Chapter XXVIII: The New Dogmas in an Historical and Psychological Light (9)

In the same way that the Invitatories just quoted expressly reserve adoration for the Divine Son, so the veneration of the Mother of God in the Church’s Offices is justified on exactly the same grounds as those which, according to Luther, result from the mystery of the Visitation and from the Magnificat. The Church has always extolled Mary simply in the spirit of the Magnificat.--Luther himself had published a printed exposition of the Magnificat in 1521. There he still speaks of the Blessed Virgin in the usual way (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 545 f.; Erl. ed., 45, p. 214 f.). At the commencement of the work he invokes her assistance with the words: “May the same tender Mother of God obtain for me the spirit to interpret her song usefully and practically ... that we may sing and chant this Magnificat eternally in the life to come. So help us God. Amen” (p. 546 = 214). In the same way, at the close, he expresses his hope that a right understanding of the Magnificat “may not only illumine and teach, but burn and live in body and soul; may Christ grant us this by the intercession and assistance of His dear Mother Mary. Amen” (p. 601 = 287). Thus he was then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint, and declared it to be one of “the abuses of Antichrist.” (See Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 370 ff.)--Luther wrote his exposition of the Magnificat in the spirit which must inspire every theologian who studies the canticle, and which had been even stronger in him during his Catholic period. At the same time he obviously wished to work upon the wavering and cautious Court of the Elector, and for this reason dedicated this work, which, though peaceful in tone, contained hidden errors, to Prince Johann Frederick in a submissive letter. It should be noted that Luther wrote this dedication soon after receiving his summons to Worms. It is dated March 10, 1521 (_ibid._, p. 545=212. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 109).

[809] He admitted this belief handed down in the Catholic Schools, though not proclaimed a dogma till much later, in the sermon he preached in 1527 “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of God”: “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 58). The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear. (Cp. N. Paulus, “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1904, No. 41.) In a work of 1521 he says: Mary not only kept God’s commandments perfectly but also “received so much grace that she was quite filled with it, as we believe” (“_Rationis Latomianæ confutatio_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8. p. 56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 416). As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

[810] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 64-302; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.

[811] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.

[812] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341.

[813] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 117 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 505 _seq._

[814] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 145 f.

[815] _Ibid._, p. 192 ff.

[816] _Ibid._, pp. 148-200.

[817] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 1 f.; 12², p. 408.

[818] Döllinger, “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 58; “KL.,” 8², col. 343.

[819] “Cod. germ. Monacensis,” 4842, Bl. 1, 2´.

[820] “Gesch. Luthers,” German edition, Mayence, 1836, p. 463 f.

[821] E. Gutjahr, “Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache”; “Studien zur deutschen Rechts- und Sprachgesch.,” 2, Leipzig, 1906.

[822] “Hist. of the German People” (Eng. Trans.), 3, p. 238.

[823] “Leichenrede” of Feb. 19, 1546, commencement; “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.

[824] “Wellers Deutsche Schriften,” Tl. 3, p. 215. Before this Weller remarks: “For he was equal to the greatest prophets and Apostles in spirit, strength, wisdom, ability and experience.” He attributes to him “a prophetical spirit, notable strength, generosity and a power of faith such as we read existed in the prophet Elias....” Great persecutions and temptations had been his masters and teachers; they it was who had taught him the art of speaking.

[825] Above, p. 210.

[826] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 27, 37.

[827] On the inner connection between his own teaching and Antinomianism and on his controversy with Agricola, see vol. v., xxix., 2 and 3.

[828] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 504.

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

[830] E. Thiele, “Luthers Sprichwörtersamml.,” Weimar, 1900.

[831] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 346.

[832] “Briefe an Stephan Roth,” ed. Buchwald (“Archiv des deutschen Buchhandels,” 16, 1893), p. 37; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.

[833] L. Cardauns, “Die Lehre vom Widerstande des Volkes,” Bonn, 1903, p. 125.

[834] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 10.

[835] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 176; Erl. ed., 27, p. 367.

[836] Cp. vol. i., pp. 290 ff., 379 ff., 384 f.; vol. ii., p. 59 ff.

[837] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 251; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 23; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; 46, p. 123.

[838] “An den Rat zu Nürnberg, Gutachten Luthers und Melanchthons” (April 18, 1533); “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 8 (“Briefwechsel” 9, p. 292).

[839] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 252 f.

[840] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 17 f.

[841] Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 249.

[842] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 44, p. 107 ff.; 46, p. 292; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 136. See also Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 250. Absolution may also be sent by one far away, as Luther wrote to Spalatin: “_Audi et crede iis quæ Christus per me tibi loquitur. Neque enim erro, quod scio, aut satanica loquor. Christus loquitur per me et iubet, ut fratri tuo in communi fide in eum credas. Ipse absolvit te ab hoc peccato et omnibus._” Aug. 24, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680.

[843] _Ibid._, 44, p. 109.

[844] At Nuremberg Osiander had opposed the general absolution, and then, in spite of a memorandum from Wittenberg to the contrary (above, p. 349, n. 3), persisted in his opposition so that the magistrates made another application to Wittenberg on Sep. 27 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 337) and again got a similar reply (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 27; “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 343). In the new “memorandum” it was also stated that the public and the private absolution were real absolutions; but Osiander was not to be compelled to give the general absolution.

[845] “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 398. Form of Absolution dated Feb. 15, 1540, for the Nurembergers. The editor remarks: “The questionable point in this form, viz. that the Absolution was attached to an eventuality (‘should God to-day or to-morrow call one of you from this vale of tears’), and might thus be regarded as valid only in this event, can merely be hinted at here.”

[846] These words were added by Luther in 1538 to his “Unterricht der Visitatorn” (1528); “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 220; Erl. ed., 23, p. 40 f.; Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 251.

[847] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 185.

[848] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 558 ff.; Erl. ed., 26², p. 372 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 251).

[849] P. 565 ff.=381 ff.

[850] P. 567 f.=383, 385.

[851] P. 569=386.

[852] P. 569=385.

[853] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 29, p. 133 f.

[854] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 23, p. 87 ff.

[855] “Drei Beichtbüchlein nach den Zehngeboten aus der Frühzeit der Buchdruckerkunst,” Münster, 1907 (“Reformationsgesch. Studien und Texte,” Hft. 2).

[856] F. W. Battenberg, “Beichtbüchlein des Mag. Wolff,” Giessen, 1907, pp. 189, 205.

[857] Falk, _ibid._, p. 13. Falk also quotes (p. 14) a noteworthy observation of Luthmer’s (“Zeitschr. für christl. Kunst,” 9, p. 5): “The close of the 15th century was the time when the Decalogue, as the starting-point for Confession, was most frequently commentated, described and depicted pictorially. For those unable to read, tables with the Commandments luridly pictured hung in the churches, schools and religious institutions, and the books on this subject were abundantly illustrated with woodcuts.”

[858] “Die Reue in den deutschen Beichtschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” in “Zeitschr. für kath. Theol.,” 28, 1904, pp. 1-36. “In den deutschen Erbauungsschriften des ausgehenden MA.,” _ibid._, pp. 440-485. “In den deutschen Sterbebüchlein des ausgehenden MA.,” _ibid._, pp. 682-698.--Cp. also, Luzian Pfleger, “Die Reue in der deutschen Dichtung des MA.” (“Wiss. Beil. zur Germania,” 1910, Nos. 45-47).

[859] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 566, 568 f.; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 382, 385.

[860] Cp. on the abuses of the Penitentiary and for an elucidation of certain misunderstandings, E. Göller, “Die päpstl. Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis ... Pius V.,” 2 vols., Rome, 1907-1911.

[861] More on Luther and Hymnology in vol. v., xxxiv., 4.

[862] See Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 111, 150, 389: “_egregias cantilenas post cœnam cecinerunt_.” He himself on one occasion sung “_octavo tono_,” _ibid._, p. 332; cp. p. 391.

[863] Cp., e.g., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 307; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 148 _seq._

[864] See vol. ii., p. 171 f.

[865] The whole in Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 503.

[866] Grauert, “Heinrich Denifle,”² 1906, p. 7.

[867] “He possessed all the gifts which go to make an emotional man, as is apparent everywhere; depth, however, and true inwardness were not his.” A. M. Weiss, “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 223. What he says of Luther’s “depth” must be read in the light of what is said in the text above.

[868] See vol. v., xxxi., 5.

[869] Above, p. 244.

[870] Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 701. Further details on Luther’s prayers below, p. 274 ff.

[871] The account by Cochlæus, taken from a special print of 1540 “of which sufficient account has hardly been made,” in Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 174 ff. New edition of the “_Colloqium Cochlæi_,” by J. Greving, in “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” 4, Hft. 3, Leipzig, 1910.

[872] So Jonas declares in his funeral address on Luther. “Luthers Werke,” ed. Walch, 21, p. 362* ff.

[873] _Ibid._

[874] In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.

[875] “Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo, perchè portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”

[876] 6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24) calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.” _Ibid._, p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,” which he is ready to prize.

[877] “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.

[878] Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung” (a reply to Denifle), 1904.

[879] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.

[880] Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.

[881] Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.

[882] There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was objectionable--the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no exception to the rule--without sufficiently discriminating between what was true and what was false (B. Duhr, S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general encyclopædias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some examples, H. Brück (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.” J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J. A. Möhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law than his own will.” J. v. Döllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language. His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole Protestant world.”

[883] For the collections of the Table-Talk see vol. iii., p. 218 ff.

[884] See vol. iii., p. 223.

[885] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311.

[886] Cp. the emotion which accompanied another fine utterance spoken “_ex pleno et accenso corde_” (Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 23). There Luther was speaking of the profundity of the Word of God and of reliance on His Promises. See also below, p. 265.

[887] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 309.

[888] _Ibid._, p. 311, with the heading “_Papæ tyrannis_.”

[889] _Ibid._, p. 310.

[890] _Ibid._, pp. 310-322.

[891] In his “Sabbata,” ed. Götzinger in the St. Gallen “Mitteilungen zur vaterländ. Gesch.,” 1869; new edition, St. Gallen, 1902, p. 76 ff.

[892] Burrer’s letter, in Baum, “Capito,” 1860, p. 83.

[893] “Historien,” p. 147.

[894] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 142, 143.

[895] _Ibid._, p. 153´.

[896] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.

[897] In F. S. Keil, “Luthers Lebensumstände,” 1, 1764, p. 2. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 243 f.

[898] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 442. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 322.

[899] “_Vita Lutheri_,” in “_Vitæ quattuor reformatorum_,” p. 14.

[900] See our remarks above, p. 112 ff., on the way he came to believe in the truth of the falsehoods he so often repeated and even to convince his pupils of it too.

[901] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 283.

[902] Jos. Hundhausen, “Kirche oder Protestantismus,” a Catholic work, Mayence, 1883, p. 225.

[903] In a sermon of 1528, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 408 f.

[904] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 510.

[905] See vol. ii., p. 133.

[906] To Amsdorf, Feb. 6 and 12, 1542, “Briefe,” 5, pp. 432, 434.

[907] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.,” 8², col. 339.

[908] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.

[909] To Anton Unruhe, Judge at Torgau, June 13, 1538, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 205 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 371).

[910] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 323 ff.; Erl. ed., 317 ff. N. Paulus (“Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 133, 1904, p. 201) also points out the “Courage which Luther showed in the time of the plague,” also his “liberality, his cheerful, sociable ways, how easily he was contented and how tirelessly he laboured.” George Evers (“Martin Luther,” 6, p. 6) recognises, amongst many other good qualities, the courage he showed during the plague.

[911] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 285.

[912] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.

[913] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 31.

[914] To Justus Jonas, April 19, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 87.

[915] To Nicholas Hausmann, Aug. 20, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 77.

[916] Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 254.

[917] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 26. It may be remarked incidentally that possibly Luther was not aware, that, not long before, the people of Wittenberg, though no longer Catholic, had been shocked at his eating meat on fast days. In 1523 the people, who still kept the old custom of the Church, as a traveller remarks, were disposed to regard the overflow of the Elbe as Heaven’s judgment on Luther’s and his preachers’ laxity in the matter. See the account of Bishop Dantiscus, of Ermeland, who visited Wittenberg in that year, in Hipler, “Kopernikus und Luther,” Braunsberg, 1868, p. 72: “I heard from the country people on my way much abuse and many execrations of Luther and his co-religionists,” etc.

[918] Letter of Dec. 3, 1544, “Briefe,” p. 702.

[919] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 94.

[920] “Einfeltige Weise zu beten,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 215 ff.

[921] Pp. 217, 221 f. The booklet was dedicated to Master Peter Balbier. This master, after having stabbed in anger a foot-soldier, was sentenced to death. Luther’s intercession procured the commutation of the sentence into one of banishment.

[922] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 6, “Tischreden.” The whole section in question, “Tischreden vom Gebete,” really belongs here.

[923] _Ibid._, p. 28.

[924] Cp. _ibid._, p. 24, and above, vol. iii., p. 437.

[925] Dietrich to Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 159. Cp. vol. iii., p. 162, his prayer for F. Myconius who was sick, which concludes: “My will be done. Amen.”

[926] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 315.

[927] _Ibid._

[928] For more on this subject see vol. v., xxxii., 5. We see this even in his prayers at the Wartburg.

[929] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”¹ p. 130 f. In the second edition the closing chapter containing these passages is omitted. The comparison with Calvin made by Böhmer in this same chapter on Luther’s talent for organisation, is also worthy of notice. “At that time Luther hardly had his equal as pastor, preacher and writer, but, unlike Calvin, he was no born organiser or church-founder. Hence, as soon as he was confronted with the great problem how to organise the evangelical movement now becoming more and more powerful, he ceased to be the one leader and commander of the Reformation. It is true he always remained the supreme authority to his own followers; he reigned indeed, but did not govern; he no longer inspired, instructed or guided his fellow-workers individually. In this respect, also, Calvin was his exact opposite. His position at the outset was incomparably more humble than that of Luther. Yet his reputation grew constantly, till Church and State in Geneva unhesitatingly obeyed him, whilst his sphere of action went on extending till his very death, till finally it embraced the greater part of Western Europe” (p. 131 f.). “Down to the year 1689, nay, down to the 19th century, the nations of the West were still engaged in the solution of the political problems with which Luther’s reform had confronted them. For these Luther himself had but slight comprehension. If anything, he rendered their solution more difficult. He, however, took more interest in the legal reforms which had become necessary in consequence of his undertaking” (p. 136).

[930] “Luther’s domestic life displays, as a whole, a not unpleasant picture, and its description would form the kindliest portion of a life which really does not offer much that is pleasing.” Thus Georg Evers, “Martin Luther,” 6, p. 1.

[931] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2 f.

[932] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 487.

[933] Letters of Jan. 25 to Feb. 14, 1546, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 149, 151-154.

[934] “Corp. ref.,” 5, p. 314: “_Fax domestica_.” The cause of Caspar Beier, the clandestinely married student, with regard to which she fanned the flames of Luther’s anger, was, according to Cruciger, “none of the best,” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 687, 571, n. 1, and p. 569 f.

[935] To Bernard v. Dölen, Aug. 31, 1538, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 398.

[936] “Opp.,” Lovanii, 1566, f. 116´.

[937] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 316.

[938] Cp. Reinhold Lewin, “Luthers Stellung zu den Jüden” (“N. Stud. zur Gesch. der Theol. und Kirche,” 10), 1911.

[939] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 135.

[940] _Ibid._, p. 177 f.

[941] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 298.

[942] _Ibid._

[943] _Ibid._, p. 242.

[944] _Ibid._, p. 244 f.

[945] _Ibid._, p. 244 f.

[946] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 261. Cp. vol., iii., p. 289 f.

[947] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 271; Erl. ed., 27, p. 206.

[948] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 65, p. 79.

[949] See vol. ii., p. 280.

[950] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 50 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 196.

[951] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 137.

[952] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 306; Erl. ed., 40, p. 250 f.

[953] To Caspar Müller, March 18, 1535; “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 137.

[954] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68. See above, vol. iii., 93 f.

[955] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 56 f.

[956] _Ibid._, p. 86.

[957] _Ibid._, 25¹, p. 192.

[958] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 676; Erl. ed., 27, p. 292.

[959] _Ibid._, 6, p. 302=27, p. 110.

[960] _Ibid._, 26, p. 351=30, p. 224.

[961] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 32, p. 404.

[962] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469.

[963] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 289 _seq._ The date, Dec. 4, 1538, must be taken for what it is worth.

[964] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 14.

[965] _Ibid._, p. 8 f.

[966] On Invocavit Sunday, Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 471.

[967] See vol. ii., pp. 297, 305 ff.

[968] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f.

[969] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 265 = 86.

[970] _Ibid._, p. 267 f. = 89.

[971] _Ibid._, p. 268 = 90.

[972] _Ibid._, p. 270 = 92 f.

[973] E. Brandenburg (“Schriften des Vereins für RG.,” No. 70, Halle, 1901), p. 21.

[974] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 265.

[975] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 139 f.

[976] _Ibid._

[977] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 504 f.; 6, p. 319 ff.; “Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” ed. G. Kawerau, 2, p. 84. The “printed Mandate” was affixed to the church door. Cp. E. Michael (“Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 19, 1895), p. 455 ff.

[978] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette & Seidemann, 6, p. 320 ff.

[979] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 179, Aug., 1540.

[980] _Ibid._, p. 180.

[981] _Ibid._, p. 171. Still more strongly against the Franciscans on p. 180.

[982] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 222.

[983] _Ibid._, p. 226 f.

[984] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 301.

[985] _Ibid._, p. 292 f. Letter of Oct. 10, 1540. De Wette, 5, p. 308, also has 80,000 ducats. In the passage that follows Luther speaks of 18,000 crowns.

[986] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 213.

[987] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 762; Erl. ed., 36, p. 410. See below, p. 304.

[988] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 171.

[989] P. 64.

[990] P. 25.

[991] P. 149.

[992] P. 64.

[993] P. 30.

[994] P. 163.

[995] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 439, “Tischreden.”

[996] _Ibid._

[997] _Ibid._, p. 441, and Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 100.

[998] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190. Cp. Schlaginhaufen, p. 5.

[999] P. 2.

[1000] P. 3.

[1001] P. 7.

[1002] P. 9.

[1003] P. 9.

[1004] P. 10.

[1005] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 391, “Tischreden.”

[1006] _Ibid._, 60, p. 227 f., in chapter xxvii. of the Table-Talk.

[1007] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 68.

[1008] _Ibid._, 57, p. 80.

[1009] _Ibid._, 60, p. 206.

[1010] _Ibid._, p. 183.

[1011] _Ibid._, p. 214.

[1012] _Ibid._, 62, p. 222.

[1013] _Ibid._, 60, p. 180.

[1014] _Ibid._, p. 195.

[1015] P. 305.

[1016] _Ibid._, p. 200.

[1017] _Ibid._, 61, p. 149.

[1018] _Ibid._, 57, p. 206.

[1019] _Ibid._, 60, p. 255.

[1020] _Ibid._

[1021] _Ibid._, p. 185.

[1022] _Ibid._, p. 291.

[1023] _Ibid._, 57, p. 367 f.

[1024] _Ibid._, 60, p. 379, chapter xxvii.

[1025] _Ibid._, p. 184.

[1026] “Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers, 1535-1545,” ed. P. Drews, pp. 532-584. Cp. the Theses already published in Luther’s “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 442 _seq._

[1027] They are thus summed up by Drews (p. 533).

[1028] Thesis 56: “_Papa est illud monstrum, de quo Daniel dicit, quod adversatur omni Deo, etiam Deo deorum_.”--Thesis 58: “_Nostri Germani vocant Beerwolf, quod Græci, si forte notum illis fuisset, dixissent_ ἀρκτόλυκον” (i.e. “Bearwolf”).--Thesis 59: “_Hoc animal lupus est quidem, sed a dæmone arreptus, lacerat omnia et elabitur omnibus venabulis et armis_.”--Thesis 60: “_Ad quod opprimendum necessarius est concursus omnium pagorum_,” etc.--Thesis 61: “_Nec est hic expectanda iudicis sententia aut consilii auctoritas_,” etc.--Thesis 66: “_Ita si papa bellum moverit, resistendum est ei sicut monstro furioso et obsesso seu vere ἀρκτολύκῳ._”--Thesis 68: “_Nec curandum, si habeat militantes sibi principes, reges vel ipsos cæsares, titulo ecclesiæ incantatos_.”

[1029] Drews, p. 544.

[1030] _Ibid._, p. 549. Given in Luther’s German Works, Jena ed., 7, p. 285, and Halle ed. (Walch), 19, p. 2438 f.

[1031] _Ibid._, p. 552.

[1032] _Ibid._, p. 559, Jena ed., 285´, Walch, p. 2440.

[1033] _Ibid._, p. 566.

[1034] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470; Erl. ed., 25², p. 127.

[1035] _Ibid._

[1036] _Ibid._ See above, p. 208. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 111: “_Quando frigeo in corde ... oppono contra me impietatem papæ_,” etc.; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 107 f.; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 294.

[1037] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 74.

[1038] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 180.

[1039] _Ibid._, p. 177 f.

[1040] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 6, p. 287 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 90.

[1041] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 190.

[1042] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 286; Erl. ed., 25², p. 16.

[1043] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 118.

[1044] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 269.

[1045] _Ibid._, p. 307.

[1046] _Ibid._, p. 249; cp. p. 115.

[1047] See vol. ii., p. 153.

[1048] Letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14, 1518, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 4 (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 249).

[1049] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 206. Cp. what he says of Duke George, above, p. 190.

[1050] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 295.

[1051] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 274. On Brand of Berne cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, pp. 16-45; on p. 29 f. there is a remark of Luther’s on the “poor smoking ‘brand’ which escaped the fire of Berne,” rightly taken by Paulus to apply to Mensing (Seckendorf, Walch, De Wette and Enders were of a different opinion).--J. Koss, the Leipzig preacher, is again described by Luther in a letter to N. Hausmann (Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260) as a “preacher of blasphemy.”

[1052] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 158. Under the heading “_Mortes persecutorum_,” the list commences with the words: “_Pauci præsentia Dei miracula observant_.” It contains the names of Richard von Greifenklau, Archbishop of Troves, Ernest Count of Mansfeld, Count Wartenberg, Dr. Matthias Henning, son of Henning the lawyer, Cæsar Pflug, Chancellor of Treves, and, besides, a Catholic preacher at Leipzig, a minister who had fallen away from Lutheranism at Kunewalde, a monk who was alleged to have spoken against the Apostle Paul, and a Silesian Doctor of Divinity. Then followed various additions. Cp. N. Paulus, “Luther über das schlimme Ende seiner Gegner” (“Katholik,” 1899, 2, pp. 490-505).

[1053] Letter to Nicholas Hausmann, Jan. 2, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 260.

[1054] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 289.

[1055] All of the above expressions are taken from the first pages of “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey” (1526).

[1056] _Ibid._, 28, p. 868=36, p. 410.--For the tone of Luther’s polemics against his theological opponents among both the Catholics and the Protestants, cp. vol. ii., p. 153 f., where the opinions of contemporaries, and friends of Luther’s immediate circle are given. For further criticisms of Catholic contemporaries see below, p. 251 ff., also vol. v., xxxiii., on the extreme tension of Luther’s polemics against Popery towards the end of his life.

[1057] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 83 ff.

[1058] Cp. below, p. 320, n. 15, and p. 323, n. 2.

[1059] Letter written soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.

[1060] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 8², p. 277 ff., on the Epistle James i. 16-21, on the 4th Sunday after Easter.

[1061] _Ibid._, p. 286.

[1062] P. 282.

[1063] P. 288.

[1064] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 115 f.

[1065] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 89; Erl. ed., 29, p. 166, “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.”

[1066] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 167.

[1067] _Ibid._, p. 169.

[1068] See vol. iii., p. 379 f.

[1069] Letter of Nov. 5, 1525, to Gregory Casel, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 263 ff.

[1070] “_Summa, utros oportet esse Sathanæ ministros, vel ipsos, vel nos._”

[1071] To the Strasburg preachers, Nov. 5, 1525: “_Christum a nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari, at huius negationis iam traducit nos Zwinglius_.” _Ibid._, p. 262.

[1072] “Hist. des variations des églises protestantes,” Paris, 1702, 1, p. 69.

[1073] “Iudicium de controversiis theol. inter Luther. et Ref.,” 1650, c. 53.

[1074] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 763; Erl. ed., 36, p. 411.

[1075] To Caspar Müller, Chancellor at Mansfeld, Jan. 19, 1536, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 119 (“Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 290).

[1076] To the preacher, Balthasar Rhaide, Jan. 17, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 288. Cp. p. 293: “_Vides, quantas illi nobis faciant turbas, qui a nobis exierunt_,” and before this: “_Spero, quod non discedes a forma doctrinæ quam hic hausisti_.”

[1077] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 129; “Tischreden,” Döllinger. “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251, erroneously quotes the passage as being in Walch: it does, however, occur in Förstemann, “Tischreden,” 3, p. 136 f. The commencement is remarkable: “At times I consider the Pope and say: What after all is the Pope that I should honour him, even though you [the devil] magnify him? See what an abomination he has wrought and works even to-day! Before myself I set Christ and the forgiveness of sins, but under Satan’s nose I put the abominations of the Pope. The abomination and the horror is so great that I am encouraged and am quite ready to allow that,” etc.

[1078] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 251.

[1079] To Spalatin, soon after Feb. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 329 f.

[1080] July 31, 1530, _ibid._, 8, p. 157.

[1081] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 261; Erl. ed., 65, p. 25; “Widder den Radschlag,” etc., 1526.

[1082] Aug. 19, 1520, to Wenceslaus Link, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 463.

[1083] April 12, 1541, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 342: “_Miror, quid mihi acciderit, ut tam moderatus fuerim_.”

[1084] _Ibid._, p. 341: “_Certum est ipsum [Christum] pedetentim descendere de throno ad iudicium illud exspectatissimum; multa sunt nimis signa, quæ id mihi persuadent_.”

[1085] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 266, from the notes of one of his table-companions: Cod. Manh., 355. Coll. Camerar. v. (Ms. Bibl. Monac.), fol. 148 a.

[1086] Cp. vol. iii., 148 f. See also “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ed. C. A. H. Burkhardt, 1866, p. 357.

[1087] Cp. our vol. vi., xxxvi., 3.

[1088] To Spalatin, July 26, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 435.

[1089] Aug. 28, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 349 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 447). Cp. the letter to Spalatin of Nov. 11, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 246 f.

[1090] Cp. letters of Nov. 11, 1517, and Feb., 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126, and 2, p. 345.

[1091] April 13, 1531, in Seidemann, “Beitr. zur RG.,” 1. p. 207; Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 389, n. 1.

[1092] April 16, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 225 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 388).

[1093] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87, at the end of “Auff das vermeint Edict.”

[1094] Cp. _ibid._, p. 386=86 f.

[1095] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 188; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 397, in “_Contra Henricum regem Anqliæ_,” 1522.

[1096] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 27 ff.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 3 ff. in “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift,” 1527.

[1097] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 311; Erl. ed., 25[9], p. 38, “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1531.

[1098] _Ibid._

[1099] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26², p. 175.

[1100] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 486; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.

[1101] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 41, p. 17.

[1102] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 16, p. 469; Erl. ed., 36, p. 81.

[1103] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 38, p. 176.

[1104] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 7; Erl. ed., 53, p. 46.

[1105] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 31, p. 404.

[1106] _Ibid._, p. 393.

[1107] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 7, p. 674; Erl. ed., 27, p. 290.

[1108] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 29.

[1109] Cp. _ibid._, 64, p. 324.

[1110] “Briefe,” 6, p. 373.

[1111] _Ibid._, 5, p. 622.

[1112] “Werke,” Weim. ed, 30, 2, p. 485; Erl. ed., 31, p. 154.

[1113] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 148.

[1114] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 23, p. 149; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[1115] _Ibid._, 33, p. 673=48, p. 407.

[1116] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 42, p. 67.

[1117] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 19, p. 400; Erl. ed., 41, p. 30.

[1118] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 296.

[1119] _Ibid._, 45, p. 153.

[1120] _Ibid._, 44, p. 257.

[1121] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 495; Erl. ed., 31, p. 167.

[1122] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 321.

[1123] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, pp. 3, 335; Erl. ed., 25², p. 52.

[1124] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 562.

[1125] _Ibid._, 20², 1, p. 19.

[1126] _Ibid._, 25², p. 253.

[1127] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 26, p. 429; Erl. ed., 30, p. 282.

[1128] “Briefe,” 6, p. 296.

[1129] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 43; Erl. ed., 29, p. 378.

[1130] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 44, p. 318.

[1131] _Ibid._, p. 316.

[1132] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 33, p. 458; Erl. ed., 48, p. 222.

[1133] On June 30, 1530, to Johann Agricola, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 57.

[1134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 207.

[1135] _Ibid._, Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 468; Erl. ed., 25², p. 125.

[1136] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 216.

[1137] _Ibid._, p. 216 f.

[1138] _Ibid._, p. 205.

[1139] Calvin also suffered, though in a less degree, from this mania for invective; of him and of the excuse some have sought in the tone and habits of the age a recent French historian says: Even though such abuse was not entirely unparalleled, “yet it cannot but surprise and grieve us in the case of a religious reformer.” H. Lemonnier, “Histoire de France,” ed. E. Lavisse, 5, 2, 1904, p. 230, dealing with French Calvinism.

[1140] See our vol. ii., p. 153 ff.

[1141] In the reply “Auf das chmähbüchlein,” usw., “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 143, published under Arnold’s name.

[1142] Thus F. Polygranus, O.S.F., in his “_Assertiones quorundam ecclesiæ dogmatum_,” printed at Cologne in 1571, Bl. 10: “_insatiabilis maledicendi libido ... a seculis inauditæ conviciorum voces_.”

[1143] To Ulrich Zasius, Oct. 8, 1522, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, 1908, p. 66.

[1144] Cp. “KL.,” 5², col. 1958 f.

[1145] “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” p. 514.

[1146] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 57 f.; “KL.,” 8², p. 343.

[1147] “Wider das unchristenliche Buch M. Luthers,” ed. Enders in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” vol. i., 1889, p. 132.

[1148] “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557.

[1149] _Ibid._, col. 1155: “_ista tam effrenis in omnes maledicentia_,” etc.

[1150] “Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss der Dieneren an der Kilchen zu Zürych,” Zürych, 1545, Bl. 130 f.

[1151] _Ibid._, Bl. 10.

[1152] To Bucer, 1543, Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps,” 2, p. 224. Another remark of Bullinger’s is given above, vol. iii., p. 417.

[1153] To Bullinger, 1543, Lenz, _ibid._, p. 226. Cp. what Bucer said, in our vol. ii., p. 155.

[1154] On May 19, 1545, Lenz, _ibid._, p. 343.

[1155] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 59, p. 279, Table-Talk.

[1156] On Aug. 1, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 255, printed in the 2nd edition of the Psalter of Hessus of 1538.--The following remark of Luther’s on those who wanted to call themselves after him has also been quoted: “Fool that you are, just listen: First of all I beg people to leave my name out and to call themselves, not Lutherans, but Christians. What has Luther to do with it? The doctrine is not mine, nor was I ever crucified for anyone. St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. [4, 5], would not hear of Christians being called Pauline or Petrine, but simply Christians. How then should I, poor smelly sack of maggots that I am, suffer the children of Christ to be called by my unholy name? Hence, dear friend, let us do away with party names and be called after Christ, Whose teaching we follow. It is only right that the Papists should have a party name, because they are not content with Christ’s teaching and name, but insist on being Popish; let them then be the Pope’s, since he is their master. As for me, I neither am nor wish to be anyone’s master. I share with the congregation the teaching of Christ Who alone is our Master. Mt. xxiii.[8].” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 685; Erl. ed., 22, p. 55 f., “Vormanung sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr,” 1522. He blames those who, by their stupid zeal, “cause calumny and a falling away from the holy Evangel,” and “affright” the people and prevent their accepting it. Just then it was to his interest to represent his teaching as peaceable and his action as moderate. Cp. pp. 677, 682 f.=46, 51, 53.

[1157] We have chosen this somewhat unusual setting for the following collection of Luther’s sayings in order to prevent monotony. The texts, indeed, belong to various times, but there are periods in Luther’s history, for instance, about the time of the Diet of Augsburg, and in 1540 and 1541, when, within a short chronological space, he contrived to make a vast number of statements regarding his greatness; for this reason the above arrangement is not altogether untrue to the reality.

[1158] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. 2, and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 422. Words taken from his Will of Jan. 6, 1542, by which he intended to show the lawyers (who questioned his power to make a valid Will on account of his marriage) that he was not bound by the formalities on which they insisted.

[1159] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 366; Erl. ed., 25², p. 75.

[1160] _Ibid._, p. 290=22.

[1161] _Ibid._, 10, 2, p. 105=28, p. 143.

[1162] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.

[1163] “Briefe,” 5, p. 754.

[1164] _Ibid._, 1, p. 101.

[1165] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 70.

[1166] _Ibid._, p. 73.

[1167] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 442. See above, vol. iii., p. 165 f.

[1168] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349. “An den christl. Adel,” 1520.

[1169] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.

[1170] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 387; Erl. ed., 25², p. 87. See above, vol. iii., p. 165.

[1171] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 4.

[1172] “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.

[1173] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 716.

[1174] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2. p. 309 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 491; “Briefe,” 2, p. 238 (“Briefewechsel,” 3, p. 438).

[1175] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 151.

[1176] _Ibid._, p. 193.

[1177] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f.

[1178] _Ibid._, 30, 2, p. 109 f.=31, p. 34 f. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” 1529.

[1179] _Ibid._, 36, p. 447=18², p. 334. Sermon of 1532.

[1180] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 178, Table-Talk.

[1181] Cp. vol. iii., p. 131 f., and above, p. 102.

[1182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 39; Erl. ed., 22, p. 184.

[1183] _Ibid._, Erl. ed., 61, p. 422.

[1184] W. Walther, “Für Luther, wider Rom,” pp. 526-543.

[1185] Other Protestant writers are of a different opinion. Friedrich Paulsen says in his “Gesch. des Unterrichts,” 1², 1896, p. 178: “It is certain that humility towards men, respect for human wisdom and human laws, did not enter into Luther’s make. He is altogether deficient in that humility towards the actual Church which is so characteristic of St. Augustine, Luther’s great predecessor in theology. The more Luther, during the course of his life, passes from the position of a mere heretic to that of head of a new Church, the more does that formula [My cause is God’s own] become tinged with bitterness, with obstinacy and with pride.”

[1186] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 27 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. “An die Radherrn,” etc., 1524.

[1187] _Ibid._, 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421. “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle,” 1530.

[1188] _Ibid._, p. 585 f.=420.

[1189] _Ibid._, 62, p. 443 f., Table-Talk.

[1190] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface to the edition of the Latin works (1545).

[1191] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.

[1192] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 445 f., Table-Talk (in Latin).

[1193] _Ibid._, 31, p. 389 f. “Ein Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” 1534.

[1194] _Ibid._, 63, pp. 271, 274, Table-Talk.

[1195] Preface to his Commentary on Galatians, Irmischer, 1, p. 9.

[1196] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.

[1197] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 143.

[1198] Mathesius, “Historien,” p. 153.

[1199] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.

[1200] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 403, Preface, 1539.

[1201] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 121.

[1202] _Ibid._, p. 41.

[1203] _Ibid._, from Veit Dietrich’s “Aufzeichnungen.”

[1204] _Ibid._, p. 9.

[1205] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 123.

[1206] To Ambros. Blaurer, Dec. 21, 1521, “Briefwechsel der Brüder Blaurer,” 1, p. 42 ff. R. Stintzing, “Ulr. Zasius,” 1857, p. 231, Cp. p. 371.

[1207] Münzer and Ickelsamer in our vol. ii., p. 377.

[1208] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 310 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 57. “Grund und Ursach aller Artickel,” 1521.

[1209] _Ibid._, p. 311=58.

[1210] _Ibid._

[1211] _Ibid._, p. 313=59.

[1212] _Ibid._

[1213] _Ibid._

[1214] _Ibid._

[1215] _Ibid._, p. 315=61.

[1216] _Ibid._, p. 317=61 f.

[1217] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 389 f.

[1218] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186.

[1219] “Briefe,” 6, p. 402.

[1220] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 94.

[1221] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 113.

[1222] “Briefe,” 5, p. 418 f.

[1223] _Ibid._, p. 743.

[1224] _Ibid._, p. 746.

[1225] _Ibid._, p. 750.

[1226] _Ibid._, p. 777.

[1227] To Melanchthon, June 30, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 51 f., during the Diet of Augsburg.

[1228] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 279; Erl. ed., 25², p. 8.

[1229] “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, No. 10, col. 304. Harnack adds: “Towards God he remained humble; this humility was, however, couched in a language which must have affrighted the monkish devotees.”

[1230] “Wyder den falsch genantten Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen,” with the sub-title: “Martin Luther, by God’s grace Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to the Popish Bishops my service and to them knowledge in Christ.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 105 ff.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 142 ff. The book was partly written at the Wartburg (see Introd. in the Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 93 f.), and was published in 1522, probably in Aug.

[1231] Bossuet, “Hist. des variations,” Paris ed., 1702, 1, p. 26.

[1232] To Spalatin, Aug. 28, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 232.

[1233] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 275.

[1234] Above, p. 58.

[1235] Above, p. 327.

[1236] P. 28. Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch” (Khummer), p. 141; Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 118.

[1237] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 346 f. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 90 and 427.

[1238] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 317 ff.; Erl. ed., 25², p. 46 f., in the “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen,” 1530.

[1239] Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus, Von des werthen Gottes Mannes Doctor Martin Luther 21 Predigten” (preached after 1562), Ursel, s. a. Bl. 12´.

[1240] Letter written after Oct. 24, 1545, “Briefe,” 6, p. 392.

[1241] “For we account a man to be justified by faith _alone_ without the works of the law.” Cp. vol. v., xxxiv. 3.

[1242] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 635 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 107 (cp. “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 249), in the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” which is in fact no “letter” but a polemical treatise in the form of a letter, published by Wenceslaus Link in September, 1530, at Luther’s instance.

[1243] “Dogmengesch.,” 3^[4], p. 817.

[1244] Letter of Jan. 16, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17 f.

[1245] On his theology cp. the numerous instances given in Denifle, e.g., 1², pp. 467, 469, 657. P. 466: “He is always playing with grotesque ideas.” Cp. also, _ibid._, p. 454 f.

[1246] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 162.

[1247] “Briefe,” 6, p. 185 f., in the so-called “first Will.”

[1248] Jonas, in his panegyric on Luther.

[1249] Cp. e.g. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” pp. 83 and 126.

[1250] For proofs see Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 89, n. 3. Cp. vol. ii., p. 162 f., vol. iii., p. 322 and above, p. 269.

[1251] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 650; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 512.

[1252] Schlaginhaufen, “Anfzeichnungen,” p. 31.

[1253] “Dicta memorabilia,” Coloniæ, 1543, p. 13´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Hoffmeister,” p. 53, n. 4.

[1254] “Lobgesang auff des Luthers Winckelmesse,” Leipzig, 1534, Bl. D 2´. The author says, that Luther himself admits in his “Von der Winckelmesse” that he had received his ideas on the Mass “through the disputation and revelation of the devil” (Bl. A 2).

[1255] “Czu Errettung den schwachen Ordenspersonen ... eyn trostlich Rede,” Dresden, 1534, B1. C 3´: “His brother monks who were with him in the Convent at Erfurt, say, that once, when the Gospel ‘Jesus was casting out a devil and it was dumb’ was being read, Luther fell down and lay for some time screaming, ‘I am not dumb, I am not dumb.’” Bachmann also mentions the same incident in “Ein Maulstreich dem Lutherischen ... Rachen, das Closterleben zu lestern” (Dresden, 1534), B1. B 2. Cp. O. Clemen, “Paul Bachmann” (“N. Archiv f. sächs. Gesch.,” 26, 1905, p. 30). In “Ein Maulstreich” he also says: “What sort of an attack would that be, Luther, were I to write or relate what some say, viz. that the devil Incubus was your father! I will, however, refrain from doing so and not bring this charge against you.” (B1. B 1´). He thinks he has stronger evidence for Luther’s possession than for this legend.

[1256] Cp. above, p. 101.

[1257] Letter of 1529 to Prior Kilian Leib of Rebdorf, in Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 533, and J. Schlecht, “Leibs Briefwechsel,” p. 12, from Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” Bl. 170´: “_vel a malo dæmonio agitari_.”

[1258] In his “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1534, “Opp.,” 10, col. 1557: “_a sinistro quopiam agitari genio_” (for the whole passage see vol. iii., p. 136, n. 2). It is worth while to select from this reply of Erasmus, and from his “_Hyperaspistes_” against Luther, some passages in which he expresses doubts as to Luther’s mental equilibrium, or as to his sobriety. In his “Purgatio” (_c._ 1548) Erasmus says of certain propositions of Luther’s: “_Num hæc tam delira videntur esse mentis sobriæ?_” And before this: “_Sed longe perniciosior est philautiæ et odii temulentia quam vini_” (_c._ 1546). “_Demiror, si Martinus febri caruit, quum hæc deliramenta inauspicatis illineret chartis_” (_c._ 1545). “_Ipsa febris non posset loqui febrilius_” (_c._ 1546). “_Arbitror, Orestem olim dixisse saniora, etiam extra lucida intervalla_” (_c._ 1547). “_Hic nihil crepat nisi Satanas, Diabolos, Larvas, Lamias, Megæras, aliasque voces plus quam tragicas. Fortassis ex abundantia cordis os loquitur; certe hæc esse solent venturæ insaniæ præsagia_” (_c._ 1542). “_Quæ cum scribit, videtur sibi mire δεινός; verum hæc δείνωσις sobriis videtur esse mera insania_” (_c._ 1543). Martin may wish to make him out an unbeliever, but his readers were more likely to look upon him himself as mad (“_citius lymphatum_,” etc., _c._ 1557, first passage given above).--In the first book of his “_Hyperaspistes_” (_ib._) he writes: “_Hæc enim tam stulta aut alius addidit tuo libro, aut non eras sobrius, quum scriberes_” (_c._ 1281). “_Totus enim hic sensus sapit culinam, in qua non sobrius videtur hæc scripsisse_” (_c._ 1367). “_Si qui hæc scribit, sobrius est, ego nunquam vidi temulentem_” (_c._ 1371). “_Quis non videt hæc sine mente scribi, nec agere Lutherum, quum hæc scribit, sed agi spiritu quodam maledicentiæ_” (_c._ 1394). “_An hic Lutherus videtur fuisse sobrius?_” (_c._ 1411; in connection with Luther’s assertion that God had wrought the evil in Pharaoh). “_Non est sobrius, ut paucis dicam, non vino fortassis aut cerevisia, sed philautia et dulcedine quadam maledicendi, qua nunquam satiatur, quantumvis sese ingurgitaverit_” (_c._ 1477). “_Quam multa hic delirat Lutherus, sine mente fundens verba_” (_c._ 1472).--Luther’s contemporary, Caspar Schatzgeyer, a Franciscan of kindly ways, speaks like Erasmus and describes Luther’s “De votis monasticis” as the work either of a drunken man or of one possessed (“_Replica_,” s. l. et. a., Augsb., 1522, f. E 1), the Paris theologian, Jodocus Clichtovæus (“Antilutherus,” Paris., 1524, f. 124´), speaks of it in the same way.--All these statements, with those already given, are worth the consideration of pathologists; though emanating from opponents, their number gives them importance.

[1259] Dungersheim, “Erzeigung,” p. 15. His authority is a statement twice made by Nathin, first (see above, p. 352, n. 3), that Luther as a young monk fell into a fit in choir during the reading of the Gospel on the man possessed, “and had raved like one possessed,” and then a later more detailed explanation of the same incident.

[1260] “Septiceps Lutherus ubique sibi suis scriptis contrarius,” Dresdæ, 1529 (dedication).

[1261] “Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri” (ed. Mogunt., 1549), p. 1.

[1262] _Ibid._

[1263] “Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” end. In Enders, “Luther und Emser,” 2, p. 25 f.

[1264] “Auss was Grund und Ursach Luthers Dolmetschung ... verbotten worden sey,” 1523. In “Zu Luthers Vorred zum Römerbrief,” Bl. 65´.

[1265] “Historia sui temporis,” ed. Aretin (“Beitr. zur Gesch. und Lit.,” 7, Munich, 1806, p. 535 ff.), p. 666: “_Quam elata cervice tumidisque moribus expresserit prodideritque superbiam, ut sathanæ veteris vel etiam præsentanei hospitis illius et præceptoris quædam in eo imago spectaretur_.”

[1266] _Ibid._, p. 663.

[1267] “Dadelung,” p. 14.

[1268] Brieger, “Aleander und Luther,” pp. 147, 143. Kalkoff, “Die Depeschen Aleanders vom Wormser Reichstage”², 1897, p. 171.

[1269] “Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 1, p. 718 ff.

[1270] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 129 f.

[1271] Quoted by W. Walther, “Für Luther,” p. 213. _Ibid._, 214, from Dietenberger’s work against Luther’s doctrine of auricular Confession: To speak and teach as Luther did was to have “a compact and alliance with the poison of the devil and with eternal death.” _Ibid._, similar statements from Emser and others.

[1272] O. Kronseder, “Christophorus Hoffmann,” 1898, p. 57, with reference to Cod. Monac. lat. 14626, p. 326.

[1273] Cod. Monac. germ., 4842, Bl. 2. Cp. above, p. 242.

[1274] Ed. Reithmeier, p. 2, 165.

[1275] N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 63.--What the Catholics thought will be better understood when we remember that even H. Bullinger, in his “History of the Reformation” (ed. Hottinger and Vœgeli, 2, Frauenfeld, 1838, p. 239), says of Luther’s “Kurtz Bekentnis” of 1544: “Although he had previously written much that was illogical, insulting and even blasphemous, yet he outdoes himself in the shameful, wanton and offensive words he uses in this booklet. He bursts for very devils ... and acts _like a man possessed_.”

[1276] “KG.,” ed. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 105 f.

[1277] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 188.

[1278] Ed. Friedensburg (“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,” 1533-1559, vol. i.), p. 541, report on Nov. 13, 1535.

[1279] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.

[1280] “Melanchthoniana,” ed. O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.; see also above, vol. i., p. 279, n. 2.) According to Erasmus Alber, a personal acquaintance, friend and admirer of Luther’s, the latter had a “fine, open and brave countenance and hawk’s eyes.” Cp. Alber, “Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter,” Bl. f. 3 ff.; see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 518.

[1281] “Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V,” 2, p. 632: “en los ojos no ben señalado.”

[1282] According to Myconius, “Historia Reformationis,” p. 30 _sq._ (written after 1541). Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 97: “_Cardinalis Augustæ dixit de me: iste frater habet profundos oculos, ideo et mirabiles phantasias in capite habet_.”

[1283] Pollich’s remark (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 154, from Rebenstock) has been characterised quite wrongly by O. Waltz (“Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 2, 1878, p. 627) as spurious and a late interpollation. As a matter of fact it had merely been excluded from the Table-Talk by Aurifaber; see Seidemann in “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 3, 1879, p. 305. Cp. vol. i., p. 86, n. 5.

[1284] Above, vol. i., p. 86.

[1285] Letter of Aug. 8, 1523, in Hipler, “Nikolaus Kopernikus und Luther,” 1868, p. 73. Höfler, “Adrian VI,” p. 320, n. 2, quotes a remark of Dantiscus on Luther: “_affirmans eum esse dæmoniacum_.” Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 194, n. 3.

[1286] “Sabbata,” St. Gallen, 1902, p. 65.

[1287] He refers simply to what he knew from some of Luther’s intimate friends “concerning his birth and past life up to the time of his becoming a monk.”