Chapter XXVIII: The New Dogmas in an Historical and Psychological Light (8)

[359] H. Rocholl, in N. Paulus’s art. on the Catholic lawyer and writer, Conrad Braun († 1563), in “Hist. Jahrb.” (14, 1893, p. 517 ff.), p. 525.

[360] Paulus, “Johann Hoffmeister,” 1891, p. 206, and in “Hist. Jahrb.,” _loc. cit._

[361] “Theol. Rev.,” 1908, p. 215.

[362] Bd. 1, 1908, p. 66: “_Nullis conviciis parcemus quantumvis turpibus et ignominiosis_,” etc.

[363] Luther’s friend Jonas also distinguished himself in controversy by the character of the charges he brings forward against his opponents as true “historia.” (See above, vol. iii., p. 416, n. 3.)

[364] W. Köhler, “Luthers Werden” (“Prot. Monatshefte,” 1907, Hft. 8-9, p. 292 ff., p. 345 ff., p. 294).

[365] W. Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform.,” pp. 221, 220.

[366] “Fortschritte in Kenntnis und Verständnis der RG.” (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59, pp. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16 f.). The author’s standpoint is expressed on p. 13: “It is self-evident that this does not in any way detract from Luther’s importance.... Luther merely stands out all the more as the last link of the previous evolution,” etc. On p. 17 he declares that the author of “Luther und Luthertum” lacked entirely the “sense of truth.” See the passage from Böhmer in “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”², 1901, p. 144.

[367] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 581.

[368] “Luther und die KG.,” 1, 1900, p. 363.

[369] “Sermo 60 in Dom. 6 post. Trin.” (“_Sermones de tempore_,” Tubingæ, 1500).

[370] “Sibend und Acht ader letzte Sermon,” Lipsie, 1533. On this work cp. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 66, n. 2.

[371] “_Reportata in quatuor S. Bonaventuræ sententiarum libros, Scoti subtilis secundi_,” Basileæ, 1501. L. 2 d. 5 q. 6.

[372] Bl. 2. On the work, see Hasak, “Der christl. Glaube des deutschen Volkes beim Schluss des MA.,” 1868, p. 67 ff.

[373] “_Sermones super epistolas dominicales_,” s. l. e. a. Bl. 51. N. Paulus quotes more of Herolt’s sayings in “Johann Herolt und seine Lehre, Beitrag zur Gesch. des religiösen Volksunterrichts am Ausgang des MA.” (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 417 ff., particularly p. 429).

[374] Paulus, _ibid._, pp. 429, 430.

[375] “Evangelibuch,” Augsburg, 1560, Bl. 15. Cp. the Basle “_Plenarium_,” 1514, Bl. 25.

[376] “Errettunge des christl. Bescheydts,” usw., 1528, 32, Bl. 4º, h. 2.

[377] “_De imitatione Christi_,” 1, 15; and 3, 4.

[378] _Ibid._, 1, 17, 19.

[379] Bd. 2, Stuttgart, 1884, p. 143.

[380] See the figures in Grisar, “_Analecta Romana_,” 1, tab. 10-12.

[381] On the origin of the waxen “_Agnus Dei_” and its connection with the oldest baptismal rite, see my art. in the “Civiltà Cattolica,” June 2, 1907. From the beginning it was a memorial of the baptismal covenant and served as a constant stimulus to personal union with Christ.

[382] “_De imit. Christi_,” 4, 1, 2.

[383] Freiburg, i/B., 1902, p. 730 f.

[384] _Ibid._, p. 737 f.

[385] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 407.

[386] N. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 961. Cp. Paulus “Der Katholik,” 1898, 2, p. 25: “Had Luther’s intention been merely to impress this fundamentally Catholic message on Christendom [the trustful relations between the individual and God] there would never have been a schism.”

[387] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740.

[388] Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297.

[389] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418.

[390] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 45, p. 184.

[391] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 186.

[392] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 230.

[393] _Ibid._, p. 193.

[394] _Ibid._, p. 323.

[395] “Sermo 25 de tempore.”

[396] “Sermo 55 de tempore.”

[397] “Sermones super epistolas dominicales.” Sermo 15.

[398] “Eine nutzliche Lere,” usw., Leipzig, 1502, c. 1.

[399] In a “Novelle,” published by Ph. Strauch in the “Zeitschr. für deutsches Luthertum,” 29, 1885, p. 389.--For further particulars of the respect for worldly callings before Luther’s day, see N. Paulus, “Luther und der Beruf” (“Der Katholik,” 1902, 1, p. 327 ff.), and in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 20, p. 148; likewise Denifle, “Luther,” 1², p. 138 ff.

[400] “Sermo 25 de tempore.”

[401] “Cp. Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 496 ff. (N. Paulus on O. Scheel).

[402] Basle, 1522, B. 1´.

[403] “Von dem waren christl. Leben,” Bl. C. 3´.

[404] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178.

[405] _Ibid._

[406] What follows has, it is true, no close relation to “Luther and Lying”; the author has, however, thought it right to deal with the matter here because of the connection between Luther’s misrepresentations of the Middle Ages and his calumny against Catholic times, both of which were founded, not on the facts of the case, but on personal grounds. Cp. below, p. 147.

[407] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 71 ff., pp. 155, 238, 242.

[408] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 55.

[409] Cp. Denifle, _ibid._, p. 239 f.

[410] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 152; Erl. ed., 28, p. 194. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt.”

[411] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 14, p. 157.

[412] _Ibid._, 24, p. 123 f.

[413] _Ibid._, 27, p. 26.

[414] “Werke.” Erl. ed., 18², p. 92.

[415] _Ibid._, 31, p. 297.

[416] Sermo 343, n. 7; Denifle, 1², p. 243, refers also to “De bono coniugali,” n. 9, 27, 28.

[417] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 138 f.: “A married man cannot give himself up entirely to reading and prayer, but is, as St. Paul says, ‘divided’ and must devote a great part of his life to pleasing his spouse.” The Apostle says that though the “troubles and cares of the married state are good, yet it is far better to be free to pray and attend to the Word of God.”--Luther is more silent concerning our Lord’s own recommendation of virginity (“_Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est_,” etc., Mat. xix. 11 f.). Of his attitude towards voluntary virginity we have already spoken in vol. iii., 246 ff.

[418] “Werke.,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 178 (Table-Talk).

[419] _Ibid._, 64, p. 155. From his glosses on the Bible.

[420] _Ibid._, 31, p. 390. From the “Winckelmesse,” 1534.

[421] _Ibid._, 44, p. 376.

[422] _Ibid._, p. 25², p. 432; cp. p. 428.

[423] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 283: “_Ipse ego, cum essem adhuc monachus, idem sapiebam, coniugium esse damnatum genus vitæ_.”

[424] And yet a Protestant has said quite recently: “The Church persistently taught that love had nothing to do with marriage.” As though the restraining of sexual love within just limits was equivalent to the exclusion of conjugal love.

[425] Ed. Ph. Strauch, “Zeitschr. für deutsches Altertum,” 29, 1885, pp. 373-427.

[426] P. 385.

[427] Munich State Library, cod. germ., 757.

[428] _Ibid._, cod. 756.

[429] Heinemann, “Die Handschriften der Herzogl. Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel,” 2, 4, p. 332 f.

[430] “Überlieferungen zur Gesch.,” etc., 1, 2, p. 204 f.

[431] “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1892, p. 487.

[432] “Sermones Fratris Barlete,” Brixie, 1497 and 1498, several times republished in the 16th century. See sermon for the Friday of the fourth week of Lent.

[433] “_Opus super Sapientiam Salomonis_,” ed. Hagenau, 1494 (and elsewhere), “_Lectio_” 43 and 44, on Marriage. Cp. _ibid._, 181, the “_Lectio_” on the Valiant Woman, and in his work, “_In Proverbia Salomonis explanationes_,” Paris, 1510, “_Lectio_” 91, with the explanation of Prov. xii. 4: “A diligent woman is a crown to her husband.”

[434] Luther, on the other hand, declares: “The work of begetting children was not distinguished from other sins, such as fornication and adultery. But now we have learnt and are assured by the Grace of God that marriage is honourable.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 116.

[435] On Barletta and Holkot, cp. N. Paulus in “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, Nos. 19 and 20; and his art., “Die Ehe in den deutschen Postillen des ausgehenden MA.,” and “Gedruckte und Ungedruckte deutsche Ehebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,” _ibid._, 1903, Nos. 18 and 20. See also F(alk) in “Der Katholik,” 1906, 2, p. 317 ff.: “Ehe und Ehestand im MA.,” and in the work about to be quoted. Denifle, “Luther,” 1, has much to say of the Catholic and the Lutheran views of marriage.

[436] “Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz. zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4).

[437] “Die Ehe am Ausgange des MA., Eine Kirchen- und kulturhist. Studie,” 1908 (“Erläut. und Ergänz, zu Janssens Gesch. des d. Volkes,” 6, Hft. 4), p. 67.

[438] _Ibid._, p. 66.

[439] “Die Stellung der Frau im MA.,” Oct. 1 and 8, 1910, p. 1253.

[440] _Ibid._, p. 1299.

[441] _Ibid._, p. 1248.

[442] Cp. F. Schaub, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 26, 1905, p. 117 ff., on H. Crohns, who, in order to accuse St. Antoninus and others of “hatred of women,” appeals to the “Witches’ Hammer”: “It is unjust to make these authors responsible for the consequences drawn from their utterances by such petty fry as the producers of the ‘Witches’ Hammer.’” Cp. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 134, 1904, particularly p. 812 ff.

[443] Finke, _ibid._, p. 1249.

[444] _Ibid._, p. 1256.

[445] _Ibid._, p. 1258.--Finke’s statements may be completed by the assurance that full justice was done to marriage by both theologians and liturgical books, and that not merely “traces” but the clearest proofs exist, that “mutual help” was placed in the foreground as the aim of marriage. Details on this point are contained in Denifle’s “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 254 ff. The following remark by a writer, so deeply versed in mediæval Scholasticism, is worthy of note: “There is not a single Schoolman of any standing, who, on this point [esteem for marriage in the higher sense], is at variance with Hugo of St. Victor, the Lombard, or ecclesiastical tradition generally. Though there may be differences in minor points, yet all are agreed concerning the lawfulness, goodness, dignity and holiness of marriage” (p. 261). “It is absolutely ludicrous, nay, borders on imbecility,” he says (_ibid._) with characteristic indignation, “that Luther should think it necessary to tell the Papists that Adam and Eve were united according to the ordinance and institution of God” (“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 70). He laments that Luther’s assertions concerning the contempt of Catholics for marriage should have left their trace in the Symbolic Books of Protestantism (“Confess. August.,” art. 16, “Symb. Bücher^[10],” ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 42), and exclaims: “Surely it is time for such rubbish to be too much even for Protestants.” Jos. Löhr (“Methodisch-kritische Beitr. zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, bes. der Erzdiözese Köln am Ausgang des MA.,” 1911, “Reformations-geschichtl. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, pp. 77-84) has dealt with the same matter, but in a more peaceful tone.

[446] Prov. xxxi. 10 f.: “_Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?_” etc. The Lesson of the Mass _De communi nec virginum nec martyrum_.

[447] The Gradual of the same Mass, taken from Psalm xliv.

[448] Falk, _op. cit._, p. 71.

[449] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 207 (Table-Talk). In his translation of the Bible Luther quotes the German verse: “Nought so dear on earth as the love of woman to the man who shares it” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 113), in connection with Proverbs xxxi. 10 ff. (“_Mulierem fortem_,” etc.). In the Table-Talk he quotes the same when speaking of those who are unfaithful to their marriage vow in not praying: “People do not pray. Therefore my hostess at Eisenach [Ursula, Cunz Cotta’s wife, see vol. i., p. 5 f., and vol. iii., p. 288 f.] was right in saying to me when I went to school there: ‘There is no dearer thing on earth than the love of woman to the man on whom it is bestowed’” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 212). Luther’s introduction of the phrase in connection with the passage on the “_Mulier fortis_” was an injustice, and an attempt to prove again the alleged contempt of Catholicism for the love of woman.

[450] N. Paulus, “Zur angeblichen Geringschätzung der Frau und der Ehe im MA.,” in the “Wissensch. Beil. zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 10 and 12.

[451] Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 119.

[452] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 246 f.

[453] _Ibid._, 16², p. 536 ff.

[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 51 ff.

[455] _Ibid._, p. 58.

[456] _Ibid._, pp. 66, 68.

[457] _Ibid._, 30, 3, p. 278; Erl. ed., 25², p. 6. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[458] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 420.

[459] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 16², p. 538.

[460] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 283; Erl. ed., 16², p. 519. Cp. present work, vol. iii., p. 263 and p. 241 ff.

[461] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 205 (Table-Talk).

[462] Cp. the passages in the Table-Talk on marriage and on women, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 182-213, and 57, pp. 270-273.

[463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 205.

[464] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 25. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 121; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 421; 2, p. 368. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 440.

[465] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 266: “_reicio ... ubi possum_.” There are, however, some instances of sympathy and help being forthcoming.

[466] See above, pp. 3 ff., 13 ff., and vol. iii., 259 ff.

[467] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 168; Erl. ed., 24², p. 63. Second edition of the Sermon.

[468] _Ibid._, p. 168 f.=63 f.

[469] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 170; Erl. ed., 24², p. 66.

[470] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 330 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 353 _seq._ “Iudicium de votis monasticis.” Cp. vol. iii., p. 248.

[471] “Apol. Conf. Augustanæ,” c. 23, n. 38; Bekenntnisschriften, ^[10], p. 242: “_Ita virginitas donum est præstantius coniugio._”

[472] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 74; Erl. ed., 23, p. 208.

[473] Leipzig, 1865, p. 159. Friedberg adduces passages from H. L. v. Strampff, “Uber die Ehe; aus Luthers Schriften zusammengetragen,” Berlin, 1857. Falk, “Die Ehe am Ausgang des MA.,” p. 73. Th. Kolde says, in his “M. Luther,” 2, p. 488, that the reformers, and Luther in particular, “lacked a true insight into the real, moral nature of marriage.” “At that time at any rate [1522 f.] it was always the sensual side of marriage to which nature impels, which influenced him. That marriage is essentially the closest communion between two individuals, and thus, by its very nature, excludes more than two, never became clear to him or to the other reformers.” Kolde, however, seeks to trace this want of perception to the “mediæval views concerning marriage.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 285. Otto Scheel, the translator of Luther’s work on Monastic Vows (“Werke Luthers, Auswahl, usw., Ergänzungsbd.,” 1, p. 199 ff.), speaks of Luther’s view of marriage as “below that of the Gospel” (p. 198).

[474] “Die kath. Moral,” 1902, p. 118.

[475] On Dec. 6, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 279. See vol. iii., p. 269. The passage was omitted by Aurifaber and De Wette probably because not judged quite proper.

[476] Aug., “De bono coniug.,” c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 6. According to Denifle, 1¹, p. 277, n. 2, the Schoolmen knew the passages through the Lombard “Sent.,” 4, dist. 31, c. 5. He also quotes S. Thom., “Summa theol.,” Supplem., q. 41, a. 4; q. 49, a. 5; q. 64, a. 4: “_ut sibi invicem debitum reddant_.”

[477] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 654; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 355. On the text, see Denifle, 1², p. 263, n. 3.

[478] _Ibid._, 20, 2, p. 304; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541. “On Married Life,” 1522.

[479] _Ibid._, 12, p. 114. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, p. 10.

[480] N. Paulus, “Hist. Jahrb.,” 27, 1906, p. 495, art. “Zu Luthers Schrift über die Mönchsgelübde”: “Luther’s false view of the sinfulness of the ‘_actus matrimonialis_’ was strongly repudiated by Catholics, particularly by Clichtoveus and Cochlæus.”

[481] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 276; Erl. ed., 16², p. 511. “Sermon on the Married Life,” 1522.

[482] _Ibid._, 12, p. 66; Erl. ed., 53, p. 188.

[483] _Ibid._, p. 113.

[484] Cp. vol. iii., p. 264 ff.

[485] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 101. Then follows a highly questionable statement concerning a rule of the Wittenberg Augustinian monastery, in which Luther fails to distinguish between “_pollutiones voluntariæ_” and “_involuntariæ_,” but which draws from him the exclamation: “All the monasteries and foundations ought to be destroyed, if only on account of these shocking ‘_pollutiones_’!”

[486] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 73, where some improper remarks may be found on the temptation of St. Paul (according to the notes, on account of St. Thecla) and that of St. Benedict, who, we are told, rolled himself in the thorns to overcome it.

[487] See vol. iii., p. 267, n. 10.

[488] _Ibid._, p. 122: “_Scribis, mea iactari ab iis qui lupanaria colunt_.”

[489] “Briefe,” ed. by De Wette, 6, p. 419, undated.

[490] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 373. To a bridegroom in 1536.

[491] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 364 f.; Erl. ed., 41, p. 135. Brandenburg, “Luther über die Obrigkeit,” p. 7.

[492] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 437.

[493] _Ibid._, p. 219.

[494] See vol. ii., pp. 115-28.

[495] To Spalatin, June 10, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 189 f. Enders (p. 191) would refer the above passages to Luther’s own marriage, but G. Bossert (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1907, p. 691) makes out a better case for their reference to Polenz and Briesmann. Two persons at least are obviously referred to: “_Quod illi vero prætexunt, certos sese fore de animo suo, stultum est; nullius cor est in manu sua, diabolus potentissimus est_,” etc. Luther evidently felt, that, until the persons in question had been bound to the new Evangel by their public marriages, their support could not be entirely reckoned on.

[496] On June 2, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 186). See vol. ii., p. 142.

[497] On May 26, 1525, “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).

[498] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans., 5, p. 114).

[499] Advice to this effect is found in letters of Dec. 22, 1525, and Jan. 5, 1526, both addressed to Marquard Schuldorp of Magdeburg, who married his niece, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 283 (and p. 303). The second letter, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 364, was printed at Magdeburg in 1526. In the first letter he says, that though the Pope would in all likelihood refuse to grant a dispensation in this case, yet it sufficed that God was not averse to the marriage. “They shall not be allowed to curtail our freedom!”

[500] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 337, in 1544.

[501] In the second letter to Schuldorp. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 135, 1905, p. 85.

[502] Mathesius, _ibid._ For further explanation of this statement, cp. Luther’s letter of Dec. 10, 1543, to D. Hesse, “Briefe,” 5, p. 606 ff. He there says of his decision on the lawfulness of this marriage: “_Est nuda tabula, in qua nihil docetur aut iubetur, sed modeste ostenditur, quid in veteri lege de his traditum sit.... In consolationem confessorem seu conscientiarum mea quoque scheda fuit emissa contra papam._” He insists that he had always spoken in support of the secular laws on marriage and against the reintroduction of the Mosaic ordinances. “_Ministrorum verbi non est leges condere, pertinet hoc ad magistratum civilem ... ideo et coniugium debet legibus ordinari. Tamen si quis casus cogeret dispensare, non vererer occulte in conscientiis aliter consulere, vel si esset publicus casus, consulere, ut a magistratu peteret dispensationem._”

[503] Rockwell, “Die Doppelehe Philipps,” p. 86.

[504] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 374, Jan., 1537.

[505] Luther’s memorandum, Aug. 18, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 326 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 228). Cp. Enders’ Notes to this letter.

[506] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 558; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 98 _seq._ “_De captivitate babylonica_.”

[507] _Ibid._, 10. 2, p. 278; Erl. ed., 16², p. 513 f.

[508] Dec. 28, 1525, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 289.

[509] Dec. 19, 1522, “Akten und Briefe des Herzogs Georg von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, I, 1905, p. 402.

[510] Jan. 1, 1523, _ibid._, p. 415. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 137, 1906, p. 56 f.

[511] “Postille,” Mainz, 1542, 4b. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 52.

[512] “_Professio catholica_,” Coloniæ, 1580 (reprint), p. 219 _seq._ Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 8^[14], p. 456. Several replies were called forth by this over-zealous and extremely anti-Lutheran polemic.

[513] “Vormeldung der Unwahrheit Luterscher Clage,” Frankfurt/Oder, 1532. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” etc., p. 33.

[514] Cp. above, p. 152 f.

[515] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 340. Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 252.

[516] Cp., for instance, present work, vol. iii., p. 268, and vol. ii., p. 378.

[517] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 281.

[518] This was Elisabeth Kaufmann, a niece of Luther’s, yet unmarried, who lived with her widowed sister Magdalene at the Black Monastery. The “pastoress” was the wife of the apostate priest Bugenhagen, Pastor of Wittenberg, who, during Bugenhagen’s absence in Brunswick, seems to have enjoyed the hospitality of the same great house. The “many girls” are Luther’s servants and those of the other inhabitants.

[519] Aurifaber suppressed the end of this conversation. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 201.

[520] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 221.

[521] Cp. vol. iii., p. 175 f. Cp. p. 179.

[522] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 390.

[523] Cp. vol. v., xxxi., 5.

[524] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 396.

[525] _Ibid._, p. 415.

[526] _Ibid._, p. 405 f.

[527] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 426. See vol. iii., p. 273. Akin to this is his self-congratulation (above, p. 46), that he works for the increase of mankind, whereas the Papists put men to death.

[528] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 430.

[529] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.

[530] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 388.

[531] _Ibid._, 61, p. 193. The last words are omitted in the two old editions of the Table-Talk by Selnecker and Stangwald.

[532] _Ibid._, 20², p. 365. At the marriage of the apostate Dean of Merseburg.

[533] _Ibid._, 25², p. 373; cp. p. 369 and above, vol. iii., p. 251, n. 3.

[534] _Ibid._, 61, p. 204 (Table-Talk).

[535] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 205 (Table-Talk).

[536] _Ibid._, p. 211.

[537] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 262.

[538] For similar instances of the use of such signs see vol. iii., p. 231. The Nuremberg MS. of the Mathesius collection substitutes here, according to Kroker, a meaningless phrase. The MS. in the Ducal Library at Gotha, entitled “Farrago” (1551), omits it altogether.

[539] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 289; Erl. ed., 16², p. 525. On the “strangling,” cp. vol. iii., p. 253, n. 3.

[540] “Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German ed. (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.,” Hft. 6).

[541] “_De stultitia mortalium_,” Basil., 1557, 1, 1, p. 50 _seq._ Denifle, 1², p. 287.

[542] “Von werlicher Visitation,” Eisleben, 1555, Bl. K. 3. Denifle, 1², p. 280.

[543] “Annotationen zu den Propheten,” 2, Eisleben, 1536, fol. 88. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 48.

[544] “Ein unüberwindlicher gründlicher Bericht was die Rechtfertigung in Paulo sei,” Leipzig, 1533. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 40.

[545] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[546] Dan. xi., 37. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 155.

[547] “Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, fol. 198´. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 106.

[548] The passages referred to are, according to the text of the Vulgate: 1 Cor. vii. 32: “_Qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quæ Domini sunt_,” etc. _Ibid._, 38: “_Qui non iungit (virginem suam) melius facit._” _Ibid._, 40: “_Beatior erit, si sic permanserit_,” etc. Mat. xix. 12: “_Sunt eunuchi, qui se ipsos castraverunt propter regnum Dei. Qui potest capere capiat._” Apoc. xiv. 3 f., of those who sing “the new song before the throne” of the Lamb: “_Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocunque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex hominibus primitiæ Deo et Agno._” 1 Tim. v. 12, of those widows dedicated to God who marry: “_Habentes damnationem, qui primam fidem irritam fecerunt_.”--Against Jovinian St. Jerome wrote, in 392: “Adv. Iovinianum” (“P.L.,” 23, col. 211 _seq._), where, in the first part, he defends virginity, which the former had attacked, and demonstrates its superiority and its merit.

[549] “Annotationen zum A.T.,” 2, 1536, fol. 198´, on Daniel xi., 37. Döllinger, _ibid._, p. 105 f.

[550] “Homiliæ XXII,” Vitebergæ, 1532. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 278.

[551] “_De corruptis moribus utriusque partis_,” Bl. F. III. In the title page the author’s name is given as Czecanovius; this is identical with Staphylus, as N. Paulus has shown in the “Katholik,” 1895, 1, p. 574 f.

[552] F. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, fol. 202´.

[553] Cp. the quotations in Denifle (1², Preface, p. 15 ff.), commencing with one from Billicanus: “By the eternal God, what fornication and adultery are we not forced to witness”; also those on pp. 282 ff., 805 f.

[554] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 8^[14], pp. 378 f., 384 ff., 392.

[555] See above, p. 167, n. 3.

[556] J. Löhr, “Methodisch-kritische Beiträge zur Gesch. der Sittlichkeit des Klerus, besonders der Erzdiözese Köln, am Ausgange des MA.” (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 17, 1910).

[557] Page 44.

[558] Page 59.

[559] Page 65. That all offenders without exception were punished is of course not likely.

[560] _Ibid._, pp. 1-24.--For the 16th and 17th centuries we refer the reader to J. Schmidlin, “Die kirchl. Zustände in Deutschland vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege nach den bischöflichen Diözesanberichten an den Heiligen Stuhl,” Freiburg, 1908-1911 (“Erläuterungen usw. zu Janssens Gesch.,” 7, Hft. 1-10). In the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 31, 1910, p. 163, we read of the reports contained in the first part of the work: “They commence by revealing the sad depths to which Catholic life had sunk, but go on to show an ever-increasing vigour on the part of the bishops, in many cases crowned with complete success.”

[561] “_De vita et miraculis Iohannis Gerson_,” s.l.e.a. (1506), B 4b; Janssen-Pastor, 1^[18], p. 681. Wimpfeling is, however, answering the Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who had attacked the secular clergy; elsewhere he witnesses to the grave blots on the life of the secular clergy.

[562] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400 (“Tischreden”). Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “_Cum summo fletu spectatorum_.”

[563] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 239; Erl. ed., 16², p. 234.

[564] We may here remark concerning Luther’s stay at Cologne (passed over in vol. i., p. 38 f., for the sake of brevity), that at the Chapter then held by Staupitz--to whose party Luther had now gone over--the former probably refrained, in his official capacity, from putting in force his plans for an amalgamation of the Observantines and the Conventuals of the Saxon Province. There is no doubt that Luther came to Cologne from Wittenberg, whither he had betaken himself on his return from Rome. After the Chapter at Cologne he made preparations for his promotion. Possibly the project of securing the Doctorate was matured at Cologne. He speaks of the relics of the Three Kings in a sermon of January 5th, of which two accounts have been preserved (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 22: “I have seen them.” “I too have seen them”). In the so-called “Bibelprotokollen,” of 1539, he says (_ibid._, p. 585): “At Cologne I drank a wine _quod penetrabat in mensa manum_” (which probably means, was so fiery that soon after drinking it he felt a tingling down to his finger-tips). “Never in all my life have I drunk so rich a wine.” Cp., for the Cologne Chapter, Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 242 f., and for the same and Luther’s Cologne visit, Walter Köhler, “Christl. Welt,” 1908, No. 30; N. Paulus, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 142, 1908, p. 749; and G. Kawerau, “Theol. Stud, und Krit.,” 81, 1908, p. 348. Buchwald refers to a statement of Luther’s on a monument at Cologne (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 371=“Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, p. 625) in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 609.

[565] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 86.

[566] _Ibid._, p. 308.

[567] Jan. 25, 1526, _ibid._, p. 312.

[568] Cp. Enders on the letter last quoted.

[569] “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 322 f. Hasenberg’s Latin letter, Aug. 10, 1528, p. 334 ff.; v. der Heyden’s German one of same date.

[570] Cp. Duke George’s fierce letter to Luther of Dec. 28, 1525 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.), which was also printed forthwith. He will speak freely and openly to him, he says: “Seek the hypocrites amongst those who call you a prophet, a Daniel, the Apostle of the Germans and an Evangelist.” “At Wittenberg you have set up an asylum where all the monks and nuns who, by their robbing and stealing, deprive us of our churches and convents find refuge.” “When have more acts of sacrilege been committed by people dedicated to God than since your Evangel has been preached?” Did not Christ say: “By their fruits you shall know them”? All the great preachers of the faith have been “pious, respectable and truthful men, not proud, avaricious or unchaste.” “Your marriage is the work, not of God, but of the enemy.... Since both of you once took an oath not to commit unchastity lest God should forsake you, is it not high time that you considered your position?”--The greater part of the letter was incorporated by Cochlæus in his _Acta_ (p. 119).

[571] On p. 336 von der Heyden says: Luther is “beginning to draw in his horns and is in great fear lest his nun should be unyoked.”

[572] Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana, may be the author of this anonymous work, printed in “P.L.,” 16, col. 367-384.

[573] For the full text of this anonymous hymn (incorporated in the Office for Virgins in the Breviary), see “P.L.,” 16, col. 1221.

[574] “_Literarii sodalitii apud Marpurgam aliquot cachinni super quodam duorum Lypsiensium poetarum in Lutherum scripto libello effusi_” (Marburgæ), 1528.

[575] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 539 ff. (with the editor’s opinion on the authorship); Erl. ed., 64, pp. 324-337.

[576] _Ibid._, p. 540=339. The writing aptly concludes: “_... tuo, vates, carmine tergo nates_.”

[577] _Ibid._, p. 548=330.

[578] _Ibid._, p. 547=327 f.

[579] _Ibid._, p. 544=344.

[580] _Ibid._, p. 553 f.=335 f.

[581] “Sermones dominicales des gnadenreichen Predigers Andree Prolis” (with notes), Leipzig, 1530, fol. K. 4´.

[582] “_Apologeticus adv. Alcoranum Franciscanorum pro Libro Conformitatum_,” Antverpiæ, 1607, p. 101.

[583] “Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 9, col. 1249 _seq._

[584] See vol. ii., p. 242 ff.

[585] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 29.

[586] _Ibid._, p. 96 f.

[587] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 311.

[588] See vol. ii., p. 249 ff.

[589] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 368 f.

[590] _Ibid._, p. 382.

[591] _Ibid._, 10, p. 8 ff., about March 11, 1534.

[592] On March 31, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 36.

[593] At the conclusion Luther says of the young people: “_Hac levitate et vanitate paulatim desuescit a religione, donec abhorreat et penitus profanescat_.” And: “_Dominus noster Iesus, quem mihi Petrus non tacet Deum, sed in cuius virtute scio et certus sum me sæpius a morte liberatum, in cuius fide hæc omnia incepi et hactenus effeci, quæ ipsi hostes mirantur, ipse custodiat et liberet nos in finem. Ipse est Dominus Deus noster verus._”

[594] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 709: _γεροντικὰ πάθη_.

[595] _Ibid._, 3, p. 69.

[596] On April 15, 1534, Burckhardt-Biedermann, “Bonif. Amerbach,” 1894, p. 297. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 24.

[597] Enders, _ibid._, p. 23.

[598] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 312.

[599] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 526, _seq._

[600] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 278 ff.

[601] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1494 _seq._

[602] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, admits that Luther’s charge was “groundless.”

[603] Most of the above passages from Erasmus’s reply are quoted by Enders, p. 25 ff. The outspoken passage last quoted is given in Latin in vol. iii., p. 136. n. 2.

[604] Quoted by Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 663, p. 313, n. 1.

[605] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 275: “_Vixit et decessit ut Epicureus sine aliquo ministro et consolatione.... Multa quidem præclara scripsit, habuit ingenium præstantissimum, otium tranquillum.... In agone non expetivit ministrum verbi neque sacramenta, et fortasse ilia verba suæ confessionis in agone ‘Fili Dei miserere mei’ illi affinguntur._” Cp. Luther’s words in 1544 in Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 343: “He died ‘_sine crux et sine lux_’”; here again Luther says he had been the cause of many losing body and soul and had been the originator of the Sacramentarians. See our vol. ii., p. 252, n. 1, for further details of Erasmus’s end. We read in Mathesius, p. 90 (May, 1540): “The Doctor said: He arrogated to himself the Divinity of which he deprived Christ. In his ‘_Colloquia_’ he compared Christ with Priapus [Kroker remarks: ‘Erasmus did _not_ compare Christ with Priapus’], he mocked at Him in his ‘Catechism’ [’_Symbolum_’], and particularly in his execrable book the ‘_Farragines_.’”

[606] See the whole passage in “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 272 _seq._

[607] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 89. See above, p. 101.

[608] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 92.

[609] _Ibid._

[610] Luther to Duke George, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 338 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 281, with amended date and colophon). George to Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 285 ff.

[611] More in the same strain above, p. 173, n. 4.

[612] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 134.

[613] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 411, Table-Talk.

[614] _Ibid._, 31, p. 250 ff.

[615] _Ibid._, 61, p. 343, Table-Talk.

[616] To the Elector Frederick of Saxony, March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 107 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[617] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 343 f., Table-Talk.

[618] _Ibid._, 58, p. 412 (Table-Talk), where Luther bases his tale on a remark of the Protestant Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony.

[619] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 413 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 108 ff. See our vol. ii., p. 295 f.

[620] “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 ff.

[621] P. 135.

[622] P. 130.

[623] P. 144.

[624] “Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen,” p. 53.

[625] Above, p. 38, and vol. iii., p. 262.

[626] Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 271.

[627] To Johannes Cellarius, minister at Dresden, Nov. 26, 1540, Letters ed. De Wette, 5, p. 229.

[628] _Ibid._, cp. the letter to Wenceslaus Link of Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 270: “_Proceres veteri odio despiciunt Wittembergam_.”

[629] Letter of Dec. 4, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” _ibid._, p. 313.

[630] To Provost George Buchholzer at Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539, _ibid._, p. 316. At the Wittenberg Schlosskirche the elevation had gone before 1539, and soon after was discontinued throughout the Saxon Electorate. It was retained, however, in the parish church of Wittenberg until Bugenhagen did away with it on June 25, 1542. Luther reserved to himself the liberty of re-introducing it should heresy or other reasons call for it. He had retained the elevation at Wittenberg for a while as a protest against Carlstadt’s attacks on the Sacrament, at least such was the reason he gave in May, 1542, to Landgrave Philip, who wanted its abrogation. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 578.

[631] Dec., 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 232 ff.; Erl. ed., 29, p. 16 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 266).

[632] Cp. Enders, _ibid._, 10, p. 98, n. 7.

[633] Letter to Coler, April 30, 1535. Enders, _ibid._, p. 151, n. 5.

[634] To Justus Jonas, Dec. 17, 1534, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 98.

[635] To Erhard Schnepf at Stuttgart, May 15, 1535, _ibid._, p. 150.

[636] Letter to the Chancellor Leonard v. Eck, Jan. 21, 1535, in Wille, “Anal. zur Gesch. Oberdeutschlands, 1534-1540” (“Zeitschr. für die Gesch. des Oberrheins,” 37, p. 263 ff.), p. 293 f.

[637] G. Bossert in “Württemberg. KG.,” ed. Calwer Verlagsverein, Calw. 1893, p. 335.

[638] Cp. _ibid._, p. 336.

[639] _Ibid._, p. 347.

[640] _Ibid._, p. 348.

[641] Hans Werner to Chancellor Eck, Jan. 14, 1536, Wille, _ibid._, p. 298.

[642] Bossert, _ibid._, remarks, p. 333: “_Many_ mediæval works of art were preserved.”

[643] _Ibid._, p. 356.

[644] In Heyd, “Ulrich Herzog von Würtenberg,” 3, p. 89.

[645] The passages are given in greater detail in “Erinnerung nach dem Lauf der Planeten gestellt,” Tübingen, 1568, and “Dreizehn Predigten vom Türken,” Tübingen, 1569, in Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, pp. 376-378.

[646] Bossert, _ibid._, p. 357.

[647] Thus, e.g. Bossert, _loc. cit._, and in other studies on Würtemberg Church-History in the 16th century, called forth by Janssen’s work.

[648] Cp. above, _passim_.

[649] See above, p. 65.

[650] “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 1, p. 334 f.

[651] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 315 f. On his marriage, see above, p. 157.

[652] A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,” 1, p. 290.

[653] “Leben,” etc. (“Zeitschr. des Vereins für hess. Gesch.,” Suppl. 2, Bd. 1 und 2), 1, p. 379 ff.

[654] Neudecker, “Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit,” p. 684 ff. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, pp. 88-91.

[655] Hassencamp, “Hess. KG. im Zeitalter der Reformation,” 2, p. 613 f. Janssen, _ibid._

[656] “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 1, p. 121 f. Janssen, _ibid._

[657] Cp. above, _passim_, and vol. iii., p. 324; vol. ii., pp. 123 ff., 218 ff. 344, 349 f.

[658] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173.

[659] _Ibid._, p. 100.

[660] _Ibid._, p. 373.

[661] Hausrath, 2, p. 391.

[662] Letter of Feb. 9, 1541. See G. Mentz, “Johann Friedrich der Grossmütige,” 3, Jena, 1908, p. 344, according to certain “archives.”--Steinhausen (“Kulturgesch. der Deutschen,” p. 508), calls the Elector Johann Frederick quite simply a “drunkard.” He points out that Anna of Saxony died of drink and that the Saxons, even in the 15th century, were noted for their drinking habits.

[663] Letter of Jan. 3, 1541, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” ed. Lenz, 1, p. 302.

[664] “Luthers Leben,” 2, Berlin, 1904, p. 391.

[665] 3 Teil, Jena, 1909, p. 343 f.

[666] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 6, p. 213.

[667] Hortleder, “Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Karls V. wider die Schmalkaldische,” 1, Gotha, 1645, p. 1837.

[668] _Ibid._, p. 1869 f.

[669] N. Paulus, who examined the matter more closely in the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 30, 1909, p. 154, comes to the conclusion that Mentz in his Life of Johann Frederick has not laid sufficient weight on the testimony of the witnesses.

[670] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 391 f.

[671] Cp. above, _passim_.

[672] Vol. i., p. 601.

[673] Frankfurt, 1699, 2, p. 44.

[674] _Ibid._

[675] “Allg. deutsche Biographie,” 7, p. 781 (Flathe).

[676] Hausrath, _loc. cit._, 2, p. 67.

[677] _Ibid._, p. 68.

[678] “Martin Luthers Werke für das deutsche Volk,” 1907, p. xiii.

[679] Hausrath, _ibid._, 2, p. 390.

[680] “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 209, from the original at Weimar, written by Bugenhagen: “_Utcunque sint in quibusdam peccatores et non in omnibus puri, calumniantibus hoc etiam vel forte accusantibus adversariis, tamen confidant de Domini bonitate_,” etc. And before this, concerning the “_adversariorum clamores ‘Rapiunt bona ecclesiastica,’_” etc., they were to comfort themselves, “_quia non sic rapiunt, quemadmodum quidam alii; video enim eos per hæc bona curare quæ sunt religionis. Si quid præterea ipsis ex talibus bonis accedit, quis potius ea susciperet? Principum sunt talia, non nebulonum papistarum._” The general spoliation of church property disturbed his mind, as we can see, but he overcomes his scruples, and persuades himself that their action, like his own, was really directed against Antichrist: “_Iube meis verbis, ut faciant in Deo confidenter pro causa evangelii quicquid Spiritus sanctus suggesserit; non præscribo eis modum. Misericors Deus confortet eos, ut maneant in ista sana doctrina et gratias agant, quod sunt liberati ab Antichristo._”

[681] Ellinger, “Melanchthon,” p. 588.

[682] This ex-priest, Michael Kramer, first took a wife at Cunitz, and when she began to lead a bad life, married a second at Dommitzsch “on the strength of an advice secured.” On account of matrimonial squabbles he married a third time, after obtaining advice from Luther through the magistrates. C. A. Burkhardt, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” p. 87; cp. his “Gesch. d. sächs. Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen,” p. 48.

[683] “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 888, 913, 982. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, pp. 362 f., 369. Above, vol. iii., p. 324.

[684] Quoted in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 5, p. 100 f.

[685] From Burkhardt, _ibid._ Janssen, _ibid._

[686] Janssen, _ibid._, 6, p. 521, given as Melanchthon’s words.

[687] A. L. Richter, “Die evangel. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 2, pp. 181, 192 f. Janssen, _ibid._, p. 523. W. Schmidt (“Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen im sächs. Kurkreis von 1555,” 1907, Hft. 1-2, “Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 90) fancies he can discern a certain improvement in ecclesiastical life and in the school system about the year 1555.

[688] For the way Metzsch was dealt with, see Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” pp. 163, 167. “Briefe,” 6, p. 213 f. Below, vol. v., xxx., 3.

[689] “Briefe,” 5, p. 223 f.

[690] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 14, “Hauspostille.”

[691] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411, conclusion of the “Auslegung über etliche Kapitel des fünften Buches Mosis,” 1529.

[692] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 9², p. 330 f., “Kirchenpostille.”

[693] _Ibid._, 4², p. 4, “Hauspostille.”

[694] _Ibid._

[695] _Ibid._, p. 6.

[696] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443.

[697] “Comment, in ep. ad Galatas,” 2, p. 351.

[698] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 443, according to another set of notes of the sermon quoted in n. 1.

[699] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 353.

[700] _Ibid._, 59, p. 6. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 95.

[701] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 455.

[702] _Ibid._, 30, 3, p. 386; Erl. ed., 25², p. 86, “Auff das vermeint Edict,” 1531.

[703] “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 385 ff.=86 f.

[704] March 9, 1545, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 722, letter called forth by the death of George Held Forchheim, to whom the Prince was much attached.

[705] To Catherine Bora, end of July, 1545, “Briefe,” 5, p. 753.

[706] To Justus Jonas, June 18, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 570.

[707] On Jan. 22, 1544, “Briefe,” 5, p. 615.

[708] “Vermahnung,” Feb. or Nov., 1542, “Briefe,” 6, p. 302.

[709] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 80 ff.; Erl. ed., 18², p. 23 ff.

[710] _Ibid._, 27, p. 408 f., in the newly published sermons of 1528.

[711] _Ibid._, p. 418 f.

[712] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 167.

[713] _Ibid._, p. 153.

[714] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” 179.

[715] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 402.

[716] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 139.

[717] _Ibid._, p. 138.

[718] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185.

[719] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 323 (Table-Talk).

[720] “Colloq.,” ed. Rebenstock, 2, p. 19.

[721] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. (Table-Talk).

[722] “Historien,” p. 136´. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 126 and _ibid._, Introduction, p. 72; Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 13. See above, p. 210.

[723] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 70, Khummer.

[724] _Ibid._, p. 80.

[725] Above, vol. iii., p. 410.

[726] G. Wagner, “Georg Spalatin,” Altenburg, 1830, p. 105 f. Cp. Luther’s letter to Spalatin, quoted in vol. iii., p. 197, n. 1, where he tells him: “_Tristitia occidet te_”; by his (Luther’s) mouth Christ had raised up Melanchthon from a similar state induced by the “_spiritus tristitiæ_”; such continuous sorrow over sin was an even greater sin; he was still inexperienced “in the battle against sin or conscience and the law”; now, however, he must look upon Luther as St. Peter, who speaks to him as he did to the lame man: “In the name of Christ, arise and walk”; Christ did not wish him to be “crucified with sorrow”; this came from the devil.--We do not learn that these words had any effect.

[727] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 416.

[728] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 2, p. 193.

[729] “Fortgesetzte Sammlung,” Leipzig, 1740, p. 519.

[730] M. Hempel, “Libellus H. Welleri,” Lipsiæ, 1581, p. 60.

[731] H. Weller, Preface to Beltzius, “On Man’s Conversion,” Leipzig, 1575.

[732] He wrote “Against the grievous plague of Melancholy,” Erfurt, 1557, and “A useful instruction against the demon of melancholy,” 1569 (s.l.). In the latter work he says in the Preface that he considered himself all the more called to comfort “sad and sorrowful hearts” because he himself “not seldom lay sick in that same hospital.”

[733] “We experience in our own selves, that our hearts become increasingly stupid, weak and timid, and often know not whence it comes or what it is.” “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nürnberg, 1565, p. 94.--On his edition of the Table-Talk, cp. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. xvi.

[734] Cp. Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 231, where Capito’s letter to Luther of June 13, 1536, is given. The letter is also in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 353. Capito there laments, “_me deiectiorem apud me factum, adeo ut in morbum melancholicum prope inciderim. Hilaritatem, si potero, revocabo._” The internal dissensions, which pained and distressed him to the last degree, were the immediate cause of his sadness, so he declares.

[735] C. Gerbert, “Gesch. der Strassburger Sektenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation,” Strasburg, 1889, p. 183 f.

[736] Kolde, “Analecta,” p. 462 _seq._

[737] Contemporary account in J. C. Siebenkees, “Materialien zur Nürnberg. Gesch.,” 2, Nuremberg, 1792, p. 754.

[738] Fischlin, “_Memoria theologorum Wirtembergensium_,” 1, Ulmæ, 1720, pp. 144, 171.

[739] Cp. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer und Elend menschlichen Lebens und Wesens,” Leipzig, 1574, Bl. 3´.

[740] “Handbuch,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1613, p. 725 f. (1 ed., 1603).

[741] “Der ganze Psalter,” Bd. 2, Nuremberg, 1565, p. 94.

[742] Sarcerius, “Etliche Predigten,” etc., Leipzig, 1551, Bl. C 2´.

[743] Strigel, “Ypomnemata 1,” Lipsiæ, 1565, p. 219.

[744] Sachse, “Acht Trostpredigten,” Leipzig, 1602, Bl. A 5´.

[745] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 213 f. On the Disputation held at Leipzig by Beyer, the ex-Augustinian, see vol. i, p. 316.

[746] G. Loesche, “Joh. Mathesius,” 1, Gotha, 1895, p. 223.

[747] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 147´.

[748] “Fest-Chronika,” 2 Tl., Leipzig, 1602, Bl. 2´ (1 ed., 1591).

[749] G. Th. Strobel, “Neue Beyträge zur Literatur,” 1, Nuremberg, 1790, p. 97.

[750] Hondorf-Sturm, “Calendarium Sanctorum,” Leipzig, 1599, p. 338.

[751] L. Osiander, “Bauren-Postilla,” 4 Tl., Tübingen, 1599, p. 188.

[752] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 365.

[753] Hocker-Hamelmann, “Der Teufel selbs,” 3 Tl., Ursel, 1568, p. 130.

[754] Celichius in a work on suicide: “Nützlicher und nothwendiger Bericht von den Leuten, so sich selbst aus Angst, Verzweiffelung oder andern Ursachen entleiben und hinrichten,” Magdeburg, 1578, Bl. A 2, S 5, R 5´.

[755] Helding, “Von der hailigisten Messe,” Ingolstadt, 1548, p. 7.

[756] “Postilla oder Auslegung der Sonntagsevangelien,” Nuremberg, 1565, p. 14.

[757] Selnecker, “Tröstliche schöne Spruch für die engstigen Gewissen,” Leipzig, 1561, Preface.

[758] Georg Major (a Wittenberg Professor), “_Homiliæ in Evangelia dominicalia_,” 1, Wittenbergæ, 1562, p. 38.--Johann Pomarius, preacher at Magdeburg: “People are growing so distressed and afflicted that they droop and languish,” etc., the Last Day is, however, “at the door.” “Postilla,” Bd. 1, Magdeburg, 1587, p. 6 f.

[759] Nikol. Kramer, “Würtzgärtlein der Seelen,” Frankfurt a. M., 1573, Bl. V., 3´. Still more emphatically the preacher Sigismund Suevus (“Trewe Warnung für der leidigen Verzweiffelung,” Görlitz, 1572, p. A 3´): The devil raves and rages in these latter days like a mad dog and tries above all to make people despair.

[760] Christoph Irenæus, preacher at Eisleben, “Prognosticon,” 1578, (s.l.), Bl. D d 3.

[761] Joh. Beltzius, “Vom Jammer,” etc., Bl. B 3´.

[762] Ruprecht Erythropilus, preacher at Hanover, “Weckglock,” etc., Frankfurt a. M., 1595, p. 181 f.

[763] Valerius Herberger, preacher at Fraustädt, “Herzpostilla,” Bl. 1, Leipzig, 1614, p. 16 ff.

[764] Andreas Celichius, “Notwendige Erinnerung,” etc., Wittenberg, 1595, Bl. A 3 ff. He enumerates with terror thirty possessed persons in Mecklenburg alone, among whom, however, he probably includes many who were simply mad. “Here, in the immediate vicinity,” he says, “three preachers have lost their minds, and would even appear to be bodily possessed.” J. Moehsen (“Gesch. der Wissenschaften in der Mark Brandenburg,” Berlin, 1781, p. 500) rightly remarked: “The plentiful writings and sermons on the devil’s power, ... on the portents of the Last Judgment, such as comets, meteors, bloody rain, etc., cost many their reason during the latter half of the 16th century.”

[765] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 452: “‘_Articulus fidei_’ won’t go home, ‘_ideo tot accidunt tristitiæ_’”

[766] “Extract oder Ausszug aus der Postill,” Magdeburg, 1584, p. 16 f.

[767] See N. Paulus, “Die Melancholie im 16 Jahrh.” (“Wiss. Beilage zur Germania,” 1897, No. 18), p. 137 ff.; on p. 140 he refers to G. Draudius, “Bibl. libr. germ.,” for the titles of many such works of consolation. For the above description we have made use of this rich article by Paulus and of his other one: “Der Selbstmord im 16. Jahrh.,” _ibid._, 1896, No. 1.

[768] “Eyne schöne Artzney, dadurch der leidenden Christen Sorge und Betrübnus gelindert werden,” Lübeck, 1555, p. 145.

[769] _Op. cit._, Bl. A 3´, R 5.

[770] “Fünff fürnemliche Zeichen ... vor dem jüngsten Tag,” Jena, 1554, Bl. B 4´.

[771] _Op. cit._, Magdeburg, 1584, p. 733.

[772] “Verthädigung deren, so sich diser Zeit ... in den Frid der römischen Kirchen begeben,” Dillingen, 1574, p. 72 f.

[773] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” pp. 9, 76, 88.

[774] Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.

[775] Luther to Count Albert of Mansfeld, Dec. 8, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, p. 514. Cp. vol. ii., pp. 290 and 268 f.

[776] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 21.

[777] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 418 f., in the sermons of 1528, recently published.

[778] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 154´; Kroker, “Mathesius’ Tischreden,” Einleitung, p. 70.

[779] Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. Euling, p. 40.

[780] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 572, n.

[781] May 13, 1543, “Briefe,” 5 (De Wette and Seidemann), p. 560.

[782] 1542, possibly Feb. or Nov. “Briefe,” 6, p. 302. Cp. the Rector’s exhortation to the students on Feb. 18, 1542, “Corp. ref.,” 4, p. 780 _seq._

[783] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178.

[784] Published from notes taken at the time.

[785] “Historien,” p. 216.

[786] He says this to Pastor Bernard of Dölen, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 272 f. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 140.

[787] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 273.

[788] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 389.

[789] See above, vol. iii., p. 309.

[790] Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 184: “_Prædicator ascendat suggestum, aperiat os et desinat_,” etc. See, _ibid._, No. 316a, also pp. 139 and 196.

[791] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 214.

[792] “Luthers Sprichwörtersammlung,” ed. E. Thiele, Weimar, 1900, No. 483.

[793] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 113 _seq._

[794] “Historien,” pp. 144, 148, 151, etc.

[795] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 31.

[796] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 265.

[797] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 82.

[798] The lack of religious instruction in the schools is confirmed by Falk, “Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen des Florentius Diel zu Mainz (1491-1518),” 1904, p. 17.

[799] “Historien,” 12 Predigt.

[800] To Margrave George of Brandenburg, Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 253 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[801] See vol. v., xxxiv., 2.

[802] Cp. O. Clemen, “Zeitschrift für KG.,” 1909, p. 382.

[803] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352. Agricola had excused himself by saying he had not attacked Luther but Cruciger and Rörer. Luther replied: “_Catechismus, tabulæ, confessio Augustana, etc., mea, non Crucigeri nec Rœreri sunt_.”

[804] See vol. vi., xxxv., 6, on his attitude to the taking of interest.

[805] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², pp. 89 ff., 105 ff.; 19², p. 243 ff. Cp. above, p. 142.

[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 437.

[807] _Ibid._, p. 641 ff., “Collections” is our amendment for “Lections.”

[808] Luther must have known that in Catholic worship the Divine Son is more honoured by the veneration of Mary than she herself. That adoration was paid to God alone and not to Mary he could see from the text of the prayers of the ancient Church. Luther, for instance, was acquainted with the Invitatories of the Office for the Feasts of Mary’s Nativity and Assumption, the first of which commences with the words: “Let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary,” and then at once adds: “Let us adore her Son Christ our Lord”; while the second sets Our Lord in the first place and says: “Come, let us adore the King of Kings Whose Virgin Mother was to-day assumed into Heaven.” Thus in the Liturgy which he himself had celebrated, the leading thought, that Christ was honoured in Mary, ran through the celebration of all her Feasts, from that of her entrance into this life to that of her exit. The Hymns to the Mother of God in Luther’s day concluded as they do now: “Jesu, to Thee be glory, Who wast born of a virgin,” etc. Any adoration of the Blessed Virgin as of a “goddess” was so alien to the people that it would have been rejected with indignation.