Chapter XL: At the Grave (6)

To avoid giving unnecessary offence we did not unduly insist on the locality in which Luther professed to have received his chief revelation. To have suppressed all mention of the locality would, however, have been wrong seeing that the circumstance of place is here so closely bound up with the historicity of the event. We, however, confined ourselves to a bald statement and explanation of what is found in the sources, and chose the most discreet heading possible for the section in question. In spite of this, Adolf Harnack (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1911, p. 302), dealing with our first volume, informed his readers that, on this point, we had made our own “the olden fashion of vulgar Catholic polemics” and had made of the “locality a capital question,” no doubt in the hope that Catholic readers would take the matter very much as the olden Christians took Arius’s death in the closet. Needless to say, what Harnack wrote was repeated and aggravated by the lesser lights of German Protestantism. The truest remark, however, made by Harnack in this connection, is that, the actual “locality in which Luther first glimpsed this thought is of small importance,” and that, even had I made out my case, “what would it really matter?”

As to our authorities the chief one is Johann Schlaginhaufen’s notes of Luther’s Table-Talk in which the words are related as having been spoken some time between July and Sept., 1532.

_The forms in which Luther’s utterance has been handed down_: The friends who, in 1532, either habitually or occasionally, attended at Luther’s parties and noted down his sayings were three in number, viz. Schlaginhaufen, Cordatus and Veit Dietrich. The (yet unpublished) notes of the last as given in the Nuremberg MS. contain nothing about this utterance. From Cordatus we have the version given below as No. III. But, according to Preger, the editor of Schlaginhaufen, Cordatus “at this time was no longer at Wittenberg”; if this be true, then what he says on the subject must have come to him at second hand, though, otherwise, his notes contain much valuable first-hand information. Nevertheless both Preger and Kroker, two experts on the Table-Talk, are at one in arguing that an attentive comparison of Cordatus’s notes with those of the other guests, proves that Cordatus not seldom fails to keep closely enough to Luther’s actual words and sometimes misses his real meaning, which is less so the case with Schlaginhaufen. As for Lauterbach, as Kawerau points out, he was not at that time a regular visitor at Luther’s house, though we several times hear of his being present at the Table-Talk. It is more than doubtful whether his version of the utterance in question (given below as IV) was taken down from Luther’s lips. Moreover his notes, as printed by Bindseil, often show traces of subsequent correction.

In Schlaginhaufen, on the other hand, we find throughout first-hand matter, the freshness, disorder, and even faulty grammar, showing how little it has been touched up by the collector’s hand. He was a personal friend of Luther’s, and, whilst awaiting a call to the ministry, stayed at the latter’s house from November, 1531, where he was always present at the evening repast. Luther was aware that he was taking notes of the conversations, and, on one occasion (Preger, p. 82) particularly requested him to put down something. He was comforted in his anxieties by Luther (above, vol. v., p. 327), nor, when he left Wittenberg at the end of 1532 to become minister at Zahna, did he break his friendly relations with Luther. He quitted Zahna in Dec., 1533, and took over the charge of Köthen.

The notes of Schlaginhaufen made public by Preger in 1888 are not in his own handwriting. The Munich codex (Clm. 943) used by Preger is rather the copy made by some unknown person about 1551, written with a hasty hand, and (as we were able to convince ourselves by personal inspection) by one, who, in places, could not quite decipher the original (now lost). There are, however, three other versions of Schlaginhaufen’s notes of the utterance under consideration: That of Khummer (mentioned above, vol. i., p. 396), that made in 1550 by George Steinhart, minister in the Chemnitz superintendency, and that of Rörer, which, thanks to E. Kroker the Leipzig city-librarian, we are now able to give. That of Steinhart is found bound up in a Munich codex entitled “Dicta et facta Lutheri et aliorum.” (Clm. 939, f., 10.) Steinhart evidently made diligent use of the papers left by Schlaginhaufen, Lauterbach and others. Generally speaking, his work is well done. Steinhart’s rendering of the utterance in question agrees word for word with that of Khummer, though they both differ from the Munich copy published by Preger and show it to be lacking in some respects. Rörer’s text V, in many ways, stands by itself.

Khummer had fled from Austria on account of his Lutheran leanings and gone to Wittenberg, where he matriculated on May 11, 1529. He was then a fellow-student of Lauterbach. He is supposed to have been given by Luther (between 1541 and 1545) charge of the parish of Ortrand, where he still was in 1555 when the Visitors gave a good account of him. His collection, now in the Royal Dresden Library, contains a copy (not all in his own handwriting) made in 1554 from Lauterbach’s Diary (1538), and, further, in the second part, this time all in his own handwriting, copies of many things said by Luther at table. “We shall not be far wrong,” says Seidemann (p. x.), “if we surmise that Khummer obtained his version from Pirna [where Lauterbach had been superintendent since 1539].” Below we give his version as printed in Seidemann (p. 81, n.):

_Luther’s words as they were heard by Schlaginhaufen_:

I. Copies of Steinhart (1550) and Khummer (1554):

“Hæc vocabula iustus et iustitia dei erant mihi fulmen in conscientia. Mox reddebar pavidus auditor. Iustus, ergo punit. Sed cum semel in hac turri speculabar de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit, iustitia dei, mox cogitaveram, [Steinhart: cogitabam] si vivere debemus iusti ex fide et iustitia dei debet esse ad salutem omni credenti, mox erigebatur mihi animus. Ergo iustitia dei est, quæ nos iustificat et salvat. Et facta sunt mihi hæc verba iucundiora, Dise khunst hat mir der heilig geist aüff diser cloaca aüff dem Thorm (ein)gegeben.”[1662]

II. Anonymous Copy of (Preger) 1551:

“Hæc vocabula: iustus et iustitia erant mihi fulmen in conscientia. Mox reddebar pavidus auditis: Iustus—ergo puniet, Iustus ex fide vivit, Iustitia dei revelatur sine lege. Mox cogitabam, si vivere debemus ex fide et si iustitia dei debet esse ad salutem omni credenti, mox erigebatur mihi animus: ergo iustitia dei est, quo nos iustificat et salvat, et facta sunt mihi hæc verba iucundiora. Dise kunst hatt mir d[er] S[piritus] S[anctus] auf diss Cl. eingeben.”

Here the identical text of Khummer and Steinhart (I) supplies certain missing parts in text II, and, as it is the more understandable of the two, is more likely to represent the earlier form of Schlaginhaufen’s rendering. Thus in text II, line 1-2, the word “_Dei_” after “_iustitia_” is wrongly omitted; so also, the words “_Sed cum semel in hac turri speculabar de istis vocabulis_,” or others to that effect, are required to introduce the “_mox cogitabam_” a few lines below. Read alone the “_Iustus ex fide_,” as in II, is not intelligible. In both I and II there is, on the other hand, an omission, viz. after the words “_omni credenti_” which III, IV and V seek to supply each in their own way. Here we shall not be far wrong in assuming the omission to have been the fault of the lost original of Schlaginhaufen of which they made use. The fact that No. I here refrains from completing the passage is in itself a testimony to its copyist’s integrity. Again, in the Steinhart-Khummer version, the final allusion in the German words at the end to the “Thorm” (tower) brings us back to the “_turris_” mentioned earlier. Now, what is noteworthy, is that, at the conclusion of this version which seems the better of the pair, the word “cloaca” is spelt out in full (as it also is below, in Rörer’s copy).

In II, however, we find only the abbreviation “Cl.” Now, in the MS. followed by the editor of text II, though we find a large number of abbreviations, they are merely the ones in use in those times. “Cl.,” however, is a most singular one, and, were it not explained by other texts, would be very difficult to understand. Why then is it used? It can hardly be merely from the desire to avoid using any word in the least offensive to innocent ears, for, elsewhere, in the same pages (e.g. in Preger’s edition, Nos. 364, 366, 375) the coarsest words are written out in full without the slightest scruple. Hence in this connection the copyist must have had a special reason to avoid spelling out so comparatively harmless a word.

* * * * *

The remaining texts are those of Cordatus, Lauterbach and Rörer.

Cordatus was assigned too high a place by his modern editor, Wrampelmeyer (1885). He had, indeed, his merits, but, as Preger points out, an inspection of the many items he took from Schlaginhaufen shows him to have been careless and often mistaken. Moreover, he has wantonly altered the order of the utterances instead of retaining Schlaginhaufen’s chronological one. Those utterances which he had not heard himself (such as the one in question) have naturally suffered most at his hands. As for Lauterbach’s so-called “Colloquia” preserved at Gotha (ed. H. E. Bindseil), it also betrays signs of being a revision and rearrangement of matter collected together or heard personally by this most industrious of all the compilers of Luther’s sayings. Whether Lauterbach was actually present on the occasion in question cannot be told, but it seems scarcely likely that he was if we compare his account carefully with that of Schlaginhaufen. On Rörer’s connection with Schlaginhaufen, see Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 7, 1910, p. 56 ff.

_Luther’s words in the revised form_:

III. Cordatus 1537 (Wrampelmeyer, p. 423, No. 1571):

“Hæc vocabula iustus et iusticia in papatu fulmen mihi erant conscientia, et ad solum auditum terrebant me. Sed cum semel in hac turri (in qua secretus locus erat monachorum) specularer de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit et Iusticia dei, etc. obiter veniebat in mentem: Si vivere debemus iusti fide propter iusticiam et illa iusticia Dei est ad salutem omni credenti, ergo ex fide est iusticia et ex iusticia vita. Et erigebatur mihi conscientia mea et animus meus, et certus reddebar, iusticiam dei esse quæ nos iustificaret et salvaret. Ac statim fiebant mihi hæc verba dulcia et iucunda verba. Diesze kunst hatt mir der heilige geist auff diesem thurm geben.”

IV. Lauterbach c. 1559 (Bindseil, 1, p. 52):

“Nam hæc verba iustus et iustitia Dei erant mihi fulmen in consciencia, quibus auditis expavescebam. Si Deus est iustus, ergo puniet. Sed Dei gratia cum semel in hac turri et hypocausto specularer de istis vocabulis Iustus ex fide vivit et Iustitia Dei, mox cogitabam: Si vivere debemus iusti ex fide et iustitia Dei debet esse ad salutem omni credenti, non erit meritum nostrum, sed misericordia Dei. Ita erigebatur animus meus. Nam iustitia Dei est qua nos iustificamur et salvamur per Christum, et illa verba facta sunt mihi iucundiora. Die Schriefft hat mir der heilige geist in diesem thuen [thurm] offenbaret.”

V. Rörer (Jena, Bos. q. 24 s, Bl. 117´, 118):

“Vocabula hæc iustus, misericordia erant mihi in conscientia tristitia. Nam his auditis mox incutiebatur terror: Si Deus est iustus, ergo puniet, etc. Cum autem diligentius cogitarem de significatione et iam incideret locus Hab. 2: Iustus ex fide vivet, item Iustitia Dei revelatur sine lege, cœpi mutare sententiam: Si vivere debemus ex fide, et si iustitia Dei est ad salutem omni credenti, non terrent, sed maxime consolantur peccatores hi loci. Ita confirmatus cogitavi certo iustitiam Dei esse, non qua punit peccatores, sed qua iustificat et salvos (salvat) peccatores pœnitentiam agentes. Diese Kunst hat mir der Geist Gottes auf dieser cloaca [in horto] eingeben.”

It will be noticed that III and IV resemble each other and both conclude with a mention of the tower (as in Schlaginhaufen I). At the beginning, however, each adds a few words of his own not found in Schlaginhaufen. Cordatus adds a parenthesis about the “_locus secretus_,” i.e. privy (whether the marks of parenthesis are merely the work of the editor we cannot say, nor whether the parenthetic sentence is supposed to represent Luther’s actual words or is an explanation given by Cordatus himself). At any rate the words really add nothing new to Schlaginhaufen’s account, if we bear in mind the latter’s allusion at the end to the “cloaca” and the fact that Cordatus omits to refer to this place at the end of his account. Hence we seem to have a simple transposition. As to why Cordatus should have transposed the words, we may not unreasonably conjecture that, in his estimation, they stood in the earlier form in too unpleasant proximity with the reception of the revelation.

Lauterbach’s text, even if we overlook the words it adds after “_credenti_,” betrays an effort after literary polish; it can scarcely be an independent account and most likely rests on Schlaginhaufen. One allusion is, however, of importance, viz. the words “_in hac turri et ~[in Rebenstock’s version: _vel_]~ hypocausto_” which here replace the mention of the cloaca or privy. Here the “_hypocaustum_” signifies either a heating apparatus or a heated room.

In Rörer the whole text has been still further polished up. He agrees with II in leaving out the “_in hac turri_,” but, with I, in introducing the “cloaca” at the end. The words “_in horto_” which are inserted in his handwriting just above would seem to be his own addition due to his knowledge of the spot (the tower really stood partly in the garden).

_Other interpretations of the texts in question_: Kawerau (p. 62 f.) takes Lauterbach’s “_hypocaustum_” to refer to Luther’s workroom in the tower, which Luther had retained since his monkish years and from which “he stormed the Papacy.” Unfortunately, in the references given by Kawerau, we find no allusion to any such prolonged residence in a room in the tower.

Luther himself once casually alludes to two different “_hypocausta_” (or warmed rooms) in the monastery. According to a letter dated in Nov., 1527 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 117), whilst the Plague was raging, he put up his ailing son Hans in “_meo hypocausto_,” whilst the wife of Augustine Schurf, the professor of medicine, when she was supposed to have contracted the malady, was also accommodated in a “_hypocaustum_” of her own. For another sick lady, Margareta von Mochau, he found room “_in hybernaculo nostro usitato_,” and, with his family, took up his own lodgings “_in anteriore magna aula_.” Hans’s “_hypocaustum_” was probably the traditional room furnished with a stove still shown to-day as Luther’s (Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 491). Unfortunately this room is not near the town-wall, or the tower, but on the opposite side of the building. There is another allusion elsewhere (Feb. 14, 1546, “Briefe,” 5, p. 791) to a “_hypocaustum_,” but, there again, no reference is made to its being situated in the tower.

An undated saying in Aurifaber’s German Table-Talk, in which Luther expresses a fear for the future of his “poor little room” “from which I stormed the Pope” (Erl. ed., 62, p. 209; Förstemann, 4, p. 474) might refer to any room. As a monk Luther is not likely to have had a warmed cell of his own but merely the use of the common-room of the community. He himself speaks of what he suffered from the cold (above, p. 194); elsewhere he tells us of the noise once made by the devil “in the chimney” of the refectory (above, p. 125) to which Luther had betaken himself to prepare his lecture, presumably for the sake of more warmth.

In vol. i. (p. 397) we perhaps too hastily assumed the “necessary building” to have been a privy which Luther, in 1519, asked permission to erect. It may even have been the “pleasant room overlooking the water” in which Luther “drank and made merry”—to the great disgust of the fanatic Ickelsamer. (See above, vol. iii., p. 302.) Being new it would no doubt have been “pleasant” and no doubt, too, it also had a fire-place. It may be conjectured that, possibly Lauterbach, with his allusion to the “tower” and the “_hypocaustum_” was intending to suggest this room as the scene of the revelation rather than the more ignoble locality of which Cordatus speaks.

* * * * *

Others have sought to escape the disagreeable meaning of the text in other ways. Wrampelmeyer interpreted it figuratively: The tower was Popery and the “_hypocaustum_” Luther’s spiritual “sweat bath.” Preger did much the same and even more. He says: “I hold that ‘Cl.,’ from which abbreviation the other readings seem to have sprung[!], stands for ‘Capitel’ [i.e. chapter].” Even Harnack inclines to this latter view. The meaning would then be: “This art the Holy Ghost revealed unto me on this chapter” (of the Epistle to the Romans). But, apart from the clumsiness of such a construction, as it was pointed out by Kawerau, such an abbreviation as “Cl.” for “capitel” or “capitulum” is unheard of. With even less reason Scheel tentatively makes the suggestion to read “Cl.” as “claustrum,” or “cella.”

Kawerau admits that “Cl.” stands for “cloaca,” but he urges that it arose through a misunderstanding on Schlaginhaufen’s part of Cordatus’s “_secretus locus_”—as though Schlaginhaufen was likely to depend on second-hand information regarding an utterance he had heard himself.

Kawerau further points out, that the locality in which the revelation was received is, after all, of no great moment, that “the stable at Bethlehem was not unworthy of witnessing God’s revelation in Christ”; Scheel, likewise, asks whether all Christians, even those of the Roman persuasion, do not believe that God is present everywhere? They certainly do, and nothing could have been further from our intentions than any wish to prejudice the case by making the locality of the incident a “capital question.” Had Luther received his supposed revelation on Mount Thabor, or on Sinai, or before the altar of the Schlosskirche we can assure our critics that we should have faithfully recorded the testimonies with the same regard for historical truth.

7. The Indulgence-Theses

In vol. i. (p. 332) and vol. ii. (p. 16) we insinuated that Luther wilfully concealed the true character of his 95 Theses. Whereas, in reality, his system had no room for Indulgences at all, in the Theses he chose to veil his opinions under an hypothetical form. It has, however, been objected that Luther’s letters to Spalatin and to Scheurl, of Feb. 15 and March 5, 1518, prove that his views were not yet fixed.

But this is scarcely a true presentment of the case. In his private letter to Spalatin he openly brands Indulgences as an “illusion.”

“Dicam primum tibi soli et amicis nostris, donec res publicetur, mihi in indulgentiis hodie videri non esse nisi animarum illusionem et nihil prorsus utiles esse nisi stertentibus et pigris in via Christi.… Huius illusionis sustollendæ gratia ego veritatis amore in eum disputationis periculosum labyrinthum dedi me ipsum.”

He tells Spalatin not to bother about gaining Indulgences but rather to give his money to the poor, otherwise he will deserve the wrath of God. All would be demonstrated in the forthcoming “Resolutiones”; only the “_ipsa rudiores ruditate_” still assail him as a heretic, etc. (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 155.) From these words his true opinion emerges clearly enough, in spite of the previous ones: “_Hæc res in dubio adhuc pendet et mea disputatio inter calumnias fluctuat_,” and in spite, too, of his assurance to the Court-preacher, that he had not the slightest wish to bring the Prince under any suspicion of being unfriendly to the Church.

As to the letter sent a fortnight later to Scheurl at Nuremberg, the historian must bear in mind the effect it was calculated by Luther to produce at Nuremberg, where some were evidently inclined to find fault with the Theses. In this letter, just as he does in his letter to Bishop Scultetus (above, vol. ii., p. 16) Luther makes out the Theses to be quite innocent, almost impartial, and, moreover, in no wise intended for the outside public. They were to be the subject-matter of a Disputation, “_ut multorum iudicio vel damnatæ abolerentur vel probatæ ederentur_.” He is sorry now that they were made so public. “_Sunt enim nonnulla mihi dubia, longeque aliter et certius quædam asseruissem vel omisissem, si id ~[their publication]~ futurum sperassem._” He also adds: “_Mihi sane non est dubium, decipi populum, non per indulgentias, sed usum earum_” (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 166.) Here he seeks to depict his downright antagonism to Indulgences as such, as merely directed against their abuse.

8. The Temptations at the Wartburg

Luther writes to Melanchthon (July 13, 1521): “_Carnis meæ indomitæ uror magnis ignibus; summa, qui fervere spiritu debeo, ferveo carne, libidine, pigritia, otio_.” He adds that for a whole week he had been “_tentationibus carnis vexatus_,” and concludes: “_Ora pro me, peccatis enim immergor in hac solitudine_.” In his letter of Nov. 1, 1521, to Nic. Gerbel, the temptations are also alluded to, but less clearly qualified.

“Mille credas me satanibus obiectum in hac otiosa solitudine. Tanto est facilius adversus incarnatum diabolum, id est adversus homines, quam adversus spiritualia nequitiæ in cœlestibus pugnare. Sæpius ego cado, sed sustentat me rursus dextra excelsi.”

Though, in the former text, there is undoubtedly an element of exaggeration (as we pointed out, vol. ii., p. 88), yet there can be no question that his main complaint relates to temptations of the flesh and that it is in their regard that he asks for prayers of his friends.

9. Prayer at the Wartburg

Against us it has been said that we were too disposed to make of Luther a “prayerless” man. One critic, in proof of Luther’s prayerfulness, points out that, in his Wartburg letters, Luther uses the word “Amen” no less than thirteen times in the text, apart from its use at the end of the letters. Now, in all the Epistles of St. Paul—which cover far more paper than these Wartburg letters—the word “Amen” occurs in the text only eleven times. But, notoriously, Luther was accustomed to use this word in rather unusual connections, as he does for instance when speaking of the wife of the “_theologus coniugatus_” Johann Agricola (“_Dominus det, ut uteri onus feliciter exponat. Amen._” “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 151).

Moreover, Luther’s prayers were very peculiar. We hear nothing of his having used his enforced stay at the Wartburg to ask of God whether the path he had chosen was the right one, and for the grace to carry out, not his own will, but that of God. In the interests of his new doctrine, he is, however, “_paratus ire quo Dominus volet, sive ad vos sive alio_.” (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 193.) He asks a friend to pray “_ut non deficiat fides mea in Domino_,” i.e. that his views may not change (_ib._, p. 214); “_commenda, quæso, tuis orationibus Deo causam nostram_.” (_Ib._, p. 324.) Elsewhere he writes:

“Benedictus Deus, qui nobis eam non solum dedit colluctationem adversus spiritualia nequitiæ, insuper revelavit nobis, non esse carnem aut sanguinem, a quibus oppugnamur in ista causa.… Satan furit in sapientibus et iustis suis.…”

above all, in Emser, whom he calls a “_vas diaboli proprie obsessum_.” (_Ib._, 3, p. 197.)

10. Luther’s state during his stay at the Coburg

In addition to the troubles mentioned in vol. ii., p. 390, which tended to depress Luther at the Coburg there were yet others. He felt keenly the separation from his family and from those with whom he had been accustomed to work. His father’s death was also a cause of sadness to him. Finally the difficulties of corresponding with his friends at Augsburg were responsible for his being often in a state of uncertainty as to what was going on at the Diet.

11. Luther’s moral character

Exception has been taken to our interpretation (vol. ii., p. 161, n. 1) of a certain utterance of Luther’s. In the “Comment. on Galat.,” 1, p. 107 _sq._, he says:

“zelavi pro papisticis legibus … conatus sum eas præstare plus inedia, vigiliis, etc., … Bono zelo et ad gloriam Dei feci … [Yet] in monachatu Christum quotidie crucifixi et falsa mea fiducia, quæ tum perpetuo adhærebat mihi, blasphemavi. Externe non eram sicut ceteri homines, raptores, iniusti, adulteri, sed servabam castitatem, obedientiam et paupertatem, denique totus eram deditus ieiuniis, vigiliis, etc. Interim tamen sub ista sanctitate et fiducia iustitiæ propriæ alebam … odium et blasphemiam Dei.”

But, in these words written in his old age, he is not witnessing to his virtuous life in former days, but, on the contrary, he is striving to show that, for all its outward propriety, it was the merest blasphemy. Moreover, the words “_servabam … obedientiam_,” etc., cannot be taken too literally, as Luther himself elsewhere admits that he was careless about the Office, though this was a matter on which the Rule was very severe. A more appropriate self-justification would be the utterance recorded in Veit Dietrich’s MS. of the Table-Talk (Bl. 83) which begins: “_Monachus ego non sensi multam libidinem_.”

A man’s speech is in some sense an index to his character. Our volumes teem with samples of the filthy expressions to which Luther was addicted. No theologian or preacher had hitherto dared to speak as he did; the Franciscans Johann Pauli and Thomas Murner—albeit by no means too particular—certainly cannot compare with Luther on this score. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that Luther uses such language chiefly as a weapon against his Catholic foes without, and the Protestant “sectarians” within. In his polemics, insults and foul speaking go hand in hand, and the greater his wrath the fouler his speech.

In connection with one instance of his use of unseemly comparisons when (above, vol. ii., p. 144) we spoke of his allusion to the “Bride of Orlamünde” we were not aware that—as Kawerau now points out—Staupitz, his old superior, had described in very free language the nature of the union between the soul and her divine Bridegroom. (“Von der endlichen Vollziehung ewiger Fürsehung,” 1516.) Such mystical effusions were very apt to be misinterpreted by the unlearned fanatics, whom Luther ridicules.

12. Luther’s views on lies

That Luther believed in the permissibility of “lies of convenience” is fairly evident. (Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 108 ff.) The “_mendacium officiosum_” is an “_honestum et pium mendacium_”; it is useful and wholesome; “_si hoc peccatum esset, ut non puto_, etc.” In “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 289, speaking of Isaac’s statement that Rebecca was his sister, he says: “_non est peccatum, sed est officiosum mendacium_.” But, if it be no sin, then, presumably, it is allowed.

It is true that Luther speaks of Isaac’s untruth as an “_infirmitas_,” but, by this, he does not mean a “venial sin,” rather he is alluding to the “_infirmitas fidei_,” which, in Isaac’s case was the cause of his untruth. Hence Isaac’s untruth, according to Luther, comes under the category of the

“mendacium officiosum, quo saluti, famæ corporis [corpori?] vel animæ consulitur; e contra perniciosum (mendacium) petit ista omnia, sicut officiosum defendit [quod est] pulcherrima defensio contra periculum animæ, corporis, rerum.”

Hence the “_mendacium officiosum_,” far from being a sin, is an “_officium caritatis_,” i.e. to tell one is “_servare, non transgredi, præcepta Dei_.” (_Ib._, p. 288 _sq._)

Even another text which has been quoted to the opposite effect must mean much the same. Luther says:

“quod non offendatur Deus, sive constanter confitearis, id quod heroicum est, sive infirmus sis; dissimulat enim et connivet. Atque ex eo perspicimus nos habere propitium Deum, qui potest ignoscere et connivere ad infirmitates nostras, remittere peccata, tantum non perniciose mentiamur … nec proprie sed æquivoce et abusive mendacium dicitur quia est pulcherrima defensio contra periculum animæ corporis et rerum.” (_Ib._, p. 288.)

Here the word “_peccata_” cannot well include such untruths since he distinctly affirms that such “infirmities” “do not offend God.”

Moreover, since, as we know, Luther admits no distinction between mortal and venial sins, holds that all sins “_ex natura et substantia peccati_” are equal, and makes no allowance for “_parvitas materiæ_,” it follows that, even if such untruths as those of Isaac, the Egyptian midwife, etc., are “infirmities,” yet, since they are not mortal, they are not sins at all.

In “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 140-143, Luther distinguishes the “_iocosum mendacium_”—which is merely a “_grammaticum peccatum_”—and the “_officiosum mendacium_”—such as was Christ’s on the road to Emaus—from the true lie: “_Revera unum tantum mendacii genus est, quod nocet proximo_.”

That Luther himself quite realised the novelty of his teaching, comes out clearly enough in the fragmentary notes of a sermon preached on Jan. 5, 1528, i.e. on the eve of the feast of the Three Kings. The reporter’s notes are as usual partly in Latin partly in the vernacular.

“Hujusmodi officiosa mendacia, charitable lies, in which I lie for someone else’s sake, non incommodat, but rather does him a service. Sic filia Saul.… Illi [magi] mentiuntur, quia sciunt eius object to be murderous, et tamen non est mendacium, quia quando aliquid loquor ex bono corde, non est.… Ergo mendacium [est] quando my heart is bad and false erga proximum.… Si etiam seduxissem [misled others], how I should rejoice over my trickery, si ita ad salutem seducerem homines.… Monachi in totum volunt dici veritatem. Sed audistis, etc.” (Weim. ed., 27, p. 12.)

Hence, as the concluding words show, Luther was of opinion that the “monks” went too far in insisting on the truth everywhere.

* * * * *

Elsewhere Luther is disposed to follow the teaching of his Nominalist masters and to see in certain apparent lies (e.g. in that told by Abraham about his “sister” Sara) the result of divine inspiration. (Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 142 _sq._) “_Hoc ipsum consilium ex fide firmissima et ex Spiritu Sancto fuisse profectum iudicem._” Abraham was moved by the Holy Ghost to take steps to save his person and thus ensure the fulfilment of the Divine promises made to his posterity. “_Quæ fiunt ad gloriam Dei et verbum eius ornandum et commendandum, hæc recte fiunt et merito laudantur._”

Gabriel Biel, a representative Nominalist, admits that a sort of inspiration may sometimes make lawful what God has forbidden: He says, e.g.:

“Nam lex [non mentiendi] quantum ad id, ubi concurrit familiare consilium Spiritus Sancti, per ipsum Spiritus Sancti consilium revocatur, et ita non erit contra conclusionem et, ubicunque cum mendacio, secundo modo accepto, concurrit consilium Spiritus Sancti, ibi excusatur a peccato; et per hoc multa mendacia excusari possent.” (In III Sent. dist. 38, q. unica.)

Biel appeals to St. Augustine’s excuse of Jacob’s lie to his father Isaac, and then proceeds to justify it on Nominalist grounds; the “_potentia Dei absoluta_” can make lies lawful; by virtue of this “_potentia_” the Holy Ghost, in such inspired cases, can suspend for the while the prohibition. Biel himself had only the Old Testament instances in view, but the theory was a dangerous one.

13. Luther’s lack of the missionary spirit

Walter Köhler in his article “Reformation und Mission” (in the Swiss “Theologische Zeitschrift,” 1911, pp. 49-60) seeks to find the reason for the Reformers’ lack of interest in the Missions. (See above, vol. iii., p. 213 ff.) It cannot be simply because they were too busy with Rome, for this might indeed explain their not sending out missionaries but not the fact that even the thought of so doing never occurred to them. Yet a movement which professed to be Evangelical and to take as its standard the Apostolic Church should surely have concerned itself more about the heathen.

Against those who argue that the absence of missionary effort was due to Luther’s eschatological expectations and his belief in the nearness of the Last Day, Köhler points out that the teaching of history rather shows that such expectations, far from hindering, tend to promote missionary work. He alludes, for instance, to the rapid spread of Christianity at a time when the Second Coming was thought so near. He might also have referred to the case of St. Gregory the Great, who, though he believed the end of the world to be imminent, did not scruple to send his missionaries to England.

Others have said that the Reformers had no knowledge of the number of the heathen. But, as Köhler urges, though their knowledge was small compared with ours, yet they were not wholly ignorant of the state of things. They had at least heard of the discovery of America, as we see, for instance, from a sermon of Luther (Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 21), where he says: “Quite recently many islands and lands have been found, to which, so far, in fifteen hundred years, nothing of this grace (of the Gospel) has been proclaimed.”

The real reason is found by Köhler in the exegesis and theology of the Reformers: Luther, for instance, opined that the Apostles alone had been commanded to carry the Gospel throughout the world. He also followed the olden view that the Apostles had actually preached the Gospel to the very ends of the earth. Hence, since Apostolic times, no one is any longer under any obligation to preach Christ everywhere; we are now no longer apostles, but merely parish-priests.

His theology also comes into play in this. For God alone calls men to faith and salvation; He it is Who assembles His elect from among the heathen. But if it is God alone who arouses the faith in helpless man, then organised activity is useless. True to his principles the Reformer left the conversion of the heathen in the hands of God. To him an organised mission would have seemed to partake of the evil nature of work-service.

14. Notes

In vol. iv., p. 90 the author rather too hastily expresses wonder that Luther should have spoken of Pope Alexander VI as an “unbelieving Marane.” Luther, however, in so doing was merely re-echoing what had been said in Rome. Cp. Pastor, “History of the Popes” (Engl. Trans., vol. vi., p. 137): “When Julius II, who was an implacable enemy of the Borgia, occupied the Papal Chair, it became usual to speak of Alexander as a ‘Maraña.’” Cp. also, _ib._, p. 217 f. “His [Julius’s] dislike for this family was so strong that on the 26th of November, 1507, he announced that he would no longer inhabit the Appartamento Borgia, as he could not bear to be constantly reminded by the fresco portraits of Alexander of ‘those Marañas of cursed memory.’” (Note of the English Editor.)

* * * * *

In connection with the bishopric of Meissen (above, vol. v., p. 200 ff., etc.) we may quote a few words from the correspondence of its occupant. They will show how the Bishops, while taking no steps themselves, were vexed with the Pope and Kaiser for doing so little to obviate the danger to religion. Johann von Maltitz, Bishop of Meissen, wrote on Oct. 16, 1540, as follows to Johann Fabri, Bishop of Vienna (Cardauns, “Nuntiaturberichte,” 6, p. 233):

“Nihil imprimitur contra hanc sectam [Lutheranam] nec quisquam tale quid vendere audet, nam cum magna potentia regunt, quibus contra ne mutire quisquam aliquid audet, et quidquid visitatores et Lutherus in rebus spiritualibus ordinant, id exequi et servari per omnes debet et episcopi mandata nihil efficiunt.”

On Dec. 10, 1540, he wrote to the same correspondent:

“Martini Lutheri secta egregie suum processum habet quotidieque augetur; timeo iram Dei super papam, Cæs. ac Regiam Mᵗᵉᵐ, quod eorum temporibus ac regimine religionem ita decrescere supprimique patiuntur, et Sᵗⁱ S. Maiestatibusque illorum iocose objicietur, esse adhuc pios aliquot homines, qui obedientes essent, si modo haberent, qui eos ita defenderet. Videmus autem, quod quicquid Lutherani præsumunt, id patitur et locum habet et quod plures religionis sectæ efflagitantur ac dantur quam obedientiæ (sic). Misniæ adhuc nulla divina exequi audemus. Intrusus est nobis vi in nostram ecclesiam quidam Lutheranus concionator.… Sane ferme in omnibus locis male agitur quantum ad religionem.” (_Ib._, p. 237 f.)

FOOTNOTES

[1] “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands das sie Christl. Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 9 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 170 ff.

[2] Weim. ed., 15, pp. 30, 34, 35 f.; Erl. ed., pp. 22, 173, 178, 180 f.

[3] In such passages “beast” more often merely implies stupidity; cp. “bête” in French. Hence it would be a mistake to think that Luther is here crediting the Germans with any actual “bestiality.” Cp. below, p. 15 and above, vol. v., p. 534, n. 2.

[4] Weim. ed., 15, p. 44; Erl. ed., 22, p. 189.

[5] “De constituendis scholis,” etc.

[6] Weim. ed., 15, p. 53; Erl. ed., 22, p. 198.

[7] A schoolmaster of Zwickau remarked on the writing to the Councillors: “With this pamphlet Luther will win back the favour of many of his opponents.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 548.

[8] Erl. ed., 14², pp. 390, 389.

[9] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381, in “Das man Kinder,” etc. The object of furthering the Evangel which is set forth in both this and the former writing is indicated by the very title of the first writing with its reference to “Christian” schools.

[10] _Ib._, p. 518=379, in the writing mentioned below. See, however, below, p. 36.

[11] _Ib._, p. 519=380.

[12] “Predigt, das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 508 ff.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 378 ff. As early as July 5, 1530, Luther wrote from the Coburg to Melanchthon that he was “meditating” this writing and adds: “_Mirum, si etiam antea fui tam verbosus, ut nunc fieri mihi videor, nisi senectutis ista garrulitas sit_.” It is curious to hear him already speaking of his old age. When sending the finished work to Melanchthon on Aug. 24, 1530, he wrote: “_Mitto hic sermonem de scholis, plane Lutheranum et Lutheri verbositate nihil auctorem suum negans, sed plane referens. Sic sum. Idem erit libellus de clavibus_” (“Briefwechsel,” 8, pp. 80, 204). The latter remark certainly applies to his long writing, “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530 (Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 428 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff.).

[13] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 519; Erl. ed., 17², p. 381.

[14] P. 554=401, 402.

[15] Pp. 556, 559=403, 404.

[16] P. 586=420 f.

[17] P. 587=421.

[18] _Ib._, 15, p. 34=22, p. 178.

[19] “Reformation und Gegenreformation” (W. Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.”), 3³, p. 437, No. 2.

[20] Cp. Kawerau, _ib._

[21] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 197.

[22] See below, p. 20, n. 3.

[23] See above, vol. iii., p. 361.

[24] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 15: “_Scholæ crescentes verbi Dei sunt fructus_,” says Luther, “_et ecclesiarum seminaria_”; if these are furthered, then, so God will, things will be in a better case (in Rebenstock: “_Hæc si promoveantur, tunc Deo volente, nostrum inceptum meliorem habebit progressum_”). _Ib._, p. 14: Although the work of the schools was performed quietly, “_attamen magnum fructum exhibent, ex quibus ecclesiæ conservatio consistit.… Inde collaboratores et ludimagistri vocantur ad ministerium ecclesiæ_.”—Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 208: “Wretched parsonages are not the place for schoolmasters”; they deserve to be superintendents and to rule over others. _Ib._, p. 213 on the importance of the schools.

[25] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 173.

[26] _Ib._, p. 35 f.=175.

[27] See also above, n. 1.

[28] Proofs in G. Rietschel, “Luther und die Ordination,” ², 1889. Cp. Paulsen, p. 203.

[29] Weim. ed., 15, p. 47 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 193.

[30] _Ib._, p. 40=185.

[31] _Ib._, p. 53=198.

[32] _Ib._, 30, 2, p. 588=17², p. 421 f.

[33] See above, p. 6, n. 3.

[34] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 582; Erl. ed., 17², p. 418.

[35] _Ib._, p. 584=419.

[36] P. 530=387.

[37] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 456; Erl. ed., 17², p. 396.

[38] P. 586=421.

[39] _Ib._, 15, p. 36 f.=22, p. 181 f.

[40] Cp. F. M. Schiele, in H. Delbrück, “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 132, 1908, Art. “Luther und das Luthertum in ihrer Bedeutung für die Gesch. der Schüle und der Erziehung,” p. 381 ff. P. 386: “The principal motive with Melanchthon … is the love of learning, Luther’s motive [in the above writings] is to educate leaders for Christendom who shall deliver her from the unholy abominations of the olden days.… With this is connected the fact that for him ‘government,’ whether exercised by the sovereign, the bishop, or the father of the family, is a work of charity.” P. 384: According to Luther “the erection of schools must always remain a matter which concerns the Christian authorities.” To those historians of education, who, according to Schiele, are wont to ask: “Was not Luther the father of the national schools?” he replies: “The matter wears a different aspect when viewed in the light of history.” He roundly describes as fabulous the supposed foundation of the national schools by Luther. “Nor do we find in Luther’s schemes for the organisation of education the slightest trace of any tendency to the secularisation of the schools” (pp. 384, 381 f.). The last words are aimed at the friends of the secularised or undenominational schools of the present day.

[41] In the Introduction to the Weimar edition of the writing “An die Radherrn” (15, 1899, p. 9 ff.) we read: “It is very characteristic of the reformer’s attitude to the question of education in his day that he does not, as we might expect, give the preference to these German elementary schools in which we can see the beginnings of the national schools, but, whilst admitting their claims, insists emphatically on the need of a classic training.” “To characterise the writing in question as ‘of the utmost importance for the development of our elementary-school system’ (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.” III, iii.) is to be unfair to it.”

[42] Erl. ed., 62, p. 307.

[43] _Ib._, p. 306.

[44] _Ib._, p. 297; cp. p. 289.

[45] Weim. ed., 19, p. 445; Erl. ed., 26², p. 7: “Proposal how permanent order may be established in the Christian community.”

[46] Compare with this Luther’s letter to Johann, Elector of Saxony (Nov. 22, 1526), advocating the Visitation; Erl. ed., 53, p. 386 (“Briefe,” 5, p. 406). Of the final article of the Instructions for the Visitors (1538), which refers to the schools, Köstlin-Kawerau says, 2, p. 37: “The chief point kept in view here, as in Luther’s exhortations referred to above [in his writing to the Councillors], was the need of bringing up people sufficiently skilled to teach in the churches and to be capable also of ruling. Hence the regulations prescribed the erection of schools in which Latin should be taught.”

[47] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 311, a conversation dating from 1542-3 noted down by Heydenreich.

[48] _Ib._, p. 332. It may be mentioned here that amongst the German universities, Erfurt, where he had received his own education, always held a high place in his memory. “The University of Erfurt,” he once said in later years, “enjoyed so high a reputation that all others in comparison were looked upon as apologies for universities—but now,” so he adds sadly, “its glory and majesty are a thing of the past, and the university seems quite dead.” He extols the pomp and festivities that accompanied the conferring of the mastership and doctorate, and wishes that such solemnities were the rule everywhere. Erl. ed., 62, p. 287.

[49] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 198.

[50] Weim. ed., 15, p. 46 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192.

[51] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 37.

[52] Schiele (above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 389, where he adds: “What the children needed to fit them for household work they could as a matter of fact have learnt better from their parents or at the dame-school than in the Councillors’ schools which Luther so extols.” Cp. above, p. 7, Luther’s statement: “German books are principally intended for the common people to read at home,” etc.

[53] Weim. ed., 26, pp. 236-240.

[54] _Ib._, 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.”

[55] Erl. ed., 62, p. 458 f., “Tischreden.”

[56] _Ib._, p. 344.

[57] Paulsen, _ib._, p. 204. O. Schmidt, “Luther’s Bekanntschaft mit den Klassikern,” Leipzig, 1883.

[58] “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 191 f.

[59] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 431. Uttered in 1537 and noted by Lauterbach and Weller.

[60] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 13, p. 166.—K. v. Raumer, “Gesch. der Pädagogik,” 1, Stuttgart, 1843, p. 272, says: “It seems to us incredible that the learning by heart and acting of plays so unchaste as those of Terence could fail to exert a bad influence on the morals of the young.… If even the reading of Terence was questionable, how much more questionable was it when the pupils acting such plays identified themselves wholly with the events and personages of the drama.”—Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 443 f., Melanchthon on the Roman condemnation of the school edition of Erasmus’s “Colloquia.” Luther condemned this book of his opponent in very strong language.

[61] “An die Radherrn,” etc., Weim. ed., 15, p. 46; Erl. ed., 22, p. 192.

[62] _Ib._, p. 47=192.

[63] “Martin Luthers Werke,” Stuttgart und Leipzig, 1907, p. 231.

[64] Before this Boehmer had said: “The importance of the lower schools, girl schools and national schools, was fully recognised. Luther’s concern was, however, with higher education.… It was not indeed his intention to promote classical studies as such, but he wished to see them harnessed to the service of the Gospel and to the furthering of its right understanding. Hence, though Luther had in view other classes besides the theologians, and though he advanced other motives in support of his plans, still it was the religious standpoint which was the determining one.”

[65] Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 350, “An den Adel.”

[66] Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185.

[67] Weim. ed., 6, p. 462; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 347, 348, “An den Adel.”

[68] _Ib._, Erl. ed., 62, p. 304 f., “Tischreden.”

[69] _Ib._, 63, p. 281 f. (“Briefe,” 7, p. 73). Written in the middle of March, 1529, this served at the same time as a preface to the work by Justus Menius, “Œconomia christiana.”

[70] _Ib._, p. 280.

[71] Thus in the Introduction to Luther’s “An die Radherrn,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 9 f.

[72] See above, p. 6.

[73] Erl. ed., 63, p. 280 f.

[74] Luther expressed this in his way as follows: Of all “the wiles of Satan” this, aimed at the holy Gospel, was perhaps the worst, for it suggested to men such dangerous ideas as these: Now that there is “no longer any hope for the monks, nuns or priestlings there is no need of learned men or of much study, but we must rather strive after food and wealth,” “truly a masterpiece of diabolical art,” for creating “in the German lands a wild, hideous mob of ‘Tatters’ or Turks.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 522 f.; Erl. ed., 17², p. 383, Preface to the work on the schools (1530).

[75] “Werke,” _ib._, 6, p. 462=21, p. 349 f., “An den Adel.”

[76] The violence of the tone in which Luther speaks of the Universities in the writings which followed his “An den Adel,” as the real strongholds of the devil on earth, has perhaps never been equalled in any attack on these institutions either before or after his day. See passages in Janssen, _ib._, Engl. Trans., iii., _passim_. Some of the preachers of the pure Gospel, who soon sprang up in great numbers, went a step further: “The Word of God alone was sufficient and in order to understand it what was required was, not learning, but the spirit.” Paulsen, “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 185.

[77] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177.

[78] Erl. ed., 62, p. 319. The Note is by Lauterbach. Copernicus is not named, but is merely alluded to as “the new astrologer”=astronomer. His work “De orbium cœlestium revolutionibus,” with its detailed proofs in support of the new theory of the heavens, appeared only in 1543, at Nuremberg.

[79] Cp. for proofs H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” p. 35 f.

[80] Weim. ed., 15, p. 36; Erl. ed., 22, p. 180 f., “An die Radherrn.”

[81] “Didymi Faventini pro M. Luthero adversus Thomam Placentinum oratio,” “Corp. ref.,” 1, pp. 286-358, particularly p. 343. Cp. Paulsen, _ib._, p. 186 f.

[82] “Preuss. Jahrbücher,” 132, 1908 (see above, p. 13, n. 2), p. 381 f. The author safeguards himself by remarking that the above account contains “nothing new.” In Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” vol. xiii., this subject is dealt with in full.

[83] P. 382. In the “Archiv für Kulturgesch.,” 7, 1909, p. 120, Schiele’s art is described as “an excellent piece of criticism.”

[84] To Eobanus Hessus, March 29, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 118.

[85] Hessus had told Luther of this complaint, as is evident from the latter’s reply.

[86] For a detailed account see above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff.

[87] Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., p. 258.

[88] _Ib._

[89] Luschin v. Ebengreuth, “Gött. Gel. Anz.,” 1892, p. 826 f., in a review of Hofmeister, “Die Matrikel der Universität Rostock,” Part II., 1891. Cp. Janssen, _ib._, p. 266.

[90] F. Eulenburg, “Über die Frequenz der deutschen Universitäten in früherer Zeit,” “Jahrbücher f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” 3. Vol. 13, 1897, pp. 461-554, 494, 525. Janssen, _ib._

[91] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 550; Erl. ed., 17², p. 399, “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.”

[92] N. Paulus, “Wolfgang Mayer, Ein bayerischer Zisterzienserabt des 16. Jahrh.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1894, p. 575 ff.), p. 587 f. from MS. notes.

[93] Weim. ed., 15, p. 28; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171 f., “An die Radherrn.”

[94] Cp. on Wittenberg, Janssen, Engl. Trans., xiii., 286 and below, xxxix, 1.

[95] Erl. ed., 53, p. 387. See above, vol. v., pp. 582, 590.

[96] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

[97] Cp. Chr. Scheurl, “Briefbuch, ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Ref.,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, 1872, pp. 127, 132, 138, 177. See also Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 790 (p. 653, N. 2).

[98] Cp. for the change in Humanism, above, vol. ii., p. 38 ff., etc.

[99] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts,” 1², p. 177.

[100] “Opp.,” 3, col. 777: “_Lutherana factio … perdit omnia studia nostra_.”

[101] _Ib._, col. 915: “_… intolerabili degravavit invidia_.”

[102] _Ib._, col. 1089: “_Tantam ignaviam invexit hoc novum evangelium_.”

[103] _Ib._, col. 1069: “_Amant viaticum et uxorem, cetera pili non faciunt_.”

[104] To Œcolampadius, June 20, 1523, “Briefe,” 4, p. 164.

[105] Weim. ed., 15, p. 29; Erl. ed., 22, p. 172, “An die Radherrn.”

[106] Work cited above, p. 29, n. 2 (p. 525).

[107] _Ib._, p. 260.

[108] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 1, p. 68 ff.

[109] Raynald., “Annal. eccles.,” a. 1514, n. 29.

[110] Cp. Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., 9 ff.

[111] _Ib._, i., p. 25 ff.

[112] Weim. ed., 15, p. 33; Erl. ed., 22, p. 177, “An die Radherrn”: “When I was young there was a saying in the schools: ‘_Non minus est negligere scholarem quam corrumpere virginem_.’ This was said in order to frighten the schoolmasters.”

[113] “_Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus. Et tamen hoc genus hominum maxime litteris alitur. Duo tantum quærunt, censum et uxorem. Cætera præstat illis evangelium, ~i.e.~ potestatem vivendi ut volunt._” To Pirkheimer, 1528, from Basle. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1139.

[114] Schiele, _ib._, p. 391.

[115] C. Hagen, “Deutschlands literarische und religiöse Verhältnisse im Reformationszeitalter,” 3², 1868, p. 197. Janssen, _ib._, xiii., p. 100.

[116] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1363 _sq._

[117] M. Töppen, “Die Gründung der Universität Königsberg,” etc., 1844, p. 78. Janssen, _ib._, p. 101.

[118] Janssen, _ib._, p. 102.

[119] Cp. Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 483 ff.; 2, p. 584 ff.

[120] For proofs see Janssen (Engl. Trans.), xiii., p. 71 ff.

[121] “Preuss. Jahrb.,” _loc. cit._, p. 392.

[122] _Ib._, p. 393.

[123] Janssen, _ib._, p. 43. Schiele, _ib._, p. 593.

[124] Schiele, _ib._, p. 390.

[125] He even says: “_Academiæ nunc quidem Dei beneficio omni genere doctrinarum florent_.” “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 1068. Bishop Julius Pflug informed Pope Paul III, in a letter in which he gives him a vivid picture of the needs of the country in order to determine him to active assistance: “_Scholæ Lutheranorum cum privatæ tum publicæ florent, nostræ frigent plane ac iacent_.” “Epistolæ Mosellani,” etc., p. 150 _sq._ Kawerau, “Reformation und Gegenreformation”³, (Möller, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, p. 437.)

[126] G. Steinhausen, “Gesch. der deutschen Kultur,” Leipzig and Vienna, 1904, p. 515. There we read (p. 514) in the description of the education given by the Protestant Universities that it was “rendered sterile” by the new theology. “The intellectual leaders of the time became more and more Court theologians. It is noteworthy that many of the edicts and regulations begin with an improving theological preface.… What had become of the intellectual revival of the first decades of the 16th century?” Eobanus Hessus had prophesied in 1523 that the new theology would bring in its train a worse barbarism than that which had been overthrown, and already in 1524 he had been obliged to speak of the “New Obscurantists.”

[127] Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1², p. 509.