luther again at daggers drawn with the lawyers (on -the question of secret espousals). The people of Cologne denounce their -Archbishop to the Pope (Oct. 9). The theses of the Louvain theologians -against Luther (Nov. 6). The Council is yet again summoned (Nov. 19, to -meet on March 15, 1545) to avert the schism and the inroads of the Turks. - - 411. Lecture on Is. liii. (publ. 1550). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, pp. - 443-536. - - 412. Disputation for the promotion of Theod. Fabricius and Stanislaus - Rapagelanus (Melanchthon’s Theses). Drews, pp. 756-781. - - 413. “Kurtz Bekentnis vom heiligen Sacrament.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. - 397-425. - - 414. Sermon at the Dedication of the Castle-church at Torgau. Erl. - ed., 17, pp. 239-262; 20², 2, pp. 215-243. - - 415. Disputation for the promotion of George Major and Joh. Faber. - “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 470-473; Drews, pp. 784-830. - - Home-Postils, cp. No. 308. “Enarratio in I. librum Mosis,” cp. No. - 328. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 1-266. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. - 615-709; 6, pp. 359-367; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 72-122, 242-244. - -=1545.= Diet of Worms. The Abschied hints at a religious conference -and the imminent danger of a War of Religion. George, the Protestant -Prince of Anhalt, is “consecrated as Evangelical Bishop” of Merseburg -(Aug. 2). The “Wittenberg Reformation” (Jan.). The final edition of the -German Bible. “Popery Pictured.” Luther goes in disgust to Leipzig (July, -Aug.). Goes as arbiter to Mansfeld (Oct.). Duke Henry of Brunswick is -taken prisoner by the Schmalkaldeners (Oct. 20). A final Bull of Dec. -4 convokes the Council to Trent for Dec. 13, where it is opened in the -presence of 34 Fathers qualified to vote. The Schmalkaldeners’ meeting -(Dec. 15) at Frankfurt to devise a counterblast. Death of Spalatin (Jan. -16) and of Albert of Mayence (Sept. 24). - - 416. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft.” Erl. ed., 26, - pp. 110-228; 26², pp. 131, 251. - - 417. Verses to Cranach’s cuts in the “Abbildung des Bapstum.” - - 418. “Wellische Lügenschrifft von Doctoris Martini Luthers Todt zu Rom - ausgangen.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 426-430. - - 419. “Bapst Trew Hadriani iiii und Alexanders iii gegen Keyser - Friderichen Barbarossa geübt.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 359-396. - - 420. Disputation for the promotion of Peter Hegemon (July 3). “Opp. - lat. var.,” 4, pp. 476-480; Drews, pp. 833-903. - - 421. “Wider die xxxii Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.” Erl. ed., - 65, pp. 170-178. - - 422. “Articuli a magistris nostris Lovaniensibus editi.” “Opp. lat. - var.,” 4, pp. 480-492. - - 423. “An Kurfursten zu Sachsen und Landgraven zu Hesse von dem - gefangenen H. von Brunswig.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 229-253; 26², pp. - 254-281. - - 424. Preface to the new edition of the “Unterricht” (No. 360). - - 425. Preface to the first vol. of his “Opera Latina.” “Opp. lat. - var.,” 1, pp. 15-24. - - German Bible, new ed., cp. No. 381. “Enarratio in Hoseam prophetam,” - cp. No. 160. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 267-454. Letters, De - Wette, 5, pp. 710-772; 6, pp. 368-413; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 122-147, 244, - xli.-lxv. - -=1546.= The Diet opens at Ratisbon (March 29) without the Schmalkalden -Leaguers. Luther’s last journey to Mansfeld (Jan. 23). His death at -Eisleben (Feb. 18) and burial at Wittenberg (Feb. 22).—Treaty between -the Kaiser and King Ferdinand, and Duke William of Bavaria in view of -the eventual war (June 7). The Kaiser also makes an alliance with the -Pope (June 7) and comes to an agreement with Maurice of Saxony (June 19). -Schärtlin as commander of the South German townships begins hostilities -at Füssen (July 9). Outlawry of Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony and of -Landgrave Philip of Hesse (July 20). The Schmalkalden War (ending in the -Kaiser’s victory at Mühlberg, April 24, 1547). - - 426. Sermons. Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 455-574. - - Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 773-801; 6, p. 413 f.; Erl. ed., 56, pp. - 147-165. - - - - -XLII—APPENDIX II - -ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS - -[In the following Appendix we have ruthlessly excised all that seemed to -us merely personal and to have no direct bearing on Luther. Many of the -smaller emendations have already been incorporated in their proper place -in the body of this translation. _Note of the English Editor._] - - -1-2. Luther’s Visit to Rome - -_The Scala Santa_: According to Paul Luther, when his father “was about -to say the usual _preces graduales in scala Lateranensi_, there suddenly -came into his mind the text of Habacuc ‘the just shall live by his -faith,’ whereupon he refrained from his prayer.” As we pointed out in -vol. i., p. 33, it is most unlikely that Luther should, at this time, -have seen this text in such a light. Moreover, as it now turns out, -Luther actually did perform the usual devotions at the Scala Santa. It is -to G. Buchwald (“Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.,” 1911, p. 606 ff.) that we -are indebted for a quotation from a yet unpublished sermon of Luther’s -own, which shows that he conformed to the common usage and ascended the -famous steps on his knees: “I climbed the stairs of Pilate, _orabam -quolibet gradu pater noster_. _Erat enim persuasio, qui sic oraret -redimeret animam. Sed in fastigium veniens cogitabam: quis scit an sit -verum? Non valet ista oratio, etc._” - -As for the doubt expressed in the latter portion of the text, it seems -at variance with Luther’s general credulity in those early days. On -the other hand, it is by no means unlikely that the scepticism of the -Renaissance suggested a doubt to Luther’s mind regarding this supposed -trophy of Christ’s Passion. - -_The projected General Confession_: In “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil (3, p. -169, n. 33), Luther says: “_Causa profectionis meæ erat confessio, quam -volebam a pueritia usque texere, et pietatem exercere. Erphordiæ talem -confessionem bis habui. Sed homines indoctissimos Romæ inveni, qui me -plus offendebant quam ædificabant_” (cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. -Kroker, p. 414). In this text it is to be noted that Luther falsely makes -out the main object of his journey to Rome to have been his proposed -general confession, and his progress in piety. The truth is that he went -there first and foremost for the business of his Order. That the general -confession was probably never made may be inferred from Luther’s use of -the word “_sed_” in the above text (cp. vol. i., pp. 30-31). - -_Oldecop’s account of Luther’s petition to be secularised_: (Against -Kawerau, “Schriften d. Vereins f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1912). Though but -little notice has hitherto been taken of Oldecop’s narrative, yet there -is no solid ground for distrusting it. As we were careful to point out -(vol. i., p. 36, n. 1), he was indeed wrong in saying that Luther had -gone to Rome without his superiors’ authorisation, for the journey was -at least authorised by the seven priories whose representative Luther -was. Luther had, however, no authorisation to seek secularisation, nor -was his mission countenanced by the minister-general of the Augustinians. -This may have led Oldecop to suppose that his whole undertaking was -unauthorised. Regarding Jacob, the Jew mentioned in Oldecop’s account, -Kawerau (_ib._, p. 36) makes out a likely case for distinguishing him -from his German homonym with whom (vol. i., p. 37, n. 1) we tentatively -identified him. - -_The outcome for the Order of Luther’s visit to Rome_: Under the -title “Aus den Actis generalatus Ægidii Viterbiensis,” G. Kawerau has -published in the “Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.” (1911, p. 603 ff.) a few -short extracts from a MS. in the Royal Berlin Library. One of these -seems to bear on Luther’s mission from the seven priories opposed to -Staupitz: “_MDXI. Jan. Appellare ex legibus Germani prohibentur. Ut -res germanæ ad amorem et integram obedientiam redigerentur, Fr. Joh. -Germanus ad vicarium missus est._” Hence Luther’s appeal was prohibited, -nor had his mission the slightest support from Ægidius of Viterbo the -minister-general. That, on the contrary, he was opposed to the movement -then afoot against Staupitz, is also clear from the expression he uses on -March 18, 1511, viz. that “obedience to the Order and its head” must be -reintroduced into the German Congregation. At any earlier date (May 1, -1510) we are told that Staupitz himself had come to Rome “_[Germanicæ] -congregationis colla religionis iugo subiecturus._” His visit, however, -had nothing to do with the matter of the seven priories, but concerned -the general discipline of the Congregation. - - -3. Luther’s conception of “Observance” and his conflict with his brother -friars - -What we said of Luther’s early antagonism to the Observantines in his -Order has been very diversely appreciated by Protestant experts. Kawerau -and Scheel, for instance, are of opinion that no proof is forthcoming of -the continuance of the conflict between Observantines and Conventuals. -On the other hand, A. Harnack, K. A. Meissinger and W. Braun hold -that the persistence of the conflict has been made out and that it -really formed one of the starting-points of Luther’s new conception of -faith. Modesty, however, dictates a protest on our part against being -considered the inventor of this explanation, for it had, even previously, -been suggested by Protestant scholars (cp. vol. i., p. 200, n. 3), though -they may not have used it to such purpose. Again, a word of warning -must be uttered against the supposition that, for instance as late as -1515-1516, there was still in Luther’s Congregation a clear-cut division -between those devoted to the “observance” and the others who inclined -to “Conventualism.” Of such a schism we hear no more after the Cologne -Chapter of 1512. Nevertheless, that the partisan spirit that had once -led to the appeal of the seven priories still smouldered, so much at -least seems obvious from those addresses and writings of Luther in which -he trounces the Pharisaism of certain members of his Congregation and -their attachment to their statutes, privileges and exemptions. It must -not be lost to sight that the Congregation to which Luther belonged was -in name and fact an “observantine” one, having been founded to promote -the stricter observance of the Augustinian Rule; for this reason it was -exempted from the jurisdiction of the German Provincial of the Order and -placed directly under the Roman minister-general, whose representative in -Germany was the Vicar. - -Regarding the mediæval cleavage of several of the Orders into -Observantines and Conventuals we must be on our guard against flying -to the conclusion that all mere Conventuals were necessarily slack in -the performance of their duties. This was by no means the case; in -many localities the Franciscan Observantines, e.g. were scarcely more -zealous than the Franciscan Conventuals, though the latter had at an -early date mitigated their rule of poverty; much the same held good -among the Dominicans, Servites and Carmelites. In the event, so far as -the Augustinians are concerned, the Saxon Observantines, for all their -“observance,” were among the first to fall before the storm let loose -from Wittenberg, whereas the German Conventuals, under such worthy -provincials as Träger and Hoffmeister, showed themselves better able to -cope with the innovations. The Dominican Conventuals under a Vicar like -Johann Faber also furnished several protagonists of the faith. - - * * * * * - -In view of the doubts raised in certain quarters we shall now submit to a -closer scrutiny Luther’s utterances on the question of the “observance.” - -On one occasion Luther complains of those who made so small account of -obedience, though this virtue was the very soul of good works: - - “Tales hodie esse timendum est omnes observantes et exemptos sive - privilegiatos; qui quid noceant ecclesiæ nondum apparuit, licet factum - sit; apparebit autem tempore suo. Quærimus autem, cur sic eximi sibi - et dispensari in obedientia velint. Dicunt propter vitam regularem. - Sed hæc est lux angeli Satanæ.” - -Obedience is something which cannot be dispensed (_non eximibilis_, -“Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 155; O. Scheel, “Dokumente zu Luthers -Entwicklung,” 1911, p. 74 f.; above, vol. i., p. 68 f.). Truth, so Luther -argues, hides its face from the unwise and the particularist: - - “Sic etiam omnibus superbis contingit et pertinacibus, superstitiosis, - rebellibus et inobedientibus, atque ut timeo et observantibus - nostris, qui sub specie regularis vitæ incurrunt inobedientiarn et - rebellionem.” (Weim. ed., 4, p. 83; above, vol. i., p. 69.) - -In the former text he was speaking of “all Observantines,” here he -speaks of “ours,” presumably, of the more zealous Augustinians. These -“_observantes_” are the same opponents whom he goes on to describe as -“_superbi in sanctitate et observantia, qui destruunt humilitatem et -obedientiam_.” The real meaning here of the words “_observantia_” and -“_observare_” can scarcely escape the reader, particularly when Luther -couples this “observance” with disobedience to superiors. Thus he says: - - “Nostris temporibus est pugna cum hypocritis et falsis fratribus, qui - de bonitate fidei pugnant, quam sibi arrogant, per observantias suas - iactantes suam sanctitatem.” (_Ib._, 4, p. 312.) - -“_Observantia_” means of course outward practices, but there can be -little doubt that the word is here used in the more exclusive sense -defined in the text first quoted. Thus he denounces those who defend -their own “_traditiones et leges_,” which “_usque hodie statuere -conantur_”; those who busy themselves about ceremonies and the “_vanitas -observantiæ exterioris_”; he several times repeats the “_usque hodie_,” -as though to show that the practices he had in view were present ones. -(Cp. Weim. ed., 3, p. 61.) - -It must be borne in mind that Luther delivered his Lectures on the -Psalms (in which most of the texts in question are found) to an audience -composed in the main of young Augustinians sent by the various priories -to prosecute their studies at Wittenberg. Some of these may well -have brought with them some of those stricter ideas which the seven -“Observantine” priories had once championed against Staupitz. To one, -who, as Luther now was, was against such ideas, it was an easy matter, -even though in itself wrong, to make the question one of obedience, -by urging either that their exemption from the jurisdiction of the -Provincial was irregular, or that Staupitz had now abandoned his one-time -projects. - -Luther charges the other faction, not only with disobedience, but also -with pigheadedness, e.g. in refusing to conform to the usages of the -other priories, and in laying such stress on their own customs and -institutions. - - “Nunc quam multi sunt, qui sibi spiritualissimi videntur et tamen sunt - sanguinicissimi, ut sic dixerim, verissimique Idumæi. Hi scilicet - qui suas professiones, suum ordinem, suos sanctos, sua instituta ita - venerantur et efferunt, ut omnium aliorum vel obfuscent vel nihil - ipsi curent, satis carnaliter suos patres observantes et iactantes; - (such was the New Judaism of those), qui suos conventus, suum ordinem - ideo laudant et ideo aliis præstare volunt ac nullo modo doceri, quia - magnos et sanctos viros habuerunt, quorum titulum, nomen et habitum - gestant, … O furor late regnans hodie! Ita nunc pene fit, ut quilibet - conventus contemnat alterius mores acceptare adeo superbe, ut sibi - dedecus putet, si ab alio, quam a se ipso doceatur aut recipiat. - Hæc vera superbia est Iudæorum et hæreticorum, in quo et nos heu - infelices comprehendimur. Quia cum in nullo similes patribus nostris - simus, solum de nomine et gloria eorum contra invicem contendimus et - superbimus.” (_Ib._, 3, p. 332.) - -Though what Luther here says might be applied to other religious Orders, -yet it seems more natural to take it as referring chiefly to what was -going on in his own. - -_Luther’s then Conception of Cloistral Life and Religious Mendicancy_: -Luther spoke very plainly about that part of the Rule which enjoined -mendicancy; as Conventuals no less than Observantines were bound to -observe this enactment it follows that Luther’s attack was directed, -not so much against the Observantines as such, as against any attempt -seriously to put in practice the Evangelical Counsels. Thus, in the -passage quoted above (vol. i., p. 71) he says: “_O mendicantes, -mendicantes, mendicantes! At excusat forte quod elemosynas propter Deum -recipitis et verbum Dei ac omnia gratis rependitis. Esto sane. Vos -videritis._” (Weim. ed., 3, p. 425.) Here, it is true, he is speaking of -the abuses to which the system led, yet he is also annoyed that their vow -of poverty should be the motive of their preaching: “_Horribilis furor et -cæca miseria, quod nunc nonnisi ex necessitate evangelizamus._” - -Now, though these hasty words were open to a perfectly sound -interpretation, yet their effect must have been to arouse a certain -contempt for their calling in the minds of the young men to whom they -were spoken. At any rate Luther had then not yet lost his esteem for the -religious life, particularly as an incentive to humility and general -Godliness. (See vol. i., p. 218 f.) - -It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that, in 1518 (at -Augsburg), Staupitz released Luther “from the observance” has nothing -whatever to do with the question in hand. Luther says: “_me absolvit ab -observantia et regula ordinis_.” (Weim. ed., of the Table-Talk, 1, p. -96.) All that his superior did was to dispense him from his obligation -of carrying out outwardly the rule of the Order, e.g. from dressing as a -monk, etc. Even had Luther been a Conventual he could still have spoken -thus of his having been absolved from the “observance.” It may be that -Staupitz, for his own freedom of action, also absolved Luther from his -duty of obedience to him as Vicar. Even so, however, Luther remained an -Augustinian, returned to his monastery, wrote on behalf of the vows, and, -long after, still continued to wear the Augustinian habit. - - * * * * * - -One notice brought to light from the Weimar archives and published by -Kawerau (_loc. cit._, p. 68) is of interest. It deals with the practices -of the severer Observantine priories (about the year 1489) with which the -laxer members were later to find fault. Among their practices was that -of “not speaking at meal-time but of listening to a reader, of fasting -from All Hallows till Christmas (in addition to the other fasts), of -singing Matins every night, of abstaining from food and drink outside of -meal-time, and of holding a Chapter every Friday with public admission of -shortcomings and imposition of penance.” - - -4. Attack upon the “Self-righteous” - -In 1516 Luther presided at Bernhardi’s Disputation, “_De viribus et -voluntate hominis sine gratia_.” (Above, vol. i., p. 310 f.) In the -letter to Lang about it he says that Bernhardi had held the debate -“_motus oblatratorum lectionum mearum garritu_.” Some opinions therein -put forward had much scandalised the adherents of Gabriel Biel (“_cum -et mei [Gabrielistæ] vehementer hucusque mirentur_”), but, at any rate, -the Disputation had served its purpose (“_ad obstruendum ora garrientium -vel ad audiendum iudicium aliorum_”). He goes on to speak of the -offence his denial of the authenticity of the tract “_De vera et falsa -pænitentia_”—hitherto ascribed to St. Augustine—had given at Wittenberg -(“_sane gravius offendi omnes_”). Mathesius (above, vol. i., p. 304) -also alludes to the opposition he encountered about this time among his -brethren. At any rate a few months later Luther could triumphantly tell -Lang: - - “Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt et regnant - in nostra universitate, Deo operante.… Mire fastidiuntur lectiones - sententiariæ, nec est ut quis sibi auditores sperare possit, nisi - theologiam hanc … velit profiteri.” - -Before this, the young Professor (at Christmas, 1515) had told his -hearers, that, just as the Prophets, wise men and scribes had been -persecuted, so _he_ was being persecuted now: - - “Sed state firmiter, neque moveatur ullus contradictionibus; sic enim - oportet fieri. Prophetæ, Sapientes, Scribæ, dum mittuntur ad iustos, - sanctos, pios, non recipiuntur ab ipsis sed occiduntur.” - -The supposed “saints” he goes on to describe in their true character. -What they were bent on persecuting was really Grace, viz. what he -preaches under the figure of “Christ our mother-hen”: - - “Superbi semper contra iustitiam Dei pugnant et stultitiam æstimant, - quæ sapientia [sic] eis mittitur; similiter veritas eis mendacium - videtur. Imo persequuntur et occidunt eos, qui veritatem dicunt. Sic - enim et ego semper prædico de _Christo, gallina nostra_. Efficitur - mihi errans et falsum dictum: ‘Vult Dominus esse gallina nostra ad - salutem, sed nos nolumus’.… Nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata - sint, quæ gallina egeant, imo quod peius est, versi in vultures etiam - ipsi alios a gallina rapere nituntur et persequuntur reliquos pullos.… - Sicut Iudæi … iustitiam statuentes quod sibi placuit, ita isti hoc - gratiam vocant quod ipsi somniant.” (Weim. ed., 1, p. 31.) - -A few pages further on, the new Lutheran teaching on Grace is clearly -seen in its process of growth: - - “Ecce impossibilis est lex propter carnem; verumtamen Christus - impletionem suam nobis impertit, dum se ipsum gallinam nobis exhibet, - ut sub alas eius confugiamus et per eius impletionem nos quoque legem - impleamus. O dulcis gallina, o beatos pullos huius gallinæ!” (P. 35.) - -To the “vultures,” i.e. his opponents, he returns again in the same -lectures. They build only on their “_sapientia carnis_” when they set out -to gain what they consider to be virtue and the gifts of grace. (Weim. -ed., 1, pp. 61, 62, 70.) - - “In his maxime pereunt [peccant?] hæretici et superbi, dum ea - pertinaciter diligunt, quasi ideo Deum diligant, quia hæc diligunt. - Inde enim zelant et furiunt, ubi reprehenduntur in istis, et defendunt - se ac zelum Dei sine scientia exercent.… Quantumlibet sapiant et bene - vivant, recte adhuc de sapientia carnis vivere dicendi sunt.… Servi - [superbi?] sine timore et occultissime superbi.… Talis est stultitia - hypocritarum de virtutibus et gratiis Dei, præsumentium se esse - integros et iustos.” - -A trace of the antagonism within the Order is also found in the notes of -the sermons preached in the summer of 1516. On July 6, Luther speaks of -the greatest plague now rampant in the Church: - - “Prosequimur, quæ incepimus, nam singularem illi tractatum quærunt, - cum non sit hodie pestis maior per ecclesiam ista peste hominum, qui - dicunt, ‘bonum oportet facere,’ nescire volentes, quid sit bonum vel - malum. Sunt enim inimici crucis Christi i.e. bonorum Dei.” - -As we know, his theology was professedly the “theology of the cross.” As -for his foes, lay, clerical or monastic, their outward works were but the -lamb-skins concealing the wolves beneath: - - “Ad alia vocati, quam quæ ipsi elegerunt, difficiles imo rebelles - sunt et contrarii, impatientes, [inclinati] detrahere ac iudicare, - alios negligere, contentiosi, opiniosæ cervicis, indomiti sensus, - ideo non pacifici, brevianimes, immansueti, duri, crudi. Hæc vitia et - opera interioris hominis _ovina veste_ contegunt, i.e. actionibus, - oblationibus, gestu, ceremoniis corporalibus, ita ut et sibi et aliis - simplicibus boni et iusti videantur.” - -On July 27 he speaks of the “darts” which the foes let fly from their -ambush at those who are right of heart. - - “Hæc ideo iam commemoro, quia iam accedo ad subtiliores homines et - invisibiles transgressores præcepti Dei et in abscondito peccantes et - sagittantes eos qui recte sint corde.” - -In another sermon preached on the same day, speaking of the Pharisee and -the Publican, he says: - - “Credo quod pauci timeant se pharisæo similes esse quem odiunt; sed - ego scio, quod plures ei similes sint.… Non præsumamus securi, quod - publicano similes simus.” - -In this sentence, and elsewhere, stress should not be laid on the use of -the first person plural, as it is merely a rhetorical embellishment. The -Pharisee is the self-righteous man; he bears “_idolum iustitiæ suæ in -corde statutum_”; he refuses to be accounted a sinner, hence: - - “incurrit in Christum, qui omnes peccatores suscepit in se. Et ideo - Christus iudicatur, accusatur, mordetur, quandocunque peccator - quicunque accusatur, etc. Qui autem Christum iudicat, suum iudicem - iudicat, Deum violenter negat. Vide quo perveniat furens et insipiens - superbia.” - -This indeed, in itself, is all capable of a perfectly orthodox -interpretation, not, however, if we take it in conjunction with all -the circumstances. On Aug. 3, the preacher again inveighs against the -“_sensuales iustitiarii_,” who hang on their works and observances: This -is to remain - - “… pueri abecedarii in isto statu; sed heu quam plurimi hodie in - illis indurantur, quia hæc putant esse seria, et magna ea æstimant. - [Tamen] qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, ubi didicerint exterioris hominis - disciplinas, non eas multum curant nisi ut præludium.” - -True piety on the other hand consisted in allowing oneself to be ridden -by God. The man of God - - “vadit quocumque eum Dominus suus equitat; nunquam scit quo vadat, - plus agitur quam agit, semper it et quomodocunque per aquam, per - lutum, per imbrem, per nivem, ventum, etc. Tales sunt homines Dei, qui - Spiritu Dei aguntur.” - -The “holy-by-works” soil themselves with the seven deadly sins of the -spirit. Hence, let us not befoul ourselves by making a rock of the -“_opera iustitiæ_.” Let us leave that sort of thing to beginners to whom -indeed we may teach - - “multis bonis operibus exercere et a malis abstinere secundum - sensibilem hominem, ut sunt [sic] ieiunare, vigilare, orare, laborare, - misereri, servire, obsequi, etc.” - -These words must have been addressed to men with some theological -training, for, in this discourse, Luther dilates at some length on a text -of Alexander of Hales; doubtless those present were members of his Order; -but what then must we think of the teacher who thus proclaims a freedom -from all the observances and traditional rules by which his fellow-monks -were bound? Luther’s point of view was one, which, if adopted, spelt the -end not only of the Observantines but even of Conventualism. Hence it is -no wonder that it caused murmuring. - - -5. The collapse of the Augustinian Congregation - -The fifth Council of the Lateran took measures against many abuses -which had crept in among the mendicant Orders, particularly among the -Hermits of St. Augustine. As we know, the German Congregation under -Staupitz and with Luther as Rural Vicar was no better off than the other -branches. It is from June 30, 1516, i.e. during the period of Luther’s -“vicariate” that we find a curious note in the “Acta Generalatus Ægidii -Viterbiensis.” (Above, p. 497.) - - “Universo ordini significamus bellum nobis indictum ab episcopis in - concilio Lateranensi, ob idque nos reformationem indicimus omnibus - monasteriis.” [Cp. 2 Jan., 1517]. “Religioni universæ quæcunque - in concilio acta sunt contra mendicantes per litteras longissimas - significamus et reformationem exactissimam indicimus.” - -In thus doing the Minister-General’s intention, to judge by the few -scraps his Acts contain, was to bring back his people “_ad communem -vitam_.” No doubt too many dispensations had been given for the sake -of making study easier, or for other reasons. The reader may remember -the incident (above, vol. i., p. 297, n. 1) of Gabriel Zwilling’s being -sent to Erfurt and the words used by Luther in his letter to Lang. -Zwilling, who, after leaving the Augustinians, became one of the Zwickau -“Prophets” but afterwards accepted an appointment as Lutheran minister -at Torgau, had joined the Augustinians in 1502 and matriculated at -Wittenberg University in 1512; hence he had already been sixteen years an -Augustinian at the time when Luther wrote that he had “not yet seen or -learnt the rites and usages of the Order.” Does not this seem to prove -that the Rule must have been greatly relaxed and that too many exceptions -were allowed in the common way of life? Luther himself, as we know, had -been dispensed in his student-days from attending Matins and had been -assigned a serving-brother; this is proved by the manuscript notes of -the Table-Talk made by Rörer. “_(Staupitzius) absolvit eum a matutinis -et addidit fratrem famulum._” (Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” -1908, p. 370.) It has indeed been urged that Zwilling’s ignorance of -the “rites” was due to the smallness of the Wittenberg monastery. -But, as Luther wrote to Lang on Oct. 26, 1516, the house contained -“twenty-two priests, twelve students, and, in all, forty-one persons.” -(“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67). This was surely enough to allow of the -carrying out of the “rites and usages of the Order.” Zwilling, moreover, -was sent to Erfurt, not only to get a better insight into the ways of the -Order, but, mainly, to learn Greek: “_Ut et ipse et alii quam optime, -~i.e.~ christianiter, græcisent._” - - -6. _The Tower Incident_ (vol. I, pp. 388-400) - -To avoid giving unnecessary offence we did not unduly insist on the -locality in which Luther professed to have received his chief revelation. -To have suppressed all mention of the locality would, however, have been -wrong seeing that the circumstance of place is here so closely bound up -with the historicity of the event. We, however, confined ourselves to -a bald statement and explanation of what is found in the sources, and -chose the most discreet heading possible for the section in question. In -spite of this, Adolf Harnack (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, p. 302), -dealing with our first volume, informed his readers that, on this point, -we had made our own “the olden fashion of vulgar Catholic polemics” and -had made of the “locality a capital question,” no doubt in the hope that -Catholic readers would take the matter very much as the olden Christians -took Arius’s death in the closet. Needless to say, what Harnack wrote was -repeated and aggravated by the lesser lights of German Protestantism. The -truest remark, however, made by Harnack in this connection, is that, the -actual “locality in which Luther first glimpsed this thought is of small -importance,” and that, even had I made out my case, “what would it really -matter?” - -As to our authorities the chief one is Johann Schlaginhaufen’s notes of -Luther’s Table-Talk in which the words are related as having been spoken -some time between July and Sept., 1532. - -_The forms in which Luther’s utterance has been handed down_: The -friends who, in 1532, either habitually or occasionally, attended at -Luther’s parties and noted down his sayings were three in number, viz. -Schlaginhaufen, Cordatus and Veit Dietrich. The (yet unpublished) notes -of the last as given in the Nuremberg MS. contain nothing about this -utterance. From Cordatus we have the version given below as No. III. But, -according to Preger, the editor of Schlaginhaufen, Cordatus “at this -time was no longer at Wittenberg”; if this be true, then what he says on -the subject must have come to him at second hand, though, otherwise, his -notes contain much valuable first-hand information. Nevertheless both -Preger and Kroker, two experts on the Table-Talk, are at one in arguing -that an attentive comparison of Cordatus’s notes with those of the other -guests, proves that Cordatus not seldom fails to keep closely enough -to Luther’s actual words and sometimes misses his real meaning, which -is less so the case with Schlaginhaufen. As for Lauterbach, as Kawerau -points out, he was not at that time a regular visitor at Luther’s house, -though we several times hear of his being present at the Table-Talk. It -is more than doubtful whether his version of the utterance in question -(given below as IV) was taken down from Luther’s lips. Moreover his -notes, as printed by Bindseil, often show traces of subsequent correction. - -In Schlaginhaufen, on the other hand, we find throughout first-hand -matter, the freshness, disorder, and even faulty grammar, showing how -little it has been touched up by the collector’s hand. He was a personal -friend of Luther’s, and, whilst awaiting a call to the ministry, stayed -at the latter’s house from November, 1531, where he was always present -at the evening repast. Luther was aware that he was taking notes of -the conversations, and, on one occasion (Preger, p. 82) particularly -requested him to put down something. He was comforted in his anxieties by -Luther (above, vol. v., p. 327), nor, when he left Wittenberg at the end -of 1532 to become minister at Zahna, did he break his friendly relations -with Luther. He quitted Zahna in Dec., 1533, and took over the charge of -Köthen. - -The notes of Schlaginhaufen made public by Preger in 1888 are not in his -own handwriting. The Munich codex (Clm. 943) used by Preger is rather the -copy made by some unknown person about 1551, written with a hasty hand, -and (as we were able to convince ourselves by personal inspection) by -one, who, in places, could not quite decipher the original (now lost). -There are, however, three other versions of Schlaginhaufen’s notes of -the utterance under consideration: That of Khummer (mentioned above, -vol. i., p. 396), that made in 1550 by George Steinhart, minister in the -Chemnitz superintendency, and that of Rörer, which, thanks to E. Kroker -the Leipzig city-librarian, we are now able to give. That of Steinhart -is found bound up in a Munich codex entitled “Dicta et facta Lutheri -et aliorum.” (Clm. 939, f., 10.) Steinhart evidently made diligent use -of the papers left by Schlaginhaufen, Lauterbach and others. Generally -speaking, his work is well done. Steinhart’s rendering of the utterance -in question agrees word for word with that of Khummer, though they both -differ from the Munich copy published by Preger and show it to be lacking -in some respects. Rörer’s text V, in many ways, stands by itself. - -Khummer had fled from Austria on account of his Lutheran leanings and -gone to Wittenberg, where he matriculated on May 11, 1529. He was then -a fellow-student of Lauterbach. He is supposed to have been given by -Luther (between 1541 and 1545) charge of the parish of Ortrand, where -he still was in 1555 when the Visitors gave a good account of him. His -collection, now in the Royal Dresden Library, contains a copy (not all in -his own handwriting) made in 1554 from Lauterbach’s Diary (1538), and, -further, in the second part, this time all in his own handwriting, copies -of many things said by Luther at table. “We shall not be far wrong,” says -Seidemann (p. x.), “if we surmise that Khummer obtained his version from -Pirna [where Lauterbach had been superintendent since 1539].” Below we -give his version as printed in Seidemann (p. 81, n.): - -_Luther’s words as they were heard by Schlaginhaufen_: - - I. Copies of Steinhart (1550) and Khummer (1554): - - “Hæc vocabula iustus et iustitia dei erant mihi fulmen in conscientia. - Mox reddebar pavidus auditor. Iustus, ergo punit. Sed cum semel in hac - turri speculabar de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit, iustitia - dei, mox cogitaveram, [Steinhart: cogitabam] si vivere debemus iusti - ex fide et iustitia dei debet esse ad salutem omni credenti, mox - erigebatur mihi animus. Ergo iustitia dei est, quæ nos iustificat et - salvat. Et facta sunt mihi hæc verba iucundiora, Dise khunst hat mir - der heilig geist aüff diser cloaca aüff dem Thorm (ein)gegeben.”[1662] - - II. Anonymous Copy of (Preger) 1551: - - “Hæc vocabula: iustus et iustitia erant mihi fulmen in conscientia. - Mox reddebar pavidus auditis: Iustus—ergo puniet, Iustus ex fide - vivit, Iustitia dei revelatur sine lege. Mox cogitabam, si vivere - debemus ex fide et si iustitia dei debet esse ad salutem omni - credenti, mox erigebatur mihi animus: ergo iustitia dei est, quo nos - iustificat et salvat, et facta sunt mihi hæc verba iucundiora. Dise - kunst hatt mir d[er] S[piritus] S[anctus] auf diss Cl. eingeben.” - -Here the identical text of Khummer and Steinhart (I) supplies certain -missing parts in text II, and, as it is the more understandable of the -two, is more likely to represent the earlier form of Schlaginhaufen’s -rendering. Thus in text II, line 1-2, the word “_Dei_” after “_iustitia_” -is wrongly omitted; so also, the words “_Sed cum semel in hac turri -speculabar de istis vocabulis_,” or others to that effect, are required -to introduce the “_mox cogitabam_” a few lines below. Read alone the -“_Iustus ex fide_,” as in II, is not intelligible. In both I and II -there is, on the other hand, an omission, viz. after the words “_omni -credenti_” which III, IV and V seek to supply each in their own way. -Here we shall not be far wrong in assuming the omission to have been the -fault of the lost original of Schlaginhaufen of which they made use. The -fact that No. I here refrains from completing the passage is in itself -a testimony to its copyist’s integrity. Again, in the Steinhart-Khummer -version, the final allusion in the German words at the end to the “Thorm” -(tower) brings us back to the “_turris_” mentioned earlier. Now, what is -noteworthy, is that, at the conclusion of this version which seems the -better of the pair, the word “cloaca” is spelt out in full (as it also is -below, in Rörer’s copy). - -In II, however, we find only the abbreviation “Cl.” Now, in the MS. -followed by the editor of text II, though we find a large number of -abbreviations, they are merely the ones in use in those times. “Cl.,” -however, is a most singular one, and, were it not explained by other -texts, would be very difficult to understand. Why then is it used? It can -hardly be merely from the desire to avoid using any word in the least -offensive to innocent ears, for, elsewhere, in the same pages (e.g. in -Preger’s edition, Nos. 364, 366, 375) the coarsest words are written -out in full without the slightest scruple. Hence in this connection -the copyist must have had a special reason to avoid spelling out so -comparatively harmless a word. - - * * * * * - -The remaining texts are those of Cordatus, Lauterbach and Rörer. - -Cordatus was assigned too high a place by his modern editor, Wrampelmeyer -(1885). He had, indeed, his merits, but, as Preger points out, an -inspection of the many items he took from Schlaginhaufen shows him to -have been careless and often mistaken. Moreover, he has wantonly altered -the order of the utterances instead of retaining Schlaginhaufen’s -chronological one. Those utterances which he had not heard himself (such -as the one in question) have naturally suffered most at his hands. As -for Lauterbach’s so-called “Colloquia” preserved at Gotha (ed. H. E. -Bindseil), it also betrays signs of being a revision and rearrangement of -matter collected together or heard personally by this most industrious of -all the compilers of Luther’s sayings. Whether Lauterbach was actually -present on the occasion in question cannot be told, but it seems scarcely -likely that he was if we compare his account carefully with that of -Schlaginhaufen. On Rörer’s connection with Schlaginhaufen, see Kroker, -“Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 56 ff. - -_Luther’s words in the revised form_: - - III. Cordatus 1537 (Wrampelmeyer, p. 423, No. 1571): - - “Hæc vocabula iustus et iusticia in papatu fulmen mihi erant - conscientia, et ad solum auditum terrebant me. Sed cum semel in hac - turri (in qua secretus locus erat monachorum) specularer de istis - vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit et Iusticia dei, etc. obiter veniebat - in mentem: Si vivere debemus iusti fide propter iusticiam et illa - iusticia Dei est ad salutem omni credenti, ergo ex fide est iusticia - et ex iusticia vita. Et erigebatur mihi conscientia mea et animus - meus, et certus reddebar, iusticiam dei esse quæ nos iustificaret et - salvaret. Ac statim fiebant mihi hæc verba dulcia et iucunda verba. - Diesze kunst hatt mir der heilige geist auff diesem thurm geben.” - - IV. Lauterbach c. 1559 (Bindseil, 1, p. 52): - - “Nam hæc verba iustus et iustitia Dei erant mihi fulmen in - consciencia, quibus auditis expavescebam. Si Deus est iustus, ergo - puniet. Sed Dei gratia cum semel in hac turri et hypocausto specularer - de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit et Iustitia Dei, mox - cogitabam: Si vivere debemus iusti ex fide et iustitia Dei debet esse - ad salutem omni credenti, non erit meritum nostrum, sed misericordia - Dei. Ita erigebatur animus meus. Nam iustitia Dei est qua nos - iustificamur et salvamur per Christum, et illa verba facta sunt mihi - iucundiora. Die Schriefft hat mir der heilige geist in diesem thuen - [thurm] offenbaret.” - - V. Rörer (Jena, Bos. q. 24 s, Bl. 117´, 118): - - “Vocabula hæc iustus, misericordia erant mihi in conscientia - tristitia. Nam his auditis mox incutiebatur terror: Si Deus est - iustus, ergo puniet, etc. Cum autem diligentius cogitarem de - significatione et iam incideret locus Hab. 2: Iustus ex fide vivet, - item Iustitia Dei revelatur sine lege, cœpi mutare sententiam: Si - vivere debemus ex fide, et si iustitia Dei est ad salutem omni - credenti, non terrent, sed maxime consolantur peccatores hi loci. - Ita confirmatus cogitavi certo iustitiam Dei esse, non qua punit - peccatores, sed qua iustificat et salvos (salvat) peccatores - pœnitentiam agentes. Diese Kunst hat mir der Geist Gottes auf dieser - cloaca [in horto] eingeben.” - -It will be noticed that III and IV resemble each other and both conclude -with a mention of the tower (as in Schlaginhaufen I). At the beginning, -however, each adds a few words of his own not found in Schlaginhaufen. -Cordatus adds a parenthesis about the “_locus secretus_,” i.e. privy -(whether the marks of parenthesis are merely the work of the editor we -cannot say, nor whether the parenthetic sentence is supposed to represent -Luther’s actual words or is an explanation given by Cordatus himself). At -any rate the words really add nothing new to Schlaginhaufen’s account, -if we bear in mind the latter’s allusion at the end to the “cloaca” and -the fact that Cordatus omits to refer to this place at the end of his -account. Hence we seem to have a simple transposition. As to why Cordatus -should have transposed the words, we may not unreasonably conjecture -that, in his estimation, they stood in the earlier form in too unpleasant -proximity with the reception of the revelation. - -Lauterbach’s text, even if we overlook the words it adds after -“_credenti_,” betrays an effort after literary polish; it can scarcely -be an independent account and most likely rests on Schlaginhaufen. One -allusion is, however, of importance, viz. the words “_in hac turri et -~[in Rebenstock’s version: _vel_]~ hypocausto_” which here replace the -mention of the cloaca or privy. Here the “_hypocaustum_” signifies either -a heating apparatus or a heated room. - -In Rörer the whole text has been still further polished up. He agrees -with II in leaving out the “_in hac turri_,” but, with I, in introducing -the “cloaca” at the end. The words “_in horto_” which are inserted in -his handwriting just above would seem to be his own addition due to his -knowledge of the spot (the tower really stood partly in the garden). - -_Other interpretations of the texts in question_: Kawerau (p. 62 f.) -takes Lauterbach’s “_hypocaustum_” to refer to Luther’s workroom in -the tower, which Luther had retained since his monkish years and from -which “he stormed the Papacy.” Unfortunately, in the references given by -Kawerau, we find no allusion to any such prolonged residence in a room in -the tower. - -Luther himself once casually alludes to two different “_hypocausta_” -(or warmed rooms) in the monastery. According to a letter dated in -Nov., 1527 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 117), whilst the Plague was raging, -he put up his ailing son Hans in “_meo hypocausto_,” whilst the wife of -Augustine Schurf, the professor of medicine, when she was supposed to -have contracted the malady, was also accommodated in a “_hypocaustum_” -of her own. For another sick lady, Margareta von Mochau, he found room -“_in hybernaculo nostro usitato_,” and, with his family, took up his -own lodgings “_in anteriore magna aula_.” Hans’s “_hypocaustum_” was -probably the traditional room furnished with a stove still shown to-day -as Luther’s (Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 491). Unfortunately this room is -not near the town-wall, or the tower, but on the opposite side of the -building. There is another allusion elsewhere (Feb. 14, 1546, “Briefe,” -5, p. 791) to a “_hypocaustum_,” but, there again, no reference is made -to its being situated in the tower. - -An undated saying in Aurifaber’s German Table-Talk, in which Luther -expresses a fear for the future of his “poor little room” “from which I -stormed the Pope” (Erl. ed., 62, p. 209; Förstemann, 4, p. 474) might -refer to any room. As a monk Luther is not likely to have had a warmed -cell of his own but merely the use of the common-room of the community. -He himself speaks of what he suffered from the cold (above, p. 194); -elsewhere he tells us of the noise once made by the devil “in the -chimney” of the refectory (above, p. 125) to which Luther had betaken -himself to prepare his lecture, presumably for the sake of more warmth. - -In vol. i. (p. 397) we perhaps too hastily assumed the “necessary -building” to have been a privy which Luther, in 1519, asked permission to -erect. It may even have been the “pleasant room overlooking the water” in -which Luther “drank and made merry”—to the great disgust of the fanatic -Ickelsamer. (See above, vol. iii., p. 302.) Being new it would no doubt -have been “pleasant” and no doubt, too, it also had a fire-place. It -may be conjectured that, possibly Lauterbach, with his allusion to the -“tower” and the “_hypocaustum_” was intending to suggest this room as the -scene of the revelation rather than the more ignoble locality of which -Cordatus speaks. - - * * * * * - -Others have sought to escape the disagreeable meaning of the text in -other ways. Wrampelmeyer interpreted it figuratively: The tower was -Popery and the “_hypocaustum_” Luther’s spiritual “sweat bath.” Preger -did much the same and even more. He says: “I hold that ‘Cl.,’ from which -abbreviation the other readings seem to have sprung[!], stands for -‘Capitel’ [i.e. chapter].” Even Harnack inclines to this latter view. -The meaning would then be: “This art the Holy Ghost revealed unto me -on this chapter” (of the Epistle to the Romans). But, apart from the -clumsiness of such a construction, as it was pointed out by Kawerau, such -an abbreviation as “Cl.” for “capitel” or “capitulum” is unheard of. With -even less reason Scheel tentatively makes the suggestion to read “Cl.” as -“claustrum,” or “cella.” - -Kawerau admits that “Cl.” stands for “cloaca,” but he urges that it -arose through a misunderstanding on Schlaginhaufen’s part of Cordatus’s -“_secretus locus_”—as though Schlaginhaufen was likely to depend on -second-hand information regarding an utterance he had heard himself. - -Kawerau further points out, that the locality in which the revelation -was received is, after all, of no great moment, that “the stable at -Bethlehem was not unworthy of witnessing God’s revelation in Christ”; -Scheel, likewise, asks whether all Christians, even those of the Roman -persuasion, do not believe that God is present everywhere? They certainly -do, and nothing could have been further from our intentions than any wish -to prejudice the case by making the locality of the incident a “capital -question.” Had Luther received his supposed revelation on Mount Thabor, -or on Sinai, or before the altar of the Schlosskirche we can assure our -critics that we should have faithfully recorded the testimonies with the -same regard for historical truth. - - -7. The Indulgence-Theses - -In vol. i. (p. 332) and vol. ii. (p. 16) we insinuated that Luther -wilfully concealed the true character of his 95 Theses. Whereas, in -reality, his system had no room for Indulgences at all, in the Theses he -chose to veil his opinions under an hypothetical form. It has, however, -been objected that Luther’s letters to Spalatin and to Scheurl, of Feb. -15 and March 5, 1518, prove that his views were not yet fixed. - -But this is scarcely a true presentment of the case. In his private -letter to Spalatin he openly brands Indulgences as an “illusion.” - - “Dicam primum tibi soli et amicis nostris, donec res publicetur, mihi - in indulgentiis hodie videri non esse nisi animarum illusionem et - nihil prorsus utiles esse nisi stertentibus et pigris in via Christi.… - Huius illusionis sustollendæ gratia ego veritatis amore in eum - disputationis periculosum labyrinthum dedi me ipsum.” - -He tells Spalatin not to bother about gaining Indulgences but rather -to give his money to the poor, otherwise he will deserve the wrath of -God. All would be demonstrated in the forthcoming “Resolutiones”; only -the “_ipsa rudiores ruditate_” still assail him as a heretic, etc. -(“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 155.) From these words his true opinion emerges -clearly enough, in spite of the previous ones: “_Hæc res in dubio adhuc -pendet et mea disputatio inter calumnias fluctuat_,” and in spite, too, -of his assurance to the Court-preacher, that he had not the slightest -wish to bring the Prince under any suspicion of being unfriendly to the -Church. - -As to the letter sent a fortnight later to Scheurl at Nuremberg, the -historian must bear in mind the effect it was calculated by Luther to -produce at Nuremberg, where some were evidently inclined to find fault -with the Theses. In this letter, just as he does in his letter to Bishop -Scultetus (above, vol. ii., p. 16) Luther makes out the Theses to be -quite innocent, almost impartial, and, moreover, in no wise intended for -the outside public. They were to be the subject-matter of a Disputation, -“_ut multorum iudicio vel damnatæ abolerentur vel probatæ ederentur_.” -He is sorry now that they were made so public. “_Sunt enim nonnulla mihi -dubia, longeque aliter et certius quædam asseruissem vel omisissem, si -id ~[their publication]~ futurum sperassem._” He also adds: “_Mihi sane -non est dubium, decipi populum, non per indulgentias, sed usum earum_” -(“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 166.) Here he seeks to depict his downright -antagonism to Indulgences as such, as merely directed against their abuse. - - -8. The Temptations at the Wartburg - -Luther writes to Melanchthon (July 13, 1521): “_Carnis meæ indomitæ -uror magnis ignibus; summa, qui fervere spiritu debeo, ferveo carne, -libidine, pigritia, otio_.” He adds that for a whole week he had been -“_tentationibus carnis vexatus_,” and concludes: “_Ora pro me, peccatis -enim immergor in hac solitudine_.” In his letter of Nov. 1, 1521, to Nic. -Gerbel, the temptations are also alluded to, but less clearly qualified. - - “Mille credas me satanibus obiectum in hac otiosa solitudine. Tanto - est facilius adversus incarnatum diabolum, id est adversus homines, - quam adversus spiritualia nequitiæ in cœlestibus pugnare. Sæpius ego - cado, sed sustentat me rursus dextra excelsi.” - -Though, in the former text, there is undoubtedly an element of -exaggeration (as we pointed out, vol. ii., p. 88), yet there can be no -question that his main complaint relates to temptations of the flesh and -that it is in their regard that he asks for prayers of his friends. - - -9. Prayer at the Wartburg - -Against us it has been said that we were too disposed to make of Luther a -“prayerless” man. One critic, in proof of Luther’s prayerfulness, points -out that, in his Wartburg letters, Luther uses the word “Amen” no less -than thirteen times in the text, apart from its use at the end of the -letters. Now, in all the Epistles of St. Paul—which cover far more paper -than these Wartburg letters—the word “Amen” occurs in the text only -eleven times. But, notoriously, Luther was accustomed to use this word in -rather unusual connections, as he does for instance when speaking of the -wife of the “_theologus coniugatus_” Johann Agricola (“_Dominus det, ut -uteri onus feliciter exponat. Amen._” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 151). - -Moreover, Luther’s prayers were very peculiar. We hear nothing of his -having used his enforced stay at the Wartburg to ask of God whether the -path he had chosen was the right one, and for the grace to carry out, not -his own will, but that of God. In the interests of his new doctrine, he -is, however, “_paratus ire quo Dominus volet, sive ad vos sive alio_.” -(“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 193.) He asks a friend to pray “_ut non deficiat -fides mea in Domino_,” i.e. that his views may not change (_ib._, p. -214); “_commenda, quæso, tuis orationibus Deo causam nostram_.” (_Ib._, -p. 324.) Elsewhere he writes: - - “Benedictus Deus, qui nobis eam non solum dedit colluctationem - adversus spiritualia nequitiæ, insuper revelavit nobis, non esse - carnem aut sanguinem, a quibus oppugnamur in ista causa.… Satan furit - in sapientibus et iustis suis.…” - -above all, in Emser, whom he calls a “_vas diaboli proprie obsessum_.” -(_Ib._, 3, p. 197.) - - -10. Luther’s state during his stay at the Coburg - -In addition to the troubles mentioned in vol. ii., p. 390, which tended -to depress Luther at the Coburg there were yet others. He felt keenly -the separation from his family and from those with whom he had been -accustomed to work. His father’s death was also a cause of sadness to -him. Finally the difficulties of corresponding with his friends at -Augsburg were responsible for his being often in a state of uncertainty -as to what was going on at the Diet. - - -11. Luther’s moral character - -Exception has been taken to our interpretation (vol. ii., p. 161, n. 1) -of a certain utterance of Luther’s. In the “Comment. on Galat.,” 1, p. -107 _sq._, he says: - - “zelavi pro papisticis legibus … conatus sum eas præstare plus - inedia, vigiliis, etc., … Bono zelo et ad gloriam Dei feci … [Yet] - in monachatu Christum quotidie crucifixi et falsa mea fiducia, quæ - tum perpetuo adhærebat mihi, blasphemavi. Externe non eram sicut - ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, - obedientiam et paupertatem, denique totus eram deditus ieiuniis, - vigiliis, etc. Interim tamen sub ista sanctitate et fiducia iustitiæ - propriæ alebam … odium et blasphemiam Dei.” - -But, in these words written in his old age, he is not witnessing to his -virtuous life in former days, but, on the contrary, he is striving to -show that, for all its outward propriety, it was the merest blasphemy. -Moreover, the words “_servabam … obedientiam_,” etc., cannot be taken too -literally, as Luther himself elsewhere admits that he was careless about -the Office, though this was a matter on which the Rule was very severe. -A more appropriate self-justification would be the utterance recorded in -Veit Dietrich’s MS. of the Table-Talk (Bl. 83) which begins: “_Monachus -ego non sensi multam libidinem_.” - -A man’s speech is in some sense an index to his character. Our volumes -teem with samples of the filthy expressions to which Luther was addicted. -No theologian or preacher had hitherto dared to speak as he did; the -Franciscans Johann Pauli and Thomas Murner—albeit by no means too -particular—certainly cannot compare with Luther on this score. Moreover, -it should not be forgotten that Luther uses such language chiefly as a -weapon against his Catholic foes without, and the Protestant “sectarians” -within. In his polemics, insults and foul speaking go hand in hand, and -the greater his wrath the fouler his speech. - -In connection with one instance of his use of unseemly comparisons when -(above, vol. ii., p. 144) we spoke of his allusion to the “Bride of -Orlamünde” we were not aware that—as Kawerau now points out—Staupitz, -his old superior, had described in very free language the nature of the -union between the soul and her divine Bridegroom. (“Von der endlichen -Vollziehung ewiger Fürsehung,” 1516.) Such mystical effusions were very -apt to be misinterpreted by the unlearned fanatics, whom Luther ridicules. - - -12. Luther’s views on lies - -That Luther believed in the permissibility of “lies of convenience” -is fairly evident. (Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 108 ff.) The “_mendacium -officiosum_” is an “_honestum et pium mendacium_”; it is useful and -wholesome; “_si hoc peccatum esset, ut non puto_, etc.” In “Opp. lat. -exeg.,” 6, p. 289, speaking of Isaac’s statement that Rebecca was his -sister, he says: “_non est peccatum, sed est officiosum mendacium_.” But, -if it be no sin, then, presumably, it is allowed. - -It is true that Luther speaks of Isaac’s untruth as an “_infirmitas_,” -but, by this, he does not mean a “venial sin,” rather he is alluding to -the “_infirmitas fidei_,” which, in Isaac’s case was the cause of his -untruth. Hence Isaac’s untruth, according to Luther, comes under the -category of the - - “mendacium officiosum, quo saluti, famæ corporis [corpori?] vel animæ - consulitur; e contra perniciosum (mendacium) petit ista omnia, sicut - officiosum defendit [quod est] pulcherrima defensio contra periculum - animæ, corporis, rerum.” - -Hence the “_mendacium officiosum_,” far from being a sin, is an -“_officium caritatis_,” i.e. to tell one is “_servare, non transgredi, -præcepta Dei_.” (_Ib._, p. 288 _sq._) - -Even another text which has been quoted to the opposite effect must mean -much the same. Luther says: - - “quod non offendatur Deus, sive constanter confitearis, id quod - heroicum est, sive infirmus sis; dissimulat enim et connivet. Atque - ex eo perspicimus nos habere propitium Deum, qui potest ignoscere - et connivere ad infirmitates nostras, remittere peccata, tantum non - perniciose mentiamur … nec proprie sed æquivoce et abusive mendacium - dicitur quia est pulcherrima defensio contra periculum animæ corporis - et rerum.” (_Ib._, p. 288.) - -Here the word “_peccata_” cannot well include such untruths since he -distinctly affirms that such “infirmities” “do not offend God.” - -Moreover, since, as we know, Luther admits no distinction between mortal -and venial sins, holds that all sins “_ex natura et substantia peccati_” -are equal, and makes no allowance for “_parvitas materiæ_,” it follows -that, even if such untruths as those of Isaac, the Egyptian midwife, -etc., are “infirmities,” yet, since they are not mortal, they are not -sins at all. - -In “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 140-143, Luther distinguishes the “_iocosum -mendacium_”—which is merely a “_grammaticum peccatum_”—and the -“_officiosum mendacium_”—such as was Christ’s on the road to Emaus—from -the true lie: “_Revera unum tantum mendacii genus est, quod nocet -proximo_.” - -That Luther himself quite realised the novelty of his teaching, comes -out clearly enough in the fragmentary notes of a sermon preached on Jan. -5, 1528, i.e. on the eve of the feast of the Three Kings. The reporter’s -notes are as usual partly in Latin partly in the vernacular. - - “Hujusmodi officiosa mendacia, charitable lies, in which I lie for - someone else’s sake, non incommodat, but rather does him a service. - Sic filia Saul.… Illi [magi] mentiuntur, quia sciunt eius object to - be murderous, et tamen non est mendacium, quia quando aliquid loquor - ex bono corde, non est.… Ergo mendacium [est] quando my heart is bad - and false erga proximum.… Si etiam seduxissem [misled others], how I - should rejoice over my trickery, si ita ad salutem seducerem homines.… - Monachi in totum volunt dici veritatem. Sed audistis, etc.” (Weim. - ed., 27, p. 12.) - -Hence, as the concluding words show, Luther was of opinion that the -“monks” went too far in insisting on the truth everywhere. - - * * * * * - -Elsewhere Luther is disposed to follow the teaching of his Nominalist -masters and to see in certain apparent lies (e.g. in that told by Abraham -about his “sister” Sara) the result of divine inspiration. (Cp. “Opp. -lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 142 _sq._) “_Hoc ipsum consilium ex fide firmissima -et ex Spiritu Sancto fuisse profectum iudicem._” Abraham was moved by -the Holy Ghost to take steps to save his person and thus ensure the -fulfilment of the Divine promises made to his posterity. “_Quæ fiunt ad -gloriam Dei et verbum eius ornandum et commendandum, hæc recte fiunt et -merito laudantur._” - -Gabriel Biel, a representative Nominalist, admits that a sort of -inspiration may sometimes make lawful what God has forbidden: He says, -e.g.: - - “Nam lex [non mentiendi] quantum ad id, ubi concurrit familiare - consilium Spiritus Sancti, per ipsum Spiritus Sancti consilium - revocatur, et ita non erit contra conclusionem et, ubicunque cum - mendacio, secundo modo accepto, concurrit consilium Spiritus Sancti, - ibi excusatur a peccato; et per hoc multa mendacia excusari possent.” - (In III Sent. dist. 38, q. unica.) - -Biel appeals to St. Augustine’s excuse of Jacob’s lie to his father -Isaac, and then proceeds to justify it on Nominalist grounds; the -“_potentia Dei absoluta_” can make lies lawful; by virtue of this -“_potentia_” the Holy Ghost, in such inspired cases, can suspend for the -while the prohibition. Biel himself had only the Old Testament instances -in view, but the theory was a dangerous one. - - -13. Luther’s lack of the missionary spirit - -Walter Köhler in his article “Reformation und Mission” (in the Swiss -“Theologische Zeitschrift,” 1911, pp. 49-60) seeks to find the reason for -the Reformers’ lack of interest in the Missions. (See above, vol. iii., -p. 213 ff.) It cannot be simply because they were too busy with Rome, -for this might indeed explain their not sending out missionaries but not -the fact that even the thought of so doing never occurred to them. Yet a -movement which professed to be Evangelical and to take as its standard -the Apostolic Church should surely have concerned itself more about the -heathen. - -Against those who argue that the absence of missionary effort was due to -Luther’s eschatological expectations and his belief in the nearness of -the Last Day, Köhler points out that the teaching of history rather shows -that such expectations, far from hindering, tend to promote missionary -work. He alludes, for instance, to the rapid spread of Christianity at -a time when the Second Coming was thought so near. He might also have -referred to the case of St. Gregory the Great, who, though he believed -the end of the world to be imminent, did not scruple to send his -missionaries to England. - -Others have said that the Reformers had no knowledge of the number of the -heathen. But, as Köhler urges, though their knowledge was small compared -with ours, yet they were not wholly ignorant of the state of things. They -had at least heard of the discovery of America, as we see, for instance, -from a sermon of Luther (Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 21), where he says: -“Quite recently many islands and lands have been found, to which, so far, -in fifteen hundred years, nothing of this grace (of the Gospel) has been -proclaimed.” - -The real reason is found by Köhler in the exegesis and theology of the -Reformers: Luther, for instance, opined that the Apostles alone had been -commanded to carry the Gospel throughout the world. He also followed the -olden view that the Apostles had actually preached the Gospel to the very -ends of the earth. Hence, since Apostolic times, no one is any longer -under any obligation to preach Christ everywhere; we are now no longer -apostles, but merely parish-priests. - -His theology also comes into play in this. For God alone calls men to -faith and salvation; He it is Who assembles His elect from among the -heathen. But if it is God alone who arouses the faith in helpless man, -then organised activity is useless. True to his principles the Reformer -left the conversion of the heathen in the hands of God. To him an -organised mission would have seemed to partake of the evil nature of -work-service. - - -14. Notes - -In vol. iv., p. 90 the author rather too hastily expresses wonder that -Luther should have spoken of Pope Alexander VI as an “unbelieving -Marane.” Luther, however, in so doing was merely re-echoing what had been -said in Rome. Cp. Pastor, “History of the Popes” (Engl. Trans., vol. vi., -p. 137): “When Julius II, who was an implacable enemy of the Borgia, -occupied the Papal Chair, it became usual to speak of Alexander as a -‘Maraña.’” Cp. also, _ib._, p. 217 f. “His [Julius’s] dislike for this -family was so strong that on the 26th of November, 1507, he announced -that he would no longer inhabit the Appartamento Borgia, as he could not -bear to be constantly reminded by the fresco portraits of Alexander of -‘those Marañas of cursed memory.’” (Note of the English Editor.) - - * * * * * - -In connection with the bishopric of Meissen (above, vol. v., p. 200 ff., -etc.) we may quote a few words from the correspondence of its occupant. -They will show how the Bishops, while taking no steps themselves, were -vexed with the Pope and Kaiser for doing so little to obviate the -danger to religion. Johann von Maltitz, Bishop of Meissen, wrote on -Oct. 16, 1540, as follows to Johann Fabri, Bishop of Vienna (Cardauns, -“Nuntiaturberichte,” 6, p. 233): - - “Nihil imprimitur contra hanc sectam [Lutheranam] nec quisquam tale - quid vendere audet, nam cum magna potentia regunt, quibus contra ne - mutire quisquam aliquid audet, et quidquid visitatores et Lutherus in - rebus spiritualibus ordinant, id exequi et servari per omnes debet et - episcopi mandata nihil efficiunt.” - -On Dec. 10, 1540, he wrote to the same correspondent: - - “Martini Lutheri secta egregie suum processum habet quotidieque - augetur; timeo iram Dei super papam, Cæs. ac Regiam Mᵗᵉᵐ, quod - eorum temporibus ac regimine religionem ita decrescere supprimique - patiuntur, et Sᵗⁱ S. Maiestatibusque illorum iocose objicietur, esse - adhuc pios aliquot homines, qui obedientes essent, si modo haberent, - qui eos ita defenderet. Videmus autem, quod quicquid Lutherani - præsumunt, id patitur et locum habet et quod plures religionis sectæ - efflagitantur ac dantur quam obedientiæ (sic). Misniæ adhuc nulla - divina exequi audemus. Intrusus est nobis vi in nostram ecclesiam - quidam Lutheranus concionator.… Sane ferme in omnibus locis male - agitur quantum ad religionem.” (_Ib._, p. 237 f.) - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands das sie Christl. -Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 9 ff.; -Erl. ed., 22, p. 170 ff. - -[2] Weim. ed., 15, pp. 30, 34, 35 f.; Erl. ed., pp. 22, 173, 178, 180 f. - -[3] In such passages “beast” more often merely implies stupidity; cp. -“bête” in French. Hence it would be a mistake to think that Luther is -here crediting the Germans with any actual “bestiality.” Cp. below, p. 15 -and above, vol. v., p. 534, n. 2. - -[4] Weim. ed., 15, p. 44; Erl. ed., 22, p. 189. - -[5] “De constituendis scholis,” etc. - -[6] Weim. ed., 15, p. 53; Erl. ed., 22, p. 198. - -[7] A schoolmaster of Zwickau remarked on the writing to the Councillors: -“With this pamphlet Luther will win back the favour of many of his -opponents.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548. - -[8] Erl. ed., 14², pp. 390, 389. - -[9] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381, in “Das man -Kinder,” etc. The object of furthering the Evangel which is set forth in -both this and the former writing is indicated by the very title of the -first writing with its reference to “Christian” schools. - -[10] _Ib._, p. 518=379, in the writing mentioned below. See, however, -below, p. 36. - -[11] _Ib._, p. 519=380. - -[12] “Predigt, das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.” Weim. ed., -30, 2, p. 508 ff.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 378 ff. As early as July 5, 1530, -Luther wrote from the Coburg to Melanchthon that he was “meditating” -this writing and adds: “_Mirum, si etiam antea fui tam verbosus, ut nunc -fieri mihi videor, nisi senectutis ista garrulitas sit_.” It is curious -to hear him already speaking of his old age. When sending the finished -work to Melanchthon on Aug. 24, 1530, he wrote: “_Mitto hic sermonem de -scholis, plane Lutheranum et Lutheri verbositate nihil auctorem suum -negans, sed plane referens. Sic sum. Idem erit libellus de clavibus_” -(“Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 80, 204). The latter remark certainly applies to -his long writing, “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530 (Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 428 -ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff.). - -[13] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381. - -[14] P. 554=401, 402. - -[15] Pp. 556, 559=403, 404. - -[16] P. 586=420 f. - -[17] P. 587=421. - -[18] _Ib._, 15, p. 34=22, p. 178. - -[19] “Reformation und Gegenreformation” (W. Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.”), -3³, p. 437, No. 2. - -[20] Cp. Kawerau, _ib._ - -[21] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 197. - -[22] See below, p. 20, n. 3. - -[23] See above, vol. iii., p. 361. - -[24] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 15: “_Scholæ crescentes verbi Dei -sunt fructus_,” says Luther, “_et ecclesiarum seminaria_”; if these -are furthered, then, so God will, things will be in a better case (in -Rebenstock: “_Hæc si promoveantur, tunc Deo volente, nostrum inceptum -meliorem habebit progressum_”). _Ib._, p. 14: Although the work of -the schools was performed quietly, “_attamen magnum fructum exhibent, -ex quibus ecclesiæ conservatio consistit.… Inde collaboratores et -ludimagistri vocantur ad ministerium ecclesiæ_.”—Cp. Mathesius, -“Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 208: “Wretched parsonages are not the place -for schoolmasters”; they deserve to be superintendents and to rule over -others. _Ib._, p. 213 on the importance of the schools. - -[25] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 173. - -[26] _Ib._, p. 35 f.=175. - -[27] See also above, n. 1. - -[28] Proofs in G. Rietschel, “Luther und die Ordination,” ², 1889. Cp. -Paulsen, p. 203. - -[29] Weim. ed., 15, p. 47 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 193. - -[30] _Ib._, p. 40=185. - -[31] _Ib._, p. 53=198. - -[32] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421 f. - -[33] See above, p. 6, n. 3. - -[34] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 582; Erl. ed., 17², p. 418. - -[35] _Ib._, p. 584=419. - -[36] P. 530=387. - -[37] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 456; Erl. ed., 17², p. 396. - -[38] P. 586=421. - -[39] _Ib._, 15, p. 36 f.=22, p. 181 f. - -[40] Cp. F. M. Schiele, in H. Delbrück, “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 132, 1908, -Art. “Luther und das Luthertum in ihrer Bedeutung für die Gesch. der -Schüle und der Erziehung,” p. 381 ff. P. 386: “The principal motive with -Melanchthon … is the love of learning, Luther’s motive [in the above -writings] is to educate leaders for Christendom who shall deliver her -from the unholy abominations of the olden days.… With this is connected -the fact that for him ‘government,’ whether exercised by the sovereign, -the bishop, or the father of the family, is a work of charity.” P. -384: According to Luther “the erection of schools must always remain a -matter which concerns the Christian authorities.” To those historians of -education, who, according to Schiele, are wont to ask: “Was not Luther -the father of the national schools?” he replies: “The matter wears -a different aspect when viewed in the light of history.” He roundly -describes as fabulous the supposed foundation of the national schools -by Luther. “Nor do we find in Luther’s schemes for the organisation of -education the slightest trace of any tendency to the secularisation of -the schools” (pp. 384, 381 f.). The last words are aimed at the friends -of the secularised or undenominational schools of the present day. - -[41] In the Introduction to the Weimar edition of the writing “An die -Radherrn” (15, 1899, p. 9 ff.) we read: “It is very characteristic of the -reformer’s attitude to the question of education in his day that he does -not, as we might expect, give the preference to these German elementary -schools in which we can see the beginnings of the national schools, but, -whilst admitting their claims, insists emphatically on the need of a -classic training.” “To characterise the writing in question as ‘of the -utmost importance for the development of our elementary-school system’ -(“Mon. Germ. Pædag.” III, iii.) is to be unfair to it.” - -[42] Erl. ed., 62, p. 307. - -[43] _Ib._, p. 306. - -[44] _Ib._, p. 297; cp. p. 289. - -[45] Weim. ed., 19, p. 445; Erl. ed., 26², p. 7: “Proposal how permanent -order may be established in the Christian community.” - -[46] Compare with this Luther’s letter to Johann, Elector of Saxony (Nov. -22, 1526), advocating the Visitation; Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefe,” -5, p. 406). Of the final article of the Instructions for the Visitors -(1538), which refers to the schools, Köstlin-Kawerau says, 2, p. 37: “The -chief point kept in view here, as in Luther’s exhortations referred to -above [in his writing to the Councillors], was the need of bringing up -people sufficiently skilled to teach in the churches and to be capable -also of ruling. Hence the regulations prescribed the erection of schools -in which Latin should be taught.” - -[47] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311, a conversation dating from 1542-3 -noted down by Heydenreich. - -[48] _Ib._, p. 332. It may be mentioned here that amongst the German -universities, Erfurt, where he had received his own education, always -held a high place in his memory. “The University of Erfurt,” he once -said in later years, “enjoyed so high a reputation that all others in -comparison were looked upon as apologies for universities—but now,” so -he adds sadly, “its glory and majesty are a thing of the past, and the -university seems quite dead.” He extols the pomp and festivities that -accompanied the conferring of the mastership and doctorate, and wishes -that such solemnities were the rule everywhere. Erl. ed., 62, p. 287. - -[49] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 198. - -[50] Weim. ed., 15, p. 46 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192. - -[51] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 37. - -[52] Schiele (above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 389, where he adds: “What the -children needed to fit them for household work they could as a matter of -fact have learnt better from their parents or at the dame-school than -in the Councillors’ schools which Luther so extols.” Cp. above, p. 7, -Luther’s statement: “German books are principally intended for the common -people to read at home,” etc. - -[53] Weim. ed., 26, pp. 236-240. - -[54] _Ib._, 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.” - -[55] Erl. ed., 62, p. 458 f., “Tischreden.” - -[56] _Ib._, p. 344. - -[57] Paulsen, _ib._, p. 204. O. Schmidt, “Luther’s Bekanntschaft mit den -Klassikern,” Leipzig, 1883. - -[58] “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 191 f. - -[59] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 431. Uttered in 1537 and noted by -Lauterbach and Weller. - -[60] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 13, p. -166.—K. v. Raumer, “Gesch. der Pädagogik,” 1, Stuttgart, 1843, p. 272, -says: “It seems to us incredible that the learning by heart and acting -of plays so unchaste as those of Terence could fail to exert a bad -influence on the morals of the young.… If even the reading of Terence was -questionable, how much more questionable was it when the pupils acting -such plays identified themselves wholly with the events and personages -of the drama.”—Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 443 f., Melanchthon on the Roman -condemnation of the school edition of Erasmus’s “Colloquia.” Luther -condemned this book of his opponent in very strong language. - -[61] “An die Radherrn,” etc., Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192. - -[62] _Ib._, p. 47=192. - -[63] “Martin Luthers Werke,” Stuttgart und Leipzig, 1907, p. 231. - -[64] Before this Boehmer had said: “The importance of the lower schools, -girl schools and national schools, was fully recognised. Luther’s -concern was, however, with higher education.… It was not indeed his -intention to promote classical studies as such, but he wished to see them -harnessed to the service of the Gospel and to the furthering of its right -understanding. Hence, though Luther had in view other classes besides -the theologians, and though he advanced other motives in support of his -plans, still it was the religious standpoint which was the determining -one.” - -[65] Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 350, “An den Adel.” - -[66] Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185. - -[67] Weim. ed., 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 347, 348, “An den Adel.” - -[68] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 62, p. 304 f., “Tischreden.” - -[69] _Ib._, 63, p. 281 f. (“Briefe,” 7, p. 73). Written in the middle of -March, 1529, this served at the same time as a preface to the work by -Justus Menius, “Œconomia christiana.” - -[70] _Ib._, p. 280. - -[71] Thus in the Introduction to Luther’s “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., -15, p. 9 f. - -[72] See above, p. 6. - -[73] Erl. ed., 63, p. 280 f. - -[74] Luther expressed this in his way as follows: Of all “the wiles of -Satan” this, aimed at the holy Gospel, was perhaps the worst, for it -suggested to men such dangerous ideas as these: Now that there is “no -longer any hope for the monks, nuns or priestlings there is no need of -learned men or of much study, but we must rather strive after food and -wealth,” “truly a masterpiece of diabolical art,” for creating “in the -German lands a wild, hideous mob of ‘Tatters’ or Turks.” Weim. ed., 30, -2, p. 522 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 383, Preface to the work on the schools -(1530). - -[75] “Werke,” _ib._, 6, p. 462=21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.” - -[76] The violence of the tone in which Luther speaks of the Universities -in the writings which followed his “An den Adel,” as the real strongholds -of the devil on earth, has perhaps never been equalled in any attack -on these institutions either before or after his day. See passages in -Janssen, _ib._, Engl. Trans., iii., _passim_. Some of the preachers -of the pure Gospel, who soon sprang up in great numbers, went a step -further: “The Word of God alone was sufficient and in order to understand -it what was required was, not learning, but the spirit.” Paulsen, “Gesch. -des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185. - -[77] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177. - -[78] Erl. ed., 62, p. 319. The Note is by Lauterbach. Copernicus is not -named, but is merely alluded to as “the new astrologer”=astronomer. His -work “De orbium cœlestium revolutionibus,” with its detailed proofs in -support of the new theory of the heavens, appeared only in 1543, at -Nuremberg. - -[79] Cp. for proofs H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” -p. 35 f. - -[80] Weim. ed., 15, p. 36; Erl. ed., 22, p. 180 f., “An die Radherrn.” - -[81] “Didymi Faventini pro M. Luthero adversus Thomam Placentinum -oratio,” “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, particularly p. 343. Cp. Paulsen, -_ib._, p. 186 f. - -[82] “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 132, 1908 (see above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 381 -f. The author safeguards himself by remarking that the above account -contains “nothing new.” In Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” vol. -xiii., this subject is dealt with in full. - -[83] P. 382. In the “Archiv für Kulturgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 120, Schiele’s -art is described as “an excellent piece of criticism.” - -[84] To Eobanus Hessus, March 29, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 118. - -[85] Hessus had told Luther of this complaint, as is evident from the -latter’s reply. - -[86] For a detailed account see above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff. - -[87] Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., p. 258. - -[88] _Ib._ - -[89] Luschin v. Ebengreuth, “Gött. Gel. Anz.,” 1892, p. 826 f., in a -review of Hofmeister, “Die Matrikel der Universität Rostock,” Part II., -1891. Cp. Janssen, _ib._, p. 266. - -[90] F. Eulenburg, “Über die Frequenz der deutschen Universitäten in -früherer Zeit,” “Jahrbücher f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” 3. Vol. -13, 1897, pp. 461-554, 494, 525. Janssen, _ib._ - -[91] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 550; Erl. ed., 17², p. 399, “Das man Kinder zur -Schulen halten solle.” - -[92] N. Paulus, “Wolfgang Mayer, Ein bayerischer Zisterzienserabt des 16. -Jahrh.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 575 ff.), p. 587 f. from MS. notes. - -[93] Weim. ed., 15, p. 28; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171 f., “An die Radherrn.” - -[94] Cp. on Wittenberg, Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., 286 and below, -xxxix, 1. - -[95] Erl. ed., 53, p. 387. See above, vol. v., pp. 582, 590. - -[96] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483. - -[97] Cp. Chr. Scheurl, “Briefbuch, ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Ref.,” -ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, 1872, pp. 127, 132, 138, 177. See also -Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 790 (p. 653, N. 2). - -[98] Cp. for the change in Humanism, above, vol. ii., p. 38 ff., etc. - -[99] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177. - -[100] “Opp.,” 3, col. 777: “_Lutherana factio … perdit omnia studia -nostra_.” - -[101] _Ib._, col. 915: “_… intolerabili degravavit invidia_.” - -[102] _Ib._, col. 1089: “_Tantam ignaviam invexit hoc novum evangelium_.” - -[103] _Ib._, col. 1069: “_Amant viaticum et uxorem, cetera pili non -faciunt_.” - -[104] To Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 164. - -[105] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29; Erl. ed., 22, p. 172, “An die Radherrn.” - -[106] Work cited above, p. 29, n. 2 (p. 525). - -[107] _Ib._, p. 260. - -[108] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 68 ff. - -[109] Raynald., “Annal. eccles.,” a. 1514, n. 29. - -[110] Cp. Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., 9 ff. - -[111] _Ib._, i., p. 25 ff. - -[112] Weim. ed., 15, p. 33; Erl. ed., 22, p. 177, “An die Radherrn”: -“When I was young there was a saying in the schools: ‘_Non minus est -negligere scholarem quam corrumpere virginem_.’ This was said in order to -frighten the schoolmasters.” - -[113] “_Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus. -Et tamen hoc genus hominum maxime litteris alitur. Duo tantum quærunt, -censum et uxorem. Cætera præstat illis evangelium, ~i.e.~ potestatem -vivendi ut volunt._” To Pirkheimer, 1528, from Basle. “Opp.,” 3, col. -1139. - -[114] Schiele, _ib._, p. 391. - -[115] C. Hagen, “Deutschlands literarische und religiöse Verhältnisse im -Reformationszeitalter,” 3², 1868, p. 197. Janssen, _ib._, xiii., p. 100. - -[116] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1363 _sq._ - -[117] M. Töppen, “Die Gründung der Universität Königsberg,” etc., 1844, -p. 78. Janssen, _ib._, p. 101. - -[118] Janssen, _ib._, p. 102. - -[119] Cp. Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 483 ff.; 2, p. 584 ff. - -[120] For proofs see Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., p. 71 ff. - -[121] “Preuss. Jahrb.,” _loc. cit._, p. 392. - -[122] _Ib._, p. 393. - -[123] Janssen, _ib._, p. 43. Schiele, _ib._, p. 593. - -[124] Schiele, _ib._, p. 390. - -[125] He even says: “_Academiæ nunc quidem Dei beneficio omni genere -doctrinarum florent_.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1068. Bishop Julius Pflug -informed Pope Paul III, in a letter in which he gives him a vivid -picture of the needs of the country in order to determine him to active -assistance: “_Scholæ Lutheranorum cum privatæ tum publicæ florent, nostræ -frigent plane ac iacent_.” “Epistolæ Mosellani,” etc., p. 150 _sq._ -Kawerau, “Reformation und Gegenreformation”³, (Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” -3, p. 437.) - -[126] G. Steinhausen, “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig and Vienna, -1904, p. 515. There we read (p. 514) in the description of the education -given by the Protestant Universities that it was “rendered sterile” by -the new theology. “The intellectual leaders of the time became more and -more Court theologians. It is noteworthy that many of the edicts and -regulations begin with an improving theological preface.… What had become -of the intellectual revival of the first decades of the 16th century?” -Eobanus Hessus had prophesied in 1523 that the new theology would bring -in its train a worse barbarism than that which had been overthrown, and -already in 1524 he had been obliged to speak of the “New Obscurantists.” - -[127] Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1², p. 509. - -[128] M. Ritter, “Matthiä Flacii Illyrici Leben”², 1725, p. 105 Janssen, -_ib._, p. 265. - -[129] For proofs see Janssen, _ib._, p. 286 ff. - -[130] _Ib._, p. 295. - -[131] On the contrast between mediæval and Lutheran charity, see above, -vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. -Trans.), vol. xv., pp. 425-526. - -[132] Adolf Bruder, art. “Armenpflege,” “Staatslexikon der -Görresgesellschaft.” - -[133] F. Ehrle, “Beiträge z. Gesch. u. Reform der Armenpflege,” 1881; do. -“Die Armenordnungen von Nürnberg (1522) und von Ypern (1525),” “Hist. -Jahrb.,” 9, 1888, p. 450 ff. Ratzinger, “Gesch. d. kirchl. Armenpflege”², -1884, p. 442 ff. Janssen, p. 431. - -[134] L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens -im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Jahrb. für Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. -Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. (I), and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff. (II), -I, p. 169.) - -[135] “De origine, situ, moribus et institutis Norimbergæ,” cap. 12. - -[136] Reprint of the Regulations of 1522 according to the oldest -revision, in Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” p. 459 ff. For the passage “Our -salvation,” etc., see p. 467. - -[137] Ehrle, _ib._, p. 477 f. Feuchtwanger, _ib._, I., p. 184. - -[138] Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 439 ff. - -[139] Feuchtwanger, _ib._, p. 182. For all the towns mentioned above see -Janssen, _loc. cit._ - -[140] Weim. ed., 26, p. 639; Erl. ed., 63, p. 270. - -[141] _Ib._, 6, p. 450 f.=21, p. 335 f. - -[142] Cp., for instance, the passage in the Church-Postils, Erl. ed., -14², p. 391: “The whole world is full of idle, faithless, wicked knaves, -among the day labourers, lazy handicraftsmen, servants, maids, to say -nothing of the greedy, work-shy beggars,” etc. - -[143] Weim. ed., 6, p. 42; Erl. ed., 16², p. 87. (Longer) Sermon on -Usury, 1520. - -[144] _Ib._, 19, p. 654 f.=22, p. 281 in “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn -seligen Stande seyn künden.” - -[145] Barge, “Andreas Karlstadt,” 2, p. 559 f. - -[146] E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1, p. -696 ff. - -[147] _Ib._, p. 596 ff.; also “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; -Erl. ed., 22, p. 112 ff. On Leisnig cp. above, vol. v., p. 136 ff. - -[148] _Ib._, pp. 11 ff., 14=106 ff., 110. - -[149] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 551. - -[150] It was the first to be established with so much pomp and -circumstance. - -[151] To Spalatin, Nov. 24, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 72 f. - -[152] Cp. Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” etc. (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888), p. -475. The Altenburg regulations are no longer extant. - -[153] Feuchtwanger, “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., I., p. 173. He quotes -the enthusiastic words written on this occasion by the Wittenberg student -Ulscenius: “_O factum apostolicum, fervet hodie in Wittenbergensium -cordibus Dei et proximi dilectio ardentissima_,” etc., and remarks: -We may take in conjunction with this statement the libertinism which -actually prevailed in the town at the end of 1521. - -[154] Cp. below. - -[155] Weim. ed., 19, p. 74 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231. - -[156] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 584 f.=17², p. 419 f. - -[157] See Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 303 ff. - -[158] Erl. ed., 14², p. 391. Church Postils. - -[159] _Ib._, p. 389. - -[160] Weim. ed., 32, p. 409; Erl. ed., 43, p. 164. Expos. of Matt. vi. - -[161] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 356. Sermons on Matt. xviii.-xxiii.—For -similar statements see the passage in the last Note and Erl. ed., 23, -p. 317; also above, vol. iv., _passim_. Cp. also Luther’s statements in -Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 465 ff.; Döllinger, “Die -Ref.,” 2, p. 215, 306, 349. - -[162] Erl. ed., 23, 313 f. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher.” 1539. - -[163] Feuchtwanger, II. (see above, p. 44, n. 2), p. 192. - -[164] _Ib._, pp. 197, 180, 177 f., 176. - -[165] The quotations here and in what follows are from Feuchtwanger. - -[166] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 197. He quotes from the compilation of A. -L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” and Sehling -(above, p. 49, n. 3) Bugenhagen’s “Ordnungen” subsequent to those set up -for Wittenberg in 1527. Cp. in K. A. Vogt, “Bugenhagen,” 1867, p. 101 -ff., on the latter’s “Von den Christen-loven,” etc., 1526. - -[167] Cp. Janssen, xv., p. 456 f. - -[168] Feuchtwanger, _ib._, II., p. 206. - -[169] Cp. _ib._, p. 214. - -[170] _Ib._, p. 212. - -[171] In his instruction against the Anabaptist doctrines (Wittenberg, -1528, D 3b) Melanchthon says: “Never have the people shown themselves -more unfriendly and malicious towards the parsons and ministers of the -Church than now. Some who wish to be thought very Evangelical seize upon -the property given to the parsons, pulpits, schools and churches, and -without which we should end by becoming heathen. The common people and -the mob refuse to pay the parson his dues,” etc. - -[172] See Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 480, n. 1, where the touching complaint -of Eber’s is quoted, viz. that the ministers of the Church were stripped -and left to starve. He prophesies that future times will show how “little -blessing spoliation brought those who warmed and fed themselves on Church -property.” It was everywhere worst in the villages and small towns. - -[173] _Ib._, xv., p. 477. - -[174] _Ib._, p. 469 ff. - -[175] _Ib._, p. 481 ff. - -[176] For proofs see Janssen, _ib._ - -[177] G. Kawerau, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, ed. W. Möller, 3rd ed., 1907, p. -434, with a reference to the works of Bossert. - -[178] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541 (in 1522). - -[179] Cp. Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 501. - -[180] O. Jolles, “Die Ansichten der deutschen nationalökonomischen -Schriftsteller des 16. und 17. Jahrh. über Bevölkerungswesen” (“Jahrb. f. -Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” N.F. 13, 1886, p. 196). Janssen, _ib._ - -[181] Janssen, _ib._, xv., p. 505. Feuchtwanger must have been familiar -with all this though he never quotes Janssen. He says (p. 214): “Only one -who was unfavourable to the reformation would judge Protestantism by the -fruits of its first two centuries.” - -[182] “Reden und Aufsätze,” 2, 1904, p. 52, in the lecture “Die -evangelischsoziale Aufgabe im Lichte der Gesch. der Kirche.” - -[183] F. Schaub, “Die kath. Caritas und ihre Gegner,” 1909, p. 45. - -[184] See the excellent work by Schaub, p. 14 ff., quoted in the previous -Note, where it is stated, that, under present conditions, private -charity certainly does not suffice and that, therefore, State relief is -necessary; yet the latter is always merely subsidiary, because what is -assumed by real Christian charity, i.e. self-sacrifice, and individual -care, can only be realised in private relief of the poor; the State, -on the other hand, has its efficient compulsory taxation (“_caritas -coacta_”) and its own bureaucratic means of carrying out its work; in any -case the State must not monopolise any branch of poor relief, and public -and private charity ought to be in close touch. These remarks may serve -to assist in the right appreciation of the historical movement described -above. - -[185] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 194. - -[186] _Ib._, pp. 212, 214. - -[187] Cp. _ib._, p. 214. - -[188] Vol. iv., p. 127 ff. - -[189] Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” -1533. Above, vol. v., p. 59. - -[190] _Ib._, p. 239 f. - -[191] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, pp. 202-204. - -[192] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.,” (“Hist. -Jahrb.,” 1911, pp. 725-755). “Similar testimony,” Paulus says, p. 740, -“dating from the close of the Middle Ages is to be found in abundance.” -He lays particular stress on the witness of monks and friars. - -[193] Sermon on Marriage in his “Sermones dominicales,” Leipzig, 1530, -Bl. J. 4a, L1. Q 2b. Paulus, _ib._, p. 741. - -[194] Of pilgrimages in particular, Luther is fond of saying, that the -monks enjoined them at the expense of the duties of a man’s calling. Cp., -for instance, the passage cited above, p. 67, n. 1 (p. 203): “_Mater -familias … non faciat, quæ in papatu solent, ut discurrat ad templa_,” -etc. For the passages from Hollen see Paulus, _ib._, p. 740, and Fl. -Landmann, “Das Predigtwesen in Westfalen in der letzten Zeit des MA.,” -1900, p. 179 f. - -[195] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 9 f. -Paulus, _ib._, p. 749. - -[196] Janssen, _ib._ Paulus, _ib._, p. 748. - -[197] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 750 ff., and H. Pesch, “Lehrb. der -Nationalökonomie,” 2, 1909, p. 726. - -[198] Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch -ynn seligen Stande seyn künden?” 1526. - -[199] _Ib._, 18, p. 394=24², p. 324. “Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin -widder die Bauren,” 1525. - -[200] _Ib._, 19, p. 659=22, p. 287. - -[201] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 157=28, p. 200. - -[202] _Ib._, p. 631=255. He speaks before this of nobles, who, after the -peasant risings, had gone too far in their revenge.—Luther inveighs in -the strongest language against the way in which the nobles oppressed the -poor “burghers, unhappy pastors and preachers,” and says: “Here the lion -has caught a mouse and fancies he has overcome the dragon. Germany is now -full of such nobles and Junkers, who stink out the beer-houses and draw -their steel only on the poor, wretched, defenceless people; such are the -nobles. Out on such abandoned people! We Germans are indeed swine and -savage beasts, and have no noble thoughts or courage in us, as the world -too thinks!” This in the Commentary on the Four Psalms of Consolation, -1526. Weim. ed., 19, p. 604 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 439 f. - -[203] Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f. “Von welltlicher -Uberkeytt,” 1523, Preface.—Cp. what was said, above, vol. ii., p. 205 f., -etc. - -[204] Weim. ed., 19, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 43. “Widder den -Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey,” 1526 (not published by him on -account of his sovereign’s prohibition). - -[205] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175. - -[206] Weim. ed., 28, p. 520; Erl. ed., 36, p. 175. - -[207] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 137 ff. - -[208] K. J. Fuchs, “Die Epochen der deutschen Agrargesch.” (“Allg. -Ztng.,” 1898, Suppl. 70). - -[209] Weim. ed., 16, p. 244; Erl. ed., 35, p. 233 (1524-26). - -[210] _Ib._, 33, p. 659=48, p. 385 (1530-32). - -[211] _Ib._, 24, p. 367 f.=33, p. 389 f. - -[212] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Erl. ed., 55, p. 239; -“Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246. - -[213] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 388. - -[214] _Ib._ - -[215] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 245. - -[216] Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 529 f. - -[217] _Ib._, p. 518 ff., Sermon of June 11, 1531. - -[218] _Ib._, p. 109. - -[219] _Ib._, p. 334 f. - -[220] Weim. ed., 28, p. 329; Erl. ed., 50, p. 350. “We are ministers in -a hostel where the devil is the landlord and the world the landlady, and -the barmaids all kinds of wicked lusts, and all these, landlord, landlady -and barmaids, are enemies and opponents of the Evangel.” - -[221] Erl. ed., 32, p. 77. - -[222] Above, vol. v., p. 403 ff. - -[223] Erl. ed., 62, p. 375 f., “Tischreden.” - -[224] _Ib._, p. 366. - -[225] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 49 ff. Lucas -Osiander the Elder sent Luther’s Schem Hamphoras to Duke Frederick of -Würtemberg in 1598 in support of his petition for the expulsion of all -Jews. For the same purpose, in 1612, the theological faculty of Giessen -had some of Luther’s strongest sayings against the Jews reprinted. _Ib._, -p. 51, n. - -[226] C. Krause, “Eoban Hessus, sein Leben und seine Werke,” 2, 1879, p. -107. Janssen, _ib._, xiii., p. 101. - -[227] 1, p. 279. - -[228] To Johann Lang, Dec. 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 281: -“_facturus, ut multo plures offendat Christi pura doctrina_.” - -[229] Weim. ed., 6, p. 38; Erl. ed., 16², p. 82. Sermon on Usury, 1519. - -[230] _Ib._, p. 37 f.=81, on the words of Christ, Matt. v. 40 f., that, -to him who takes our coat we should leave our cloak also: “Many fancy -this is not commanded or to be observed by every Christian, but is merely -a voluntary counsel of perfection, and, like virginity and chastity, -counselled not commanded.” But “these are the artifices whereby the -teaching and example of our dear Lord Jesus Christ as given in the holy -Gospel, together with that of all His Martyrs and Saints, is reversed, -neglected and altogether suppressed.… God will blind and disgrace -those who turn His clear and holy Word into darkness.… No excuse is of -any avail, it is simply a command which we are bound to observe.” He -continues: As true Christians we have to observe it, but, as members of -a commonwealth we enjoy a divine institution whereby “the secular sword” -protects us from any injury to our possessions. - -[231] _Ib._, p. 50 f.=98. - -[232] _Ib._, p. 6=117; cp. p. 50=98. - -[233] Weim. ed., 15, p. 294 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 201. - -[234] _Ib._, p. 312 ff.= 223 ff. - -[235] _Ib._, 6, p. 466=21, p. 357. - -[236] Cp. _ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 214 f. - -[237] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und -seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 83. - -[238] Quoted by Luther in 1540, see Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 78. - -[239] _Ib._ - -[240] Weim. ed., 6, p. 466; Erl. ed., 21, p. 357. - -[241] _Ib._, 15, p. 304=22, p. 213 f. Von Kauffshandlung, etc. - -[242] _Ib._, p. 36=181. “An die Radherrn.” - -[243] _Ib._, 6, p. 465 f.=21, p. 356. - -[244] _Ib._, p. 466=356. - -[245] _Ib._, 24, p. 351 f.=33, p. 370 f. - -[246] _Ib._, 18, p. 391=24², p. 320 (1525). - -[247] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 73. - -[248] Kampschulte, “Johannes Calvin,” 1, 1869, p. 430. Ward, _ib._ - -[249] Ward, _ib._, p. 74. - -[250] Weim. ed., 15, p. 296; Erl. ed., 22, p. 204. Ward, _ib._, p. 75. - -[251] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 295=202. - -[252] Ward, p. 101. - -[253] Ward, _ib._, p. 94 - -[254] Weim. ed., 24, p. 368; Erl. ed., 33, p. 390. - -[255] On June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 244 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 354). - -[256] Cp. Enders in n. 3 to the above letter. - -[257] See above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff. - -[258] Weim. ed., 24, p. 8; Erl. ed., 33, p. 11 (1527). - -[259] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 279. Cp. J. Schneid, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 108, -1891, pp. 241 ff., 473 ff., and B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. Kath. Theol.,” 24, -1900, p. 210. - -[260] Cp. the Sermons on Usury of 1519, also certain passages in his “An -den christl. Adel,” the booklet “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher,” 1524, -and the Sermon against Usury of April 13, 1539, which he followed up by -a written appeal to the Wittenberg magistrates. M. Neumann, “Gesch. des -Wuchers in Deutschland,” Halle, 1868, pp. 481, 618 ff. - -[261] Erl. ed., 23, p. 283 f. - -[262] _Ib._, p. 285. - -[263] The Anabaptist Jorg Schnabel said in 1538, that on 20 gulden two or -three were now taken as interest. For the text, see Janssen, _ib._, xv., -p. 38. - -[264] Erl. ed., 23, p. 285. - -[265] _Ib._, p. 304 f. - -[266] _Ib._, p. 285. - -[267] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259; according to Heydenreich’s Notes. -Erl. ed., 57, p. 360. - -[268] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f. - -[269] _Ib._, p. 319. - -[270] _Ib._, cp. above, p. 80, n. 4. - -[271] _Ib._, p. 311 f. - -[272] P. Schanz, “Commentar über das Lukasevang.,” 1883, p. 226. - -[273] Printed in H. Grisar, “Iacobi Lainez Disputationes Tridentinæ tom. -2: Disaput. variæ; accedunt Commentarii morales,” Oeniponte, 1886, pp. -227-321, with Introduction, pp. 60*-64*. - -[274] P. 240; cp. p. 63*. - -[275] P. 244 _sqq._ - -[276] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 432. - -[277] P. 287. - -[278] P. 294. - -[279] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. - -[280] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f. - -[281] _Ib._, p. 338. - -[282] Sep. 19, 1525, Erl. ed., 65, p. 239 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243). - -[283] To Dorothy Jörger, March 7, 1532, Erl. ed., 54, p. 277 -(“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 160). - -[284] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 94. - -[285] _Ib._, p. 95. - -[286] Weim. ed., 6, p. 53; Erl. ed., 16², p. 102 (1519). - -[287] _Ib._, p. 51=99. - -[288] _Ib._, p. 466=21, p. 356 f. - -[289] _Ib._ - -[290] _Ib._, 6, p. 58=16², p. 108 (1519). - -[291] June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 245 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 354). - -[292] To Sebastian Weller at Mansfeld, July 26, 1543, Erl. ed., 56, p. -lviii. - -[293] To Count Wolfgang von Gleichen, March 9, 1543, _ib._, p. 57. - -[294] _Ib._, 45, p. 7. - -[295] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. “The properties have risen. Where -formerly an estate was worth one hundred florins it is now worth quite -three; _qui ante potuit dare 5, potest nunc dare 6 vel septem_.” - -[296] Erl. ed., 23, pp. 286, 338. In the above letter to Sebastian Weller -he declares (p. lviii) that, in his epistle to the parsons, he had only -spoken “of _mutuum_ and _datum_.” - -[297] _Ib._, p. 289. - -[298] _Ib._, p. 298. - -[299] _Ib._, p. 289. - -[300] _Ib._, p. 296. Very mild indeed are the directions he gives in his -letter to the town-council of Dantzig on the charging of interest (May -5 (?), 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 296, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 165): -“The Gospel is a spiritual rule by which no government can act.… The -spiritual rule of the Gospel must be carefully distinguished from the -outward, secular rule and on no account be confused with it. The Gospel -rule the preacher must urge only by word of mouth and each one be left -free in this matter; whoever wishes to take it, let him do so, whoever -does not, let him leave it alone. I will give an example: the charging of -interest is altogether at variance with the Gospel since Christ teaches -‘lend hoping for nothing.’ But we must not rush in here and suddenly -put an end to all dissensions in accordance with the Gospel. No one has -the right or the power to do this, for it has arisen out of human laws -which St. Peter does not wish abrogated; but it is to be preached and -the interest paid to those to whom it is due, whether they are willing -to accept this Gospel and to surrender the interest or not. We cannot -take them any further than this, for the Gospel demands willing hearts, -moved by the Spirit of God.” The letter seems also to be aimed at the -fanatics, whose violent action in opposing the charging of interest as -un-Evangelical, Luther frowned on. - -[301] “Luthers Theol. in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung,” 2², 1901, p. 328. - -[302] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 331, quotes G. Schmoller (“Zur Gesch. der -nationalökonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland während der Reformperiode,” -in the “Zeitschr. f. die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,” 16). - -[303] From the Munich Kreisarchiv, in B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. kath. -Theol.,” 1905, 29, p. 180. - -[304] Duhr, _ib._, 1908, 32, p. 609. Cp. 1900, 24, pp. 208 f., 210, on -Eck. - -[305] G. Scherer, “Drey unterschiedliche Predigten vom Geitz,” etc., -Ingolstadt, 1605, p. 57 f. - -[306] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158. “Vitæ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. -See above, vol. i., p. 17. - -[307] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. -158: “_Totus stupebam et cohorrescebam.… Tanta maiestas (Dei)_,” etc.; -Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 89: “I thought of fleeing from the altar -… so terrified was I,” etc. (1532); Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: -“_fere mortuus essem_”; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 119; 3, p. 169; -“Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400. See above, vol. i., p. 15 f. - -[308] Erl. ed., 58, p. 140; cp. 60, p. 129. Of his “_territus_” we hear -also from Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95, and “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, -p. 292. - -[309] See above, vol. i., p. 16 f. - -[310] Mainz, 1549, Bl. B. 8a. The book was written in Latin in 1533. - -[311] “Acta Lutheri,” p. 1. - -[312] What Denifle urges to the contrary (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. -726, n. 2) is not convincing. - -[313] Cp. Kawerau, “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, p. 447: “What anguish of -soul he went through in the monastery is related by himself as early as -1518 in the touching account contained in the ‘Resolutiones’ to his 95 -Theses.” - -[314] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 30. - -[315] See above, vol. i., p. 381 f. - -[316] Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 180 _sq._ - -[317] See above, vol. ii., p. 170. - -[318] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 29, 1904, p. 303 -ff.), p. 305. - -[319] To Spalatin, Jan. 13, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 12: “_me subito -sanguinis coagulo circum præcordia angustiatum pœneque exanimatum -fuisse_.” - -[320] Cp. vol. v., p. 333, above, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168. - -[321] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 1, p. 104 ff.; also -“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 _sqq._ Cp. Bugenhagen’s account in his -“Briefe,” ed. Vogt, p. 64 ff. - -[322] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 109: “_in illis undis -tentationum_.” Cp. above, vol. v., pp. 334, 339. - -[323] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 200, where we read (under Dec. -19, 1536): “_Eo die Lutherus magno paroxysmo angustia circa pectus -decubuit_.” The dates given in the Table-Talk are not as a rule -altogether reliable, but here they may be trusted because they happen to -coincide with a portent in the sky looked upon as a bad omen. - -[324] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 622 f. - -[325] We may here call attention to what will be said in the next chapter -concerning similar phenomena in Luther’s early days. This chapter, no -less than the present one, is important for forming a just opinion on -Luther’s pathological dispositions. - -[326] To Johann Hess at Breslau, Jan. 31, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 50. - -[327] To Johann Agricola, Feb. 1, 1529, _ib._, p. 51. - -[328] Enders, _ib._, p. 54, n. 3. - -[329] To Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, Feb. 13, 1529, _ib._, p. 53. - -[330] To the same, March 3, 1529, _ib._, p. 61: “_fere assidue cogor -sanus ægrotare_.” - -[331] To Melanchthon, Aug. 1, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 162: “_ut neque -tuto legere litteras possim neque lucem ferre_”—common symptoms of -neurasthenia. - -[332] _Ib._ - -[333] Aug. 3, 1530, _ib._, 8, p. 166. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 346. - -[334] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, Oct. 2, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 -(“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275). - -[335] Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 313. - -[336] Dietrich’s Latin account, ed. Seidemann, “Sachs. Kirchen- und -Schulblatt,” 1876, p. 355. Cp. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. -71; Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 264; Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. -314. - -[337] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 125. - -[338] To Melanchthon, April 12, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 300. - -[339] _Ib._ - -[340] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, pp. 189, 223, 226. - -[341] Cp. above vol. v., pp. 107-16, and vol. iv., p. 284 ff. - -[342] See vol. ii., p. 163, n. 3. - -[343] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268. - -[344] On uric acid and gout as the explanation of all his bodily -troubles, see below, xxxvi. 5. - -[345] Cp. above, vol. v., 333 ff. - -[346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268. - -[347] For the different passages quoted cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, -2, p. 315: Other temptations were nothing compared with this interior -“_angelus Sathanæ colaphizans_, σκόλοψ,” where a man is nailed to the -gibbet. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 53: “_Ego vertigine seu capite hactenus -laboravi, præter ea quæ angelus Sathanæ operatur. Tu ora pro me Deum, -ut confortet me in fide et verbo suo_” (to N. Hausmann, Feb. 13, 1529). -The “sting of the flesh” was not in his case, as has been asserted, the -result of nervousness, but an intellectual temptation to waver in the -“faith” he preached, and to doubt of the “Word.” - -[348] Cp. the numerous statements of contemporaries who were unable to -explain Luther’s uncanny behaviour, his “infernal outbreaks of fury” and -morbid hatred of the Pope (above, vol. v., p. 232 f.), otherwise than by -supposing him to be possessed or mad (vol. iv., p. 351 ff.). - -[349] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f. - -[350] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Staupitz: “_dicebat, se -nunquam sensisse_.” - -[351] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129. - -[352] See vol. i., pp. 120 ff., 223 ff., 269 ff. - -[353] Weim. ed., 18, p. 633; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 154. - -[354] Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126. - -[355] July 16, 1517, _ib._, p. 102. - -[356] Oct. 26, 1516, _ib._, p. 67: “_præter proprias tentationes cum -carne, mundo et diabolo_.” Cp. above, vol. i., p. 275. - -[357] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223. - -[358] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196. - -[359] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 166 ff., and, in particular, pp. 230-40. - -[360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 50: “_illos horrores contra Deum_,” -etc., March 29, 1538. - -[361] June 4, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 207. - -[362] (In Sep.?) 1516, _ib._, p. 55. - -[363] May 18, 1517, _ib._, p. 100. - -[364] March 1, 1517, _ib._, p. 88. - -[365] Nov. 11, 1517, _ib._, p. 124. - -[366] Luther wrote this about the time of the “Tower incident” (above, -vol. i., p. 377 ff.), when engaged in wrestling after “certainty.” - -[367] Weim. ed., 5, p. 165. Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die KG.,” I, 1 -(1900), p. 260. - -[368] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 203; Köhler, _ib._, p. 259. - -[369] Erl. ed., 10², p. 67. - -[370] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 70. - -[371] Weim. ed., 9, p. 215; Erl. ed., 16², p. 52, in the first -non-expurgated form of the sermon (cp. above, vol. ii., p. 148). - -[372] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100. - -[373] Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431. For “_titillatio_” see -vol. ii., p. 94. - -[374] To Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. An -attempt has been made to deprive the word _libido_ of the sense it -always has with Luther (cp. 1st Comm. on Galatians, 1519, and the later -Commentary of 1531). It was alleged to mean “nothing more than an unusual -desire for food and drink”; in the same way the word “flesh” was taken -merely as the antithesis of “spirit,” i.e. the Holy Ghost! - -[375] _Ib._, p. 193: “_peccatis immergor in hac solitudine_.” - -[376] Aug. 3, 1521, _ib._, p. 213. - -[377] To Nicholas Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, _ib._, p. 240. - -[378] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1521, _ib._, p. 247 f. - -[379] _Ib._ - -[380] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9. - -[381] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55. Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 81. - -[382] “Myconii Historia reformationis,” ed. E. S. Cyprianus, p. 42. - -[383] “Ratzebergers Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 54. - -[384] “Hist.,” Bl., 196. - -[385] _Ib._ - -[386] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 440. - -[387] Erl. ed., 59, p. 340 f. - -[388] “Tagebuch,” p. 293. - -[389] Erl. ed., 59, p. 341. - -[390] _Ib._ - -[391] Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. - -[392] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 85, where Lœsche remarks that the Gotha -Codex 263, 122 proved this by an instance taken from Luther’s life. Cp. -also Erl. ed., 59, p. 337. - -[393] Erl. ed., 59, p. 337. - -[394] _Ib._, 57, p. 65. - -[395] _Ib._, 60, p. 108. - -[396] _Ib._, 58, p. 128 f. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 286 f. - -[397] In Aurifaber’s edition, 1568, Bl. 91, 92. Stangwald, who as a rule -eliminates, as he assures us, all that was not Luther’s very own, has -retained it in his edition of the Table-Talk (1571); likewise Selnecker -(1577). For this reason we also find it in Förstemann’s 1st ed., 1844, p. -400. It is not given in the Latin Table-Talk, but, as a comparison with -Bindseil’s “Tabellen,” 3, p. 471, shows, we miss in the Latin a whole -number of unquestionably authentic Luther conversations occurring in the -German editions. It is to be found in “Werke,” Erl. - -[398] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 517. - -[399] Erl. ed., 58, p. 128. - -[400] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 72. - -[401] _Ib._, p. 71. - -[402] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532. The -passage commences: “_Tanta spectra vidi_,” seemingly referring to the -ghosts at the Wartburg. - -[403] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97. - -[404] Erl. ed., 58, p. 4. - -[405] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface dating from 1545. - -[406] See below, p. 142 ff. - -[407] “_Fui (dignus), cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, -ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem._” Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81, n. From -Khummer’s “Tagebuch.” Reference to some external apparition is not -excluded. - -[408] See above, p. 125. - -[409] Cp. above, p. 117, etc. - -[410] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 42. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. -95. - -[411] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127. - -[412] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 95. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 305. - -[413] From the MS. quoted by Kawerau, “Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissenschaft -und kirchl. Leben,” 1, 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers -Krankengesch.,” p. 67 f. - -[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., on the German Bible, 3, p. xlii. Risch, “N. -kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 80. - -[415] Above, p. 123. - -[416] “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 310. - -[417] Alber Erasm., Dialogus vom Interim, 1548, Bl. B. III. Cp. -Seidemann, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1876, p. 564 f. - -[418] Above, p. 123 f. - -[419] C. F. Kahnis, “Die deutsche Reformation,” 1, 1872, p. 142. - -[420] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed. 21, Suppl., p. 325.* - -[421] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 133. - -[422] Ratzeberger, _ib._ - -[423] To Cath. Bora, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 786. Cp. the letter of -Feb. 7 to the same, _ib._, 5, p. 787: “I think that hell and the whole -world must be empty of devils who have all forgathered here at Eisleben -on my account; so great are the difficulties.” - -[424] “Fünf Briefen aus den letzten Tagen Luthers,” ed. Kawerau (”Stud. -und Krit.,“ 54, 1881, p. 160 ff.), p. 162: “_Ut video, Sathan nates -videndas porrigit mihi et ultro derisum adest (addit?)_”; after this, -adds Friedrich, the way was paved for some sort of reconciliation. - -[425] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 773: -“_Satanica sunt hæc, sed Deus, quem rident, ridebit eos suo tempore_.” -Cp. also vol. v., _passim_. - -[426] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 113. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73. - -[427] p. 193 ff. - -[428] _Ib._, p. 200. - -[429] Erl. ed., 31, p. 311. - -[430] To Nich. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363. - -[431] Cp. G. Koffmane, “Handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” -1907. See above, vol. iv., p. 520 f. - -[432] This was the view taken, e.g. by Fr. Balduinus, who published a -work at Eisleben in 1605 against the unfortunate attempt of the learned -Jesuit, Nicholas Serarius, to uphold the reality of the dialogue with the -devil. According to Balduinus it was really a “_gravissima tentatio beati -Lutheri_,” by which the devil sought to reduce him to despair. - -[433] Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Dec. 14, 1531. - -[434] _Ib._, p. 89, in May, 1532, thus only a few months after the above -statement. - -[435] Seb. Fröschel, “Von den heiligen Engeln, vom Teuffel und des -Menschen Seele. Drey Sermon,” Wittenberg, 1563, Bl. L2 to Bl. 4a.—Friedr. -Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten waren -Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, p. 154´. - -[436] “Whereupon Luther became even more anxious and alarmed.… It was -wonderful to see how he ran about the sacristy meanwhile, wringing his -hands for very fear.” - -[437] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. xxiv., where the exorcism is -transposed to Jan. 18(19).—_Ib._, p. 772, Luther relates how he had cured -the madness (“_mania_”) of a “melancholy” person who had been subjected -by the devil to this “temptation,” and also explains how blessings were -to be given. - -[438] See above, vol. v., p. 240 f. - -[439] To Bora, July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 107. - -[440] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 138-40. - -[441] Luther to Ebert, Aug. 5, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 21. - -[442] Kirchhoff is alluding to the case of the “changelings” mentioned -above, vol. v., p. 292. It is true Luther did not regard them as human -beings. - -[443] “Allg. Zeitschr. für Psychiatrie,” 44, 1888, p. 329 ff.—For -Luther’s view of the insane as possessed, see above, vol. v., p. 281. - -[444] See above, p. 128, n. 7. - -[445] Vol. i., p. 391. - -[446] Above, vol. v., p. 322. - -[447] Above, vol. v., p. 226 ff. - -[448] Erl. ed., 9², p. 358 f. - -[449] See above, vol. i., p. 391 ff. - -[450] Above, vol. i., p. 398. - -[451] Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296, end of Feb., -1522). Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 111. - -[452] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 106 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 143 f. - -[453] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81; above, p. 128, n. 7. - -[454] Above, vol. iv., p. 258. - -[455] 1 Cor. xiv. 30. The passage, however, refers to the “charismata” of -the early Church and sets up no sort of standard for judging of doctrine -in later times. - -[456] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 175 f. Greving, p. 18 f. Cp. Steph. Ehses, -“Röm. Quartalschrift,” 12, 1898, p. 456, on M. Spahn, “Cochlæus,” p. -81, who criticises Cochlæus unfavourably because he demanded signs and -wonders from Luther. - -[457] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211, from notes taken at -the time. - -[458] Jonas, i., 2: “_Surrexit Ionas, ut fugeret a facie Domini_.” - -[459] “Werke,” _ib._, pp. 11=214. - -[460] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40; Erl. ed., 28, p. 316 in the revision -of the above Wittenberg sermon entitled: “Von beider Gestallt des -Sacramentes zu nehmen.” - -[461] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391: “_Certus -sum, dogmata mea habere me de cœlo_” (against Henry VIII). - -[462] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 496; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23: “_revelatione -divina ad hoc vocatus_.” - -[463] Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. The passage is from the Wolfenbüttel MS., -which reproduces Rörer’s Notes (revised, possibly, by Flacius). In -another set of Notes Luther speaks here of his doctrine as “_evangelium -veritatis_.”—Cp. vol. iv., p. 408: “_not without a revelation_ of the -Holy Ghost.” - -[464] Weim. ed., 32, p. 477; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263. - -[465] Note in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81. - -[466] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 169: “_Deus revelavit in -hoc schola verbum suum. Quicumque nos fugiunt et sugillant nos clanculum, -ii defecerunt a fide_,” etc. In 1540. - -[467] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 _sq._; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. -Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211. - -[468] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 363* f. Seckendorf, -“Commentaria de Lutheranismo,” gives the passage as follows: “_Ionas sæpe -eum dixisse memorat, se nemini mortalium aperturum esse_, etc., _fore -autem ut in die novissimo innotescant, sicut et revelationes egregiæ, -quæ sub initium doctrinæ habuerit et nemini detexerit_” (Lips., 1694, -lib. 3, sect. 36, p. 647). Bugenhagen says in his funeral oration (Walch, -21, p. 329*), that God the Father had revealed His Son through Luther, -whilst Melanchthon goes so far as to boast that the latter had received -his doctrine, not from “human sagacity,” but that God had revealed it to -him (see “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 _sq._, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 625). -The expression that Luther’s gospel had been “revealed” became quite -usual, as we see from the heading of a chapter in the Latin “Colloquia,” -entitled: “_Occasio et cursus evangelii revelati_” (ed. Bindseil, 3, -p. 178).—Just as Luther asserted he was reforming the Church, “_divina -auctoritate_” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 16), so Calvin, too, -claimed to derive his ministry of the Word (which differed from that of -Luther in so many points) from Christ. Zwingli did the same, and his -followers cared but little for Luther’s claim to the contrary. - -[469] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212. - -[470] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 23=28, p. 298. - -[471] P. 40=316. - -[472] _Ib._ - -[473] P. 23=298; op. Gal. i. 28. - -[474] Paul forbade his disciples to say: “_Ego sum Pauli_,” and asked: -“_Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis?_” (1 Cor. i. 12 _sq._). - -[475] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 363 ff. - -[476] In Casel’s account, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74. - -[477] Weim. ed.; 25, p. 120; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, p. 93 _sq._ - -[478] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49; cp. above, vol. v., p. 352. Above, -vol. v., pp. 339 f., 319, 328. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176. - -[479] Above, vol. v., p. 327 f. - -[480] Weim. ed., 5, p. 385. “Operationes in Psalmos,” 1519-21. - -[481] Erl. ed., 38, p. 225. - -[482] _Ib._, p. 221. - -[483] See vol. iv., p. 222. - -[484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53; cp. Erl. ed., 49, p. 91, on John -xiv.-xv. - -[485] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 181 _sq._ Enarr. ps. cxxx.; cp. Weim. -ed., 1, p. 206 ff.; Erl. ed., 37, p. 420 ff. - -[486] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27 f. - -[487] On Marcus, cp. Weim. ed., 61, pp. 1, 73. - -[488] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 377 f., 371 f., and, with regard to Campanus, p. -378. - -[489] Cordatus, _ib._, p. 28. - -[490] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362. “De servo -arbitrio.” See vol. ii., p. 276. - -[491] To the Elector Augustus of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766: -“_Stoica et manichæa deliria_.” Cp. vol. v., p. 258. - -[492] _Ib._, 24, p. 375; cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im -16. Jahrb.,” p. 81. - -[493] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 45, 75 f., 125 f. - -[494] On his discovery of Antichrist see above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff. He -reached it amidst strange fears: “_Ego sic angor_,” etc. To Spalatin, -Feb. 24, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332. On the thoughts of Satan see -the letter to Egranus of March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: -“_Nisi cogitationes Satanæ scirem, mirarer quo furore ille [Eccius] -amicitias solveret_,” etc. - -[495] Vol. iii., p. 149 ff. - -[496] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 301. - -[497] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 176-311. - -[498] Cp. his statement in Schlaginhaufen’s Table-Talk, p. 56: -“_Adversariorum verbi natura non est humana, sed plane diabolica_” (1532). - -[499] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 404 f. (Jan., 1537), with reference to -Dan. xi. 36; xii. 1. The “_Sic volo_,” etc., from Juvenal, “Sat.,” 6, -223, he applies to himself, above, vol. v., p. 517. - -[500] Mathesius, _ib._, p. 293. In 1542-3. The picture given at the -beginning of this portion of the Table-Talk of how Luther the “monk” -and Catherine the “nun” seated at table after dinner raise the cross -hand-in-hand against Antichrist and say: “_Post scripturam non habemus -firmius argumentum quam crucem!_” speaks volumes for their infatuation. - -[501] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410, in a sermon of Nov. 1, 1531. - -[502] Erl. ed., 63, p. 276. On his abnormal hatred see vol. iv., p. 300 f. - -[503] _Ib._ - -[504] To Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461. - -[505] Cp. vol. iv., p. 95 f. My belief that in the passage in question -in Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of Aug. 28, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, -p. 235), the word “_mendacia_” should be read after “_dolos_” as in the -oldest Protestant editions, has since received confirmation from P. -Sinthern in the “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1912, p. 180 ff., where the -quotations from Johann Lorenz Doller, “Luthers katholisches Monument,” -Frankfurt-am-Main, 1817, p. 309 ff., are set forth in their true light. - -[506] Erl. ed., 25², p. 425. - -[507] Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f. - -[508] Vol. iv., p. 304. - -[509] See vol. iv., p. 327 ff., and the remark of Harnack, _ib._, p. 340 -f.: “Either he suffered from the mania of greatness or his self-reliance -really corresponded with his task and achievements.” - -[510] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 210. - -[511] _Ib._, p. 308 (1540). Cp. above, vol. v., p. 241 ff. - -[512] To Lang: “_Sitne libellus meus [De captivitate babylonica] tam -atrox et ferox tu videris et alii omnes. Libertate et impetu fateor -plenus est, multis tamen placet, nec aulæ nostræ penitus displicet. -Ego de me in his rebus nihil statuere possum. Forte ego præcursor sum -Philippi [Melanchthonis], cui exemplo Heliæ viam parem in spiritu et -virtute, conturbaturus Israel et Achabitas ~[cp. 1 Kings xviii. 17]~ -oratione itaque opus erit, si quid peccatum est._” A little later he -says of Antichrist: “_Odi ego ex corde hominem illum peccati et filium -perditionis ~[2 Thes. ii. 3]~ cum universo suo imperio._” - -[513] In Casel’s report (Nov. 29, 1525), Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74. - -[514] To Lang, Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126. - -[515] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 6. - -[516] Erl. ed., 57, p. 73. “Tischreden,” ed. Aurifaber, Eisleben, 1566, -pp. 18 and 18´. - -[517] Above, vol. iii., p. 121. - -[518] Erl. ed., 65, p. 62, preface to his translation of Jeremias. - -[519] See below, xxxviii, 1. - -[520] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 169. - -[521] Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263. - -[522] _Ib._, p. 473=265. - -[523] Cp. Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” pp. 45 and 51. - -[524] See above, vol. iii., p. 159 ff. On the nun Florentina. - -[525] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 92: “_Articulus remissionis -peccatorum est in omnibus creaturis_” (a. 1532). Cp. p. 139: “_Deus in -omnibus officiis, statibus intromisit remissionem peccatorum_,” etc. - -[526] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201 (Khummer): “_Melanthon retulit, -Lutherum sæpe dixisse, articulum de remissione peccatorum esse -fundamentum, unde exstruatur articulus de creatione_.” - -[527] Erl. ed., 58, p. 390. - -[528] See vol. iii., p. 195 ff. - -[529] See above, vol. v., p. 517. - -[530] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 585; vol. iv., pp. 331, 343; vol. ii., p. -294. - -[531] Weim. ed., 26, p. 531; Erl. ed., 63, p. 273 (1528). - -[532] _Ib._, p. 530=272. - -[533] See vol. iii., p. 175 ff. - -[534] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129 f.: “Break out at once into abuse, -particularly if the devil attacks you with justification! He frequently -assails me with an argument that is not worth a snap, but in the turmoil -and temptation I do not notice this; but when I have recovered I see it -plainly.” - -[535] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515. - -[536] To Chancellor Brück, Jan. 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282. - -[537] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129. - -[538] To Melanchthon, Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 166: “My head -is indeed obstinate as you fellows say.” - -[539] Paul Pietsch, in the preface (p. xxi. f.) to vol. 32 of the Weim. -ed.: “His annoyance and his tendency to see only the darker side of -things show plainly enough … that Luther was suffering from that deep -depression to which great men are sometimes liable. In later life, for -instance in 1544, this depression again overtook Luther, and he even -resolved to quit Wittenberg, and it was only with difficulty that he was -dissuaded from doing so. In 1545 again something similar occurred. Yet in -1544 and 1545 his discouragement had again no real cause.” - -[540] Cp. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.” (Lit. Beil.), 1906, p. 355, on vol. -32 of the Weimar edition. - -[541] To Link, Dec. 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326. - -[542] “_Si quid hic iocis aut conviciis excedit._” - -[543] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 67 ff. - -[544] We remember having recently read in a review, that many, at the -present day, consider “mental aberration an indispensable condition of -mental greatness.” - -[545] “_Si hæc a febricitante dicerentur, quid dici possit insanius!_” -“_Opp._,” 10, col. 1282, in 1526. - -[546] The passages are given in Latin above, vol. iv., p. 353, n. 3. - -[547] Cp. above, vol. ii., pp. 267 and 274; cp. also below, what Hausrath -and Möbius say. The expression “abnormal state of temper” is used by -W. Köhler in the “Theol. Literaturbericht,” vol. 23 (1903), p. 499. -Elsewhere he calls Luther “the most paradoxical figure imaginable, who -speaks differently to every hearer” (_ib._, vol. 24, 1904, p. 517).—See -also Döllinger (“Kirchenlexikon,”[2] art. “Luther,” col. 344), and -Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 48, 1873 ed., p. 423. U. Berlière, O.S.B., recently -remarked: “Une étude psychologique de Luther ne peut être séparée de -son histoire ni de l’évolution de sa vie intérieure, encore moins de -son état pathologique.… Cette étude n’est pas encore achevée” (“Revue -bénédictine,” 1906, p. 630 f.). - -[548] See Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 27. - -[549] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 383. Cp. also the remarks on the next page, -n. 2. - -[550] In the art. “Luthers Bekehrung” (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,” 6, 1896), p. -193. - -[551] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1905, p. 109 f. The author speaks of the -“secret sufferings of soul” which did not, however, interfere with the -thoroughness of his work (p. 110); incidentally, in exoneration of the -violence of Luther’s writings against Zwingli, he urges that Luther wrote -it “at a time of great depression, which he even wished his opponents -might endure for but a quarter of an hour to see if it would not convert -them” (2, p. 213). At the Wartburg “his mental suffering returned, as -it always did when he remained for any length of time without outward -stimulus or active intercourse with the outside world” (1, p. 475). In -the supplement to his unaltered 2nd edition Hausrath deals with the -objections raised against his “pathological” view though he considerably -modifies his wordings (1, p. 573 ff.). - -[552] On Ebstein see below, p. 176 f. Ebstein’s is an improvement on -Küchenmeister, “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankengesch.,” Leipzig, 1881. -Küchenmeister did not do justice to the historical material and always -quotes at second hand. Th. Kolde rightly speaks of his work as a “book -that had better not have been written” (“Anal. Lutherana,” p. 50). He -also thinks Berkhan’s treatment of the subject (_ib._, p. 51) “of small -value.” - -[553] “Deutsch-evangelische Bl.,” 29, Halle, 1904, p. 303 ff. - -[554] See above, p. 109 ff. - -[555] P. 316. - -[556] “Archiv f. Psychiatrie,” 11, Berlin, 1880-1, p. 798 ff. - -[557] P. 799. Cp. above, p. 100 ff. - -[558] Möbius proceeds on the principle that “in each of us what is -healthy is mixed with what is morbid and the more anyone rises above -the average, the further he departs from the normal.” “The pathological -element is part of every eminent man.” This, according to Möbius, is -particularly the case with the genius. Hence, in his studies, it is -his aim to show how psychiatry “may be used for appreciating great -men.” Möbius intended to deal in detail with the pathology of Luther -but was prevented by death from carrying out his plan. In his study -on Schopenhauer (“Ausgewählte Werke,” Bd. 4)—who according to him -was certainly not insane in the ordinary sense—he says: “I consider -Schopenhauer one of the best instances to prove that it is only pathology -which teaches us rightly to understand great writers and their works.… -Schopenhauer became the philosopher of pessimism because, from the -beginning, he was a sickly man. It was not the recognition of the evils -in the world that made him take this line, but he deliberately sought out -and described the evils because he needed to vindicate his own pessimism. -He had displayed the latter even as a boy, having inherited it from his -father, and his morbid disposition influenced his whole mode of thought.” - -[559] In “Schmidts Jahrb. der in- und ausländischen gesamten Medizin,” -ed. P. J. Möbius and H. Doppe, 288, Leipzig, 1905, Hft. 12, Dec., p. 264 -in the notice of my articles “Ein Grundproblem aus Luthers Seelenleben,” -in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” Lit. Beilage, 1905, Nos. 40 and 41. - -[560] [Above, p. 173.] - -[561] [Emil Kraepelin, “Psychiatrie, Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und -Ärzte,”⁶ Leipzig, 1899, Cap. ix.: “Das manisch-depressive Irresein,” pp. -359-425.] - -[562] “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankheiten und deren Einfluss auf seinen -körperlichen und geistigen Zustand,” Stuttgart, 1908. - -[563] Pp. 7, 64. - -[564] Pp. 45 ff., 56 ff. - -[565] Pp. 62, 10, 63 f., 60, 55, 54, 64. - -[566] This Ebstein admits (p. 44), though he argues that the “seizures in -the joints” of which Luther complains must have had a gouty origin. - -[567] _Ib._, p. 40. But cp. above, p. 110 f. - -[568] Cp. in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 191, for the proofs in support -of this letter quoted by Enders from Kawerau. - -[569] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168. - -[570] Ebstein, _ib._, p. 44. - -[571] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 691 f. - -[572] Pp. 49, 53. - -[573] P. 55 f. - -[574] P. 56. - -[575] P. 12. - -[576] P. 62. - -[577] P. 10. - -[578] P. 44 f. - -[579] “Luther auf dem Standpunkt der Psychiatrie beurteilt,” Wien, 1874. -Bruno Schön declares that Luther was “in part excused by the fact that -he was deranged” (p. 3); this derangement Luther contrived to explain -away by laying it all down to the devil, whom he had seen in actual -hallucinations (p. 9); he had regarded all his opponents as fools, -just as the inmates of an asylum look upon all others as fools and on -themselves as perfectly sane (p. 28), etc. - -[580] “Grundriss einer Gesch. der deutschen Irrenpflege,” 1890, p. 76. - -[581] “Antwort auf das Sendschreiben,”³ Sulzbach, 1817, p. 70 ff. - -[582] See the 2nd ed. of this writing, bearing the same title as the -1st, “Seitenstück zur Weisheit Luthers.” The 1st ed. is weaker in its -animadversions than the 2nd. - -[583] P. 188. - -[584] See above, vol. i., p. 16. - -[585] “Zeitschr. des Harzvereins,” 39, 1906, p. 191 ff. It cannot be -proved from the records that the second Hans Luther had been guilty of -actual manslaughter. Hence in vol. i., it was not necessary to point out -that the manslaughter of which Wicel accuses Martin Luther’s father, -repeating his accusation most emphatically in public writings without its -being called into question by Luther, cannot be placed to the account -of the second Hans with any semblance of likelihood (though it has been -done, cp. “Luther-Kalender,” 1910, p. 76 f). Wicel came to Eisleben in -1533, thus only a few years after the father’s death, and was able to -assure himself of the facts, concerning which there was not likely to be -any mistake owing to Martin Luther’s celebrity at that time. - -[586] Aug. Cramer, “Die Nervosität,” Jena, 1906. - -[587] “Grundriss der Psychiatrie,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 104. - -[588] _Ib._, p. 141 f. - -[589] “Monatsschr. für Psychiatrie,” Berlin, 1907, p. 230. - -[590] _Ib._, p. 236. - -[591] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432. - -[592] _Ib._, p. 432 f. - -[593] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169. - -[594] _Ib._, (from Rebenstock). - -[595] _Ib._, p. 175. - -[596] _Ib._, p. 170. - -[597] _Ib._ - -[598] Erl. ed., 31, p. 257. - -[599] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195. - -[600] _Ib._, p. 188: “… _et D. Staupitius me incitabat contra papam_.” - -[601] _Ib._, p. 176. - -[602] See above, vol. i., pp. 104 ff., 184 ff., 303 ff., where his -theological attitude previous to the indulgence theses is discussed. It -is taken for granted that the account of his development given in vol. i. -is already known to the reader. The fictions have already been discounted -in vol. i., p. 20 f. and p. 110 f. - -[603] “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung” (“Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- -und dogmengesch. Quellenschriften,” 2, Reihe 9. Hft.), 1911, p. 11 ff. - -[604] Luther’s untrustworthiness here, where it is a question of his -polemics, does not render untrue certain other data of a non-polemical -character and otherwise supported. This is the case, e.g. with the date -given above when the meaning of Rom. i. 17 first dawned upon him; this -happens to agree with the facts. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff. - -[605] Erl. ed., 63, p. 405, in the preface of 1539 to his German writings. - -[606] See vol. iii., p. 153 ff. Cp. “Werke,” _ib._, p. 370, in a preface -of 1531, where, referring to the “many and great miracles,” he makes no -distinction between Evangel and Gospel. - -[607] _Ib._, p. 373 (1542). - -[608] _Ib._, p. 400 in the preface of 1539 to his German writings. - -[609] _Ib._, p. 328. - -[610] _Ib._, p. 295 (1530). - -[611] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432. - -[612] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” p. 219. - -[613] “Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft. 100, 1910, p. 14.—Cp. K. A. -Meissinger, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 362, n. 2. - -[614] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580. - -[615] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182. - -[616] Weim. ed., 33, p. 431 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 201. - -[617] _Ib._, 49, p. 118. - -[618] _Ib._, 20², 2, p. 420. - -[619] “Comment. in Galat.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 138; Irmischer, 1, p. -109 _sq._ - -[620] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100. - -[621] _Ib._, 7, p. 74. - -[622] Weim. ed., 33, p. 560; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. - -[623] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27. Cp. 20, 2, p. 420. - -[624] Weim. ed., 33, p. 575; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317. - -[625] Erl. ed., 46, p. 73. - -[626] At the time the present writer’s series of articles on Luther’s -intellectual development was appearing in the “Köln. Volkszeitung” (1903, -1904), Denifle’s work which also insists on the unreliable nature of the -legend (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹ 1904, pp. 389 ff., 725 f., 739 f.) was -already in print. - -[627] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183. - -[628] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 123 (1545). - -[629] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300. Comm. on John xiv.-xvi., of 1537. - -[630] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 72. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c.a. 1541. - -[631] _Ib._, 5, p. 267, a. 1539. - -[632] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27 (1537). - -[633] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. Comm. on John -vi.-viii., 1531. - -[634] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273. “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes -Buch,” 1533. - -[635] Comment. in Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 107. -Cp. p. 138=p. 109. The passage was only introduced by Luther in the 1538 -ed., a fact remarkable for the history of the legend. - -[636] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420. - -[637] Comment. in Galat. ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 20, 1535. - -[638] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enar. in ps. 45, a. 1532. - -[639] See above, p. 126. - -[640] See above, p. 150. - -[641] Erl. ed. 58, p. 377. - -[642] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 401. Enarr. in Is. (1543). - -[643] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137; Irmischer, 1, p. 109, of -1535. - -[644] Erl. ed. 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539. - -[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36. From Khummer, no date, but a late -utterance. - -[646] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23, preface to the Latin works (1545). - -[647] N. Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 ff. - -[648] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100 (1532). - -[649] To Bugenhagen (1532), preface to the latter’s edition of -Athanasius, “De trinitate,” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 (“Briefwechsel,” -9, p. 252). - -[650] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410 (1531). In the text, for “_deinde -quando_,” read “_deinde quanto_.” A second hasty report, _ib._, gives the -passage in this form: “_Multos scio, et ego unus fui, quando confessus_ -and clean _et dixi orationes meas_, I came to the altar it was all not -worth a straw; _vocabam presbyterum, et quando absolutio_ had been -pronounced _et missa perfecta [erat], tum certus ut antea [eram]_ and as -much at peace with God _ut antea_, …” Of the Last Day: “_Ego non libenter -audiebam istum diem_.” - -[651] Above, vol. i., p. 290 f. - -[652] Ericeus, “Sylvula,” l. c. - -[653] G. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers 1537-1540,” 1905, p. 61 -f. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. x., n. - -[654] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 122 (1532). - -[655] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539. - -[656] _Ib._, p. 154, from the same sermon. - -[657] _Ib._, 31, p. 279. “Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.” - -[658] Dr. Kirchhoff, “Zeitschr. f. Psychiatrie,” vol. 44, 1888, p. 376. - -[659] Cp. previous volumes, _passim_, particularly vol. iv., pp. 120-31. - -[660] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182. See above, p. 192. - -[661] Erl. ed., 14², p. 342. - -[662] Comment. in ep. ad Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137. Irmischer, 1, -p. 109. - -[663] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37. - -[664] _Ib._, 49, p. 27. - -[665] _Ib._, 45, p. 156 f. - -[666] _Ib._ - -[667] _Ib._, 14², p. 185. - -[668] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 10, p. 232. - -[669] _Ib._, 19, p. 100. - -[670] See above, vol. i., p. 278. - -[671] Cp. apart from the “Dicta Melanchthoniana” (ed. Waltz, “Zeitschr. -f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.), p. 330:—“_diebus Sabbati, cum esset vacuus -a concionibus_,” etc., “_initio evangelii—_” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, -where the same thing is related no less than three times: 1, p. 67; 1, p. -198; 3, p. 279, the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 59, pp. 10 and 21, and -Ericeus, “Sylvula Sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 _sq._ - -[672] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37. - -[673] _Ib._, 49, p. 315. - -[674] Aquinas, “Summa theol.,” 3, q. 40, a. 2 ad 1. In ep. ad Tim. c. 4, -lect. 2. “Summa theol.,” 2, 2, q. 88, a, 2 ad 3. Denifle, _ib._, 1², p. -365 f., where other quotations are given from Thomas and the mediæval -theologians.—Cp. the wholesome teaching of the “Imitation”—already widely -read in Luther’s day—on the value of outward works compared with interior -virtue and charity (Bk. II., cap. 1): “_Regnum Dei intra vos est, dicit -Dominus_,” are the words with which it begins. Bk. I., c. 19: “_Multo -plus debet esse intus quam quod cernitur foris_,” and, again: “_Iustorum -propositum in gratia Dei potius quam in propria sapientia pendet_,” etc. -On the need of discretion see _ib._, 3, c. 7. - -[675] “De non esu carnium ap. Carthus.,” “Opp.,” 2, pp. 723, 729. -Denifle, _ib._, p. 370. - -[676] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 49. - -[677] See above, vol. i., p. 80 ff. - -[678] Weim. ed., 4, p. 626. Denifle, 1², p. 376 f. - -[679] _Ib._, 6, p. 246; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180. Denifle, 1², p. 377 f. - -[680] Weim. ed., 37, p. 661. Sermon of Feb. 1, 1534. - -[681] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enarr. in ps. 45. Jan., 1532. - -[682] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. In the Comment. on -John vi.-viii., 27 Oct., 1531. - -[683] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300 (1537): “I myself must testify from my own -experience: After having been a pious monk _for over twenty years_.” This -reading of the sermons reported and edited by Cruciger is embodied in the -text, whereas, in the notes, it is corrected to “fifteen.” - -[684] Erl. ed., 46, p. 78, Sermon of 1537. - -[685] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 490: “_Fraterculus in -Christo … in angulo sepultus_,” etc. - -[686] To Joh. Braun, April 22, 1507, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 1 f; “_sola et -liberalissima sua misericordia … tanta divinæ bonitatis magnificentia_.” - -[687] March 17, 1509, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6. - -[688] From a MS. sermon of Luther’s of 1544 at Gotha. Scheel, -“Dokumente,” p. 20. - -[689] To N. Paulus is due the credit of having drawn attention in 1893 -to the description given by Luther to Usingen. Hausrath in his article -“Luthers Bekehrung” in 1896 (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,”) also noted how happy -Luther had at first been in the convent. Cp. his “Leben Luthers,” 1, p. -22. - -[690] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 197 (Khummer): The good old man -had taught him to commit perplexing matters of conscience “_divinæ -bonitati_.”—Preface to Bugenhagen’s edition of St. Athanasius “De -Trinitate”: “_Vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo verus -christianus_.”—Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100, on the preceptor’s -words (above, vol. i., p. 10): “_Fili quid facis, an nescis, quod -ipse Dominus iussit nos sperare?_”—Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. -84 (Khummer): Luther’s reminiscence of the wise exhortation of his -preceptor on conversations with women (“_pauca et brevia loquatur_”).—Cp. -“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 1. - -[691] See above, vol. i., p. 11. - -[692] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, -“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31. - -[693] Flacius Illyr., “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” -Magdeburgi (1549), pages not numbered, end of cap. xv.: “_Affirmabat -is Martinum Lutherum apud ipsos sancte vixisse, exactissime regulam -servasse et diligenter studuisse_.” Copy of this rare work in the Vienna -Hofbibliothek. - -[694] On the passages in the Comm. on Rom. of 1515-16 in which he speaks -well of the religious life, see above, vol. i., p. 270. - -[695] Weim. ed., 2, p. 736; Erl. ed., 21, p. 242. Denifle, 1², p. 39. - -[696] _Ib._, 2, p. 644; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 500, and in his “Letter -to the Minorites of Jüterbogk,” May 15, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 40: -“_Media quibus facilius implentur præcepta_.” Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 36. - -[697] Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 226. - -[698] Above, vol. ii., p. 181 ff. - -[699] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183: “_in gloriam Dei et confusionem -sathanæ_.” - -[700] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “_etiam in complexus veni coniugis_,” -etc. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See above, vol. v., p. 354; -vol. iii., p. 175. - -[701] To Nich. Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, -p. 241: “_ut nihil iam auribus meis sonet odiosius monialis, monachi, -sacerdotis nomine et paradisum arbitrer coniugium vel summa inopia -laborans_.” Thus the monk and priest, four years before his marriage. - -[702] To George Mascov, Provost of the Premonstratensian house at -Leitzkau, end of 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 76. At the close of the -letter, of which only fragments have been preserved, we read: “_Quam -maxime rogo ut pro me Dominum ores; confiteor enim tibi, quod vita mea in -dies appropinquet inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et miserior_,” which -must, of course, be understood of his moral, not his physical, condition. -The “drawing nigh to hell” is an echo of Ps. lxxxvii., which was such a -favourite of his, where we read: “_repleta est malis anima mea et vita -mea inferno appropinquavit_” (v. 3), and: “_In me transierunt iræ tuæ, et -terrores tui conturbaverunt me_” (v. 17). - -[703] Above, vol. i., p. 88. - -[704] To Spalatin, Dec. 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73 f., where he -begins by humbly confessing his unworthiness to receive any attention -from the Elector (“_talis tantusque princeps_”), at whose Court Spalatin -held a post. - -[705] To Joh. Lang, Feb. 8, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 86. “_Quid -enim non credant, qui Aristoteli crediderunt, vera esse, quæ ipse -calumniosissimus calumniator aliis affiingit et imponit tam absurda, ut -asinus et lapis non possint tacere ad illa?_” (_ib._, p. 85). - -[706] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 44, from Dietrich’s MSS. - -[707] To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160. - -[708] “_Videbis_,” Staupitz had said, according to him, “_quod ad res -magnas gerendas te ministro (Deus) utetur. Atque ita accidit_,” Luther -goes on. “_Nam ego magnus (licet enim hoc mihi de me iure prædicare) -factus sum doctor_.” Such utterances, he continues, have in them -something of the “_oraculum et divinatio_.” Then follows the statement -quoted above concerning the other prophecy of his future greatness: -“_huius dicti sæpissime memini_,” and again he declares such words -contain “_aliquid divinationis et oraculi_.” - -[709] Above, p. 102. - -[710] Reprinted in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 79: “_De tua -præstantia, bonitate, eruditione creber sermo incidit_.” After having -spoken of Luther’s “_celebris fama_,” Scheurl expresses the wish “to -become his friend.” The words are simply those in common use among the -humanists. - -[711] Jan. 27, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 82 ff. - -[712] Weim. ed., 1, p. 30; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 57: “_Nolunt audire, -quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint.… Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam -iactant_.” - -[713] “_Incurrunt inobedientiam et rebellionem._” See vol. i., p. 69. - -[714] “_Hæc est lux angeli Sathanæ_” (_ib._). - -[715] _Ib._, p. 53. - -[716] Weim. ed., 1, p, 12; “Opp. lat. var.,” I, p. 33. - -[717] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 41: “_præsulari id -est pergræcari sodomitari, romanari_.” - -[718] To Spalatin, in the spring, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 91: -“_eruditio sæculi nostri ferrea, immo terrea, sive sit Græcitatis sive -Latinitatis sive Hebræitatis_.” - -[719] To Lang, March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88. - -[720] See above, vol. i., p. 228. - -[721] _Ib._, p. 70. - -[722] To Nich. Hausmann at Zwickau, “Briefwechsel,” p. 144: “_Corpore -satis bene valeo, sed tot distrahor externis actibus, ut spiritus prope -extinguatur raroque sui curam habeat. Ora pro me, ne carne consummer._” -Cp. Gal. iii. 3: “_Sic stulti estis, ut quum spiritu cœperitis, nunc -carne consummemini_.” - -[723] To Lang, Oct. 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67: “_raro mihi -integrum tempus est_,” etc.; above, vol. i., p. 275. - -[724] To Lang, Sep. 4, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 106. Cp. vol. i., p. -313. - -[725] To Chr. Scheurl, May 6, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 97: “_Sunt -paradoxa modestis et qui non ea cognoverint, sed eudoxa et calodoxa -scientibus, mihi vero aristodoxa. Benedictus Deus, qui rursum iubet de -tenebris splendescere lumen._” - -[726] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, -“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31: “_sola prudentia sensus nostri causa et radix -universæ inquietudinis nostræ_.” - -[727] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88: “_si nulli placerent, mihi optime -placerent_.” - -[728] March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489. - -[729] Vol. i., p. 391: “_furebam ita sæva et perturbata conscientia_,” -etc. - -[730] Erl. ed., 26², p. 71. - -[731] To Sylvius Egranus (Joh. Wildenauer), March 24, 1518, -“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “_Ego quo magis illi furunt, eo amplius -procedo; relinquo priora, ut in illis latrent, sequor posteriora, ut et -illa latrent_.” - -[732] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 512. - -[733] To Staupitz, Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 430: “_Deus -rapit, pellit, nedum ducit me; non sum compos mei, volo esse quietus et -rapior in medios tumultus_.” - -[734] Above, vol. ii., p. 17. - -[735] Lectures on Romans, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Scholia, p. 221. - -[736] _Ib._, p. 220. - -[737] _Ib._ - -[738] Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366. “Vom Abendmal -Bekentnis,” 1528. - -[739] Melanchthon in his “Elogium” on Luther, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158: -“Vitæ Reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, p. 100. - -[740] To supplement what we said in vol. i., p. 4, we may give a -passage from Rörer’s notes of the Table-Talk (ed. Kroker, in “Archiv f. -RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 346): “_Cum in monasterium intrabam et relinquebam -omnia desperans de me ipso, postulavi iterum biblia_.” _Ib._, p. 369 -f. “_Causa ingrediendi monasterii fuit, quia perterrefactus tonitru, -cum despatiaretur ante civitatem Erphordiæ, votum vovit Hannæ et -fracto propemodum pede_ [? through being thrown down by the stroke of -lightning?] he entered the cloister and bound himself by vows.” - -[741] Vol. i., p. 16. - -[742] Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” etc., Bl. 14. - -[743] “Chronik.” etc., ed. Euling, 1891, p. 30. - -[744] Account published by Tschakert in “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1897, -p. 578. The passage may possibly have been influenced by Luther’s -statement above concerning his father’s words “_illusio et præstigium_.” -Cp. below, p. 224, n. 6. - -[745] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 408 (in 1537). - -[746] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187, related by Luther to his -friends on the feast-day of St. Anne, July 16 [? 26], 1539. - -[747] _Ib._, under date, July 16 (1539), the anniversary of his entering -the convent. - -[748] See above, vol. i., p. 4. - -[749] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182. - -[750] _Ib._, 3, p. 185. - -[751] Weim. ed., 8, p. 573 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 239, in the -dedication to his father of “De Votis monasticis” (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. -249). - -[752] _Ib._, he refers to the same remark of his father’s in a letter -to Melanchthon of Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225: “_Utinam non -esset sathanæ præstigium.… Videtur mihi per os eius Deus velut a longe me -allocutus, sed tarde, tamen satis._” - -[753] To Joh. Braun at Eisenach, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6: “_Quod si -statum meum nosse desideras, bene habeo Dei gratia, nisi quod violentum -est studium_.” - -[754] B. Heyne, “Über Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen -Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 126. - -[755] Erl. ed., 44, p. 127. - -[756] _Ib._, 45, p. 156. See above, p. 197. - -[757] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 36, p. 553 f.; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146, Comment. on -1 Cor. xv. - -[758] See above, p. 99 ff. - -[759] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156. - -[760] Note, _ib._ - -[761] _Ib._, 44, p. 127. - -[762] G. Buchwald, “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten 1528-1546,” vol. iii., -1885, p. 50: In Popery “horrible fears” had been caused by the doctrine -of Christ as Judge. “_Iuventus non intelligit; videat ne amittat hanc -lucem ~[of his Evangel]~. Si scivissemus non ivissemus in cœnobia. Quando -Christum inspexi, vidi diabolum._” - -[763] W. Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 28. The mental -struggle had not been denied, either by Denifle, or in my article in the -Beilage of the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 44. - -[764] Köhler, _ib._, pp. 27-29. Cp. Köhler, “Katholizismus und -Reformation,” p. 69. - -[765] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 330; Erl. ed., 24², p. 391. - -[766] _Ib._, p. 280=365. - -[767] _Ib._, p. 279 f.=364. - -[768] _Ib._, p. 290=370. - -[769] Late in June, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f. - -[770] See above, vol. i., p. 269 f. - -[771] Above, p. 101 f. - -[772] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362. - -[773] _Ib._ - -[774] Weim. ed., 28, p. 48, June 10. - -[775] Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372. - -[776] _Ib._, p. 504=366. - -[777] _Ib._ - -[778] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317. - -[779] Weim. ed., 32, p. 241. Cp. the similar passage quoted above, p. -197, from Schlaginhaufen. - -[780] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273 in “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes -Buch.” Given more in detail above, p. 195. - -[781] Weim. ed., 36, p. 554; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146. - -[782] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420. - -[783] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 109. - -[784] Cp. Erl. ed. 31, p. 273. - -[785] “Opp. lat. exeg.” 11, p. 123. - -[786] Erl. ed., 14², p. 343. - -[787] See above, vol. iii., p. 206; vol. iv., p. 213 f. - -[788] Denifle, 1², p. 392. - -[789] Erl. ed., 19², p. 151 f. - -[790] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317 f. - -[791] _Ib._, 14², p. 342 ff. - -[792] Erl. ed., 63, p. 369 f., 1542. - -[793] _Ib._, p. 372. - -[794] _Ib._, 63, p. 374. Preface to his “Barfuser Eulenspiegel und -Alcoran,” 1542. - -[795] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423. - -[796] Weim. ed. 42, p. 504; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 119. - -[797] _Ib._, p. 505=200. - -[798] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 368 and above, p. 202. - -[799] _Ib._ - -[800] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156 f. - -[801] _Ib._, 31, p. 279. - -[802] Cp. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 408-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 141-151. - -[803] Above, vol. v., p. 432 ff., and vol. iii., p. 9 ff. - -[804] Cp. vol. ii., p. 346. - -[805] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 265, 1524. - -[806] Above, vol. iii., p. 392 f. - -[807] _Ib._, p. 10. - -[808] Weim. ed., 1, p. 624; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 288. In the -Resolutions, 1518.—Weim. ed., 7, pp. 139, 439; Erl. ed., 24², p. 139. -“Opp. lat. var.,” 5, 221. In the “Assertio omnium articulorum.” Cp. -proposition 33 condemned by Leo X, 1520, in the Bull “Exsurge Domine.” N. -Paulus, in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 140, 1907, p. 357 ff., and “Protestantismus -und Toleranz im 16 Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 26 f. - -[809] Weim. ed., 7, p. 139; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 221. - -[810] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 424: “Hence there is no alternative, you -must either believe everything or nothing,” and vol. v., p. 398, n. 3. - -[811] Weim. ed., 11, p. 267; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90. - -[812] Weim. ed., 18, p. 298 f. Erl. ed., 24², p. 276. - -[813] Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356). He adds that he -had notified the Altenburgers that “the rights, authority, revenues and -power of the Canons were at an end because they were publicly opposed to -the Evangel.” - -[814] To the Wittenberg Canons, July 11, 1523, Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 f. -(“Briefe,” 4, p. 176). - -[815] In a sermon of Aug. 2, 1523, Weim. ed., 12, p. 649; Erl. ed., 17², -p. 57. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 5. - -[816] Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 76. According to Burkhardt, -Hier. Schurf and the licentiate Pauli were entrusted with the mission -to Luther; but “Luther continued to storm, and the council took steps -to forbid the Mass and even intercourse with others. So far had Luther -carried matters!”—Bezold, “Gesch. der deutschen Ref.,” Berlin, 1890, p. -563, observes of Luther’s attitude at that time: “It is of interest to -note his transition from the principles of freedom of conscience and the -independence of the Church to religious coercion and State assistance.” - -[817] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 327 ff.; vol. iv., p. 510. - -[818] Cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 10. - -[819] Reprinted in Kolde’s, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 68 ff. - -[820] _Ib._, p. 72. - -[821] The Memo. of the three preachers in “Mitteil. der geschichtsforsch. -Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1866, p. 513 ff.; cp. Enders, “Luthers -Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318, n. 1. On Altenburg, see above, vol. ii., p. 314 -ff. - -[822] Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318). - -[823] In Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 102, and Enders, -“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 320. - -[824] Text in Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” Abt. -1, 1. Hälfte, 1902, p. 142 ff. See above, vol. v., p. 592 f. - -[825] _Ib._ These stern measures were aimed at the followers of Carlstadt -and Zwingli, but were also applied to the Catholics. - -[826] The writing, most probably by Link (spring, 1524), is in the -“Mitteilungen der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, p. -119 ff. - -[827] In the Mem. referred to above, p. 241, n. 3. - -[828] Paulus, _ib._, p. 12. - -[829] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307. - -[830] Cp. their petition to George drafted by Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 9, -p. 285. - -[831] Letter of the first half of July, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. -243 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 318). - -[832] Sep. 19, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246. - -[833] Beginning of July, 1539, in the Memorandum on the need of -abolishing the Mass at Meissen. _Ib._, p. 189. Paulus, _ib._, p. 15. - -[834] Paulus, _ib._ - -[835] To Jos. Levin Metzsch of Mila, Aug. 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., -54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149). - -[836] On Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, -p. 103). - -[837] Sehling, “Kirchenordnungen,” 1, 1, pp. 175, 176, 187, 195. Cp. -Luther to Beier of Zwickau, 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365. - -[838] Above, vol. ii., p. 311, and present vol., p. 240, n. 1. - -[839] _Ib._, vol. ii., p. 318. - -[840] _Ib._, p. 381. - -[841] _Ib._, p. 319. - -[842] _Ib._, p. 318. - -[843] Above, vol. iv., p. 298. - -[844] Above, vol. iii., p. 45. - -[845] _Ib._, p. 359. - -[846] _Ib._, p. 79 f. - -[847] Above, vol. v., p. 367. - -[848] _Ib._, p. 578. - -[849] _Ib._, p. 580. - -[850] _Ib._, p. 579. - -[851] Paulus, _ib._, p. 32. - -[852] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 35. - -[853] Above, vol. iii., p. 431. - -[854] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,”¹ p. 801. Cp. above, vol. v., p. -384, and elsewhere. - -[855] Above, vol. ii., p. 324. - -[856] Above, vol. v., p. 110. - -[857] Vol. ii., p. 13. - -[858] Above, vol. v., p. 383. - -[859] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 156 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 136). - -[860] Liborius Magdeburger (Dec. 2, 1536) to the Town Clerk of Zwickau -Johann Roth. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” _ib._, p. 136, n. 3. - -[861] Enders, _ib._ - -[862] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 171. - -[863] _Ib._, p. 180. - -[864] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 44 ff. - -[865] Vol. ii., p. 101. - -[866] _Ib._ - -[867] Vol. iii., p. 46. - -[868] _Ib._ - -[869] _Ib._ - -[870] _Ib._, p. 126. - -[871] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 f. - -[872] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 117. - -[873] Weim. ed., 18, p. 299; Erl. ed., 24², p. 276. Paulus, _ib._, p. 28 -f. - -[874] Erl. ed., 4², p. 290 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 30 f. - -[875] Letter of July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299: “_In hac causa -terret me exempli sequela, quam in papistis et ante Christum in Iudœis -videmus.… Idem sequuturum esse timeo et apud nostros._” If on the other -hand they erred on the side of severity in the matter of banishment, the -evil was not so great. Paulus, p. 31. - -[876] Paulus, _ib._, p. 29. - -[877] _Ib._, p. 31. - -[878] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 17 _sq._ Paulus, _ib._, p. 32. - -[879] Erl. ed., 39, p. 224 ff. - -[880] _Ib._, pp. 250, 252, 254. The Commentary was printed in the spring -of 1530. - -[881] U. Haussdorff, “Leben Spenglers,” Nuremberg, 1741, p. 190 ff. -Paulus, _ib._, p. 34. - -[882] Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 163. - -[883] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740. Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 41 f. - -[884] Printed at Wittenberg in 1536 and signed by Luther, Bugenhagen, -Cruciger and Melanchthon on June 5. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 347; -“Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 195 _sqq._ - -[885] Vol. 32, 1911, p. 155, in a review of Wappler’s work. For further -details from Wappler and from the valuable studies of W. Köhler see -below, p. 266 ff. - -[886] Weim. ed., 32, p. 507; Erl. ed., 43, p. 313. - -[887] _Ib._, p. 475=264 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 45. - -[888] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552 f.; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 f., Letter of -Feb. or the beginning of March, 1532 (“Briefwechsel.” 9, p. 157). - -[889] Erl. ed., 1², p. 196 f. (_c._ 1533). - -[890] _Ib._, 39, pp. 318-320. - -[891] Weim. ed., 18, p. 148; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. - -[892] _Ib._, p. 148 ff.=68 f. - -[893] See Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp -von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” 1910 (“RGI. Studien und Texte,” ed. J. -Greving), p. 156. - -[894] Wappler, _ib._, p. 4. - -[895] _Ib._, pp. 12, 36, 85. - -[896] P. 204 f. - -[897] P. 37 ff., 83 ff. - -[898] Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur -Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 28 ff., 70 ff. Paulus, _ib._, p. 316. - -[899] Wappler, _ib._, p. 96 ff. - -[900] Hasche, “Diplomatische Gesch. Dresdens,” vol. ii., 1817, p. 221. -Paulus, _ib._, p. 317. - -[901] Wappler, “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 242. Paulus, _ib._, p. 319. - -[902] Wappler, _ib._, p. 164. Paulus, _ib._, p. 314. - -[903] Wappler, _ib._, pp. 155, 234. Paulus, _ib._, p. 311. - -[904] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525. This is one of the answers he gave to -opponents who say, “_neminem debere cogi ad fidem et evangelion_,” and -“_principes in externis solum ius habere_.” To the latter he replies: -“_principes cohibent externas abominationes_,” and goes on to add: -“_Cum igitur ipsimet [adversarii] fateantur, in externis rebus esse -ius principum, ipsi sese damnant_.” If they wanted an example let them -remember Christ Who drove the sellers out of the Temple. This he wrote, -relying on the favour which the new Elector had extended to his cause: -“_Nosti quantum princeps iste noster est evangelii studiosus_,” so he -remarks with satisfaction. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271. - -[905] In the Visitation Rules of 1527, Sehling, _ib._ - -[906] Brandenburg, “Moritz von Sachsen,” 1, p. 22 f. - -[907] Erl. ed., 57, p. 6. - -[908] Commentary on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 257 f. - -[909] Memorandum of 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 179 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. -105). - -[910] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., p. 251 f. - -[911] _Ib._ - -[912] _Ib._, p. 252 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 39. - -[913] Above, p. 252, n. 1. - -[914] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 346. - -[915] Comment. on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f. - -[916] _Ib._, p. 251 f. Paulus, _ib._, p. 36. - -[917] To Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg. “Ein Sendbrief und Vorred der -Dieneren zu Zürich,” Zürich, 1532, A 4b. Paulus, _ib._, p. 48. - -[918] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., _ib._ - -[919] _Ib._ - -[920] Above, vol. ii., p. 347. - -[921] Vol. iii., p. 390. - -[922] _Ib._, p. 392. - -[923] Above, vol. v., p. 399. - -[924] _Ib._, p. 448. - -[925] Above, p. 144. - -[926] Erl. ed., 20², p. 555 ff. Aurifaber assures us that he “took -down the sermon from Luther’s lips” and revised it “with diligence” at -Wittenberg. Paulus, _ib._, p. 57 f.—Cp. the intolerant sermon preached at -Halle shortly before, below, p. 274. - -[927] Above, vol. iii., p. 39. - -[928] Erl. ed., 54, p. 98 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151). - -[929] “Briefwechsel,” _ib._ - -[930] Weim. ed., 26, p. 223; Erl. ed., 23, p. 45 f. - -[931] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 349; Erl. ed., 21, p. 7. - -[932] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 104, n. 11. - -[933] In 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365. - -[934] Sehling, 1, p. 195. - -[935] “Ordnungen,” etc., Dresden, 1573, Bl. 132, 146. Paulus, _ib._, p. -318. - -[936] Cp. the Rescript of Sep. 1, 1623. Paulus, _ib._ - -[937] Hannoviæ, 1652, p. 861. Cp. _ib._, p. 858 _sqq._ Paulus, _ib._, n. -4. - -[938] “Practica nova,” I, q. 44, n. 45: “_Usu ac consuetudine saxonica -obtinuit, eiusmodi hæreticos seditiosos aut blasphemantes igne comburi_.” -Paulus, _ib._, p. 323, n. 7. - -[939] Paulus, _ib._, p. 49 against O. Ritschl. - -[940] C. E. Förstemann, “Liber Decanorum facultatis theol. acad. -Vitebergensis,” 1838, p. 152 _sqq._ - -[941] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², p. 212. - -[942] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57. - -[943] _Ib._, p. 35, April 18, 1540. - -[944] Luther to Myconius at Gotha, Oct. 24, 1535, _ib._, 10, p. 248. - -[945] “Corp. ref.,” 23, p. cvii. _sq._ - -[946] P. 25 f. - -[947] P. 29. - -[948] P. 38. - -[949] Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1906, p. 211. - -[950] “Ref. und Ketzerprozess,” p. 23. - -[951] Cp. above, p. 252. - -[952] “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 123 f. - -[953] _Ib._, p. 125. - -[954] _Ib._, p. 126 f. - -[955] “Die Inquisition,” p. 70 f. - -[956] _Ib._, p. 69 ff. - -[957] “Inquisition,” etc., p. 6 f. - -[958] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der RZ.,” 1874, p. 20. - -[959] “Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien,” 1885, p. 446. -Paulus, _ib._, p. 314. - -[960] “Die rechtliche Stellung der evangel. Kirche in Deutschland,” 1893, -p. 90. - -[961] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3⁴, p. 816. - -[962] “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, 1905, pp. 138, 187. - -[963] “Literarisches Zentralblatt,” 1905, No. 36. - -[964] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1896, No. 2, on Paulus, “Über die -Reformatoren und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1895. - -[965] “Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.,” 1896, p. 138. - -[966] Neander, “Das Eine und Mannigfaltige des christl. Lebens,” 1840, p. -224. - -[967] “Ursachen, warumb die altgleubige catholische Christen bei dem -alten waren Christenthumb verharren sollen,” Cologne, 1589, p. 354. - -[968] “Kirche und Kirchen,” 1861, p. 68. - -[969] _Ib._, p. 50 f. - -[970] Above, vol. iii., pp. 358 ff., 438 ff. - -[971] _Ib._, p. 358. - -[972] _Ib._, Cp. Paulus, _ib._, p. 74 f. - -[973] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 851 _sqq._: “Quæstio, an politica potestas -debeat tollere hæreticos.” - -[974] “Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch.,” 8, 1869, p. 264. - -[975] “Die Theol. der Gegenwart,” 3, 3, 1909, p. 49. - -[976] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334. - -[977] M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 70 ff. Paulus, _ib._, p. 33. -Luther’s “booklet” to which his opponents appealed is the letter of July, -1524, to the Saxon Princes, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 365. - -[978] Paulus, _ib._, p. 143. - -[979] _Ib._, p. 144. - -[980] P. 156 ff. - -[981] P. 166. - -[982] Paulus, pp. 223, 226. - -[983] Cp. Kawerau in Möller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 471 ff. - -[984] _Ib._, p. 474. - -[985] To Martin Frecht at Ulm, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 955. Cp. his letter to -Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558, against Schwenckfeld, _ib._, 9, p. 579. Paulus, -_ib._, p. 78. - -[986] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 983. Cp. on Franck’s objections to compulsion, -A. Hegler, “Geist und Schrift bei S. Franck,” 1892, p. 260 ff.—See also -below, p. 289. - -[987] Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” pp. 155, 223, 234. Paulus -_ib._, p. 311. - -[988] Paulus, _ib._, p. 75. Cp. vol. iii., p. 358. - -[989] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 274, 1542. Cp. vol. iii., p. 409. - -[990] Feb. 4, 1538, to Luther and “_Domini in Christo et venerandi et -amandi_,” i.e. the other theologians at Wittenberg, “Briefwechsel,” 11, -p. 328: “_Parata est paulo post satis feliciter per Christum ordinatio -ecclesiarum totius regni Daniæ a sereniss. rege_,” etc. “_Per totum -regnum Daniæ regnat Christus in omnibus ecclesiis_,” etc. - -[991] See vol. iii., p. 413. - -[992] See J. C. v. Dreyhaupt, “Ausführliche Beschreibung des -Saal-Kreyses,” 1, 1749, p. 982 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, -2, p. 1. Paulus, _ib._, p. 80 ff. - -[993] On this sermon of Jan. 26, 1546, see below, xxxix., 3. - -[994] Dreyhaupt, _ib._, p. 210 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 191. - -[995] To Lang the Erfurt preacher, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. -224: Halle, with the whole of its Church, had submitted to the Elector -“_beneficio altissimi Dei … a cultu Baal, a fanis idololatricis et omni -idololatria tandem expurgata_.” - -[996] Above, p. 240 f. - -[997] _Ib._ Cp. his letter to the Elector, Oct. 1, 1525, Kolde, -“Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72. Paulus, _ib._, p. 11. - -[998] To Philip of Hesse, Jan. 15, 1532. Wappler. “Die Stellung -Kursachsens,” p. 156. - -[999] His letter of 1533, above, p. 255 f. - -[1000] “Verlegung,” etc. (Wittenberg, 1536), Bl. A 4a, E 3a. Paulus, -_ib._, p. 71 f. - -[1001] “Prozess,” etc., Worms (1557). Paulus, _ib._, p. 72 f. - -[1002] “Ob eine weltliche Obrigkeit … möge die Wiedertäufer … richten -lassen,” Marburg, 1528. Paulus, _ib._, p. 115, correcting Enders, -“Briefwechsel Luthers.” - -[1003] Melanchthon, Feb., 1530, to a friend, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 18. - -[1004] F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog zu Würtemberg,” 3, 1844, p. 172. -Paulus, _ib._, p. 123. - -[1005] Chr. Besold, “Virginum sacrarum monimenta,” etc., 1636, p. 237 -_sqq._ Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 7, -pp. 80-90. - -[1006] “Von den Worten Christi, Matt. xiii. (v. 30),” no place, 1541, Bl. -C 1 to D 3, Paulus, p. 92 f. - -[1007] Cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 86-91. - -[1008] Cp. _ib._, pp. 100-115, with extracts from A. Wrede, “Die -Einführung der Reformation im Lüneburgischen durch Herzog Ernst den -Bekenner,” 1887. Cp. Wrede, “Ernst der Bekenner,” 1888. - -[1009] “Responsio de missa, matrimonio et iure magistratus in -religionem,” Argentorati, 1537. 2nd ed. 1540. Extracts from the latter in -Paulus, p. 129 ff. - -[1010] C. Hagan, _ib._, quoted p. 153. - -[1011] Paulus, _ib._, p. 155. - -[1012] P. v. Stetten, “Gesch. der Stadt Augsburg,” 1, 1743, p. 445. - -[1013] Paulus, _ib._, p. 160. - -[1014] On Bucer, cp. Paulus, _ib._, pp. 142-175. - -[1015] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 7, p. 91. - -[1016] _Ib._ - -[1017] To Anton Lauterbach, May 7, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. -468. The persons in question had already frequently communicated under -both kinds as a sign of their entry into Lutheranism, but had passed -unfavourable criticisms on certain measures of Luther’s. He commissions -Lauterbach: “_Ubi etiam pœnituerint, hoc exigendum est, ut hactenus a -nobis gesta et in posterum gerenda probent. Alioqui quæ erit pœnitentia, -si nostra facta damnaverint hoc est sua omnia per fictam pœnitentiam -stabilierint?_” - -[1018] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 322. - -[1019] Deut. xiii. 5 ff., above, p. 273. - -[1020] Erl. ed., 61, p. 7, “Tischreden.” - -[1021] _Ib._, p. 26. - -[1022] P. 8 f. - -[1023] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 377. - -[1024] “Werke,” _ib._, p. 26. - -[1025] P. 30. - -[1026] P. 11. - -[1027] P. 27 ff. - -[1028] P. 31. - -[1029] P. 14. - -[1030] See e.g. the next quotation. - -[1031] Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f., “Vier -trostliche Psalmen … an die Königyn zu Hungern.” - -[1032] _Ib._, p. 585=414. - -[1033] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 394; Erl. ed., 24², p. 112. - -[1034] _Ib._, 19², p. 273. - -[1035] _Ib._, 38, p. 177 f. - -[1036] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 235; Erl. ed., 39, p. 114. - -[1037] _Ib._, 10², p. 193 f. - -[1038] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83. - -[1039] Erl. ed., 61, p. 17. - -[1040] Cp. Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 56. - -[1041] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321. - -[1042] Erl. ed., 61, p. 5. - -[1043] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f. - -[1044] _Ib._, 11², p. 267. - -[1045] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323. - -[1046] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295. - -[1047] _Ib._, p. 317. - -[1048] _Ib._, p. 295. - -[1049] Erl. ed., 61, p. 21. - -[1050] _Ib._, p. 1. - -[1051] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 153 ff. - -[1052] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 162. - -[1053] Letter of Aug. 21, 1524, Weim. ed., 15, p. 240 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, -p. 377 f.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 538). - -[1054] Above, vol. iii., p. 154. - -[1055] “Briefe,” 6, p. 199 f. See above, vol. iv., p. 292. - -[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 549. - -[1057] Erl. ed., 60, p. 318 f. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 156 _sq._ - -[1058] See above, vol. iii., p. 234, n. 1. - -[1059] Ed. Const. v. Höfler, “SB. der böhm. Gesellschaft der -Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 79 f. - -[1060] P. 123 Lemnius says the following of Luther’s private life: -“_Dum se episcopum iactitat evangelicum, qui fit, ut ille parum sobrie -vivat? Vino enim ciboque sese ingurgitare solet suosque adulatores et -assentatores secum habet, habet suam Venerem ac fere nihil prorsus illi -deesse potest, quod ad voluptatem ac libidinem pertinet._” Cp. above, -vol. iii., p. 274. - -[1061] “Apologia,” p. 136. - -[1062] See above, vol. v., pp. 169 ff., 250 ff. - -[1063] Erl. ed., 61, p. 16 - -[1064] _Ib._, p. 7 f. - -[1065] P. 8 f. - -[1066] P. 17. - -[1067] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 249. - -[1068] _Ib._, p. 239. - -[1069] P. 167. - -[1070] P. 90. - -[1071] P. 154. - -[1072] P. 253. - -[1073] P. 109. - -[1074] P. 166. - -[1075] P. 403. - -[1076] Erl. ed., 61, p. 19 f. - -[1077] _Ib._, p. 22. - -[1078] P. 24. - -[1079] P. 25. - -[1080] Above, vol. ii., p. 377. - -[1081] Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the 2nd part of his German -Works (compiled from his writings). Cp. vol. 28, pp. 64, 89. - -[1082] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 529 (1534). - -[1083] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 407; Erl. ed., 63, p. 303 (1531). - -[1084] Erl. ed., 49, p. 163 f. - -[1085] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17. - -[1086] “_Ecclesiæ ratio diligenter habenda est._” _Ib._ - -[1087] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 128: a bishop -has no ecclesiastical authority, no “_potestas statuendi quidquam … quia -ecclesia est libera et domina_.” - -[1088] Weim. ed., 6, p. 300 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 107. Cp. _ib._, p. 296 -f.=102; the Church is chiefly “inward, spiritual Christianity,” though -she, like the soul in the body, has also an external existence of a kind; -P. 297 f.=103: She is governed only by Christ. “Who can tell who really -believes or not?” - -[1089] Weim. ed., 7, p. 719: “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 309 (1521): “_Dicet -autem, si ecclesia tota est in spiritu et res omnino spiritualis, nemo -ergo nosse poterit, ubi sit ulla eius pars in toto orbe_.” - -[1090] Erl. ed., 25², p. 440 (1539). - -[1091] Weim. ed., 8, p. 419; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 127 (1522): “_Quis -ecclesiam nobis monstrabit, quum sit occulta in Spiritu et solum -credatur? Sicut dicimus: Credo ecclesiam sanctam._” - -[1092] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20. - -[1093] Köstlin, Art. Kirche, in “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901. - -[1094] Weim. ed., 6, p. 301; Erl. ed., 27, p. 108. - -[1095] Cp. the passage quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 49, p. 427, from -“De servo arbitrio.” - -[1096] Erl. ed., 25², p. 416. - -[1097] Cp. the theological doctrine of the distinction between the body -and soul of the Church. H. Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” 1¹¹, 1903, p. -259. Tract iii., art. 2. - -[1098] Erl. ed., 25², p. 418. - -[1099] _Ib._, p. 419. - -[1100] P. 420. - -[1101] P. 421 ff. - -[1102] For Bellarmine, see “Controversiæ,” Colon., 2, 1615, 1. 3. “De -ecclesia militante,” p. 65 _sq._ - -[1103] Cp. above, p. 150 ff. - -[1104] Bellarmine, l. c., p. 65. - -[1105] Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” p. 227. - -[1106] Erl. ed., 25², p. 434. - -[1107] “Symbolik,” §49, p. 424 f. - -[1108] Cp. “Apol. conf. August.,” art. 7. Müller-Kolde,¹⁰ p. 153. - -[1109] The Church, according to his explanation of the article of the -Creed in question, is “the assembly of the Saints, i.e. an assembly -composed only of saints,” not an assembly of all those who have been -baptised. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², pp. 257, 278. - -[1110] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 21. - -[1111] Erl. ed., 66, p. 440 f. - -[1112] Art. “Kirche,” in “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, pp. 337, 349. - -[1113] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 262, with the quotation from -Erl. ed., 9², p. 285 f.: “In her each one must be found, in her each -one must be enrolled, whoso wishes to be saved and to come to God, and, -outside of her, no one will be saved.” - -[1114] Köstlin, _ib._, p. 269. - -[1115] _Ib._, p. 169. - -[1116] See above, vol. ii., pp. 267 f., 287 f. - -[1117] Prop. 23. - -[1118] Prop. 24. - -[1119] See above vol. i., p. 371. - -[1120] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 224. - -[1121] See above, vol. iii., p. 143 ff. - -[1122] And yet he declares later (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 15) that -he would gladly have acknowledged the Pope (i.e. sacrificed his doctrine -of the Church) “_modo evangelium docuisset_,” i.e. if the Pope had agreed -to his doctrine of Justification. Indeed at the end of Feb., 1519, he -says, in the “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell” (see below, p. 307) “for -no kind of sin or abuse” is it lawful to begin a schism. Weim. ed., 2, p. -72; Erl. ed., 24², p. 10. Cp. W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 20. - -[1123] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316. - -[1124] To Spalatin, Jan. 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 352; he adds: -“_Non ligat nec nocet ira Decretalium, quando tuetur misericordia -Christi_.” - -[1125] Weim. ed., 2, p. 183 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 296 _sqq._ - -[1126] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 250.—Other statements made by Luther at -this time must be read in the light of the above theory, e.g. his words -in the “Comm. on Gal.”: “As widely, broadly, and deeply as possible do -I distinguish between the Roman Church and the Roman Curia.” “They must -know that they are mistaken when they cry out that I do not hold with the -Roman Church; I who love so truly not only the Roman Church but the whole -Church of Christ.” “Comm. on Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 134 _sq._ Cp. W. -Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 24. - -[1127] Weim. ed., 2, pp. 399, 404 ff., 427, 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. -240, 244 _sqq._, 281, 284. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 255 ff. - -[1128] For his earlier days cp. the passage in “Freiheyt dess Sermons -Bepstlichen Ablass belangend” (1518), Weim. ed., 1, p. 384; Erl. ed., -27, p. 12: “If already so many and thousands more, and all of them holy -Doctors had held this or that, yet they are of no account as compared -with a single verse of Holy Writ, as St. Paul says, Gal. (i. 8): ‘Even -though an angel from heaven,’ etc.” - -[1129] Weim. ed., 2, p. 431; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287. - -[1130] _Ib._, p. 183 ff.=296 _sqq._ (Thesis 13). - -[1131] Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion,” p. 259. - -[1132] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §44, p. 399. - -[1133] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 387 ff. and vol. ii., p. 368. - -[1134] Above, p. 237. - -[1135] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 256, from Weim. ed., 2, p. 430; “Opp. lat. -var.,” 2, p. 285. - -[1136] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349. Augustine, however, is speaking of -truth in general. - -[1137] See above, vol. iv., p. 403 ff. - -[1138] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §46, p. 409, with the following quotation -from Luther’s “De captiv. Babylon.”: “_Christianis nihil nullo iure posse -imponi legum, sive ab hominibus, sive ab angelis, nisi quantum volunt; -liberi enim sumus ab omnibus_.” - -[1139] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398. The work is printed in Weim. ed., -7, p. 704 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 286 _sqq._ - -[1140] Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 _sqq._ - -[1141] Cp. the passages quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” §45, p. 405, n. -2: “_Christianus ita certus est, quid credere et non credere debeat, ut -etiam pro ipso moriatur, aut saltem mori paratus sit_.” Thus to teach as -a priest involved nothing very dreadful, “_cum verbum Dei hic luceat et -iubeat, simul necessitas animarum cogat_.” - -[1142] “Symbolik,” §45, p. 409. - -[1143] _Ib._, §45, p. 406. - -[1144] _Ib._, §44, p. 399. - -[1145] Art. Kirche, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, p. 337. - -[1146] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 427. - -[1147] Erl. ed., 26², p. 188. - -[1148] Köstlin in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 7², p. 716. Omitted in the 3rd -ed. - -[1149] “Christl. Welt,” ed. Rade, 1, 1902, No. 38. - -[1150] Weim. ed., 2, p. 69 ff; Erl. ed., 24², p. 5 ff. - -[1151] _Ib._,6, p. 477 ff.; 9, p. 302 ff.=12 ff. - -[1152] _Ib._, 2, p. 72 f.=24², p. 10 f. - -[1153] _Ib._, 6, p. 480=24², p. 13. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 303 f.; 9, p. -476 f. - -[1154] _Ib._, 10, 2, p. 232=28, p. 350. - -[1155] _Ib._, p. 232=351. - -[1156] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 86 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 337 ff. “Corp. -ref.,” 26, p. 151 _sqq._ Kolde, “Die Augsburgische Konfession,” p. 123 ff. - -[1157] Vol. ii., p. 179. - -[1158] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 428 n. - -[1159] “Confessio August.,” art. 7. “Symbolische Bücher,” ed. Müller -Kolde, p. 40. - -[1160] “Apol. confess.,” art. 7, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 152. - -[1161] Art. 14, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 42. - -[1162] “De potestate et iurisdict. episcoporum” (by Melanchthon). -“Symbol. Bücher,” p. 341 f. - -[1163] Erl. ed., 31, p. 348 f. (1533). - -[1164] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 230. - -[1165] In “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 435 ff.; Erl. -ed., 31, p. 126 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 222 f. - -[1166] See above, vol. ii., p. 112. - -[1167] “Symbolik,” §47, p. 416. - -[1168] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398. - -[1169] “Christlicher Gegenbericht,” 1561, Bl. Y III´. (The copy in the -Munich State Library contains the autograph dedication of Staphylus to -Joh. Jacob Fugger.) Also in the “Apologia,” by Laur. Surius, Colon, 1562, -p. 353. Cp. Bellarminus, “Controversiæ,” t. 2 (Colon, 1615), p. 58. - -[1170] “Centur.,” 1, lib. 1, c. 4, col. 170, in Bellarmin, _ib._ In -recent times Protestant theologians have divided on the subject, some -favouring more the visible, others the invisible Church. The latter are -the more logical. Cp. G. Kawerau’s statement: “We may dispute as to -whether the term invisible ‘Church’ is well chosen or not, but what it -means is clear; for what else is it but a decided protest against every -attempt to attribute within the domain of the Evangel, to a visible, -ecclesiastical, legally constituted society the attributes of the Church -in which we believe? Protestantism by its very nature cannot make of its -outward edifice an ‘_ecclesia proprie dicta_.’” “Über Berechtigung und -Bedeutung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” 1887, p. 12. - -[1171] See above, p. 265. - -[1172] Testimonial of May 17, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57 f. - -[1173] Testimonial of April 18, 1540, _ib._ p. 35 f. - -[1174] Above, vol. iii., p. 41. - -[1175] See above, vol. v., p. 250. - -[1176] Erl. ed., 43, p. 281. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 102. - -[1177] Above, vol. v., p. 191, n. 4. - -[1178] _Ib._ - -[1179] Above, vol. v., p. 170. - -[1180] _Ib._ - -[1181] _Ib._, p. 171. - -[1182] _Ib._ - -[1183] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 138 f. - -[1184] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 26. - -[1185] Above, vol. v., p. 180. - -[1186] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47. - -[1187] Aug. 26, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151. - -[1188] Köstlin, Art. “Kirche” in the “RE. f. prot. Th. und Kirche,” vol. -10³. - -[1189] Above, vol. v., p. 180. - -[1190] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20: “_Lutherus dicebat de usu -et necessitate consistorii, quod lapsam et pendentem ecclesiam iterum -fulciret_,” etc. - -[1191] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 520; Erl. ed., 31, p. 217, in the writing -“Von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern” (1532), Luther directs -“officials, judges and whoever has to rule” to ask the teachers who -were under suspicion: “Who has sent you?” “Why are you after setting up -something new?” “If this work was done with zeal it would be of great -profit.… Otherwise, unless they insisted on the call or command, there -would come to be no Church left.”—Concerning the provision for the -Church’s needs Luther speaks of the “duty” of the Elector to see in some -way that the parsonages were adequately supported “in order that the -Universities and divine worship be not hindered from want, from the needs -of the poor belly.” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331. - -[1192] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552. - -[1193] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 50; Art. “Luther,” “KL.,” 8², p. 338. - -[1194] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 625 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358. - -[1195] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 50, p. 8. - -[1196] _Ib._, 46, p. 226. - -[1197] Luther says, for instance, that, in earlier days, “Emperors -and Kings had commanded and instituted public worship in their lands” -(Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42). - -[1198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42. - -[1199] To Albert Count of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 -(“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90). - -[1200] We may quote the remarkable letter to the Town Council of Zwickau, -dated Sep. 27, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 146 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 88): -“My feeling is always that the two rules, the spiritual and the secular, -or Church and Town-Hall, are not to intermingle, otherwise the one -devours the other and both perish as happened in Popery.” Cp. on the -other hand, above, vol. v., p. 580: “everything must be equal and made to -intermingle whether it be termed spiritual or secular.” - -[1201] To Daniel Cresser, parson at Dresden, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, -p. 596. - -[1202] Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284. - -[1203] Mejer (†) und Sehling, “Kirchengewalt,” in the “RE. f. prot. -Th.,”³. Cp. the art. “Kirchenregiment”: “The Church, as a body separate -from the State, is something modern (?) and quite unknown to Luther.” - -[1204] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 22. - -[1205] See Emil Richter, “Gesch. der evangel. Kirchenverfassung in -Deutschland,” 1851, p. 64. - -[1206] Erl. ed., 25², p. 424 f. - -[1207] _Ib._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 424 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 122 f. - -[1208] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 129 f. - -[1209] H. Hermelink, “Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter” -(“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft., 98, pp. 37-70), 1908, p. 49. - -[1210] _Ib._, p. 66, n. - -[1211] Above, vol. v., p. 565. - -[1212] See Paulsen, above, vol. v., p. 57. - -[1213] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. vi., p. -148. - -[1214] Köstlin refers to the same thing when he says: “The fact that -there was originally in Christianity a well defined office of overseers -was either not recognised by him at all, or at least not adequately.” -Art. “Kirche,” “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³. - -[1215] Scholia to Romans, p. 248 f. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 323. - -[1216] Above, p. 297. - -[1217] Memo. of Aug. 22(?), 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 40 ff. - -[1218] “An die Christen zu Erfurt,” Jan.-Feb., 1527, Erl. ed., 53, p. 411 -(“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15). - -[1219] Above, vol. ii., p. 360. - -[1220] Sep. 30, 1533, Erl. ed., 55, p. 25 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 341). - -[1221] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff. - -[1222] In the Notes to the memorandum of 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 342. - -[1223] To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596. See the -text, above, vol. v., p. 182. - -[1224] Erl. ed., 26², p. 124. - -[1225] Cp. above, p. 320 n. 1. - -[1226] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 130 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 58 f. - -[1227] Erl. ed., 65, p. 177. - -[1228] See above, vol. ii., p. 297 ff. - -[1229] To the Elector Johann, Aug. 26, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 188 -(“Briefwechsel,” 8, 215). - -[1230] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 272. - -[1231] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, pp. 554, 563. In the 2nd ed. the -chapter has been altered and not always for the better. - -[1232] _Ib._, p. 563. - -[1233] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 339 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 396 ff. - -[1234] _Ib._, p. 338-396. - -[1235] Joh. Mensing, “Gründtliche Unterrichte, was eyn frommer Christen -von der heyligen Kirche … halten sol,” 1528, in Paulus, “Die deutschen -Dominikaner,” 1903, p. 25. - -[1236] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66. - -[1237] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, p. 546. - -[1238] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66. - -[1239] “Digamy” as a canonical hindrance to ordination is founded on the -prescription of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. For the history of this -impediment see Phillips, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, p. 519 ff. - -[1240] Erl. ed., 25², p. 427. - -[1241] _Ib._, p. 428. - -[1242] Erl. ed., 26², p. 45 f. - -[1243] _Ib._, p. 46. - -[1244] _Ib._, p. 43. This, some years later, was to form the frontispiece -of his book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.” - -[1245] Cp. what he says elsewhere: “The Church is an assembly of the -people which is founded on the invisible. It is the ungodly who see in -the Church nothing but misery, weakness, scandal and sin. The wise of -this world take offence at her look because she is subject to scandals -and divisions; they dream of a holy, pure and undefiled Church, the -Divine Dove. It is true that, in God’s sight, the Church does so appear, -but to the eyes of men she resembles her bridegroom Christ Who according -to Isaias liii., seemed torn, bruised, spit upon, crucified, mocked at” -(“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 14).—Luther was perfectly aware of the -works of holiness by which the Catholic Church is distinguished, her -penitential practices and life of prayer. Speaking of this he is fond of -depreciating it as something external and declaring: “Hence we must speak -differently of the matter and learn to know that the Christian Church is -holy, not in herself nor in this life, but in Christ; a holiness by grace -is indeed received here, but it is completed in the next world.” Weim. -ed., 30, 3, p. 408 f.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 304 f. Preface to Crossner’s -“Sermon von der Kirche,” 1531. - -[1246] Erl. ed., 26², p. 55. - -[1247] P. 66. - -[1248] P. 55. - -[1249] These errors constituted, according to Luther, a “flood of all -kinds of human doctrine, lies, errors, idolatry and abominations,” -“countless devilish dens of murderers in which the welfare of souls -suffers gruesomely” (Erl. ed., 31, p. 336 f.). - -[1250] _Ib._, 26², p. 53. Cp. _ib._, 31, p. 337: “The Church, or -Christendom, has remained and will stand, this is undoubtedly true.” - -[1251] Above, p. 330 n. 3. Paulus, _ib._, p. 24. - -[1252] Köstlin’s summary, “Luther’s Theol.,” 2¹, p. 552. - -[1253] Erl. ed., 31, p. 333. - -[1254] _Ib._, p. 332. - -[1255] _Ib._, p. 334. - -[1256] _Ib._, p. 332. - -[1257] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 552: “While he … repeatedly declared, -that, in spite of the Divine promises, Christendom had fallen into error -on certain points, he could never be induced to admit this of the article -of the Presence of the Body [of Christ in the Sacrament].” - -[1258] Erl. ed., 31, p. 339. Elsewhere he likewise admits, that, in the -olden Church and particularly in the convents “there lived many great -saints”; it was true that they, “the elect of God,” had been led astray, -“yet they were at last delivered and made their escape through faith in -Jesus Christ.” Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366 (1528). - -[1259] Erl. ed., 26², p. 46 f. - -[1260] _Ib._, p. 43. - -[1261] “_Augustinus voluit scribere iudicanda non credenda, sicut alius -locus eiusdem scriptoris testatur: Nolo meis scriptis plus credi_,” etc. -(“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17). Cp. vol. iv., p. 400. - -[1262] “_Ecclesia verbo Dei generatur, alitur, nutritur, roboratur_” -(Erl. ed., 25², p. 420). - -[1263] Mensing, in Paulus, _ib._, p. 25. - -[1264] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 13-25: “_Ecclesia, quæ regnum -Christi dicitur_.” - -[1265] Erl. ed., 26², p. 172 ff., “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel -gestifft,” 1545. - -[1266] As early as the Leipzig Disputation Luther had been obliged to -have recourse to the explanation, that by the rock was meant either the -faith Peter had confessed, or else Christ Himself. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, -245, remarks on this: “We cannot honestly deny its weakness.” - -[1267] “Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Parallelen,” Halle, 1876, p. 393. - -[1268] “Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.,” ed. Hilgenfeld, 1878, p. -115.—H. A. Meyer, “Kritisch-exegetisches Handb. über das Evangelium des -Matthäus,”⁶ Göttingen, 1876, says of Matt. xvi. 18 f.: “There is no doubt -that the primacy among the Apostles is here bestowed on Peter.”—Schelling -wrote (“Philosophie der Offenbarung,” 2, Stuttgart. 1858, p. 301): -“These words of Christ (Matt. xvi. 18 f.) are conclusive to all eternity -as to the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles; it requires all the -blindness of party spirit to fail to see this or to give them any other -meaning.” - -[1269] P. 185. - -[1270] Above, p. 305. - -[1271] P. 188. - -[1272] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 638. - -[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 - - Augustine, St., i. 12, 23 f., 76 f., 90 f., 92, 204, 210 f., 250, - 305 f., 400 f., ii. 225 f., 233 f., iv. 108 ff., 331, 335, 439 f.; - pseudo-A., i. 311 f., vi. 501, 515; - L. and Melanchthon disagree with A., iii. 333, vi. 336; - on works, iv. 457-464 - - Augustinians, i. 4 f., 9 f., 28 f., 68, 81 f., 147, 262 ff., 297 ff., - 315 f., ii. 89, 334, 337; vi. 473 f., 498-504; - Rule of, vi. 202 f.; - and Dominicans, i. 105 - - Aurifaber, J., i. 184, ii. 289, iii. 218, 224, 230, 239, iv. 269, v. 30, - vi. 372, 387, 391, 410 f., 416, 423 - - Aurogallus, M., v. 496 f., 499 - - Authority, ecclesiastical, ii. 31, 73, 74 f., vi. 163 f.; - secular A., ii. 294-312; - “A.” instead of State, v. 584; - L.’s changes of view about, ii. 196-211, 346; - contradictions, v. 601; - has nothing to do with the Church, v. 55; - yet must uphold Lutheranism, v. 56. - _See_ Freedom - - - Babel, ii. 34, v. 171, vi. 315 - - Babylon, Roman, ii. 13, 19 f., 56 - - Babylonian captivity, ii. 20, 27, 37, iii. 146, 407, iv. 510, vi. 302 - - Bachmann, P., iii. 63, iv. 100, 352 f., v. 123 - - Bachofen, Fr., vi. 493 - - Backsliding, i. 289 - - Balaam, iv. 337 - - Balduin, F., v. 295 - - Bamberger, P., ii. 345 - - Banishment. - _See_ Intolerance - - Baptism, infant, ii. 97, 372 f., iii. 277, 391, 395, 421, iv. 487 ff., - v. 292, 462, vi. 166; - of Jews, v. 412 f.; - is a sacrament, ii. 27; - mark of the Church, vi. 294; - B. and original sin, v. 451; - optional?, iii. 11, iv. 488 ff.; - works through faith, i. 364, iv. 486 f., vi. 310; - lost by L., vi. 197 - - Barnes, R., iii. 260, 428, iv. 3 f., 8, 11 ff., vi. 488, 492 - - Barnim XI, Duke, vi. 61 - - Baronius, C., vi. 437 - - Basle, ii. 422, vi. 38, 272 - - Baumgärtner, H., ii. 138 f., iii. 327, 337, iv. 222 - - Bawdy houses. - _See_ Brothels - - Beer, ii. 22, iii. 208 f., 219, 294 ff., 304, 306 f., 313 ff., 317, - v. 354, 364, vi. 373 - - Beger, L., iv. 71 - - Beggars, v. 562, vi. 42 ff., 55. - _See_ Mendicancy - - Beier. - _See_ Beyer - - Belief. - _See_ Faith - - Bellarmin, i. 91, vi. 294, 323, 384 f. - - Beltzius, iv. 219 ff. - - Benevolence. - _See_ Generosity, Poor-relief, Students - - Bennet, iv. 7 - - Benno, St., v. 123 ff., vi. 243 f. - - Bergen, Book of, vi. 419 - - Berlepsch (Berlips), ii. 95, vi. 124 f. - - Bernard, St., i. 18, 84, 88, 181, 243, iii. 176, v. 91; - his “perdite vixi,” iv. 88 f. - - ⸺ the Jew, iii. 301 - - Berndt, A., iii. 216 - - Bernhardi, B., i. 65, 310 ff. - - Berthold of Chiemsee, iv. 356 - - ⸺ Ratisbon, v. 77 - - Besler, iv. 221 - - Besold, H., iii. 218, 221, vi. 360 - - Beyer, C., iv. 282, vi. 358 f. - - ⸺ L., i. 66, 316 ff., 334, iv. 222, v. 353, vi. 263 - - ⸺ M., iv. 43 - - Beza, T., 278 - - Bible, olden editions and translations, i. 14, 28, v. 542 ff.; - looked down upon by Nominalists, i. 134 f.; - a “heretics’ book,” iv. 396; - “Bible, Bubble,” ii. 365, 370 f.; - Canon, iv. 400 ff., 505, v. 436 f., 521 ff.; - inspiration, iv. 398 ff., v. 437 f.; - interpretation, ii. 235 ff., iv. 387-431; - _see_ Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.; - L.’s translations, iv. 242 f., v. 494-546; - Revised B., v. 523 ff.; - “B. alone,” iv. 387-405; - Lutherans’ use of the B., vi. 431 f.; - the “paper idol,” vi. 271. - _See_ Word - - Bibliander, v. 421 - - Bibra, L. von, i. 334 - - Bidembach (brothers), iv. 221 - - Biel, G., i. 13, 91, 125, 132, 135, 140 ff., 151, 224, 243, 311, - 345, iv. 119, 440, 508, 516 f., vi. 433, 514 f. - - Bigamy, ii. 33. - _See_ Henry VIII, Philip II, Leprosy - - Billicanus, i. 316, iii. 447 - - Bing, S., iv. 15 - - Bishops, Catholic, i. 46 ff., 224 f., 281, ii. 28, 101, 103, 114, - 193, 210 f., 301, 387 f., iii. 440, v. 101, vi. 324, 404, 493; - Lutheran, iii. 428, iv. 126, v. 191, n., 602, vi. 315, 356; - L.’s offer to the B., iii. 330, 337 f., 343, 439 f., v. 190-198, - 329, 386, 601, vi. 239; - only B. are forbidden to have several wives, iv. 28 - - Blasphemy, utterances savouring of, iv. 292, 344, v. 198, 233, 310, - n., 407; - B. to be punished by death, iii. 71, 358, iv. 266, vi. 259. - _See_ Idolatry, Temptations - - Blaurer (brothers), i. xvii, ii. 153, 155, 157, iii. 304, 433, iv. 6, - 116, 196 f., 323, vi. 278 - - Bock, H., vi. 265, 313 - - Bohemian Brethren, ii. 25, iii. 152, vi. 316 - - Bolsec, J., vi. 385 - - Bomhauer, i. 244 - - Bonaventure, St., i. 84, 181 f., 346, iii. 176, 261 - - Boniface VIII, i. 339, v. 584 - - Bonn, H., v. 166 - - Books, on forbidden, ii. 58 f. - - Bora, Cath. von, flight from nunnery and marriage, ii. 135, 138, 141, - 173-188; - brews the beer, iii. 313; - “too rude,” ii. 379, iii. 229, v. 83; - “go back to the convent,” iii. 268; - gifts from sovereigns, ii. 139, iv. 8, 26; - after L.’s death, vi. 346; - and Agricola, iii. 216, v. 21; - and Cruciger, vi. 359; - in Letters, iv. 281 f., v. 199, 308 f., vi. 369, 372 f.; - Legends, iii. 281 f., v. 372; - and Melanchthon’s wife, iii. 365. - _See_ Will, L.’s last - - Borner, C., ii. 258 - - Bose, M. A. J., v. 271 - - Bossuet, iv. 71 - - Bozius, T., vi. 381 - - Brandenburg, iv. 195, v. 408 - - Brant, S., iii. 152, v. 540 - - Braun, J., i. 15, 127, vi. 206 - - Brenz, J., i. 316, iii. 50, 405, iv. 5 f., 167, 459 f., vi. 257, 408, 482 - - Brethren of the Common Life, i. 5, 46, vi. 35 - - Breviary, i. 127, 225, 269, 275-279, ii. 126, iii. 114, v. 316, - vi. 200 f. - - Briesmann, J., iv. 155, v. 152 - - Brothels, ii. 359, iii. 122, 227 f., iv. 176, 229. - _See_ Prostitutes - - Brück, C., vi. 40 f. - - ⸺ G., iii. 87, 123, 216, iv. 36, 40, 44, v. 197, 201, 385, 590, - vi. 372, 385 f. - - Brulefer, S., iv. 120 - - Brunswick, ii. 215, iii. 408, v. 167, 217, 394 f., vi. 35, 276 f. - - Bucer, M., joins L., i. 316; - disagrees with L., iv. 99 f., v. 237, vi. 354; - denies sacramental presence, iii. 354, iv. 498, v. 268; - shocked at L.’s language, ii. 155, iii. 417, iv. 326; - intolerance, vi. 271, 277 f.; - in favour of a Protestant Council, v. 176; - serves Landgrave Philip as adviser in the bigamy, iv. 15-62; - suggests a lie, iv. 114; - at Cologne, v. 166; - at Strasburg, vi. 46; - agrees with Calvin, v. 399 f.; - against Schnepf, iv. 198; - allows 12% interest, vi. 98; - a mediator, iii. 383, 417, 420 ff., 446 f., v. 172 - - Buchholzer, G., v. 313 - - Buchner, A., vi. 392 - - Bugenhagen, J., friendship with L., iii. 404-413, 432, v. 22, 173, - 175, 262, 328, 335, n., vi. 326, 347, 364; - at L.’s wedding, ii. 174; - untruthfulness, iii. 74; - coarseness, iii. 178, 229 f., v. 304; - “cardinal,” iii. 427; - “ordains” pastors, vi. 265, 313 f.; - disagreement with L., iv. 239, vi. 353; - parish-priest of Wittenberg, ii. 174, iv. 231, 273, v. 136; - L.’s confessor, iii. 437, iv. 249, v. 333, vi. 103; - panegyric on L., vi. 387 f., 443; - intolerance, vi. 273; - is called a Papist, vi. 410; - literary work, ii. 118, 399, v. 489, 499; vi. 438, 476; - missionary work, ii. 323, v. 167, 217; - poor-relief, vi. 57 f. - - Bullinger, H., his intolerance, vi. 271, 278; - indignant with L., iii. 277, 417, iv. 325, v. 115, 409; - on L. as translator, v. 520, 523; - on the bigamy, iv. 10, n., 43, 68 - - Burer, A., ii. 157, iv. 269 - - Burgos, P. of, i. 243, 401, v. 411 - - Burkhard, iv. 11 - - Burning of the Bull, ii. 51, 54, vi. 381 - - Büttner, W., v. 295 - - Butz, P., vi. 271 - - - Cahera, G., ii. 112 - - Cajetan, Cardinal, 340 f., 344, 357, 384, iv. 86, 302, vi. 487; - on polygamy, iii. 261 - - Calculus. - _See_ Ailments - - Calixt, G., iv. 310 - - Calixtines, ii. 112 - - Call. - _See_ Mission - - Calovius, A., iii. 138 - - Calumnies: - on olden Church, i. 79, 271, 283, 394, iv. 80-98, 102 f., 117-134, - v. 485, vi. 199; - on the Popes, iv. 90 f. [amend according to vi. 516]; - on Erasmus, ii. 251, 294, iii. 135; - on others, iv. 86, v. 106 f. - - Calvin, relations with L., v. 399-402; - as an organiser, iv. 280, n.; - “agonies,” v. 75; - predestinarianism, ii. 268, 271, iii. 189, 350; - vocation, iii. 140, n.; - intolerance, iii. 258; - on the Supper, iii. 354, 446 ff., v. 264; - end justifies the means, iv. 111, n.; - at Geneva, vi. 488, 490, 492; - Calvinism, vi. 414 - - Camerarius, J., relations with L., ii. 256, iv. 220 f., vi. 348; - with Melanchthon, ii. 145 ff., iii. 357, 364, iv. 61 f., 209, - vi. 6, 37; - as editor, ii. 176 ff., 180 - - Campanus, J., ii. 376, 378, 398, iii. 403, vi. 251, 284 - - Campeggio, L., ii. 380, 392, iii. 334 ff. - - Candles, ii. 321, v. 147, 282, vi. 410 - - Canisius, P., ii. 253, iii. 238, 376, iv. 385 f., v. 264, 296 f., - vi. 323, 384, 427 ff., 434, 437 - - Canon. - _See_ Bible, Mass - - Canon Law, i. 227, v. 183, 601, vi. 21, 188 f. - _See_ Lawyers - - Canonisation, v. 122 f. - - Canus, M., vi. 323 - - Capella, Galeatius, vi. 491 - - Capito, W., relations with L., ii. 6 f.; - against L., ii. 242, iv. 99, vi. 280; - on bigamy, iv. 6, 10, n.; - intolerance, vi. 277 f.; - despair, iv. 220; - dishonesty, iv. 115; - relief of poor, vi. 46 - - Caraccioli, M., ii. 6 - - Caraffa, vi. 488 - - Cardinals, iii. 427 f., 443, n., v. 108 f. - - Caricatures, in the German Bible, v. 528; - in “Popery Pictured,” in “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern,” in - the “Passional Christi et Antichristi,” v. 421-426 - - Carlowitz, iv. 69, v. 252 - - Carlstadt, A. B. von, friendship with L., i. 40, 304, 362 f.; - takes side of the Zwickau Prophets, ii. 97-100; - against L., iii. 183, iv. 336; - against images, v. 208; - Real Presence, iv. 493; - sacraments, iv. 486; - saint-worship, ii. 345; - vows, ii. 83 f.; - on Epistle of James, v. 523; - L. against him, i. 14, 91, 97, 101, ii. 154, 166, 374, iii. 4, 121, - 154, 177, 385-400, 409, 424, iv. 87, 308, v. 104, 399, vi. 280, - 289. Cp. vi. p. 478 - - Carpi, A. P., ii. 256 - - Carpzov, B., v. 264, 295, vi. 443, n. - - Carthusians, ii. 335. - _See_ Lening - - Casel, G., v. 127 - - Casimir of Brandenburg, v. 317 - - Cassian, iv. 110 - - Catechism, ii. 119, iv. 233 ff., v. 483-494, vi. 263, 433 ff. - - Catharinus, A., ii. 57, iii. 142, 276, 279, 303, vi. 323 - - Catherine of Alexandria, St., iv. 246 - - ⸺ Aragon, iv. 3 - - ⸺ Bologna (and Genoa, SS.), i. 173 - - Catholic, L.’s Church C., ii. 108, iii. 368 - - Catholics, act against their conscience, iii. 90, vi. 284; - cannot pray, v. 88; - have a beam in their eye, vi. 332; - know L. to be in the right, ii. 70. - _See_ Calumnies, Church, Intolerance - - Cato, vi. 16, 18 - - Catullus, vi. 18 - - Celibacy, clergy’s disregard for the law, i. 50; - assailed by L., i. 120, 276, ii. 83-87, 115-129, iii. 246-251, - 262, iv. 87, 147-150, v. 112. - _See_ Marriage, Preachers, Vows - - Celichius, A., iv. 223 - - Celtes, C., vi. 45 - - Centuriators, Magdeburg, vi. 313. - _See_ Flacius - - Certainty, need of, i. 308, ii. 368, iii. 9, 47 f., 112, 140-141, - notes, 146, 159, iv. 440 ff., v. 25-43, 323, vi. 283 ff., 302; - our lack of C., i. 95, 97, 207 ff. - - Chalice, ii. 99, 110, 321, iii. 10, 371, v. 216 - - Chamberlain, Houston Stewart, vi. 459 f. - - Chancery, German, iv. 244 - - Changelings, v. 292, vi. 140; - L. a C.?, iv. 358 - - Charity. - _See_ Love of God and Poor-relief - - Charles V, L. to, or on, C., ii. 20, 69, iii. 105, n., iv. 270; - at Worms, ii. 61 ff.; - against L., i. 340, ii. 79; - and Erasmus, ii. 256; - Hermann von Wied, v. 166; - Josel of Rosheim, v. 409; - Landgrave Philip, iv. 21 f., 68, v. 396; - the Schmalkalden League, iii. 430; - the Council, iii. 424 f., v. 380; - the Turks, iii. 88 f. - _See also_ Appendix I _passim_ - - Chastity, Catholic teaching and practice, ii. 120 f., 128 f., iv. 133, - 135, 138; - in L.’s view, i. 259, 362, iii. 243 f., iv. 147 f., 473 f., vi. 404; - L.’s C., i. 7, 19; - Melanchthon on C., iii. 325; - temptations against, i. 287, ii. 86, 161, n., vi. 118 f. - _See_ Celibacy - - Chemnitz, M., vi. 313, 415, 419, 443, n. - - Children, L.’s, iii. 215 f., 232, 280 f., 428, iv. 265, v. 108, 226, - 230, vi. 31, 373, 378 f. - _See_ Luther (Hans, etc.) - - Chrism, iv. 519, v. 101, 195 - - Christ, Divinity of, iv. 238 ff., v. 412; - almost forgotten, ii. 245; - darkened by Aristotle, i. 137; - formerly unknown, i. 135, 282, 320, ii. 92; - known only as the Judge, i. 391, ii. 281, iv. 103; - who did not die for our sins, vi. 245, 260; - the “weak” C., ii. 385, iii. 191, v. 227; - His Body omnipresent, iii. 396, iv. 495 f., vi. 253 f., 414 f.; - sole content of Scripture, v. 541; - His preaching in Hell, v. 48; - His “lie,” vi. 514; - “C. our hen,” i. 80, vi. 372, 501 f. - _See_ Faith - - Christian III of Denmark, ii. 139, iii. 413, iv. 75 - - Christians, L.’s title for his followers, ii. 108, 345, v. 172, 518; - what C. must do, iii. 52, 60, 69, 79, 81, v. 44 f., vi. 80, n.; - need no divine worship, vi. 147 f.; - nor government, v. 572 f.; - they are few, iii. 24 f., vi. 292 f. - _See_ Church-Apart, Evangelicals, Temptations, Worship - - Christina, Landgravine, iv. 14, 18 f., 24, 69 - - Chronology of the world, iii. 147, vi. 349 - - Chrysostom, St. J., i. 243, iv. 335 - - Church, iii. 22-38, vi. 290-340; - to be esteemed, i. 223 ff., 337, iv. 406, 410, 488; - L.’s view connected with Wiclif’s and Hus’s?, i. 106, vi. 299; - visibility, ii. 304, iii. 28; - criticised by moderns, v. 465 ff.; - _my_ Churches, v. 173, vi. 314, 356; - marks of the C., vi. 293-297, 327; - Church-Apart of the true Believers, ii. 104, 111, 304, ii. 25 f., - v. 133-140; - Church property, ii. 318, 327, iii. 33-38, 68, 234, 440, v. 203 ff., - vi. 51, 61. - _See_ Infallibility - - Chytræus, iv. 461, vi. 419 - - Cicero, i. 8, vi. 17, 376 - - Circumcision, iii. 256 - - Cistercians. - _See_ Mayer - - Civilisation, L. founder of modern, vi. 457 ff. - - Claius, J., v. 505, vi. 443 - - Clandestinity. - _See_ Marriage - - Classics, vi. 16 f. - - Clavasio, A. de, ii. 51 - - Clémanges, N. of, i. 50 - - Clement IV, iv. 89, v. 424 - - ⸺ VI, i. 134 - - ⸺ VII, ii. 392, iii. 424 f., iv. 6 - - Clergy, i. 46-53, 57, 283 f., iv. 127 ff., 169 f., v. 485 - - Cleve, W. von, v. 396 - - Clichtoveus, J., iv. 152, n., 353, n., vi. 437 - - Cloaca, i. 393, vi. 504-510 - - Clothes. - _See_ Dress - - Coarseness. - _See_ Unseemliness - - Coburg, ii. 95, 384 ff., 389 ff., iii. 87 f., 123, 175, 299, iv. 313, - v. 98, 117, 346, 497, vi. 106, 512 - - Cochlæus, with Luther at Worms, ii. 65, vi. 135, 143 f.; - on L., i. 17, 24, 30, iii. 303, iv. 92, 354, 358, vi. 431; - L. on C., v. 182, 303; - C. on Melanchthon, v. 267; - literary work, ii. 196, 212, iii. 63, 86, 276, n., iv. 380 ff., 522, - v. 591, vi. 405 ff.; - language, ii. 150; - and the Jesuits, vi. 428, n.; - death, vi. 384 - - Cœlestinus, J. F., vi. 415 - - Cœlius, M., vi. 132, 374, 377 ff., 387 f. - - Coler, M., vi. 255 - - Cologne, i. 42, v. 166, 233; - L. at C., iv. 171, n.; - Book of Reform, iii. 354, 447 - - Combats, spiritual. - _See_ Temptations - - Commandments, Ten, “unknown to Catholics,” vi. 200; - in L.’s Catechism, v. 485; - a bad law, i. 313; - not to be dwelt on, iii. 175, 226, 394, v. 454; - sermons on the, i. 361; - C. do not justify, i. 43; - need not be kept, ii. 28 f., iv. 454; - indeed cannot, i. 100, 144, 189, 207, 339; - hurtful to salvation, i. 317; - their object, i. 287 f., ii. 271 f.; - C. of the Church, v. 46, 246, vi. 316; - L.’s unwillingness to impose C. and precepts, v. 85 f., 139, 142, - 147, 179, 484. - _See_ Counsels - - Commerce. - _See_ Merchants - - Communicatio idiomatum, iv. 240, v. 456, vi. 420 - - Communion, under both kinds, ii. 99, 321, iii. 10, 330, 335, iv. 525, - vi. 279, n.; - of the sick, v. 464. - _See_ Eucharist, Mass, Supper - - Compostella, iv. 105, vi. 405 - - Concords (various Protestant), iii. 330 f., 421 f., 434, 436, 441, 447, - v. 176, 259, vi. 412, 419-423 - - Concubinage, among the German clergy, i. 50 f.; - recommended by L. to the members of the Teutonic Order, iii. 262 f.; - the Landgrave’s “concubine,” iv. 28, 40, 52 - - Concupiscence, i. 141, 207 ff.; - all-powerful, i. 73 f., 110-117; - destroys freedom, ii. 278 f.; - is a sin, i. 99, 203, 210, ii. 150, vi. 365; - identical with original sin, i. 98 - - Concurrence, Divine, i. 144, 153 f., ii. 233 - - Conduct, L.’s safe, i. 334, ii. 62, 66 ff., 69, 367, iv. 85, vi. 188 - - Confession, i. 10, 99, 208 ff., 290-296, 250, 380, n., 384 f., ii. - 59 f., 99, iii. 10, 210, 324, 410, 421, 437, iv. 21, 30-39, - 248-256, v. 74, 315, 320, vi. 340, 374, 496 f. - _See_ Penance - - Confirmation, vi. 410 - - Congregational Churches, ii. 98-114, iii. 22-43 - - Conjugal due, rendering the, a sin, iv. 152. - _See_ Marriage - - Conradin, iv. 89, v. 424 - - Consanguinity, iv. 156 f. - - Conscience, iv. 56 f.; - the only true C. is that which agrees with L.’s, v. 66-78; - all the Lutheran’s troubles of C. must be from the devil, v. 328 ff., - 339, 355 f.; - struggles of C., _see_ Temptations; - freedom of C., _see_ Intolerance; - _see also_ Synteresis - - Consecration. - _See_ Ordination - - Consistories, iii. 29, v. 179-185, 601 f., vi. 314, 356 - - Constance, Council of, i. 364, ii. 232, iii. 426, iv. 287 - - Constantine, ii. 309, iii. 71, v. 229, 594; - Donation of C., iii. 145, vi. 489 - - Constipation. - _See_ Ailments - - Consubstantiation, i. 162, ii. 320, iii. 380, iv. 495 f., v. 463, - vi. 415 - - Contarini, C., ii. 78, iii. 429, iv. 69, 359, vi. 488 - - Contelori, F., i. 354 - - Contingent things, i. 193. - _See_ Necessity - - Contradictions: the Schoolmen admitted grace, and didn’t, i. 150; - the monks were, and were not, zealous, i. 271; - death was a reason why L. should, and should not, marry, ii. 181; - the Bible errs, and does not, iv. 418; - God is, and is not, author of evil, ii. 281 f.; - hell can, and can’t, be escaped by those predestined, i. 192; - works are, and are not, called for, i. 255, iv. 447, v. 454 f.; - Scripture is, and is not, sole rule of faith, iv. 415 ff.; - God alone does all, i. 255; - yet man must prepare for Grace, i. 213; - freedom of judgment and yet binding creeds, iii. 3; - continence possible, and impossible, iii. 243 f.; - repentance out of fear, good, and yet evil, i. 293; - armed resistance lawful, and not lawful, v. 55 f., 58 f.; - Church has, and has not, any power of her own, ii. 295 ff., v. 597 - ff., vi. 329; - for money lent money may, and may not, be taken, vi. 91 f.; - on the Eucharist, v. 464. - _See_ Councils, Opposition - - Contrition, not necessary for justification, iv. 433 f. (but cp. iv. - 438 f. and v. 15); - nor for confession, iii. 210; - what C. is, i. 290-296, v. 12, 310, n. - - Controversy. - _See_ Polemics - - Conventuals, vi. 498. - _See_ Observantines - - Conviction. - _See_ Certainty - - Copernicus, iii. 100, vi. 25 - - Copes. - _See_ Vestments - - Cordatus, C., i. xvii., 395, iii. 178 f., 218, 225, 228, 231, n., 294, - 369, 371, 377, 414, 434, iv. 269, 461, vi. 391, 505 ff. - - Cordus, E., ii. 125, 220, 256, 342, iv. 176, vi. 28 - - Corpulence, ii. 157, iii. 296, 309 - - Corvinus, A., iii. 218, iv. 14, 25, 28, 74, 184, vi. 487 f. - - Coster, F., vi. 385 - - Cotta, K. and U., i. 5, iii. 288 f. - - Councils, Œcumenical, L. appeals to one, i. 359; - cannot err, i. 339; - can err, i. 364, v. 378, vi. 299; - a “Christian” C., ii. 50; - Rome’s efforts to assemble a Council, iii. 424-429; - a free German C., v. 379; - the projected Protestant Council, iii. 432 f., 441, v. 170, 175-179, - vi. 424. - _See_ Constance, Trent, etc. - - Counsels, Evangelical, vi. 89; - are really commands, ii. 166, 299, v. 46 ff., 56-60, vi. 80, n., 89; - with the exception of chastity, ii. 166. - _See_ Law - - Courage, ii. 27, 76 f., 367, v. 131 - - Craco, C., vi. 415, 417 - - Cranach, Lucas (the Elder and Younger), ii. 158 f., 174, iii. 300, v. - 224, 422 f., 425, 429, 495 f., 498, 519, 528 - - Cranmer, iv. 10, n. - - Creed, iv. 415, 483, v. 360, 473, 485 f., 554 - - Cricius, A., iii. 370 - - Critical acumen, i. 90 f., 181, 282 f., 311 f., iv. 174 f., 177, 246, - v. 153, 474, 522, vi. 335. - _See_ Apocrypha - - Cromwell, iv. 12 - - Cronberg, H. von, ii. 325 f. - - Cross, sign of the, iii. 83, 435; - mystic particles of the C., i. 88. - _See_ Crucifix, Theology of the C. - - Crotus Rubeanus, i. 4 f., 7, 403, ii. 3 f., 62, 256, iii. 403, vi. 28, 31 - - Crucifix, iii. 84, 132, v. 212, vi. 197, 225, 335; - taken to bed by nuns, iv. 106 - - Cruciger, C., iii. 171, 371, 377, 433 f., iv. 194, 299, v. 22, 237, 262, - 270 f., 499, vi. 5, 346, 359, 364, 417 - - Crusades, iii. 81, 83 - - Cryptocalvinism, vi. 414-423 - - Culsamer, J., ii. 344 - - Curæus, J., vi. 417 - - Curia, iii. 128. - _See_ Rome - - Curses, i. 209, ii. 13, iv. 295-305. - _See_ Maledictory prayer - - Cusa, N. of, i. 50 - - Cyprian, i. 243, iii. 250, vi. 339 - - - Daniel, ii. 57, iii. 84, 141 f., 148, iv. 134, 315 - - Dantiscus, iv. 274, n., 357 - - Dantzig, v. 216 - - David, v. 300, 579 f., vi. 253 - - Day, The. - _See_ Last Day - - Deacons, Lutheran, vi. 57, 265 - - Death, vi. 376-386; - Italian pamphlet on L.’s death, vi. 371; - L.’s wish to die, vi. 107, 341; - best d. for Pope and his cardinals, v. 383 f. - _See_ Opponents - - Decalogue. - _See_ Commandments - - Deceit. - _See_ Dishonesty - - Decretals, i. 367, ii. 51, iv. 303, vi. 338 - - Defiance, ii. 52, iii. 21, 394, iv. 317, 416, 511, v. 369, vi. 168 f., - 318, 396-403 - - Degree, academical, i. 21, 58, 127 ff., 285, ii. 130, 362, vi. 466. - _See_ Doctorate - - Demonology, ii. 389 f., v. 275-305, 427, vi. 111 - - Denmark, ii. 323, iii. 412 f., vi. 247, 273 - - Depression. - _See_ Pessimism - - Desertion, ground for divorce, iii. 252 ff., 257 - - Despair, L.’s reason for becoming a monk, i. 4, vi. 224; - necessary, i. 191. - _See_ Fear, Temptations - - Dessau, League of, ii. 213 - - Determinism, i. 116, 183, n., ii. 227, 241, 266, 284, 288 - - Dettigkofer, D., iv. 75 - - Deuterocanonical Books. - _See_ Apocrypha - - Devils, v. 275-305, vi. 122-140; - white d., ii. 348; - attend L.’s funeral, vi. 385; - “as many devils as tiles on the roofs,” ii. 62, 367; - Devil holds the Jews captive, v. 406 f.; - is a poisoner, v. 235; - a good dialectician, ii. 379; - kidnaps people, vi. 383; - lives in the water, vi. 372; - L.’s vocation, from the d.? i. 16, ii. 86; - cause of L.’s ailments, iii. 317 f., vi. 111; - sorely wounded by L., iii. 122; - the d. as L.’s father, iv. 358; - the d.’s embassy, v. 98, n. - _See_ Exorcism, Ghosts, Possession, Satan - - Didymus Faventinus, vi. 26 - - Diet, L’.s, iii. 211, 305, 309 f., 317 f. - - Dietenberger, J., ii. 222, iv. 101, 355, 383, v. 520 - - Dietrich, V. (Theodoricus Vitus), iii. 58, 216, 218, 317, iv. 12, 180, - vi. 130, 250, 391, 505 ff. - - Diller, M., vi. 275 - - Dionysius “the Areopagite,” i. 181 - - Diplomacy, i. 365, ii. 15, 21 f., 55, 58 f., 100, 109 f., 295 f., - 302 f., 321, 365 f., iii. 331, n., iv. 6, 39, 97, n., vi. 325-340 - - Discipline, Church, i. 57, v. 388. - _See_ Clergy and Preachers - - Diseases. - _See_ Ailments - - Dishonesty, i. 335 f., ii. 15-25, 49, 385 ff., 392, iv. 41, v. 111, - 537 f. - _See_ Gospel-proviso, Lies - - Dispensations, Papal, i. 271, iv. 3, 5, 18, 20, 156, 319, vi. 497; - Luther’s, i. 9, 358, iv. 30, 38, n., vi. 500, 504 - - Disputations, i. 310-320, 362-365, vi. 21; - early disputatiousness, i. 58 ff. - - Distractions, need of, iii. 179, v. 353 f. - - Divorce, ii. 33, 149, iii. 252-258, iv. 3-13, 156 ff. - _See_ Pauline privilege - - Doctor, Doctorate, i. 33, 38, 78, 281, ii. 375, iii. 157 f., 297, - 315 f., 320, 369 n., 391, iv. 227, 344, 346, v. 103 f., 304, - 384, 510 n., vi. 375; - “A great Doctor,” i. 20, iii. 177, iv. 330. - _See_ Degree - - Doliatoris, J., ii. 339 - - Domestic life, iii. 215 ff., iv. 280 ff. - _See_ Family - - Dominicans, i. 39, 105, 163, 179, 337, 339, 370 f., ii. 12, iv. 383. - _See_ Cajetan, Tetzel, etc. - - Doubts, ii. 79 f., iii. 112, iv. 218-227. - _See_ Temptations - - Down-heartedness. - _See_ Pessimism - - Draco, J., ii. 124 - - Draconites, J., ii. 256 - - Dreams, v. 352, vi. 149, 444 - - Dress, L.’s, i. 9, 276 f., 285 f., ii. 78, iii. 428, iv. 74 - - Dressel, M., i. 266 f. - - Dringenberg, L., vi. 34 - - Drink, ii. 87, 94, 131, iii. 294-318. - _See_ Beer, Wine - - Dungersheim, i. 24, 26, 168, ii. 145 f., 186, iii. 275, iv. 335, vi. 101 - - Dürer, A., ii. 40-44, 127, 158, 244, n., iii. 137 - - - Ear-discharge. - _See_ Ailments - - Eber, P., vi. 275, 410, 412 - - Eberbach, P. - _See_ Petreius - - Eberlin, J., ii. 124, 129, 162 ff., 189, 354 f., v. 215, vi. 62 - - Ebner, H., ii. 334 - - Ecclesiastes by the Grace of God, ii. 102, 345, iv. 329, vi. 400 - - Eck, J., relations with L., i. 262 ff., 313, iv. 388; - attacks L., i. 336, ii. 147, iv. 86, 101, 377 ff.; - literary work, iv. 457, 502, 513, v. 456, 520, vi. 87, 323; - L. on E., i. 179, 336, ii. 49, 51, 70, iii. 114, iv. 86, 182, 287, - 301 f., 319, v. 110, 282, 473; - E. in Rome, ii. 45 f.; - E. and Emser, ii. 222; - and Pirkheimer, ii., 39; - and Melanchthon, iii. 446, v. 267; - his death, vi. 383 - - Eckhard, iii. 163 - - Eckhart, Master, i. 172 - - Economics. - _See_ Usury - - Edemberger, L., ii. 170 - - Education, L.’s, defects of, i. 126 ff.; - of children, i. 362, v. 280. - _See_ Schools - - Egranus, iii. 384 f., 402 f., iv. 360, v. 42, vi. 289 - - Ehem, C., vi. 271 - - Ehrhardt, J., vi. 78 - - Eilenburg, ii. 319 - - Eisenach, i. 5, ii. 68, iii. 288, 421, vi. 125, 276; - Conference, iv. 50-55 - - Eisleben, i. 5, 262, iii. 159, iv. 361, 497, v. 30 ff., vi. 5, 372 ff. - - Election. - _See_ Predestination, Vicar - - Eleutherius, i. 314 - - Elevation of the Elements, iii. 393 f., iv. 195, n., 239 f., v. 153, - 397, vi. 353 - - Elias, the New, ii. 129, 163 f., 189, iii. 141, 165, 322, iv. 348 f., - v. 426, vi. 347, 391, 442 - - Elisabeth, Palsgravine, iv. 70 - - ⸺ of Rochlitz, iv. 16, 24, 27, 201 - - Eliseus, his trick, iv. 113 - - Eloquence, iii. 103. - _See_ Rhetoric - - Emotion, value of, iii. 179 - - Emperor. - _See_ Kaiser - - Emser, H., relations with L., i. 8, 27, 371 ff.; - against L., i. 79, 346, 366, ii. 14, 220 ff., iii. 127, iv. 324, - 354, 376; - L. against E., ii. 13, 51, iv. 182, 288, v. 307, 541, vi. 383, 512; - literary work, v. 123, 517, 519, 531; - E. and Melanchthon, vi. 26 - - End, justifies the means, ii. 156, iv. 110, n., vi. 92, 399; - of World. - _See_ Last Day - - Epicure, Epicureans, v. 116, 173 - - Epicureans. - _See_ Erasmus, Papists, Rome - - Epilepsy. - _See_ Ailments - - Episcopate. - _See_ Bishops - - Epistolæ obscurorum virorum, i. 6 f., 42, 91 f., ii. 3 f. - - Epitaph, L.’s, ii. 159, vi. 377, 393 - - Equivocation, iv. 28 f., 51. - _See_ Dishonesty - - Erasmus, secularised, i. 36; - edition of New Testament, i. 242 f., v. 510, vi. 454, 467; - “Colloquia,” iii. 443 f., vi. 16, 38; - for L., i. xxx., ii. 3, 9; - alleged saying, vi. 390; - against L., ii. 126, 154, 242-294, iii. 173, iv. 179-186, 325, 353, - v. 115 f., vi. 32, 36, 170, 429 f.; - on L.’s marriage, ii. 186; - blames L. for the Peasant War, ii. 212; - L. on E., i. 43, 92, ii. 219, 223, 267, iii. 135, 208, 403, iv. 91, - 100 f., 287, 329, v. 456, vi. 397, 429 f.; - E. and Charles V, ii. 256; - and Dürer, ii. 41; - and Ferdinand I, ii. 249, vi. 429 f.; - and Duke George, ii. 246, 261; - and Melanchthon, iii. 320, 346, 366, 369, 376, 443 f., v. 268; - and Stadion, v. 273; - and Vives, vi. 44 - - Erbe, F., vi. 255 - - Erfurt, i. 3, 6, 21, 58 f., 263, 312, 363, ii, 62 f., 336-362, v. - 213 ff., vi. 27 f., 326 f. - - Ericeus, iii. 436, n. - - Eschatology. - _See_ Apocalyptics, Last Day - - Eschwege, iv. 38 - - Esdras, ii. 235 - - Esther, iii. 253; - Book of E., v. 521 - - Ethics, iii. 200 f., v. 3-164, vi. 453; - in Occamism, i. 157. - _See_ Works - - Eucharist, iii. 380-384, 393 ff., 444 f., iv. 250 f., 492-499, - v. 74, 149, 462-465; - is a sacrament, ii. 27; - to be adored, iv. 239 f., vi. 353; - not to be reserved, ii. 320 f., v. 222. - _See_ Communion, Consubstantiation, Elevation, Mass, Supper, Zwinglians - - Eusebius, v. 411 - - Eustochium, ii. 121, iii. 243 - - Eutychianism, v. 81 - - Evangel. - _See_ Gospel - - Evangelical Church Evangelicals, ii. 108, iii. 96, 301, iv. 21, - 210, 311, v. 230. - _See_ Christians - - Exaggeration, i. 57, 124, 244, 283, iv. 343 f., vi. 22, 200, 216 f. - - Excommunication, Church’s use of, against L., ii. 19 f., 45-52, 90; - L. against E., i. 24 f., 51 f., 54, 66, 337, 371, ii. 231 f., iii. - 120, 146, iv. 85 f., 320, v. 122; - L.’s own use of E., ii. 335, iii. 324, iv. 209 f., 216 f., 245, v. - 19, 139 f., 143, 148, 186 ff., 603, vi. 263, 293, 316 - - Exegesis. - _See_ Bible interpretation - - Exemption, i. 283. - _See_ Dispensations - - Exorcism, iii. 411, vi. 137-140 - - Expectants, iv. 339 - - Experience, inward, i. 159, 170, 241 f., 323, 377, 380, ii. 233, n., - 277, iv. 391 ff., v. 7, 81, 161 f., vi. 127, 192, 234 - - Exsurge Domine, ii. 47 - - Extra ecclesiam. - _See_ Salvation - - Extreme Unction, iii. 7, vi. 410 - - Eyb, A. von, iv. 136 - - Eyes, L.’s., i. 86, 279, ii. 158 f., iv. 357 f. - - Ezechiel, iii. 84, 88 - - - Faber (J.) Stapulensis, i. 63, 92, 243, vi. 437 - - ⸺ J., vi. 494 - - ⸺ J., vi. 498 - - ⸺ (or Fabri), J., of Vienna, ii. 135, iii. 194, 335, 416, iv. 302, - 383, 514, v. 266, 529, vi. 323, 384, 516 - - ⸺ P. - _See_ Favre - - Fabricius, J., iii. 292, vi. 443 - - ⸺ T., vi. 494 - - Facienti quod est in se, etc., i. 144, 205, n. - - Fainting-fits. - _See_ Ailments - - Faith, L. begins to make more of F. than of works, i. 72 f., 121, - 133, 221; - what F. means to L., ii. 34, iii. 352 f., v. 38 ff., 444-449; - true F. is humility, i. 219, 252 f.; - it comprises the “fides historica,” i. 76, 377, iii. 14 f., 415, - iv. 413 ff., 432 f.; - and all the elements of Christianity, ii. 72, iii. 13 f.; - such F. is either complete or non-existent, i. 253, iii. 384, - 424, v. 398; - F. as a mere assent, iii. 18; iv. 432 f.; - articles of F., iv. 414 f.; - justification, due to Fiducial F., i. 377-400, iv. 431-449; - which is the one thing necessary, iii. 180-186; - and is produced by God alone, ii. 290, n.; - this F. is weak even in L. himself, iii. 201 ff., 415, iv. 275, - 441 f., v. 74 f., 130, 357-368; - this F. is Saving F., i. 261, 385; - it includes the love of God, v. 41 f., 477 (but, cp. i. 308, also - excludes it), - yet is no “fides formata caritate” which is a “thing accursed,” - i. 209, iii. 329, v. 12; - “by F. alone,” v. 515; - criticised by Schwenckfeld, v. 160 f.; - Rule of F., iv. 482 ff.; - “vera fides,” i. 170. - _See_ Reason - - False charges. - _See_ Legends - - Family, L.’s, iii, 42, iv. 232 f., v. 558 f., 561. - _See_ Domestic life - - Fanatics, origin, ii. 97 ff.; - they force L. to reconsider his theory of the worthlessness of works, - iv. 474; - and to insist on the rights of the authorities, v. 569 f.; - why don’t they perform miracles? vi. 151 f.; - L.’s attack on them, ii. 167, 363-379. - _See_ Anabaptists, Carlstadt, etc. - - Farel, Guil., v. 167 - - Fasting, i. 227, 339, iii. 226 f., 309, 428, v. 87 ff., 355, vi. 321. - _See_ Mortification, Penance - - Fatalism, ii. 263. - _See_ Pessimism - - Fathers of the Church, iv. 410; - Erasmus’s work, ii. 243, 253; - L. demands a return to them, i. 138, 320 (_See_ Augustine); - yet he dislikes their praise of chastity, ii. 120 f.; - their belief in free will, ii. 287; - and their ignorance of faith alone, iv. 335; - nevertheless they may be appealed to, iii. 380 f., iv. 409 f., 415, - vi. 336. - _See_ Tradition - - Faust, Dr., v. 241 - - Favre, P., iv. 385 f., vi. 427 f. - - Fear of God’s judgments, i. 125, 251, 294 f., 318, iv. 433, 455, 462, - v. 22 f. - - Feasts. - _See_ Holidays - - Feige, J., iv. 41, 54, 69, 113 - - Ferber, G., iii. 286 f. - - Ferdinand I (Archduke, King and Kaiser), ii. 132, 215, 380, iii. 89, - 276, 303, 437, iv. 162, 285, v. 404, vi. 480, 485, 487, 489 - - Ferinarius, J., v. 193 - - Ferreri, L., iii. 173 f., vi. 430 - - Festivals. - _See_ Holidays - - Finance, Papal, i. 51 f., 54, 347 ff. - - Findling, J., iii. 171 f. - - Fischart, v. 295 - - Fischer, C., vi. 61 - - ⸺ J., vi. 265, 314 - - Fisher, Bp. of Rochester, iii. 70, 428, iv. 9, v. 110, vi. 246 - - Flacius Illyricus, ii. 361, iii. 446, iv. 514, v. 219, 263, 426, - vi. 40, 207, 391 f., 407 ff., 412 f., 443, n. - - Flasch, S., iv. 160 - - Fliesbach, C., vi. 61 - - Florence, hospitals, iv. 481; - tale, v. 318 - - Florentina, the runaway nun, iii. 159 f. - - Fomes peccati. - _See_ Concupiscence - - Fontaine, S., vi. 385 - - Forchheim, ii. 345 - - Forgiveness of sins, i. 10; - a covering over, i. 99 f., v. 6 f.; - not an actual removal, i. 208, 210 f., iii. 182, v. 37; - St. Augustine’s view, iv. 462; - comes through faith in Christ, i. 115, iii. 183, 192 f.; - believer sins not in doing evil, i. 208, iii. 180 f.; - article of F. is fundamental, vi. 166, n.; - chief article of the creed, v. 95. - _See_ Confession, Contrition, Faith, Sin - - Formal principle. - _See_ Bible alone - - Forstemius, v. 500 - - Forster, vi. 271 - - Fortenagel, L., ii. 158 - - Fox, Bp. of Hereford, iv. 10 - - Franciscans, ii. 128, 254, iii. 166, 172, vi. 247 - - François I., ii, 168, iii. 424, iv. 69, 76, vi. 472, 480, 488, 490, 492 - - Frank, S., v. 83, 190, vi. 271, 289 - - Frankenhausen, ii. 365 - - Frankfurt on Main, iii. 71, v. 377, 400, vi, 35, 61 - - ⸺ ⸺ Oder, vi. 29, 41 - - Franz, W., iv. 469 - - Frederick Barbarossa, v. 424, vi. 443, 494 - - ⸺ II of Prussia, vi. 447 f. - - ⸺ the Wise of Saxony, his character, iv. 205 f.; - praised by L., ii. 7 f., 91, 101, iii. 167 f.; - his familiarity, v. 311; - passion for relics, i. 284 f., 327; - receives the Golden Rose, i. 365, n.; - L.’s strictures on F., i. 81; - F. protects L., i. 334, 340 f., 355, ii. 67; - restrains him, v. 587; - hinders his marriage?, ii. 183; - F. and Carlstadt, ii. 97 f.; - and Erasmus, ii. 246; - and Spalatin, ii. 23 - - ⸺ III of the Palatinate, vi. 414, 420 - - Freedom of the Gospel, i. 229, 251, ii. 27 ff., 34, 84-87, 241, iii. 9, - v. 476 f., vi. 447. - _See_ Intolerance - - ⸺ ⸺ Will, i. 100, 204 ff., 207, 318 f., ii. 223-294, iii. 349 f.; - in Augustine, iv. 458 f.; - according to Calvin, v. 400 f.; - Melanchthon, iii. 346 ff., iv. 436, v. 258, vi. 152 f.; - Schwenckfeld, v. 159. - _See_ Determinism - - Free-thought, L. the herald of?, iii. 109 - - Friars. - _See_ Monks - - Friedrich, A., vi. 133 - - Fröschel, S., v. 188, 280, vi. 137 - - Fugger family, i. 328, 348 ff., 352, vi. 83 - - Funk, J., vi. 408 - - Furtenbach, B., vi. 82 - - - Galatians, commentary on, i. 64, 66, 306-310, 386, v. 292 - - Gallicanism, i. 164 - - Gallows grief, i. 292. - _See_ Fear of God’s judgments - - Gallus, iv., vi. 410 - - Gangra, Council, vi. 489 - - Gantner, J., vi. 271 - - Gebhard of Mansfeld, iii. 64 - - Geiler of Kaysersberg, ii. 151, iv. 135, v. 290, vi. 46 - - Generosity, iv. 270 ff. - - Genesis, commentary on, i. 395, iv. 14 - - Geneva, iii. 448. - _See_ Calvin - - George, “Junker,” ii. 81, 159 - - ⸺ of Anhalt, iii. 215, v. 167, 192, vi. 347, 366 - - ⸺ of Brandenburg, ii. 384, iii. 50, 62, 314, vi. 263 - - ⸺ Saxony, iv. 187-193; - L.’s mystical advice to G., i. 228, 242; - preaches before him, i. 334, 369 f.; - at the Leipzig Disputation, i. 362 ff.; - L.’s rage with him, ii. 396 f., iii. 121, iv. 287, 302 f., vi. 243; - G. against L., ii. 395 f., iii. 275, iv. 101 f., 159, 192 f., 322, - v. 171, vi. 400 f.; - G.’s severity to peccant clergy, iv. 158; - G. and Arnoldi, ii. 392; - and Erasmus, ii. 246, 261; - and the “Leipzig poets,” iv. 173 ff.; - and Wicel, iv. 362; - G.’s sons, iv. 163; - his death, iv. 27, 194, 302 - - Gerbel, N., ii. 83 - - Gerhard, J., iii. 138 - - Gerhoch of Reichersberg, v. 553 - - German, Council, v. 379, 382; - G. language a barbarous one, v. 497; - L.’s influence on G., iii. 103, v. 504-510, vi. 15, 416, 443; - makes unseemliness popular, iii. 239; - G. nationalism, i. 403, ii. 10, 26, iii. 93-108, v. 129, vi. 390 f., - 446, 448, 457, 460 f.; - G. theology, i. 66, 87, 177, 180 f., 230, 237, 345, ii. 145, 225 - - Germans, L.’s unflattering descriptions, v. 534, vi. 4, 72. - _See_ Italians, Prophet of the G., etc. - - Gerson, J., i. 13, 84, 134, 142, 159, 173, 179 f., 233, 243, iii. 179, - v. 91, vi. 202 - - Getelen, A. von, iv. 383 - - Ghinucci, G., i. 338 - - Ghost, egg and feathers of the Holy, iv. 292. - _See_ Spirit - - Ghosts, etc., i. 19, 176, ii. 81 f., 95 f., 167, 389 f., iii. 118, 160, - 356 f., iv. 315, v. 283 f., 346, vi. 122-140; - L.’s ghost, iv. 300. - _See_ Devils - - Giddiness. - _See_ Ailments - - Giengarius, ii. 164 - - Gifts to L., i. 285 f., iii. 304, 314 f., iv. 8, 10, 26, 271. - _See_ Talents - - Glareanus, H., vi. 31 - - Glatz, C., ii. 139, 174, n. - - Gleichen, E. von, iv. 20 - - Glosses, i. 62 f., iii. 398 - - Gluttony, ii. 87, 94. - _See_ Diet - - Gnesiolutherans, iii. 375, vi. 415 - - God: the Hidden G., i. 161, ii. 239, 268 ff., 284, iii. 190; - G. “in se” and “quoad nos,” v. 441 f.; - Occam’s view that His existence is not demonstrable, i. 158, 161; - shared by Melanchthon, v. 269; - “falsehood” of the Catholic opinion of G., i. 190, 301, ii. 269 f., - 284; - L.’s gloomy conception of G., i. 113, 116, 187-197, 381; - fear of G.’s judgments, i. 10, 189, n., 294 f., 393, v. 473; - G. is not bound by justice, i. 196 f., ii. 292 f., n.; - commands impossibilities, i. 144, 188 f.; - works evil in the wicked, ii. 233, 270, 282, iii. 190. - _See_ Will - - Gödelmann, J. G., v. 295 - - Goethe, vi. 448 - - Golhart, J., vi. 265 - - Good intention, works, etc. - _See_ Intention, Works - - Gospel, rediscovered by L., i. 393 f.; - “my G.,” iv. 334; - content of the G., iii. 186; - G. existed before Christ, v. 8; - rule of G. quite distinct from worldly rule, v. 564 f.; - Gospel-proviso, ii. 384 f., iii. 330, 338, 343, iv. 96. - _See_ Law - - Gotha, i. 69 f., 262, vi. 326, 409 - - Gout. - _See_ Ailments - - Government. - _See_ Authority - - Grace, semi-Pelagian stamp of Occam’s teaching, i. 132, 141 ff., - 311, vi. 426; - exaggerated by L., i. 151 ff.; - need of G., 72 ff., 83; - means of G., v. 461 f.; - actual grace, v. 36; - G. and predestination, i. 204 ff., ii. 229; - preparation for G., i. 75, 144 f., ii. 226, iii. 210; - Catholics never know whether they are in G., vi. 193. - _See_ Justification - - Granvell, iv. 369 - - Gräter, J., v. 295 - - Gratian, i. 91, 311, ii. 51 - - Gravamina nationis Germanicæ, i. 52 f., ii. 66, 77, iii. 98 - - Great man, a, iv. 260, 330, vi. 211 f., 448, 457; - a G. theologian, vi. 349; - _see_ Doctor, Megalomania; - - Greatness, vi. 398-407 - - Grebel, C., ii. 370 f. - - Greek, i. 28, 128, ii. 235, v. 494, 509 f., 606, vi. 12, 19, 36, 38, - 431, 504; - G. orthodox, ii. 13, v. 175 - - Grefenstein, J., i. 25 - - Gregorian chant, ii. 171. - _See_ Hymns - - Gregory I, iv. 335, 464, 525, v. 252, vi. 515 - - ⸺ VII, iv. 110, n., v. 424, n. - - ⸺ of Rimini, i. 143 f., 159 - - Greiffenklau, R. von, ii. 65, vi. 383 - - Greser, D., vi. 61 - - Groote, G., i. 88, 173 - - Gropper, J., vi. 492 - - Gross, C., iii. 218, n. - - ⸺ E., iv. 128 f., 136 - - Grynæus, S., iv. 10, n. - - Gualther, R., iv. 10, n., 68 - - Guidiccione, G., iii. 425 - - Günther, i. 65, 312, vi. 216 - - Güttel, C., v. 19 - - Gymnasia, vi. 20 - - - Haarlem, whale of, iii. 148 - - Habit, supernatural, i. 155 f. - _See_ Virtue - - Hadrian IV, v. 424, n., vi. 494 - - ⸺ VI, i. 55, ii. 39, 165, iv. 371 - - Hagenau conference, v. 400 - - Hagiolatry. - _See_ Saint-worship - - Halberstadt, v. 220 - - Halle, v. 165, 219, vi. 272, 381, 384 f., 407 - - Hallucinations, ii. 81, vi. 129 ff., 172-186 - - Halo. - _See_ Portraits - - Hamburg, iii. 408, v. 218 - - Hamelmann, H., iv. 223 - - Hammelburg treaty, ii. 360 - - Hamster, Hans, vi. 255 - - Haner, J., iv. 470 f. - - Hardenberg, A. R., iv. 497 - - Harnack, A., on L., i. 398, ii. 72, iv. 483 f., v. 432-469, vi. - 63, 441 - - Hasenberg, J., iv. 173 ff., v. 519 - - Hass, J., i. 344 - - Hatred, of God, i. 389; - resignation to God’s H., i. 238; - L.’s H. for his foes, iii. 172, 412, 434, iv. 508, v. 98-116, 429 - - Haubitz, A. von, v. 591 - - Hausen, vi. 288 - - Hausmann, N., ii. 135, 205, 387, iv. 219, v. 140, 590 - - Health. - _See_ Ailments - - Heathen, salvation of ancient, v. 48; - their virtues, vices, i. 101, v. 50. - _See_ Missions - - Hebrew, i. 28, 35, 128, iv. 46, v. 410, 413, 428, 494 f., 510 ff., - 533, vi. 19, 36, 431. - _See_ Jews - - Hebrews, commentary on Epistle to the, i. 64, 251, 260 ff., 306, 378; - Pauline authorship denied, v. 521 - - Hecker, G., i. 355 - - Hedio, C., ii. 193 f., vi. 46, 58, 278 - - Hegemon, P., vi. 494 - - Hegius, A., vi. 34 - - Heidelberg Chapter, i. 298, 334, v. 13; - Disputation, i. 115, 315 ff., 334, 379, ii. 230; - University, iii. 291, vi. 29, 40, 414 - - Heintz, P., iii. 411 - - Hel, C., vi. 271 - - Held, G., iii. 215 - - ⸺ M., vi. 490 - - Helding, M., iv. 223, 384, v. 21 - - Helfenstein, U. von, ii. 131 - - Hell, predestination to, i. 102, 307, 312 f., 317, ii. 227, 239, 268, - iii. 329, v. 5, 438, 441; - according to Calvin, v. 400; - Mosellanus, ii. 242; - Melanchthon, iii. 347; - Schwenckfeld, v. 159; - resignation to H., i. 174, 190, 192, 237 ff., 376, vi. 220 - - Heller, S., iii. 314 - - Hemorrhoids. - _See_ Ailments. - - Hen. - _See_ Christ - - Hendriks-Hoen, C., iv. 493 - - Henry VIII, L. and the divorce, iii. 255, 260, iv. 3-13, vi. 488; - approval of H.’s cruelty, iii. 70, 428, v. 110; - L.’s rudeness to H., ii. 152 f., 211, iv. 302, 391; - H. and Erasmus, ii. 259; - and Melanchthon, iii. 357, 373 f.; - and the Schmalkalden League, iii. 65 - - ⸺ of Brunswick, iii. 124, 270 f., iv. 63-71, 97 ff., 288, 293 f., - v. 167, 236, 394 f., vi. 349, 407 - - ⸺ Saxony, iv. 27, 194, v. 124 f., vi. 243, 255 - - Herborn, N., ii. 254 - - Herder, G., vi. 446 - - Heretics, in L.’s fold, ii. 74, 379, iii. 398, iv. 245, v. 169 ff., - 238 f., 349, vi. 288 f., 343, 351 ff., 364 f., 398, 415 f.; - on H., i. 225, n.; - H. all begin by doubting one article, i. 253, iii. 384, 424, v. 398; - the ways of H., vi. 280-289; - their vanity, i. 225, 324, vi. 164; - obstinacy, i. 253, v. 349; - H. are the devil’s dwelling-place, v. 284; - not to be punished, ii. 301; - and yet to be punished severely. - _See_ Intolerance, Zwinglians. - - Herolt, J., iv. 120, 128 - - Hersfeld, ii. 68 - - Hervagius, iv. 183 - - Hesse, iv. 210 f., v. 141 f., 188, 408 - - Hesshusen, T., iv. 323, vi. 413, 415 - - Hessus, Eobanus, joins L., ii. 3, 43, 62, 256; - fanaticism, ii. 355; - at Nuremberg, vi. 6; - on runaway monks, ii. 124 f.; - on the decay of learning, vi. 27 f., 37, 79; - and of morals, ii. 342, 349 f. - - Heyden, J. von der, ii. 188, iv. 173 ff., v. 592 - - Heydenreich, C., i. 393, iii. 221 - - Hierarchy. - _See_ Bishops - - Hilary of Poitiers, iii. 381, iv. 110 - - Hildesheim, v. 218 f. - - Hilten, J., iii. 166 - - Hindrances. - _See_ Impediments - - History, study of, vi. 4, 19, 36, 437 - - Hoff, H. von, ii. 351, 353 f. - - Hoffmann, C., iv. 355 - - Hoffmeister, J., iv. 114 f., 352, vi. 384-498 - - Hofmann, M., v. 151 - - Hohenzollerns. - _See_ Albert, Joachim, of Brandenburg - - Holbein, ii. 158 - - Holidays, i. 227, ii. 253, vi. 430, n. - - Holiness, as a mark of the Church, vi. 296, 330, 332 f. - - Holkot, R., iv. 137 - - Hollen, G., vi. 68 - - Holler, J. L., v. 521 - - Holy monk, L. a, vi. 194 f. - - Holzhausen, H. von, ii. 184 - - Homberg, synod, v. 141 - - Home. - _See_ Domestic life, Postils - - Homoousios, iv. 240 - - Hondorf, A., v. 295 - - Honesty (in Bible-translation), v. 513 ff. - _See_ Truthfulness - - Honstein, W. von, i. 228 - - Hoogstraaten, ii. 14, iv. 302, 383, vi. 383 - - Hope. - _See_ Faith (Fiducial) - - Horn, A., ii. 361, n. - - Horns, L.’s, v. 109, vi. 398 - - Hosius, S., i. 105, n., vi. 385 - - Hospitals, iv. 480 f. - - Hoyer of Mansfeld, ii. 79, 131 f., iii. 276, 303, 312 - - Hubmaier, B., ii. 365 - - Huguenots, vi. 422 - - Humanism, i. 6 ff., 40-44, 91 f., ii. 3-9, vi. 30 f. - _See_ Erasmus, etc. - - Humility, source of justification, i. 214-219, 258; - L.’s H., ii. 16 f., 21, 366, iv. 273 f., 277, 327 ff., 347, v. 114, - vi. 209-212 - - Humour, i. 277, ii. 140-145, 183 f., iii. 281, 306, iv. 104, 257, 279, - 303, v. 306-318, vi. 350, 373 f. - - Hundelshausen, H. von, iv. 25 - - Hungary, iii. 89, vi. 480, 483 - - Hus, J., i. 25 f., 106 ff., 356, 364, iii. 143 f., 155, 165, iv. 188, - 317, 330, 417, n., v. 243, 389, 425, vi. 443 - - Hutten, U. von, i. 403, ii. 4-10, 54, 66 f., 248, vi. 467, 470 - - Hutter, L., vi. 443 - - Huttner, A., v. 215 - - Hymns, i. 278, n., v. 223, 342 f., 546-556, vi. 436 - - Hyperius, A., iv. 468 f., vi. 58 - - Hypocrisy. - _See_ Dishonesty - - - Ickelsamer, V., ii. 126 f., 130, 377, iii. 170, 302, iv. 337, v. 115 - - Iconoclasm. - _See_ Image-worship - - Idol, L. made into an, iv. 70, vi. 422 - - Idolatry, to stand by one’s statutes, i. 72; - to look on God as the Judge, i. 390 f.; - to honour Mary, iv. 502 f.; - to say Mass, iv. 507, n.; - to pray, i. 309; - L.’s gainsayers are all idolaters, ii. 316, 329, 364, v. 113. - _See_ Intolerance, Saint-worship - - Ignatius of Antioch, iii. 381 - - ⸺ Loyola, vi. 384, 427 f., 435 - - Illnesses. - _See_ Ailments - - Illuminism. - _See_ Rationalism - - Image-worship, iconoclastic riots, etc., ii. 97 ff., 244 f., iii. 391 - ff., iv. 411, v. 202 ff., 207-224 - - Immaculate conception, iv. 238 - - Immoral, L.? i. 26 f., 111, iii. 273-294 - - Impanation. - _See_ Consubstantiation - - Impediments, matrimonial, ii. 33, 150, 187, iii. 257 ff., iv. 10, 156 ff. - - Impotence, ground for Divorce, iii. 255. - _See_ Marriage - - Impropriety. - _See_ Unseemliness - - Imputation, i. 94 f., 155 ff.; - a nominalist view, i. 75, 122, 133, 161; - L.’s peculiar conception of it, i. 74, 94, 117, 191, 212, 214 f., - 219, 290. - _See_ Justification - - Incense, v. 147 - - Inconsistencies. - _See_ Contradictions - - Incubi, iv. 358 f., v. 286. - _See_ Possessed - - Indulgences, L.’s earlier views on, i. 35, 75, 324; - the quarrel with Tetzel, i. 325-356, vi. 510; - other attacks on I., i. 70 f., 149, 227, 260, 284, 296 f., ii. 16, - iv. 372 f., v. 472 - - Infallibility of the Church, acknowledged, i. 162, 323, ii. 50, vi. 253; - denied, ii. 301; - L.’s own, ii. 375 f., vi. 256 f. - _See_ Pope - - Infant. - _See_ Baptism - - Infidelity. - _See_ Unbelief - - Informers, L.’s, about Roman matters, i. 348 f., ii. 27, v. 382 - - Ingolstadt, vi. 431 - - Inkpot legend, ii. 96 - - Innocent III, i. 162, ii. 522 - - ⸺ VIII, v. 296 - - Inquisition, the Saxon, ii. 332, iv. 409, v. 592 f., vi. 241 f., 264 ff. - - Insanity. - _See_ Ailments - - Inspiration, L.’s, ii. 93 f., iii. 137 f. - _See_ Bible, Spirit - - Intemperance. - _See_ Drink - - Intention (“intentio bona”), i. 177, 190, 202, 205, 277 f., ii. 241 - - Interest, vi. 79-98 - - Interim, iii. 375 f. - _See_ Leipzig, Ratisbon - - Intermarriage of nobles, vi. 71 - - Intolerance, L.’s, ii. 72, 318, 331 f., 335, iii. 357 ff., 393, 409, - 439, 447, iv. 512, v. 567, 577, 592, vi. 237-280, 408 f. - _See_ Blasphemy, Carlstadt, etc., Jews, etc. - - Irrationalism, iii. 8 - - Isaac’s untruth, vi. 513 - - Italians, i. 54, 356, 339, ii. 5, iii. 94, 96 f., 130, iv. 320, v. 391 - - Iwanek, G., v. 373 - - - Jacob’s lie to Isaac, vi. 515 - - ⸺ the Jew, i. 35 f., vi. 497 - - Jaius, C., iii. 376, vi. 427 - - James, Epistle of, ii. 32, iv. 277, 389, 474, v. 522 f., vi. 446 - - Jena, iii. 385 f., v. 236, vi. 40, 412, 415 - - Jeremias, L. a new, vi. 161 f., 442 - - Jerome, St., i. 92, ii. 121 ff., iii. 243 f., iv. 164, 331, 335, v. 284, - vi. 413, 530 - - Jests. - _See_ Humour - - Jews, iii. 235, n., 281, 289 f., iv. 265 f., 284-288, 296, v. 30 f., 115, - 283, 298, 402-417, vi. 78, 262, 373 f. - - Joachim of Anhalt, v. 313 - - ⸺ I of Brandenburg, i. 349, ii. 214, iv. 302, v. 282 - - ⸺ II, iii. 71 ff., iv. 195, v. 20, 313, vi. 61, 76 - - Joachimstal, iii. 402, vi. 389 - - Job, iv. 266, v. 497 - - Johann the Constant, of Saxony, relations with L., ii. 240, 345, iii. - 35, iv. 206 f., 316, v. 496; - furthers L.’s cause, ii. 214, 331, v. 144, 576, 579, 587; - on resistance to the Kaiser, ii. 382, iii. 49, 51, 54, 325 f.; - and Erfurt, ii. 359; - one of the “Protesters,” ii. 384; - moral character, iv. 206; - not strong, iii. 37 f.; - temperate, iii. 307; - intolerance, vi. 241, 255 ff., 274 f. - - ⸺ Casimir, iv. 70, vi. 422 - - ⸺ Frederick, L. dedicates to him his Magnificat, v. 480; - opinion of Henry VIII, iv. 11; - and the Turkish War, iii. 87, 90; - and resistance to the Kaiser, iii. 70; - rude behaviour to the Legate, iii. 441; - interference at Naumburg, v. 165 f.; - invites L. to draft his Schmalkalden Articles, iii. 431 f.; - intolerance, v. 403, vi. 274 f.; - and the Landgrave’s bigamy, iv. 22 f., 27; - relations with L., vi. 341, 347, 394; - sometimes has a drop too much, iii. 307, n.; - a sodomite, iv. 60, 202 ff.; - his moral character, iii. 268, iv. 202 ff., 207; - is deposed, vi. 407 - - John the Baptist, L. a new, vi. 442 - - Jokes. - _See_ Humour - - Jonas, J., close relationship with L., ii. 174, 387, iii. 44, 52, 55, - 57, 70, 300 f., 348, 367, 413-416, 432, v. 138, 175, 197, 231, 333, - vi. 222, 326, 372 ff.; - translates L.’s works into Latin, ii. 264, iv. 521 f., v. 382, 403 f.; - help in the German Bible, v. 499 f.; - missionary work, iv. 194, v. 124 f., 165, vi. 273 f.; - assists at ordinations, vi. 314, 347; - promotes the Consistories, iii. 31, v. 181, 183 f.; - acts as judge, iii. 171, 401 f., v. 20, vi. 281; - fanaticism, iii. 131, iv. 299, 510 f.; - a misunderstanding with L., v. 107; - his writing paper, ii. 144; - his melancholy, iv. 219; - and the bigamy, iv. 26, 36, 43; - and Wicel, v. 43; - present at L.’s death, his panegyric, iv. 244, 348, vi. 373, 380 f., - 387 f., 396 - - ⸺ Prophet, v. 532 - - Jordan of Saxony, vi. 236 - - Jörger, D., vi. 92 - - Josel of Rosheim, v. 403, 408 f. - - Jovian, iii. 41, vi. 355 - - Jubilee Year, vi. 86 - - Judae, L., iii. 227, 302, 417 - - Judas, ii. 282, iii. 190, v. 352 - - Jude, epistle of, v. 522 - - Judex, M., vi. 410 - - Judge. - _See_ Christ - - Judgment. - _See_ God, Last Day - - Julius II, i. 55, 228, 339, 351, vi. 516 - - ⸺ III, vi. 436 - - Juncker, C., iii. 292, vi. 289, n. - - Justice, of God, i. 391, 388-402, iv. 93 f., vi. 190; - human J., i. 150; - the twofold and threefold “justice,” i. 387; - natural and supernatural, v. 49-52; - “justice” becomes “piety,” v. 514; - commutative, v. 58, 117 ff.; - reaching of J., i. 71 ff., vi. 195; - “formalis justitia,” iv. 460. - _See_ Justification - - Justification, according to L., iv. 432-449, v. 453-461; - consists in a being declared just, i. 213 ff.; - the fear of its absence is the sign of its presence, i. 218, 302; - is ever doubtful, i. 97; - preparation for, i. 213 f.; - its preaching makes the congregation snore, iv. 232. - _See_ Certainty, Faith, Grace, Humility, Imputation - - Justinian, ii. 269, vi. 91 - - Justitiarii, i. 148, 199 ff., iv. 170 - - Juvenal, vi. 18 - - - Kaiser, iii. 48-54. - _See_ Charles V, etc., Resistance - - Kalteisen, H., i. 346 - - Karg, G., iii. 171, vi. 275 - - Kaufmann, F., iii. 217, vi. 358 - - ⸺ M., iii. 216 f., v. 344 - - Kauxdorf, A., ii. 319 - - Kern, J., iv. 172 f. - - Kessler, J., ii, 157 ff., iv. 268, 357 f. - - Khummer, C., i. 396, vi. 505 ff. - - Kingdom of God _v._ Kingdom of the World, ii. 297; - consists in forgiveness of sins, iv. 448 - - Kirchner, T., vi. 415 - - Kleindienst, B., iv. 95, 101 - - Kliefoth, v. 150 - - Kling, C., ii. 355, v. 341, vi. 326 - - ⸺ M., iv. 289, vi. 356 - - Klingenbeyl, S., vi. 157, n. - - Kneusel, B., v. 203 - - Knights, ii. 26, 56, 66 f., 197, vi. 402; - Teutonic, ii. 120, 223, iii. 16, 262, iv. 196 - - Koch, V., vi. 4 - - Kohlhase, Hans, v. 117-119 - - Kokeritz, C. von, iii. 72 - - Kolb, F., iv. 493 - - Kollin, C., ii. 154, iv. 383 - - Königsberg, v. 216, vi. 41, 408 - - Koppe, L., ii. 136 - - Koran, v. 419, 421 - - Körner, W., vi. 419 - - Koss, J., iv. 303 f. - - Kötteritz, S. von, vi. 49 - - Krafft, U., iii. 238 - - Kraft, A., ii. 256, iv. 25 - - Kramer, M., iv. 158, 208, n. - - Krapp, C., iii. 365 - - Kraus, J., v. 373 - - Krautwald, V., v. 79 - - Krug, N., v. 295 - - Kultur. - _See_ Civilisation - - - Lagarde, P. de, v. 512, vi. 449 - - Lainez, vi. 90, 435 - - Laing, J., vi. 385 - - Laity, i. 281, ii. 103, v. 178. - _See_ Clergy - - Lamb of God, iv. 123, 517 - - Lambert, Fr., of Avignon, ii. 137, v. 141 f., vi. 8, 475, 479 - - Landau, J., iii. 304, vi. 376, n., 379 f. - - Lang, J., at Erfurt, i. 40; - relations with the Humanists, i. 28, ii. 256; - love for mysticism, i. 41, 84, 169, 264 f., 280; - L.’s right hand man, i. 7, 265 f., ii. 342, vi. 114, 116, 118; - translates Matthew, v. 546; - succeeds L. as Augustinian Vicar, i. 315, 334; - promotes the apostasy of Erfurt, ii. 337, 340; - causes scandal, ii. 123, 355; - intolerance, ii. 354; - difficulties with his flock, vi. 326 ff. - - ⸺ P., i. 353 - - Langen, R. von, vi. 34 - - Language, L.’s, advantages, iii. 103, iv. 242 ff.; - defects, ii. 153 f., 198, iii. 172. - _See_ Abusive L., German L., Unseemliness - - Languages, vi. 3, 12, 15, 25 f., 83, 436 f. - - Lasco, vi. 58 - - Lasius, C., vi. 412 - - Last Day, v. 241-252; - will come in less than a century (v. 393) now that L. has shown up - the Roman Antichrist, ii. 56, 103, iii. 147; - signs of its nearness, ii. 168, 200 f.; - among them the prevalence of syphilis, ii. 162; - and of melancholy, iv. 224; - also the bad morals of the New Believers, iii. 165, iv. 218, v. 180; - the dissensions rampant among them, v. 170 f.; - the inroads of the Turks, iii. 82, 84, 88, 92, v. 418; - its expectation a ground for L.’s marriage, ii. 181; - as an explanation of his lack of missionary zeal, vi. 515; - does not prove L. a man of strong faith, v. 361; - its pathological character, vi. 154 - - Lateran Councils, i. 162, vi. 34, 503 - - Latin, iii. 396, 428, v. 146, 508 - - Latomus, iv. 329, vi. 384, 473. - _See_ Louvain - - Lauterbach, A., i. xx., 394, iii. 163, 218 ff., 223, 230, v. 169, 188, - iv. 342, 391, 505 ff. - - Lauterbecken, G., vi. 98 - - Lauze, W., iv. 202 - - Law and Gospel, iv. 459, v. 7-14, 24, 323, 451; - hard to distinguish, ii. 375, iv. 227, vi. 204 f.; - mosaic L., iii. 387, 394 f. - _See_ Antinomians, Commandments, Natural L., Schwenckfeld - - Lawyers, attacked by L., i. 202, iii. 39 ff., 56 f., 233, 411, iv. - 228 ff., v. 207, 293 ff., vi. 355-361 - - Learning. - _See_ Schools - - Legends, L.’s, about his early life, vi. 187-236; - about the olden Church, iv. 116-178; - Legends about L., i. 111, n., ii. 69-74, 94 ff., iii. 278-294, - v. 367-374, vi. 381-386; - Legends of the Saints. - _See_ Critical acumen - - Leib, K., ii. 39, 253, iv. 354 - - Leiffer, G., i. 88, 274 - - Leipzig Disputation, i. 362 ff.; - Interim, iii. 375, v. 263, vi. 410, 412; - University, vi. 29; - L.’s last visit, vi. 348 - - Leisentritt, J., vi. 436 - - Leisnig, v. 136 ff., 142, vi. 49 ff. - - Lemnius, S., ii. 188, iii. 233 f., 274, 297, 302, iv. 292, vi. 287 ff. - - Lening, J., iv. 24 f., 65 ff., 201 - - Leo X, and Albert of Mayence, i. 348-354; - takes steps against Luther, i. 333, 341, ii. 45; - his Bulls, ii. 39, 52 f.; - Luther’s letter, i. 335, 340, ii. 17 ff., 30, vi. 218 - - Leprosy, ground for bigamy or divorce, iii. 255, iv. 20 - - Lessing, vi. 446, 448 - - Leyser, P., iv. 469 - - Libraries, v. 215, vi. 19 - - Lichtenberg, ii. 317 - - Lichtenberger, J., iii. 167, iv. 330 - - Liége, vi. 35 - - Lies, iv. 28 f., 51, 55, 80-178, vi. 191, 513 ff. - _See_ Abraham, etc., Dishonesty - - Lights. - _See_ Candles - - Liguori, v. 469, n. - - Lindanus, W., vi. 385 - - Link, W., Luther’s intimate, i. 40, 264, 359, ii. 184, iii. 54, 60, 121, - n., 143 f., 424, iv. 96, v. 516; - resigns his office as General Vicar and goes to Altenburg, i. 315 f., - vi. 49, 52, 242; - at Nuremberg, ii. 335 f., v. 172 f., 186; - his temptations, v. 338 f. - - Litany, iii. 412, vi. 482 - - Liturgy. - _See_ Worship - - Lochau, v. 251 - - Locher, J., iii. 152 - - Lombard, Peter, i. 12, 22, 86, 91, 98, 150, 243, 305, 311, 410, vi. 21 - - Löscher, T., vi. 316 - - Lotichius, N., v. 295 - - Lotther (or Lother), the printer, ii. 367, v. 498 - - Louis of Bavaria, ii. 380, iii. 430 - - ⸺ the Palatinate, vi. 420 - - Louvain, the town, vi. 35, 38, 43; - the theologians, ii. 46, vi. 328, 348 f. - _See_ Latomus - - Love of God, perfect, i. 158, 172, 191, 194, 236, 238 f., 308, v. 33 f.; - imperfect is mere egotism, i. 251; - required together with faith for justification, i. 207, ii. 240. - _See_ Faith. - - Love of one’s neighbour, _see_ Poor-relief - - Lübeck, iii. 64 f., 408, 410 - - Ludel, T., iii. 285 - - Ludicke, J., iii. 72 - - Luft (Lufft), Hans, the printer, v. 498, 502 - - Lüneburg, ii. 384, vi. 276 - - Lupinus, P., i. 304, iii. 389 - - Luscinius, O., iv. 471, vi. 31 - - Lute-playing, i. 7, ii. 131, 157, iii. 288 - - Luther, spelling of the name, i. 6, 264; - Hans, the father, i. 5, 15 f., 19, 25, ii. 86, 182, 216, iii. 308, - iv. 265, v. 230, vi. 182 f., 224; - Hans, the son, iii. 216, iv. 181, vi. 346, 368, 371, 509; - Catherine L., _see_ Bora; - James L., v. 108; - Paul L., i. 33, vi. 378 f., 496. - _See_ Children - - Lutherans, ii. 108, vi. 476. - _See_ Christians - - Lutz, R., v. 296 - - Lycosthenes, C., iii. 152 - - Lyra, N., of, i. 92, 243, 401, ii. 237, v. 413, 535 - - - Macarius, St., ii. 379 - - ⸺ Magnes, iii. 381 - - Macchiavelli, vi. 57 - - Machabees, 2nd Book, iv. 505 f. - - Madness, is from the devil, v. 280. - _See_ Ailments (Insanity) - - Magdeburg, i. 5, iii. 64, 442, v. 219 f., 236, vi. 5, 35, 408, 413 - - Magdeburgius, J., iv. 225 - - Magenbuch, J., ii. 162 f., iv. 349 - - Magi, their lie to Herod, vi. 514. - _See_ Three Kings - - Magic, v. 240 f., 277, 284 f. - _See_ Superstition, Witches. - M. in the sacraments, i. 248 - - Magnus of Mecklenburg, iii. 371 - - Major, G., v. 262, 265, vi. 272, 364, 408 ff., 412, 494 - - Maladies. - _See_ Ailments - - Maledictory prayer, iii. 172, 208, 437 f., v. 94. - _See_ Curses - - Malipiero, iii. 152 - - Malsburg, H. von der, iv. 25 - - Maltitz, J. von, vi. 516 - - Malvasian wine, ii. 131, iii. 297 - - Man. - _See_ Great M. - - Mania. - _See_ Madness - - Manichæans, ii. 376, iii. 259, vi. 413, 415 - - Mansfeld, i. 5, ii. 131, iv. 165, vi. 132, 350 f. - - Mantel, J., iv. 210 - - Mantua, Council, iii. 425, 428 f., vi. 488 - - Marbach, J., vi. 275, 493 - - Marburg, archives, iii. 51; - Conference, ii. 334, 390, iii. 328, 342, 381, 382 f., 416, v. 340, - 531 f.; - University, vi. 40 - - Marcion, i. 300 - - Marcolfus, iii. 268, iv. 45 f. - - Margaritha, A., v. 411 - - Marguérin de la Bigne, vi. 438 - - Marienwerder, v. 216 - - Marquard, iv. 120 - - Marriage, iii. 241-273, 324 f., iv. 129-178; - L.’s charges against the Papists, v. 112, vi. 232; - did he better it? ii. 148 ff., v. 283; - M. secularised, iii. 38-42; - a remedy against fornication, ii. 116 ff., 142, vi. 166; - impediments, iii. 290 f.; - is commanded, ii. 166; - clandestine M., ii. 120, 149, n., iii. 39 ff., iv. 289 f., - vi. 355-359; - with brother of impotent man, ii. 33 f.; - exchange of wives, iv. 160. - _See_ Actus matrimonialis, Bigamy, Divorce, Impediments, - Intermarriage, Leprosy, Sacraments, Women - L.’s M., _see_ Wedding - - Marschalk, i. 263 - - Marsupino, v. 382 - - Martial, vi. 18 - - Mary, Virgin, L. on honour paid to the, iv. 235-238, 500-503, v. 146, - 476; - conceived without sin, iv. 238, n.; - her virginity, v. 446; - on the Hail M., iv. 502, v. 478, 480, 517. - _See_ Saint-worship - - Mascov, G., i. 83, 267 f. - - Mass, iv. 506-527; - L.’s first M., i. 15, 125 f., iv. 170, vi. 100, 226; - how quickly Masses are said in Rome, i. 35; - last M., ii. 88; - early distaste for, i. 275 f., iv. 124 f., vi. 196 f.; - insults, i. 27 f., ii. 166, iii. 130, 227, 305; - Masses for dead bring in money, iii. 439, iv. 513 f.; - M. suppressed, ii. 311, 320 f., 327 f.; - against the Canon, ii. 330, v. 154; - the “winklemass,” ii. 88, iv. 518-523; - not a sacrifice, ii. 89 f., 320, 385, iv. 506-518, v. 150, 439; - yet L. calls it the “sacrificium eucharisticum,” v. 149, 464; - M. is quietly changed into Communion-service, ii. 98 f., v. - 145 ff., 150; - “Formula missæ,” v. 135, 145, 546; - German M., v. 139, 146, vi. 445. - _See_ Eucharist - - Material principle. - _See_ Faith, Justification - - Mathesius, J., relations with L., iii. 312, iv. 269; - enthusiasm, v. 364, 488, vi. 389 f.; - “Historien,” i. xx., vi. 389 f., 443; - on his Catholic days, v. 490, n.; - on Tetzel, iv. 84; - on Egranus, iii. 402 f.; - Frau Cotta, iii. 288; - on the beginning of the Gospel-business, i. 303 f., 393; - on the ghosts, etc., vi. 123; - on L.’s prophecies, iii. 164; - on L.’s habit of taking a sip at night, iii. 305 f., 310; - on the German Bible, v. 499 f.; - on the Table-Talk, iii. 218 f., 222, 228, 232, 239, iv. 43 f., v. 170; - and the song for driving out Antichrist, v. 555 f.; - his melancholy, iv. 222, v. 363 f., vi. 150 f. - - Maupis, F., vi. 346 - - Maurice of Saxony, iv. 315, v. 125, 167, 200 ff., 252, vi. 347, 407, 410 - - Maximilian I of Bavaria, ii. 43 - - ⸺ I, Kaiser, i. 340 - - Mayence, ii. 6, 214 f., v. 221, vi. 431 - - Mayer, W., vi. 29, 426 - - Mayron, F., i. 346 - - Mechanical system of grace, i. 156, 308, ii. 274, n., 284 - - Mechler, Æ., ii. 345, 354 - - Meckbach, J., iv. 69 - - Medals, vi. 389 - - Medicines, spoilt by the devil, v. 283. - _See_ Physicians - - Meder, v. 295 - - Mediævalism, L.’s, vi. 440-444, 453 ff. - - Medici, Guilio dei, ii. 46 - - Mediocrity standardised, i. 71 f., iii. 211 f., 311 f., v. 124 - - Medler, N., v. 165, 194, vi. 346, 488 - - Medmann, P., v. 166 - - Megalomania, iv. 327-350, v. 110 f., 389 ff., 530-533, vi. 161 ff., - 284 f., 361, 398-406. - _See_ Doctor, Great man - - Meinhardi, A. von, i. 40, n., iv. 141 - - Meirisch, M., i. 144, iv. 160 - - Meissen, iv. 86, v. 123, 200 ff., vi. 243 - - Melancholy, iii. 402, 416, iv. 210, 218-227, v. 305, vi. 176, 221, 227 - - Melanchthon, Ph., character and work, iii. 319-378, 438-449, v. 252-275; - acts as intermediary between the Knights and L., ii. 5; - pictured with L., vi. 389, n.; - and alone, ii. 158; - enthusiasm for L., i. 303, iii. 165, iv. 269, 357; - his “Passional,” v. 425; - “Pope-Ass,” iii. 150 ff.; - his Commonplace-Book, ii. 239, 282, n., 287 f., iv. 498, v. 4; - Instructions for the Visitors, v. 591; - panegyric on L., v. 262, vi. 387; - Vita Lutheri, i. 17 f., 303; - helps in the German Bible, v. 495 ff.; - favours the fanatics, ii. 99; - comparative moderation, iii. 134; - criticises L.’s teaching, v. 460 f.; - drops predestinarianism, ii. 239, 268, 287, n., iv. 435 f., - vi. 152 f.; - on the Law, v. 17; - penance, v. 452 f.; - need of good works, iv. 476; - Eucharist, iii. 424, v. 465; - finds fault with L.’s language, ii. 144 f., 155, 176 ff., - iii. 240, 276 f.; - M.’s melancholy, ii. 167, iii. 201, iv. 219; - belief in astrology, ii. 168, iii. 306; - superstition, ii. 390, v. 240; - dances occasionally, iii. 303; - on the Virgin Mary, iv. 502; - strictures on the Universities, vi. 26; - and Agricola, v. 15, 20; - and Amerbach, iv. 364; - and Amsdorf, v. 193; - and Bucer, iii. 421; - and Calvin, v. 401; - and Cordatus, iv. 461; - and Erasmus, ii. 248 f., 262, iv. 183; - and Henry VIII, iv. 10 f.; - his daughter, vi. 418; - and Lemnius, vi. 287; - as an educationalist, iii. 391, vi. 5 f., 9, 13, n., 16 f., 18, - 21, 26, 38, 435; - his students’ lack of discipline, v. 157, 247; - his hopes of a Protestant Council, v. 170, 175 f.; - his leading place in Lutheranism, v. 173, 183; - ordains ministers, vi. 265, 314; - intolerance, ii. 203, iv. 9, v. 20, 22 f., 82, vi. 251 f., 269 f.; - truthfulness, ii. 386 f., iv. 112 f.; - misrepresents Augustine, i. 305 f., iv. 459; - thwarts L.’s Schmalkalden Articles, iii. 432; - armed resistance, iii. 59; - the Landgrave’s bigamy (iv. 13-79) is the cause of an indisposition, - iii. 268, iv. 144; - miraculously cured by L., iii. 162, iv. 48; - is sometimes suspected by L., v. 237, vi. 345; - plans to leave Wittenberg, vi. 347, 352 f.; - at Mansfeld, vi. 350 f. - _See_ Cryptocalvinism, Pecca fortiter, Synergism - - Melander, D., iv. 24 f., 157, 201, 251 - - Memmingen, iii. 64, 421 - - Mendicancy, i. 71, 270, ii. 337, vi. 473, 500. - _See_ Beggars - - Menius, J., ii. 256, iii. 68, 421, iv. 66 f., 74, 203, v. 282, vi. 276, - 391, 409 f., 482 f. - - Mensing, J., i. 79, iii. 195, iv. 121, 160, 303, 385, vi. 330, n., 432 - - Merchants, v. 157, vi. 6, 79-86 - - Merit, i. 75, 102, 119, 143, 157, 179, iv. 449, v. 8 f., 459 f.; - of Christ, i. 71 f. - - Merseburg, v. 167, 219, vi. 347 - - Metz, v. 167, 396 - - Metzsch, Hans, ii. 169, iii. 426, iv. 216, 245, v. 118, 187 f., 312, - vi. 22 - - ⸺ Jos. L., vi. 262 - - Meyer, P., ii. 327 - - Michol’s lie, iv. 109 - - Micyllus, vi. 36 - - Middle Ages, L.’s misrepresentations of the, iv. 116-178. - _See_ Mediævalism - - Military service, iv. 247 - - Milsungen, iv. 18 - - Miltitz, C. von, i. 341 f., 348, 365, ii. 18, 86, vi. 190, 307 - - Mind, L.’s, vi. 156-186 - - Ministers, Ministry, ii. 107-111, 113 f., iv. 126, vi. 311; - their choice, ii. 112, 192, 358, vi. 599; - their support, iii. 34. - _See_ Ordinations, Preachers, Priests - - Minkwitz, J. von, v. 220 - - Miracles, ii. 63, iii. 117, 153-162, v. 288, 313, vi. 164 f., 191, - 285 f., 443. - _See_ Fanatics, Melanchthon, Monk-Calf - - Misbirths, iii. 152; - consolation for women suffering M., iv. 248 - - Misrepresentations. - _See_ Calumnies, Legends - - Mission, L.’s, i. 37, 74, 91 ff., iii. 109-168, iv. 313-318, 391, - v. 321 ff., vi. 161-166, 283 f., 285 f. - _See_ Certainty, Revelation, Vocation - - Missions, foreign, iii. 213 ff., v. 249, vi. 427, 515 - - Misson, M., iii. 292 - - Mochau, M., von, vi. 509 - - Modern spirit, L. and the, ii. 72, iii. 19, vi. 454 f. - - Modesty. - _See_ Humility - - Mohacz, iii. 89 - - Mohammed, iv. 6, v. 479. - _See_ Koran, Turks - - Mohr, G., iv. 219, vi. 346, 349 - - Möhra, i. 5, 16 - - Moibanus, A., vi. 491 - - Moller, H., vi. 417 - - Monastery, L. in the, i. 3-34, iii. 114; - his legend, vi. 187-236. - _See_ Wittenberg - - Money, vi. 84, 87 f. - - Monk-Calf, ii. 57, iii. 149 f., 355 f., v. 244, 310, vi. 155 - - Monkeys, v. 286 - - Monks, what their name comes from, iv. 161; - L. on M. and friars, i. 270 f., ii. 138, iii. 228, v. 113 f., vi. 514. - _See_ Apostate M., Spectre M., Vows - - Mönsterberg, U. von, vi. 482 - - Morality. - _See_ Ethics. - L.’s morals, vi. 512 - - Moravia, v. 403 f. - - Morbid trains of thought, vi. 141-182, 224 ff. - - More, Sir Th., ii. 244, n., iii. 70, 237, iv. 9, 284, v. 110, vi. 246 - - Mörlin, J., vi. 408, 492 - - Morone, J., iv. 28, vi. 492 - - Mortal sins, all breaches of the Rules, i. 15, iv. 105, n. - _See_ Scapular, Sin - - Mortification, i. 191, 235, iii. 211, v. 31, 86, 92, 481, vi. 235. - _See_ Penance - - Mosaism. - _See_ Law, Mosaic - - Mosellanus, P., ii. 242, iv. 269, vi. 16 - - Moses, i. 179, ii. 221, v. 236; - to be slain, v. 324; - a German M., vi. 442; - a second M., vi. 442; - “relics” of, iv. 292 - - Moth, Ph., vi. 488 - - Motives, v. 34 - - Mountjoy, ii. 251 - - Mühlberg, vi. 407 - - Mühlhausen, ii. 167, 364 f., iii. 422 - - Müller, C., ii. 208, iii. 296, 315 f., iv. 361 - - Münch, J., vi. 385 - - Munich, ii. 172 - - Münster, ii. 365, iii. 419, v. 166, 173, vi. 35 - - ⸺ S., v. 411, 413, 532, 535 - - Münzer, Th., ii. 200-207, 363-378; - at Allstedt, iv. 172; - at Zwickau, iii. 402; - L.’s rival, iii. 4; - won’t work miracles, iii. 154, vi. 285; - his “presumption,” iii. 389 f., vi. 152; - his “sins,” iii. 177; - preaches against the two popes, of Rome and Wittenberg, iv. 309, - 337, vi. 281; - his defence, ii. 130, iii. 275, 302, iv. 100; - is doomed, iii. 384 - - Murmellius, J., vi. 34 - - Murner, Th., ii. 154, iv. 376, 384, vi. 430, 513 - - Musa, A., ii. 345, iv. 222, v. 174, 363 - - Musæus, S., iv. 220 - - Musculus, A., vi. 61, 419 - - ⸺ W., iii. 300, vi. 277 - - Music, i. 8, ii. 170 ff., iii. 66 f., iv. 256 f., v. 223, 302, 547 - f., 551 f., 554, vi. 19 - - Mutian, R., i. 7, 28, 41, ii. 3, 243, iii. 287, vi. 31, 350, 387 - - Myconius, F., iii. 62, 162, 166, 421, iv. 84, 200, vi. 123, 265, 326, - 341, 491 - - ⸺ O., iv. 198 - - Mylius, G., i. 33 - - Mysticism, i. 160, 165-183, 268; - German M., i. 84, 87 f., ii. 275, n.; - mystic pangs of hell, i. 231-240, vi. 102, 115 ff.; - was L. a mystic? i. 89, n., v. 476; - some mystic effusions, i. 82-90, 230-240, 280 ff., 318, v. 32 f., - 198, 476 - - - Namur, vi. 43 - - Nannius, J., vi. 488 - - Nathin, J., i. 4, 13, 17, 22, 58, 128, ii. 337, 361, n., iv. 354, vi. - 101, n. - - Nationalism. - _See_ German N. - - Natural virtues, _see_ Virtue; - N. order, v. 49-52; - N. law, i. 141, 143 f.; - thunderstorms, etc., not N., v. 286; - Nature and Grace, i. 204 - - Naumburg, iii. 375, v. 165 f., 192 ff., vi. 328, 408 - - Nausea, F., iv. 383 - - Necessity, all takes place of, ii. 227, 290, v. 53; - N. knows no law, iii. 90 - - Neobulus, H. - _See_ Lening - - Neoplatonism, i. 76, 174 - - Nerve trouble. - _See_ Ailments - - Neustadt Admonition, vi. 422 - - Nicene Council, iii. 157, iv. 240, vi. 314 - - Nider, J., i. 48 - - Nietzsche, vi. 459 - - Nigrinus, iv. 324 - - Nimbschen. - _See_ Nuns - - Nimbus. - _See_ Portraits - - Nobility, ii. 3 ff., 26 ff., 199, 216, vi. 71 f., 402 - - Noe, L. a new N., vi. 388, 442 - - Nominalism, i. 130 ff., ii. 275, n.; - Nominalists on lies, vi. 514 f.; - Semi-Pelagianism of the, vi. 426. - _See_ Occam, etc. - - Noppus, J., vi. 493 - - Nordhausen, v. 236, vi. 276 - - Nossenus, M., ii. 342 - - Novalis, vi. 449 - - Nuns, apostate, of Nimbschen, etc., ii. 135-148, 177 f., 282; - their fate, iv. 172 ff., 175 f.; - persecution of the faithful ones, vi. 276 f., 278 f.; - two newly “cursed” N., vi. 343 - - Nuremberg, ii. 334 ff., v. 172 f., 186, 223, 255; - Town-Council, ii. 335, iii. 59 ff.; - Diets of N., ii. 189, 334, 380, iii. 76; - Poor-relief, vi. 46; - Schools, vi. 5 f., 35 ff.; - tolerance, vi. 270 f. - - - Oaths, lawful to take, v. 570 - - Obedience, ii. 15 ff., 308 ff., iii. 172, vi. 498 f. - - Observantines and Conventuals, i. 28-38, 67-78, 81 f., 147, 198 ff., - 255, 262 f., 267, 298, vi. 497-503 - - Obstinacy. - _See_ Defiance - - Occam, Occamism, i. 13, 84 ff., 120, 130-165, 171, 191, 204 f., 212, - 216, 243, iv. 417, n., v. 51. - _See_ Nominalism - - Œcolampadius, J., takes Zwingli’s side, iii. 409, n., v. 79; - wants to establish synods, v. 176; - opposes the bigamy, iv. 6, 10, n.; - Œ. on L., iv. 99; - L. on Œ., ii. 254, iii. 389, 403, 424, iv. 87, 308, v. 105, 447, - vi. 278, 281, 284, 289 - - Office. - _See_ Breviary, Calling, Ministry - - Oils. - _See_ Anointing, Chrism - - Oldecop, J., 24, 29, 35 f., 304, 332, 361, iv. 229, 429, v. 218, - vi. 222, 385, 497 - - Olevian, C., vi. 414 - - Olmütz, W. von., iii. 152 - - Omnipresence. - _See_ Christ - - Opponents, awful death of L.’s, iv. 302, 304, vi. 161, 191, 383 f.; - _See_ Catholics, Heretics - - Opposition, a sign that one is in the right, i. 253 - - Orders, Holy, all “jugglery,” vi. 404; - “donkey-smearing,” v. 101 - - Ordinations, Lutheran, ii. 112, iii. 428, v. 101, 190-197, vi. 264 f., - 313 f., 347, 374 - - Ordo matrimonialis, iv. 129 f. - - Organs, ii. 227, v. 148 - - Origen, iv. 110, 331 - - Original sin, i. 74 f., 92, 99, 140 f., 203 f., 210, ii. 250, v. 6, 37, - 438,450, 487, vi. 412 f., 420. - _See_ Concupiscence, Grace - - Orlamünde, iii. 256, 385 - - Orthodox side, L.’s, ii. 399, iv. 239 ff., 526 f.; - O. Lutheranism, vi. 440-444 - - Ortiz, iv. 386 - - Ortwin de Graes, i. 42 - - Osiander, A., ii. 334, iii. 434, 444, iv. 9, 29, 223, v. 170, 257, 410, - 531, vi. 408 f. - - Osnabrück, v. 166 - - Ossitz, vi. 137 - - Ostermayer, W., i. 127 - - Ostia, v. 109, 384 - - Otto I, Kaiser, v. 220 - - ⸺ A., vi. 410 - - Our Father, the, i. 65, 361, ii, 240, v. 94, 124, 473, 476, 478, 485 - - Outlawry, L.’s, ii. 45 - - Overwork, i. 267. - _See_ Work - - - Pack, O. von, iii. 48 f., 326, v. 343 - - Pagans. - _See_ Heathen - - Pagninus, S., v. 535 - - Palladius, P., iii. 413, n., vi. 273, 489 - - Pallavicini, S., iv. 259 - - Palpitations. - _See_ Ailments - - Paltz, J., i. 13, 105, 224, 243, 272 f. 327, n., 345 - - Palude, P. de, i. 346, iii. 261 - - Pantheism, i. 166, 172, 178, ii. 284, vi. 456 - - Panvinius, O., vi. 437 - - Papacy. - _See_ Pope, Popedom - - Papists are murderers, iii. 130 ff., 414; - Cains and devils, iii. 43; - fattening pigs, iv. 288; - as bad as Turks, iii. 91 f., vi. 155; - abnormal nature of L.’s views of the P., vi. 156 ff. - - Pappus, H., iv. 100 - - Parents, L.’s, i. 5, v. 294, vi. 223. - _See_ Luther, Hans - - Paris, University of, i. 363, v. 279, vi. 37, 349, 472 - - Parrots, v. 286 - - Pastors. - _See_ Ministers - - Pathology. - _See_ Ailments - - Patmos (the Wartburg), ii. 91 - - Patriarchs, iii. 259, iv. 4, vi. 74, 85. - _See_ Prince - - Patriotism. - _See_ German nationalism - - Paul, St., as L.’s mainstay, i. 94, 140, 179; - Paul rather than Jesus, iii. 169, vi. 453 f.; - his failings, ii. 289, v. 360, 362 f., 393; - L. a new P., iii. 165, v. 517 f.; - like P., iii. 119, iv. 273 - - ⸺ III, Pope, ii. 250, iii. 420, 425, 427, 443, iv. 90, v. 168, 234 f., - 380, 382, vi. 427, n. - - Pauli, B., v. 22 - - ⸺ J., vi. 513 - - ⸺ S., iv. 225 f. - - Pauline privilege, ii. 33, iii, 254 - - Pázmány, P., vi. 385 - - Peasants, ii. 180, 189-219, 350, 353, 356 f., iii. 323 f., v. 181, 588, - vi. 70-74, 76, 84, 406 - - Pecca fortiter, iii. 195-199, vi. 166 - - Pelagianism, i. 91 ff., 190, 199, 205 f., 287, ii. 225, 232, 293, n. - _See_ Grace - - Pelargus, A., iv. 383 - - Pelayo, A., i. 55 - - Pellicanus, C., iii. 383 f. - - Penance, i. 65 f., 90 f., 119, 290, 292-296, 311 f., iii. 176, 184 ff., - 212, 323, iv. 460, 491, v. 23 f., 452 f; - the sacrament, ii. 27, iii. 338, iv. 249, 491 f., v. 462. - _See_ Confession, Contrition, Satisfaction - - Perfection, reputed to be found only in the cloistral “state of P.,” - i. 85, n., iv. 130 f., 133; - L.’s idea of P., i. 166, v. 43, 84 ff., 439; - his own efforts, iii. 187-193. - _See_ Counsels - - Perrenoti, N., v. 382 - - Perusco, M. de, i. 338 - - Pessimism, i. 126, 289, iii. 24, 84, 98 f., 123, 190 f., v. 130, - 225-234, 241 - - Pessler, ii. 334 - - Pestel, P., vi. 255, 267 - - Pestilence. - _See_ Plague - - Peter, thou art, v. 518, vi. 338 ff.; - L. like P., v. 340; - P.’s denial, iii. 182; - second epistle of, v. 522; - the legend of P., iv. 264 - - Petreius, i. 28 - - Peucer, C., vi. 415, 418 - - Peutinger, C., ii. 76, vi. 45, 271 - - Pezel, C., vi. 417 - - Pfeffinger, J., vi. 76, 347, 410, 412 - - Pfeifer, H., ii, 364, 373 - - Pflug, J. von, iv. 69, v. 21, 165, 191, 197, vi. 39, n., 408, 436, 492 - - Pharisees, i. 82, iv. 45 - - Philip II, Landgrave of Hesse, a patron of the new religion, ii. 216, - 388, iii. 64, 72, 340, v. 201 f., 576; - inclines to the Church-apart, v. 141 ff.; - to Zwinglianism, ii, 333 f., iii. 327, 337, 383, 445, v. 172; - refuses help against the Turks, iii. 87; - stands for resistance against the Kaiser, iii. 50; - and carries L. with him, iii. 54 ff.; - raid on Würtemberg, iii. 67 f.; - and Brunswick, v. 394 ff.; - makes a secret covenant with the Kaiser, v. 396; - vanquished by the latter, vi. 407; - favours a Protestant Council, v. 175; - his bigamy, iv. 13-79, 209; - sends L. a barrel of wine, iii. 314; - and Melanchthon, iii. 373; - his morality, iv. 201, 71 f.; - intolerance, vi. 256, 258, 272 - - Philippists, iii. 375, vi. 415 - - Philosophy, i. 22, 136, 158 f., 244 f., 281, 320, v. 440 ff., 445, - vi. 18, 20 f., 445. - _See_ Aristotle - - Phocas, iii. 93, iv. 297 - - Phormion, vi. 82 - - Physicians, iii. 211, v. 203, 281, 283, vi. 7, 21, 378 ff. - _See_ Ratzeberger, Rychardus - - Picards, i. 34, 106 f., ii. 186 - - Pictures. - _See_ Images, Portraits - - Pietism, v. 173, vi. 63, 440, 444 f. - - Pighius, A., v. 75, vi. 384 - - Pilgrimages, i. 46, 124, v. 212, 288, vi. 68 - - Pirata, A., iv. 383 - - Pirkheimer, C., ii. 334 f. - - ⸺ W., ii. 39 f., 43, 67, 127, 256, iv. 353, 453, 471, v. 431, vi. 37 - - Pirna, vi. 415 - - Pirstinger, B., i. 48, 344 f. - - Pistorius, F., ii. 131, vi. 275, 290, n., 492 - - Plague, i. 265, iv. 248, 272 f., v. 337, vi. 509; - “the Pope’s Plague,” iii. 435, v. 102, vi. 370, 377, 389, 394 f., 407 - - Planck, J., i. xi. f., iii. 174, vi. 449 - - Planitz, Hans von der, v. 591 - - Plantsch, M., v. 290 - - Plassen, C., van der, iv. 368 - - Plato, L.’s guest, iii. 218, 232 - - Plautus, vi. 16, 18 - - Plenaries, iv. 135 - - Poison, iii. 116, v. 235 f. - - Pole, Cardinal, vi. 488 - - Polemics, iv. 283-350, v. 375-431. - _See_ Calumnies, Lies, Unseemliness - - Polenz, G. von. iv. 96 f., 155 - - Poliander, vi. 37 - - Politician, L. a P.? vi. 459 ff. - - Pollich, M., i. 39, 86, iv. 258 f., 357 - - Polner, Hans, iii. 217, 307 - - Poltergeists. - _See_ Ghosts - - Polygamy, iii. 259 ff., 268, iv. 3 ff., 146, v. 72, vi. 86. - _See_ Philip II, his bigamy - - Polygranus, F., i. 345 - - Pomeranus. - _See_ Bugenhagen - - Pommersfelden, L. von, ii. 215 - - Ponikau, iii. 435 - - Pontanus. - _See_ Brück, G. - - Poor-Relief, vi. 42-65; - in olden times, iv. 477-481; - L.’s merits, v. 26, 117, 562; - bad effects, v. 205 - - Pope of Rome, Popedom, iii. 128 ff., iv. 295-305, v. 381-389; - acknowledged by L., i. 34 f., 324; - “papa, papa!” ii. 347; - not infallible, ii. 50; - P. flings about indulgences, i. 70; - early blame for Julius II, i. 228; - and Leo X, i. 348; - what the P. teaches, vi. 337 f.; - P. oppresses the Germans, iii. 96 ff., 105 f.; - presumes to decide on matters of faith, iii. 130; - not head of Christendom, v. 383; - instituted by the devil, vi. 190; - attacked in his very marrow, ii. 260; - is adored as God, iii. 130; - Popes are seducers, i. 227; - the Pope-Ass, iii. 150 ff., 355; - worse than the Turk, i. 359, iii. 72, 79, 82, 86, n., 91 f., 126, - iv. 164, v. 416; - “Popery pictured,” v. 421-431. - _See_ Antichrist, Infallibility, Peter, Plague, Rome, Werewolf - - ⸺ of Wittenberg, L. a new P., iii. 277 (Judae); - has set up a new Papal chair, ii. 130, 377 (Ickelsamer); - has taken the P.’s place (iv. 337); - is a new P. (vi. 281) who bestows church-property on the princes, - ii. 377 (Münzer); - “pseudo-papa,” ii. 163, n.,; - “I am your P.,” v. 231; - P. of Germany, vi. 77; - “called by God to be an anti-pope,” ii. 54, iii. 110; - “ego sum papa,” v. 191, n., vi. 315; - “the German P.,” iii. 427, vi. 77; - a Cæsarean popedom, vi. 452 - - Porchetus de Salvaticis, v. 411 - - Portents, iii. 148-152, v. 239. - _See_ Astrology - - Portraits, L.’s vi. 389, 393 f., 430, 443; - depicted with a halo, ii. 66. - _See_ Appearance - - Possessed, L. P.? ii. 68, 392, 396, iii. 127, 429, iv. 352-360, vi. 112; - Agricola P., v. 22; - Carlstadt, iii. 390 f.; - Schwenckfeld, v. 83; - other cases, ii. 289, 376, iii. 148; - calm of the P. at L.’s funeral, vi. 385; - in the P. the devil takes the soul’s place, v. 281, n., 292 - - Postils, Church-P., ii. 119, iii. 151, v. 158, 473 f., 480; - Home-P., iv. 217, 232, v. 470 - - Powers, natural, made too much of by the Nominalists, i. 132; - and too little of by L., i. 65, 74 f., 100 f., 117, 133, 140, 160, - 310 ff., iv. 229. - _See_ Determinism - - Prætorius, Alexius, vi. 409 - - ⸺ Anton, vi. 61 - - Prague, ii. 112 - - Prateolus, vi. 385, 409 - - Prayer, true P. L.’s “discovery,” iii. 345; - P. arises from Faith, v. 27; - his opponents don’t pray, iii. 399; - how monks pray in choir, i. 277; - P. is necessary, i. 35, 153, 235, 279, ii. 349; - how to pray, v. 478 ff.; - P. decried, i. 68, iii. 205; - all P. petition, v. 87; - L.’s P., ii. 87, iii. 206 ff., 365, 410, 435, iv. 275-278, v. 94, 199, - vi. 232 f., 235, 511 f.; - power of L.’s P., iii. 113, 162, 209, n., iv. 267, v. 313, vi. 161 - f., 391, 395 f.; - Catholics’ P., i. 390, iii. 131 f.; - “Pray Maurice to death,” iv. 315. - _See_ Breviary, Maledictory P. - - Preachers, even “millers’ maids” (iv. 389) can expound Scripture, yet - true P. are only those “in office,” iv. 126, vi. 250, n., 315; - best unmarried, iii. 248; - L.’s complaints about the P., ii. 123, 127; - preach faith and decry good works, iv. 466 ff.; - on the faults of others, ii. 344, iii. 323 f., iv. 323 f.; - preach violence, ii. 323 f., 340 f., 354 f., iv. 514; - responsible for breaches of wedlock, iv. 158, 160, 165 ff., 172 f., - 201, 208; - seek only an income and a wife, ii. 126, vi. 32; - scorned by the people, iii. 34, iv. 209, 211, 218, 478, n., v. 182, - 249, vi. 77, 326, 343. - _See_ Ministers, Priesthood - - Precepts. - _See_ Commandments - - Predestination, i. 74, n., 183, 187-198, 208, 238, 313, 369, ii. 268-294, - iii. 189, 347, iv. 434, 447, v. 159, 438; - doubts concerning P., i. 19, 124 f., 161, 190 f., 376, vi. 219, 221. - _See_ Determinism, Hell - - Predictions. - _See_ Prophecies - - Presents. - _See_ Gifts - - Prices, high, vi. 77, 84 f. - - Pride, i. 123, 279, 287, ii. 54, 130, 221, 368, iii. 200, 389, iv. 332, - n., v. 110 f.; - according to L. source of all heretical pravity, i. 287, 324, ii. 376 - - Prierias, S., i. 66, 163, 338 ff., 366, ii. 12 f., iii. 145, iv. 373 ff. - - Priesthood, the olden P. a wall between man and God, iv. 123, 126, 516; - the new P. universal, all being priests though not preachers, ii. 31, - 35, 89, 106, 113 f., 193, 211, 304, iii. 12, 15, iv. 455, 516, v. - 160, vi. 250, n., 303 f., 306, 311, 403. - _See_ Apostates, Preachers - - Primacy, Roman, dates only from Phocas, iii. 93. - _See_ Peter - - Prince, as patriarch, v. 579-584; - as bishop, vi. 322; - as chief member of the Church, v. 144; - as supreme head, v. 590; - his duties, v. 568 ff.; - P. and Christian two different things, iii. 60, 69, 81, v. 55 f.; - L.’s treatment of the princes, ii. 305 ff., iii. 24, iv. 290-294. - _See_ Authority, secular - - Printers, printing-press, ii. 52 f., iv. 365, 381, v. 558, 560, vi. 431. - _See_ Lotther, Lufft - - Private judgment. - _See_ Bible interpretation - - Probst, J., ii. 346, iii. 300, iv. 160, v. 195, vi. 349 - - Processions, whether right, iv. 239, v. 313, 464, vi. 353, n. - - Professor, L. as University P., iv. 228 ff. - - Proles, A., i. 29, 46, 107, 297, iv. 119, vi. 68 - - Prophecies, L.’s, iii. 155, 163-168, iv. 13, v. 169-174, vi. 416, - 443 f.; - P. fulfilled in L., iii. 165 ff., 396 f., iv. 330 - - Prophet, L. a, vi. 306, 391; - P. of the Germans, iii. 96, iv. 329, vi. 389 f., 442. - _See_ Fanatics - - Prostitutes, iii. 243, iv. 148, 215 f., 227, v. 109, 231. - _See_ Brothels - - Protest of Spires, ii. 381 - - Protestants. - _See_ Christians - - Proverbs, iii. 104, iv. 246 - - Proviso. - _See_ Gospel-P. - - Prussia, iv. 196, v. 216, 286 - - Psalms, commentaries and lectures on the, i. 63, 67-77, 119, 285, - 361, 386 - - Psychology of L.’s abuse, iv. 306-326; - of his development, vi. 112-123; - of his humour, v. 319 ff. - - Purgatory, i. 75, 179, 324, 343, iii. 329, iv. 504 ff., v. 283, 299, - 438, vi. 484 - - - Qualitas, “Christ my Q.,” iv. 460; - concupiscence a Q.? i. 141 - - Quare. - _See_ Reason - - Quarrelsomeness, i. 79 - - Quietism, i. 83, 167, 221 f., 231 f., ii. 225, iii. 210, v. 45, 86 f. - _See_ Mysticism - - - Rabbis, v. 407, 414, 533. - _See_ Jews - - Rabe, A. - _See_ Corvinus - - ⸺ L., v. 106 - - Rapagelanus, S., vi. 494 - - Ratichius, W., vi. 9 - - Rationalism, v. 269, vi. 440, 446 ff. - _See_ Zwinglianism - - Ratisbon, vi. 47, 412; - conferences and Interim, iii. 446, v. 274, 379 f.; - Diet, vi. 495 - - Ratzeberger, M., ii. 82, 170, iii. 74, 288, 309, vi. 103, 123, 132, - 344, 347, 364, 377 - - Rauchhaupt, v. 239 - - Reaction, iii. 3-21. - _See_ Antinomians, Fanatics, Peasants - - Reason, L.’s antipathy for, i. 132, 158, 216, iii. 8, 21, 203, 210, - 321, v. 4, 440, vi. 25, 364; - leads him to deny freedom, ii. 279 f.; - to require faith of infants brought for baptism, ii. 373; - “quare” comes from the devil, ii. 378; - R. a devil’s whore, vi. 364 f. - _See_ Philosophy - - Reform, need of R., ii. 222; - desired by all, vi. 402; - Roman proposals for R., iii. 443. - _See_ Humanism - - Reformation, v. 119-132; - its birth-hour, i. 23; - “from the monk’s melancholy sprang the R.,” vi. 176; - usual idea of it “mythological,” vi. 448; - the “peasant-rising of the spirit,” iii. 19; - a “remedy for the future,” ii. 249, 257 - - Reformer, L. a R.? iii. 236 f., 273, vi. 401 ff. - - Regeneration, iii. 271. - _See_ Justification - - Reginald, W., vi. 385 - - Rehlinger, J., vi. 271 - - Reichenbach, ii. 138 - - Reinholdt, v. 218 - - Reisner, vi. 443 - - Reissenbusch, ii. 116 ff., 319 f. - - Relaxation, weekly, iii. 307 - - Relics, i. 235, 284 f., ii. 245, 327; - L.’s list of R., iv. 292; - L.’s R., vi. 443 - - Religious teacher? L. a, vi. 455 f. - _See_ Blasphemy, Quietism; - R. War, _see_ Resistance - - Rellach, J., v. 543 - - Remission. - _See_ Forgiveness - - Resignation. - _See_ Hell - - Resistance, armed R. against the Kaiser, ii. 309 f., iii. 43-76, - 95, 431 ff. - - Responsibility, ii. 79 f., 125, 272, iii. 438, v. 373 ff., vi. 162, - 171, 228, 406 f. - - Retractations, v. 23 f., vi. 260, 308 - - Reuchlin, J., i. 42, iii. 320 - - Reutlingen, ii. 384, iii. 64, 421, v. 80 - - Reval, vi. 265, 313 - - Revelation, L.’s, i. 377 f., 393, 397 ff., ii. 91, 114, 153, iii. 110 - ff., 119, vi. 141-171, 387 f. - _See_ Faith, Mission - - Reward. - _See_ Merit - - Rhaide, B., iv. 25, vi. 486 - - Rhau, G., ii. 170 - - Rhegius, U., iv. 165, 467 f., vi. 58, 276, 487, 492 - - Rhetoric, iv. 342-350, vi. 200 - - Richardus, v. 419 - - Riesenburg, v. 216 - - Riga, vi. 475 - - Righteousness. - _See_ Justice - - Rings, L.’s, iii. 302, 428 - - Ritschl, A., v. 28, vi. 456 - - Ritual, iv. 223, 296, v. 313. - _See_ Worship - - Rivander, Z., iv. 222 - - Rivius, J., iv. 165, 470 - - Rochlitz, E. von, iv. 16, 24, 27, 201 - - Romans, Commentary on, i. 93-102, 184-260, iv. 422, 426 - - Romanticists, vi. 449 - - Rome, a heathen place, i. 286; - where nothing is believed, iv. 102, 296; - though seat of the martyrs, vi. 307; - abode of Antichrist, i. 359; - where Erasmus learnt unbelief, iii. 135; - a good thing if attacked by Turks, iii. 92; - L’s visit to R., i. 29 ff., vi. 188, 496 f.; - union with R. not necessary, ii. 9. - _See_ Babylon, Pope, Pope-Ass - - Rorarius, T., vi. 61 - - Rörer, G., iii. 218, iv. 498, v. 191, 499 ff., vi. 281, 391, 505 ff. - - Rosary, i. 119, v. 248 - - Rose, golden, i. 365, n. - - Rosheim. - _See_ Josel - - Rosina, iii. 217, 281, v. 107 f., 235, vi. 369 - - Rostock, iii. 371, vi. 29, 61 - - Rotenburg, iv. 25 - - Roth, S., iv. 99, v. 158 - - Rothenburg, ii. 167, iii. 387 - - Roting, M., vi. 6 - - Rubeanus. - _See_ Crotus - - Rudolstadt, vi. 265, 314 - - Rühel, ii. 142, 204, 206 - - Ruler. - _See_ Prince - - Rungius, P., vi. 275 - - Ruysbroek, J., i. 173 - - Rychardus, W., ii. 162 ff., iv. 349 - - - Sabbatarians, v. 403 f. - - Sabbath-Sunday, iii. 394 f.; - Sabbath of the soul, v. 86 f. - _See_ Quietism - - Sabellicus, iv. 89 - - Sabinus, G., ii. 390, iii. 362 - - Sachs, Hans, v. 223 - - Sachse, M., iv. 222 - - Sacrament, _see_ Supper; - Sacramentarians, _see_ Zwinglians - - Sacraments, i. 27, 37, ii. 59, 389, iii. 262 f., iv. 146, 486-500, - v. 438 f., 461 f.; - may be received or not, iii. 10; - preparation for, iii. 209 f.; - depend on faith of the receiver, i. 357, vi. 310; - are marks of the true Church, vi. 295, 309; - L.’s doctrine of the S. criticised, v. 461-465; - marriage is a S., iv. 146, 149; - is not, iii. 262 ff.; - not even with the Papists, iv. 134; - a merdiferous S., iv. 163. - _See_ Baptism, etc. - - Sacrifice. - _See_ Mass - - Sadoleto, J., iii. 335, 443, v. 401, vi. 488 - - Sailer, G., iv. 15, 65 - - Sainctes, C. de, vi. 386 - - St. Gall, iii. 422 - - Saint, use of the word by L., i. 82, ii. 217, n., iii. 187 f.; - L. a S., ii. 396, iii. 154, 169, vi. 389, 392, 445. - _See_ Sanctus; - “S. L.,” vi. 391, _see_ Portraits - - Saints, what the S. did a dog or pig could do, iii. 227; - frailty of the S., iii. 191 f.; - the “little S.,” _see_ Observantines; - legends of the S., i. 124, 282, iv. 246, v. 153 f., 474, vi. 335, - 437, n.; - worship of the S., abuses in, i. 46, 361; - assailed by Erasmus, ii. 245; - L.’s attitude, iv. 499-503; - Mary made into a goddess, iv. 237; - and adored, 502 f.; - on canonisation, v. 122 f.; - suppression of feast-days, v. 146; - reintroduction mooted, vi. 410 - - Sala, B. von, i. 370 - - Salat, Hans, iv. 324 - - Sale, A. and M. von der, iv. 14, 16, 24 ff., 69 f. - - Salvation, “outside of the Church no S.,” vi. 297, 425. - _See_ Certainty, Faith, Grace, Hell, Humility, Justification - - Salzburg, iii. 430 - - Sam, C., iii. 277 - - Samson, v. 382; - a “second S.,” iv. 338, vi. 442 - - Sanctity. - _See_ Holiness - - Sanctus Domini, ii. 51, n., vi. 389, n. - - Sapidus, J., vi. 271 - - Sarcerius, E., iv. 71, 165, 222, vi. 61 - - Satan, L. reads his thoughts, vi. 154; - buffets, etc. of S., vi. 160 f., 111; - the prince of this world, ii. 273, iii. 190 f. - _See_ Devil - - Satire. - _See_ Humour - - Satisfaction, i. 75, 288, 296. - _See_ Penance - - Saur, A., v. 295 - - Savonarola, vi. 475 - - Saxo, J., iii. 412 - - Saxon, “I am a hard S.,” iv. 44, vi. 398 - - Saxony, v. 219, vi. 8; - Duchy of, iii. 416, iv. 194 ff., v. 124 ff.; - Electorate of, ii. 327-334, iii. 33 ff., iv. 202-210, v. 181, 296, - vi. 241 f., 254 f., 414; - chief playground of the demons, v. 286 - - Scala Santa, i. 33, vi. 496 - - Scapular, mortal sin to leave cell without one’s, iv. 94, vi. 200 - - Scepticism, utterances savouring of, iii. 415, v. 360 f., 501; - L.’s promotion of S., ii. 32, 253, iii. 18. - _See_ Rationalism - - Schade. - _See_ Mosellanus - - Schaffhausen, iii. 422 - - Schalbe, C., i. 7 - - Schärtlin von Burtenbach, v. 219 - - Schatzgeyer, C., ii. 128, iii. 237, iv. 131, 353, n., 384 - - Schauenberg, S. von, ii. 5, 9, 27, iv. 83 - - Schelhorn, vi. 288 - - Schem Hamphoras. - _See_ Jews - - Schenk, J., iii. 371, 401 f., 414, iv. 309, v. 16, 237 f., vi. 273, - 280, 285, 488 - - ⸺ zu Schweinsberg, R., iv. 25, 38 - - Scheurl, C., i. 40, n., 304 f., 313, 361, ii. 149, iv. 141, 429, vi. - 31, 212 f., 510 f. - - Schlaginhaufen, J., i. xxiii., 393, iii. 177, 218 f., 225, 231, 287, - 383, iv. 180, 226 f., v. 323, vi. 504-510; - his fainting-fit, v. 326 ff. - - Schlahinhauffen, iii. 286 f. - - Schleupner, D., ii. 334 - - Schlick, S. von, ii. 70 - - Schmalkalden, Conventions, iii. 58 f., 123, 430-441, v. 82, 175, 376, - vi. 272; - League iii. 62, 64-68, 71, iv. 8 f., 11, v. 185, 394 f.; - War, v. 219, 252, vi. 274, 375, 407 - - Schmaltz, iii. 83 - - Schmedenstede, H., vi. 493 - - Schnabel, T., v. 142, vi. 51, 489 - - Schnauss, C., iii. 416 - - Schnepf, E., i. 316, iv. 29, 197, 461 - - Schöffer, J., v. 543 - - Scholasticism, L.’s relations with, i. 22 f., 84 ff., 130-164, 208, 243, - 320, 357, iv. 92, v. 50, 59. - _See_ Aquinas, Louvain, Nominalists - - Schönfeld, A. von, ii. 139, 141 - - Schönitz, Hans von, v. 106 f. - - Schools, vi. 3-41; - school-punishments, i. 5; - L’s concern for the S., iv. 247, 264 f., v. 386, 562; - decline of the S., iv. 208, vi. 367, 435 f. - _See_ Æsop, Greek, etc. - - Schott, F., v. 117 - - Schud, G., iv. 10 - - Schultheiss, W., vi. 271 - - Schurf, A., vi. 509 - - ⸺ H., i. 304, ii. 99, 176, iii. 407, iv. 289, v. 591, vi. 356 ff. - - Schütz, C., vi. 415, 417 - - Schwabach Articles, v. 340, vi. 309 - - Schwäbisch-Hall, vi. 275 - - Schwarzburg, ii. 318 - - Schweiniz, iii. 300 - - Schwenckfeld, C., v. 78-84, 155-164; - L’s interview with S., v. 138 f.; - L. on S., ii. 376, 379, iii. 409, n., v. 276, 397, vi. 272, 289; - “Stinkfield,” iii. 424 - - Scotus, Duns, i. 22, 86, 91, 130, 142, 146, 243, 311, iv. 120 - - ⸺ J. M., vi. 493 - - Scribonius, G. A., v. 295 - - Scripture. - _See_ Bible - - Scruples, i. 11, 15, 110, 124 f., iii. 180, n., vi. 203, 219 - - Scultetus, H., i. 228, 332, 336, ii. 16 ff., iv. 82 - - Seckendorf, i. xxiii. - - Sects, Sectarians. - _See_ Heretics - - Secular, calling, iv. 127-131, v. 55-60, 561, vi. 65-98. - _See_ Authority, Clergy - - Secularisation. - _See_ Church-property, Marriage - - Sedulius, H., iv. 178, vi. 382 - - Self-denial. - _See_ Mortification - - Self-righteousness. - _See_ Works, holiness by - - Selnecker, N., iii. 445, iv. 220, 225, vi. 62, 391, 417, 419, 421 - - Senfl, L., ii. 171 f., iii. 66 - - Sepulchre, the Holy, ii. 91, iii. 167 f. - - Serarius, N., vi. 136, n. - - Serfdom, ii. 217, vi. 74 - - Sermons, in Catholic times, i. 78 ff., iv. 136, v. 153 f., vi. 432; - _see_ Geiler, etc.; - L.’s S., iv. 230 ff.; - notes of his S., ii. 149, n.; - place of the Sermon in Lutheran service, v. 152 f. - _See_ Preachers - - Servetus, iii. 358, vi. 266, 269, 272, 275 - - Service. - _See_ Worship - - Sic volo sic iubeo, iv. 346, v. 517, vi. 156, 166 - - Sickell, J., vi. 377, n. - - Sickingen, F. von, ii. 4, 9, 67, 69, 93, 326, v. 240, vi. 467 - - Sickness. - _See_ Ailments - - Sidonie of Saxony, iv. 22 - - Sieberger, W., vi. 487 - - Silvius, P., iii. 429, iv. 178, 356, 358 f. - - Simony, i. 328, 350 f. - - Sin, the burden of past sins, i. 10 ff., 18; - need of finding a gracious God, i. 108 f.; - L.’s teaching on S., i. 209 ff., iii. 180-188; - all done without grace is S., ii. 229; - wicked man sins in doing good, i. 318 f.; - all man’s deeds are mortal sins, i. 101, 203; - no distinction between mortal and venial S., i. 102, iv. 459, vi. 514; - murder, adultery, etc., are small sins, v. 305; - the marriage-rite a S., iv. 152; - does God will S.? i. 188 f.; - man’s will all turned to S., ii. 287; - actual S., i. 99, 224, v. 438; - we should gladly be sinners, i. 73, 88 f., 186, iii. 177; - and cast our sins on Christ, v. 12; - it is good to commit a S., ii. 339, iii. 175 ff.; - “doing good we sin,” i. 101; - L. rebukes S., v. 31 ff.; - biggest S. (saying Mass), iii. 410; - “daily” S., iii 309. - _See_ Concupiscence, Contrition, Forgiveness, Justification, Original - S., Pecca fortiter, Scapular - - Siricius, M., iv. 70 - - Sittardus, M., iii. 195, 238, iv. 383 - - Slander, i. 69. - _See_ Calumnies - - Sleeplessness. - _See_ Ailments; - Sleep-walkers, v. 283 - - Sleidanus, J., ii. 196, iii. 239, vi. 451 - - Social work, L.’s, v. 561-564 - - Sodom, _see_ Wittenberg; - Sodomite. - _See_ Johann of Saxony - - Sola fides, _see_ Faith; - interpolation of “sola,” iv. 345 f., v. 513 f. - - Soli Deo (to the Sun-God), vi. 350 - - Solida Declaratio, vi. 420 - - Solitude, to be avoided, v. 93, 302 - - Solomon’s, Temple, v. 501; - wives, iv. 161 f. - - Somnambulists, v. 283 - - Sophists, i. 23. - _See_ Scholastics - - Sorbonne. - _See_ Paris - - Sorcery. - _See_ Devil, Superstition, Witches - - Sovereign. - _See_ Prince - - Spalatin, G., L.’s intimate, i. 7, 42, ii. 58, iii. 38, n., 113 f., - 144 f., 269, v. 110, vi. 510; - his friend at Court, i. 263 f., 358, 368, ii. 19, 23, iii. 78, 301, - vi. 241; - helps in the German Bible, v. 495; - marriage matters, ii. 137, 140, 173; - intolerance, ii. 331, v. 145, 593, vi. 240, 274; - missionary work, ii. 316, v. 124 f.; - becomes a victim to melancholy, iii. 197, iv. 219 f., v. 362; - consoled by L., v. 330; - the tale about his parents, iii. 284-287 - - Spangenberg, C., iii. 209, n., iv. 269, v. 174, 300, 426, vi. 62, - 134 f., 276, 391, 413 - - ⸺ J. von, ii. 361, n., vi. 391 - - Spectre-monks of Spires, ii. 389 f., vi. 209 - - Spee, F. von, v. 295 - - Spener, vi. 444 - - Spengler, L., ii. 334, 385, iii. 50, 58 ff., vi. 7, 36, 250, 483 - - Spenlein, G., i. 88 ff., 177, 263 - - Speratus, v. 190 - - Spires, i. 214, v. 221; - Diets, ii. 380 ff., iii. 49, 86, 88, 327, v. 168, 396 - - Spirit, iii. 382, 397 f., iv. 309, 314, 387-419, v. 73. - _See_ Synteresis. - Bible S., _see_ Word - - Stadion, v. 273 - - Stangwald, vi. 391 - - Staphylus, F., iv. 167, vi. 137, 312 f., 384 - - Stapleton, T., vi. 323 - - Stapulensis. - _See_ Faber - - Staremberg, B. von, vi. 477 - - State, L. and the S., v. 559 ff., 568-579, 582, 585; - S. Church, iii. 29-33. - _See_ Consistories, Intolerance, Prince - - Statues. - _See_ Images - - Staupitz, J., theological deficiencies, i. 129; - his aims in the Order, i. 29; - L. “falls away” to S., i. 38; - esteem for and rapid promotion of L., i. 11 f., 14, 19 ff., 127, - 160, 262, 295-299, 340, v. 63, vi. 212 f., 228; - advice to L., i. 16; - on Hus, i. 107 f., iii. 144; - at Heidelberg, i. 315 f.; - “your works are read in houses of ill-fame,” ii. 151, iii. 122; - proposed for a bishopric, i. 57; - dispenses L., i. 358, vi. 500, 504; - his sister, ii. 137; - the prophecy, iii. 165; - an enemy of the popedom? i. 326, vi. 189; - visit to Rome, vi. 497; - on the soul and her bridegroom, vi. 513 - - Stein, W., v. 194, vi. 86 - - Steinbach, W., i. 345 - - Steindorf, J., vi. 255 - - Steinhart, G., vi. 505 f. - - Stiefel, M., ii. 376, iii. 389, v. 250 f., vi. 285 - - Stolberg, L. von, v. 211 - - Stolpen, v. 125 - - Stoltz, J., iii. 218 - - Storch, N., vi. 152 - - Stössel, J., vi. 415, 417 - - Stoutness. - _See_ Corpulence - - Stralsund, v. 216 - - Strasburg, ii. 382, iii. 386 f., 421, v. 409, vi. 46, 278, 412, 422 - - Strauss, J., iii. 409, n. - - Strigel, V., iv. 222, vi. 412 - - Strobel, C. G., v. 271 - - Stübner, M., vi. 285 - - Students, L.’s care for, iii. 296 f., iv. 228 ff., vi. 367; - lack of discipline, ii. 51 f., v. 157, 247, vi. 30, 37, 41. - _See_ Melanchthon - - Stuhlweissenburg, v. 227 - - Sturm, Jakob, iv. 75 - - ⸺ Joh., vi. 255 - - Sturz, G., ii. 350, v. 495 - - Stuttgart, vi. 38, 275 - - Stützel, ii. 334 - - Suarez, v. 375, n. - - Subjectivism, i. 223 ff., 367, ii. 31 ff., 73, iii. 18 f., 81, 128, - vi. 334, 458 - - Sublitz, vi. 122 - - Suevus, S., iv. 224, n. - - Suicide, a work of the devil, v. 281 f.; - increase in Lutheranism, iv. 222 f., v. 240; - L.’s temptations to commit S., v. 352 f.; - and the baseless tale that he did, vi. 379, 381 f. - - Suleiman II, iii. 76, 81, 88, 92, vi. 485; - inquires after L., iii. 83 - - Sunday. - _See_ Sabbath-S. - - Superintendents, iii. 30, 324, v. 190, 595, vi. 10 - - Supernatural, order, v. 49-52; - L.’s view of the S., i. 132, 157. - _See_ Justification - - Superstition, ii. 103, 167 f., 389, iii. 118, 148-152, 229 f., 355 ff., - 410 f., v. 239 ff., 276 f., 428. - _See_ Astrology, Changelings, Demonology, Last Day, Witches - - Supper, Lord’s, the new rite, ii. 109 f.; - S. versus Sermon, v. 152 f.; - abuse of the, iii. 304, v. 163; - examination of those who partake, v. 134 f.; - no S. without communicants, v. 152; - L.’s last attendance at the S., vi. 374. - _See_ Cryptocalvinism, Eucharist - - Surgant, J., v. 491 - - Surplice. - _See_ Vestments - - Suso, H., i. 173 - - Sutel, J., iii. 163 - - Sweden, vi. 474, 480 - - Sylvius. - _See_ Silvius - - Synergism, ii. 287 ff., iii. 349 f., v. 53 f., 263, 454, vi. 412 ff. - - Synteresis, i. 75, 114, 233 f., ii. 227 f. - _See_ Conscience - - Syphilis, i. 37. - _See_ Ailments - - - Table-Talk, iii. 217-241, iv. 262-268, vi. 504-510; - L.’s words softened in the German T.-T., iii. 179, n.; - reasons for its publication, vi. 390 f.; - on the “good drink,” iii. 305 ff.; - the bigamy, iv. 43-49; - the Mass, iv. 523 f.; - end of the world, v. 247 ff.; - Antichrist, vi. 155. - _See_ Aurifaber, Cordatus, etc. - - Tagler, U., iv. 172 - - Talents, i. 24, iii. 217, iv. 257 ff., 327 ff., v. 475 f., 482 f., - vi. 111 - - Talmud, iv. 285. - _See_ Jews - - Tauler, J., i. 84, 87, 122, 166-174, 178-183, 232 ff., 237, 243, 273 f., - 299, 381, ii. 145, 372, vi. 115 ff., 215 - - Taxes, iv. 291. - _See_ Tithes - - Temptations, of the flesh, i. 18 f., 275, 287 f., ii. 82 f., 94 f., - vi. 118, 120 f., 511; - to blasphemy, i. 194, ii. 122; - T. against faith, i. 25 f., 124, v. 362 f.; - to despair, i. 19, 376, ii. 276, v. 361; - “struggles and T.,” etc., v. 319-375, vi. 98-122, 150-154; - due to remembrance of past sins, v. 303; - to uncertainty whether his teaching be true, iii. 178, 202; - such T. are exalted ones, ii. 121; - make good Bible-interpreters, iii. 119, v. 390, 532, vi. 149; - make one humble, iii. 389; - are God’s own seal on L.’s work, iii. 119; - a mark of the true Christian, vi. 294 f.; - drink, a good remedy, iii. 306 - - Terence, iv. 47, 61, 186, 217, vi. 16, 18 f., 235 - - Tetrapolitana, Confessio, iii. 444, iv. 199 - - Tetzel, J., i. 105, 163, 314, 320, 325-330, 341-347, 352, iv. 84, 372, - 390, vi. 188 f. - - Teutleben, C., von ii. 21 - - Teutonic Knights. - _See_ Knights - - Thann, E. von der, iv. 25, 40 f. - - Theocracy, v. 580-584, vi. 57 - - Theology, speculative T., v. 440 ff.; - T. of the Cross, i. 174, 191, 234 f., 270, 319, 332, ii. 146, 234, - vi. 116. - _See_ Scholasticism; - “deeper” T., _see_ Mysticism - - Thesaurus ecclesiæ, i. 70, 75, 357. - _See_ Indulgence, Mass, Purgatory - - Thomae, M., vi. 151 - - Thomas of Aquin, _see_ Aquinas; - Thomists, i. 162 f., 243, 271, 339, 370. - _See_ Aristotle - - Three Kings, i. 174, iv. 171. - _See_ Magi - - Thuringia, v. 21 - - Timothy, v. 328 - - Tithes, ii. 193, 221, vi. 85 f., 94 f. - - Titillationes, ii. 94 - - Titles. - _See_ Doctor, Ecclesiastes, Pope (of Wittenberg), Prophet, etc. - - Titus, 64, 306, 386 - - Tobogganing, vi. 373 - - Tolerance, L. the herald of T.? iii. 109, v. 558, vi. 266 f., 448. - _See_ Intolerance - - Tomb, L.’s, vi. 387 ff., 392 ff. - - Tonsure, i. 120, 276, v. 113, 515 - - Torgau, ii. 215, iii. 55 ff., v. 183, 340, vi. 108; - T. Articles, vi. 417; - Book of T., vi. 419 - - Tower-incident, i. 388-400 - - Tradition, not the same as the personal views of the Fathers, vi. 336; - is the common usage of the Churches, vi. 253, 309; - scorned, iv. 420 f.; - thrown over, v. 437 f.; - and yet appealed to, iii. 395 f., iv. 409 f., 494; - v. 399, 462. - _See_ Fathers - - Training. - _See_ Education - - Translations, iii. 413 f., 416. - _See_ Bible, etc. - - Transubstantiation, i. 161 f., iii. 329, 382, n., 445 f. - _See_ Consubstantiation - - Transylvania, v. 167 - - Treasure. - _See_ Thesaurus - - Trent, Council of, indirectly brought about by L., vi. 426; - steps towards its assembling, iii. 424 ff., vi. 492, 494; - its doings, v. 387 ff.; - on relics, etc., vi. 437; - the Catechism, vi. 435; - not fair to judge L. everywhere by its standard, i. 224; - L. on the Council, iv. 339 f., v. 376-394, 429, vi. 344, 364, 375; - its reaction on the Protestants, vi. 419 f., 423 f. - - Treptow, iii. 407 - - Treves, v. 221 - - Trinity, ii. 397 ff., iv. 240 f., 488 f. - - Trithemius, J., i. 48, 91 - - Trump of doom, iv. 329, v. 239, vi. 344 - - Trutfetter, J., i. 6, 137, 311, 320, 343, iv. 356 - - Truthfulness, v. 111. - _See_ Calumnies, Lies - - Tübingen, iii. 430, vi. 38 - - Turks, iii. 76-93, iv. 247, v. 417-421; - a sign of the Last Day, v. 227; - L.’s fear, v. 167; - L. does little to help the defence, ii. 383, iii. 70 f., 94 f., - 214, v. 129, 231; - T. and Pope, etc., ii. 324, v. 234; - T. and Evangelicals, iv. 20, v. 197, 234, 417-421, 479; - Embassy to the T., v. 234, vi. 344 f. - _See_ Appendix I, passim - - Tyrants, world cannot get on without, iii. 147; - assassination of T., ii. 199, iii. 357, iv. 12, vi. 269 - - - Ubiquity. - _See_ Christ - - Ulenberg, C., i. xxiv., ii. 131, iv. 243, 262, n., vi. 268 - - Ulm, ii. 382, iii. 64, 421, vi. 272, 278 - - Ulrich of Augsburg, S., iii. 250, iv. 89 f. - - ⸺ Würtemberg, iii. 58, 67 f., iv. 196 ff. - - Ulscenius, vi. 52, n. - - Unbelief, L.’s occasional U., v. 373; - the worst of sins, iii. 177; - “Catholic U.,” i. 326, 390, 395; - lack of fiducial faith constitutes U., vi. 193 f. - _See_ Faith, Rome - - Undermark, M., iv. 383 - - Universities, appealed to, ii. 21, iv. 6; - unmarried Fellows at the, iv. 154; - derided, ii. 80, 347, iii. 143, iv. 336, vi. 24 f., 33; - decline of the U. due to L., ii. 340 f., 358 f., vi. 27 f.; - the new U., vi. 38. - _See_ Paris, etc. - - Unseemliness of L.’s language, specimens of the, i. 245, ii. 117 f., - 121, 144 ff., iii. 226, 229-241, 251, 264-273, 399, 403, 426, iv. - 45, 64, 106, 143, 148, 153 f., 161-164, 177, 285 ff., 295 f., 305, - 318-322, v. 115, 196, 229, 238, 397, 406 f., 421-431, vi. 72, 254, - 336, 338, 349, 363 f., 513. - _See_ Abusive language - - Urban, vi. 383 - - Ursinus, Z., vi. 414, 422 - - Usingen, B. A. von, L.’s professor, i. 6, 14; - suspicious of Aristotle, i. 136 f.; - the “best Paraclete,” i. 10, vi. 206; - traces in the Comm. on Romans, i. 243; - U. on the two “factions,” i. 147; - opposes L., i. 311, ii. 342 ff., 350; - L.’s treatment of U., ii. 337, 347, 361, n. - - Usury and interest, iii. 104, iv. 216, 266, v. 479, 562, vi. 78, n., - 81-98 - - Utilitarianism, vi. 23 - - Utraquists of Prague, ii. 9, 112 - - - Vadian, J., iv. 100 - - Valla, L., ii. 286, iii. 145 - - Vasa, G., vi. 480 - - Vehe, M., iii. 238, iv. 383, vi. 436 - - Venatorius, T., ii. 43, vi. 483 - - Venial sin. - _See_ Sin - - Venice, i. 228, iii. 430, v. 167 - - Vergerio, P. P., iii. 70, 425-430, iv. 358 f., 485, v. 391 - - Vestments, ii. 323, iii. 393, 413, iv. 511, v. 147, 220, 222, 313, - vi. 410 - - Vicar, District, L. elected, i. 69; - doings as D. V., i. 88 ff., 124, 262-268, 297 f., 315 f., 333 f. - - Viccius, J., ii. 27 - - Vienna, iii. 81, 88, 383 - - Vio, T. de, ii. 46 - - Violence, of language, ii. 11, 13 f., iii. 365 f., 444, iv. 306 f., - vi. 108 f., 112; - V. advocated, ii. 55, iii. 127. - - Violent measures, _see_ Intolerance - - Virgil, vi. 17 f., 376 - - Virgin, Blessed, _see_ Mary; - Virgin-Birth, iv. 241, vi. 420, n.; - L. a V., ii. 143 - - Virginity, iii. 244, iv. 147 f. - _See_ Chastity - - Virtue, no infused V., v. 35; - no efforts to be made after V., i. 83, iii. 187 ff.; - the conception of V. altered, iv. 459; - natural V. is no V. but rather vice, i. 101, 160; - V. is not a real “habit” nor a “quality,” i. 149 f., 209-213, 216; - L.’s new view of V., iii. 200-217; - its defects, v. 84 ff. - _See_ Qualitas - - Vischer, S., vi. 61 - - Visions. - _See_ Ghost - - Visitations, ii. 113, 223, 299, n., 332, iii. 34, 323, iv. 207 ff., - v. 588-597, vi. 241 f. - - Vitalis, F., iii. 152 - - Vives, J. L., vi. 44, 58 - - Vocation, L.’s V. to the monastic state, i. 18 f., 25, 167, 297 f. - _See_ Mission, Secular calling - - Volta, G. della, i. 333 - - Vows, according to Erasmus, ii. 245; - Melanchthon, iii. 325, 330, 360, 439; - according to L., i. 269 f.; - L.’s attack on V., i. 120, ii. 83-87, 115 ff.; - encourages others to break their, ii. 116 ff., 139 f., 142, 169; - L.’s own V., i. 12, ii. 86, vi. 205 ff., 222 f. - _See_ Chastity - - Vulgarity. - _See_ Unseemliness - - - Wages, high, vi. 84 (iii. 291) - - Walch, J. G., iii. 138, 164, 222, vi. 447 - - Waldensians, iv. 417, n. - - Waldschmidt, B., v. 295 - - Walther, J., ii. 334, iv. 256, v. 547 - - ⸺ R., vi. 40 - - Wanckel, M., v. 421 - - War, legitimacy of, iv. 299; - evil of, v. 282. - _See_ Julius II, Peasants, Resistance, Turks - - Warsager, J., iv. 64, n. - - Wartburg, stay at the, ii. 79-96, 368; - temptations, ii. 88, iii. 196, vi. 511; - apparitions, etc., vi. 123 f., 134; - beginning of the German Bible, v. 494, 544; - effect on L. of his stay, iii. 5 f., 120 f. - - Water, Holy, iii. 266 - - Wealth, on whom bestowed, iv. 265 - - Wedding, L.’s, ii. 173-189; - his thoughts before it, ii. 86 f., 118 f., 139 ff., 147 f., 169 f., - 218 f., vi. 208; - a “Joseph’s marriage,” ii. 142; - after-allusions to his W., iii. 269; - “good days,” iii. 178, v. 328, vi. 208; - a means of escaping temptations, vi. 209; - God’s own work, vi. 162; - not recognised by the lawyers, iii. 42, vi. 341, 355. - _See_ Bora, Marriage - - Wegscheider, J., vi. 447 - - Weida, M., of, iii. 238, iv. 128, 136 - - Weier, M., ii. 323 - - Weimar, iii. 70, iv. 23, 44 f., 48, vi. 9 - - Weinsberg, ii. 198, vi. 477 - - Weislinger, N., ii. 131 - - Weller, A., iv. 206 - - ⸺ Hier., iii. 175 ff., 196, 218, 221, 306, iv. 219, 244, 269, v. 329, - vi. 488 - - Werdenberg, Hans von, iii. 292 - - Werewolf, the Papal, iv. 298, v. 384, vi. 244 f., 491 - - Werner, Hans, iv. 197 - - ⸺ Z., vi. 449 - - Wesenberg, vi. 61 - - Wessel, J., vi. 474 - - Westphal, J., vi. 408, 410, 415 - - Whale. - _See_ Haarlem - - Whore, use of the word, iii. 270 f. - - Wicel, G., i. 16, iii. 403, 416, iv. 160, 165 f., 181 f., 361 ff., 471, - v. 43, 379, 436 - - Wiclif, i. 106, 108, n., ii. 232, 286, n., iv. 417, n., v. 243, vi. 26 - - Widebram, F., vi. 417 - - Widerstett, ii. 137 - - Wied, H. von, v. 166, vi. 492 f. - - Wieland, vi. 448 - - Wife, terrible to die without a W., iii. 242 f. - _See_ Bishop, Bora, Marriage, Women - - Wigand, J., vi. 409 f., 413, 415 - - Wild, J., iii. 238, iv. 366 - - Wilde, S., iv. 99 - - Will of God, reason why things are good and evil, i. 157, 212, _see_ - God (the hidden); - Will (human), _see_ Freedom; - L.’s strong Will, iii. 112, iv. 259, vi. 396. - _See_ Defiance - - Will, Last W. and Testament, iii. 42 f., 435 f., iv. 207, 281, 329 - - William of Bavaria, ii. 171 f., 380, iii. 66, 430, iv. 367 - - ⸺ II, of Hesse, iv. 45, 61 - - ⸺ IV, iv. 70, vi. 420 - - Wimpfeling, J., i. 24, 48, 52, iii. 238, iv. 169, vi. 18, 34, 214 - - Wimpina, C., i. 344, iv. 303, 384 - - Winand, i. 12 - - Wine, iii. 293, 301, 304, 307, 310, 314, iv. 26, 171, vi. 446 - - Winistede, J., vi. 61 - - Winther, J., iv. 25 - - Witches, L. and the, iii. 230, 356 f., v. 187, 241 f., 276 f., - 289-297, 304 - - Wittenberg, L. goes to W., i. 21; - dislike for, iv. 215 f., vi. 345 ff.; - “compelled by God” to go thither, iii. 114; - the escaped nuns at W., ii. 136 ff.; - conversion of the town, ii. 327 ff., vi. 240 f.; - Bugenhagen made parish-priest, iii. 407; - suppression of the Mass, ii. 90 f., iv. 510 f.; - “Church of W.,” “School of W.,” v. 384, vi. 314 f.; - morals, iv. 209 f., 215-218, v. 247, vi. 77; - the students vi. 367; - hasty marriages, vi. 358; - the Black Monastery, i. 297, n., iii. 218, 282 f., v. 203 f., 207, - 346, vi. 509; - Elster Gate, ii. 51, 54, vi. 381; - Parish church, ii. 98, iv. 286; - University, i. 38 f. - _See_ Melanchthon, Pope (of Wittenberg), Zwingli - - Wolferinus, vi. 354 - - Wolfframsdorff, J. F. von, iii. 292 - - Wolfgang of Anhalt, ii. 384, iii. 64, vi. 380 f. - - Wollin, iii. 407 - - Women, status of, iii. 233, 267, iv. 132-178; - advice of L.’s director, vi. 206, n.; - degraded by L., iii. 253; - “plenty of wives and children few,” iii. 291; - “who loves not woman, wine and song,” iii. 293 f.; - “a woman’s love,” iii. 289. - _See_ Marriage - - Word, the inner W. (i.e. spirit), i. 229, 299, iv. 397 f.; - replaced by the outward W. (i.e. letter), iii. 397 f., iv. 408-411, - v. 161, 164, vi. 149; - the divine W. in the Sermon and the Eucharist, v. 153; - the W. of truth, i. 83. - _See_ Bible, Revelations, Temptations - - Work, L.’s power for work, i. 267, 274 f., ii. 52 f., 87 f., 97 f., 134, - 160, 223, iii. 117, 298 f., iv. 260 f., v. 497 ff., vi. 342, 348 - - Works, good, iv. 449-481, v. 38-43; - L.’s dislike for, i. 43, 62, 118 ff., 167, 208, ii. 348 f., v. 45; - reason for his apostasy, i. 117 ff., vi. 189; - natural G. W. non-existent, i. 92; - probably all of them mortal sins, i. 317; - G. W. are mere Mosaism, i. 251; - the Catholic “Holiness-by-works,” i. 67, 71, 108, 182; - the only goodness in W. is imputed goodness, i. 212; - truly G. W. are found only in those justified by faith, i. 215; - in these all works are G. W., ii. 36, n.; - whereas in others all are sins, v. 47 f.; - the best of G. W. is fiducial faith, v. 85; - L.’s teaching on G. W. helps on his cause, vi. 403 f. - _See_ Commandments, Concurrence, Counsels, Ethics, Law, Merit, - Synergism - - World, L. against the W. and the W. against L., vi. 271; - W. and Christianity, v. 55 f.; - end of W. - _See_ Last Day; - _see also_ Secular Calling - - Worms, L. at the Diet of, ii. 57 f., 61-79, 132, 324, 367, iii. 209, - n., iv. 85, 355, vi. 105; - Edict of W., ii. 380 f. - - Worship, L.’s charges against Catholic W., i. 283, ii. 354 f., iii. 46, - v. 46, 439, vi. 242-245; - true W. consists of faith, praise and thanks, v. 44; - public W., v. 145-154, 466; - not meant for “Christians,” v. 466, vi. 445, n.; - must be free, i. 252; - the new form of W., ii. 97 f., 320 f.; - to be in Latin, iii. 396; - v. 146; or in Greek, or Hebrew, iv. 280; - to be settled by the Government, vi. 263. - _See_ Ritual - - Würtemberg, iii. 67 f., iv. 46, 53, 196-201 - - Würzburg, v. 220, vi. 47 - - Wurzen, v. 200, 202 - - - Ypres, vi. 43 f. - - - Zachariae, J., i. 107 - - Zanchi, vi. 410, n. - - Zasius, U., ii. 39, 211 f., 244, n., 256, 261, iv. 336, 360, vi. 31, - 438 f. - - Zeitz, v. 193, iv. 346 - - Zell, M., ii. 153, vi. 278 - - Zerbst, v. 189, 218, vi. 266 - - Ziegler, B., v. 500, vi. 410 - - ⸺ J., ii. 133, iii. 303, vi. 271 - - Zinzendorf, vi. 445 - - Ziska, iii. 96 - - Zoch, L., iv. 349 - - Zulsdorf, vi. 346 - - Zürich, iii. 422 ff., 447 - - Zwickau, ii. 97, 99, 205, iii. 234, 402, vi. 34 f., 255, 263, 266 - - Zwilling, G., i. 297, n., ii. 98, 314 ff., 336, iii. 121, vi. 504 - - Zwingli, U., an Erasmian, ii. 248; - yet a predestinarian, iii. 189; - an iconoclast, v. 208, 222; - rationalist, i. 175; - intolerance, vi. 278; - stands up for the Epistle of James, v. 523; - against the bigamy, iv. 10, n.; - relations with L., iii. 379-385; - L.’s jealousy, ii. 376, iii. 65, 177, 389, iv. 87, 308 ff., 410 f., - 493 f., v. 104, 231, 531 f., vi. 108, 280, 289, 352; - Wittenberg Concord, iii. 417-424; - Z. on L., iii. 277. - _See_ Marburg Conference, Philip II - - Zwinglians, Sacramentarians, etc., ii. 223, iii. 67, 327 f., 379-385, - 409, 424, v. 76, 79 f., 104 f., 169, 231, 397 ff., 465, vi. 289, - 316, 351 f., 396. - _See_ Supper - - Zwolle, vi. 35 - - PRINTED BY - WM. BRENDON AND SON, LTD., - PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Luther, vol. 6 of 6, by Hartmann Grisar - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LUTHER, VOL. 6 OF 6 *** - -***** This file should be named 54811-0.txt or 54811-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/4/8/1/54811/ - -Produced by David Garcia, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe and -the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian -Libraries) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |